Clearchus of Soli: Text, Translation, and Discussion 9780367706814, 9781003147510

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Title
Copyright
Dedication
Table of Contents
Preface
Contributors
1. Clearchus of Soli The Sources, Text, and Translation
2. Clearchus, a Platonist?
3. Two Concepts of Sleep Clearchus of Soli and Strato of Lampsacus
4. Clearchus’ Περὶ παιδείας
Appendix: Some Notes on Clearchus’ Περὶ παιδείας
5. Clearchus on Love
6. Clearchus, On Lives
7. Clearchus and Paremiology
8. The Seven Sages and the Inscription of Ai Khanoum
9. Clearchus and Peripatetic Research on Aquatic Animals
10. Clearchus on the Face in the Moon
Index of Ancient Names

Citation preview

CLEARCHUS OF SOLI

This book showcases a figure whose life and work bridge Classical and Hellenistic Greece. It comprises Tiziano Dorandi’s comprehensive new edition of the Clearchus ‘fragments’, accompanied by a richly annotated English translation from Stephen White, as well as nine new studies examining key aspects of Clearchus’ thought. Clearchus, from Soli on the island of Cyprus, was an Aristotelian philosopher and cultural historian active in the later fourth and early third centuries BCE. A versatile thinker and prolific author, he wrote on a wide range of subjects. Although none of his works survive, he is cited extensively by later authors. Topics addressed in this volume include his accounts of souls during sleep, educational traditions, forms of love, luxurious living, sage maxims and other traditional sayings, aquatic wildlife, lunar phenomena, and his relation to Plato and Platonism. Clearchus of Soli will interest both students and scholars of ancient Greek history, philosophy and science, and especially anyone interested in Aristotle and his circle, Hellenistic literature and culture, or Greek cultural history generally. Robert Mayhew is Professor in the Department of Philosophy at Seton Hall University. David C. Mirhady is Professor in the Department of Humanities at Simon Fraser University. Tiziano Dorandi is Director of Research at the Centre Jean Pépin, Centre National de la Recherche CNRS/ENS/PSL Villejuif/Paris. Stephen White is Professor in the Department of Classics at the University of Texas at Austin.

Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities Editorial Board:

Tiziano Dorandi William Fortenbaugh Oliver Hellmann Robert Mayhew

Stefan Schorn Eckart Schütrumpf Stephen White Arnaud Zucker

On Stoic and Peripatetic Ethics: The Work of Arius Didymus I Theophrastus of Eresus: On His Life and Work II Theophrastean Studies: On Natural Science, Physics and Metaphysics, Ethics, Religion and Rhetoric III Cicero’s Knowledge of the Peripatos IV Theophrastus: His Psychological, Doxographical, and Scientific Writings V Peripatetic Rhetoric after Aristotle VI The Passionate Intellect: Essays on the Transformation of Classical Traditions Presented to Professor I.G. Kidd VII Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources VIII Demetrius of Phalerum: Text, Translation, and Discussion IX Dicaearchus of Messana: Text, Translation, and Discussion X Eudemus of Rhodes XI Lyco of Troas and Hieronymus of Rhodes: Text, Translation, and Discussion XII Aristo of Ceos: Text, Translation, and Discussion XIII Heraclides of Pontus: Text and Translation XIV Heraclides of Pontus: Discussion XV Strato of Lampsacus: Text, Translation, and Discussion XVI Aristoxenus of Tarentum: Discussion XVII Praxiphanes of Mytilene and Chamaeleon of Heraclea: Text, Translation, and Discussion XVIII Phaenias of Eresus: Text, Translation, and Discussion XIX Arius Didymus: Text, Translation, and Discussion XX Clearchus of Soli: Text, Translation, and Discussion XXI

CLEARCHUS OF SOLI Text, Translation, and Discussion

Edited by Robert Mayhew and David C. Mirhady Text and Translation by Tiziano Dorandi and Stephen White

First published 2022 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2022 selection and editorial matter, Robert Mayhew; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Robert Mayhew and David C. Mirhady to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record has been requested for this book ISBN: 978-0-367-70681-4 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-367-70683-8 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-14751-0 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003147510 Typeset in Times New Roman Publisher's note: This book has been prepared from camera-ready copy provided by the authors.

To Wolfram Ax Scholar, Friend 1944–2020

Contents

Preface

ix

Contributors

x

1. Clearchus of Soli The Sources, Text, and Translation Tiziano Dorandi and Stephen White

1

2. Clearchus, a Platonist? Richard Schorlemmer 3. Two Concepts of Sleep Clearchus of Soli and Strato of Lampsacus Francesco Verde 4. Clearchus’ Περὶ παιδείας Wolfram Ax† Appendix: Some Notes on Clearchus’ Περὶ παιδείας Gertjan Verhasselt

311

339 363 385

5. Clearchus on Love Stephen White

391

6. Clearchus, On Lives William Fortenbaugh

435

7. Clearchus and Paremiology Arnaud Zucker

479

viii

Clearchus of Soli

8. The Seven Sages and the Inscription of Ai Khanoum Gertjan Verhasselt 9. Clearchus and Peripatetic Research on Aquatic Animals Oliver Hellmann

517

553

10. Clearchus on the Face in the Moon Robert Mayhew

581

Index of Ancient Names

609

Preface Clearchus of Soli, on the north coast of Cyprus, was active at the end of the fourth century and the beginning of the third century BC and identified as a member of Aristotle’s School, the Peripatos. With this volume Project Theophrastus turns its attention to him, having published volumes on a number of other Peripatetics, besides Aristotle and Theophrastus. In each case the goal has been to present new editions of the source texts, generally in Greek and Latin, together with a facing translation, as well as discussion essays (rather than a commentary). That goal has been accomplished for the following Peripatetics in the series Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities (RUSCH): Demetrius of Phalerum, Dicaearchus of Messana, Lyco of Troas, Hieronymus of Rhodes, Aristo of Ceos, Heraclides of Pontus, Strato of Lampsacus, Praxiphanes of Mytilene, Chamaeleon of Heraclea, and Phaenias of Eresus. The present volume has had an extraordinarily long gestation. The contributors met in Vancouver in 2013; indeed, several had met at an earlier Clearchus conference in Cyprus. Various administrative and teaching responsibilities, others’ and my own, have delayed publication, and I personally offer my apologies to the contributors, whose thorough scholarship has awaited publication for so long. The volume is dedicated to our colleague and friend Wolfram Ax, who attended the conference, but passed away before publication of this volume. DCM In addition to hosting the conference in Vancouver, David Mirhady did much of the initial editorial work. But for personal reasons, in the end he had to pass the baton to me to carry over the finish line. I am grateful to Oliver Hellmann and Steve White for help with formatting, to Gertjan Verhasselt for preparing for publication the draft of Wolfram Ax’s paper, and to Tiziano Dorandi and Steve White, with whom I regularly consulted during the last stages of this project. RM ix

x

Clearchus of Soli

Contributors Tiziano DORANDI, Centre Jean Pépin, Centre National de la Recherche CNRS/ENS/PSL Villejuif/Paris William FORTENBAUGH, Department of Classics, Rutgers University Oliver HELLMANN, Klassische Philologie, Universität Trier Robert MAYHEW, Department of Philosophy, Seton Hall University David C. MIRHADY, Department of Humanities, Simon Fraser University Richard SCHORLEMMER, Departement für Philosophie, Universität Freiburg Francesco VERDE, Dipartimento di Filosofia, Sapienza Università di Roma Gertjan VERHASSELT, Abteilung für Griechische und Lateinische Philologie, LMU München and Research Group of Ancient History, KU Leuven Stephen WHITE, Department of Classics, University of Texas at Austin Arnaud ZUCKER, Université Côte d’Azur, CNRS, Cepam

1 Clearchus of Soli The Sources, Text, and Translation Tiziano Dorandi and Stephen White

CONTENTS INTRODUCTION TO THE PRESENT EDITION Tiziano Dorandi

3

BIBLIOGRAPHY

17

TEXTS AND TRANSLATIONS Tiziano Dorandi (editor), Stephen White (translator)

56

I. Writings 1 A. Plato and the Academy Encomium of Plato 2–3 On the Mathematical Statements in Plato’s Republic 4–5 On Sleep 6–9 Arcesilas 10–11

56

1

60 62 66 80

2

Clearchus of Soli

B. Ethics On Education 12–14 On Friendship 15–16 Gergithius 17–18 Discussions of Love 19–35 On Panic 36 Lives or On Lives 37–66 C. Literary Studies On Sayings 67–88 On Riddles 89–100 On [the Wis]e 101–4 D. Natural History On Dunes 105 On Aquatic Animals 106 On Animals in the Water 107–9 On the Torpedo Fish 110 On Skeletons 111–4 On Wines 115 E. Unassigned Texts 116–23 II. Doubtful 124–9 III. Spurious 130

226 226 230 232 234 238 242 258 264

SUBSIDIUM INTERPRETATIONIS

266

CONCORDANCES

289

INDEX OF SOURCES

306

82 84 86 96 116 118 160 188 218

Text and Translation

3

Introduction to the Present Edition 1. Foreword Almost two hundred years have passed since J. B. Verraert collected and discussed for the first time the fragments of Clearchus of Soli in the Diatribe de Clearcho Solensi philosopho Peripatetico (1828). Two decades later, they were reunited in the second volume of C. Müller’s Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum (1848). The modern edition of reference, however, is that of F. Wehrli in Die Schule des Aristoteles (19481/19692). In the one hundred years that separate Müller's collection from Wehrli’s there were two notable contributions on the Peripatetic philosopher: Max Weber’s dissertation (1880) on the life and works of Clearchus and the article “Klearchos” by W. Kroll in the Realencyclopädie of Pauly/Wissowa (1921). A few decades after his edition, Wehrli also wrote a brief profile of the philosopher for the new edition of the Grundriß der Geschichte der Philosophie by Überweg (1983), revised and updated by G. Wöhrle (2004). Finally, a collection edited by Ioannis Taïfacos appeared in 2008, following two meetings that he himself had organized on the subject of the philosopher of Soli (Nicosia [Cyprus], 2001 and 2003); unfortunately, the papers of these meetings have never been published.1 2. The Clearchus of the Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum by C. Müller C. Müller dedicated to Clearchus a section in the second volume of the Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum.2 The fragments are numbered progressively, translated into Latin at the bottom of the page and accompanied by sporadic critical and exegetical notes. Müller is aware 1

The following text is based—with major cuts, adjustments, and, above all, updates—on what I wrote in Dorandi 2011. 2 There is no point in dwelling again on Verraert’s Diatribe, on which see Dorandi 2011: 1–4.

4

Clearchus of Soli

that no book by Clearchus is of a purely historiographic nature: even the Περὶ βίων is not a biographical work (βίοι ἀνδρῶν) but rather one on the kinds of life (βίοι). Nevertheless, Müller thought it justified to include his works in a collection of fragments of Greek historians because Clearchus gave ample space in his literary-philosophical books to numerous examples drawn from historical events. The list of Clearchus’ writings established by Müller continues that of Verraert (although the order of the fragments is different), except that he deletes the titles falsely reconstructed by his predecessor and redistributes the fragments among the remaining known works. The writings of Clearchus are thus reduced to eighteen, of which the last two are of uncertain title. The order of the texts follows, again, that of Verraert. Parallel evidence of the same fragment does not have an independent numbering, but is placed side by side with what is chosen as the main fragment. Consequently, the number of fragments is greater than the eighty-two actually listed. Müller is aware of the difficulty of attributing untitled fragments to a specific work. Under the lemma Ἀρκεσίλας, for example, he reviews three groups of texts numbered 44a–c. Only in the first of these (10) is Clearchus’ Arcesilaus mentioned, whose testimony is referred to by commenting on the proverbial expression κινήσω τὸν ἀφ᾽ ἱερᾶς. Frag. 44b consists of a reference to a passage in Aulus Gellius (121) and one of Phlegon of Tralles (122) on the metamorphoses of Pythagoras. Finally, frag. 44c brings together different excerpts from Diogenes Laertius, Stobaeus, and Apostolius related to the interest Clearchus shows in the legend of the Seven Sages (81–82, 101BC). As far as frag. 44b–c are concerned, I confess that I fail to see not only a connection to the writing entitled Ἀρκεσίλας, but any connection even between the fragments themselves.3 Thus it makes sense that they were collocated in different places by Wehrli and Taïfacos, as I have in the present edition. Taïfacos has even proposed that the texts that form the frag. 44b may stem from a writing by Clearchus not otherwise attested, titled Θαυμάσια. Two of the fragments that Müller attributes to Περὶ παροιμιῶν (frag. 56, in the appendix, and frag. 57) were later excluded by Wehrli, 3 It should be pointed out that Müller does not rule out that those fragments could also stem from the Περὶ παροιμιῶν.

Text and Translation

5

but are found (F92b and 93) in the most recent collection, that by Taïfacos, among the uncertain books of Περὶ παροιμιῶν. In the present edition they are divided between the remains of Περὶ παροιμιῶν (79B) and Dubia (128). Finally, as regards the Τακτικά (frag. 75) that Arrian and Aelian attribute to a Clearchus without indicating his city of origin, Müller’s uncertainty is shared by Wehrli, who publishes the fragment under “Zweifelhaftes, Unechtes” (frag. 113) and comments (84): “Das unbestimmte ἄλλος οὗτος Κλέαρχος macht nicht den Eindruck, auf den bekannten Peripatetiker zu zielen.” This fact has led me to place the two texts among the Falsa (130AB). Taïfacos does not seem to have doubts about the authenticity of the work or the authorship of the thinker from Soli (F122a–b). 3. The Klearchos by F. Wehrli The publication of Wehrli’s Clearchus fragments constitutes a major step forward in the history of philosophical studies. The flaws of the first edition (1948) were appropriately recognized by Cherniss (1949/1977), and Wehrli took these criticisms and suggestions into account in preparing the second “ergänzte und verbesserte Auflage” (1969). Wehrli includes some fragments (numbered progressively) in distinct sections, and others by grouping them under the title of the work to which they are assigned by the sources. The collection contains 115 fragments (but, in some cases, individual numbers are in turn subdivided into different letters of the alphabet). I shall dwell briefly on some particularly problematic fragments. In frag. 4 (120), the name Clearchus is quoted without the title of the work. Wehrli attributes it, albeit with some doubts, to the Περὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ Πλάτωνι Πολιτείᾳ μαθηματικῶς εἰρημένων. Previously, Müller had published only the initial lines among the remains of untitled works (frag. 77) and had pointed out that his attribution was made uncertain because of the lacuna in the Plutarch manuscripts. Taïfacos also places it among the “Fragmenta incertae sedis” (F123) in slightly more extended form. The section entitled “Seelenlehre” is attributed to Περὶ ὕπνου (frag. 5–10), to whose fragments Wehrli added two new ones (frag. 7–8) of fundamental importance for the reconstruction of Clearchus’ psychological thinking (7–9A). The latter are handed down by

6

Clearchus of Soli

Proclus in the Commentarii in Platonis Rem publicam published by Kroll in 1901 and therefore inaccessible to Müller. The frag. 16 (64) was partially published by Müller (frag. 24) and attributed to Περὶ βίων. Taïfacos (F8) attributes it to the same work but prints it in slightly more extended form. The same scholar splits and reorganizes the first long text extracted from the Γεργίθιος cited by Athenaeus (17) into six distinct fragments (F59–62, 64–5) and also expands frag. 20 W. (18). In the section entitled “Sprichwörter und ähnliches,” Παροιμίαι (frag. 63–83), Wehrli includes four new texts not printed by Müller: frag. 63 (77), frag. 69b (101D), frag. 69d (101A) and frag. 74 (84). Only one of these (101A) had come to light after the publication of Müller’s collection (the papyrus was published for the first time in 1929). In Taïfacos’ edition, three of these fragments are reproduced in the section on proverbs: frag. 63 (= F97), frag. 69d (= F89a), and frag. 74 (= F88), while frag. 69b is discussed in a comment page (341). Frag. 99 (117), which Wehrli puts under mineralogy (“Mineralogisches”), is inserted by Taïfacos (F130) under the heading “Mirabilia” together with frag. 10 W. (121). Under the same heading the scholar also welcomes two other texts of Phlegon of Tralles (F128–9 = 122–3) that had escaped Wehrli’s attention. The same Taïfacos (F117) also moves frag. 100 W. (119) from the botanical section (“Botanisches”) to Γλῶσσαι. Finally, two fragments included by Wehrli in the section “Zweifelhaftes, Unechtes” (frag. 114–5) are returned to Clearchus by Taïfacos (F 132 and 126 = 126–7). The first (F132) is located among the “Varia” along with frag. 76b and 103 W. (108); the second is returned (albeit with some hesitation) to the first book of Περὶ σκελετῶν. As in the other volumes of Wehrli’s Schule des Aristoteles, the Greek and Latin texts are not translated, but accompanied by succinct, but dense commentary. 4. The Κλέαρχος Σολεύς, ὁ Περιπατητικός by I. Taïfacos The collection by Ioannis Taïfacos (2008), with introduction, translation, and notes in modern Greek, is included in the sixth volume of a larger editorial project, which unfortunately has remained a stub, entitled Ἀρχαία Κυπριακὴ γραμματεία. The volume contains the edition

Text and Translation

7

not only of the fragments of Clearchus, but also of those of Perseus of Citium, of Demonax, and of the “minor” Cypriot philosophers.4 The pages dedicated to Clearchus are: xix–l (Εἰσαγωγή), 3–113 (Κείμενο–Μετάφραση), 233–379 (Ἑρμηνευτικὸ ὑπόμνημα), and the final section dedicated to Βραχυγραφίες καὶ βιβλιογραφία, εὑρετήρια, συσχετικοὶ πίνακες (529–650), in particular 549–62 (Βιβλιογραφία τῶν ἐκδιδομένων συγγραφέων. 1. Κλεάρχος Σολεύς) and 643–6 (Συσχετικοὶ πίνακες τῶν ἀποσπασμάτων. Α. Κλεάρχου). This section contains the concordances Wehrli–Taïfacos–Müller and Taïfacos– Wehrli–Müller. The edition is preceded by an extensive introduction where the ancient sources containing the fragments of Clearchus’ works are listed and discussed. Taïfacos examines the few biographical testimonies concerning him as a philosopher of Soli, a disciple of Aristotle, and a multifaceted and prolific author whose vast interests fit perfectly within the cultural horizon of the early Peripatos; he mentions the previous editions of the fragments (from Verraert to Wehrli) and discusses the important discovery of an inscription with an epigram by Clearchus in Ai Khanoum (in ancient Bactria, present-day Afghanistan), which led him to hypothesize the presence of the Peripatetic in that region. In particular, Taïfacos insists on identifying Clearchus’ homeland with the city of Soli on the island of Cyprus and not with the homonymous city in Cilicia. After studying Clearchus’ position in the history of Aristotle’s school, where he played a significant role, the scholar reviews and analyzes the content of the individual fragments preserved, which he divides into those that can be traced back to works whose titles are handed down by ancient sources and others that need to be more generically classified into headings or thematic sections. In this way, Taïfacos manages to give a clear and informed idea of Clearchus’ cultural and scientific interests, as well as of his thought regarding mainly, but not exclusively, moral philosophy. The aspect of the volume in which I am most interested here is of course the editorial one. Taïfacos spreads the fragments across different sections, starting with those that can be traced back to specific writings on the basis of 4

I dwell a little longer on the edition of Taïfacos both because it is not easily accessible and because it represents the first attempt at a global and innovative reworking of the whole of Clearchus’ fragments after Wehrli.

8

Clearchus of Soli

the titles transmitted. In the succession of titles he lets himself be inspired by Wehrli, all the while innovating in several points with respect to their reorganization. Taïfacos sometimes expands or narrows the context of individual fragments and inserts untitled texts in sections other than those proposed by Wehrli. There is no shortage of emendations of corrupt passages, for some of which he accepts proposals by others; for others he puts forward his own conjectures. The most interesting novelty is without a doubt the nineteen fragments added to those collected by Wehrli (F18b, F20b, F*23, F*24, F*25a, F*25b, F72b, F83, F92b, F93, F94, F*100, F*101d, F*122b, F128, F129, F134a, F134b, F134c = app. 65, app. 44, *47, *48, *49, app. *49, 106B, *5B, 79B, 129, 88, *86, 77, 130B, 122, 123, 102, 104, 103). Many are equipped with a critical apparatus; all are translated into modern Greek and commented on extensively. The collection contains 134 fragments (but in some cases, individual numbers are further divided by the letters of the alphabet). This is the sequence of headings: Πλάτωνος ἐγκώμιον (F1a–b); Περὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ Πλάτωνος πολιτείᾳ μαθηματικῶς εἰρημένων (F2–3); Περὶ ὕπνου (F4–7); Περὶ βίων (F8–38: all these fragments, with the exception of F38 (“Libri incerti”), are traced back to the first five books and the eighth of the work, even when their derivation from a specific book is not indicated in the sources. Book 1 (F8–10), 2 (F11–12), 3 (F13–14), 4 (F15–F*25), 5 (F26–36), 8 (F37); Ἐρωτικά (F39–53); Περὶ παιδείας (F54–6); Περὶ φιλίας (F57–8); Γεργίθιος (F59–65); Περὶ τοῦ πανικοῦ (F66); Περὶ θινῶν (F67); Περὶ σκελετῶν (F68–71); Περὶ τῶν ἐνύδρων (F72–3); Περὶ τῶν ἐν τῷ ὑγρῷ (F74–5); Περὶ νάρκης (F76); Περὶ παροιμιῶν (F77–*F100): also in this case (as already for Περὶ βίων) some fragments (F77–86) are assigned to the first two books of the work even when their derivation is not indicated in the sources. Book 1 (F77–8), 2 (F79–86). The rest (F87–*F100) are more cautiously classified as Libri incerti; Περὶ γρίφων (F101–16): The first fragment (F101a–d) is presented under the heading . Subsequent fragments (F102–4) are traced back to Book 1, while the remaining fragments are also referred to as Libri incerti; Γλῶσσαι (F117–19; the title is never handed down, but Wehrli had already introduced a “Glossen” heading); Ἀρκεσίλας (F120–1); Τακτικά (F122); Fragmenta incertae sedis, in turn divided into Platonica (F123), Physica (F124–6), Mirabilia (F127–30), and Varia (F131–3). There follows a Clearchi Appendix (F134a–c).

Text and Translation

9

The new fragments that complete Wehrli’s collection deserve particular attention. Of these, F92b, F93 and F122b (79, 129, 130B) were already in Müller’s edition as frag. 56, 57 and 75 respectively. F 83 (*5B) had already been pointed out by Gottschalk (1973). Some of these fragments are certainly from Clearchus; with others, the attribution is sufficiently secure. There are some, however, that leave room for reasonable doubt. It is on this last group that I would like to dwell for a moment. F*23 (*47) – Attribution to the Περὶ βίων of this anonymous and untitled text cited by Athenaeus (12. 522f–523b) in a discussion of the τρυφή of the Iapyges was proposed by Nenci (1989). Taïfacos later proposed to add two more short texts on the τρυφή of the Iberians (F*24 = *48) and of the Massalians (F*25a–b = *49 and app. *49), who are also reported upon by Athenaeus in the same context as the previous frag. (12. 523bc). The second is taken up again in the socalled Proverbia Alexandrina by pseudo-Plutarch (1.60), which are actually a recension of Zenobius’ paroemiographic collection. The undeniable “thematic and linguistic affinities between the two passages in Athenaeus as well as the archaic style of the passages concerning the tryphe of the Iapyges” convinced Nenci that the Iapyges extract too could “be attributed with certainty to Clearchus and [like the previous one] may, either through Timaeus and Antiochus or directly through Antiochus, stem ultimately from the Syracusan historian who is a contemporary of Herodotus.”5 In Athenaeus, *47 immediately follows a quotation from the fourth book of Clearchus’ Βίοι (φησὶ Κλέαρχος ἐν τετάρτῳ Βίων) concerning the τρυφή of the Tarentines (46). The fact that the second passage is quoted anonymously can be explained here by assuming that the two texts were already close in Clearchus’ Περὶ βίων and that Athenaeus did not think it necessary, as he was referring to them side by side, to name his source again. *48 and *49 are quite short, which makes it difficult to establish a connection to the two preceding ones other than the fact that they all deal with τρυφή. The entire chapter 25 of book 12 of The Learned Banqueters is part of a larger context concerning the τρυφή of ἔθνη and πόλεις that extends up to 12, 528e and for which Athenaeus uses different sources that he does not always indicate. These include Timaeus (for the Tyrrhenians, Syrians, Crotonians, and Sirins) and Clearchus 5

Nenci 1989: 901.

10

Clearchus of Soli

(at least for the Tarentines and Iapyges). Deciding which of the two sources (or maybe even a third one) Athenaeus drew on for the two additional texts is perhaps impossible in the absence of internal elements such as those highlighted for *47, but I think it is worth following the example of Taïfacos in taking the risk of attributing them to Clearchus. F93 (128) – The fragment consists of a long scholium to Plato’s Phaedo in which the proverb Οὐδ᾽ Ἡρακλῆς is discussed. The scholium is transmitted only by the manuscript T (Marcianus App. Cl. IV.1, copied by hand by the monk Ephraem in the tenth century). After the explanation of the proverb, the scholiast indicates his sources: τὰ δὲ αὐτὰ καὶ Φερεκύδης (FGrHist 3 F 79) καὶ Κώμαρχος (FGrHist 410 F 2) καὶ Ἴστρος ἐν τοῖς Ἠλιακοῖς (FGrHist 334 F 42) ἱστοροῦσιν. The attribution of the passage to Clearchus is based on the correction of the transmitted Κώμαρχος to Κλέαρχος suggested by Müller, accepted doubtfully by Greene (in the edition of the scholium) and now proposed again by Taïfacos. It convinced neither Jacoby nor Wehrli, and Cufalo rejects it in his edition of the Scholia Platonica. I too am of the opinion that this correction should not be accepted, and in the present edition I have placed the fragment among the Dubia. F127–30 (121–3, 117) – Taïfacos reinstates the four fragments (of which Wehrli prints only the first and fourth; Müller cites the other two in the margin of his frag. 44b), in a section entitled “Mirabilia,” thus presupposing the existence of a “paradoxographic” work of which the ancient sources show no trace. This decision is probably based on the fact that the two central texts (122–3) correspond to two chapters of Phlegon of Tralles’ De rebus mirabilibus. However, I can see no reason to create this new heading. If we admit that Clearchus is one of Phlegon’s sources, there are two possibilities: 1. Clearchus’ narrative was not part of Περὶ παροιμιῶν; 2. There was a proverb, of which we have no trace today, for whose explanation Clearchus used a variant of the myth of Tiresias. Since Phlegon does not name any title, both possibilities are equally plausible, and which one we choose remains random if we bear in mind that Clearchus also mentioned and used proverbs in works other than Περὶ παροιμιῶν, such as Περὶ βίων and Arcesilaus.6 In the present edition they are therefore placed among the unassigned remains. 6

Dorandi 2006: 167.

Text and Translation

11

F134a–c (102, 104, 103) – These three texts constitute the Clearchi Appendix. Frag. 134a is a votive epigram that was composed by a certain Clearchus to accompany the marble stele he had erected in the temenos of Cinea in the current city of Ai Khanoum and which contains a collection of Delphic sayings attributed to the Seven Sages (in a redaction similar to that known under the name Sosiades transmitted by Stobaeus). F134b–c reproduce the (partly reconstructed) text of those seven sayings of the list that are still preserved. This choice is based on my view about the likely identity of the Clearchus who is named as author of the votive epigram and had the collection of sayings engraved on the marble slab and the Peripatetic from Soli. This identification is a plausible hypothesis put forward for the first time by Louis Robert (1968/1989) although it has not been unanimously accepted. I am convinced that the evidence in favor of identifying the two Clearchi is solid and I am in favor of adding the text of the epigram and whatever remains legible of the sayings among his fragments. The most important piece of evidence is undoubtedly the presence in the “library” of the royal palace of Ai Khanoum of a few battered columns of a papyrus scroll that transmits the remains of a dialogue where the Platonic doctrine of forms is discussed and that can be identified with a work by the young Aristotle (Περὶ φιλοσοφίας?).7 Taïfacos assigns F134a–c to a work—not otherwise attested—by the name Τῶν ἑπτὰ σοφῶν ῾Υποθῆκαι. In the present edition I have gathered the three texts, together with another (101–4), under the title [Περὶ τῶν σοφῶ]ν (?), which I suggested be reconstructed in a fragmentary passage of the PSI 1093 (101).8 5. Problems of the new edition of Clearchus’ fragments Finally, it is left for me to put forward and discuss some doubtful points and some difficulties and uncertainties that I have encountered while preparing my collection. I begin with a general consideration. The main source for the Clearchus fragments is undoubtedly The Learned Banqueters by Athenaeus. This scholar from Naucratis explicitly assigns almost half of the 7 8

See, most recenly, Auffret 2019. Dorandi 2014.

12

Clearchus of Soli

preserved texts to Clearchus, often including the titles of the works. Their number would still increase if one accepted the hypotheses of Zecchini9 that I recorded in the Subsidium interpretationis concerning the fragments of the Γεργίθιος (17–8) and of the Ἐρωτικά (19–35). However, I do not believe there is sufficient or fully convincing evidence to accept Zecchini’s proposals. The main reason for this skepticism (which is not only mine) depends in particular on the specific mosaic structure of The Learned Banqueters, in which the quotations of authors/sources follow one another and fit together according to principles and methods that have not yet been determined with certainty. In works such as Athenaeus’ (but the same applies to Diogenes Laertius) it is often impossible to distinguish precisely whether the citation of a particular author/source is done directly or goes back to an intermediate source and up to what points a quotation (or series of quotations) extends. The passages that contain a discussion of τρυφή (§ 4), which I have examined above, are a concrete example of this. If we do not want to fall back into the vicious circle of nineteenth century Quellenforschung and, at the same time, if we do not want to reduce the collection of Clearchus fragments only to those texts that explicitly include his name—by which we would risk depriving the collection of texts that are important and authentic despite their anonymity—we must do a thorough analysis of each fragment and make our choices on a case-to-case basis. An interesting and paradigmatic example is the attribution to Clearchus’ Περὶ γρίφων of a long passage in Athenaeus that concerns the so-called ABC Comedy of the Athenian Callias (92ABC, 93). In book 7 Athenaeus mentions for the first time a short text that he explicitly attributes to the first book of Clearchus’ Περὶ γρίφων and that we read in all the collections of his fragments (92A). Taïfacos, for no apparent reason, divides this text into two extracts (F 103, 112). In book 10, Athenaeus returns to the subject in the long discussion he dedicates to riddles and enigmas (γρῖφοι) and reproduces several pieces by different authors gathered in a chapter that seems unitary and is much broader than the previous one in book 7, but without naming either Clearchus or any of his works. This is the current 92C (absent in all previous editions), which I for the first time propose to attribute to 9

Zecchini 1989.

Text and Translation

13

Clearchus in its entirety. The close and obvious parallels between 92C and 92A confirm, in my opinion, this attribution, which, if accepted, allows a more precise and detailed reconstruction of at least a section of Clearchus’ Περὶ γρίφων and its structure. Another crucial problem is determining the beginning and end of some fragments about whose attribution to Clearchus there is no doubt. An interesting example is a fragment (40) handed down by Athenaeus, who attributes it to the third book of Περὶ βίων (ὥς φησιν Κλέαρχος ἐν τρίτῳ), which must be read in relation to 64, where the title of Clearchus’ work is not mentioned. If we admit that 64 also stems from Περὶ βίων, we derive further proof in favor of the hypothesis that the work had a dialogical form. However, I do not want to dwell on this aspect, but on those lines of 40 that contain a controversial and corrupt quotation from Sappho (frag. 58.25–6 Voigt). I shall pass over the issues that beset these verses in relation to the new Cologne papyrus of Sappho (PKöln 11.429); instead, I shall focus briefly on the following question: Is the section with Sappho’s verses part of the quotation from Clearchus or is it an addition by Athenaeus through the mouth of Cinulcus (who starts talking in 686c) derived from a parallel source? If Hammerstaedt has not yet published the article in which he proposes to demonstrate that Sappho’s verses are entirely foreign to the context of Clearchus’ Περὶ βίων,10 the problem has recently been thoroughly re-examined by Benelli, who reiterates the real difficulties and ambiguities of the text as transmitted by Athenaeus with regard to a precise delimitation of the quotation of Clearchus’ ipsa verba.11 In the present edition, I have kept the fragment in its entirety, including the quotation of Sappho’s verses, by way of a non liquet, but the question must be addressed as a whole, also taking into account the difficult problem of the relationship between the χροιαί (skin tones) mentioned at the beginning of the fragment and what is said about Parrhasius at the end of it. If the χροιαί refer, as would seem more likely, to 10

Hammerstaedt 2010: 23 n. 19: “I plan to prove in a further article that the Sappho quotation does not derive from the third book of Clearchus’ On Ways of Life (fr. 41 Wehrli2).” 11 Benelli 2017, 300–3.

14

Clearchus of Soli

Parrhasius and not to Sappho, one would expect the two portions of the text to have been originally adjacent and to have been interrupted by Athenaeus with the Sappho citation. This would lead to excluding the lines on Sappho from Clearchus’ fragment, whether or not one accepts Taïfacos’ proposal to divide 40 into two distinct parts (= F13– 14a)—the first up to τῆς ἀρετῆς, the second from Παρράσιος to the end—and relate the second to 41 (= F 14b T). To conclude, some considerations on the text of 40 may also be useful. Clearchus discusses the need to associate ἁβροσύνη with ἀρετή. The sentence that precedes the fragment of Sappho—ὑμεῖς δὲ οἴεσθε τὴν ἁβρότητα χωρὶς ἀρετῆς ἔχειν τι τρυφερόν;—already lands us in some difficulties. Wehrli had tried to solve them by tentatively proposing to change τρυφερόν of the manuscripts (which he accepts into his text with cruces) into καλόν. Di Benedetto pointed out that if the interlocutors in Athenaeus are convinced of the negativity of ἁρβρότης dissociated from ἀρετή, there is no need to introduce (through καίτοι) considerations in order to prove it. Consequently, he proposed to add οὐκ in front of οἴεσθε and translate “you do think that refinement without virtue contains in itself something τρυφερόν?”12 The problem remains because (as Di Benedetto himself notes) τρυφή is a key term of the anecdote related to Parrhasius, which Clearchus cites immediately after the considerations regarding Sappho’s fragment. For the time being, however, I have accepted the transmitted text following Olson, who in his Athenaeus edition translates as follows: “Do you believe that daintiness, if it is divorced from virtue, contains anything resembling luxury?”13 Finally, I come to the Περὶ παροιμιῶν and in particular the complicated issue of the constitutio textus and of the presentation of the fragments of this work that are cited in the paroemiographic tradition, which as a whole goes back, directly and indirectly, to Zenobius’ Proverbs, a work that is lost in its original form.14

12

Di Benedetto 1985/2007: 153 (= 861). White translates as follows: “And you all suppose that elegance apart from virtue has something luxurious about it?” 14 Dorandi 2006: 157–70. The remains of Περὶ παροιμιῶν are now reconsidered in their entirety in the article by Ruta 2020 and in the chapter by Zucker in this volume. 13

Text and Translation

15

A single case (85) will serve as an example to present the criteria that I have followed in my collection and that differ from those of the previous editions. 85 is reconstructed by taking into account Zenobius’ tradition (which omits Clearchus’ name as well as the title of the work) and Photius’ Lexicon (as well as Suda), which does name Clearchus but not the title of the work at hand: ὑπὲρ τὰ Καλλικράτους· Κλέαρχός φησιν ὅτι Καλλικράτης τις ἐγένετο ἐν Καρύστῳ πλουσιώτατος. εἴ ποτε οὖν ἐθαύμαζόν τινα οἱ Καρύστιοι ἐπὶ πλούτῳ, ὑπερβολικῶς ἔλεγον “ὑπὲρ τὰ Καλλικράτους.”

In all ancient sources this passage is followed by a reference to the Aristotelian Athenaion politeia: Ἀριστοτέλης δέ φησιν ἐν τῇ Ἀθηναίων πολιτείᾳ Καλλικράτην τινὰ πρῶτον τῶν δικαστῶν τοὺς μισθοὺς εἰς ὑπερβολὴν αὐξῆσαι· ὅθεν καὶ τὴν παροιμίαν εἰρῆσθαι.

The source is obviously Arist. Ath. pol. 28.3: τοῦ δὲ δήμου Κλεοφῶν ὁ λυροποιός (sc. προειστήκει), ὃς καὶ τὴν διωβελίαν ἐπόρισε πρῶτος· καὶ χρόνον μέν τινα διεδίδου, μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα κατέλυσε Καλλικράτης Παιανιεύς, πρῶτον ὑποσχόμενος ἐπιθήσειν πρὸς τοῖν δυοῖν ὀβολοῖν ἄλλον ὀβολόν. τούτων μὲν οὖν ἀμφοτέρων θάνατον κατέγνωσαν ὕστερον.

In addition, as Bühler has pointed out, the final part of 85 calls to mind another proverb, again from Zenobius (Zenob. Ath. 2.91), which is heavily corrupt and shows traces of a major misunderstanding of the historical reality on the part of the paroemiographer as regards Callicrates’ intervention: ὀβολὸν εὗρε Παρν†οίτης†. Καλλι†στ†ράτης Ἀθήνησι πολιτευσάμενος, ἐπικαλούμενος δὲ Παρν†οίτης† μισθὸν ἔταξε τοῖς δικασταῖς καὶ τοῖς ἐκκλησιασταῖς· ὅθεν σκωπτόντων αὐτὸν τῶν κωμικῶν (fr. com. ad. 941 K.–A.) τὸ γελοῖον εἰς παροιμίαν ἦλθεν.

In light of all these elements, I have preferred to narrow the fragment of Clearchus to the sequence that precedes the reference to Aristotle. Such a solution may not convince everyone. But anyone wishing to

16

Clearchus of Soli

attribute the quotation from the Athenaion politeia to Clearchus’ Περὶ παροιμιῶν must also investigate at what point in time the obvious misunderstanding that we see in the proverb transmitted by Zenobius came about: in Clearchus’ own redaction? In the passing of his testimony into Zenobius’ Proverbs? Or later, in the phases of epitomization and transmission of that collection by Lucillius of Tralles and Tarrhasius? The problem remains unsolved, but it was, once again, necessary to make a choice. 6. Editorial criteria The editorial criteria I followed in the new collection of Clearchus’ fragments do not differ from those of all the previous editions of the philosophers of the School of Aristotle published so far in RUSCH. Totally new, however, compared to the other collections is the Subsidium interpretationis, which completes my edition. This Subsidium, which may be useful for the understanding of some texts of Clearchus, is not systematic: indeed it is neither a complete bibliography nor a series of critical and/or exegetical notes. The individual sections and individual fragments are accompanied by a choice of bibliographical items that are specifically related to their content. There follow, within each fragment, further bibliographic details, parallel passages and biblio-doxographic information. I think that I have read the entire bibliography on Clearchus. Therefore, the absence of one or more bibliographical items should be interpreted not as an oversight but as a conscious critical choice. The Subsidium is intentionally written in Latin, a choice that some will consider oldfashioned, but that I will stand by and defend. The choice of texts, their editing, the critical apparatuses, the notes of the Subsidium, the compilation of concordances and indexes as well as these pages of the introduction stem from me. The bibliography I collected, on the other hand, has been supplemented by S. White, to whom we owe the English translation and the notes to the individual texts accompanying it. A first draft of this collection was prepared in winter/spring 2013 and made available to the participants of the Vancouver meeting in July of the same year. In the meantime I continued to take care of one or another fragment and tried to keep the collection as a whole up to date by adding, where necessary, more recent bibliographical data,

Text and Translation

17

correcting some errors or infelicities and reworking certain sections or individual fragments. I hope that the long interval that separates the first redaction of these pages from the publication of the volume has not left too obvious traces and that the new collection of the fragments of the Peripatetic from Cyprus, Clearchus of Soli, can concretely contribute to the knowledge of his literary work and his philosophical thought.

Bibliography (a) Abbreviations and Standard Collections CA CII

CPF CPG

CPG Suppl.

CSEL D.-K.

FGE FGrHist FGrHistCont

Collectanea Alexandrina edidit I. U. Powell, Oxford 1925 Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum. Part II Inscriptions of the Seleucid and Parthian periods and of the Eastern Iran and Central Asia. Vol. I Inscriptions in non-iranian languages. Inscriptions grecques d’Iran et d’Asie centrale par G. Rougemont avec des contributions de P. Bernard, London 2012 Corpus dei Papiri filosofici greci e latini. Testi e lessico nei papiri di cultura greca e latina, Firenze 1989– Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum. Vol. 1. Zenobius, Diogenianus, Plutarchus, Gregorius Cyprius cum appendice proverbiorum, edd. E. L. a Leutsch et F. G. Schneidewin, Gottingae 1839. Vol. 2. Diogenianus, Gregorius Cyprius, Macarius, Aesopus, Apostolius et Arsenius, Mantissa proverbiorum, ed. E. L. a Leutsch, Gottingae 1851 Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum. Supplementum, Hildesheim 1961. Continens sex commentationes (Cohn, Crusius, Jungbut) olim singillatim editas Corpus Scriptorum ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Wien 1866– Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, griech. und deutsch von H. Diels. 6. Aufl. von W. Kranz, Berlin 1951 –1952; 11903 D. L. Page, Further Greek Epigrams, Cambridge 1982 F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, Berlin 1923–30; Leiden 1940–58 Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker Continued. IVA: Biography, 1—The Pre-hellenistic Period, ed. by J. Bollansée, J. Engels, G. Schepens, and E. Theys,

18

Clearchus of Soli

FHG FHS&G

GCS GEF

GGM IEG JE K.–A. LDAB M–P3 OCT PE PEG PGR PMG POxy PSI RE Rh. Gr.

RUSCH SA SGO

Leiden 1998; 3—Hermippos of Smyrna, ed. by J. Bollansée, Leiden 1999; 7—Imperial and Undated Authors, ed. by J. Radicke, Leiden 1999 Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, 1–5, ed. C. et Th. Müller, Paris 1841–70 Theophrastus of Eresus. Sources for his Life, Writings, Thought & Influence, ed. by W. W. Fortenbaugh, P. Huby, R. W. Sharples and D. Gutas, Leiden 1992 Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte, Berlin 1897– Greek Epic Fragments from the Seventh to the Fifth Centuries BC, edited and translated by M. L. West, Cambridge, MA–London 2003 (Loeb) Geographi Graeci Minores, ed. C. Müller, 1–2, Parisiis 1855–61 Iambi et Elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum cantati, ed. 2 M. L. West, Oxonii 1971–2, 1989–92 Vide Merkelbach–Stauber 2005 Poetae Comici Graeci, edd. R. Kassel et C. Austin, Berlin and New York 1983– Leuven Database of Ancient Books, http://www.trismegistos.org/ldab Catalogue des Papyrus littéraires grecs et latins, http://promethee.philo.ulg.ac.be/cedopal/ Oxford Classical Texts Poetae Elegiaci. Testimonia et Fragmenta, 1–2, edd. B. Gentili et C. Prato, Leipzig 22002 Poetarum Epicorum Graecorum. Testimonai et Fragmenta, pars 1, ed. A. Bernabé, Leipzig 1987 A. Giannini, Paradoxographorum Graecorum reliquiae, Milano [1966] Poetae Melici Graeci, ed. D. L. Page, Oxford 1962 The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, London 1898– Pubblicazioni della Società italiana per la ricerca dei Papiri Greci e Latini in Egitto, Firenze 19– Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Stuttgart/München 1893–1978 Rhetores Graeci ex recognitione L. Spengel, Lipsiae 1853–6 Rhetores Graeci … ed. Chr. Walz, Stuttgartiae et Tubingae 1832–6 Rutgers Studies in Classical Humanities Scholia in Aristophanem, edidit edendave curavit W. J. Koster, Groningen 1–3 1969–99 Vide Merkelbach–Stauber 1998–2004

Text and Translation SH SIG3 SSR SVF TM

19

Supplementum Hellenisticum, ed. H. Lloyd-Jones et P. Parsons, Berolini/Novi Eboraci 1983 Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, ed. G. Dittenberger et F. Hiller de Gaertringen, Lipsiae 1915–24 Socratis et Socraticorum reliquiae, ed. G. Giannantoni, Napoli 1990 Stoicorum veterum fragmenta, ed. Ioannes ab Arnim, Lipsiae 1903–1905 Vide LDAB

(b) Editions used Aelianus De natura animalium

A H L P V β Aelianus Tactica

Claudii Aeliani De natura animalium, libri XVIII ex recognitione R. Hercher, Leipzig 1864 [BT] Claudius Aelianus, De natura animalium, edd. García Valdés, Llera Fueyo, Rodríguez-Noriega Guillén, Berlin und New York 2009 [BT] Monacensis gr. 564, s. XIV in. Vaticanus Palatinus gr. 260, s. XIV Laurentianus 86.7, s. XII Parisinus gr. 1756, s. XIV Parisinus Suppl. gr. 352, s. XIII = consensus codicum LPAH R. Köchly–W. Rüstow, Griechische Kriegsschriftsteller, Leipzig 1853

Anonymus in Hermogenis De ideis Chr. Walz, Rhetores Graeci, vol. 7.3, 697–1087 Antimachus

V. J. Matthews, Antimachus of Colophon, Text and Commentary, Leiden 1996

Apostolius Synagoga proverbiorum CPG 2.231–744 N Archilochus

Parisinus gr. 3072 s. XIV Archilochus, Fragmenta, ed. J. Tarditi, Roma 1968

20

Clearchus of Soli

Aristophanes Byzantius Nauck

Slater

Aristophanis Byzantii gramamtici Alexandrini fragmenta, collegit et disposuit A. Nauck, Halis Saxorum 1848 Aristophanis Byzantii Fragmenta post A. Nauck collegit, testimoniis ornavit, brevi commentario instruxit W. J. Slater, Berlin–New York 1986

Arrianus, Ars tactica

Flavius Arrianus. II. Scripta minora et fragmenta, ed. A. G. Roos, Lipsiae 1967 [BT]

Arsenius, Violetum

Chr. Walz, ΑΡΣΕΝΙΟΥ ΙΩΝΙΑ. Arsenii Violetum, Stutgardiae 1832

Athenaeus Canfora et al.

Casaub(onus)

Comes (Natalis)

Dalec(ampius)

Desrousseaux

Dindorf

Gulick

Kaibel Meineke Mus(urus)

Ateneo. I Deipnosofisti. I dotti a banchetto. Prima traduzione italiana commentata su progetto di L. Canfora. Introduzione di Chr. Jacob, Roma 2001 Is. Casaubon, Animadversionum in Athenaei Deipnosophistas libri XV, Lugduni 11600; Lugduni 21621; Editio postrema […] Lugduni 31621 Athenaei Deipnosophistarum sive coenae sapientium libri XV, Natale de Comite Veneto nunc primum e Graeca in Latinam linguam vertente […], Venetiis 1556 (Lugduni 1556, Parisiis 1556, Basileae 1556 et Venetiis 1572) Athenaei Deipnosophistarum libri quindecim […] in latinum sermonem versi a J. Dalechampio […], Lugduni 1583 Athénée de Naucratis, Les Deipnosphistes, livre I et II. Texte établi et traduit par A. M. Desrousseaux, avec le concours de Ch. Astruc, Paris 1956 Athenaeus. Ex recensione G. Dindorfii, Lipsiae 1827 (Editio stereotypa, Lipsiae 1834; Nova impressio, Lipsiae 1868) Athenaeus, The Deipnosophists, with an English translation by Ch. B. Gulick, I–VII, Cambridge, MA– London 1927–43 Athenaei Naucratitae Dipnosophistarum libri XV. Recensuit G. Kaibel, I–III, Lipsiae 1887–90 Athenaei Deipnosophistae, ex recognitione A. Meineke, I–III, Lipsiae 1858–9 Athenaei Deipnosophistarum libri XV Graece, recensuit M. Musurus, Venetiis 1514 (Editio princeps)

Text and Translation Olson

Peppink

Schaefer

Schweigh(aeuser)

A B C E M P

21

Athenaeus Naucratites, Deipnosophistae. Volumen III.A Libri VIII–XI et volumen IV.A, Libri XII–XV, edited by S. Douglas Olson, Berlin–Boston 2020 et 2019 Athenaei Deipnosophistarum epitome, ex recensione S. P. Peppink, Lugduni Batavorum 1936–9. I: Observationes in Athenaei Deipnosophistas (1936) II: Athenaei Deipnosophistarum epitome libri III–VIII (1937) III: Athenaei Deipnosophistarum epitome libri IX–XV (1939) Athenaei Deipnosophistarum libri quindecim, ad editionem Lugdunensem postremam emendatius expressi. Accedunt Villebrunii interpretatio Gallica et notae itemque Isaaci Casauboni animadversiones integrae. Curavit […] G. H. Schäfer, I–III, Lipsiae 1796 Ἀθηναίου Ναυκρατίτου Δειπνοσοφισταί. Athenaei Deipnosophistarum libri quindecim. Ex optimis codicibus nunc primum collatis emendavit ac supplevit nova Latina versione et animadversionibus cum Is. Casauboni aliorumque tum suis illustravit commodisque indicibus instruxit I. Schweighaueser, Argentorati 1801–9 Marcianus 447 (coll. 820), s. IX ex.–X in. (Iohannes calligraphus) Laurentianus 60.1, ca 1476–1506 (Demetrios Damilas) Parisinus suppl. gr. 841 ca 1476–1506 (Demetrios Damilas) Laurentianus 60.2, ca 1490 (Jacob Questenberg) BL, Royal 16 C XXIV, s. XVI (Zacharias Callierges) Palatinus Heidelbergensis gr. 47 1505–6 (Paolo de Canale)

Augustinus, De civitate Dei A. Augustinus, De civitate Dei libri XXII, ed. B. Dombart et A. Kalb, Stutgardiae 51993 [BT] Callimachus

Callimachus, ed. R. Pfeiffer, Oxonii 1949

Chamaeleon Testimonia et fragmenta Chamaeleon of Heraclea Pontica. The Sources, Text and Translation, ed. A. Martano, in A. Martano, E. Matelli, D. Mirhady, Praxiphanes of Mytilene and Chamaeleon of Heraclea. Text, Translation and Discussion, New Brunswick and London 2012, 157– 337

22

Clearchus of Soli

Clearchus Solensis Müller Taifacos

Verraert Wehrli

Clemens Alexandrinus Stromata

Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, 2, ed. C. Müller, Paris 1848, 302–27 Ἀρχαία Κυπριακὴ γραμματεία. 6. Φιλοσοφία. Κλέαρχος, Περσαῖος, Δημῶναξ, ἄλλοι Κύπριοι φιλόσοφοι Ι. Ταϊφάκου, Λευκωσία 2008 J. B. Verraert, Diatribe de Clearcho Solensi philosopho Peripatetico, Gandavi 1828 F. Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristoteles, III, Klearchos, Basel 11948—Basel/Stuttgart 21969

Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata, hrsg. von O. Stählin, neu hrsg. von L. Früchtel mit Nachträge von U. Treu, Berlin 41985 [CGS vol. 17.2–3]

Coisl. 177

Proverbia lexico cod. Coisl. 177 immixta, quorum partem ed. T. Gaisford, Paroemiographi Graeci, Oxonii 1836, 121–54

Cornelius Labeo

P. Mastrandrea, Un neoplatonico latino: Cornelio Labeone, Leiden 1979

Crantor H. J. Mette, “Zwei Akademiker heute: Krantor von Soloi und Arkesilaos von Pitane”, Lustrum 26 (1984) 7– 94 Damascius In Platonis Phaedonem Commentaria

M μ

The Greek Commentaries on Plato’s Phaedo, ed. by L. G. Westerink, Amsterdam/New York 1976–7 Marcianus gr. 196, ca. a. 900 apographa cod. M

Dicaearchus Testimonia et fragmenta D. C. Mirhady, Dicaearchus of Messana. The Sources, Text and Translation, in W. W. Fortenbaugh and E. Schütrumpf, Dicaearchus of Messana. Text, Translation and Discussion, New Brunswick and London 2001 Diogenes Laertius Vitae philosophorum

Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, Edited with Introduction by T. Dorandi, Cambridge 2013

Text and Translation B P F Φ Diog(enianus) Proverbia Diog(enianus) Vind. d

23

Neapolitanus III B 29, s. XII Parisinus gr. 1759, s. XI–XII Laurentianus 69.13, s. XIII Vaticanus gr. 96, s. XII (excerpta Vaticana) CPG 1.177–320 Diogeniani paroemiographi recensio Vindobonensis, CPG 2.1–52 Vindobonensis phil. gr. 178 (a. 1429–30), ff. 296r–310v

D3

Collectio proverbiorum Diogeniano adscripta, cuius sola lemmata edidit Cohn 1892, 254–67

EGen. Β

Etymologicum Genuinui cod. Laur. S. Marci 304 (Β) ed. Miller 1868, 1–318

ΕΜ

Etymologicum Magnum seu verius Lexicon saepissime vocabulorum origines indagans ex pluribus lexicis scholiastis et grammaticis anonymi cuiusdam opera concinnatum, ed. T. Gaisford, Oxonii 1848

Euripides Fragmenta

Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta (TrGF). Vol. V 1– 2: Euripides, editor R. Kannicht, Göttingen 2004

Eusebius Praeparatio evangelica Eusebii Pamphili Evangelicae Praeparationis libri XV, Gifford rec. E. H. Gifford, Oxonii 1903 Eusebius Werke vol. 8.1–2: Die Praeparatio Evangelica Mras hrsg. von K. Mras, Berlin 1954–6 [CGS vol. 43.1–2] B I O N Eustathius Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem

Parisinus gr. 465, s. XIII Marcianus 341, s. XV Bononiensis 3643, s. XIII ex. Neapolitanus II AA 16, s. XV

Eustathii archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem ad fidem exempli Romani editi, Lipsiae 1827–30

24

Clearchus of Soli Eustathii archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem pertinentes, ed. M. van der Valk, Lugduni Batavorum 1971–87

Eustathius Commentarii ad Homeri Odysseam

Cullhed

P M

Eustathii archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis Commentarii ad Homeri Odysseam ad fidem exempli Romani editi, Lipsiae 1825–26 Eustathios of Thessalonike, Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, edited by E. Cullhed, vol. 1, On Rhapsodies Α–Β, Uppsala 2016 Parisinus gr. 2702, s. XII Marcianus gr. 403 (coll. 330), s. XII ex.

Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae A. Gelli Noctes Atticae ex recensione M. Hertz, Lipsiae Hertz 2 1886 A. Gelli Noctes Atticae ab L. Holford-Strevens Holford-Strevens recognitae brevique adnot. critica instructae, Oxonii 2020 [OCT] V P R C ς Heraclides Ponticus Testimonia

Vaticanus lat. 3452, s. XII, pars prior Parisinus lat. 5765, s. XII Leidensis Gronivianus 21, s. XII Cantabrigensis Coll. Clarensis 26, s. XIII lectio vulgata recentiorum

Heraclides of Pontus. Texts and Translation, ed. E. Schütrumpf. P. Stork, J. V. Ophuijsen and S. Prince translators, New Brunswick and London 2008

Hermippus Smyrnaeus Testimonia et fragmenta F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker Continued. Part Four edited by G. Schepens, IV A: Biography, Fascicle 3 Hermippos of Smyrna by J. Bollansée, Leiden, Boston, Köln 1999 (FGrHistCont 1026) Hesychius Alexandrinus Alberti

Hesychii Lexicon cum notis doctorum virorum […] opera et studio J. Alberti, Lugduni Batavorum 1741–66

Text and Translation Hansen–Cunningham

Latte Musurus

H Hieronymus Adversus Iovinianum

E S ς A C Inscriptiones Canali De Rossi

Merkelbach–Stauber (1998–2004)

Merkelbach–Stauber (2005)

Iosephus Bellum Iudaicum

Contra Apionem Hudson

Naber

25

Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon, recensuit et emendavit K. Latte, editionem alteram curaverunt P. A. Hansen et I. C. Cunningham, Berlin 2005–20. Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon, Litterae Α–Ο, rec. K. Latte, Hauniae 1953–66 Marci Musuri coniecturae et adnotationes manu ipsius Musuri in cod. H, exemplar editionis principis Hesychii ab ipso docto viro Venetiis 1514 prodita Marcianus gr 622 (coll. 851), s. XV in.

E. Bickel, Diatribe in Senecae philosophi fragmenta. Fragmenta de matrimonio, Lipsiae 1915, 373–420 Veronensis XVII 15, s. VII Sessorianus 128 (Bibl. naz. 2109), s. VII–VIII Monacensis 6313, scriptus inter annos 957 et 993 Vaticanus lat. 341, s. X–XI Bernensis 251, s. XII–XIII

F. Canali De Rossi, Iscrizioni dello estremo oriente greco. Un repertorio (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 65), Bonn 2004 R. Merkelbach, J. Stauber, Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten, 1–5, Stuttgardt/München/Leipzig 1998–2004 R. Merkelbach, J. Stauber, Jenseits des Euphrat. Griechische Inschriften. Ein epigraphisches Lesebuch, Stuttgardt/München/Leipzig 2005

Flavii Iosephi Opera edidit et apparatu critico instruxit B. Niese, vol. 6: De bello Iudaico libri VII ediderunt I. a Destinon et B. Niese, Berolini 1894 Flavii Iosephi Opera quae reperiri potuerunt omnia ad codices fere omnes cum impressos tum manuscriptos diligenter recensuit, nova versione donavit et notis illustravit J. Hudson, Oxonii 1720 Flavii Iosephi Opera omnia, ed. S. A. Naber, vol. 6, Lipsiae 1896

26

Clearchus of Soli Niese

Reinach–Blum

Siegert Lat.

L S E

Flavii Iosephi Opera edidit et apparatu critico instruxit B. Niese, vol. 5: De Iudaearum vetustate sive Contra Apionem, Berolini 1889 Flavius Josèphe, Conter Apion. Texte établi et annoté par Th. Reinach et traduit par L. Blum, Paris 1930 (21972) [BL] F. Siegert, Flavius Josephus: Über Ursprünglichkeit des Judentums (Contra Apionem), 1–2, Göttingen 2008 Flavii Iosephi Opera ex versione Latina antiqua, ed., comm. crit. instr., proleg. add. C. Boysen. Pars VI. De Iudaeorum vetustate sive Contra Apionem libri II (CSEL vol. 37), Pragae, Vindobonae, Lipsiae 1898 Laurentianus 69.22, s. XI Scheusingensis gr. 1, s. XV/XVI Cantabrigiensis Ll. IV. 12 (Eliensis), s. XV

Lectiones codices Iosephi invenies ap. Siedert, vol. 1, 134 Lasus

Laso di Ermione. Testimonianze e frammenti, testo traduzione e commento di G. F. Brussich, Pisa 2002

Mantissa Proverbiorum

CPG 2.745–79

A E

Parisinus gr. 3058, s. XVI Parisinus gr. 3060, s. XVI

Moschopoulos

Manueli Moschopuli Opuscula grammatica, edidit F. N. Titze, Lipsiae 1822

Or. Delph.

H. W. Parke, D. E. W. Wormell, The Delphic Oracle, Oxford 1956

Papyri POxy 1604

POxy 1787

POxy 3722

POxy 4942

B. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt, POxy. 1604. Pindar, Dithyrambs, in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, 13, London 1916, 27–45 [M–P3 1367 = LDAB 3715] B. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt, POxy. 1787. Sappho, Book IV, in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, 15, London 1922, 26– 46 [M–P3 1449 = LDAB 3899] H. Maehler, POxy. 3722, in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, 54, edd. R. A. Coles, H. Maehler, P. J. Parsons, London 1987, 1–57 [M–P3 0087.01 = LDAB 201] A. Benaissa, POxy 4942. Zenobius, Epitome of Didymus and Lucillus of Tarrhae, Book I, in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri 73, edd. D. Obbink, N. Gonis, London 2009, 71–

Text and Translation

PSI 1093

PSI inv. 155 Carlini ed. princ.

Salvadori Baldascino

Ruta

Pausanias Atticista

Phlegon, Mirabilia Jacoby Keller Meursius

Stramaglia

Xylander

P

27

80 [LDAB 117803] et A. Ruta, Il libro I dell’Epitome proverbiorum di Zenobio: introduzione, edizione critica e commento filologico (prov. 1–30), Alessandria 2020, 138, 149, 160 Pubblicazioni della Società italiana per la ricerca dei Papiri greci e latini in Egitto. Papiri greci e latini, vol. 9, Firenze 1929, 153–7 (G. Vitelli) [M–P3 2292 = LDAB 768] et Dorandi 2014 A. Carlini, CPF I 1* (1989), 32 2T, 435–6 (fr. B 8) A. Busa, M. Ciantelli, F. Ferrari, Testo mitografico, dans: Carlini A. (éd.), Nuovi papiri letterari fiorentini, Pisa 1971, n° 2, 8–13, pl. I.2 (avec des contributions de H. Erbse, H. Lloyd–Jones, H. et M. Maehler, B. Snell et un addendum de L. Koenen, 33) L. Salvadori Baldascino, “Una raccolta di proverbi in PSI inv. 155”, Studi Classici e Orientali 38 (1988) 263– 70 A. Ruta, Il libro I dell’Epitome proverbiorum di Zenobio, op. cit., 209–10 H. Erbse, Untersuchungen zu den attizistischen Lexica, Berlin 1950, 152–221 (Abhandl. Deutsche Akademie Wiss. Berlin 1949, 2)

FGrHist II B, Berlin 1929 [Text 1169–94] O. Keller, Rerum naturalium scriptores Graeci minores, 1, Lipsiae 1877, lvii–lxxiii et 57–93 I. Meursius, Phlegontis Tralliani, quae extant, opuscula, Lugduni Batavorum 1620; denuo impr. in J. Gronov (cur.), Thesaurus Graecarum antiquitatum, VIII, Lugduni Batavorum 1699 (= Venetiis 1735), 2691–736; et correctius in Ionnis Meursii opera, ex recensione I. Lamii, VII, Florentiae 1746, 77–122 (hinc paginae laudantur) Phlegon Trallianus, Opuscula de rebus mirabilibus et de longaevis ed. A. Stramaglia, Berlin–New York 2011 (BT) G. Xylander, Antonini Liberalis Trasformationum congeries. Phegontis Tralliani de mirabilibus et longaevis libellus […] Basileae 1568 [69–105 Latina versio; 55–97 (paginarum numeris denuo inceptis) Graecus textus; 316–18 adnotationes] Palatinus gr. 398, s. IX

28

Clearchus of Soli

Photius, Lexicon

Reitzenstein

b g z Phrynichus

Photii Patriarchae Lexicon, ed. Chr. Theodorides, 1 (Α– Δ), Berlin–New York 1882; 2 (Ε–Μ), Berlin–New York 1998; 3 (Ν–Φ), Berlin–New York 2013 Der Anfang des Lexikons des Photios, hrsg. v. R. Reitzenstein, Leipzig–Berlin 1907 Berolinensis gr. oct. 22, s. XIII Galeanus, Cambridge Trinity College O. 3. 9/5985, s. XII Zavordensis 95, s. XIII–XIV Phrynici Praeparatio sophistica, ed. I de Borries, Lipsiae 1911

Plutarchus De animae procreatione in Timaeo Plutarchus Moralia, vol. 6.1, edidit C. Hubert, curavit H. Drexler, Lipsiae 1959 [BT] Plutarch’s Moralia, vol. 13.1, with an English translation by H. Cherniss, Cambridge, Mass 1976 [Loeb] Ferrari 2002 Plutarco, La generazione dell’anima nel ‘Timeo’, testo critico a cura di F. Ferrari e Laura Baldi. Introduzione, traduzione e commento di F.F., apparati critici di L. B., Napoli 2002 Maurommates Πλουτάρχου περὶ τῆς ἐν Τιμαίῳ ψυχογονίας, ἐκδόντος καὶ εἰς τὴν ἀρχαίαν συνέχειαν ἀποκαταστήσαντος Ἀνδρέου Δ. Μαυρομμάτου, Athens 1848 E B e f m r u Esc. 72

Parisinus gr. 1672, paulo post 1302 Parisinus gr. 1675, s. XV Mutinensis 152, s. XV–XVI Laurentianus Ashburnham. 1444, s. XV–XVI Parisinus gr. 1042, s. XVI Leidensis B.P.G. 59, s. XVI Urbinas gr. 99, s. XV Escurialensis Σ–I–12 (Revilla 72), s. XVI

De facie in orbe lunae Plutarchus Moralia, vol. 5.3, ediderunt C. Hubert, M. Pohlenz, H. Drexler [BT] Plutarch’s Moralia, vol. 12, with an English translation by H. Cherniss and W. C. Helmbold, Cambridge, Mass 1957 [Loeb] Donini Plutarco. Il volto della luna. Introduzione, testo critico, traduzione e commento a c. di P. Donini, Napoli 2011 Raingeard P. Raingeard, Le Περὶ τοῦ προσώπου de Plutarque. Texte critique avec traduction et commentaire, Paris 1935

Text and Translation Bas.

Bern(ardakis)

Dübner Leonicus

Steph(anus)2

Turn(ebus) Vulc(obius) Wil. Wytt(enbach)

Xyl(ander)

E B

29

Plutarchi Chaeronei Moralia opuscula, multis mendarum milibus (sic) expurgata, Basileae, per H. Frobenium et N. Episcopium 1542 Plutarchi Chaeronensis Moralia, ed. G. N. Bernardakis, vol. 5, Lipsiae 1893 (402–72 de facie in orbe lunae) et vol. 6 Lipsiae 1895 (154–206 de animae procreatione in Timaeo) Plutarchi Scripta moralia […], emendavit, F. Dübner, vol. 2, Parisiis 1877 [Didot] N. Leonici Thomaei adnotationes manuscriptae servatae in margine et post p. 1010f editionis Aldinae olim Donati Iannoctii (“ex Bibliotheca Jo. Huralti Borstallerii: Iannoctii dono”) in Bibliotheca Instituti qui for Advanced Studies noncupatur Princetonii, in urbe Americae (vid. Cherniss 1976, ix–x) necnon in margine et post p. 877 editionis Basileensis qui nunc adservatur Parisiis (BnF, Rés. J 693), vide R. Aulotte, Amyot et Plutarque, Genève 1965, 179–82 et nuperrime Martinelli Tempesta 2020 Plutarchi Chaeronensis Quae extant omnia, cum latina interpretatione H. Cruserii, G. Xylandri et doctorum virorum notis et libellis variantium lectionum ex Mss. codd. diligenter collectorum et indicibus accuratis, vol. 2, Francofurti 1599 (secunda paginarum series) H. Turnèbe, adnotationes manuscriptae. Vid. Martinelli Tempesta 2020 J. de Vulcob, adnotationes manuscriptae ap. Steph.2 66 v. Wilamowitz, animarversiones in vol. V Bernardakis exemplaris a Wil. adhibito Plutarchi Chaeronensis Moralia id est Opera, exceptis Vitis, reliqua. Graeca emendavit, notationem emendationem, et Latinam Xylandri interpretationem castigatam subiunxit, animadversiones explicandis rebus ac verbis, item indices copiosos adiecit D. Wyttenbach, vol. 4, Oxonii 1797 Plutarchi Chæronensis omnium, quae extant, operum tomus secundus continens Moralia, Guilielmo Xylandro interprete, Fracofurti 1599. (Basileae, per T. Guarinum 11570.) Secunda paginarum series continet Xylandri et Stephani adnotationes simulque notas et varias lectiones Turnebi, Vulcobii, Bongarsii et Petavii necnon editionis Aldinae (Venetiis 1509) et Basileensis (1542) Parisinus gr. 1672, paulo post 1302 Parisinus gr. 1675, s. XV

30

Clearchus of Soli

Pollux, Onomasticon

A B C F S Π

Porphyrius, Fragmenta

Pollucis Onomasticon e codicibus ab ipso collatis denuo edidit et adnotavit E. Bethe, Lipsiae 1900–37 (LG vol. 9.1–2 Bethe) Parisinus gr. 2670, s. XV Parisinus gr. 2647, s. XIII Palatinus Heidelbergensis 375, s. XII Parisinus gr. 2646, s. XV Salmaticensis I 2. 3, s. XV consensus codicum FS, “sive codicum FS archetypus ante saec. XII scriptu” (Bethe 1, XX) Porphyrius, Fragmenta, ed. A. Smith, Stutgardiae et Lipsiae 1993

Praxiphanes Testimonia et fragmenta Matelli 2012a Praxiphanes of Mytilene (called ‘of Rhodes’). The Sources, Text and Translation, edidit E. Matelli, in A. Martano, E. Matelli, D. Mirhady, Praxiphanes of Mytilene and Chamaeleon of Heraclea. Text, Translation and Discussion, New Brunswick and London 2012, 1– 156 Matelli 2012b Prassifane. Testimonianze e frammenti. Filosofia e grammatica in età ellenistica, Milano 2012 Probus (Prōbā) Commentarium in Porpyrii Isagogen (Versio syriaca) Brock 2011 S. P. Brock, “The Commentator Probus : Problems of Date and Identity”, in J. Lössl and J.W. Watt (eds), Interpreting the Bible and Aristotle in Late Antiquity. The Alexandrian Commentary Tradition between Rome and Baghdad, Farnham 2011, 195–206: 200 e codice Mingana Syr. 606, f. 16v Lectiones codicum Notre–Dame des Semences 51, a. 1822 (exemplar codicis Mingana) et Notre–Dame des Semences 53, s. XIX benigne mihi suppeditavit conlega Henricus Hugonnard–Roche. De codicibus, vide Hugonnard–Roche 2012b, 231 Proclus In Platonis Rempublicam Kroll Procli Diadochi In Platonis Rem publicam commentarii, edidit G. Kroll, vol. 2, Lipsiae 1901

Text and Translation Mai Morus

Schoell

V Ps(eudo)-Choeroboscus

Pseudo-Homerus Allen West

31

A. Mai schedae manuscriptae in cod. Vat. lat. 9541 servatae A. Morus, Commentaria et disputationes in epistolam D. Pauli ad Hebraeos auctore Lud. Tena […] quibus adduntur ob similitudinem hi tractatus : […], Londini 1661 (secunda paginarum series) Procli Commentariorum in Rempublicam Platonis partim ineditae ed. R. Schoell, Berolini 1886 Vaticanus gr. 2197, s. IX De tropis, in Rhetores Graeci, ed. L. Spengel, 3, Lipsiae 1856, 244–56

Homeri Opera recognovit brevique adnotatione critica instruxit Th. W. Allen, vol. 5, Oxonii 1912 [OCT] Homeric Hymns, Homeric Apocrypha, Lives of Homer, edited and translated by M. L. West, Cambridge, MA– London 2003 [Loeb]

Ps(eudo)-Plut(archus)

tit. falso (Πλουτάρχου παροιμίαι αἷς Ἀλεξανδρεῖς ἐχρῶντο) Zenobii Athoi libro 3 in cod. Laur. 80.13 (L) inscriptus, re vera pertinens ad recensionis Athoae collectionem 4. Vid. Bühler 1, p. 16, 61–2. Ed. CPG 1.321–42 et O. Crusius, CPG Suppl. 4, IIIA

Ps(eudo)-Trypho

De tropis in Rhetores Graeci ed. L. Spengel, 3, Lipsiae 1856, 189–206

Rhianus Cretensis

C. Mayhoff, De Rhiani Cretensis studiis Homericis, Leipzig 1870

Rufus Ephesius Daremberg–Ruelle

Œuvres de Rufus d’Éphèse, texte collationné sur les manuscrits, traduit pour la première fois en français avec une introduction. Publication commencée par Ch. Daremberg, continuée et terminée par Ch. É. Ruelle, Paris 1879

Scholia in Apollonium Rhodium Scholia in Apollonium Rhodium vetera, rec. C. Wendel, Berolini 1935 L P

Laurentianus 32.9, s. XI in. Parisinus gr. 2727, s. XV

32

Clearchus of Soli F H

Editio princeps Florentiae per Laurentium de Alopa, a 1496 impressa Harleianus 5621, s. XV

in Aristophanis Scholia vetera et recentioria in Aristophanis Vespas, ed. W. J. W. Koster, Groningen 1978 (SA vol. 2.1) R V Lh Ald

Ravennas 429, s. X vel XI Marcianus 474, s. XI vel XII Oxoniensis Holkhamensis gr. 88, s. XV Aldina editio princeps (a. 1498) Scholia in Aristophanis Ecclesiazusas, ed. E. Regtuit, Groningen 2007 (SA vol. 2.3)

R Λ in Homeri Iliadem

Aa T Van Thiel

Q S T in Lycophronis Alexandra

in Nicandri Theriaca

R G C V α

Ravennas 429, s. X vel XI Perusinus H 56, s. XV Scholia graeca in Homeri Iliadem (scholia vetera), rec. H. Erbse, Berolini 1969–88 Athous, Vatopedi 592, s. XV Townleianus (BL Burney 88), a. 1014 aut 1059 Scholia D, proecdosis a. 2000 ed. H. Van Thiel (http://kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/1810/) Vaticanus gr. 33, s. XI Parisinus Suppl. gr. 697, s. XI Townleianus (BL Burney 88), a. 1014 aut 1059

Lycophronis Alexandra rec. E. Scheer. vol. 2 Scholia continens, Berolini 1908 Scholia in Nicandri Theriaca cum glossis, ed. A. Crugnola, Milano s.d. [1971] Riccardianus 56, s. XV Goettingensis 29, s. XIII Vaticanus gr. 2291 (olim Chisianus 50), s. XV Marcianus Z 480 (= 589), s. XV consensus codicum GCV

Text and Translation in Platonem Cufalo

Greene Hermann

A O P Pexc T W in Theocritum

K G E A T1–2 Speusippus Lang 1911 Isnardi 1980 Tarán 1981 Stobaeus Gesner

Hense Meineke Trinc.

33

Scholia Graeca in Platonem, I. Scholia ad dialogos tetralogiarum I–VII continens, ed. D. Cufalo, Roma 2007 W. C. Greene, Scholia Platonica, Haverfordiae in civitate Pennsylvaniae 1938 K. F. Hermann, Platonis Dialogi, vol. 6, Lipsiae 1858, 223–330 Parisinus gr. 1807, s. IX Vaticanus gr. 1, s. IX–X Palatinus gr. 173, s. X med. scholia in excerptis brevioribus (f. 147–63) Marcianus, App. Cl. IV.1, s. X Vindobonensis Suppl. gr. 7, s. XI ex. Scholia in Theocritum vetera rec. C. Wendel. Adiecta sunt Scholia in Technopaegnia scripta, Lipsiae 1914 Ambrosianus C 222 inf. (Martini–Bassi 886), s. XIII Laurentianus 32.52, s. XIII Vaticanus gr. 42, s. XIV Ambrosianus G 32 sup. (Martini–Bassi 390), s. XIII Vaticanus gr. 38, s. XIV

P. Lang, De Speusippi Academici scriptis. Accedunt fragmenta, Bonnae 1911 Speusippo, Frammenti. Edizione, traduzione e commento a c. di M. Isnardi Parente, Napoli 1980 L. Tarán, Speusippus of Athens, Leiden 1981

Κέρας Ἀμαλθείας. Ἰωάννου τοῦ Στοβαίου ἐκλογαὶ ἀποφθεγμάτων καὶ ὑποθηκῶν – Ioannis Stobaei Sententiae ex thesauris Graecorum delectae […] a C. Gesnero […], Tiguri 1543 Ioannis Stobaei Anthologium. Vol. 3: Anthologii librum tertium rec. O. Hense, Berolini 1894 Ioannis Stobaei Florilegium, rec. A. Meineke, vol. 4, Lipsiae 1857 , Ἰωάννου τοῦ Στοβαίου Ἐκλογαὶ ἀποφθεγμάτων. Ioannis Stobaei Collectiones sententiarum. Non sine privilegio. 1536 (De hac editione, vide M. Sicherl, Die griechischen Erstausgaben des Vettore Trincavelli, Padeborn 1993, 54–7)

34

Clearchus of Soli

S M A Suda Bernhardy

V Suetonius Περὶ βλασφημιῶν Περὶ παιδιῶν

Vindobonensis phil. gr. 67, s. X ex. Escurialensis Σ II 14 (Revilla 94), s. XII Parisinus gr. 1984, s. XIII ex. Suidae Lexicon, ed. A. Adler, Lipsiae 1928–38 (LG I.1– 4) Suidae Lexicon Graece et Latine […] rec. G. Bernhardy, 1–4, Halis Sax. 1834–53 Vossianus gr. F 2, s. XII

Suétone, Περὶ βλασφημιῶν. Περὶ παιδιῶν (extraits byzantins), ed. J. Taillardat, Paris 1967

Σb

Συναγωγὴ λέξεων χρησίμων ἐκ διαφόρων σοφῶν τε καὶ ῥητόρων πολλῶν, versio codicis B (littera α), ed. I. C. Cunningham, Synagoge. Συναγωγὴ λέξεων χρησίμων, Berlin–New York 2003, 525–701

Syrianus

In Hermogenem Commentaria, ed. H. Rabe, Lipsiae 1892

Themistius In Aristotelis De anima

Themistii librorum de anima paraphrasis, ed. R. Heinze, Berolini 1899 (CAG vol. 5.3)

Theodoretus Graecarum affectionum curatio Theodoreti Graecarum affectionum curatio, ed. J. Raeder, Lipsiae 1904 [BT] Tzetzes in Lycophronis Alexandram

E. Scheer, Lycophronis Alexandra, vol. 2 Scholia continens, Lipsiae 1908

Vat. 482

Collectio proverbiorum cod. (“Vaticanus Krameri”) ap. CPG

Xenocrates

Senocrate e Ermodoro. Testimonianze e frammenti. Edizione, traduzione e commento a cura di M. Isnardi Parente. Nuova edizione a cura di T. Dorandi. Con una

Vaticani

Gr.

482

Text and Translation

35

Premessa di G. Cambiano e una Nota liminare di T. D., Pisa 2012 Zenob(ius) Ath(ous) Buehler

Miller Ruta Zenobius Athos VA

Zenob(ius) vulg(atus) Zenob. rec. B

L

W. Bühler, Zenobii Athoi Proverbia volumen quartum (2.1–40), Göttingen 1982; volumen quintum (2.41–108), Göttingen 1999 excerpta ex cod. Par. Suppl. gr. 1164 (M), ed. Miller 1868, 341–75 Vid. supra Papyri, PSI inv. 155 M. Spyridonidou–Skarsouli, Der Erste Teil der fünften Athos–Sammlung griechischer Sprichwörter, Berlin 1995. Zenobius vulgatus, CPG vol. 1.1–175 Zenobii recensio Bodleiana, ed. Th. Gaisford, Paroemiographi Graeci, Oxonii 1836, 1–120 Laurentianus 80.13, s. XIV in.

(c) Modern Works and Authors Adam Adler 1909 Adler 1910

Adler 1910a

Allen Alpers 1991

Altenmüller 1998

Althoff 1999

Nicolas Adam (1706–92) ap. Schweigh(aeuser), Animadv. 1 (1801) M. Adler, “Zu Plutarchs Moralia”, Wiener Studien 31 (1909) 305–9 M. Adler, “Zwei Beiträge zum plutarchischen Dialog De facie in orbe lunae”, Jahresbericht des k.k. StaatsGymnasiums Nikolsburg 1909/10, Nikolsburg 1910 M. Adler, Quibus ex fontibus Plutarchus libellum De facie in orbe lunae hauserit. Pars I., Disserationes philologae Vindobonenses 10.2 (1910), 85–180 (separatim Lipsiae 1910) W.S. Allen, Vox Graeca, Cambridge 31987 K. Alpers, “Eine byzantinische Enzyklopädie des 9. Jahrhunderts. Zu Hintergrund, Entstehung und Geshichte des griechischen Etymologikons in Konstantinopel und im italogriechischen Bereich”, in Scritture, libri e testi nelle aree provinciali di Bisanzio, a c. di G. Cavallo, G. De Gregorio, M. Maniaci, I, Spoleto 1991, 235 – 69 H. Altenmüller, “Maneros – Trinkspruch oder Klagelied?”, in R. Rolle, K. Schmidt, Archäologische Studien in Kontaktzonen der antiken Welt, Göttingen 1998, 17– 26 J. Althoff, “Biologie im Zeitalter des Hellenismus”, in Geschichte der Mathematik und der Naturwissen-

36

Clearchus of Soli

Althoff–Zeller 2006 Amigues 1986 Arnott 1960 Arnott 1996 Asheri et al. 2007

Aubet 2001 Auffret 2019

Baltzly et al. 2018 Barclay 2007

Barker 2007 Barker 2009

Bar-Kochva 1999

Bar-Kochva 2010

Bartol 2004 Bastianini–Casanova 2007 Benelli 2017 Bernsdorff 2011

schaften in der Antike, vol. 1: Biologie, ed. G. Wöhrle, Stuttgart 1999, 155–80 J. Althoff, D. Zeller, Die Worte der Sieben Weisen, Darmstadt 2006 S. Amigues, “Sur la perséa d’Égypte”, in Hommages à F. Dumas, Montpellier 1986, 25–30 D. P. Arnott, “The Alphabet Tragedy of Callias”, Classical Philology 55 (1960) 178–80 G. W. Arnott, Alexis. The Fragments. A Commentary, Cambridge 1996 D. Asheri, A. Lloyd, A. Corcella, O. Murray, A. Moreno, A Commentary on Herodotus Books I–IV, Oxford 2007 M. E. Aubet, The Phoenicians and the West: Politics, Colonies and Trade, Cambridge 22001 T. Auffret, “Un ‘nouveau’ fragment du Περὶ φιλοσοφίας: le papyrus d’Aï Khanoum”, Elenchos 40 (2019), 25–65 D. Baltzly, J. F. Finamore, G. Miles, Proclus: Commentary on Plato's Republic, vol. 1, Cambridge 2018 Flavius Josephus Translation and Commentary, edited by S. Mason, vol. 10: Against Apion, translation and commentary by J. M. G. Barclay, Leiden 2007 A. Barker, The Science of Harmonics in Classical Greece, Cambridge 2007 A. Barker, “Heraclides and Musical History”, in W. W. Fortenbaugh and E. Pender, Heraclides of Pontus: Discussion, New Brunswick, NJ 2009, 273–98 B. Bar-Kochva, “The Wisdom of the Jew and the Wisdom of Aristotle”, in F. Siegert and J. U. Kalms (eds), Internationales Josephus–Kolloquium Brüssel 1988, Münster 1999, 241–50 B. Bar-Kochva, The Image of the Jews in Greek Literature: The Hellenistic Period, Berkeley–Los Angeles 2010 K. Bartol, “What Did He Do? Clearchus on Philoxenus (ap. Athen. 1.5f–6a = Clearch. fr. 57 Wehrli)”, CQ 54 (2004) 292–6 G. Bastianini and A. Casanova, I papiri di Saffo e di Alceo, Firenze 2007 L. Benelli, Sapphostudien zu ausgewählten Fragmenten (Papyrologica Coloniensia 39/1–2), Paderborn 2017 H. Bernsdorff, “Notes on P.Oxy. 3722 (Commentary on Anacreon)”, ZPE 178 (2011) 29–34

Text and Translation

37

Bernsdorff (forthcoming) H. Bernsdorff, “Anacreon sapiens–Anacreon comicus, and the Transmission of his Verses”, in G. Ioannidou, M. Konstantinidou, D. Obbink (Eds.), Raising the Fragment to the Status of the Whole? Original Composition and the Processes of Selection and Canonization, Berlin, forthcoming Berger 2005 F. Berger, Die Textgeschichte der Historia animalium des Aristoteles, Wiesbaden 2005 Bernays 1857/1880 J. Bernays, “Grundzüge der verlorenen Abhandlung des Aristoteles über Wirkung der Tragödie”, Abhandlungen der histor.–philos. Gesellschaft in Breslau 1 (1857) 135–202 = Zwei Abhandlungen über aristotelische Theorie des Drama, Berlin 1880 Bernays 1866 J. Bernays, Theophrastos’ Schrift über Frömmigkeit : Ein Beitrag zur Religionsgeschichte, Berlin 1866 Berra 2008 A. Berra, Théorie et pratique de l’énigme en Grèce ancienne, Thèse de doctorat, sous la direction de Christian Jacob, École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, Paris 2008 (http://tel.archives-ouver-tes.fr/docs/00/67/ 41/83/PDF/Berra_These_enigme_EHESS_2008.pdf) Beta 2012 S. Beta, “Gli enigmi simposiali dagli indovinelli scherzosi ai problemi filosofici”, in S. Monda, Ainigma e grifos. Gli antichi e l’oscurità della parola, Pisa 2012, 69– 80 Bickel 1915 E. Bickel, Diatribe in Senecae philosophi fragmenta, vol. 1 : Fragmenta de matrimonio, Lipsiae 1915 Bing 1985 P. Bing, “Kastorion of Soloi’s Hymn to Pan (Supplementum Hellenisticum 310)”, American Journal of Philology 106 (1985) 502–9 Bing 2002 P. Bing, “Medeios of Olynthos, Son of Lampon, and the Iamatika of Posidippus”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 140 (2002) 297–300 Blümel 1997 W. Blümel, “Vertrag zwischen Latmos und Pidasa”, Epigraphica Anatolica 29 (1997) 135–42 Boehringer 2015 S. Boehringer, “What is Named by the Name ‘Philaenis’? Gender, Function, and Authority of an Antonomastic Figure”, in M. Masterson, N. S. Rabinowitz, and J. Robson, Sex in Antiquity: Exploring Gender and Sexuality in the Ancient World, London 2015, 374–92 Bollansée 2008 J. Bollansée, “Clearchus’ Treatise On Modes of Life and the Theme of tryphè”, Ktèma 33 (2008) 403–11 Bolton 1962 J. D. P. Bolton, Aristeas of Proconnesus, Oxford 1962 Boyancé 1964/72 P. Boyancé, “Aristote sur une peinture de la via latina”, in Mélanges E. Tisserant, vol. 4, Città del Vaticano 1964, 107–24 (= Id., Études sur la religion romaine, Roma 1972, 417–26)

38

Clearchus of Soli Brenk 2011 Brisson 1976 Brown 1984 Brozek 1938

Brussich 2002 Budelmann 2018 Budin 2008 Bühler 1982 Bühler 1999 Burkert 1972 Burzacchini 2007

Calame 2001

Cameron 1995 cens. Ien. 1806

Cherniss 1949/77

Cherniss 1951/77

Cherniss 1957 Cherniss 1976 Cobet 1873 Cobet ms. Cohn 1887 Cohn 1892

Condos 1877

F. E. Brenk, “Hierosolyma: The Greek Name of Jerusalem”, Glotta 87 (2011) 1–22 L. Brisson, Le mythe de Tirésias, Leiden 1976 A. L. Brown, “Eumenides in Greek Tragedy”, Classical Quarterly 34 (1984) 260–81 M. Brozek, “De Calliae tragoedia grammatica”, Bulletin international de l’Académie Polonaise des Sciences et des Lettres (1938) 111–14 see (b) Editions used (Lasus) F. Budelmann, Greek Lyric: A Selection, Cambridge 2018 S. Budin, “Simonides’ Corinthian Epigram”, Classical Philology 103 (2008) 335–53 see (b) Editions used (Zenobius) see (b) Editions used (Zenobius) W. Burkert, Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism, translated by E. L. Minar Jr., Cambridge, MA 1972 G. Burzacchini, “Saffo frr. 1, 2, 58 V. Tra documentazione papiracea e tradizione indiretta”, in Bastianini– Casanova 2007, 83–114 C. Calame, Choruses of Young Women in Ancient Greece, trans. D. Collins, J. Orion (revised; original ed. Rome 1977), Lanham, MD 2001 A. Cameron, Callimachus and His Critics, Princeton 1995 Anonymus (F–G), censura editionis Athenaei J. Schweighaeuser, Jenaische Algemeine Literaturzeitung 3 (1806) vol. 4, 121–56 (nr. 247–51) H. Cherniss, American Journal of Philology 70 (1949) 414–18 (review of Wehrli 1948) = Selected Papers ed. by L. Tarán, Leiden 1977, 442–6 H. Cherniss, “Notes on Plutarch’s De facie in orbe lunae”, Classical Philology 46 (1951) 137–58 = Selected Papers, 479–500 see (b) Editions used (Plutarch) see (b) Editions used (Plutarch) C. G. Cobet, Variae lectiones, Lugduni Batavorum 1873 Cobeti adnotationes manuscriptae ap. Peppink 1936 L. Cohn, Zu den Paroemiographen. Mitteilungen aus Handschriften, Berslau 1887 (= CPG Suppl. I) O. Crusius, L. Cohn, Zur handschriftlichen Überlieferung der Paroemiographen, Göttingen 1892 (Philologus Suppl. VI = CPG Suppl. IV) K. S. Kondos, “Κριτικὰ καὶ γραμματικά”, Ἀθήναιον 6 (1877) 430–31

Text and Translation Cooper 2002 Coraës 1889

Coraës ms. Crusius 1883 Cummings 2001 Dalby 1996 Dalby 2000

D’Angelo 2002

D’Angour 1999

D’Angour 2011 Davidson 1997 Davidson 2000 Davies–Finglass 2014 Degani 1976/2004

Degni 1998 De Martino 2013

Den Boer 1954 Denyer 2002

39

D. Cooper, “Aristoxenus Περὶ βίων und Peripatetic Biography”, Mouseion 2 (2002) 307–39 Ἀδαμαντίου Κοραῆ τῶν μετὰ θάνατον εὑρεθέντων τόμος ἕβδομος περιέχων τὰς κριτικὰς σημειώσεις, παρατηρήσεις καὶ διορθώσεις (...) εἰς τὸ Λεξικὸν Ἡσυχίου τῆς ἐκδόσεως Ἀλβέρτη πρῶτον νῦν ἐκδιδομένας ἐπιμελείᾳ Ν. Μ. Δαμαλᾶ, ἐν Ἀθήναις 1889 A. Coraes, adnotationes manuscriptae ap. Schweighäuser O. Crusius, Analecta critica ad Paroemiographos Graecos, Lipsiae 1883 = CPG Suppl. nr. 2 M. S. Cummings, “The Early Greek Paraclausithyron and Gnesippus”, Scholia 10 (2001) 38–53 A. Dalby, Siren Feasts: A History of Food and Gastronomy in Greece, London 1996 “Lynceus and the Anecdotists”, in D. Braund and J. Wilkins, Athenaeus and His World: Reading Greek Culture in the Roman Empire, Exeter 2000, 372–94 I. D’Angelo, “La tradizione letteraria sul soggiorno locrese di Dionigi II: un frammento sconosciuto di Timeo (Strab. VI 1, 8, C 259”, Rendiconti Istituto Lombardo di Scienze e Lettere 136 (2002) 177–91 A. D’Angour, “Archinus, Eucleides and the Reform of the Athenian Alphabet”, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 43 (1999) 109–30 A. D’Angour, The Greeks and the New: Novelty in Greek Imagination and Experience, Cambridge 2011 J. Davidson, Courtesans and Fishcakes: The Consuming Passions of Classical Athens, London 1997 J. Davidson, “Gnesippus Paigniagraphos: The Comic Poets and the Erotic Mime”, in D. Harvey and J. Wilkins, The Rivals of Aristophanes, London 2000, 41–64 M. Davies and P. J. Finglass, Stesichorus: The Poems, Cambridge 2014 E. Degani, “Note di lettura. Esichio, Filenide, Meleagro, Aristofane”, Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 21 (1976), 139–44 (= Filologia e storia: Scritti di Enzo Degani, Hildesheim/New York 2004, 868–73) P. Degni, in G. Cavallo et al., Scrivere libri e documenti nel mondo antico, Firenze 1998, 104–5 L. De Martino, “Il mito di Ceneo in un threnos pindarico (fr. 57 Cannatà Fera)”, Athenaeum 101 (2013) 281–6 W. Den Boer, Laconian Studies, Amsterdam 1954 N. Denyer, “Neglected Evidence for Diodorus Cronus”, Classical Quarterly 52 (2002) 597–600

40

Clearchus of Soli Di Benedetto 1985/2007 V. Di Benedetto, “Il tema della vecchiaia e il fr. 58 di Saffo”, Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 48 (1985) 145–63 = Id., Il richiamo del testo. Contributi di filologia e letteratura, Pisa 2007, 853–71 Di Benedetto 2005 V. Di Benedetto, “La nuova Saffo e dintorni”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 153 (2005) 7–20 = Id., Il richiamo del testo, 925–46 Di Benedetto 2006 V. Di Benedetto, “Il tetrastico di Saffo e tre postille”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 155 (2006) 5–18 = Id., Il richiamo del testo, 965–86 Diels 1879 Doxographi Graeci collegit recensuit prolegomenis indicibusque instruxit H. Diels, Berolini 1879 Dittmar 1912 H. Dittmar, Aischines von Sphettos, Berlin 1912 Dobesch 1965 G. Dobesch, “Die Interpolationen aus Apollodors Bibliotheke in der Sprichwörtersammlung des pseudo– Zenobios”, Wiener Studien 78 (1965) 58–82 Dobree 1831–3 P. P. Dobree, Adversaria, ed. J. Scholefield, Cantabrigiae 1831–3 Dörrie 1987 H. Dörrie, Der Platonismus in der Antike. 1. Die geschichtlichen Wurzeln des Platonismus. Baustein 1–35, Stuttgart–Bad Cannstat 1987 Dorandi 1994 T. Dorandi, “I frammenti di Anassarco di Abdera”, Atti e memorie dell’Accademia Toscana 59 (1994) 9–59 Dorandi 1999 Antigone de Caryste, Paris 1999 Dorandi 2006a T. Dorandi, “Le Traité Sur le sommeil de Cléarque de Soles: catalepsie et l’immortalité de l’âme”, Exemplaria Classica 10 (2006) 31–52 Dorandi 2006b T. Dorandi, “Il Περὶ παροιμιῶν di Clearco: Contributi a una edizione dei frammenti”, Eikasmos 17 (2006) 157– 70 Dorandi 2009a T. Dorandi, “Clearco di Soli, Aristotele e l’Eudemo”, in Gli antichi e noi. Studi dedicati a A. M. Battegazzore, Genova 2009. Dorandi 2009b Laertiana. Capitoli sulla tradizione manoscritta e sulla storia del testo delle Vite dei filosofi di Diogene Laerzio, Berlin–New York 2009 Dorandi 2011 “Prolegomeni a una nuova raccolta dei frammenti di Clearco di Soli”, Göttinger Forum für Altertumswissenschaft 14 (2011) 1–15 Dorandi 2014 T. Dorandi, “Un’opera di Clearco di Soli sui Sette sapienti? Rileggendo il PSI IX 1093”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 190 (2014), 62–8 Dorandi 2014a T. Dorandi, review of Tsitsiridis 2013, BMCR 2014.05.33 Dorandi 2015 “Due note a Clearco e Galeno”, dans Literature, Scholarship, Philosophy, and History. Classical Studies in

Text and Translation

Dorandi 2018

Düring 1957 Eberhard 1878 Edmonds 1927 Emperius 1848 Engels 2004

Ferrari 2000

Festugière 1970 Fiorillo 1803 Forbes Irving 1990 Fortenbaugh 2011 Fortenbaugh 2012

Fowler 2013 Furley–Bremer 2001

Gärtner 2007

Gagné 2013

41

Memory of Ioannis Taifacos. Edited by G. Xenis (Stuttgart 2015), 411–20 T. Dorandi, “Marginalia Clearchea,” in P. Davoli and N. Pellé (eds.) Polymatheia: Studi offerti a Mario Capasso, Lecce 2018, 481–92 I. Düring, Aristotle in the Ancient Biographical Tradition, Göteborg 1957 A. Eberhard, censura editionis Keller (see (b) Editions used [Phlegon]) Jenaer Literaturzeitung 5 (1878) 643–5 J. M. Edmonds, Lyra Graeca, vol. 3, London–New York 1927 [Loeb] A. Emperius, Opuscula philologica, Gottingae 1848 J. Engels, “Klearchos von Soloi über Juden und Judentum – Eine Interpretation von Klearchos Fr. 6 Wehrli III”, in L. Ruscu et al. (eds), Orbis Antiquus. Studia in honorem I. Pisonis, Cluj–Napoca 2004, 864–80 F. Ferrari, “I commentari specialistici alle sezioni matematiche del Timeo”, in A. Brancacci, La filosofia in età imperiale: le scuole e le tradizione filosofici, Napoli 2000, 169–224 Proclus. Commentaire sur la République. Traduction et notes par A.–J. Festugière, vol. 3, Paris 1970 J. W. R., Fiorillo, Observationes criticae in Athenaeum, Gottingae 1803 P. M. C. Forbes Irving, Metamorphosis in Greek Myths, Oxford 1990 W. W. Fortenbaugh, Theophrastus of Eresus: Commentary, vol. 6: Sources on Ethics, Leiden 2011 W. W. Fortenbaugh, “Aristo of Ceus: The Fragments Concerning Eros”, in F. Opwis and D. Reisman, Islamic Philosophy, Science, Culture, and Religion, Leiden 2012, 11–23 R. L. Fowler, Early Greek Mythography, 2 vols., Oxford 2000–13 W. D. Furley and J. M. Bremer, Greek Hymns: Selected Cult Songs from the Archaic to the Hellenistic Period, 2 vols., Tübingen 2001 Th. Gärtner, “Die Geschlechtsmetamorphose der ovidischen Caenis und ihr hellenistischer Hintgrund”, Latomus 66 (2007) 891–9 R. Gagné, “Dancing Letters: The Alphabetic Tragedy of Kallias,” in R. Gagné and M. Hopman (eds), Choral Meditations in Greek Tragedy, Cambridge 2013, 297– 316

42

Clearchus of Soli Gagné 2016

R. Gagné, “The World in a Cup: Ekpomatics in and out of the Symposion,” in V. Cazzato, D. Obbink, and E. E. Prodi, The Cup of Song, Oxford 2016, 207–29 Garulli 2012 V. Garulli, Biblos lainee. Epigrafia, letteratura, epitafio, Bologna 2012 Garulli 2014 V. Garulli, “Stones as Books: the Layout of Hellenistic Inscribed Poems”, in M. A. Harder, R. F. Regtuit, and G. C. Wakker (eds), Hellenistic Poetry in Context (Hellenistica Groningana 20/2014) 125–169 Gilula 2000 D. Gilula, “Stratonicus, the Witty Harpist”, in D. Braund and J. Wilkins, Athenaeus and His World: Reading Greek Culture in the Roman Empire, Exeter 2000, 423–33 Gorman–Gorman 2007 R. J. Gorman and V. B. Gorman, “The tryphe of the Sybarites: A Historiographical Problem in Athenaeus”, Journal of Hellenic Studies 127 (2007) 38–60 Gorman–Gorman 2010 R. J. Gorman and V. B. Gorman, “Τρυφή and ὕβρις in the Περὶ βίων of Clearchus”, Philologus 154 (2010) 187–208 Gorman–Gorman 2014 R. J. Gorman and V. B. Gorman, Corrupting Luxury in Ancient Greek Literature, Ann Arbor 2014 Gottschalk 1973 H. Gottschalk, “Addenda Peripatetica”, Phronesis 18 (1973) 91–100 Gottschalk 1980 H. B. Gottschalk, Heraclides of Pontus, Oxford 1980 Goulet-Cazé 2017 M.-O. Goulet-Cazé, Le Cynisme, une philosophie antique, Paris 2017 Gow–Page 1965 A. S. F. Gow and L. P. Page, The Greek Anthology: Hellenistic Epigrams, Cambridge 1965 Grensemann 1975 H. Grensemann, Knidische Medizin. Teil 1, Berlin 1975 Guichard 2010 L. A. Guichard, “Acerca del tratado Περὶ γρίφων de Clearco de Solos”, in F. Cortés Gabaudan and J. V. Méndez Dosuna (eds), Dic mihi, Musa, virum. Homenaje al profesor A. López Eire, Salamanca 2010, 285–91 Gutschmid 1893 A. von Gutschmid, Vorlesungen über Josephos’ Bücher gegen Apion, in Id., Kleine Schriften hrsg. v. F. Rühl, vol. 4, Leipzig 1893, 336–589 Gutman 1956 I. Gutman, “Cléarque de Soles”, ‘Eškolot, Commentationes de antiquitate cassica 2 (1956) 27–37 Hammerstaedt 2011 J. Hammerstaedt, “The Cologne Sappho: Its Discovery and Textual Constitution” in E. Greene and M. Skinner, The New Sappho on Old Age: Textual and Philological Issues. Washington D.C. 2010, 17–40 (= Classics@ 4: E. Greene and M. Skinner, The Center for Hellenic Studies of Harvard University, online edition of March

Text and Translation

43

11, 2011. http://chs.harvard.edu/wa/pageR?tn=Article Wrapper&bdc=12&mn=3534) Hammerstaedt– Parmeggiani 2010

Harder 2012 Hartman 1916 Heath 2000

Hercher 1876 Hecker 1852 Hermann 1816 Hermann 1827 Hermann 1855 Herwerden 1862 Herwerden 1876 Hinz 2001

Hoffmann 2016

Hoffmann–Thiollier 2017

Hollis 2011

J. Hammerstaedt and G. Parmeggiani, “Un passo della Poetica di Filodemo (PHerc. 994 col. 36, 11–37, 13) alla prova del carteggio di Christian Jensen e delle immagini multispettrali” in A. Antoni, G. Arrighetti, M. I. Bertagna, and D. Delattre, Miscellanea Papyrologica Herculanensia I, Pisa/Roma 2010, 101–14 A. Harder, Callimachus: Aetia, 2 vols., Oxford 2012 I. J. Hartman, De Plutarcho scriptore et philosopho, Lugduni Batavorum 1916 M. Heath, “Do Heroes Eat Fish? Athenaeus on the Homeric Lifestyle”, in D. Braund and J. Wilkins, Athenaeus and His World: Reading Greek Culture in the Roman Empire, Exeter 2000, 342–52 R. Hercher, “Zu griechischen Prosaikern”, Hermes 11 (1876) 355–69 A. Hecker, Commentationis criticae de Anthologia Graeca pars prior, Lugduni Batavorum 1852 G. Hermann, Elementa doctrinae metricae, Lipsiae 1816 G. Hermann, Opuscula, 1, Lipsiae 1827 K. F. Hermann, “Parerga critica”, Philologus 10 (1855) 235–6 H. v. Herwerden, Exercitationes criticae in poeticis et prosaicis quibusdam monumentis, Hagae Comitum 1862 H. v. Herwerden, “Notulae in Athenaeum”, Mnemosyne n.s. 4 (1876) 294–323 V. Hinz, Nunc Phalaris doctum protulit ecce caput. Antike Phalarislegende und Nachleben der Phalaris– briefe, München/Leipzig 2001 Ph. Hoffmann, “La philosophie grecque sur les bords de l’Oxus : un réexamen du papyrus d’Aï Khanoum”, in J. Jouanna, V. Schiltz and M. Zink (eds), La Grèce dans les profondeurs de l’Asie, Paris 2016, 165–232 Ph. Hoffmann et A. Thiollier, “Les maximes delphiques d’Aï Khanoum : retour sur la base de Kinéas et restitution en 3D de la stèle disparue”, Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres 163 (2017) 1103–1151 A. Hollis, Greek Letters from Hellenistic Bactria, in D. Obbink and R. Rutherford (eds), Culture in Pieces. Essays P. Parsons, Oxford 2011, 104–18

44

Clearchus of Soli Holt 2012

F. L. Holt, Lost World of the Golden King: In Search of Ancient Afghanistan, Berkeley–Los Angeles–London 2012 Holford-Strevens 2020 L. Holford-Strevens, Gelliana. A Textual Companion to the Noctes Atticae of Aulus Gellius, Oxford 2020 Hornblower 2015 S. Hornblower, Lykophron: Alexandra, Cambridge 2015 Huby 2007 P. Huby, with D. Gutas, Theophrastus of Eresus: Commentary, vol. 2: Logic, Leiden 2007 Huffman 1993 C. Huffman, Philolaos of Croton: Pythagorean and Presocratic, Cambridge 1993 Hugonnard-Roche 2012a H. Hugonnard-Roche, “Probus”, in R. Goulet (éd.), Dictionnaire des Philosphes Antiques 5b, Paris 2012a, 1539–42 Hugonnard-Roche 2012b H. Hugonnard-Roche, “Le commentaire syriaque de Probus sur l’Isagoge de Porphyre. Une étude préliminaire”, Studia Graeco–Arabica 2 (2012) 227–43 Hunter 2007 D. G. Hunter, Marriage, Celibacy, and Heresy in Ancient Christianity: The Jovinianist Controversy, Oxford 2007 Iliescu 1969 V. Iliescu, “Contribuţii la problema raporturilor scitotrace în secolul al IV–Iea î.e.n., II”, in Pontice II, II, Contanţa 1969, 189–97 Immisch 1890 O. Immisch, Klaros. Forschungen über griechischen Stiftungsage, Leipzig 1890 Irwin 1999 E. Irwin, “Solecizing in Solon’s Colony”, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 43 (1999) 187–93 Isnardi Parente 2012 See above (a) Abbreviations and Standard Collections Jacobs 1809 F. C. W. Jacobs, Additamenta animadversionum in Athenaei Deiposophistas, Jenae 1809 Jaeger 1938 W. Jaeger, “The First Records of Jewish Religion and Civilisation”, The Journal of Religion 18 (1938) 127–43 Janko R. Janko, “Tithonus, Eos and the Cicada in the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite and Sappho fr. 58”, in C. Tsagalis and A. Markantonatos, The Winnowing Oar: New Perspectives in Homeric Studies, Berlin 2017, 267–92 Jouanna 2009 J. Jouanna, Hippocrate: Pour une archéologie de l’École de Cnide. 2e édition augmentée d’un article (2004) et d’une Postface (2009), Paris 2009 Karanika 2014 A. Karanika, Voices at Work: Women, Performance, and Labor in Ancient Greece, Baltimore 2014 Kassel 1963/1991 R. Kassel, “Peripatetica”, Hermes 91 (1963) 52–9 (= Kleine Schriften, Berlin/New York 1991, 336–44) Kepler 1634 I. Keppleri mathematici […] Somnium, seu opus posthumum de astronomia lunari divulgatum a M. L. Kepplero filio, Francofurti 1634

Text and Translation Koerte 1959

45

Menandri que supersunt ed. A. Koerte. vol. 2 Reliquiae apud veteres scriptores servatae. Opus postumum retractavit, addenda ad utramque partem adiecit A. Thierfelder, Lipsiae 21959 Krebic 1977 R. Krebic, In the Shadow of Macedon: Duris of Samos, Wiesbaden 1977 Krevans 1993 N. Krevans, “Fighting Against Antimachus: The Lyde and the Aetia”, in M. A. Harder, R. F. Regtuit, and G. C. Wakker, Callimachus, Groningen 1993, 149–60 Kroll 1921 W. Kroll, s.v. Klearchos 11, RE 11.1 (1921) 580–3 Kurke 1992 L. Kurke, “The Politics of ἁβροσύνη in Archaic Greece”, Classical Antiquity 11 (1992) 91–120 Kurke 1999 L. Kurke, “Ancient Greek Board Games and How to Play Them”, Classical Philology 94 (1999) 247–67 Kwapisz 2013 J. Kwapisz, “Were There Hellenistic Riddle Books?”, in J. Kwapisz, D. Petrain, and M. Szymanski, The Muse at Play: Riddles and Wordplay in Greek and Latin Poetry, Berlin 2013, 148–67 Landucci Gattinoni 1997 F. Landucci Gattinoni, Duride di Samo, Roma 1997 Larcher 1802 Histoire d’Hérodote, traduite du grec […] par P.–H. Larcher, vol. 1, Paris 21802 Latte 1953/1968 K. Latte, “Zur griechischen Wortforschung”, Glotta 32 (1953) 33–42 = Kleine Schriften. Zu Religion, Recht, Literatur und Sprache der Griechen und Römer, München 1968, 680–8 Lavecchia 1997 S. Lavecchia, “Pindaro fr. 70b Snell–Maehler, 1–2 e la polemica contro la σχοινοτένεια ἀοιδά”, Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica III s. 15 (1997) 3–16 Lavecchia 2000 Pindari dythiramborum fragmenta ed. S. Lavecchia, Roma 2000 Lavecchia 2013 S. Lavecchia, “Becoming like Dionysos: Dithyramb and Dionysian Initiation”, in B. Kowalzig and P. Wilson, Dithyramb in Context, Oxford 2013, 59–75 Lee 2015 M. Lee, Body, Dress, and Identity in Ancient Greece, Cambridge 2015 Leopardi 1969 G. Leopardi, Note ai Taumasiografi greci [circ. 1825– 9], in Scritti filologici (1817–1832), cur. G. Pacella e S. Timpanaro, Firenze 1969, 567–601 Lerner 2003–4 J. Lerner, “Correcting the Early History of Ay Kanom”, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 35–6 (2003–4) 373–410 L(eutsch)–S(chneidewin) see (a) Abbreviations and Standard Collections (CPG) Lévêque 1955 P. Lévêque, Agathon, Paris 1955 Lewy 1938 Lewy, H., “Aristotle and the Jewish Sage According to Clearchus of Soli”, Harvard Theological Review 31 (1938) 205–35

46

Clearchus of Soli Liberman 1995

Livrea 2007 Lloyd 1983 Lloyd 1996 Lloyd-Jones 1983 Lobeck 1829

Luppe 2004

Luz 2010 Luz 2013

Luz 1983

Maas ms. Maass 1892 Maehler 1987

Magnelli 2015

Malkin 2011 Mansfeld–Runia 2020

Marchiori 2000

G. Liberman, “A propos du fragment 58 Lobel–Page, Voigt de Sappho”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 108 (2010) 45–6 E. Livrea, “La vecchiaia su papiro. Saffo Simonide Callimaco Cercida”, in Bastianini e Casanova 2007, 67–81 G. E. R. Lloyd, Science, Folklore and Ideology: Studies in the Life Sciences in Ancient Greece, Cambridge 1983 G. E. R. Lloyd, Aristotelian Explorations, Cambridge 1996 H. Lloyd-Jones, “Artemis and Iphigenia”, Journal of Hellenic Studies 103 (1983) 87–102 Chr. A. Lobeck, Aglaophamus. Sive de theologiae mysticae Graecorum causis, vol. 2, Regimontii Prussorum 1829 W. Luppe, “Überlegungen zur Gedicht–Anordnung im neuen Sappho–Papyrus”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 149 (2004) 7–9 C. Luz, Technopaegnia: Formspiele in der griechischen Dichtung, Leiden 2010 C. Luz, “What Has It Got in Its Pocketses? Or, What Makes a Riddle a Riddle?”, in J. Kwapisz, D. Petrain, and M. Szymanski, The Muse at Play: Riddles and Wordplay in Greek and Latin Poetry, Berlin 2013, 83– 99 M. Luz, “Eleazar’s Second Speech on Masada and Its Literary Precedents”, Rheinisches Museum 126 (1983) 25–43 R. L. Fowler, “Paul Maas’ Athenaeus”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 172 (2010) 55–64 Aratea scripsit E. Maass, Berlin 1892 H. Maehler, POxy. 3722, in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, 54, edd. R. A. Coles, H. Maehler, and P. J. Parsons, London 1987 E. Magnelli, “A Note on Castorion’s Hymn to Pan (SH 310): Metre and Syntax, Reading and Listening”, Greece and Rome 62 (2015) 87–91 I. Malkin, A Small Greek World: Networks in the Ancient Mediterranean, Oxford 2011 J. Mansfeld and D. T. Runia, Aëtiana V. An Edition of the Reconstructed Text of the Placita with a Commentary and a Collection of Related Texts, Leiden/Boston 2020 A. Marchiori, “Between Ichthyophagists and Syrians: Features of Fish-Eating in Athenaeus’ Deipnosphistae Books Seven and Eight”, in D. Braund and J. Wilkins,

Text and Translation

47

Athenaeus and His World: Reading Greek Culture in the Roman Empire, Exeter 2000, 327–38 Martano 2007 A. Martano, “Teodette di Faselide poeta tragico: Riflessioni attorno al fr. 6 Snell”, in D. Mirhady (ed.), Influence on Peripatetic Rhetoric: Essays in Honor of W. W. Fortenbaugh, Leiden 2007, 187–199 Martano 2008 A. Martano, “Note di esegesi anacreontea antica: P.Oxy. 3722 e Anacreonte, fr. 82 Gentili”, Aegyptus 88 (2008) 25–35 Martinelli Tempesta 2020 S. Martinelli Tempesta, Marc Antoine Muret e i Moralia di Plutarco, in L. Bernard–Pradelle, Chr. de Buzon, J.-E. Girot, and R. Mouren, Marc Antoine Muret, un humaniste Français en Italie, Lausanne 2020, 337–387 Marzullo 1994 B. Marzullo, “Sapph. fr. 58, 25s. V.”, Philologus 138 (1994) 189–93 Mastrandrea 1979 P. Mastrandrea, Un neoplatonico latino: Cornelio Labeone, testimonianze e frammenti, Leiden 1979 Matelli 1997 E. Matelli, “Sulle tracce di Cleobulina”, Aevum 71 (1997) 11–61 Matelli 2007 E. Matelli, “Teodette di Faselide, retore”, in D. Mirhady, Influences on Peripatetic Rhetoric: Essays in Honor of W. W. Fortenbaugh, Leiden 2007, 169–85 Matelli 2012b see (b) Editions used (Praxiphanes) Matthaios 2005 St. Matthaios, “Klearchos oder Kleitarchos ? Zur Urheberschaft Zweier Worterklarung und zu Autorschaft seines Glossenwerks in der Überlieferung des Klearchos aus Soloi”, Rheinisches Museum 148 (2005) 47–79 McClure L. McClure, Courtesans at Table: Gender and Greek Literary Culture in Athenaeus, New York 2003 Meineke 1823 A. Meineke, Menandri et Philemonis reliquiae, Berolini 1823 Meineke 1846 A. Meineke, Philologicarum Exercitationum in Athenaei Deipnosophistas specimen secundum, Berolini 1846 Miller 1868 M. E. Miller, Mélanges de littérature grecque contenant un grand nombre de textes inédits, Paris 1868 Monda 2000 S. Monda, “Gli indovinelli di Teodette”, Seminari Romani 3 (2000) 29–47 Montanari F. Montanari see (a) (a) Abbreviations and Standand Collections Moraux 1950 P. Moraux, “Cléarque de Soles, disciple d’Aristote”, Les Études Classiques 18 (1950) 22–6 Morgan 2013 J. R. Morgan, “Love from Beyond the Grave: The Epistolary Ghost–Story in Phlegon of Tralles”, in O. Hodkinson, Epistolary Narratives in Ancient Greek Literature, Leiden 2013, 293–321

48

Clearchus of Soli Müller 1846

Müller 1848 Müller 1870 Muretus 1789

Nauck 1888 Nenci 1989

Neri 2003 Obbink 1996 Olson 1998 Olson–Sens 2000

Papadopoulos 2014

Parke 1988 Parker 1992

Pirenne-Delforge 1994

Pédech 1992

Peppink 1936 Perizonius 1701

Petit 1630 Pierson 1759

[F. Dübner–] C. Müller, Arriani Anabasis et Indica […] – Reliqua Arriani et Scriptorum de rebus Alexandri M. Fragmenta […], Parisiis 1846 (paginarum numeris denuo inceptis) see (a) Abbreviations and Standand Collections (FHG 2) B. Müller, “Ein Blättervertrauchung bei Plutarch”, Hermes 4 (1870) 390–403 M. Antonii Mureti Variarum lectionum libri XIX in AM. A. Mureti Opera omnia ed. D. Ruhnkenius, vol. 2, Lugduni Batavorum, 1789 A. Nauck, “Kritische Bemerkungen IX”, Mélanges Gréco–Romains 5 (1888) 93–252 G. Nenci, “Un nuovo frammento di Clearco sulla tryphe iapigia (Athen., 12, 522f–593b)”, Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa s. 3.19 (1989) 893–901 C. Neri, Erinna. Testimonianze e frammenti, Bologna 2003 D. Obbink, Philodemus, On Piety. Part 1, Critical text with commentary, Oxford 1996 S. D. Olson, Aristophanes: Peace, Oxford 1998 S. D. Olson and A. Sens, Archestratos of Gela: Greek Culture and Cuisine in the Fourth Century BCE, Oxford 2000 J. Papadopoulos, “The Motya Youth: Apollo Karneios, Art, and Tyranny in the Greek West”, Art Bulletin 96 (2014) 395–423 H. W. Parke, Sibyls and Sibylline Prophecy in Classical Antiquity, London 1988 H. N. Parker, “Love’s Body Anatomized: The Ancient Erotic Handbooks and the Rhetoric of Sexuality”, in A. Richlin, Pornography and Representation in Greece and Rome, Oxford 1992, 90–111 V. Pirenne-Delforge, L’Aphrodite grecque: Contribution à l’étude de ses cultes et de sa personnalité dans le panthéon archaïque et classique, Athens/Liège 1994 P. Pédech, “Cléarque le philosophe”, in Au miroir de la culture antique. Mélanges R. Marache, Rennes 1992, 385–91 Observationes in Athenaei Deipnosophistas scripsit S. P. Peppink, Lugduni Batavorum 1936 Cl. Aeliani […] Varia historia […] cum versione J. Vultei […] et perpetuo commentario J. Perizonii, Lugduni Batavorum 1701 Sam. Petit, Miscellaneorum libri novem, Parisiis 1630 Moeris Atticista. Lexicon Atticum, ed. J. Pierson, Lugduni Batavorum 1759

Text and Translation Pöhlmann 1971

49

E. Pöhlmann, “Die ABC–Tragödie des Kallias”, Rheinisches Museum 31 (1971) 230–40 Pohlenz 1912 M. Pohlenz, review of M. Adler 1910a, Berliner philologische Wochenschrift 32 (1912) 647–54 Polito 2013 M. Polito, “Tryphe e tradizione: Alcune considerazioni”, in F. Gazzano–G. Ottone, Le età della trasmissione. Alessandria, Roma, Bisanzio, Tivoli 2013, 114–155 Porro 2008 A. Porro, “Al di là delle convenzioni. Anacreonte nella cultura ellenistica”, Seminari Romani 11 (2008) 199– 205 Porson 1808 R. Porson, Euripidis Hecuba. Supplementum ad Praefationem, Londinii 1808 Porter 2007 J. I. Porter, “Lasus of Hermione, Pindar and the Riddle of s”, Classical Quarterly 57 (2007) 1–21 Porter 2010 J. I. Porter, The Origins of Aesthetic Thought in Ancient Greece: Matter, Sensation, and Experience, Cambridge 2010 Prandi 1996 L. Prandi, Fortuna e realtà nell’opera di Clitarco, Stuttgart 1996 Prauscello 2013 L. Prauscello, “Demeter and Dionysos in the Sixth– Century Argolid: Lasos of Hermione, the Cult of Demeter Chthonia, and the Origins of Dithyramb”, in B. Kowalzig and P. Wilson, Dithyramb in Context, Oxford 2013, 76–92 Preller 1891 Th. Preller, Inscriptiones Graecae Metricae ex scriptoribus praeter Anthologiam collectae, Lipsiae 1891 Prinz 1979 F. Prinz, Gründungsmythen und Sagenchronologie, München 1979 Privitera 1965 G. A. Privitera, Laso di Ermione nella cultura ateniese e nella tradizione storiografica, Roma 1965 Privitera 1994 G. A. Privitera, “L’antisigmatismo di Laso e di Pindaro in Clearco fr. 88 Wehrli”, Rivista di Cultura Classica e Medievale 6 (1994) 164–70 Pugliese Carratelli 1985 G. Pugliese Carratelli, “Chi guardi la terra dall’alto …”, La Parola del Passato 60 (1985) 241–9 Rees 1956 D.A. Rees, “Athenaeus VIII, 332c”, CR n.s. 6 (1956) 199 Redfield 2003 J. M. Redfield, The Locrian Maidens: Love and Death in Greek Italy, Princeton 2003 Reinesius 1819 Th. Reinesii Observationes in Suidam […] ed. M. Ch. G. Mueller, Lipsiae 1819 Reitzammer 2016 L. Reitzammer, The Athenian Adonia in Context, Madison 2016 Rhodes 1981 P. J. Rhodes, A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia, Oxford 1981

50

Clearchus of Soli Richardson 2010 Robert 1968/1989

Rohde 1876 Rohde 1877/1903

Rohde 1903 Rohde 1908 Roller 2018 Roselli 2002

Rosen 1999 Roskam 2006 Ross 1955 Ruijgh 2001

Rupprecht 1949 Ruta 2020

Ruzicka 1999 Salmasius 1689

N. Richardson, Three Homeric Hymns: To Apollo, Hermes, and Aphrodite, Cambridge 2010 L. Robert, “De Delphes à l’Oxus. Inscriptions grecques nouvelles de la Bactriane”, Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres 112 (1968) 416–57 = Opera minora selecta vol. 5, Amsterdam 1989, 510– 51 E. Rohde, Der griechische Roman und seine Vorläufer, Leipzig 11876 E. Rohde, “Zu den Mirabilia des Phlegon (Proclus über Platos Republik. Klearch περὶ ὕπνου. Philagrius. Naumachius)”, Rheinisches Museum 32 (1877) 329–39 = Kleine Schriften, vol. 2, Tübingen und Leipzig 21903, 173–85 E. Rohde, Kleine Schriften, 1–2, Tübingen und Leipzig 21903 E. Rohde, Psyche. Seelencult und Unsterblichkeitsglaube der Griechen, vol. 2, Tübingen und Leipzig 31908 D. W. Roller, A Historical and Topographical Guide to the Geography of Strabo, Cambridge 2018 A. Roselli, “Theophrastus’ Περὶ κόπων and Greek Medical Theories of Fatigue”, in W. W. Fortenbaugh and G. Wöhrle, On the Opuscula of Theophrastus, Stuttgart 2002, 123–39 R. M. Rosen, “Comedy and Confusion in Callias’ Letter Tragedy”, Classical Philology 94 (1999) 146–67 G. Roskam, “Philoxenus Once Again”, Classical Quarterly 56 (2006) 652–6 W. D. Ross, Aristotle: Parva Naturalia, Oxford 1955 C. J. Ruijgh, “Le ‘spectacle des lettres’, comédie de Callias (Athénée X 453–455b): avec un excursus sur les rapports entre la mélodie du chant et les contours mélodiques de la langue parlée”, Mnemosyne 54 (2001) 257– 335 K. Rupprecht, s. v. Paroimiographoi, RE 18.4 (1949) col. 1735–78 A. Ruta, “Mitologia e filosofia morale nel Περὶ παροιμιῶν e nel Περὶ βίων di Clearco di Soli”, Eikasmós 31 (2020) 111–33 S. Ruzicka, “Glos, Son of Tamos, and the End of the Cypriot War”, Historia 48 (1999) 23–43 C. Salmasius, Plinianae exercitationes in C. J. Solini Polyhistora, Trajecti ad Rhenum 1689 (11629)

Text and Translation Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1995

Santi Amatini 1984

Satlow 2008 Scaliger ms. Schneider 1996 Schuhl 1955

Schultz 1914 Sedley 2018

Sharples 1992

Sharples 1995 Sharples 1998 Sharples 2001

Sitzler 1898

Slater 2002

Smith 2003

Snell 1954/1966

51

H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, “Persian Food: Stereotypes and Political Identity”, in J. Wilkins, D. Harvey, M. Dobson, Food in Antiquity, Exeter 1995, 286–302 L. Santi Amantini, “Ancora sulla prostituzione sacra a Locri Epizefiri”, Miscellanea Greca e Romana 9 (1984) 39–62 M. L. Satlow, “Theophrastus’ Jewish Philosophers”, Journal of Jewish Studies 59 (2008) 1–20 J. Scaligeri adnotationes manuscriptae ap. Schweighaeuser (see b – Athenaeus) W. Schneider “Cappa”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 112 (1996) 203–17 P. M. Schuhl, “Sur un fragment de Cléarque. Les premiers rapports entre savants grecs et juifs”, Revue de l’histoire des religions 147 (1955) 124–6 W. Schultz, s.v. Rätsel, RE 1A.1 (1914) 62–125 D. Sedley, “Epicurus on Dialectic”, in T. Bénatouïl, and K. Ierodiakonou, Dialectic after Plato and Aristotle, Cambridge 2018, 82–113 R. W. Sharples, “Theophrastus: On Fish”, in W. W. Fortenbaugh and D. Gutas, Theophrastus: His Psychological, Doxographical, and Scientific Writings, New Brunswick, 347–85 R. W. Sharples, Theophrastus of Eresus: Commentary, vol. 5: Sources on Biology, Leiden 1995 R. W. Sharples, Theophrastus of Eresus: Commentary, vol. 3.1: Sources on Physics, Leiden 1998 R. W. Sharples, “Dicaearchus on the Soul and on Divination”, in W. W. Fortenbaugh, E. Schütrumpf, Dicaearchus of Messana. Text, Translation and Discussion, New Brunswick and London 2001 [RUSCH 10], 143–73 J. Sitzler, “Jahresbericht über griechischen Lyriker”, Jahresbericht über die Fortschritte der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft 92 (1898) 1–204 N. W. Slater, “Dancing the Alphabet: Performative Literacy on the Attic Stage”, in I. Worthington and J. M. Foley, Epea and Grammata: Oral and Written Communication in Ancient Greece, Leiden 2002, 117–29 J. A. Smith, “Clearing up Some Confusion in Callias ‘Alphabet Tragedy’: How to Read Sophocles Oedipus Tyrannus 332–33 et al.”, Classical Philology 98 (2003) 313–29 B. Snell, “Zur Geschichte vom Gastmahl der Sieben Weisen”, in Thesaurismata. Festschrift Ida Kapp, Mün-

52

Clearchus of Soli chen 1954, 105–11 = Gesammelte Schriften, Göttingen 1966, 115–18. Sourvinou–Inwood 1979 C. Sourvinou–Inwood, “The Myth of the First Temples at Delphi”, Classical Quarterly 29 (1979) 231–51 Stein 1931 O. Stein, “Klearchos von Soloi”, Philologus 40 (1931) 258–9 Stephanis I. E. Stephanis, Διονυσιακοὶ Τεχνῖται, Heraklion 1988 Stern 1974 M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, vol. 1, Jerusalem 1974 Stewart A. Stewart, Greek Sculpture: An Exploration, New Haven 1990 Tanner 2006 J. Tanner, The Invention of Art History in Ancient Greece: Religion, Society and Artistic Rationalisation, Cambridge 2006 Taub 2015 L. Taub, “‘Problematising’ the Problemata: The Problemata in Relation to Other Question–and–Answer Texts”, in R. Mayhew (ed.), The Aristotelian Problemata Physica: Philosophical and Scientific Investigations, Leiden 2015, 413–36 Taufer 2010 M. Taufer, Il mito di Tespesio nel De sera numinum vindicta di Plutarco, Napoli 2010 Taylor 2008 R. Taylor, The Moral Mirror of Roman Art, Cambridge 2008 Thomas 2018 O. Thomas, “Music in Euripides’ Medea”, in T. Phillips and A. D’Angour, Music, Text, and Culture in Ancient Greece, Oxford 2018, 99–120 Thompson 1936 D. W. Thompson, A Glossary of Greek Birds, Oxford 1936 (1895) Thompson 1947 A Glossary of Greek Fishes, London 1947 Tosi 2010 R. Tosi, Dictionnaire des sentences latines et grecques. Traduit de l’italien par R. Lenoir, Grenoble 2010 Toup 1790 J. Toup, Emendationes in Suidam et Hesychium et alios lexicographos Graecos, Oxonii 1790 Tracy 2000 S. V. Tracy, “Demetrius of Phalerum: Who was He and Who was He Not?”, in W. W. Fortenbaugh and E. Schütrumpf, Demetrius of Phalerum: Text, Translation and Discussion, New Brunswick, NJ 2000, 331–45 Tsakmakis 1995 A. Tsakmakis, “Das historische Werk des Stesimbrotos von Thasos”, Historia 44 (1995) 129–52 Tsantsanoglou 1984 K. Tsantsanoglou, New Fragments of Greek Literature from the Lexicon of Photios, Αθήνα 1984 (Πραγματείαι της Ακαδημίας Αθήνων) Tsitsiridis 2006 S. Tsitsiridis, “Ein Klearchos–Fragment in Athenaios, Deipn. XII 548F–549A”, Philologus 150 (2006) 354–7 Tsitsiridis 2008 S. Tsitsiridis, “Die Schrift Περὶ βίων des Klearchos von Soloi”, Philologus 152 (2010) 65–76

Text and Translation Tsitsiridis 2009 Tsitsiridis 2010

Tsitsiridis 2013 Turano 1952 Ussher 1973 Valckenaer Valckenaer 1755 Valk, van der 1963 Van Looy 2000 Vassis 1897 Velasco López 2007a

Velasco López 2007b Verde 2013 Verde 2018 Verhasselt 2016 Verraert 1828 Volger 1810 von Fritz 1934 Waern 1956 Weber 1880 Wehrli 11948/21969 Wehrli 1983

Welcker 1835

53

S. Tsitsiridis, “Adnotationes variae”, Hermes 137 (2009) 124–8 S. Tsitsiridis, “Die Schrift Über den Schlaf des Klearchos von Soloi”, Rheinisches Museum 153 (2010) 291– 321 S. Tsitsiridis, Beiträge zu den Fragmenten des Klearchos von Soloi, Berlin/New York 2013 C. Turano, “La prostituzione sacra a Locri Epizefiri”, Archeologia Classica 4 (1952) 248–52 R. G. Ussher, Aristophanes: Ecclesiazusae, Oxford 1973 Valckenaerii adnotationes manuscriptae ap. Peppink 1936 L. C. Valckenaer, Euripidis tragoedia Phoenissae, Franequerae 1755 M. van der Valk, Researches on the Text and Scholia of the Iliad, Part 1, Leiden 1963 H. Van Looy, Euripide: Fragments, vol. 2, Paris 2000 S. Vassis, “Συμμικτὰ κριτικά. Πλουτάρχου Ἠθικά”, Ἀθηνᾶ 9 (1897), 48–50 M. del Henar Velasco López, “Ceneo el invulnerable: su lanza” in Homenaje C. Cordoner, Salamanca 2007, 835–43 M. del Henar Velasco López, “Ceneo el invulnerable: su metamorfosis”, Minerva 20 (2007) 9–21 F. Verde, Elachista. La dottrina dei minimi nell’Epicureismo, Leuven 2013 “Peripatetic Divination: Cratippus and Clearchus”, Ancient Philosophy, 38 (2018) 151–66 G. Verhasselt, “What Were Works Περὶ βίων? A Study of the Extant Fragments”, Philologus 160 (2016) 59–83 see (a) Abbreviations and Standard Collections Sapphus Lesbiae carmina et fragmenta, ed. H. F. M. Volger, Lipsiae 1810 K. v. Fritz, s.v. Theodoros 30, RE 5A 2 (1934) 1811 I. Waern, “Zum Tragiker Agathon”, Eranos 54 (1956) 87–100 M. Weber, De Clearchi Solensis vita et operibus, Vratislaviae 1880 see (a) Abbreviations and Standard Collections F. Wehrli, “Klearchos aus Soloi”, in Grundriß der Geschichte der Philosophie. Die Philosophie der Antike, Bd. 3: Ältere Akademie–Aristoteles–Peripatos, hrsg. von H. Flashar, Basel 1983, 547–51 F. G. Welcker, Der epische Cyclus oder die homerischen Dichter, 1, Bonn 1835

54

Clearchus of Soli Welcker 1844

F. G. Welcker, Die griechischen Tragödie mit Rücksicht auf den epischen Cyclus, Dritte Abtheilung, Bonn 1841 Welcker 1844 F. G. Welcker, Kleine Schriften, 1, Bonn 1844 (a. 1833) Wellmann 1891 M. Wellmann, “Alexander von Myndos”, Hermes 26 (1891) 481–566 Wellmann 1895 M. Wellmann, “Leoridas von Byzanz und Demostratos”, Hermes 30 (1895) 161–76 West 2001 M. L. West, Studies in the Text and Transmission of the Iliad, München–Leipzig 2001 West 2005 M. L. West, “The New Sappho”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 151 (2005) 1–9 West 2010 M. L. West, “Rhapsodes at Festivals”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 173 (2010) 6–13; 174 (2010) 32 Westerink 1977 see (b) Editions used (Damascius) Wil(amowitz) Wilamowitzii coniecturae ap. Kaibel Wil(amowitz) ms. Wil. adnotationes manuscriptae editionibus Nauckianis adiectae Wil(amowitz) 1879/1962 U. v. Wilamowitz–Moellendorff, “Parerga”, Hermes 14 (1879), 161–86 = Kleine Schriften 4, Berlin 1962, 1–23 U. v. Wilamowitz–Moellendorff, Griechische Verskunst, Wil(amowitz) 1921 Berlin 1921 Wil(amowitz) 1923/1962 U. v. Wilamowitz–Moellendorff, “Lesefrüchte”, Hermes 58 (1923), 57–86 = Kleine Schriften 4, 314–42 Wilkins 2000 J. Wilkins, The Boastful Chef: The Discourse of Food in Ancient Greek Comedy, Oxford 2000 Williams 1978 F. Williams, Callimachus: Hymn to Apollo, Oxford 1978 Wöhrle 2004 G. Wöhrle, “Klearchos aus Soloi”, in Grundriß der Geschichte der Philosophie. Die Philosophie der Antike, Bd. 3: Ältere Akademie–Aristoteles–Peripatos, 2. durchgesehene und erweiterte Auflage, hrsg. von H. Flashar, Basel 2004, 583–7, 655 Wytt(enbach) 1792 Plutarchi liber de sera numinis vindicta. Accedit fragmentum eidem vindicatum ap. Stobaeum, recensuit, emendavit illustravit D. Wyttenbach, Lugduni Batavorum 1792 Zaidman 1995 L. B. Zaidman, “Ritual Eating in Archaic Greece: Parasites and Paredroi”, in J. Wilkins, D. Harvey, M. Dobson, Food in Antiquity, Exeter 1995, 196–203 Zecchini 1989 G. Zecchini, La cultura storica di Ateneo, Milano 1989 Zhmud 2012 L. Zhmud, “Aristoxenus and the Pythagoreans”, in C. A. Huffman, Aristoxenus of Tarentum: Discussion, New Brunswick and London 2012, 223–49

Text and Translation

(d) Abbreviations used in the Texts and Apparatus a. ac ad loc. add. adn. ap. c. cf. cod./codd. coni. conl. def. del. dub. ed. edd. ex. gr. expu. fort. fr.

anno ante correctionem ad locum addidit adnotatio apud circa confer codex/codices coniecit conlato/conlatis defendit delevit dubitanter edidit editor/editores exempli gratia expunxit fortasse fragmentum

i.e. in marg. indic. litt. nr. om. pc pos. ras. s.l. s.v. scr. secl. stat. suppl. tempt. test. v. vac. vid.

id est in margine indicavit littera/litterae numerus omisit/omiserunt post correctionem posuit in rasura supra lineam sub voce scripsit seclusit statuit supplevit temptavit testimonium versus vacat videtur

(e) Symbols used in the Texts and Apparatus † {α}

locus nondum sanatus littera vel verba deleta littera vel verba addita

In papyris [α] (α) `αʹ [...] [- - -]

littera deperdita ab editore suppleta littera ab editore addita littera a scriba supra lineam addita lacuna ubi litterarum deperditarum numerus definiri potest lacuna ubi litterarum deperditarum numerus definiri non potest

55

I. SCRIPTA 1A

Suda, s.v. Κλέαρχος (κ 1714, LG 1.3, 126.26 Adler)

1W

Κλέαρχος, Σολεύς· ἔγραψε διάφορα.

1B

Tabula inscriptionum 1 2 3

4 5

Πλάτωνος ἐγκώμιον] Diogenes Laertius, Vitae philosophorum 3.2 = 2; Hieronymus, Adversus Iovinianum 1.42 = 3 Περὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ Πλάτωνος πολιτείᾳ μαθηματικῶς εἰρημένων] Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 9.48 393a = 4 Περὶ ὕπνου libris minimum duo] Iosephus, Adversus Apionem 1.176 (ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ) = 6A; Proclus, In Platonis Rem publicam (ἐν τοῖς Περὶ ὕπνου) = 7; Probus (Prōbā), Commentarii in Porphyrii Isagogen Versio Syriaca (“in his book on sleep”) = 9A Ἀρκεσίλας] Scholia (AO) in Platonis Leges 5 739a = 10 Περὶ παιδείας libris minimum duo] Diogenes Laertius, Vitae philosophorum 1.9 = 12; Hesychius Alexandrinus, Lexicon, s.v. Μανέρως (ἐν τοῖς Περὶ παιδείας) = 13; Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 15.54 697f (ἐν δευτέρῳ) = 14

56

I. WRITINGS 1A

Suda, under “Clearchus” (κ 1714)

1W

Clearchus of Soloi; he wrote diverse works. Ancient sources name Clearchus only in connection with his writings and tell us nothing about his life except his homeland and affiliation with Aristotle; Tsitsiridis 2013: 1–5. He is uniformly identified as a native of Soloi (Latinized as “Soli”): Athenaeus 4, 17, 19, 27, 37, 50, 55, 64, 68, 71, 87, 89, 92A, 94, 110; Diogenes Laertius 12; Plutarch 120; Pollux 112, 114; and possibly 88. Ancient tradition distinguishes two cities named Soloi, one on Cyprus and another in Cilicia. A speaker in 17 discussing Cypriot practices uses the phrase “among us”; if the speaker is the author, then Clearchus presents himself as a native of Cyprus. A distinction Diogenes Laertius 1.51 draws between “Soleans” (Σολεῖς) for Cilicians and “Solians” (Σόλιοι) for Cypriots is unreliable; see Subsidia and Aristotle fr. 582, Solon fr. 19, Irwin 1999. Several writers connect Clearchus with Aristotle: Athenaeus 37, 68, 92A– B; Josephus 6A; Plutarch 116; Pollux 112; Proclus 8A. Diogenes Laertius calls him simply “Clearchus the philosopher” (82); others label him a Peripatetic: Aelian 108; Athenaeus 38, 75, 76, 119; Clement of Alexandria 6B. For an overview of his writings, see Tsitsiridis 2013: 8–20

1B

List of titles 1 2 3

4 5

Encomium of Plato] Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Philosophers 3.2 = 2; Jerome, Against Jovinian 1.42 = 3 On the Mathematical Statements in Plato’s Republic] Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 9.48 393a = 4 On Sleep in at least two books] Josephus, Against Apion 1.176 = 6A (“in the first”); Proclus, On Plato’s Republic = 7 (“in his writings”); Probus, Commentary on Porphyry’s Introduction = 9A (“in his book”) Arcesilas] Scholia on Plato, Laws 5 739A = 10 On Education in at least two books] Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Philosophers 1.9 = 12; Hesychius, Lexicon, under “Maneros” = 13; Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 15.54 697f = 14 (“in the second”)

57

58

Clearchus of Soli

6 7 8

9 10

11

12

13 14 15 16



Περὶ φιλίας libris minimum duo] Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 12.45 533e (ἐν πρώτῳ) = 15; 8.42 349f (ἐν δευτέρῳ) = 16 Γεργίθιος] Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 6.67 255c = 17 Ἐρωτικά libris minimum duo] Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 6.66 255b (ἐν πρώτῳ) = 19; 13.16 564a (ἐν πρώτῳ) = 20; 15.9 669f (ἐν πρώτῳ) = 21; 13.85 606c (ἐν πρώτῳ) = 22; 13.31 573a (ἐν πρώτῳ) = 23; 13.56 589d (ἐν πρώτῳ) = 24; 14.11 619c (ἐν πρώτῳ) = 25; 14.43 639a (ἐν δευτέρῳ) = 26; 12.79 553e (ἐν τοῖς Ἐρωτικοῖς) = 27; 13.70 597a = 32; 2.50 57e = 33A Περὶ τοῦ πανικοῦ] Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 9.42 389f = 36 Βίοι s. Περὶ βίων libris minimum octo] Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 6.26 234f (ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ) = 37; 4.45 157c (ἐν δευτέρῳ) = 38; 15.28 681c (ἐν δευτέρῳ) = 39; 15.35 687a (ἐν τρίτῳ) = 40; 12.11 515e (ἐν τῇ τετάρτῃ) = 41A; 12.26 524b (ἐν τετάρτῳ) = 42; 12.58 541c (ἐν τῷ τετάρτῳ) = 44; 12.23 522d (ἐν τετάρτῳ) = 45; 12.8 514 d (ἐν τετάρτῳ) = 49; Zenob. vulg. 3.41 (CPG t. 1, 67.10–3 L.–Schn.) (ἐν τῷ πέμπτῳ) = 51B; Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 10.9 416b (ἐν πέμπτῳ) = 51; 12.40 530c (ἐν πέμπτῳ) = 52; 12.15 518c (ἐν πέμπτῳ) = 53; 12.70 548b (ἐν πέμπτῳ) = 55; 12.71 548c (ἐν τῷ ὀγδόῳ) = 56 Περὶ παροιμιῶν libris duo] Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 10.86–87 457c (ἐν πρώτῳ) = 67; 15.62 701c (ἐν τῷ προτέρῳ) = 68; Scholia vetera (KGEAT1.2) in Theocritum 5.21–2a (ἐν δευτέρῳ) = 69A; Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 7.102 317a (ἐν δευτέρῳ) 70 Περὶ γρίφων libris duo] Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 10.69 448c = 89; Scholia (R V Lh, Ald) in Aristophanis Vespas 20ab = 90; Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 7.1 275d (ἐν τῷ προτέρῳ) = 92A; 14.12 620c (ἐν τῷ προτέρῳ) = 93 Περὶ [τῶν σοφῶ]ν (?)] PSI 1093, col. 1.34–5 = 101A Περὶ θινῶν] Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 8.35 345d = 105 Περὶ τῶν ἐνύδρων] Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 8.5 332b = 106A Περὶ τῶν ἐν τῷ ὑγρῷ] Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 7.103 317d = 107

Text and Translation

6 7 8

9 10

11

12

13 14 15 16

59

On Friendship in at least two books] Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 12.45 533e = 15 (“in the first”); 8.42 349f = 16 (“in the second”) Gergithius] Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 6.67 255c = 17 Discussions of Love in at least two books] Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 6.66 255b = 19 (“in the first”), 13.16 564a = 20 (“in the first”), 15.9 669f = 21 (“in the first”), 13.85 606c = 22 (“in the first”), 13.31 573a = 23 (“in the first”), 13.56 589d = 24, 14.11 619c = 25 (“in the first”); 14.43 639a = 26 (“in the second”); 12.79 553e = 27; 13.70 597a = 32; 2.50 57e = 33A On Panic] Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 9.42 389f = 36 Lives or On Lives in at least eight books] Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 6.26 234f (“in the first”) = 37; 4.45 157c (“in the second”) = 38; 15.28 681c (“in the second”) = 39; 15.35 687a (“in the third”) = 40; 12.11 515e (“in the fourth”) = 41A; 12.26 524b (“in the fourth”) = 42; 12.58 541c (“in the fourth”) = 44; 12.23 522d (“in the fourth”) = 45; 12.8 514d (“in the fourth”) = 49; Zenobius vulgate, Proverbs 3.41 (“in the fifth”) = 50B; Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 10.9 416b (“in the fifth”) = 51; 12.40 530c (“in the fifth”) = 52; 12.15 518c (“in the fifth”) = 53; 12.70 548b (“in the fifth”) = 54; 12.71 548c (“in the eighth”) = 55 On Sayings in at least two books] Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 10.86–87 457c (“in the first”) = 67; 15.62 701c (“in the prior”) = 68; Scholia on Theocritus 5.21–2 (“in the second”) = 69A; Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 7.102 317a (“in the second”) 70 On Riddles in at least two books] Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 10.69 448c = 89; Scholia on Aristophanes, Wasps 20ab = 90; Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 7.1 275d (“in the prior”) = 92A; 14.12 620c (“in the prior”) = 93 On [the Wis]e (?)] Oxyrhynchus papyrus (PSI 1093, col. 1.34–5) = 101A On Dunes] Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 8.35 345d = 105 On Aquatic Animals] Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 8.5 332b = 106A On Animals in the Water] Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 7.103 317d = 107

60

Clearchus of Soli

17 Περὶ νάρκης] Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 7.95 314c = 110 18 Περὶ σκελετῶν libri duo] Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 9.59 399b (ἐν δευτέρῳ) = 111 19 Περὶ †οἴνων†] Photius, Lexicon, s.v. νεοττός (ν 152, t. 3, 19 Theodoridis) = 115 Dubia 1 Γλῶτται] Scholia A in Homeri Iliadem Ψ 81a = 124 Falsa 1 Τακτικά] Arrianus, Ars tactica I 1 = 130A; Aelianus, Tactica I 1 = 130B TESTIMONIA ET FRAGMENTA AD ARGUMENTA ET SINGULAS INSCRIPTIONES RELATA (2–115) De Platone et Academia Πλάτωνος ἐγκώμιον (2–3) 2

Diogenes Laertius, Vitae philosophorum 3.2 (242.9–15 Dorandi)

2a W

Σπεύσιππος δ᾿ ἐν τῷ Πλάτωνος περιδείπνῳ καὶ Κλέαρχος ἐν τῷ Πλάτωνος ἐγκωμίῳ καὶ Ἀναξιλίδης ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ Περὶ φιλοσόφων φασίν ὡς Ἀθήνησιν ἦν λόγος ὡραίαν οὖσαν τὴν Περικτιόνην βιάζεσθαι τὸν Ἀρίστωνα καὶ μὴ τυγχάνειν· παυόμενόν τε τῆς βίας ἰδεῖν τὴν τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος ὄψιν· ὅθεν καθαρὰν γάμου φυλάξαι ἕως τῆς ἀποκυήσεως. Speusippus fr. 147 Isnardi = 1a Tarán = FGrHistCont 1009 F 1a (Theys) || Anaxilides FGrHistCont 1095 F 1a (Radicke). 2 4

1 1

1 περιδείπνω B P : περὶ δείπνω F: περὶ δείπνου B P (Q) || 2 ἀναξιλίδης F: 1 ήδης B: -ιάδης P (Anaxilides ap. Hieron., Adv. Iovin. 1.42 = F 3), ᾿Αναξιλαΐδης Cob. (cf. Diog. Laert. 1.107), ᾿Αναξιλεΐδης Lang 1911, 61 || 3 2 ὡς om. P || ἦν om. B || 4 ἐπιτυγχάνειν F .



5

Text and Translation

61

17 On the Torpedo Fish] Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 7.95 314c = 110 18 On Skeletons in at least two books] Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 9.59 399b (“in the second”) = 111 19 On Wines (?)] Photius, Lexicon, under “neottos” = 115 Doubtful 1 Glosses] Scholia on Homer, Iliad 23.81a = 124 Spurious 1 Tactics] Arrian, Tactics 1.1 = 130A; Aelian, Tactics 1.1 = 130B TEXTS ASSIGNED TO TITLES (2–115) On Plato and the Academy Encomium of Plato (2–3) 2

Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Philosophers 3.2

2a W

Speusippus in Plato’s Funeral Feast, Clearchus in Encomium of Plato, and Anaxilides in Book 2 of On Philosophers say there was a story in Athens that when Perictione was at her time, Aristo tried to force himself but was not succeeding, and as he relented, he had a vision of Apollo; after that, he kept her clear of marital relations until she gave birth. After naming Plato’s parents and tracing their lineage back to Poseidon (3.1), Diogenes recounts this story about his conception, then dates his birth to the day of Apollo’s, citing Apollodorus (fr. 37). For the works cited and the story’s reception and possible significance, see Tsitsiridis 2013: 47–54. Anaxilides (FGrHistCont 1095), otherwise unknown, might instead be Anaxilaus (FGrHistCont 1094); his title suits a Hellenistic writer, who could cite Speusippus, Clearchus, or both. “At her time”: literally “in season” or “ripe” and probably in the sense of “ovulating” (cf. Arist. HA 7(8).15 599b20–4) rather than “virginal” (Tarán 1981: 228), which would make Plato the eldest son, contra his own testimony

62

Clearchus of Soli

3

Hieronymus, Adversus Iovinianum 1.42 (384.27–30 Bickel)

2b W

Speusippus quoque, sororis Platonis filius et Clearchus in laude Platonis et Anaxilides in secundo libro philosophiae Perictionem, matrem Platonis, phantasmate Apollinis oppressam ferunt, et sapientiae principem non aliter arbitrantur nisi de partu virginis editum.

5

Speusippus fr. 148 Isnardi = 1b Tarán = FGrHistCont 1009 F 1b (Theys) || Anaxilides FGrHistCont 1095 F 1b (Radicke). 2 anaxalides AC: amaxilides ESς || 3 phantasmate (fanta- A) ACς: fasmatae ES (Tsitsiridis 2013, 483) || apollinis Sς: appollinis EAC.

Περὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ Πλάτωνος πολιτείᾳ μαθηματικῶς εἰρημένων (4–5) 4

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 9.48 393a (BT t. 3A, 117.11–6 Olson)

3W

Περὶ δὲ τῆς τῶν ὀρτύγων θήρας ἰδίως ἱστορεῖ Κλέαρχος ὁ Σολεὺς ἐν τῷ ἐπιγραφομένῳ Περὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ Πλάτωνος πολιτείᾳ μαθηματικῶς εἰρημένων γράφων οὕτως· οἱ ὄρτυγες περὶ τὸν τῆς ὀχείας καιρόν, ἐὰν κάτοπτρον ἐξ ἐναντίας τις αὐτῶν καὶ πρὸ τούτου βρόχον θῇ, τρέχοντες πρὸς τὸν ἐμφαινόμενον ἐν τῷ κατόπτρῳ ἐμπίπτουσιν εἰς τὸν βρόχον. 1–3 περὶ—οὕτως om. CE et post βρόχον (6) ponunt ὡς ἱστορεῖ Κλέαρχος || 5 αὐτῶν θῇ CE.

5

Text and Translation

63

in Apology 33c–34a; cf. Pollux 2.17–18 (with Aristoph. fr. 599) and Davies 1971: 332.

3

Jerome, Against Jovinian 1.42

2b W

Speusippus, the son of Plato’s sister, and Clearchus in Encomium of Plato and Anaxilides in Book 2 of Philosophy report that Perictione, Plato’s mother, was overcome by a phantom of Apollo; and they think the prince of wisdom was born no otherwise than by virgin birth. From Jerome’s 393 CE polemic against a monk who challenged the Church’s promotion of celibacy: Book 1 (of two) defends celibacy via scripture (1.5– 40) and classical examples (1.41–8), highlighting virgins (1.41–2), widows (1.43–5), and chastity (1.46–9, mainly Theophr. fr. 486); for the controversy see Hunter 2007. Possibly drawn from Diogenes but the absence of other parallels makes a common source more likely. “Virgin birth” excludes intimacy with a mortal, not with a god, as other examples in 1.42 show: Buddha’s similar conception in a divine dream, Athena and Dionysus born from Zeus, and after the maiden daughters of Pythagoras (Timaeus fr. 131) and Diodorus Kronos (fr. 6), finally Romulus and Remus from Ilia and Ares (cf. Livy 1.4); cf. 2.

On the Mathematical Statements in Plato’s Republic (4–5) 4

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 9.48 393a

3W

On hunting quail Clearchus of Soloi has a report of his own in his work entitled On the Mathematical Statements in Plato’s Republic, written this way: “During the quail’s mating season, if someone sets up a mirror facing them and a snare in front of it, they run toward the image in the mirror and get caught in the snare.” Among remarks on quail (392a–93c) in a discussion of fowl (384a–99a); 5A follows directly. For the behavior, cf. 36, 5B, Arist. HA 8(9).8 614a26–8, Thompson 1936: 216–17, Tsitsiridis 2013: 144–6. For possible connections to the nuptial number in Rep. 8 546a–d, see Schorlemmer (in this volume).

64

Clearchus of Soli

5A

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 9.48 393 a–b (BT t. 3A, 117.16– 22 Olson)

3W

Καὶ περὶ τῶν κολοιῶν δὲ καλουμένων τὰ ὅμοια ἱστορεῖ ἐν τούτοις· καὶ τοῖς κολοιοῖς δὲ διὰ τὴν φυσικὴν φιλοστοργίαν, καίπερ τοσοῦτον πανουργίᾳ διαφέρουσιν, ὅμως ὅταν ἐλαίου κρατὴρ τεθῇ πλήρης, οἱ στάντες αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖλος καὶ καταβλέψαντες ἐπὶ τὸν ἐμφαινόμενον καταράττουσι. διόπερ ἐλαιοβρόχων γενομένων ἡ τῶν πτερῶν αὐτοῖς συγκόλλησις αἰτία γίνεται τῆς ἁλώσεως. 2 τοῖς κολοιοῖς A : τοὺς κολοιοὺς C, Epc (κοιλοιοὺς Eac) || post φιλοστοργίαν supplere iubet Schweigh. ἁλίσκεσθαι sive διαφθείρεσθαι συμβαίνει aut aliquid tale || 3 καίπερ Kaibel : καὶ γὰρ A || διαφέρουσιν A : διαφέροντας CE ante πανουργίᾳ || 5 διὸ CE.

*5B

Photius, Lexicon, s.v. ἀεὶ κολοιὸς παρὰ κολοιὸν ἱζάνει (α 408, t. 1, 47 Theodoridis)

**

’Αεὶ κολοιὸς παρὰ κολοιὸν ἱζάνει· παροιμία. ὅτι οὐ μόνον ἐστὶ τὸ ζῷον φιλάλληλον καὶ ἀγεληδὸν πετόμενον, ὡς οἱ ψᾶρες, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἁλίσκεται διὰ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ σκιὰν προσερχόμενον ταύτῃ {καὶ} καθ’ ὕδατος ὁραθείσῃ, ὥς φησι Κλέαρχος. 4 καὶ secl. Leutsch–Schneidewin, CPG 1, 44 || ὁραθείσῃ Reitzenstein 36 : ὁραθείς z b.

5

Text and Translation

65

5A

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 9.48 393a–b

3W

On jackdaws too, as they are called, he [sc. Clearchus] has a similar report, in these words: “So too jackdaws, because of their natural affection, and despite their exceptional deviousness, nonetheless if a bowl full of olive oil is set out, any that stand on its rim will catch sight of their reflection below and plunge in. Thereby, when their feathers get soaked with oil, they stick together, which is the cause of their capture.” Directly following 4; cf. 5B for similar behavior as evidence of the jackdaw’s gregarious nature, which was proverbial. Parallel accounts of their capture, often in connection with the same proverb, probably also derive from Clearchus; thus Sch. vetera Iliad 17.755: “the jackdaw is gregarious and friendly with others of its kind, as in the saying ‘In fact the jackdaw roosts with jackdaw side by side.’ The manner of their capture also attests to this: a bowl full of olive oil is put out, and when the jackdaws land on its lip and see their own shadow, they think they see other jackdaws; then when they fall in the oil as though trying to get close to their friends, they are captured because their feathers get stuck together with the oil.” Cf. Aelian, NA 4.31; for further parallels, see Subsidia. For ancient depictions of similar scenes, cf. Pliny, NH 36.184 with Taylor 2008: 50–3 and figs. 24–5, 30.

*5B

Photius, Lexicon, under “always jackdaws sit by jackdaws” (α 408)

**

Always jackdaws sit by jackdaws: a saying; because not only are they friendly and fly in flocks like starlings, but they also get caught because of their own shadow, when one approaches its shadow after seeing it in water, as Clearchus says. The saying is widely attested, first for Democritus (68 A128 DK) alongside a similar one from Odyssey 17.218 (cf. Plato, Lysis 214a); cf. Sch. Republic 329a, Arist. Rhet. 1.11 1371b17, EN 8.1 1155a34–5, EE 7.1 1235a8, MM 2.11 1208b9, Diogenianus 5.16 (CPG 1.253), Zenobius Athos 3.98 (= ps.-Plut. 1.67: CPG 1.331; cf. 86). For further parallels, see Subsidia; cf. Photius, Lex. κ 895, Suda κ 1968. For the behavior, cf. 5A, Thompson 1936: 156–8.

66

Clearchus of Soli

Περὶ ὕπνου (6–9) 6A

Iosephus, Adversus Apionem 1.175–83 (t. 1, 134 et t. 2, 151–2 Siegert; t. 5, 32.12–33.21 Niese) ~ Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica 9.5.2–7 (CGS t. 8.1, 491.17–492.13 Mras)

6W

Ὅτι δὲ οὐ μόνον ἠπίσταντο τοὺς Ἰουδαίους, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐθαύμαζον ὅσοις αὐτῶν ἐντύχοιεν οὐχ οἱ φαυλότατοι τῶν Ἑλλήνων, ἀλλ’ οἱ ἐπὶ σοφίᾳ μάλιστα τεθαυμασμένοι, ῥᾴδιον γνῶναι. (176) Κλέαρχος γὰρ ὁ Ἀριστοτέλους ὢν μαθητὴς καὶ τῶν ἐκ τοῦ περιπάτου φιλοσόφων οὐδενὸς δεύτερος, ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ Περὶ ὕπνου βιβλίῳ φησὶν Ἀριστοτέλην τὸν διδάσκαλον αὐτοῦ περί τινος ἀνδρὸς Ἰουδαίου ταῦτα ἱστορεῖν, αὐτῷ τε τὸν λόγον Ἀριστοτέλει περιτίθησι· ἐστὶ δὲ οὕτω γεγραμμένον· (177) ἀλλὰ τὰ μὲν πολλὰ μακρὸν ἂν εἴη λέγειν, ὅσα δ’ ἔχει τῶν ἐκείνου θαυμασιότητά τινα καὶ φιλοσοφίαν, ὁμοίως διελθεῖν οὐ χεῖρον. σαφῶς δ’ ἴσθι, εἶπεν, Ὑπεροχίδη, {θαυμαστὸν} ὀνείροις ἴσα σοὶ δόξω λέγειν. καὶ ὁ Ὑπεροχίδης εὐλαβούμενος· δι’ αὐτὸ γάρ, ἔφη, τοῦτο καὶ ζητοῦμεν ἀκοῦσαι πάντες. (178) οὐκοῦν, εἶπεν ὁ Ἀριστοτέλης, κατὰ τὸ τῶν ῥητορικῶν παράγγελμα τὸ γένος αὐτοῦ πρῶτον διέλθωμεν, ἵνα μὴ ἀπειθῶμεν τοῖς τῶν ἀπαγγελιῶν διδασκάλοις. λέγε, εἶπεν ὁ Ὑπεροχίδης, ὅτι σοι δοκεῖ. (179) κἀκεῖνος τοίνυν τὸ μὲν γένος ἦν Ἰουδαῖος ἐκ τῆς Κοίλης Συρίας· οὗτοι δὲ εἰσὶν ἀπόγονοι τῶν ἐν Ἰνδοῖς φιλοσόφων. καλοῦνται δέ, ὥς φασιν, οἱ φιλόσοφοι παρὰ μὲν Ἰνδοῖς Καλανοί, παρὰ δὲ Σύροις Ἰουδαῖοι, τοὔνομα λαβόντες ἀπὸ τοῦ τόπου· προσαγορεύεται γὰρ ὃν κατοικοῦσι τόπον Ἰουδαία. τὸ δὲ τῆς πόλεως αὐτῶν ὄνομα πάνυ σκολιόν ἐστιν· Ἱερουσαλήμην γὰρ αὐτὴν καλοῦσιν. (180) οὗτος οὖν ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ἐπιξενούμενός τε πολλοῖς κἀκ τῶν ἄνω τόπων εἰς τοὺς ἐπιθαλαττίους ὑποκαταβαίνων, Ἑλληνικὸς ἦν οὐ τῇ διαλέκτῳ μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῇ ψυχῇ. (181) καὶ τότε διατριβόντων ἡμῶν περὶ τὴν Ἀσίαν, παραβαλὼν εἰς τοὺς αὐτοὺς τόπους ἅνθρωπος ἐντυγχάνει ἡμῖν τε καί τισιν ἑτέροις τῶν σχολαστικῶν πειρώμενος αὐτῶν τῆς σοφίας. ὡς δὲ πολλοῖς τῶν ἐν παιδείᾳ συνῳκείωτο, παρεδίδου τι μᾶλλον ὧν εἶχεν. (182) ταῦτ’ εἴρηκεν ὁ Ἀριστοτέλης παρὰ τῷ Κλεάρχῳ, καὶ προσέτι πολλὴν καὶ θαυμάσιον καρτερίαν τοῦ Ἰουδαίου ἀνδρὸς ἐν τῇ διαίτῃ καὶ σωφροσύνην διεξιών. ἔνεστι δὲ τοῖς βουλομένοις ἐξ

5

10

15

20

25

30

Text and Translation

67

On Sleep (6–9) 6A

Josephus, Against Apion 1.175–83; cf. Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 9.5.2–7

6W

It is easy to recognize that not the least of the Greeks but those most admired for wisdom not only had knowledge of the Judeans but also admired all those they encountered. For Clearchus, a student of Aristotle’s and second to none among the philosophers from the Peripatos, in Book 1 of On Sleep says that his teacher Aristotle reports the following about a Judean man, and he depicts Aristotle himself speaking. Here is what he writes: “It would take too long to tell much of it, but still it will do just as well to recount everything about him that has something admirable and philosophical. Mark my word, Hyperochides,” he said, “you will think I’m telling you the equivalent of dreams.” “That,” Hyperochides said warily, “is exactly why we are all eager to hear it.” “So then,” said Aristotle, “following the precepts of the rhetoricians, let’s first recount his origins, so we do not disobey the instructors of narration.” “Tell us,” said Hyperochides, “what you think you should.” “Well then, he was Judean by birth and from the Syrian valley. These people are descendants of the philosophers in India; and philosophers, they say, are called Kalani in India, and Judeans in Syria, taking their name from the region, since the region they inhabit is called Judea. Their city has a very awkward name: they call it Hierousaleme. Now this fellow, who was visiting many people as he proceeded from the highlands down to the coast, was like a Greek not only in his speech but also in his soul. At the time when we were staying in Asia, the fellow passed by the same place, where he happened upon us and some of the other scholars, whose wisdom he put to the test. Since he was well versed in many areas of learning, he gave them somewhat more of what he had.” So says [the character] Aristotle in [the work by] Clearchus, and he further goes through in detail the amazing fortitude and moderation of the Judean man in his daily regimen. Anyone

68

Clearchus of Soli

αὐτοῦ τὸ πλέον γνῶναι τοῦ βιβλίου. φυλάττομαι γὰρ ἐγὼ {τὰ} πλείω τῶν ἱκανῶν παρατίθεσθαι. (183) Κλέαρχος μὲν οὖν ἐν παρεκβάσει ταῦτ’ εἴρηκεν, τὸ γὰρ προκείμενον αὐτῷ ἦν {καθ’} ἕτερον, οὕτως ἡμῶν μνημονεύσας. FGrHist 737 F 1 et 7a. 6 βιβλίῳ Eus.: βίβλῳ Ios. || 8 περιτίθησι Gutschmid 1893, 579: adscribit Lat.: ἀνατίθησι Eus.: παρατιθεὶς Ios. || 9 ἂν Ios.ES, Eus.: om. Ios.L || τῶν Ios.S, Eus.: τὴν Ios.LE, || 10 ὁμοίως] ὅμως Reinach || 11 οὐ χεῖρον Ios.S, Eus.: οὐχ εὗρον Ios.LE || 11 σαφῶς δ’ ἴσθι εἶπεν Eus.: ὡς (om. SE) σαφῶς δέ σοι εἰπεῖν Ios.LSE || 12 θαυμαστὸν deest in Eus. cod. B, secl. Naber: θαυμάστ᾽, ὀνείροις σοὶ δόξω λέγειν ἴσα tempt. Gutschmid 1893, 580–1, θαυμάστ᾽, “recte” Bar-Kochva 2010, 4518 || 12 ὁ om. Ios.LE || 16 ἀπαγγελιῶν Eus.: ἐπαγγελιῶν Ios.LES || 17 ὅ τί σοι Ios.S: εἴ τί σοι Ios.LE: οὕτως εἰ Eus. Vide Bar-Kochva 2010, 4620 || κἀκεῖνος Ios.LSE: κεῖνος Eus.: κεῖνος Mras || post γένος addendum coni. ἔφη sive εἶπεν Niese || 20 Καλανοί Eus., Lat.: καλλανοί (καλλ- E) Ios.LSE || 23 ἱερουσαλήμην Ios.LSE: Ἱερουσαλὴμ Eus. || 25 ἐπιθαλαττίους Eus.: θαλαττίους Ios.LSE || 26 Ἑλληνικώτατος Gutschmid 1893, 585 ex gratissimus Lat. (i.e. graecissimus) || 28 αὐτοὺς om. Ios. || ἅνθρωπος (is homo Lat.) Gifford: ἄνθρωπος Ios.LE, Eus.: ἐν οἷς ἦμεν Ios.S (sic, τόπους respiciens) || 29 πολλοῖς Eus.: πολλοί Ios. || 30 συνῳκείωτο Eus.: συνῳκείωντο Ios. || 34 τὸ Ios.S: τὰ Ios.LE || τὰ secl. Niese || 36 καθ᾽ del. Hudson || 378 μνημονεύσας Hudson: μνημοσεῦσαι codd.: ἐμνημόνευσεν vir doctus ap. Hudson, “recte ut vid.” Niese.

35

Text and Translation

69

who wishes to know more can consult the book itself; for I am guarding against quoting more than enough. Clearchus, then, says these things in a digression, as he had a different topic before him, when he mentions us in this way. From a series of Greek authorities Josephus cites to establish Greek knowledge of the Jews; preceded by citations of Hermippus fr. 21 on Pythagoras (1.162–5), Theophr. fr. 648 on Jewish laws (1.166–7), Hdt. 2.104 (1.168–71), Choerilus fr. 320 (1.172–5), and followed by ps.-Hecataeus of Abdera fr. 21 (1.183–205), Agatharcides of Cnidos fr. 20 (1.205–12), and passing mention of eleven others (1.213–18), including Demetrius of Phalerum fr. 65. For discussion see Barclay 2007: 102–6, Bar-Kochva 2010: 40–89, Tsitsiridis 2013: 55–84 (esp. 56–64), Schorlemmer (in this volume), Verde (in this volume), and Subsidia. Another passage in Josephus, from a speech in his Jewish War 7.337–88, may also derive from On Sleep: “Sleep must be for us a patent proof of these arguments [sc. for immortality]: souls, during sleep when the body does not distract them, have a most pleasant relief as they come to be alone by themselves, and consorting with a kindred god, they travel everywhere and foretell many of the things to be” (7.349). Works with related titles include Aristotle’s three short studies of sleep and dreams, and lost works by Theophrastus (frs. 341–7 with Sharples 1995: 20–30), Heraclides Pont. (frs. 46–58, 82–95), and Strato (frs. 66–9, 76–81). Hyperochides is unknown but the name is attested mainly at Eresos and on Rhodes; Eresos would suit a dialogue set in Mytilene in which Aristotle recalls an encounter at Assos or Atarneus; cf. Dorandi 2006: 32 n. 8. The “Syrian valley” (literally Hollow Syria) is the modern Beqaa Valley in northeast Lebanon. For the Kalani and Judeans, cf. 12; for Kalanus, the proper name of a Brahman who meets Alexander, but here used generically (like “Platos”?), cf. Strabo 15.1.64 (Onesicritus fr. 17a), Arrian, Anabasis 7.2–3 (Megasthenes fr. 34), Plut. Alexander 65; see Bar-Kochva 2010: 59–62 and Ax (in this volume). “Hierousaleme” is peculiar to Clearchus, and phonetically closer to the Hebrew for Jerusalem than the usual Greek “Hierosolyma”; cf. Brenk 2011. “Since he was well versed…”: the translation follows the text of Eusebius, construing πολλοῖς τῶν as neuters and ὧν as partitive with τι μᾶλλον (sc. “more” than he would have shared otherwise), which obviates the worries of Bar-Kochva 2010: 49–52, who construes πολλοῖς τῶν as masculine; cf. Subsidia. “Fortitude and moderation” evoke asceticism when linked to “daily regimen” and diet. “Mentions us”: the Judeans, including Josephus; Clearchus apparently used the anecdote to introduce the case of hypnosis described in 7 (cf. 177: “the equivalent of dreams”); but cf. Tsitsiridis 2013: 61–4.

70

Clearchus of Soli

6B

Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata 1.15.70.2 (CGS t. 2, 44.11–2 Stählin–Früchtel–Treu) unde Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica 9.6.2 (CGS t. 8.1, 492.17–18 Mras)

5W

Κλέαρχος δὲ ὁ Περιπατητικὸς εἰδέναι φησί τινα Ἰουδαῖον, ὃς Ἀριστοτέλει συνεγένετο.

7

Proclus, In Platonis Rem publicam (BT t. 2, 122.12–123.16 Kroll)

7W

Ὅτι δὲ καὶ ἐξιέναι τὴν ψυχὴν καὶ εἰσιέναι δυνατὸν εἰς τὸ σῶμα δηλοῖ καὶ ὁ παρὰ τῷ Κλεάρχῳ τῇ ψυχουλκῷ ῥάβδῳ χρησάμενος ἐπὶ τοῦ μειρακίου τοῦ καθεύδοντος καὶ πείσας τὸν δαιμόνιον Ἀριστοτέλη, καθάπερ ὁ Κλέαρχος ἐν τοῖς Περὶ ὕπνου φησίν, περὶ τῆς ψυχῆς, ὡς ἄρα χωρίζεται τοῦ σώματος καὶ ὡς εἴσεισιν εἰς τὸ σῶμα καὶ ὡς χρῆται αὐτῷ οἷον καταγωγίῳ. τῇ γὰρ ῥάβδῳ πλήξας τὸν παῖδα τὴν ψυχὴν ἐξείλκυσεν καὶ οἷον ἄγων δι’ αὐτῆς πόρρω τοῦ σώματος ἀκίνητον ἐνέδειξε τὸ σῶμα καὶ ἀβλαβὲς σῳζόμενον ἀναισθητεῖν πρὸς …………… γραφόντων ὅμοιον ἀψύχῳ. ἐκείνην δὲ μεταξὺ διενεχθεῖσαν πόρρω τοῦ σώματος ἐγγύθεν αὐτῆς ἀγομένης πάλιν τῆς ῥάβδου μετὰ τὴν εἴσοδον ἀπαγγέλλειν ἕκαστα. τοιγαροῦν ἐκ τούτων πιστεῦσαι τούς τε ἄλλους τῆς τοιαύτης ἱστορίας θεατὰς καὶ τὸν Ἀριστοτέλην χωριστὴν εἶναι τοῦ σώματος τὴν ψυχήν. τοῦτο μὲν οὖν ὅπερ λέγω, τὸ τὴν ψυχὴν ἐξιέναι τε δύνασθαι τοῦ σώματος καὶ αὖθις εἰσιέναι καὶ ἔμπνουν ποιεῖν ὅπερ ἀπελελοίπει, ταῦτά τε δηλοῖ πάλαι τοῖς ἡγεμόσιν τοῦ Περιπάτου γεγραμμένα. 10 προσ (lacunam c. 15 litt.) γραφόντων V: ἀναισθητοῦν πρὸς γναπτόντων Bernays 1857/1880, 191 (= 91) ἀναισθητεῖν πρὸς γναφέντα Usener ap. Schoell, “sed τῶν certum” Kroll || ὅμοιον ἀψύχῳ Kroll: ὁμοίως ἀψ. Bernays: ὁμοίων ἀψύχων Morus 24. Cf. Festugière 1970, 672-3 || 11 διενεχθεῖσαν Schoell: διελέχθησαν (γ supra χ) Morus: in cod. χθησαν legit Kroll || ἐγγύθεν Kroll, qui in cod. .....ε. legit: ἑστῶτεσ legerat Morus: ἐς τοῦτο Schoell: ἑτέρωσε Bernays || 12 αὐτῆς “certum” Kroll: δι᾽

5

10

15

Text and Translation

71

6B

Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies 1.15.70.2; cf. Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 9.6.2

5W

Clearchus the Peripatetic says he knows a Judean who had contact with Aristotle. In a series of cases intended to show that Greek philosophy is endebted to other traditions; the previous case, from Alexander Polyhistor (fr. 94), has Pythagoras taught by an “Assyrian” Zoroaster, Celts, and Brahmans.

7

Proclus, Commentary on Plato’s Republic 16 (on 614b–c)

7W

That it is possible for the soul both to exit the body and to enter into it is made evident also by the man in Clearchus who used the soul-drawing rod on the sleeping youth and thereby persuaded the divine Aristotle, just as Clearchus says in his writings On Sleep, that the soul separates from the body, enters into the body, and uses it like a lodging. By striking the boy with his rod, the man drew out his soul, and as he led it away from the body with the rod, he indicated that the body, which remained immobile and unharmed, was insensitive to those writing, like something inanimate; and the soul, after an interim apart from the body, when it was brought back again by the rod, recounted everything [sc. which it experienced while apart] after its reentry. On this basis, then, both Aristotle and the others who observed that sort of report came to believe that the soul is separable from the body. Now the claim I’m making, that the soul is able both to exit the body and to enter again and make what it has left behind breathe again, is substantiated by these events recorded long ago by the leaders of the Peripatos. Proclus discusses the exit and reentry of a soul from its body as the explanation for “reviving” (2.122–4 Kroll), which is the first word in the third lemma (Rep. 614b7–c2: 2.122–36) of his lengthy discussion of the myth of Er (614b– 21d: 2.96–359), the longest of the seventeen studies that form his Commentary; the sequel cites accounts by “the theurges in the reign of Marcus” (sc. Aurelius, 160–180 CE), who claimed to induce the same experience in initiates by rituals. For Proclus’ approach, see Baltzly et al. 2018: 9–26. For the present case, which appears to resemble hypnosis, see Tsitsiridis 2013: 64–9, Verde (in this volume), Schorlemmer (in this volume); for the “rod” cf.

72

Clearchus of Soli αὐτῆς Schoell: δ᾽ αὐτὴν Bernays || ἀγομένην legerat Morus, “ην non dispexi” Kroll || τῆς Boyancé 1964, 11219.

8A

Proclus, In Platonis Rem publicam (BT t. 2, 113.1–115.7 Kroll)

8W

Καὶ γὰρ ἐφ’ ἡμῶν τινες ἤδη καὶ ἀποθανεῖν ἔδοξαν καὶ μνήμασιν ἐνετέθησαν καὶ ἀνεβίωσαν καὶ ὤφθησαν οἱ μὲν ἐγκαθήμενοι τοῖς μνήμασιν, οἱ δὲ καὶ εστῶτες· καθάπερ δὴ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν πάλαι γεγονότων ἱστοροῦνται καὶ Ἀριστέας ὁ Προκοννήσιος καὶ Ἑρμόδωρος ὁ Κλαζομένιος καὶ Ἐπιμενίδης ὁ Κρὴς μετὰ θάνατον ἐν τοῖς ζῶσιν γενόμενοι. καὶ τί δεῖ πολλὰ λέγειν; ὅπου γε καὶ ὁ μαθητὴς Ἀριστοτέλους Κλέαρχος ἱστορίαν τινὰ τοιαύτην πρῶτος παραδέδωκεν θαυμασίαν. Κλεώνυμος ὁ Ἀθηναῖος, φιλήκοος ἀνὴρ τῶν ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ λόγων, ἑταίρου τινὸς αὐτῷ τελευτήσαντος περιαλγὴς γενόμενος καὶ ἀθυμήσας ἐλιποψύχησέν τε καὶ τεθνάναι δόξας τρίτης ἡμέρας οὔσης κατὰ τὸν νόμον προὐτέθη. περιβάλλουσα δὲ αὐτὸν ἡ μήτηρ καὶ πανύστατον ἀσπαζομένη, τοῦ προσώπου θοἰμάτιον ἀφελοῦσα καὶ καταφιλοῦσα τὸν νεκρόν, ᾔσθετο βραχείας ἀναπνοῆς αὐτῷ τινος ἐγκειμένης. περιχαρῆ δὲ αὐτὴν γενομένην ἐπισχεῖν τὴν ταφήν. τὸν δὲ Κλεώνυμον ἀναφέροντα κατὰ μικρὸν ἐγερθῆναι καὶ εἰπεῖν ὅσα τε ἐπειδὴ χωρὶς ἦν καὶ οἷα τοῦ σώματος ἴδοι καὶ ἀκούσειεν. τὴν μὲν οὖν αὑτοῦ ψυχὴν φάναι παρὰ τὸν θάνατον οἷον ἐκ δεσμῶν δόξαι τινῶν ἀφειμένην τοῦ σώματος παρεθέντος μετέωρον ἀρθῆναι, καὶ ἀρθεῖσαν ὑπὲρ γῆς ἰδεῖν τόπους ἐν αὐτῇ παντοδαποὺς καὶ τοῖς σχήμασι καὶ τοῖς χρώμασιν καὶ ῥεύματα ποταμῶν ἀπρόσοπτα ἀνθρώποις· καὶ τέλος ἀφικέσθαι εἴς τινα χῶρον ἱερὸν τῆς Ἑστίας, ὃν περιέπειν δαιμονίας δυνάμεις ἐν γυναικῶν μορφαῖς ἀπεριηγήτοις. εἰς δὲ ἐκεῖνον αὐτὸν τὸν τόπον καὶ ἄλλον ἀφικέσθαι ἄνθρωπον καὶ ἀμφοῖν τὴν αὐτὴν γενέσθαι φωνήν, μένειν τε ἡσυχῇ καὶ ὁρᾶν τὰ ἐκεῖ πάντα. καὶ δὴ καὶ ὁρᾶν ἄμφω ψυχῶν ἐκεῖ κολάσεις τε καὶ κρίσεις καὶ τὰς ἀεὶ καθαιρομένας καὶ τὰς τούτων ἐπισκόπους Εὐμενίδας. ἔπειτα κελευσθῆναι ἀποχωρεῖν, καὶ ἀποχωρήσαντας ἀλλήλους ἐπανερέσθαι τίνες εἶεν, καὶ εἰπεῖν ἀλλήλοις τὰ ὀνόματα καὶ τὰς πατρίδας, τὸν μὲν Ἀθήνας καὶ Κλεώνυμον, τὸν δὲ Συρακούσας καὶ Λυσίαν, καὶ ἀλλήλοις παρακελεύσασθαι ζητῆσαι πάντως ἑκάτερον, ἐὰν εἰς

5

10

15

20

25

30

Text and Translation

73

Odyssey 24.1–5. The lacuna, though probably only a few words in length, is long enough to make conjecture hazardous.

8A

Proclus, Commentary on Plato’s Republic 16 (on 614b)

8W

In our time too, in fact, some considered already dead have been buried in tombs, and then they have revived and been seen sitting in their tombs or even standing beside them, just the way long ago Aristeas of Proconnesus, Hermodorus of Clazomenae, and Epimenides of Crete are reported to have returned to the living after death. And what need is there to give many examples, when no less than Aristotle’s student Clearchus recorded an amazing report like this first: Cleonymus of Athens, a man very fond of philosophical discussion, was extremely sad and disheartened when a friend of his died, and he passed out [literally: his soul left him], and since he was believed to be dead, he was laid out [for burial] on the third day according to custom. But when his mother embraced him to bid him her last farewell, she removed the cloak covering his face, and as she kissed him, she noticed a slight trace of breathing in him. Overjoyed, she stopped the burial, and Cleonymus, gradually recovering, woke up and recounted all the sorts of things he had seen and heard while apart from his body. His soul, he said, released by death as from bonds, seemed to shed his body and rise into the sky, and raised above the earth it saw regions on earth of all sorts of shapes and colors, and flowing rivers invisible to humankind. Finally his soul arrived in a land sacred to Hestia, which was tended by divine powers in women’s form of indescribable beauty. To that same place there also arrived another human who spoke the same language, and they stayed there quietly and saw everything. And there they saw souls punished and judged, and all those being cleansed and the Eumenides watching over them. Then the two were told to leave, and after they left, they each asked the other who he was, and they told one another their names and homelands, the one Cleonymus of Athens and the other Lysias of Syracuse; and they urged one another to seek out the other if either of them ever reached the other’s town. Not much later, Lysias came to Athens, and when Cleonymus

74

Clearchus of Soli

τὴν θατέρου πόλιν ἀφίκηται, τὸν ἀπ’ ἐκείνης ὡρμημένον. καὶ μετὰ χρόνον οὐ πολὺν ἐλθεῖν μὲν Ἀθήναζε τὸν Λυσίαν, πόρρωθεν δὲ αὐτὸν ἰδόντα τὸν Κλεώνυμον ἀναβοῆσαι τοῦτον εἶναι τὸν Λυσίαν, καὶ τοῦτον ὡσαύτως ἐπιγνῶναί τε πρὶν προσέλθῃ καὶ τοῖς παροῦσιν εἰπεῖν τοῦτον εἶναι τὸν Κλεώνυμον. ταῦτα μὲν ὁ Κλεάρχου λόγος.

35

3 ἐφεστῶτες Kroll || 5 Ἑρμότιμος Rohde 1877/1903, 334 (= 179) conl. Plin., Nat. hist. 7.174–5. Cf. Rohde 1908, 94–51 || 6 γενόμενοι Morus 24: -ος V || 13 τοῦ Rohde 1877/1903, 335 (= 180) || 16 ἀφὴν Mai || 18 τοῦ σώματος καὶ οἷα dub. Rohde 1877/1903, 3351 (= 1801) || αὑτοῦ V || 22 ἀπρόσοπτα Usener ap. Schoell: ἀπρόσαπτα V || 25 αὐτὸν V, “an αὑτὸν ?” Kroll.

8B

Cornelius Labeo fr. 11 Mastrandrea ap. Augustinum, De civitate Dei 22.28 (BT t. 2, 621.21–622.9 Dombart–Kalb)

**

Nonnulli nostri propter quoddam praeclarissimum loquendi genus et propter nonnulla, quae veraciter sensit, amantes Platonem dicunt eum aliquid simile nobis etiam de mortuorum resurrectione sensisse. Quod quidem sic tangit in libris de re publica Tullius, ut eum (Platonem) lusisse potius, quam quod id verum esse, adfirmet dicere voluisse. Inducit enim hominem revixisse et narrasse quaedam, quae Platonicis disputationibus congruebant. Labeo etiam duos dicit uno die fuisse defunctos et occurrisse inuicem in quodam compito, deinde ad corpora sua iussos fuisse remeare et constituisse inter se amicos se esse victuros, atque ita esse factum, donec postea morerentur. Sed isti auctores talem resurrectionem corporis factam fuisse narrarunt, quales fuerunt eorum, quos resurrexisse novimus et huic quidem redditos vitae, sed non eo modo ut non morerentur ulterius.

5

10

15

Text and Translation

75

saw him from afar, he cried out to Lysias, who likewise recognized him before he reached him, telling those with him that it was Cleonymus. That is Clearchus’ account. Commenting on the second lemma (614b4–7: 2.113–22 Kroll) in his treatment of the myth of Er (cf. 7), Proclus first mentions Democritus (fr. 1) and others collecting reports of people reviving from apparent death or coma, then faults the Epicurean Colotes for dismissing such stories, before recounting the one here; the sequel summarizes four more stories from Naumachius of Epirus (fourth century CE; cf. 2.329), two from the fourth century BCE (cf. Phlegon, Mirab. 1–2 and 122–3) and two Roman era; cf. Morgan 2013. For discussion, see Bolton 1962: 148–57, Tsitsiridis 2013: 69–84, Verde (in this volume), Schorlemmer (in this volume). For Aristeas’ sudden “death” and return years later, see Hdt. 4.14–15 and Bolton 1962; for Epimenides’ return after “sleeping” many years, see Diog. Laert. 1.109 (Theopompus fr. 67); for the nightly departures of Hermodorus’ soul, see Plut. Daimon. Soc. 22 592c– d; cf. Pliny, NH 7.174–5 for the trio, but naming “Hermotimus” (a prior incarnation of Pythagoras: Diog. Laert. 8.5, cf. 121). For Cleonymus’ name, cf. 90; his companion’s name evokes the orator Lysias, whose father was a native of Syracuse. The Eumenides are not attested by that name before the late fifth century; see Brown 1984.

8B

Augustine, On the City of God 22.28; Cornelius Labeo fr. 11

**

Many of us who love Plato for his brilliant writing and his many true insights say he held a view like ours about the resurrection of the dead. Cicero, for example, touches on this in his work On Government, where he claims that Plato was playing rather than aiming to say something true. For he introduces a man who came back to life and recounted various things that conform to Plato’s discussions. Labeo also tells of two men who died on the same day and encountered one another at a crossroad, and when told to return to their bodies, they agreed to live together as friends; and so they did until they eventually died. But these authors describe a resurrection of the body like those of people we know who revived and returned to this life, and not the kind of those who will not die again. Augustine, closing his own ideal city with references to Cicero’s “dream of Scipio” (Rep. 6.12–33) and Plato’s myth of Er (Rep. 10), cites another parallel from Cornelius Labeo (third century CE), author of a lost work on Etruscan and Roman religion. The “two men” are Cleonymus and Lysias as in 8A. For

76

Clearchus of Soli 4–5 in libris de re publica Tullius] vide Powell ad Cic., De rep. 6.12 (OCT 135 in adn.) || 6–8 inducit—congruebant] Pl., R. 10, 614b || 8 duos] i.e. Cleonymum Atheniensem et Lysiam Syracosium || 8–14 Labeo—morerentur] Labeo fr. 11 Mastrandrea.

9A

Probus (Prōbā), Commentarium in Porphyrii Isagogen (Versio Syriaca) Ms. Mingana Syr. 606, f. 16v; ND 51 p. 140 et ND 53 (sine paginarum numeratione). Interpretatio Anglica a S. P. Brock 2011, 200

**

They also say that Clearchos states in his book on sleep that there are some people who take no nourishment at all, but (instead) live without food; and there are people who engender (others) like themselves, without being nourished by anything. We have this to say: it is a story that Clearchos is telling. Now he states that these people are continually in the sun, and instead of warmth being lost to their body needing to grow through food, (their warmth) is kept pure by the warmth of the sun. It is in this way that people just mentioned grow up.

9B

Damascius, In Platonis Phaedonem Commentaria 1.530 (t. 2, 271.4–7) Westerink)

**

Ὅτι εἰ μακραίωνες, φθαρτοὶ αὐτῶν οἱ χιτῶνες· εἰ δὲ τοῦτο, καὶ ἀπορροή τις αὐτῶν ἐστιν· εἰ δὲ τοῦτο, καὶ χρεία τροφῆς. ταύτην οὖν οἱ ἐκεῖ παρέχονται καρποί, μέσοι ὄντες τὴν φύσιν τῶν τε ἐνθάδε καὶ τῶν οὐρανίων, οὓς αἱ Ἑσπερίδες ὀρέγουσι τοῖς εἰς πέρας ἐλθοῦσι τῆς ὅλης γενέσεως. ὅτι δὲ δεῖ τι καὶ ὅλον γένος ἀνθρώπων εἶναι οὕτω τρεφόμενον, δηλοῖ {δὲ} καὶ ὁ τῇδε ταῖς ἡλιακαῖς ἀκτῖσι μόναις τρεφόμενος, ὃν ἱστόρησεν Ἀριστοτέλης ἰδὼν αὐτός. Aristoteles, Eud. fr. 42 Rose3 = De phil. fr. 23 Walzer/Ross = 34 Untersteiner = fr. incertae sedis 855 Gigon. 6 δὲ M: del. μ.

5

Text and Translation

77

Cicero, cf. Macrobius, On Scipio’s Dream 1.1.19 and 1.4.2–3 (quoting Rep. 6.12), Eulogius Favonius, On Scipio’s Dream 13.1.

9A

Probus, Commentary on Porphyry’s Introduction (on ch. 3)

**

They also say that Clearchus states in his book on sleep that there are some people who take no nourishment at all, but [instead] live without food; and there are people who engender [others] like themselves, without being nourished by anything. We have this to say: it is a story that Clearchus is telling. Now he states that these people are continually in the sun, and instead of warmth being lost to their body needing to grow through food, [their warmth] is kept pure by the warmth of the sun. It is in this way that the people just mentioned grow up. Translated from Syriac by Brock 2011: 200; from a discussion of Isag. 3 on differentia, cf. Hugonnard-Roche 2012b: 231. For Probus (Prōbā in Syriac), head physician and arch-deacon of Antioch in the later sixth century CE, and his commentary (not yet edited) on Porphyry’s Introduction, see Subsidia.

9B

Damascius, Commentary on Plato’s Phaedo 1.530 (on 110b– 11c)

**

That, if they have a long lifespan, their bodily covering is perishable; and in that case, they also emit some effluence; and in that case, they also need sustenance. That, then, is provided by the produce there, which is intermediate in its nature between what there is here and what there is in the heavens, which the Hesperides hand out to those who reach the boundary of all generation. – That there should also be some whole genus of people nourished this way {and} is made evident also by the man here [sc. on earth] who was nourished by solar rays alone, the one Aristotle reported seeing firsthand. Discussing the dialogue’s closing eschatological myth (1.503–51 on 109a– 14c), Damascius describes the life and form of the higher creatures who inhabit the earth’s upper atmosphere (1.527–33 on 110b–11c). On the form of the work, as a student’s record of lectures that closely followed a lost commentary by Proclus, see Westerink 1977: 10–17; successive points often

78

Clearchus of Soli

9C

Damascius, In Platonis Phaedonem Commentaria 2.137–8 (t. 2, 361.6–7 Westerink)

**

(137) Ὅτι ἄνοσοι καὶ μακραίωνες οἱ ἐκεῖ· μέσα γὰρ ταῦτα τὰ εἴδη τῶν τε ἀιδίων ζῴων καὶ τῶν ὠκυμόρων· πανταχοῦ γὰρ ἡ μεσότης ἀναγκαία. ποιεῖ δὲ τὸ ἄνοσον καὶ τὸ εὐθάνατον καὶ τὸ μὴ ταχυθάνατον ἡ τῶν ὡρῶν καὶ τῶν στοιχείων εὐκρασία. καὶ τί θαυμαστόν, ὅτε καὶ οἱ Αἰθίοπες ὧδέ πως ἔχουσι διὰ τὴν τῶν ἀέρων συμμετρίαν; (138) εἰ ἐνταῦθα ἱστόρησεν Ἀριστοτέλης ἄνθρωπον ἄυπνον καὶ μόνῳ τῷ ἡλιοειδεῖ τρεφόμενον ἀέρι, τί χρὴ περὶ τῶν ἐκεῖ οἴεσθαι; Aristoteles, Eud. fr. 42 Rose3 = De phil. fr. 23 Walzer/Ross = 34 Untersteiner = fr. incertae sedis 855 Gigon. 7 ἄπνουν Bernays 1866, 187 (vide Bar-Kochva 2010, 76).

5

Text and Translation

79

begin with “(He says) that…”. The second comment here has also been assigned to Aristotle (see apparatus); more likely, he is named here as a speaker in Clearchus’ dialogue; see Bar-Kochva 2010: 75–80, Tsitsiridis 2013: 62–3. The Hesperides, as “daughters of Evening” and children of Night in Hesiod (Theog. 215–16), were thought to reside at the western “boundary” of Earth and Ocean where the sun sets, tending a garden of golden fruit reserved for immortals (Theog. 274–5, cf. 333–5). Heracles obtains some as one of his final tasks before apotheosis, apparently in the vicinity of Gadira (cf. 79A– B), also known as Erytheia (“Redland”) after one of the Hesperides (Hesiod fr. 360, Apollonius, Arg. 4.1427–8); cf. Theog. 287–94, Stesichorus frs. 8–10 with Fowler 2013: 2.291–9, Davies–Finglass 2014: 230–43, 254–65. For the Platonist allegory, cf. Proclus, In Rep. 6.1.10 (120.12–17 Kroll) with Westerink 1977: 270; for surviving on sunlight, cf. Plato’s cicadas in Phaedrus 259b–d.

9C

Damascius, Commentary on Plato’s Phaedo 2.137–8 (on 110b–11c)

**

That the ones there are free of illness and have a long lifespan; for those forms [sc. of life] are intermediate between the living beings that are eternal and those that are ephemeral; for everywhere an intermediate condition is necessary. What makes their life free of illness, their death gentle, and their lifespan long is the temperate blend of the seasons and elements. And how is that surprising, when even the Ethiopians experience something similar because of the balance in climate there? If Aristotle reported a man here who went sleepless and was sustained solely by sunny air, what must we suppose about the people there? Commenting on the same passage as 9B, from another student’s record of Damascius’ lectures on the Phaedo; cf. Westerink 1977: 16–17. “There” is the upper atmosphere along the boundary with heavenly aether, “here” is below on the earth’s surface; cf. Phaedo 111b. For Ethiopia’s hot summer tempered by mountain rains, cf. Arist. Meteor. 1.12 349a4–9, Arist. fr. 248, Theophr. fr. 211B, and Sharples 1998: 194–8 for its role in speculations about the Nile’s annual flood; cf. 105. People of Ethiopia were famously “longlived” (Hdt. 3.17–18, 3.22–3).

80

Clearchus of Soli

Ἀρκεσίλας (10–11) 10

Scholia (AO) in Platonis Leges 5 739a (321.3–7 Greene)

11 W

Παρὰ παροιμίας φησὶ τῆς “κινήσω τὸν ἀφ’ ἱερᾶς”, ἣ τέτακται ἐπὶ τῶν τὴν ἐσχάτην βοήθειαν κινούντων. μετείληπται δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν πεττευόντων· παρὰ τούτοις γὰρ κεῖταί τις ψῆφος, οἷον ἱερὰ καὶ ἀκίνητος, θεῶν νομιζομένη, ὥς φησιν Κλέαρχος ἐν Ἀρκεσίλᾳ.

11

Eustathius, Commentarii ad Homeri Odysseam α 107 1397.30– 6 (128.17–130.2 Cullhed)

12 W

Τοὺς πεσσοὺς λέγει ψήφους εἶναι πέντε γραμμῶν αἷς ἐπὶ πέντε γραμμῶν ἔπαιζον ἑκατέρωθεν, ἵνα ἕκαστος τῶν πεττευόντων ἔχῃ τὰς καθ᾽ ἑαυτόν. Σοφοκλῆς· “καὶ πεσσὰ πεντάγραμμα καὶ κύβων βολαί”. παρετείνετο δέ, φησί, δι᾽ αὐτῶν καὶ μέση γραμμή, ἣν ἱερὰν ὠνόμαζον, ὡς ἀνωτέρω δηλοῦται, ἐπεὶ ὁ νικώμενος ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτην αὐτὴν ἵεται ὅθεν καὶ παροιμία “κινεῖν τὸν ἀφ’ ἱερᾶς”, λίθον δηλαδή, ἐπὶ τῶν ἀπεγνωσμένων καὶ ἐσχάτης βοηθείας δεομένων· Σώφρων· “κινήσω δ᾽ ἤδη καὶ τὸν ἀφ’ ἱερᾶς”. Ἀλκαῖος δέ φησιν ἐκ πλήρους “νῦν δ’ οὗτος ἐπικρέτει κινήσας τὸν πείρας πυκινὸν λίθον”. τοιοῦτον δὲ καὶ παρὰ Θεοκρίτῳ τὸ “τὸν ἀπὸ γραμμᾶς κινήσω λίθον”. Διοδώρου δέ, φησί (sc. Suetonius), τοῦ Μεγαρικοῦ ἐνάγοντος τὸν τοιοῦτον λίθον εἰς ὁμοιότητα τῆς τῶν ἄστρων χορείας, Κλέαρχος τοῖς πέντε φησὶ πλάνησιν ἀναλογεῖν (sc. τοὺς τοιούτους λίθους).

5

5

10

15

Text and Translation

81

Arcesilas (10–11) 10

Scholia on Plato, Laws 5 739a

11 W

He uses the saying “I’ll move the one from the sacred [sc. line],” which is applied to those who try the last resort. It is transferred from pebble-players, who have a counter they treat as sacred and immobile, since it is considered to belong to the gods, as Clearchus says in Arcesilas. The Athenian, after allocating Magnesia 5040 citizens (734e–38b), recommends distributing the land in equal shares rather than leaving it all held in “common” (739a–41e), a proposal he likens to moving one’s piece “from the sacred line in (the game of) pebbles” (739a1), which was a critical move in the game. The saying is widely cited and explained, but only here citing Clearchus; see Subsidia for parallels, including Sch. Laws 7 820c7 (on mathematical studies), Epicharmus fr. 202, and Zenobius Athos 3.98 = ps.-Plut. 1.67 (CPG 1.331; cf. 86). The title of the work probably refers to the Academic philosopher from Pitane (316/5–241/0), who arrived in Athens in the 290s; cf. Diog. Laert. 4.29 and Philodemus, Index of Academics 16.14 and Index of Stoics 22.3–7. For discussion, see Tsitsiridis 2013: 85–94 and Mayhew (in this volume).

11

Eustathius, On Homer’s Odyssey 1.107

12 W

The pebbles, he explains, are five counters which they would play on five lines from each side, so that each of the pebbleplayers has the counters on his side. Sophocles: “both five-line pebble-boards and casts of dice.” There was also a line, he says, extending through the middle of them, which they called “sacred” (as explained above), since the one being defeated makes his last throw for it; whence also a saying: “to move the one from the sacred [sc. line],” namely the stone, applied to those who are desperate and need help of last resort. Sophron: “Already I’ll move the one from the sacred line.” Alcaeus has it in full: “Now this man prevails, having moved his stout stone from the sacred line.” Likewise also in Theocritus: “I’ll move my stone from the line.” While Diodorus the Megaric, he says, cites this sort of stone as a likeness to the dance of the stars, Clearchus says they [sc. the five counters] are analogous to the five planets.

82

Clearchus of Soli

1–10 (λίθον) eadem in Eust. ad Il. Ζ 169, 633.59–63 (t. 2, 277.17–278.1 V. d. Valk) παροιμία “κινεῖν τὸν ἀφ’ ἱερᾶς”, ἐπὶ τῶν ἐν ἀπογνώσει δεομένων βοηθείας ἐσχάτης. χρῆσις δὲ ταύτης καὶ παρὰ Σώφρωνι ἐν τῷ “κινεῖ—ἱερᾶς”, ἔνθα λείπει τὸ πεσσὸν ἢ λίθον || 3 Sophocles fr. 429 Radt || 8 Sophron fr. 122 K.–A. || 9 Alcaeus fr. 351 Voigt || 11 Theocritus 6, 18 11–13. Diodori testimonium deest in SSR || 12 φησί] Suetonius, Περὶ παιδιῶν fr. 9.15 Taillardat. 12 ἐνάγοντος Eust.MP: ἀνάγοντος Taillardat 66.

Ethica Περὶ παιδείας (12–14) 12

Diogenes Laertius, Vitae philosophorum 1.9 (72.98–100 Dorandi)

13 W

Κλέαρχος δὲ ὁ Σολεὺς ἐν τῷ Περὶ παιδείας καὶ τοὺς Γυμνοσοφιστὰς ἀπογόνους εἶναι τῶν Μάγων φησίν. FGrHist 737 F 7b. Cf. 6A (§ 179) κἀκεῖνος—καλοῦσιν = FGrHist 737 F 7a. 1 τοὺς om. F.

13

Hesychius Alexandrinus, Lexicon, s.v. Μανέρως (μ 237, t. 2, 789 Cunningham)

14 W

Μανέρως· τοῦτόν φασιν Αἰγύπτιον ὁμολογῆσαι πρῶτον παρὰ Μάγων διδαχθέντα καὶ διὰ τοῦτο πᾶσιν ἀνὰ στόμα γενέσθαι, ὡς Κλέαρχος ἐν τοῖς Περὶ παιδείας ἱστορεῖ. 1 αἰγύπτιον H: Αἰγυπτίων Schmidt || ὁμολογῆσαι H: ἀμαλογῆσαι Latte || 2 μάγων H (def. Cherniss 1949/1977, 415 = 443): μουσῶν H. Valesius ap. Hesych. Lex. ed. Alberti, t. 2, 1746, 5389 conl. Polluce 4.54 || lacunam post διδαχθέντα (in Clearcho non in Hesychio) ponendam statuit A. Guida (per litteras). An Μανέρως (sc. θρῆνος sive λίνος)· τοῦτόν φασιν Αἰγ. ἀμαλο-



Text and Translation

83

Commenting on a game of “pebbles” in Odyssey 1.107, Eustathius discusses related games, drawing on Suetonius, On Games, here cited as “he says” and the likely source for all the other citations: Sophocles fr. 429 (Nauplius), Sophron fr. 122, Alcaeus fr. 351, Theocritus, Id. 6.18 (Polyphemus hopelessly in love); for Diodorus Kronos, see Denyer 2002. For the game, cf. Pollux 9.97–8 with Kurke 1999; for celestial analogies, Mayhew (in this volume).

Ethics On Education (12–14) 12

Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Philosophers 1.9

13 W

Clearchus of Soloi in On Education says the naked sages are also descendants of the Magi. Diogenes, in an opening survey of foreign wisdom traditions (1.5–11), highlights the Persian Magi, citing Aristotle (frs. 6 and 36) and others for some of their basic beliefs, then Clearchus for their influence on Indian holy men; cf. Tsitsiridis 2013: 59–60 and Ax (in this volume). A further claim that they also influenced Jewish holy men is consistent with what is said about the Kalani in 6A but not attributed here to Clearchus; see Subsidia. Works with the same or similar titles are attested for Aristotle (Diog. Laert. 5.22 no. 19) and Theophrastus (frs. 436 no. 9–11, and 589 no. 13); cf. Fortenbaugh 2011: 152–6.

13

Hesychius of Alexandria, Lexicon under “Manerôs” (μ 237)

14 W

Manerôs: they say he was the first Egyptian to agree after he was taught by the Magi, and therefore he was on everyone’s lips, as Clearchus reports in On Education. The identity of Manerôs was disputed in antiquity and remains obscure; sources collected in Subsidia (Hdt. 2.79, Aristotle fr. 520, Nymphis of Heraclea fr. 5b in Ath. 14 620a, Pausanias 9.29.7) and Plut. Isis and Osiris 17 357d–f, variously relate the name to dirges for the untimely death of a youth (cf. 108 for Linus), including the son of Egypt’s first king Min (Hdt. 2.4) or Mênês (Manetho frs. 2–3); see Karanika 2014: 127–32, Ax (in this volume).

84

Clearchus of Soli γῆσαι (Latte) πρ. π. Μάγων διδαχθέντα? Textum traditum def. Taifacos: λένε ὅτι αὐτὸς ἦταν ὁ πρῶτος Αἰγύπτιος ποὺ ὁμολόγησε ὅτι διδάχτηκε ἀπὸ τοὺς Μάγους (Manerum primum Aegyptium hominem fuisse asseverant, qui se a Magis edoctum esse palam aperuit).

LIBER Β 14

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 15.54 697f (BT t. 4A, 363.12–6 Olson)

15 W

Κλέαρχος, ὦ λῷστε, ἐν δευτέρῳ Περὶ παιδείας οὑτωσί φησιν· λείπεται {τις} ὁ συρβηνέων χορός, ὧν ἕκαστος τὸ δοκοῦν ἑαυτῷ †κατασαι δεῖ†, προσέχων οὐδὲν τῷ προκαθημένῳ καὶ διδάσκοντι τὸν χορόν, ἀλλ’ αὐτὸς πολὺ τούτων ἀτακτότερός ἐστιν θεατής. 1 καὶ ὅς (i.e. ὁ Κύνουλκος) add. Schweigh. || 2 τις del. Wil. 1923/1962, 741 (= 3301) || συρβηνέων] συρβηναιων A: βυρσηναίων CE || 3 κατασαιδεῖ A: κατᾷσαι δεῖ CE: κατᾴδει Peppink 1936, 93: καταυλεῖ Kaibel || 4 ἀλλ’ αὐτὸς A: ἀλλ’ αὐτὸς “i.e. chorodidascalus” dub. Kaibel || 5 ὁ add. Wil., ‘fort. οὗτος (i.e. ὁ διδάσκαλος) πολὺ τούτων ἀτακτοτέρων ἐστὶ θεατὴς vel sim.’ Olson.

Περὶ φιλίας (15–16) LIBER Α 15

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 12.45 533e (BT t. 4A, 41.14–7 Olson)

17 W

Κλέαρχος δὲ ἐν πρώτῳ Περὶ φιλίας τὸν Θεμιστοκλέα φησὶ τρίκλινον οἰκοδομησάμενον περικαλλέστατον ἀγαπᾶν ἔφησεν, εἰ τοῦτον φίλων πληρώσειεν. 2 ἂν add. Kaibel, ἀγαπᾶν ἔφ. Schweigh.

5

Text and Translation

85

The lacuna would be eliminated by Latte’s emendation: “first to harvest by sheaves [or talk nonsense?], since he was taught by the Magi”; or possibly unamended: “first to acknowledge being taught by the Magi….” For influence of the Magi, cf. 12; but cf. Pollux 4.54, where Manerôs is both “discoverer of farming and a student of Muses.”

Book 2 14

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 15.54 697f

15 W

“My good man, Clearchus in Book 2 of On Education says the following: ‘There remains the chorus of syrbênes [sc. rowdies], each of whom †sings along† whatever way he decides, paying no attention to the one presiding and directing the chorus; but much more unruly than them is spectator himself.’ …” After a discussion of paeans and Attic skolia (692f–97b), the Cynic Cynulcus mentions three bawdier kinds of performance: “Locrian songs” (cf. 26), the κόλαβρoς dance (cf. 629d, Pollux 4.100), and this peculiar chorus, for which (to answer a challenge from Ulpian, addressed here as “my good man”) he cites Clearchus, then proceeds to discuss parodies (697f–99c); see Ax (in this volume). The label, related to τύρβη (“turmoil”), hence “rowdy revel,” is a scholars’ puzzle already in Athenaeus (cf. 669b, 671c); for other ancient interpretations, including Zenobius vulg. 6.1 (CPG 1.161), see Tsitsiridis 2009. The translation of the final clause follows Wilamowitz 1923: 74 n.1; without his supplement, the chorus “is itself an audience much more unruly than those” (sc. other performers previously mentioned).

On Friendship (15–16) Book 1 15

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 12.45 533e

17 W

Clearchus in On Friendship 1 says that Themistocles, after having a splendid dining room built, said he would rejoice if he could fill it with friends. From a series of reports about the luxurious living of famous leaders (528e–

86

Clearchus of Soli

LIBER Β 16

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 8.42 349f (BT t. 3A, 35.20–3 Olson)

18 W

Κλέαρχος δ’ ἐν δευτέρῳ Περὶ φιλίας Στρατόνικος, φησίν, ὁ κιθαριστὴς ἀναπαύεσθαι μέλλων ἐκέλευεν ἀεὶ τὸν παῖδα προσφέρειν αὑτῷ πιεῖν· “οὐχ ὅτι διψῶ”, φησίν, “ἵνα δὲ μὴ διψήσω”. 2 ἀεὶ rec.: αἰεὶ A || 3 αὐτῷ ACE.

Γεργίθιος (17–18) 17

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 6.67–70 255c–257c (BT t. 2, 69.21–73.15 Kaibel)

19 W

Κλέαρχος δ’ ὁ Σολεὺς ἐν τῷ ἐπιγραφομένῳ Γεργιθίῳ καὶ πόθεν ἡ ἀρχὴ τοῦ ὀνόματος τῶν κολάκων παρῆλθεν διηγεῖται {καὶ} αὐτὸν τὸν Γεργίθιον ὑποτιθέμενος, ἀφ’ οὗ τὸ βιβλίον ἔχει τὴν ἐπιγραφήν, ἕνα γεγονότα τῶν Ἀλεξάνδρου κολάκων. διηγεῖται δὲ οὕτως· τὴν κολακείαν ταπεινὰ ποιεῖν τὰ ἤθη τῶν κολάκων καταφρονητικῶν ὄντων τῶν περὶ αὐτούς. σημεῖον δὲ τὸ πᾶν ὑπομένειν εἰδότας οἷα τολμῶσι. τὰ δὲ τῶν κολακευομένων ἐμφυσωμένων τῇ κολακείᾳ χαύνους καὶ κενοὺς ποιοῦντα, †πάντων ἐν ὑπεροχῇ παρ’ αὐτοῖς ὑπολαμβάνεσθαι κατασκευάζεσθαι†.

5

10

Text and Translation

87

43c); this is the last of three anecdotes about Themistocles, the last of several Athenians cited (532b–33d). For discussion, see Tsitsiridis 2013: 95–102, with a catalogue of related works by others, including Aristotle’s EN 8–9, EE 7, and Theophrastus fr. 436 no. 23. The “dining room,” literally a triclinium or “three-couch” room, would be of modest size in Athens, suitable for symposia; “splendid” might better suit Themistocles’ final years of exile in Persia; cf. Plut. Them. 5 and 26–31.

Book 2 16

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 8.42 349f

18 W

Clearchus in On Friendship 2 says Stratonicus the kithara player, when he was going to relax, would always tell the servant to bring him something to drink, “Not because I’m thirsty,” he would say, “but so I won’t get thirsty.” In a series of anecdotes about Stratonicus of Athens (348c–52d), a virtuoso musician and celebrated wit from a generation or so before Clearchus; cf. 73 and Gilula 2000, Barker 2007: 75–8. There follows a long excerpt “from Callisthenes’ Recollections of Stratonicus” (350d–52c: FGrHist 124 fr. 5), a likely source for this anecdote; cf. Tsitsiridis 2013: 99–100.

Gergithius (17–18) 17

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 6.67–70 255c–257c

19 W

Clearchus of Soloi in the work entitled Gergithius also recounts the origin of the word for flatterers [kolax], taking as his theme Gergithius himself, from whom the book takes its title, who was one of the flatterers of Alexander [sc. the Great]. He recounts the following: “Flattery debases the character of flatterers, who are contemptuous of the people around them. And a sign of that is the way they put up with anything at all, though well aware of the sorts of things they dare to do; and the conduct of those who are flattered, when they are being inflated by the flattery, though it makes them [sc. the flatterers?] haughty and vain, †is believed to keep them maintained alongside them in abundance of everything.†”

88

Clearchus of Soli

ἑξῆς τε διηγούμενος περί τινος μειρακίου Παφίου μὲν τὸ γένος, βασιλέως δὲ τὴν τύχην, τοῦτο, φησί, τὸ μειράκιον (οὐ λέγων αὐτοῦ τοὔνομα) κατέκειτο δι’ ὑπερβάλλουσαν τρυφὴν ἐπὶ ἀργυρόποδος κλίνης ὑπεστρωμένης Σαρδιανῇ ψιλοτάπιδι τῶν πάνυ πολυτελῶν. ἐπεβέβλητο δ’ αὐτῷ πορφυροῦν ἀμφίταπον ἀμοργίνῳ καλύμματι περιειλημμένον. προσκεφάλαια δ’ εἶχε τρία μὲν ὑπὸ τῇ κεφαλῇ βύσσινα παραλουργῆ, δι’ ὧν ἠμύνετο τὸ καῦμα, δύο δ’ ὑπὸ τοῖς ποσὶ ὑσγινοβαφῆ τῶν Δωρικῶν καλουμένων. ἐφ’ ὧν κατέκειτο λευκῇ χλανίδι . παραδεδεγμένοι δ’ εἰσὶ πάντες οἱ κατὰ τὴν Κύπρον μόναρχοι τὸ τῶν εὐγενῶν κολάκων γένος ὡς χρήσιμον· πάνυ γὰρ τὸ κτῆμα τυραννικόν ἐστι. καὶ τούτων οἷον Ἀρεοπαγιτῶν τινων οὔτε τὸ πλῆθος οὔτε τὰς ὄψεις ἔξω τῶν ἐπιφανεστάτων οἶδεν οὐδείς. διῃρημένων δὲ διχῇ κατὰ συγγένειαν τῶν ἐν τῇ Σαλαμῖνι κολάκων, ἀφ’ ὧν εἰσιν οἱ κατὰ τὴν ἄλλην Κύπρον κόλακες, τοὺς μὲν Γεργίνους, τοὺς δὲ Προμάλαγγας προσαγορεύουσιν. ὧν οἱ μὲν Γεργίνοι συναναμιγνύμενοι τοῖς κατὰ τὴν πόλιν ἔν τε τοῖς ἐργαστηρίοις καὶ ταῖς ἀγοραῖς ὠτακουστοῦσι κατασκόπων ἔχοντες τάξιν, ὅτι δ’ ἂν ἀκούσωσιν ἀναφέρουσιν ἑκάστης ἡμέρας πρὸς τοὺς καλουμένους ἄνακτας. οἱ δὲ Προμάλαγγες ζητοῦσιν ἄν τι τῶν ὑπὸ τῶν Γεργίνων προσαγγελθέντων οὐκ ἀνάξιον εἶναι ζητήσεως δόξῃ, ὄντες τινὲς ἐρευνηταί. καὶ τούτων οὕτως ἔντεχνος καὶ πιθανὴ πρὸς ἅπαντας ἡ ἔντευξις, ὥστ’ ἔμοιγε δοκεῖ, καθάπερ καὶ αὐτοί φασι, παρ’ ἐκείνων εἰς τοὺς ἔξω τόπους διαδεδόσθαι τὸ σπέρμα τῶν ἐλλογίμων κολάκων. καὶ γὰρ οὐχ οἷον μετρίως ἐπὶ τῷ πράγματι σεμνύνονται διὰ τὸ τετιμῆσθαι παρὰ τοῖς βασιλεῦσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ λέγουσιν ὅτι τῶν Γεργίνων τις ἀπόγονος ὢν τῶν Τρώων ἐκείνων, οὓς Τεῦκρος ἀπὸ τῶν αἰχμαλώτων κατακτησάμενος εἰς Κύπρον ἔχων ἀπῴκησεν, οὗτος διὰ τῆς παραλίας μετ’ ὀλίγων στείλας ἐπὶ τῆς Αἰολίδος κατὰ πύστιν ἅμα καὶ οἰκισμὸν τῆς τῶν προγόνων χώρας πόλιν οἰκίσειε περὶ τὴν Τρωικὴν Ἴδην συμπαραλαβών τινας τῶν Μυσῶν, ἣ πάλαι μὲν ἀπὸ τοῦ γένους Γέργινα, νῦν δὲ Γέργιθα κέκληται. τούτου γάρ, ὡς ἔοικε, τοῦ στόλου τινὲς ἀποσπασθέντες ἐν τῇ Κυμαίᾳ κατέσχον ἐκ Κύπρου τὸ γένος ὄντες, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐκ τῆς Θετταλικῆς Τρίκκης, καθάπερ τινὲς εἰρήκασιν, ὧν ἰατρεῦσαι τὴν ἄγνοιαν οὐδ’ Ἀσκληπιάδαις τοῦτό γε νομίζω δεδόσθαι. γεγόνασι δὲ παρ’ ἡμῖν καὶ ἐπὶ Γλοῦ τοῦ Καρὸς καὶ γυναῖκες ὑπὸ τὰς ἀνάσσας αἱ



15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Text and Translation

89

Next, recounting the story of a youth from Paphos by birth and by fortune a king, he says, “This youth” (whose name he omits) “would lie in surpassing luxury on a couch with silver feet that was covered with a fine blanket of the costliest kind from Sardis; thrown over him was a double-weave purple blanket wrapped in a sheet of Amorgos silk; under his head he had three pillows of fine linen with purple borders, which relieved the daytime heat, and under his feet two scarlet pillows in the Doric fashion, and there he would lie in a white blouse.

“All the monarchs on Cyprus have adopted this kind of wellborn flatterer as useful; for having them is thoroughly characteristic of tyranny. And like some on the Areopagus Council, no one knows how many they are or what they look like, except for the most distinguished ones. The flatterers in Salamis, who inspired those everywhere else on Cyprus, are divided into two groups by kinship, one called Gergini [“informers”], the others Promalanges [“manipulators”]. The Gergini mingle with the townspeople in their workshops and the markets, listening in on everyone in their role as spies, and whatever they hear they report back to their so-called ‘lords’ every day. The Promalanges then investigate anything reported by the Gergini deemed to warrant investigation, serving as detectives of a sort. And the way these men handle everyone they meet is so skillful and convincing that I certainly think, as they themselves also claim, that they sowed the seed for the renowned flatterers who have spread beyond the island. In fact, they take no small pride in their efforts because of the honors they receive from the kings. They even tell of one of the Gergini, a descendant of those Trojans Teucer brought back as his captives and settled on Cyprus: this one sailed off along the coast with a few others up to Aeolian territory, both to look for his ancestral land and to make his home there. He founded a town below Trojan Mt. Ida along with some Mysians; and the town for a long time was called Gergina after his lineage, but now is called Gergitha. For evidently some of those on the voyage were separated en route and landed at Cumae; they were natives of Cyprus, not of Tricca in Thessaly, as some say, whose ignorance I think not even the descendants of Asclepius can cure.

90

Clearchus of Soli

προσαγορευθεῖσαι κολακίδες. ἀφ’ ὧν ὑπολιπεῖς τινες εἰς τὸ πέραν ἀφικόμεναι μετάπεμπτοι πρός τε τὰς Ἀρταβάζου καὶ τὰς Μέντορος γυναῖκας κλιμακίδες μετωνομάσθησαν ἀπὸ τοιαύτης πράξεως· ταῖς μεταπεμψαμέναις ἀρεσκευόμεναι κλίμακα κατεσκεύαζον ἐξ ἑαυτῶν οὕτως ὥστ’ ἐπὶ τοῖς νώτοις αὐτῶν τὴν ἀνάβασιν γίγνεσθαι καὶ τὴν κατάβασιν ταῖς ἐπὶ τῶν ἁμαξῶν ὀχουμέναις. εἰς τοῦτο τρυφῆς, ἵνα μὴ ἀθλιότητος εἴπω, προηγάγοντο τεχνώμεναι τὰς ἀφρονεστάτας. τοιγαροῦν αὗται μὲν ἐκ τῶν λίαν μαλακῶν ὑπὸ τῆς τύχης μεταβιβασθεῖσαι σκληρῶς ἐβίωσαν ἐπὶ γήρως, αἱ δέ, τῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν ταῦτα διαδεξαμένων, ἐκπεσοῦσαι τῆς ἐξουσίας κατῆραν εἰς Μακεδονίαν, καὶ τὰς τῶν ἐκεῖ κυρίας τε καὶ βασιλίδας ὃν τρόπον ταῖς ὁμιλίαις διέθεσαν οὐδὲ λέγειν καλόν, πλὴν ὅτι μαγευόμεναι καὶ μαγεύουσαι ταυροπόλοι καὶ τριοδίτιδες αὗται πρὸς ἀλήθειαν ἐγένοντο, πλήρεις πάντων ἀποκαθαρμάτων. τοσούτων ἔοικε καὶ τοιούτων ἡ κολακεία κακῶν αἰτία γενέσθαι τοῖς διὰ τὸ κολακεύεσθαι προσδεξαμένοις αὐτήν. προελθὼν δὲ πάλιν ὁ Κλέαρχος καὶ τάδε φησίν· ἀλλ’ ἤδη τῇ τούτων χρείᾳ μέμψαιτ’ ἄν τις τὸ μειράκιον, ὥσπερ εἶπον. οἱ μὲν γὰρ παῖδες μικρὸν ἄπωθεν τῆς κλίνης ἐν χιτωνίσκοις ἕστασαν. τριῶν δ’ ὄντων ἀνδρῶν, δι’ οὓς δὴ νῦν ὁ πᾶς λόγος ἐνέστηκε, καὶ τούτων ὄντων ἐπωνύμων παρ’ ἡμῖν, ὁ μὲν εἷς ἐπὶ τῆς κλίνης πρὸς ποδῶν καθῆστο τοὺς τοῦ μειρακίου πόδας ἐπὶ τοῖς αὑτοῦ γόνασι λεπτῷ λῃδίῳ συνημφιακώς. ὃ δὲ ἐπόει δήπου καὶ μὴ λέγοντος οὐκ ἄδηλον· καλεῖται δ’ οὗτος ὑπὸ τῶν ἐγχωρίων Παράβυστος διὰ τὸ καὶ τῶν μὴ παραδεχομένων ὅμως τεχνικώτατα κολακεύων παρεμπίπτειν ἐς τὰς ὁμιλίας. ἅτερος δ’ ἦν ἐπί τινος δίφρου κειμένου παρ’ αὐτὴν τὴν κλίνην καὶ τοῦ νεανίσκου τὴν χεῖρα παρεικότος ἐκκρεμάμενος ταύτης καὶ προσπεπτωκὼς κατέψηχέ τε καὶ τῶν δακτύλων ἕκαστον ἐν μέρει διαλαμβάνων εἷλκέ τε καὶ ἐξέτεινεν. ὥστε τὸν πρῶτον αὐτὸν ἐπονομάσαντα Σικύαν εὐστόχως εἰρηκέναι δοκεῖν. ὁ δὲ τρίτος ὁ Θὴρ ὁ γενναιότατος, ὅσπερ ἦν τῆς ὑπηρεσίας πρωταγωνιστής, προσεστηκὼς αὐτῷ κατὰ κεφαλὴν μετεῖχε τῶν βυσσίνων προσκεφαλαίων ἀποκεκλιμένος εἰς αὐτὰ πάνυ φιλικῶς. καὶ τῇ μὲν ἀριστερᾷ τὸ τοῦ μειρακίου τριχωμάτιον ἐπικοσμῶν, τῇ δεξιᾷ δὲ Φωκαϊκὸν ψῦγμά τι διακινῶν καὶ αἰωρῶν ἡδὺς ἦν, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἀποσοβῶν. διὸ ἐμοὶ δοκεῖν αὐτῷ δαίμων τις ἐλευθέριος νεμεσήσας ἐφίησι τῷ μειρακίῳ μυῖαν,

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

Text and Translation

91

“In our land [sc. Cyprus] there have also in the time of Glôs of Caria been women subject to the wives of the ‘rulers’ and known as ‘flatteresses’ [kolakides]. Some of them who remained, when they reached the mainland where they had been summoned to serve the many wives of Artabazus and Mentor, had their title changed to Klimakides [“step-ladders”] after the following practice: in catering to the women for whom they had been summoned, they would offer themselves as steps so the wives could step on their backs to climb into or out of their carriages. To that degree of luxury, not to say misery, did they lead those utterly senseless women by their contrivances. Accordingly, these women, once fortune deprived them of their extreme comforts, had a hard life all the way to the grave; but others, although those here inherited these practices, once they were deprived of their status, retreated to Macedonia. How their company affected the women in the leading families and royal court there is not pretty even to say, except that both bewitched and bewitching, they became true devotees of the Taurian and Crossroads goddesses, adept in all manner of purification rites. So many and so terrible evidently are the ills for which flattery has been responsible in those who welcome being flattered.” Further on, Clearchus also says the following: “But one might already reproach the youth for employing these, as I said. For first his slaves would stand beside the couch wearing short tunics; and then there were three men who prompted this entire discussion, who each have an apt title among us. One would sit at the foot of the couch holding the youth’s feet on his lap wrapped in a fine little towel; what he would do of course is obvious even without saying; this one the locals call Parabustos [“side-stick”] because even when uninvited he would still manage to wheedle his way into their company by his skillful flattery. Another would sit on a stool beside the couch, and when the youth extended his hand, he would lean forward to grip it and massage it, pulling and stretching each finger in turn; hence the one who first called him Sicyas [“gourdy”] is thought to have hit the mark. The third was the most honorable Thêr [“beast”]: he had the leading role in the retinue, stationed by the youth’s head and leaning toward his linen pillows like his best friend, arranging the youth’s hair with his left hand, and with

92

Clearchus of Soli

οὐκ ἄλλην ἢ ᾽κείνην ἧς καὶ τὴν Ἀθηνᾶν φησιν Ὅμηρος ἐνεῖναι τῷ Μενελάῳ τὸ θάρσος, οὕτως ἦν ἐρρωμένη καὶ ἄφοβος τὴν ψυχήν. δηχθέντος δὲ τοῦ μειρακίου τηλικοῦτον ἀνέκραγεν ἅνθρωπος ὑπὲρ ἐκείνου καὶ οὕτως ἠγανάκτησεν ὥστε διὰ τὴν πρὸς μίαν ἔχθραν ἁπάσας ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας ἤλαυνεν. ὅθεν καὶ φανερὸς ἐγένετο πρὸς τούτῳ τεταχὼς αὑτόν. 91 Ὅμηρος] Hom., Il. Ρ 570–3. 2 καὶ expu. Wehrli || 8 χαύνους καὶ κενοὺς ποιοῦντα ACE: χαῦνα καὶ κενὰ ποιοῦσαν temptavit Wehrli: χαῦνα καὶ κενὰ ποιεῖν Tsitsiridis 2013, 30 || 9–10 cruces posuit Olson || 9 πάντων ACE: πάντα Wil., “nec quae antecedunt recte habent” Kaibel || 10 κατασκευάζεσθαι ACE: “mallem κατασκευάζειν” Wehrli || 11 ἑξῆς τε διηγούμενος A: ὁ αὐτὸς Κλέαρχος διηγεῖται CE || 18 καῦμα Casaub.: κάλυμμα ACE || 19 ἐν add. Casaub. || χλανίδι Casaub.: χλαμύδι A. || lacunam statuit Tsitsiridis || 26 Προμάλαγγας] προμαλάγγους ACE || 27 συναναμιγνύμενοι A: συγγινόμενοι CE || 31 ἄν τι Cobet ms. (“aut pro ἄν τι reponendum ὅτι ἂν quod nunc in alienum locum irrepsit”), Kaibel: ἀντὶ ACE || 32 οὐκ ἀνάξιον Kaibel: ὅτι ἂν ἄξιον ACE || 34 δοκεῖν Cobet ms. || 44 post κέκληται lacunam statuit Wehrli || 48–9 παρ’ ἡμῖν—Καρὸς om. CE || 49 Γλοῦ τοῦ Καρὸς Casaub.: γλουτουκαρὸς A || 50 ὑπολιπεῖς corruptum Cobet ms. || 52 κλιμακίδες CE: κεμακίδες A || 62 διέθεσαν CE: ἀνέθεσαν A || 63 ταυροπόλοι CE: ταυροπολικα (sic) A || τριοδίτιδες Lobeck 1829, 1089: τριοδοι τινὲς A: τρίοδοί τινες CE || 66 τὸ Kaibel: τοῦ A || 72–3 αὑτοῦ γόνασι A: γόνασιν ἑαυτοῦ CE || 73 ἐπόει ACE: ἐποίει Schweigh. || 78 ταύτης CE: ταύτῃ A || 79 κατέψηχε CE: -ψυχη A || 86 ψῦγμα Casaub.: ψῆγμα ACE || καὶ Kaibel: ὡς ACE || 87 “fortasse ἡσυχῆ pro ἡδὺς ἦν” Cobet ms. || ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἀποσοβῶν ACE: οὖν καὶ ἀποσοβῶν (vel μυιοσοβῶν) Kaibel: †οὐκ† Wehrli in textu, “οὖν coniciam cum Kaibelio” in app. || διὸ ἐμοὶ δοκεῖν Cobet ms. et Kaibel: διό μοι δοκεῖν ἂν ACE || 88 τῷ μειρακίῳ del. Wil., sed vide Tsitsiridis 2013, 125–668 || 89 ἧς Casaub.: ὡς ACE.

90

Text and Translation

93

his right hand gently waving a Phocaean fan up and down but without shooing the flies away. That I think is why some divinity of freedom took offense and sent the youth a fly, the very same one whose bravery Homer says Athena injected into Menelaus, so mighty and fearless a soul it had. When it bit the youth, the toady howled so loudly on his behalf and complained so much that his hostility toward the one drove all the flies out of the building, which made it obvious that he had stationed himself there just for that.” In a discussion of “flattery” (248c–62d) by the philosophical Democritus, following 19 and an anecdote about the retinue of Demetrius I Poliorcetes c. 307 from the scholar Dionysius son of Tryphon (first century BCE). For a conventional picture of “flattery,” which was commonly viewed as both selfserving and degrading, see Theophr. Char. 2 with Diggle 2004: 181–98, Fortenbaugh 2011: 631–7; for analysis of the present passage, Tsitsiridis 2013: 103–43. The courtier Gergithius, named only here (Berve no. 224), presumably served both as an example of the work’s theme and to introduce the lore evoked by his name, which was the ethnonym for natives of Gergitha (or Gergis), a town in the Troad near Scepsis in the upper Scamander valley, prosperous enough in the fourth century to issue coins, stamped with its famous Sibyl of Marpessus; cf. Steph. Byz. Ethnica 3.58, Heraclides Pont. frs. 120A–C, Parke 1988: 24–6, 107–8. Editors have proposed various remedies for the obscure syntax of the first excerpt here, which is usually construed as a quotation contrasting the ill effects of flattery on flatterers and those they flatter, viz. degradation and conceit. Construed rather as a paraphrase, with initial διηγεῖται introducing infinitives for indirect discourse, it would read: “In this way he recounts how flattery debases….” In what follows, τὰ τῶν κολακευομένων is the subject of ὑπολαμβάνεσθαι (passive) and thereby κατασκευάζεσθαι (middle) in indirect discourse, which has as object the flatterers themselves now characterized as “haughty and vain” (χαύνους καὶ κενούς) thanks to the favor granted them in return by those they flatter (παρ᾽αὐτοῖς). An abrupt transition after the second paragraph suggests a lacuna; cf. Tsitsiridis 2013: 107. For Gergini, Hesychius, Lex. γ 417 has “informant” (διάβολος); Promalanges may derive from προμαλάσσειν (“softening up, kneading”); cf. Tsitsiridis 2013: 110–17 with Athenian and Persian parallels. The “so-called lords” (ἄνακτες) were, in Cypriot idiom, a king’s sons and brothers; cf. Aristotle fr. 526. Teucer was the legendary founder of Cypriot Salamis after being banished from Saronic Salamis by his father Telamon over the suicide of his brother Ajax; see Prinz 1979: 25–55, 388–93. For the foundation of Gergitha in the Troad, cf. Hdt. 5.122, Strabo 13.1.48, Iliad 8.300–8; for Cumaean Gergitha, cf. Strabo 13.1.70 on a town founded by

94

Clearchus of Soli

18

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 6.72 258a–b (BT t. 2, 74.15–24 Kaibel)

20 W

Εἴη οὖν ἂν ὁ τοῦ προειρημένου μειρακίου κόλαξ μαλακοκόλαξ, ὥς φησιν ὁ Κλέαρχος. πρὸς γὰρ τῷ οὕτω κολακεύειν καὶ τὸ σχῆμα τῶν κολακευομένων ἐπακολουθῶν ἀποπλάττεται παραγκωνίζων καὶ σπαργανῶν ἑαυτὸν τοῖς τριβωναρίοις. ὅθεν αὐτὸν οἱ μὲν παραγκωνιστήν, οἱ δὲ σχηματοθήκην καλοῦσι· κατ’ ἀλήθειαν γὰρ ὁ κόλαξ ἔοικεν εἶναι τῷ Πρωτεῖ ὁ αὐτός. γίγνεται γοῦν παντοδαπὸς οὐ μόνον κατὰ τὴν μορφήν, ἀλλὰ καὶ κατὰ τοὺς λόγους, οὕτω ποικιλόφωνός τις ἐστίν. Ἀνδροκύδης δ᾽ ὁ ἰατρὸς ἔλεγε τὴν κολακείαν ἔχειν τὴν ἐπωνυμίαν ἀπὸ τοῦ προσκολλᾶσθαι ταῖς ὁμιλίαις· ἐμοὶ δὲ δοκεῖ διὰ τὴν εὐχέρειαν ὅτι πάντα ὑποδύεται, ὡς δή τις ὑποστατικὸς νωταγωγῶν τῷ τῆς ψυχῆς ἤθει καὶ οὐ βαρυνόμενος οὐδενὶ τῶν αἰσχρῶν. 1 οὖν ἂν A: ἂν οὖν CE || 2 τῷ οὕτω CE: τῷ τοιούτῳ A: τῷ τοιούτως dub. Kaibel || 3 ἐπακολουθῶν CE: -θοῦν A || 10–11 τὴν εὐκολίαν τε καὶ suppl. Gulick, t. 3, 1618 (cf. Tsitsiridis 2013, 1055).

5

10

Text and Translation

95

Attalus I further up the Caicus valley from Pergamum. “Tricca… Asclepius”: the sons Machaon and Podalirius, who led the contingent from Tricca at Troy (Iliad 2.729–33), were legendary healers; scholars who traced the Cumaean Gergitha back to Thessaly rather than Cyprus are faulted for incurable confusion; cf. Strabo 13.1.19 with Roller 2018: 748–9. Glôs was a Persian commander of Egyptian descent, active against Cyprus in the 380s and murdered c. 380; see Ruzicka 1999. Artabazus III was Persian satrap of Phrygia in the 350s, Mentor a mercenary commander from Rhodes in his service and married to his sister; for their retinue’s flight to Philip II of Macedon in 345, see Diodorus 16.52.3, Tsitsiridis 2013: 118–20. “Taurian” (literally “bull-slaughtering”) and “Crossroads” allude to the goddesses Artemis and Hecate and distinctly women’s rites; see Lloyd-Jones 1983: 96–7, and cf. Blümel 1997: 142 for contemporary Macedonian usage. The Parabystos is named after uninvited guests who had to “squeeze in beside” others; the Sicyas after cupping instruments for drawing blood (cf. “pulling” here), which were shaped like a gourd (σικύα); and the “Beast” specifically for a predator (θήρ); cf. Tsitsiridis 2013: 120–4. The Homeric fly appears in the battle over the body of Patroclus (Iliad 17.570–3); cf. Lucian, Musc. Enc. 5; for avenging deities, cf. 46, 47.

18

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 6.72 258a–b

20 W

So the flatterer of the youth previously discussed [in 17] would be a “comfort-flatterer,” as Clearchus says. For in addition to flattering in that way, he also watches those he flatters closely to copy their every gesture, sticking to their elbows and insinuating himself within the very folds of their cloaks. As a result, some call him an elbower, others a gesture-store; for in truth the flatterer is evidently the same as Proteus. At any rate, he is extremely versatile not only in his shape but also in his conversation, a man of such various voice is he. The doctor Androcydes used to say that flattery [kolakeia] gets its name from attaching oneself [proskollasthai] to company. But I think it comes from the facility with which he plays any role, just like some steadfast fellow who shoulders loads on his soul’s character without being weighed down by anything demeaning. Following 17, separated by an anecdote about another tyrant and his flatterers (either Leucon I of Pontus, ruling c. 390–c. 350, or Leucon II, c. 240–c. 220) and a comic excerpt on the luxury of Cypriot kings (Antiphanes fr. 200). The sequel continues in the same vein, with more comic excerpts, then a similar

96

Clearchus of Soli

Ἐρωτικά (19–35) LIBER Α 19

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 6.66 255b–c (BT t. 2, 69.10–14 Kaibel)

21 W

Κλέαρχος δ’ ὁ Σολεὺς ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ τῶν Ἐρωτικῶν κόλαξ μὲν οὐδείς, φησί, διαρκεῖ πρὸς φιλίαν. καταναλίσκει γὰρ ὁ χρόνος τὸ τοῦ προσποιήματος αὐτῶν ψεῦδος. ὁ δ’ ἐραστὴς κόλαξ ἐστὶ φιλίας δι’ ὥραν ἢ κάλλος. 1 ὁ σολευκος A || 2 διαρκεῖ A: ἀρκεῖ CE.

20

Αthenaeus, Deipnosophistae 13.16 564a–b (BT t. 4A, 98.11–19 Olson)

22 W

Καὶ γὰρ τὸ παλαιὸν παίδων ἤρων, ὡς καὶ ὁ Ἀρίστων ἔφη, ὅθεν καὶ καλεῖσθαι τοὺς ἐρωμένους συνέβη παιδικά. πρὸς ἀλήθειαν γάρ, καθάπερ φησὶ Κλέαρχος ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ τῶν Ἐρωτικῶν, Λυκοφρονίδην εἰρηκέναι φησίν· οὔτε παιδὸς ἄρρενος οὔτε παρθένων τῶν χρυσοφόρων οὐδὲ γυναικῶν βαθυκόλπων καλὸν τὸ πρόσωπον, ἀλλ᾽ ὃ κόσμιον πεφύκει· ἡ γὰρ αἰδὼς ἄνθος ἐπισπείρει.

5

Text and Translation

97

tale from Hippias of Erythrae (third century BCE: FGrHist 421) about the tyrant Cnopus of Erythrae (258f–59f: fr. 1), which Zecchini 1989: 169–70 tentatively assigns to Gergithius; cf. Tsitsiridis 2013: 127–9. Androcydes: a physician associated with Alexander (Pliny, NH 14.58), cited also by Theophrastus (HP 4.16.6). The alternative etymology for κολακεία turns on εὐκολία, which is implicit in εὐχέρειαν even without Gulick’s supplement.

Discussions of Love (19–35) Book 1 19

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 6.66 255b–c

21 W

Clearchus of Soli in Book 1 of Discussions of Love says, “No flatterer is worth much for friendship, for time uncovers the falsity in his pretense; and the lover is a flatterer feigning friendship on account of vigor or beauty.” In a discussion of flattery (248c–62d); 17 follows almost directly. Similar titles are attested for Heraclides Ponticus (fr. 17 no. 12), Aristotle (Diog. Laert. 5.22 no. 9, cf. 5.24 no. 70), Theophrastus (fr. 436 nos. 29–30, cf. 727 no. 4), Demetrius of Phalerum (fr. 81 no. 7), and Aristo of Ceos (fr. 7 no. 1). For related worries about flattery by false friends and lovers, cf. Antiphon 87 B65 DK; Plato, Phdr. 240a–b; Arist. EN 4.6 1127a7–10. For discussion, see White (in this volume).

20

Αthenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 13.16 564a–b

22 W

In fact, men long ago used to love boys [paides], as Aristo also said, which led to the ones they loved being called boyfriends [paidika]. For just as Clearchus says in Book 1 of the Discussions of Love, he says Lycophronides has spoken to the truth: Neither is the face of a boy nor of maidens wearing gold, nor of buxom women beautiful unless it is decorous; for modesty sows its bloom.

98

Clearchus of Soli

1 Aristo fr. 17 W. = 13A White || 4 Lycophronides fr. 1 Page (PMG 843). 1 Ἀρίστων Meineke: ἀριστοφῶν A || 4 φησίν (Ἡγήσανδρος loquitur, ut vid.) del. Meineke, an recte? || 7 ἀλλ᾽ ὃ Page: ἀλλὰ A: ἐὰν μὴ Meineke || πεφύκει A: -κῃ Meineke: πέφυκεν Schaefer “fort. recte” Page κ. {τὸ} πρόσωπον· ἀλλὰ κ. πεφύκει· Fiorillo 1803, 101.

21

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 15.9 669f–670f (BT t. 4A, 306.8– 307.22 Olson)

24 W

Φῂς οὖν διὰ τί, τῶν ἐστεφανωμένων ἐὰν λύηται ὁ στέφανος, ἐρᾶν λέγονται. πότερον ὅτι ὁ ἔρως τοῦ τῶν ἐρώντων ἤθους περιαιρεῖται τὸν κόσμον, διὰ τοῦτο τὴν τοῦ ἐπιφανοῦς κόσμου περιαίρεσιν φρυκτόν τινα, φησὶ Κλέαρχος ἐν πρώτῳ Ἐρωτικῶν, καὶ σημεῖον νομίζουσιν τοῦ καὶ τὸν τοῦ ἤθους κόσμον περιῃρῆσθαι τοὺς τοιούτους; ἢ καθάπερ ἐπὶ τῆς μαντικῆς ἄλλα πολλὰ καὶ τοῦτο σημειοῦνταί τινες; ὁ γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ στεφάνου κόσμος οὐδὲν ἔχων μόνιμον σημεῖόν ἐστι πάθους ἀβεβαίου μὲν κεκαλλωπισμένου δέ. τοιοῦτος δ’ ἐστὶν ὁ ἔρως· οὐδένες γὰρ μᾶλλον τῶν ἐν τῷ ἐρᾶν ὄντων καλλωπίζονται. εἰ μὴ ἄρα ἡ φύσις οἱονεί τι δαιμόνιον δικαίως βραβεύουσα τῶν πραγμάτων ἕκαστον οἴεται δεῖν τοὺς ἐρῶντας μὴ στεφανοῦσθαι πρὶν κρατήσωσιν τοῦ ἔρωτος. τοῦτο δ’ ἔστιν ὅταν κατεργασάμενοι τὸν ἐρώμενον ἀπαλλαγῶσιν τῆς ἐπιθυμίας. τὴν ἀφαίρεσιν οὖν τοῦ στεφάνου σημεῖον τοῦ ἔτι ἐν τῷ διαγωνίζεσθαι εἶναι ποιούμεθα. ἢ ὁ Ἔρως αὐτὸς οὐκ ἐῶν καθ’ αὑτοῦ στεφανοῦσθαι καὶ ἀνακηρύττεσθαι τῶν μὲν τὸν στέφανον περιαιρεῖ, τοῖς δὲ λοιποῖς ἐνδίδωσιν αἴσθησιν μηνύων ὅτι ἡττῶνται ὑπὸ αὐτοῦ; διὸ ἐρᾶν οἱ λοιποὶ τοὺς τοιούτους φασίν. ἢ ὅτι λύεται μὲν πᾶν τὸ δεδεμένον, ὁ δὲ ἔρως στεφανουμένων τινῶν δεσμός ἐστιν (οὐθένες γὰρ ἄλλοι τῶν δεδεμένων περὶ τὸ στεφανοῦσθαι σπουδάζουσιν πλὴν οἱ ἐρῶντες), τὴν τοῦ στεφάνου δὴ λύσιν σημεῖον τοῦ περὶ τὸν ἔρωτα δεσμοῦ νομίζοντες ἐρᾶν φασιν τοὺς τοιούτους; ἢ διὰ τὸ



5

10

15

20

Text and Translation

99

From a brief encomium of heterosexual eros by Myrtilus (563d–66e), and the first of nine passages from this work cited in Book 13; cf. 23. The preceding citations, including Aristo of Ceos fr. 13A, object to having “boyfriends” who have grown up. Untangling who cites whom here is problematic, but the received text has Aristo invoke Lycophronides to support (γάρ) his own claim, endorsing the poet’s approval of modesty “just as” Clearchus did, apparently by highlighting the attractiveness of a virtue characteristic of youth and women alike; cf. 28. For discussion, see Fortenbaugh 2012: 19–21, White (in this volume). Lycophronides, probably fourth century, is unknown beyond this citation (fr. 1) and another in 21.

21

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 15.9 669f–670f

24 W

So you ask why, when the garlands people are wearing come undone, they are said to be in love. Is it because love takes away the decorum of character from those in love, and that is why someone taking off that visible decorum is considered a kind of beacon [or token], as Clearchus says in Book 1 of Discussions of Love, and a sign that they have taken off their decorum of character? Or just as in divination, do some people take this as well to signify many other things? For the decorum supplied by a garland, which does not last long at all, is a sign of a feeling that is unstable and all decked out; and that is what love is like, for none deck themselves out more than those who are in love. Unless perhaps nature, like some divinity, adjudicating each matter fairly, thinks those in love should not wear a garland until they overcome their love; and that is when they have finished with the one they love and are released from their desire. So the removal of the garland we treat as a sign that they are still struggling. Or does Love, who does not allow anyone to wear a garland and proclaim victory over him, himself take the garland off the lovers and give everyone else a visible indication that they are defeated by him? That is why the others say people like that are in love. Or is it because everything bound together comes undone, and for some who wear garlands, love is what binds them? For none of those who are bound up are keen to wear garlands except those in love. And so considering the loosening of the garland a sign of love’s binding, they say

100

Clearchus of Soli

πολλάκις τοὺς ἐρῶντας διὰ τὴν πτοίησιν, ὡς ἔοικεν, στεφανουμένους περιαιρεῖν αὑτῶν τὸν στέφανον ἀντιστρέφομεν τῇ ὑπονοίᾳ τὸ πάθος, ὡς οὐκ ἄν ποτε τοῦ στεφάνου περιρέοντος εἰ μὴ ἤρων; ἢ ὅτι ἀναλύσεις περὶ μόνους μάλιστα τοὺς ἐρῶντας καὶ καταδεδεμένους γίνονται, τὴν δὲ τοῦ στεφάνου ἀνάλυσιν καταδεδεμένων τινῶν εἶναι νομίζοντες ἐρᾶν φασι τοὺς τοιούτους; καταδέδενται γὰρ οἱ ἐρῶντες. εἰ μὴ ἄρα διὰ τὸ κατεστέφθαι τῷ Ἔρωτι τοὺς ἐρῶντας οὐκ ἐπίμονος αὐτῶν ὁ στέφανος γίνεται· χαλεπὸν γὰρ ἐπὶ μεγάλῳ καὶ θείῳ στεφάνῳ μικρὸν καὶ τὸν τυχόντα μεῖναι. στεφανοῦσιν δὲ τὰς τῶν ἐρωμένων θύρας ἤτοι τιμῆς χάριν καθαπερεί τινος θεοῦ τὰ πρόθυρα {στεφανοῦσιν αὐτῶν}, ἢ οὐ τοῖς ἐρωμένοις ἀλλὰ τῷ Ἔρωτι ποιούμενοι τὴν τῶν στεφάνων ἀνάθεσιν τοῦ μὲν Ἔρωτος τὸν ἐρώμενον ἄγαλμα, τούτου δὲ ναὸν ὄντα τὴν οἴκησιν στεφανοῦσι· {τὰ τῶν ἐρωμένων πρόθυρα}· διὰ ταῦτα δὲ καὶ θύουσιν ἔνιοι ἐπὶ ταῖς τῶν ἐρωμένων θύραις. ἢ μᾶλλον ὑφ’ ὧν οἴονταί τε καὶ πρὸς ἀλήθειαν τὸν τῆς ψυχῆς κόσμον ἐσκύλευνται, {καὶ} τούτοις καὶ τὸν τοῦ σώματος κόσμον ὑπὸ τοῦ πάθους ἐξαγόμενοι {καὶ} σκυλεύοντες ἑαυτοὺς ἀνατιθέασιν. πᾶς δ’ ὁ ἐρῶν τοῦτο δρᾷ μὲν , μὴ παρόντος δὲ τοῦ ἐρωμένου τοῦ ἐμποδὼν ποιεῖται τὴν ἀνάθεσιν. ὅθεν Λυκοφρονίδης τὸν ἐρῶντα ἐκεῖνον αἰπόλον ἐποίησε λέγοντα· τόδ’ ἀνατίθημί σοι ῥόδον, καλὸν ἄνθημα καὶ πέδιλα καὶ κυνέαν καὶ τὰν θηροφόνον λογχίδ’, ἐπεί μοι νόος ἄλλᾳ κέχυται ἐπὶ τὰν Χάρισι φίλαν παῖδα καὶ καλάν. 46 Lycophronides fr. 2 Page (PMG 844). 3 διὰ τοῦτο τὴν Schweigh.: διὰ τὸ πρὸς τὴν A: διὰ τοῦτο καὶ τὴν dub. Kaibel corruptum censet Rohde 1876, 590 || 6 ἢ καθάπερ κτλ. usque ad finem] “sequitur longior disputatio, quam totam ex Clearcho fluxisse dubium est. exscribere ineptias has nolui” Mueller 1848, 315 (ad fr. 38) || 18 περιαιρεῖ CE: περιαιρεῖσθαι A || 20 λ. μὲν οὐδὲν τὸ δεδ. dub. Kaibel || δὴ λύσιν Β Mus.: δήλωσιν ACE || 26 περιαιρεῖν MPpc Mus.: περιρεῖν Pac : περιρεῖν A: περιρρεῖν CEΒ || αὑτῶν Rohde: αὐτῶν ACE || 28 περιρέοντος A : περιρρέοντος C: def. E 28–31 ἢ ὅτι—οἱ ἐρῶντες a Clearcho aliena putat Rohde || 34 μεῖναι Meineke: θεῖναι ACE || 36 στεφανοῦσιν αὐτῶν del. Meineke, τὰ πρόθυρα στεφ. αὐτῶν del. Wil. || 37 ὡς add. Rohde || 39 τὰ τῶν ἐρωμένων πρόθυρα del. Wil. || 42 τούτοις καὶ τὸν Mus., “quamvis non certa coniectura” Kaibel:

25

30

35

40

45

50

Text and Translation

101

people like that are in love. Or because those in love in their excitement, evidently, often themselves take off the garlands they wear, do we infer their feelings by conjecture, supposing the garland would never slip off if they were not in love? Or is it because breaking up happens especially to those who are bound together in love, and by associating the break up of a garland with those bound together, they say people like that are in love? For those in love are bound together. Unless perhaps it is because those in love are crowned by Love that the garland does not last; for it is hard for any little one, even one in luck, to sustain a garland [sc. Love] so great and divine. They hang garlands on the doors of the ones they love, either in their honor, as if at the doorway of some god; or dedicating the garlands not to the one they love but to Love, they garland the one they love an icon of Love and his house the god’s temple. That is why some even perform sacrifices at the doors of the one they love. Or instead, when they believe, and rightly so, that the one they love has despoiled their soul of its decorum, then carried away by their experience and despoiling themselves of their own body’s decoration, they dedicate that to their beloved. Everyone in love does this if the one they love , and if he is absent, they dedicate the obstacle. That is why Lycophronides depicted his goatherd in love saying: This rose I dedicate to you, a lovely bloom, and my sandals and cap and my beast–slaying javelin, since my mind is otherwise absorbed with the girl dear to the Graces and lovely. From a discussion of garlands (669c–80d), which Cynulcus initiates by citing Callimachus Epigr. 43 (13 GP) and posing the two questions for “investigation” (ζήτησιν) that the scholar Democritus answers here, before explaining a related “problem” in arithmetic from Plato’s Laws 7 (cf. 819b), which could also come from Clearchus (cf. 4, 120). For the format of multiple answers, see Taub 2015; for a sympotic context to match the sympotic themes, cf. 67. Both the similar format of 27 and the closing citation from Lycophronides (fr. 2), attested only here and in 20, support attribution of the entire passage to Clearchus, though only the first explanation is explicitly attributed to him, and more precisely, only the subordinate point about the “beacon” sign (cf. Hesychius, Lex. φ 933–4). For the first question, cf. Asclepiades, Epigr. 18 GP (cf. Plato, Symp. 217e; Diogenianus 7.28: CPG 1.290), Callim. Epigr. 43

102

Clearchus of Soli καὶ τοῦτον καὶ τὸν A: καὶ τούτοις κ. τ. Olson || καὶ del. Kaibel, servat Olson || 44 παρόντος add. Schweigh. (duce Dalec.) || 45 τοῦ] τῷ Edmonds 1927, 414, an recte? || 48 ῥόδον “vix credibile” Page || 49 ἄνθημα dub. Casaub.: νόημα A: μνῆμα Hermann 1816, 448 || ῥόπαλον ὃ (sive ᾧ) νεῖμα Hermann 1855, 236 || 50 καὶ τὴν A: τὴν del. Fiorillo, 101, fort. recte || 51 Χάρισιν Fiorillo || παῖδα καὶ καλάν “suspectum” Page, παῖδα Ἀκακαλλίδα ... Wil. 1879/1962, 173 (= 11).

22

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 13.85 606c (BT t. 4A, 178.6–11 Olson)

27 W

Ἐν Αἰγίῳ δὲ παιδὸς ἠράσθη χήν, ὡς Κλέαρχος ἱστορεῖ ἐν πρώτῳ Ἐρωτικῶν. τὸν δὲ παῖδα τοῦτον Θεόφραστος ἐν τῷ Ἐρωτικῷ Ἀμφίλοχον καλεῖσθαί φησι καὶ τὸ γένος Ὠλένιον εἶναι, Ἑρμείας δ᾽ ὁ τοῦ Ἑρμοδώρου, Σάμιος δὲ γένος ἐρασθῆναι Λακύδου τοῦ φιλοσόφου (sequitur 30)

5

2 Theophrastus fr. 567A FHS&G || 5 Lacydes test. 10c Mette. 1 ἐν Αἰγίῳ Schweigh. ex Ael., Nat. an. 5.29: εναγειω A.

23

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 13.31 573a–b (BT t. 4A, 116.24– 117.4 Olson)

29 W

Κλέαρχος δ’ ἐν πρώτῳ Ἐρωτικῶν, Γύγης, φησίν, ὁ Λυδῶν βασιλεὺς οὐ μόνον περὶ ζῶσαν τὴν ἐρωμένην περιβόητος γέγονεν, ἐγχειρίσας αὑτόν τε καὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐκείνῃ πᾶσαν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τελευτησάσης συναγαγὼν τοὺς ἐκ τῆς χώρας Λυδοὺς πάντας ἔχωσε μὲν {Λυδίας} τὸ νῦν ἔτι καλούμενον τῆς ἑταίρας μνῆμα, εἰς ὕψος ἄρας ὥστε περιοδεύοντος αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐντὸς τοῦ Τμώλου χώραν, οὗ ἂν ἐπιστραφεὶς τύχῃ, καθορᾶν τὸ μνῆμα καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς τὴν Λυδίαν οἰκοῦσιν ἄποπτον εἶναι. 2 περιβόητος ACE: “suspectum vocabulum ni interciderunt nonnulla” Schweigh.: περισσότερος Jacobs 1809, 310: περισσότατος vel περιβόητος Kaibel || 4 λυδοὺς πάντας A: πάντας λυδοὺς CE: δούλους πάντας

5

Text and Translation

103

(cf. Arist. EE 7.1 1235a9), Theocr. Id. 3.21–3, and Lee 2015: 144 n. 125. For the second question, Asclepiades, Epigr. 12 with Cameron 1995: 504– 5; see Cummings 2001 for early examples of this topos of “excluded lover.”

22

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 13.85 606c

27 W

In Aegium, a goose fell in love with a boy, as Clearchus reports in Book 1 of Discussions of Love; the boy’s name, Theophrastus says in his Discussion of Love, was Amphilochus and he was from Olenus. Hermias son of Hermodorus from Samos [says one] fell in love with Lacydes the philosopher. Shortly after 28 and 29, second in a series of examples of animals loving humans (606b–7a) and followed directly by 30, separated only by the parallel report from an unidentified Hermias, which is probably too late to come from Clearchus: Lacydes succeeded Arcesilaus (cf. 10) as Academic scholarch in 241/0 and died 205. Plutarch, Smarter Animals 18 972f calls the goose story “famous”; Aelian, NA 5.29, citing only Theophrastus (fr. 567B), adds that the goose brought the boy gifts when he was held under guard in Achaean Aegium (on the Corinthian Gulf) with fellow exiles from Olenus (on the coast south of Patras); cf. Strabo 8.7.4–5.

23

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 13.31 573a–b

29 W

Clearchus in Book 1 of Discussions of Love says, “Gyges the King of Lydia was famous for the woman he loved not only in her lifetime, when he entrusted both himself and all his realm to her hands, but also after her death, when he brought together all the Lydians in the land and erected what is still now called the Consort’s Monument, which he raised so high that when he made his rounds of the Tmolus valley, he could see the monument wherever he happened to turn, and it was visible to all the inhabitants of Lydia.” In a sequence on courtesans (571a–99e, including 24, 31, 32) in Myrtilus’ lengthy encomium of women as lovers (571–610); for context, see McClure 2003: 46–58. For discussion see White (in this volume). For Gyges (reign c. 715–c. 675), see Hdt. 1.7–12 with Asheri et al. 2007: 79–84.

104

Clearchus of Soli Meineke, “contra Clearchi mentem” Kaibel Λυδοὺς del. Taifacos tamquam ex glossemate ad τοὺς ἐκ τῆς χώρας πάντας || 5 ἔχωσε μὲν λυδίας τὸ νῦν A: ἔχωσε τὸ νῦν CE: Λυδίας del. Kaibel tamquam ex glossemate ad τῆς χώρας || ἔχωσεν ἐν Λυδίᾳ τὸ νῦν coni. Taifacos || 6 post ἄρας lacunam indic. Meineke, suppl. Kaibel, ante ἄρας Olson || 7 τύχῃ CE: τύχοι A, “nisi praestat ἂν delere” Kaibel || 8 λυδίαν οἰκοῦσιν A: λυδίας οἰκουμένοις CE.

24

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 13.56 589d (BT t. 4A, 147.1–5 Olson)

30 W

Περικλῆς δὲ ὁ Ὀλύμπιος, ὥς φησι Κλέαρχος ἐν πρώτῳ Ἐρωτικῶν, οὐχ ἕνεκεν Ἀσπασίας—οὐ τῆς νεωτέρας ἀλλὰ τῆς Σωκράτει τῷ σοφῷ συγγενομένης—καίπερ τηλικοῦτον ἀξίωμα συνέσεως καὶ πολιτικῆς δυνάμεως κτησάμενος, οὐ συνετάραξε πᾶσαν τὴν Ἑλλάδα;

5

2 οὐ τῆς νεωτέρας ἀλλὰ Cobet ms. et Kaibel: τῆς νεωτέρας ἀλλ᾽ οὐ A.

25

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 14.11 619c–d (BT t. 4A, 202.25– 203.8 Olson)

32 W

Κλέαρχος δ’ ἐν πρώτῳ Ἐρωτικῶν νόμιον καλεῖσθαί τινά φησιν ᾠδὴν ἀπ’ Ἠριφανίδος, γράφων οὕτως· Ἠριφανὶς ἡ μελοποιὸς Μενάλκου κυνηγετοῦντος ἐρασθεῖσα ἐθήρευε μεταθέουσα ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις· φοιτῶσα γὰρ καὶ πλανωμένη πάντας τοὺς ὀρείους ἐπεξῄει δρυμούς, ὡς μῦθον εἶναι τοὺς λεγομένους Ἰοῦς δρόμους· ὥστε μὴ μόνον τῶν ἀνθρώπων τοὺς ἀστοργίᾳ διαφέροντας, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν θηρίων τοὺς ἀνημερωτάτους συνδακρῦσαι τῷ πάθει, λαβόντας αἴσθησιν ἐρωτικῆς ἐλπίδος. ὅθεν ἐποίησέ τε καὶ ποιήσασα περιῄει κατὰ τὴν ἐρημίαν, ὥς φασιν, ἀναβοῶσα καὶ ᾄδουσα τὸ καλούμενον νόμιον, ἐν ᾧ ἐστιν μακραὶ δρύες, ὦ Μέναλκα.

5

10

Text and Translation

105

24

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 13.56 589d

30 W

As for Pericles the Olympian, as Clearchus says in Book 1 of Discussions of Love, was it not for the sake of Aspasia (not the younger one but the one who consorted with the wise Socrates) that, despite the preeminence he acquired for his insight and political influence, he threw all of Greece into turmoil? First of four reports about Pericles (589d–f) after four about philosophers who loved courtesans (588a–89d) and opening a series on civic leaders (to 591f), including 31. Gulick 6.179–81 rashly extends the quotation through 590a, including further discussion of Pericles (Stesimbrotus of Thasos fr. 10a, Antisthenes of Athens fr. 143), Cimon and his sister Elpinica, Periander of Corinth and Melissa (Pythaenetus fr. 3), and Pyrrhus V of Epirus and Tigris of Leucas; cf. Zecchini 1989: 198, 203. For Aspasia, cf. 569f–70a, citing Aristoph. Acharn. 524–9; for the characterization of Pericles, cf. Thuc. 1.139.4, 2.34.6. For discussion see White (in this volume).

25

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 14.11 619c–d

32 W

Clearchus in Book 1 of Discussions of Love says there is a song called “pastoral” after Eriphanis, writing as follows: “Eriphanis the lyric poet fell in love with Menalcas when he was hunting with his dogs, and she went hunting too, racing after him in her desire; for she would go out roaming, wandering all the mountain copses as in the tale of Io’s fabled courses. As a result, not only people with the coldest hearts but even the wildest of the beasts wept with her in her sorrow once they sensed her hopes for love; and so she composed songs, and then she would prowl the lonely wilderness, so they say, crying out and singing the so-called pastoral, which includes the phrase: Tall are the oaks, o Menalcas.”

106

Clearchus of Soli 10–11 τὸ καλούμενον νόμιον] carm. pop. PMG 850. 5 ἐπεξῄει] διεξῄει dub. coni. Kaibel || εἶναι] “locus nil nisi ἀποφάνειν (pro εἶναι) (cf. 620b) tolerat, sed fortasse haec male excerpta sunt” Peppink 1936, 85 || Ἰοῦς Casaub.: ἰνοῦς ACE || 7 θηρίων BMP Mus.: θηριων A: θηρῶν CE.

LIBER Β 26

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 14.43 639a (BT t. 4A, 242.2–8 Olson)

33 W

Κλέαρχος δὲ ἐν δευτέρῳ Ἐρωτικῶν τὰ ἐρωτικά φησιν ᾄσματα καὶ τὰ Λοκρικὰ καλούμενα οὐδὲν τῶν Σαπφοῦς καὶ Ἀνακρέοντος διαφέρειν. ἔτι δὲ τὰ Ἀρχιλόχου καὶ τῶν Ὁμήρου Ἐπικιχλίδων τὰ πολλὰ διὰ τῆς ἐμμέτρου ποιήσεως τούτων ἔχεταί τινος τῶν παθῶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ Ἀσωποδώρου περὶ τὸν Ἔρωτα καὶ πᾶν τὸ τῶν ἐρωτικῶν ἐπιστολῶν γένος ἐρωτικῆς τινος διὰ λόγου ποιήσεώς ἐστιν. 3 Archilochus test. 40 Tarditi || ps.-Homerus, Epicychl., 160 Allen = 254 West (cf. Athen. 2.65a) || 5 Asopodorus SH 223. 1 ἐρωτικά A: Ἰωνικά Wil. || 3 διαφέρειν B (coni. Mus.): διαφθέρειν A || 3–7 ἔτι—ἐστιν “etiam haec Clearchi, nisi quod amatoriae epistulae fortasse ab Athenaeo additae sunt” Kaibel || 7 διὰ λόγου Casaub.: διαλόγου Α.

LIBRI INCERTI 27

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 12.79 553e–554b (BT t. 4A, 78.24–79.23 Olson)

25 W

Κλέαρχος δ’ ὁ Σολεὺς ἐν τοῖς Ἐρωτικοῖς, διὰ τί, φησί, μετὰ χεῖρας ἄνθη καὶ μῆλα καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα φέρομεν; πότερον ὅτι καὶ διὰ τῆς τούτων ἀγαπήσεως ἡ φύσις μηνύει τοὺς τῆς ὥρας ἔχοντας τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν; διὰ τοῦτ’ οὖν οἱονεὶ δεῖγμα τῆς ὄψεως

5

Text and Translation

107

In a catalogue of traditional songs (618c–20a), this is the first of four provided with an aetiological tale (cf. Aristoxenus frs. 89 and 129, Nymphis fr. 5b); the sequence ends with mention of Manerôs (cf. 13). The story is cited for its “pastoral” song (PMG 850), and theme, imagery, and tone parallel the song of Daphnis in Theocritus, Idyll 1; cf. Hunter 1999: 66, and for Menalcas, cf. [Theocr.] Idylls 8 and 9; for the problematic term νόμος, cf. Barker 2009: 289–94. For discussion see White (in this volume).

Book 2 26

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 14.43 639a

33 W

Clearchus in Book 2 of Discussions of Love says that love songs and those called Locrian songs are no different from Sappho’s and Anacreon’s. Further, those of Archilochus and most of Homer’s Thrush Songs touch on something of these feelings in a form of verse, and so do Asopodorus’ compositions about love, and the entire genre of love letters is a kind of love poetry in prose. Ending a discussion of songs on erotic themes (638b–39b), after remarks on the mime-writer Gnesippus (638d–f). For “Locrian songs” see Ath. 15 697b– c (cf. 14), quoting a sample (PMG 853) and explaining that they dealt with “seduction” and illicit affairs. For thrushes, see Arist. HA 8(9).20 (distinguishing a variety called “iliads”), Ath. 2 64f–65b (citing Menaechmus fr. 3, contemporary with Clearchus, to explain the title); cf. Theocr. Id. 11.78 for associations with “giggling” (κιχλιδιᾶν), typically wanton. Asopodorus of Phlius (fourth century?), known only from Athenaeus, wrote “prose burlesques” (τοῖς καταλογάδην ἰάμβοις, Ath. 10 445b).

Unidentified books 27

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 12.79 553e–554b

25 W

Clearchus of Soloi in the Discussions of Love says, “Why do we carry flowers, apples, and the like in our hands? Is it because nature, through our delight in these, reveals those who have a desire for freshness? For that reason, then, as a kind of visible index, they hold fresh things in their hands and enjoy them. Or

108

Clearchus of Soli

τὰ ὡραῖα μετὰ χεῖρας ἔχουσιν καὶ χαίρουσιν αὐτοῖς. ἢ δυοῖν χάριν ταῦτα περιφέρουσιν; ἀρχή τε γὰρ ἐντυχίας καὶ παράδειγμα τῆς βουλήσεως αὐτοῖς γίνεται διὰ τούτων, αἰτηθεῖσι μὲν τὸ προσαγορευθῆναι, δοῦσι δὲ προϋπογράφειν ὅτι δεῖ καὶ αὐτοὺς μεταδιδόναι τῆς ὥρας. ἡ γὰρ τῶν ὡραίων ἀνθῶν καὶ καρπῶν αἴτησις εἰς ἀντίδοσιν τῆς τοῦ σώματος ὥρας προκαλεῖται τοὺς λαβόντας. ἢ τὴν τούτων ὥραν παραψυχὴν καὶ παραμυθίαν τῆς {ἐπὶ} τῶν ἐρωμένων ὥρας ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις χαίροντες ἔχουσιν αὐτοῖς; ἐκκρούεται γὰρ ὑπὸ τῆς τούτων παρουσίας ὁ τῶν ἐρωμένων πόθος. εἰ μὴ ἄρα τοῦ περὶ αὑτοὺς κόσμου χάριν καθάπερ ἄλλο τι τῶν πρὸς καλλωπισμὸν συντεινόντων ἔχουσί τε ταῦτα καὶ χαίρουσιν αὐτοῖς; οὐ γὰρ μόνον στεφανουμένων τοῖς ὡραίοις ἄνθεσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ μετὰ χεῖρας ἐχόντων τὸ πᾶν εἶδος ἐπικοσμεῖται. τάχα δ’ ἴσως διὰ τὸ φιλοκάλους εἶναι. δηλοῖ δὲ τὸ τῶν καλῶν ἐρᾶν καὶ πρὸς τὰ ὡραῖα φιλικῶς ἔχειν. καλὸν γὰρ τὸ τῆς ὀπώρας καὶ τὸ τῆς ὥρας ὄντως πρόσωπον ἔν τε καρποῖσι καὶ ἄνθεσι θεωρούμενον. ἢ πάντες οἱ ἐρῶντες οἷον ἐκτρυφῶντες ὑπὸ τοῦ πάθους καὶ ὡριαινόμενοι τοῖς ὡραίοις ἁβρύνονται; φυσικὸν γὰρ δή τι τὸ τοὺς οἰομένους εἶναι καλοὺς καὶ ὡραίους ἀνθολογεῖν. ὅθεν αἵ τε περὶ τὴν Περσεφόνην ἀνθολογεῖν λέγονται καὶ Σαπφώ φησιν ἰδεῖν ἄνθε’ ἀμέργουσαν παῖδ’ ἄγαν ἀπαλάν. 25 Περσεφόνην ἀνθολογεῖν] h. Cer. 5–8 || 27 Sappho fr. 122 V. 4 ὄψεως A: φύσεως Dalec.: ὀρέξεως Jacobs 1809, 294 || 6 ἐντυχίας Meineke: εὐτυχίας A: συντυχίας Casaub. || 7 μὲν Mus.: δὲ A || 8 τὸ add. Kaibel, τῷ Meineke ‘forsan προσυπογρ. et simul innuere’ Dobree 1833, 340, λαβοῦσι δὲ προϋπ. proponit Cobet ms., “possis ἐνδοῦσι δὲ προϋπ. cf. ἐνδόσιμον et p. 520d” Peppink 1936, 75 || 10 lacunam indicat Kaibel, ipse hanc sententiam supplens ἡ γὰρ τῶν ὡραίων ... ; ἡ ... καρπῶν αἴτησις εἰς ἀντίδοσιν ... προκαλεῖται dub. suppl. Wehrli, 55 || 12 ἐπὶ secl. Kaibel, “nisi altius haeret mendum” || 13 ἔχοντες χαίρουσιν Wil. || αὑτοῖς Gulick || 20 τὸ τῆς Kaibel post Casaub.: ὅτι τὰς A || 27 παῖδ’ ἄγαν A: πάιδ’ ἁγνὰν G. Hermann: παῖδα τὰν Lobel: παῖδ’ ἄγαν† Page.

5

10

15

20

25

Text and Translation

109

do they carry them around for two reasons? For these things offer them both a way to initiate an interaction and a model of their wish to do so: an occasion to be greeted if others make a request of them, and if they give them something, a hint that the others should share their own freshness too. For a request for fresh flowers or fruit invites those who accept them to give in return some of their own body’s freshness. Or is it because they enjoy holding the freshness of these things as a relief and consolation for their desire for the freshness of the ones they love? For the presence of these things assuages their longing for the ones they love. Unless, as with anything else that can add embellishment, it is for the sake of decorating themselves that they hold and enjoy them? For not only when they wear garlands of fresh flowers is their entire form adorned, but also when they hold some in their hands. Perhaps it is even because they are fond of beauty, and loving someone beautiful makes it clear they are fond of what is fresh; for the look of harvest and of freshness seen in fruits and flowers really is beautiful. Or is it because all those in love, as if luxuriating in the experience and refreshing themselves with fresh things, make themselves elegant? For surely it is natural for those who think they are beautiful and fresh to gather flowers. That is why Persephone and her company are depicted gathering flowers, and why Sappho says she saw a girl so tender picking flowers.” Near the end of the discourse on “luxury” in Book 12 (cf. On Lives 41–51, 53–6, etc.), after excerpts highlighting perfumes and foot massage; for the “problem” format, cf. 21. The terms ὥρα and ὡραῖος, on which much of this passage turns, are translated as “fresh” to capture the root idea of “season” and “seasonal” along with its associated attractions, youth and beauty; cf. “look of harvest and freshness” punning on ὀπώρα and ὥρα with πρόσωπον. For Persephone, cf. Homeric Hymn to Demeter 5–8; for Sappho fr. 122, cf. frs. 81 (Ath. 15 674e) and 132.

110

Clearchus of Soli

28

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 13.84 605d (BT t. 4A, 176.17–19 Olson)

23 W

Τότε γὰρ καὶ οἱ παῖδές εἰσιν καλοί, ὡς Γλυκέρα ἔφασκεν ἡ ἑταίρα, ὅσον ἐοίκασι γυναιξὶ χρόνον, καθάπερ ἱστορεῖ Κλέαρχος. 2 γυναιξὶ Meineke: -κὶ ACE.

29

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 13.84 605e–f (BT t. 4A, 177.1–12 Olson)

26 W

ὑμεῖς δέ, ὦ φιλόσοφοι, κἂν ἐρασθέντες ποτὲ γυναικῶν ἐν ἐννοίᾳ λάβητε ὡς ἀδύνατόν ἐστι τὸ τυχεῖν, μάθετε παύονται οἱ ἔρωτες, ὥς φησι Κλέαρχος. τῇ τε γὰρ περὶ τὴν Πειρήνην χαλκῇ βοῒ βοῦς ἐπανέβη· καὶ γεγραμμένῃ κυνὶ καὶ περιστερᾷ καὶ χηνὶ τῇ μὲν κύων, τῇ δὲ περιστερά, τῇ δὲ χὴν προσῆλθον καὶ ἐπεπήδησαν· φανέντων δὲ πᾶσι τούτοις ἀδυνάτων ἀπέστησαν, καθάπερ Κλείσοφος ὁ Σηλυμβριανός. οὗτος γὰρ τοῦ ἐν Σάμῳ Παρίου ἀγάλματος ἐρασθεὶς κατέκλεισεν αὑτὸν ἐν τῷ ναῷ, ὡς πλησιάσαι δυνησόμενος· καὶ ὡς ἠδυνάτει διά τε τὴν ψυχρότητα καὶ τὸ ἀντίτυπον τοῦ λίθου, τηνικαῦτα τῆς ἐπιθυμίας ἀπέστη καὶ προβαλλόμενος τὸ σαρκίον ἐπλησίασεν. 2 lacunam indicat Schweigh., “velut μάθετε παύονται” Kaibel || 4 post ἐπανέβη add. ἀπατηθεὶς τῇ ὁμοιώσει· ἤδη δέ που CE Eust. || Κλείσοφος Schweigh. || 7 σηλυμβριανός A: σηλυβριανός CE || 9 αὑτὸν A: αὐτὸν CE || δυνησόμενος Α: δυνάμενος CE || 11 προβαλλόμενος τὸ σαρκίον corruptum putat Wehrli || τὸ A: τι Meineke, “latet aliud” Kaibel. Vide Arnott 1966, 150. Quae sequuntur in Athenaeo τῆς πράξεως ταύτης μνημονεύει καὶ Ἄλεξις ὁ ποιητὴς ἐν τῷ ἐπιγραφομένῳ δράματι Γραφῇ λέγων ὧδε … (fr. 41 K.–A.) καὶ Φιλήμων τοῦ αὐτοῦ μνημονέυων φησίν … (fr. 127 K.–A.) Clearcho dat Wehrli (om. Taifacos), haud recte meo quidem iudicio.

5

10

Text and Translation

111

28

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 13.84 605d

23 W

For boys too are beautiful, as Glycera used to say, only so long as they look like women, just as Clearchus reports. Following a critique of pederasty (601b–5d) in Myrtilus’ encomium of women (571–610); 29 follows after a report from Duris of Samos (fr. 18) and a Middle comedy excerpt (Epicrates fr. 4) on “love songs” by four poets, including Sappho (cf. 27) and Lamynthius (cf. 32). Attribution of either passage to Clearchus, as Zecchini 1989: 72, 204 proposes for the Duris report (the Spartan Cleonymus taking 200 women hostage at Metapontum, 303/2 BCE) is unconvincing; likewise his attribution to Clearchus of 13.66 594d on (another?) Glycera and Menander, 13.50 586c–d on (another?) Glycera and Harpalus (citing Theopompus fr. 254a and Cleitarchus fr. 30), and 13.37 576d–e on Alexander and Thais (citing Cleitarchus fr. 11); cf. Subsidia.

29

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 13.84 605e–f

26 W

You philosophers, even if you ever fall in love with a woman and get the idea that success is impossible, learn love subsides, as Clearchus says. For a bullock mounted the bronze cow in Peirene, a dog approached and jumped onto a picture of a dog, a dove did the same with a picture of a dove, and a goose with a picture of a goose; but once the impossibility became clear to them, they all gave up, just as Cleisophus of Selymbria did. For he fell in love with the Parian statue on Samos and locked himself in the temple so he could couple; and when he was unable because the stone was cold and hard, then he gave up his desire, and by extending the little flesh in front, he did couple. Following 28; Myrtilus addresses the Cynic Cynulcus. The sequel cites parallel accounts of the Samos story from comic poets Alexis (fr. 41) and Philemon (fr. 127), then cites Adaeus of Mitylene for the sculptor’s name, an unknown Ctesicles, probably via Polemon of Ilium; cf. Dorandi 1999: xcvi–c. For discussion see Fortenbaugh 2012: 13–15, White (in this volume). For the lacuna, Kaibel proposed “learn love subsides.” Peirene: a spring on Acrocorinth associated with a shrine to Aphrodite; cf. Pausanias 2.5.1, Pirenne-Delforge 1994: 100–9, Budin 2008. For the cow, cf. Leonidas of Tarentum, Epigr. 88 on Myron’s famously realistic bronze (c. 460); for pictorial realism, cf. Strabo 14.2.5 on a partridge in a painting by Protogenes (late fourth century). On visual attraction and arousal,

112

Clearchus of Soli

30

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 13.85 606c (BT t. 4A, 178.11–13 Olson)

28 W

Ἐν δὲ Λευκαδίᾳ φησὶν Κλέαρχος οὕτως ἐρασθῆναι ταὼν παρθένου ὡς καὶ τὸν βίον ἐκλιπούσῃ συναποθανεῖν.

31

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 13.58 590c–d (BT t. 4A, 148.12– 17 Olson)

31 W

Ἔχων δὲ καὶ ἄλλα μαρτύρια ἀνατίθεμαι τὰ νῦν, ἕως ἂν ἀπομνημονεύσω τὸν {περὶ} τῶν καλῶν γυναικῶν κατάλογον. Κλέαρχος γὰρ περὶ Ἐπαμινώνδου φησὶν οὕτως· Ἐπαμινώνδας δ’ ὁ Θηβαῖος σεμνότερον μὲν τούτων, οὐκ εὐσχημόνως δὲ περὶ τὰς ὁμιλίας ἐσφάλλετο τὴν γνώμην, εἴ τις θεωροίη τὰ πραχθέντα αὐτῷ περὶ τὴν Λάκωνος γυναῖκα.

5

2 περὶ del. Meineke || 4 σεμνότερον A: σεμνότερος post Dalec. coni. Kaibel.

32

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 13.70 596f–597a (BT t. 4A, 159.25–160.5 Olson)

34 W

Ἐπὶ τούτοις ὁ Μυρτίλος μέλλων σιωπᾶν, ἀλλὰ μικροῦ, ἔφη, ἄνδρες φίλοι, ἐξελαθόμην ὑμῖν εἰπεῖν τήν τε Ἀντιμάχου Λυδήν, προσέτι δὲ καὶ τὴν ὁμώνυμον ταύτης ἑταίραν Λυδὴν ἣν ἠγάπα Λαμύνθιος ὁ Μιλήσιος. ἑκάτερος γὰρ τούτων τῶν ποιητῶν, ὥς φησι Κλέαρχος ἐν τοῖς Ἐρωτικοῖς, τῆς βαρβάρου Λυδῆς εἰς ἐπιθυμίαν καταστὰς ἐποίησεν ὁ μὲν ἐν ἐλεγείοις, ὁ δ’ ἐν μέλει τὸ καλούμενον ποίημα Λυδήν.

5

Text and Translation

113

cf. 4, 5, and 36. Cleisophus is not otherwise known; for similar anecdotes about the Cnidian Aphrodite of Praxiteles (c. 350, also Parian marble), see Stewart 1990: 1.279–80.

30

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 13.85 606c

28 W

In Leucadia, Clearchus says, a peacock was so in love with a maiden that when she passed away, it died too. Fourth in a series of examples of animals loving humans (606b–7a), directly following 22. Leucadia, an island north of Ithaca, was famous for the “lover’s leap” associated with a shrine to Apollo on its southern promontory; see Strabo 10.2.9. For peacocks, singled out as “jealous and fond of beauty” (φιλόκαλος) by Arist. HA 1.1 488b23–4; cf. HA 6.9, Ath. 9 397a–f, Aelian, NA 5.21.

31

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 13.58 590c–d

31 W

Although I have other parallels too, I set them aside for now, until I finish my catalogue of beautiful women. For Clearchus says this about Epaminondas: “Epaminondas of Thebes had lapses in judgment in personal affairs that, while more dignified than those, were still unbecoming, if one considers what he did concerning a Laconian’s wife.” Myrtilus concludes a digression prompted by Ulpian (590a–b) and returns to his encomium (571a–610b); cf. 23. Parallels in Plutarch, Sayings of Kings and Commanders 192e, Precepts for Governing 13 808d–e, suggest that the lapse was military or judicial, not sexual; cf. Ath. 605a for his “beloved” companion in the Sacred Band; for discussion, see White (in this volume). “Laconian’s wife”: or possibly “Lacon’s wife.”

32

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 13.70 596f–597a

34 W

Myrtilus was about to stop at that point when he said, “But I almost forgot to tell you, my friends, about Antimachus’ Lyde, and also the courtesan of the same name of whom Lamynthius of Miletus was fond. For each of these poets, as Clearchus says in the Discussions of Love, in the grip of desire for the foreigner Lyde composed a poem called Lyde, the one in elegiacs and the other in lyrics.”

114

Clearchus of Soli 2 Antimachus Colophonius test. 10 Matthews || 4 Lamynthius fr. 1 Page (PMG 839). De Lamynthio, Kassel–Austin ad Epicr. fr. 4. 3 Λυδὴν del. Wil. 1921, 395 || 5 τῆς βαρβάρου “verba vitiosa” Kaibel: τῆς del. Wil. || λυδῆς A: Λαΐδος coni. Taifacos || 7 λυδήν A, de accentu vide Gow– Page 1965, t. 2, 138.

33A

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 2.50 57e–f (BT t. 1, 135.9–113 Kaibel; CB 142 Desrousseaux)

35 W

Ἐκάλουν δὲ καὶ τὰ νῦν τῶν οἰκιῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν καλούμενα ὑπερῷα ᾠά, φησὶ Κλέαρχος ἐν Ἐρωτικοῖς, τὴν Ἑλένην φάσκων ἐν τοιούτοις οἰκήμασι τρεφομένην δόξαν ἀπενέγκασθαι παρὰ πολλοῖς ὡς ἐξ ᾠοῦ εἴη γεγεννημένη. 4 γεγενημένη E.

33B

Scholia (T) in Homeri Iliadem Π 184b (t. 4, 210.66–8 Erbse)

**

Τὰ μετέωρα δὲ τῶν οἰκημάτων ὦα Λακεδαιμόνιοι καλοῦσιν, ἃ νῦν ὑπερῷά φαμεν.

34

Anonymus, Commentarium in Anacreontem (POxy. 54.3722, s. II p. C.)

**

fr. 1.17 Κλεα.



Text and Translation

115

Following a catalogue of courtesans; the sequel mentions the similar cases of Mimnermus’ Nanno and Hermesianax’s Leontion, which is quoted at length (597b–99b). For Antimachus, a favorite of Plato’s (Proclus, In Tim. 1.28c), see Krevans 1993. Lamynthius is named only here and in Photius, Lex. λ 82 as a “poet of love songs.” For discussion, see White (in this volume).

33A

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 2.50 57e–f

35 W

The part of houses now called among us “uppers” [hyperôa] they also used to call “overs” [ôa, sc. eggs], says Clearchus in Discussions of Love, claiming that since Helen was reared in that kind of dwelling, many people came to believe that she had been born from an egg. Discussing eggs (57d–58b), after nuts and other hors d’oeuvres (52a–57c); preserved only in the Epitome. For discussion see White (in this volume). For etymology used in rationalizing other myths cf. 68, 71; for Spartan traditions cf. 71, 84.

33B

Scholia on Homer, Iliad 16.184

**

The upper floors of houses the Lacedaemonians call “overs” [ôa, sc. eggs], which we now call “uppers” (hyperôa). Comment on a formulaic phrase referring to women’s quarters in Homer, used here in a tale of Hermes siring a nephew of Achilles (16.179–92); reference to the alleged Laconian usage is extraneous and indicates a connection to 33A (cf. Wehrli 1969: 57), though the added detail could come from the (lost) original text of Athenaeus rather than Clearchus independently; likewise the first person plural “we now call.”

34

Anonymus Commentary on Anacreon: Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 3722, fr. 1.17

**

…]Clea … Fragment of a commentary on songs of Anacreon (partial lines from most of a column), written (second century CE) on the back of accounts (c. 100 CE); Maehler 1987: 4 takes the superscript to indicate an abbreviation and proposes “Clearchus?” citing 35. Preceding lines discuss a drinking metaphor (5–6) and a saying (10); the following lines name Anacreon (19), Eros (26), and

116

Clearchus of Soli

35

Anonymus, Commentarium in Anacreontem (POxy. 54.3722, s. II p. C.)

**

fr. 57.4 Κλεαρ[. M–P3 0087.01 = LDAB 201 = TM 59106.

Περὶ τοῦ πανικοῦ (36) 36

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 9.42 389f (BT t. 3A, 111.10–19 Olson)

36 W

Κλέαρχος δ’ ἐν τῷ Περὶ τοῦ πανικοῦ οἱ στρουθοί, φησί, χοἰ πέρδικες, ἔτι δὲ οἱ ἀλεκτρυόνες καὶ οἱ ὄρτυγες προΐενται τὴν γονὴν οὐ μόνον ἰδόντες τὰς θηλείας, ἀλλὰ κἂν ἀκούσωσιν αὐτῶν τὴν φωνήν. τούτου δὲ αἴτιον ἡ τῇ ψυχῇ γινομένη φαντασία περὶ τῶν πλησιασμῶν. φανερώτατον δὲ γίνεται περὶ τὰς ὀχείας, ὅταν ἐξ ἐναντίας αὐτοῖς θῇς κάτοπτρον· προστρέχοντες γὰρ διὰ τὴν ἔμφασιν ἁλίσκονταί τε καὶ προΐενται τὸ σπέρμα, πλὴν τῶν ἀλεκτρυόνων. τούτους δ’ ἡ τῆς ἐμφάσεως αἴσθησις εἰς μάχην προάγεται μόνον. ταῦτα μὲν ὁ Κλέαρχος.

5

Text and Translation

117

possibly Alcaeus (21). If the Aristophanes named in the previous line (16) is the comic poet and Knights 814 then quoted (in 20), as Bernsdorff 2011: 29 n. 1 proposes, then “Themisto]cles…” might be a likelier supplement; cf. Knights 813, 818.

35

Anonymus Commentary on Anacreon: Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 3722, fr. 57.4

**

… Clear[chus … Cf. 34; a scrap from the same commentary (seven lines, 4–6 letters each). Maehler 1987: 41 cites 26 for the supplement, but also Theocr. Id. 5.88 (cf. 2.74) for “Clear[ista?” and Theognis 511–22 for “Clear[istos?”

On Panic (36) 36

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 9.42 389f

36 W

Clearchus in On Panic says, “Sparrows and partridges, and also roosters and quail, emit semen not only if they see the hens but even if they hear their voice. The cause of this is the impression of coupling that arises in their soul. This is most apparent during mating season: if you put a mirror facing them, they run toward it because of the mirror image, and they are caught and emit semen, except for the roosters, with which the sight of their mirror image only induces them to fight.” That’s what Clearchus says. In a discussion of partridges (388e–90d) among other fowl (386d–99a); for the behavior cf. 4, 5A–B, Arist. HA 8(9).8, Thompson 1936: 236–7, Taylor 2008: 47–55 with figs. 30–1, and Tsitsiridis 2013: 144–54, comparing related material on behavioral psychology in Aristotle and Theophrastus.

118

Clearchus of Soli

Βίοι sive Περὶ βίων (37–66) LIBER Α 37

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 6.26 234f–235a (BT t. 2, 26.25– 27.4 Kaibel)

37 W

Κλέαρχος δ’ ὁ Σολεύς, εἷς δ’ οὗτος τῶν Ἀριστοτέλους ἐστὶ μαθητῶν, ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ τῶν Βίων τάδε γράφει· ἔτι δὲ παράσιτον νῦν μὲν τὸν ἕτοιμον, τότε δὲ τὸν εἰς τὸ συμβιοῦν κατειλεγμένον. ἐν γοῦν τοῖς παλαιοῖς νόμοις αἱ πλεῖσται τῶν πόλεων ἔτι καὶ τήμερον ταῖς ἐντιμοτάταις ἀρχαῖς συγκαταλέγουσι παρασίτους.

5

3 καλοῦμεν νῦν μὲν CE || ἕτοιμον ACE: ἄτιμον Pierson 1759, 322, “non credo corruptum esse ἕτοιμον, sed excidisse aliquid velut τὸν ἕτοιμον” Meineke 1846 11 || 4 κατειλεγμένον CE: κατηλαγμένον A || lacunam ind. Kaibel.

LIBER Β 38

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 4.45 157a–d (BT t. 1, 354.22– 355.25 Kaibel) Γέλωτος οὖν ἐπιρραγέντος παρῆν ἡ θεατροτορύνη Μέλισσα καὶ ἡ κυνάμυια Νίκιον· αὗται δ’ ἦσαν τῶν οὐκ ἀσήμων ἑταιρίδων. ἀποβλέψασαι οὖν αὗται εἰς τὰ παρακείμενα καὶ θαυμάσασαι ἐγέλων. καὶ ἡ Νίκιον ἔφη· οὐδεὶς ὑμῶν, ἄνδρες γενειοσυλλεκτάδαι, ἰχθὺν ἐσθίει; ἢ καθάπερ ὁ πρόγονος ὑμῶν Μελέαγρος ὁ Γαδαρεὺς ἐν ταῖς Χάρισιν ἐπιγραφομέναις ἔφη τὸν Ὅμηρον Σύρον ὄντα τὸ γένος κατὰ τὰ πάτρια ἰχθύων ἀπεχομένους ποιῆσαι τοὺς Ἀχαιοὺς δαψιλείας πολλῆς οὔσης κατὰ τὸν Ἑλλήσποντον; ἢ μόνον ἀνέγνωτε συγγραμμάτων αὐτοῦ τὸ περιέχον λεκίθου καὶ φακῆς σύγκρισιν; ὁρῶ γὰρ πολλὴν παρ’ ὑμῖν τῆς φακῆς τὴν σκευήν· εἰς ἣν ἀποβλέπουσα

5

10

Text and Translation

119

Lives or On Lives (37–66) Book 1 37

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 6.26 234f–235a

37 W

Clearchus of Soloi, and he is one of Aristotle’s students, writes the following in Book 1 of his Lives: “Further, nowadays a ‘parasite’ is someone available, but in those days it was someone selected for living life together.” At any rate, in the laws of old most cities still today select ‘parasites’ together with their highest offices. In a discussion of “parasites” (234d–48c), following (or possibly embedded within) an excerpt from the Stoic scholar Polemon of Ilium (fl. 190 BCE) adducing evidence that what had become a derogatory term – literally “messmate” – originated as an honorific title (fr. 78); cf. Parabustos in 17. The final clause apparently characterizes them as subordinate officials, such as assistants or secretaries; cf. 18 and see Zaidman 1995. For Clearchus’ work on Lives, its themes and structure, and evidence for a dialogue format, see Wehrli 1969: 58–9, Tsitsiridis 2013: 155–72, Fortenbaugh (in this volume), and Subsidia; for its relation to works with similar titles by several contemporaries, see Verhasselt 2016.

Book 2 38

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 4.45 157a–d Then as laughter broke out, the scene-rouser Melissa arrived and Nikion the dogfly, who were ladies of no ill repute. Then after glancing at the food served, they started laughing in amazement, and Nikion said, “Doesn’t any one of you, my full bearded gentlemen, eat fish? Or just as your forefather Meleager of Gadara said in his Graces that Homer, being a native of Syros, had the Achaeans follow his ancestral customs and abstain from fish despite the abundant supply along the Hellespont? Or is the only writing you have read by him the one containing a comparative assessment of bean and lentil soup? For I see you have plenty of lentil soup prepared for you; and as I now gaze upon it, I would advise you to follow the Socratic

120

38 W

Clearchus of Soli

συμβουλεύσαιμ’ ἂν ὑμῖν κατὰ τὸν Σωκρατικὸν Ἀντισθένην ἐξάγειν ἑαυτοὺς τοῦ βίου τοιαῦτα σιτουμένους. πρὸς ἣν ὁ Καρνεῖος ἔφη· Εὐξίθεος ὁ Πυθαγορικός, ὦ Νίκιον, ὥς φησι Κλέαρχος ὁ Περιπατητικὸς ἐν δευτέρῳ Βίων, ἔλεγεν ἐνδεδέσθαι τῷ σώματι καὶ τῷ δεῦρο βίῳ τὰς ἁπάντων ψυχὰς τιμωρίας χάριν, καὶ διείπασθαι τὸν θεὸν ὡς εἰ μὴ μενοῦσιν ἐπὶ τούτοις, ἕως ἂν ἑκὼν αὐτοὺς λύσῃ, πλέοσι καὶ μείζοσιν ἐμπεσοῦνται τότε λύμαις. διὸ πάντας εὐλαβουμένους τὴν τῶν κυρίων ἀνάτασιν φοβεῖσθαι τοῦ ζῆν ἑκόντας ἐκβῆναι μόνον τε τὸν ἐν τῷ γήρᾳ θάνατον ἀσπασίως προσίεσθαι, πεπεισμένους τὴν ἀπόλυσιν τῆς ψυχῆς μετὰ τῆς τῶν κυρίων γίγνεσθαι γνώμης. τούτοις τοῖς δόγμασιν ἡμεῖς πειθόμεθα. ὑμῖν δὲ φθόνος οὐδὲ εἷς ἑλέσθαι ἕν τι τῶν τριῶν ἔχειν κακῶν. οὐ γὰρ ἐπίστασθε, ὦ ταλαίπωροι, ὅτι αἱ βαρεῖαι αὗται τροφαὶ φράττουσι τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν καὶ οὐκ ἐῶσι τὴν φρόνησιν ἐν αὑτῇ εἶναι. 6 Meleager Gadarenus fr. 2 Riese || 12 Antisthenes SSR V A 133. 15 εὐξίθεος ACE: Δεξίθεος Reinesius 1819, 95 || ὥς Mus.: ᾧ ACE || 16 τοῖς σώμασι ἐν τῷ dub. coni. Kaibel || 17 δεῦρο A: τῇδε CE || 20 ἀνάτασιν Casaub.: ἀνάστασιν ACE || 22 προσίεσθαι Casaub.: προΐστασθαι A: om. CE.

39

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 15.28 681c (BT t. 4A, 328.13–15 Olson)

39 W

Κλέαρχος δ’ ἐν δευτέρῳ Βίων ὅρα, φησίν, τοὺς τὸ κοσμοσάνδαλον ἀνείροντας Λακεδαιμονίους, οἳ τὸν παλαιότατον τῆς πολιτικῆς κόσμον συμπατήσαντες ἐξετραχηλίσθησαν.

15

20

25

Text and Translation

38 W

121

Antisthenes and end your own lives in dining on such fare.” Carneius replied, “Euxitheus the Pythagorean, my dear Nikion, as Clearchus the Peripatetic says in Book 2 of Lives, used to argue that everyone’s soul is bound within their body and in their life here for punishment, and that the god ordained that if they do not abide by this present condition until he is willing to release them, then they will encounter more and greater afflictions; that is why everyone (he said), minding this warning from those in charge, should be afraid of leaving life voluntarily and embrace eagerly only a death in old age, in the conviction that the soul’s release comes at the decision of those in charge. Those are the doctrines we for our part maintain. As for you, there’s nothing at all to stop you from choosing any one of the three banes. For you don’t understand, you sorry wretches, that those heavy foods of yours clog the mind and prevent wisdom from residing there.” From a letter by the scholar Parmeniscus (second century BCE) recounting a “Symposium of Cynics” in Athens (156c–57d: FGrHist 590 T1), which the Cynic Theodorus “Cynulcus” (sc. “dog-master”; cf. 1d) recites in defense of lentil soup and plain fare (156a–60b) after a lengthy sequence on lavish dining (128–55). In the letter, Carneius is similarly a “dog-master” from Megara (156e), responding to criticism of their frugal dinner by the courtesan Nikion (“Vicki”), whose Homeric epithet “dogfly” (Iliad 21.394, 421 of Athena and Aphrodite) marks her as a “gadfly” of Cynics. The oddity of Homeric disregard for seafood at Troy figures already in Plato, Rep. 3 404b–c; cf. 54 and Davidson 1997: 11–20, Heath 2000. For the ironic advice from Antisthenes as proto-Cynic, cf. Diog. Laert. 6.5 and 18–19; see also Subsidia. Euxitheus, otherwise unknown, may be a literary creation of Clearchus, possibly a speaker if the work is a dialogue; cf. Burkert 1972: 124 n. 21, Tsitsiridis 2013: 161. His prohibition on suicide echoes Plato’s Phaedo 61c–2e, citing Philolaus; and the notion of life as a punishment resembles Philolaus fr. 14 (probably spurious); see Huffman 1993: 402–10. “As for you”: specifically the two courtesans, but also non-Cynics generally. The “three banes” may be traditional means of suicide: hanging for women, a sword for men, leaping from heights for either; cf. Olson 2.252 n.

39

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 15.28 681c

39 W

Clearchus in Book 2 of Lives says, “Look at the Lacedaemonians making garlands of larkspur, who after trampling on their venerable political order had their neck broken.”

122

Clearchus of Soli 2 ἀνείροντας Schweigh., duce Natale de Comite: ἀνευρόντας A. Quae sequuntur in Athenaeo διόπερ καλῶς περὶ αὐτῶν εἴρηκεν ὁ κωμῳδοποιὸς Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Κιθαριστῇ (fr. 115 K.–A.) Clearcho dant Wehrli et Tsitsiridis (om. Taifacos), haud recte.

LIBER Γ 40

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 15.35 687a–c (BT t. 4A, 339.17– 340.13 Olson)

41 W

Νῦν δὲ τῶν ἀνθρώπων οὐχ αἱ ὀσμαὶ μόνον, ὥς φησιν Κλέαρχος ἐν τρίτῳ Περὶ βίων, ἀλλὰ καὶ αἱ χροιαὶ τρυφερὸν ἔχουσαί τι συνεκθηλύνουσι τοὺς μεταχειριζομένους. ὑμεῖς δὲ οἴεσθε τὴν ἁβρότητα χωρὶς ἀρετῆς ἔχειν τι τρυφερόν; καίτοι Σαπφώ, γυνὴ μὲν πρὸς ἀλήθειαν οὖσα καὶ ποιήτρια, ὅμως ᾐδέσθη τὸ καλὸν τῆς ἁβρότητος ἀφελεῖν λέγουσα ὧδε· ἐγὼ δὲ φίλημμι ἁβροσύναν, καί μοι τὸ λάμπρον ἔρως ἀελίω καὶ τὸ καλὸν λέλογχε, φανερὸν ποιοῦσα πᾶσιν ὡς ἡ τοῦ ζῆν ἐπιθυμία τὸ λαμπρὸν καὶ τὸ καλὸν εἶχεν αὐτῇ. ταῦτα δ’ ἐστὶν οἰκεῖα τῆς ἀρετῆς. Παρράσιος δὲ ὁ ζωγράφος, καίπερ παρὰ μέλος ὑπὲρ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ τέχνην τρυφήσας καὶ τὸ λεγόμενον ἐλευθέριον ἐκ ῥαβδίων {ἔκ τινων ποτηρίων} ἑλκύσας, λόγῳ γοῦν ἀντελάβετο τῆς ἀρετῆς, ἐπιγραψάμενος τοῖς ἐν Λίνδῳ πᾶσιν αὑτοῦ ἔργοις· ἁβροδίαιτος ἀνὴρ ἀρετήν τε σέβων τάδ’ ἔγραψεν Παρράσιος. ᾧ κομψός τις, ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ, ὑπεραλγήσας ῥυπαίνοντι τὸ τῆς ἀρετῆς ἁβρὸν καὶ καλόν, ἅτε φορτικῶς μετακαλεσαμένῳ εἰς τρυφὴν τὴν δοθεῖσαν ὑπὸ τῆς τύχης χορηγίαν, παρέγραψε τὸ “ῥαβδοδίαιτος ἀνήρ’. ἀλλ’ ὅμως διὰ τὸ τὴν ἀρετὴν φῆσαι τιμᾶν ἀνεκτέον. ταῦτα μὲν ὁ Κλέαρχος. 7–8 Sappho fr. 58, 25–6 V. POxy 15.1787 [M–P3 1449 = LDAB 3899 = TM 62711] s. III p. C. fr. 1.25+2.1 (coniunxit Hunt, 29 et 42)] τοῦτο καί μοι | ]λον λε[.]ογχε || 15–6 Parrhasius fr. 1 Page (FGE 279–80).

5

10

15

20

Text and Translation

123

In a discussion of flowers used in garlands (680d–85c); the sequel, two lines from a comedy Kitharist by Antiphanes (fr. 115), is included by Wehrli without explanation. The diagnosis of Spartan decline, which Wehrli 1969: 59 conjecturally dates to the revolt in 331, exploits a double pun in “larkspur”: “trampling” in decadent sandals (σάνδαλα) on the “sandal-bloom” (κοσμοσάνδαλον) that evokes the famous Spartan “order” (κόσμος) both verbally and florally, resembling the eponymous flower of their annual Hyacinthia (cf. Pausanias 2.35.5, 3.19.3–5).

Book 3 40

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 15.35 687a–c

41 W

Nowadays it is not only people’s use of perfumes, as Clearchus says in Book 3 On Lives, that makes them effeminate but also their use of make-up, which has something luxurious about it. And you all suppose that elegance apart from virtue has something luxurious about it? And yet Sappho, who was truly a woman and a poetess too, was nonetheless loath to deprive elegance of its beauty, when she said: But me, I’m fond of elegance, and for me Love has obtained the rdiance and beauty of the sun. She makes it clear to all that for her the desire to be alive possessed radiance and beauty, and those are features characteristic of virtue. The painter Parrhasius, even though he lived more luxuriously than was in tune with his craft and extracted what was considered a genteel living from his stylus, still he at least laid claim to virtue by inscribing on all of his works at Lindos: A man of stylish elegance [habrodiaitos] who worships virtue painted this, Parrhasius. And some wit, outraged at him, I imagine, for sullying virtue’s elegance and beauty in his vulgar manner of diverting to luxury the great talent with which fortune had endowed him, added: “a man of elegant stylus [rhabdodiaitos].” All the same, because he claims to honor virtue, it must be tolerated. That is what Clearchus says.

124

Clearchus of Soli 4 †τρυφερόν† Wehrli “sensus καλόν vel aliquid simile postulat”: οἴεσθε τρυφερόν Di Benedetto 1985/2007, 153 (= 861) || signum interrogationis post τρυφερόν pos. Casaub. || 3–4 ὑμεῖς ... ἀρετῆς a Clearcho aliena putat et Cynulco dat Hammerstaedt 2010, 23 adn. 19. Plura disputat Benelli 2017, 300–3 || 7 φιλημμι (scriptio plena) A: φίλημμ᾽ rec. (coni. Volger 1810) || 7–8 versus Sapphus ex minima parte servantur in POxy 1787; desunt in PKoeln 11.429 || post ἁβροσύναν lacunam statuit cens. Ien. 1806, 140, recte in Sapphus carmine,] τοῦτο καί μοι POxy duo Sapphus excerpta laudare Athen. suspicatus est Luppe 2004, 9 ipse ἁβροσύναν καί μοι coniciens, sed vide Burzacchini 2007 105–6 || 8 ἔρως ἀελίω cens. Ien. 1806 (cf. ἡ τοῦ ζῆν ἐπιθυμία τὸ λαμπρὸν καὶ τὸ καλὸν εἶχεν αὐτῇ): εροσα ελιω A: ἔρος τὠελίω (sc. τῶ ἀελίω) Sitzler 1898, 121: Ἔρος τὠελίω (sc. τὸ ἀελίω) West 2005, 8 || 10 εἶχεν] εἴληχεν Hunt || 12–3 ἔκ τινων ποτηρίων tamquam ex glossemate secl. Kaibel, “nisi praestat ὥς τινων ποτ.”: καί τινων ποτηρίων coni. Taifacos, fort. recte, ἐκ ῥαβδ. τινῶν διαπυρῶν Fiorillo 1803, 95 || 18 εἰς τρυφὴν τὴν Perizonius 1701, ad 9.11: τὴν εἰς τρυφὴν A || 19 τύχης] τέχνης dub. Schweigh.

41

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 12.62 543c–e (BT t. 4A, 524, 24– 525, 14 Olson)

42 W

Οὕτω δὲ παρὰ τοῖς ἀρχαίοις τὸ τῆς τρυφῆς καὶ τῆς πολυτελείας ἠσκεῖτο ὡς καὶ Παρράσιον τὸν ζωγράφον πορφύραν ἀμπέχεσθαι, χρυσοῦν στέφανον ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς ἔχοντα, ὡς ἱστορεῖ Κλέαρχος ἐν τοῖς Βίοις. οὗτος γὰρ παρὰ μέλος ὑπὲρ τὴν γραφικὴν τρυφήσας λόγῳ τῆς ἀρετῆς ἀντελαμβάνετο καὶ ἐπέγραφεν τοῖς ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ ἐπιτελουμένοις ἔργοις ἁβροδίαιτος ἀνὴρ ἀρετήν τε σέβων τάδ’ ἔγραψεν. καί τις ὑπεραλγήσας ἐπὶ τούτῳ παρέγραψεν· “ῥαβδοδίαιτος ἀνήρ”. ἐπέγραψεν δ’ ἐπὶ πολλῶν ἔργων αὑτοῦ καὶ τάδε· ἁβροδίαιτος ἀνὴρ ἀρετήν τε σέβων τάδ’ ἔγραψεν Παρράσιος κλεινῆς πατρίδος ἐξ Ἐφέσου. οὐδὲ πατρὸς λαθόμην Εὐήνορος, ὅς ἀνέφυσε γνήσιον, Ἑλλήνων πρῶτα φέροντα τέχνης. ηὔχησε δ’ ἀνεμεσήτως ἐν τούτοις· εἰ καὶ ἄπιστα κλύουσι, λέγω τάδε· φημὶ γὰρ ἤδη τέχνης εὑρῆσθαι τέρματα τῆσδε σαφῆ

5

10

15

Text and Translation

125

In a tirade against perfume by the Cynic Cynulcus (686c–87d); the first sentence is securely ascribed to Clearchus, likewise the discussion of Parrhasius, which is echoed by 41, but the comments on Sappho (fr. 58.25–6 = 58B.15– 16) may be extraneous; see Fortenbaugh (in this volume). On the reservations of Gorman and Gorman 2014: 262–8, see Tsitsiridis 2013: 165–7. For the archaic culture of “elegance” evoked by Sappho here, which is often conflated with “luxury” and effeminacy in later authors, see Kurke 1992; for its association with “virtue” (here allegedly implicit in the reference to “beauty”), cf. Sappho fr. 148. The verses also appear at the end of fr. 58 from POxy 1787, either following or concluding the newly identified “Tithonus poem” (fr. 58B.1–12 or 58B.1–16); see Budelmann 2018: 146–52 for their possible connections and associated textual issues; for Tithonus, cf. 59, 60B, and for Sappho, cf. 26, 27. Syntax of the second clause is ambiguous: as paraphrased by Athenaeus’ Cynulcus, plausibly but tendentiously and possibly following Clearchus, the speaker simply calls her “love of life” beautiful (taking ἔρως ἀελίω together, with sunlight a frequent metonym for life); or as translated here, she credits love with adding radiance to her life (construing ἀελίω with “beauty and splendor”). The papyrus preserves too little context to favor either construal decisively. For Parrhasius, his paintings at Lindos, and the epigram, see 41.

41

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 12.62 543c–e

42 W

Among the ancients, costly luxuries were cultivated to such an extent that even the painter Parrhasius dressed in purple cloth and wore a golden wreath on his head, as Clearchus reports in his Lives; for that man, though he lived more luxuriously than was in tune with the craft of painting, used to lay claim to virtue and inscribed on his works as a finishing touch: A man of stylish elegance [habrodiaitos] who worships virtue painted this. And someone who was outraged added beside it: “a man of elegant stylus” [rhabdodiaitos]. On many of his works he inscribed the following as well: A man of stylish elegance who worships virtue painted this, Parrhasius from the glorious land of Ephesus. Nor did I forget my father Evenor, who raised his true son, winning Greece’s prize for his craft. And he made a boast that deserves no resentment in these lines: Though it’s incredible to hear, this is still my claim: I’ve already discovered the lucid limits of this my craft

126

Clearchus of Soli

χειρὸς ὑφ’ ἡμετέρης· ἀνυπέρβλητος δὲ πέπηγεν οὖρος. ἀμώμητον δ’ οὐδὲν ἔγεντο βροτοῖς. 7 et 11–14 Parrhasius fr. 1 Page (FGE 279–82) || 16–19 Parrhasius fr. 2 Page (FGE 283–6). 6 ἐπέγραφεν A: -ψε CE || 7 ἔγραψα Cob. ms. || 10 αὑτοῦ Olson : αὐτοῦ ACE || 13 ὅς μ’ ἀνέφυσε Hecker 1852, 126: ὅς ἀνέφυσε A: ὅς ῥά μ’ ἔφυσε Meineke, “sed dubito” (Kaibel).

LIBER Δ 42A

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 12.11 515e–516c (BT t. 4A, 10.19–11.19 Olson)

43a W

Κλέαρχος δ’ ἐν τῷ τετάρτῳ Περὶ βίων Λυδοί, φησί, διὰ τρυφὴν παραδείσους κατασκευασάμενοι καὶ κηπαίους αὐτοὺς ποιήσαντες ἐσκιατροφοῦντο, τρυφερώτερον ἡγησάμενοι τὸ μηδ’ αὐτοῖς ὅλως ἐπιπίπτειν τὰς τοῦ ἡλίου αὐγάς. καὶ {τέλος} πόρρω προάγοντες ὕβρεως τὰς †τῶν ἄλλων† γυναῖκας καὶ παρθένους εἰς τὸν τόπον τὸν διὰ τὴν πρᾶξιν Ἁγνεῶνα κληθέντα συνάγοντες ὕβριζον. καὶ τέλος τὰς ψυχὰς ἀποθηλυνθέντες ἠλλάξαντο τὸν τῶν γυναικῶν βίον, διόπερ καὶ γυναῖκα τύραννον ὁ βίος εὕρετο αὐτοῖς μίαν τῶν ὑβρισθεισῶν Ὀμφάλην. ἥτις πρώτη κατῆρξε μὲν τῆς εἰς Λυδοὺς πρεπούσης τιμωρίας. τὸ γὰρ ὑπὸ γυναικὸς ἄρχεσθαι ὑβριζομένους σημεῖόν ἐστι βίας. οὖσα οὖν καὶ αὐτὴ ἀκόλαστος καὶ ἀμυνομένη τὰς γενομένας αὐτῇ πρότερον ὕβρεις τοῖς ἐν τῇ πόλει δούλοις τὰς τῶν δεσποτῶν παρθένους ἐξέδωκεν ἐν ᾧ τόπῳ πρὸς ἐκείνων ὑβρίσθη. εἰς τοῦτον οὖν συναθροίσασα μετ’ ἀνάγκης

5

10

15

Text and Translation

127

By mine own hand; a boundary not to be surpassed has been drawn, and nothing can any mortals blame. At a pivotal point in the Book 12 discussion of “luxury,” sandwiched between a sequence on kings and generals (528e–43c) and another on philosophers (544a–48f). The sequel, from Theophrastus (fr. 552B; cf. Aelian, VH 9.11), continues with Parrhasius and concludes with a third epigram he reportedly inscribed on his painting of Heracles at Lindos (cf. 40), which became famous for surviving multiple lightning strikes (Pliny, NH 35.69). On the extent of the excerpt from the Lives, see Fortenbaugh (in this volume); for its placement in Book 3, cf. 40. Parrhasius of Ephesus, trained by his distinguished father and active in Athens before 400 (NH 35.60–1; Xenophon, Mem. 3.10.1–5), was a pioneer of heroic realism along with Zeuxis (NH 35.65–72); for the epithet he embraced and its contemporary connotations, cf. Thuc. 1.6.3–4; dress and authorial signatures were integral to his novel claims of cultural authority for painters, see Tanner 2006: 171–5. For the epigrams and their questionable authorship, see Page 1981: 75–8. The “limits” and “boundary” that Parrhasius boasts of “discovering” are both metaphorical, for his achievement, and also literal, for his mastery of contour and “outline”; cf. in liniis extremis palmam adeptus (NH 35.67–8).

Book 4 42A

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 12.11 515e–516c

43a W

Clearchus in Book 4 On Lives says, “The Lydians in their pursuit of luxury had parks constructed, making them like gardens, and they would spend their time in the shade, considering it more luxurious to avoid the sun’s rays entirely. And {finally} as they proceeded onward in their abuses, they collected the wives and daughters †of the others† together into one place, called Chaste-place because of what was done there, and they would violate them. And finally, when they had turned completely effeminate in their souls, they adopted their women’s way of life, which is why their way of living even found a tyrant for them in a woman, one of those who had been abused, Omphale. She is the one who started the retribution that was fitting for the Lydians; for being ruled by a woman in abusive ways is a sign of violence. So, being dissolute herself and avenging the abuses she had previously suffered, she granted the city’s slaves

128

Clearchus of Soli

συγκατέκλινε τοῖς δούλοις τὰς δεσποίνας. ὅθεν οἱ Λυδοὶ τὸ πικρὸν τῆς πράξεως ὑποκοριζόμενοι τὸν τόπον καλοῦσιν {γυναικῶν ἀγῶνα} Γλυκὺν Ἀγκῶνα. οὐ μόνον δὲ Λυδῶν γυναῖκες ἄφετοι οὖσαι τοῖς ἐντυχοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ Λοκρῶν τῶν Ἐπιζεφυρίων, ἔτι δὲ τῶν περὶ Κύπρον καὶ πάντων ἁπλῶς τῶν ἑταιρισμῷ τὰς ἑαυτῶν κόρας ἀφοσιούντων, παλαιᾶς τινος ὕβρεως ἔοικεν εἶναι πρὸς ἀλήθειαν ὑπόμνημα καὶ τιμωρίας. πρὸς ἣν εἷς τῶν Λυδῶν εὐγενὴς ἀνὴρ ὁρμήσας καὶ τῇ παρ’ αὐτοῖς Μίδου βασιλείᾳ βαρυνθείς, τοῦ μὲν Μίδου ὑπ’ ἀνανδρείας καὶ τρυφῆς {καὶ} ἐν πορφύρᾳ κειμένου καὶ ταῖς γυναιξὶν ἐν τοῖς ἱστοῖς συνταλασιουργοῦντος, Ὀμφάλης δὲ πάντας τοὺς συγκατακλιθέντας αὑτῇ ξενοκτονούσης, ἀμφοτέρους ἐκόλασε, τὸν μὲν ὑπὸ ἀπαιδευσίας κεκωφημένον τῶν ὤτων ἐξελκύσας, ὃς διὰ τὴν τοῦ φρονεῖν ἔνδειαν τοῦ πάντων ἀναισθητοτάτου ζῴου τὴν ἐπωνυμίαν ἔσχε, τὴν δὲ desunt cetera. 2 κηπαίους ACE: ἀνηλίους Kaibel || 4 αὐτοῖς ὅλως ACE : ὅλως αὐτοῖς Meineke || τέλος secl. Kaibel || 5 τῶν ἄλλων “corruptum” Kaibel: τ. δούλων Larcher 1802, 371: τ. πολιτῶν vel τ. ἰδιωτῶν Peppink 1936, 69 (conl. fr. 43b) “ut dicta haec essent de tyrannis” || 6 διὰ τὴν πρᾶξιν] δι᾽ ἀντίφρασιν Maas ms. 62 || ᾿Αγκῶνα Kaibel conl. 516a “i.e. ubi mulieres amplexi sunt”: ἁγνεῶνα ACE: γλυκὺν ᾿Αγκῶνα Cobet ms. || 10 μὲν A: om. CE || 11 τὸ … ὑβριζομένους Valckenaer ms. confert fragmentum Democriti (68 B 111 D.– K.) ὑπὸ γυναικὸς ἄρχεσθαι ὕβρις ἀνδρὶ ἐσχάτη. Vide Peppink 1936, 69 || 16 συγκατέκλινε Valckenaer ms. et Wil.: συγκατέκλεισε ACE || 18 γυναικῶν ἀγῶνα variam lectionem secl. Schweigh. || 24 τιμωρίας B: τιμωρία AC, E comp. || 24 Μίδου prior tamquam ex glossem. del. Olson || 25 ἀνανδρείας P Mus.: ἀνδρείας A: ἀνανδρίας CE || καὶ A: om. CE: ἀεὶ suspicatus est Kaibel || 28 fort. ἐκκεκωφημένον Cobet ms.

20

25

30

Text and Translation

129

the hand of the daughters of their masters in the same place where she had been abused. Then after she assembled everyone there, she had the mistresses compelled to lie with the slaves. Ever since, the Lydians soften the bitterness of what was done by calling the place Sweet Bend. “Not only the women of Lydia being made available for casual encounters, but also those of the West Locrians, as well as those on Cyprus and generally everywhere they sanctify their daughters with some form of liaison, all evidently are in truth a reminder of some abuse long ago and of retribution. That is what one of the Lydians sought, a man of good birth who also resented the burdens of Midas’ reign over them, since Midas in his unmanliness and luxury would recline in purple gowns and work the wool on the looms alongside the women, while Omphale was putting to death all the strangers who had lain with her – so he punished them both: Midas, whose crass ways had left him dumb, was dragged out by his ears, so that his lack of intelligence won him the title of the most asinine animal of all; as for her [sc. Omphale] ” In a sequence on “luxury” in other cultures (513f–18c), including 50 and 51A; the abrupt ending here indicates a lacuna. Eustathius, On Iliad 16.702 paraphrases the first paragraph on the origin of “Sweet Bend” (inverting the order of abuses and citing as a parallel 14.346 from Hera’s seduction of Zeus) but says Athenaeus ascribes it to Xanthus of Lydia; Wehrli 1969: 61 suspects Eustathius found the name in the complete text. For the crux “of the others” (where conjectural emendations include “slaves” and “citizens”; see apparatus), 42B has “the poor.” For “Sweet Bend” as a term of endearment, roughly “sweet embrace” (as in “darling”), cf. Plato, Phaon fr. 195 (produced in 391: Sch. Aristoph. Wealth 179), cited by Photius, Lex. γ 148 = Suda γ 316; cf. 42B. For Omphale, elsewhere associated closely with Heracles, see Fowler 2013: 318–21; for her servile origins, and the Lydian kings descended from their union, cf. Hdt. 1.7.4 and Apollod. 2.6.3. Midas is here a legendary paradigm of exotic wealth, and like Sardanapallos in 51D conflates multiple figures with the same or similar names; cf. Hdt. 1.142 with Asheri et al. 2007: 85–6. For his transvestism, a common trope for alien styles of dress, cf. Ath. 12 528f–29a (from Ctesias); for his famous ears, standardly his punishment by Apollo for judging Marsyas (or Pan) first in their contest of pipes and lyre, cf. Hornblower 2015: 484–5 on Lycophron, Alex. 1401. The unnamed Lydian of “good birth” who intervenes here would suit a rationalizing version of Heracles during his servitude to Omphale.

130

Clearchus of Soli

42B

Hesychius Alexandrinus, Lexicon, s.v. γλυκὺς ἀγκών (γ 685, t. 1, 512 Cunningham)

43b W

Γλυκὺς ἀγκών· παροιμία, ἥν φησιν εἰρῆσθαι ἀπὸ τοῦ λεγομένου μακροῦ ἀγκῶνος ἐν τῷ Νείλῳ, κατ᾽ ἀντίφρασιν. εἶναι γὰρ δυσκόμιστον διὰ τὸ ῥεῦμα καὶ ἀηδῆ· ὅθεν λέγεσθαι τὴν παροιμίαν ἐπὶ τῶν αἰσχρόν τι δοκιμαζόντων, ἐπαινούντων δὲ ὡς καλόν. ἢ τοῦ ἐναντίου σπουδαῖον μὲν ἡγουμένων, χλευαζόντων δὲ ὡς φαῦλον. Κλέαρχος δέ φησιν ἐξυβρίζειν εἰς τὰς τῶν καταδεεστέρων γυναῖκας καὶ παρθένους, καὶ τὸ χωρίον, ἐν ᾧ ταῦτα ἔδρων, ὀνομάσαι γλυκὺν ἀγκῶνα. 1 φησιν Plat., Phaedr. 257d–e || 4 ἐπαινούντων Musurus: ἐπαινοῦντες Η || 5 ἐκ add. Coraës 1889, 41 || 6 Verraert 161 conl. Athen., Αἰγυπτίους “temere s.l. scr. Mus.” Buehler 1999, 573.

43

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 12.26 524b–c (BT t. 4A, 25.3–6 Olson)

45 W

Κλέαρχος δὲ ἐν τετάρτῳ Βίων ζηλώσαντάς φησι τοὺς Μιλησίους τὴν Κολοφωνίων τρυφὴν διαδοῦναι καὶ τοῖς πλησιοχώροις, ἔπειτ’ ὀνειδιζομένους λέγειν ἑαυτοῖς· οἴκοι τὰ Μιλήσια κἀπιχώρια καὶ μὴ ἐν τῷ μέσῳ. 2 τρυφὴν A: τὴν τρ. CE || 3 ὀνειδιζομένους A: ὀνειδιζόμενοι CE || λέγειν A: ἔλεγον CE.

44

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 12.27 524c–f (BT t. 4A, 25.6–26.4 Olson)

46 W

Καὶ περὶ Σκυθῶν δ’ ἑξῆς ὁ Κλέαρχος τάδε ἱστορεῖ μόνον δὲ νόμοις κοινοῖς πρῶτον ἔθνος ἐχρήσατο τὸ Σκυθῶν. εἶτα πάλιν ἐγένοντο πάντων ἀθλιώτατοι βροτῶν διὰ τὴν ὕβριν. ἐτρύφησαν

5

Text and Translation

131

42B

Hesychius of Alexandria, Lexicon, under “Sweet Bend” (γ 685)

43b W

Sweet Bend: a saying which he says derives from the place on the Nile called Long Bend, by inversion; for the current makes it hard to cross and unpleasant; hence the saying is applied to people who deem something shameful but praise it as honorable, or conversely, if they consider something excellent but deride it as worthless. Clearchus says would abuse the wives and daughters of the poor, and the place where they would do these things they named Sweet Bend. “Sweet Bend” is proverbial already in Plato, Phaedrus 257d; cf. Sch. 257d: “a saying applied to things ironically; there is a place in Memphis called Bend by the boatmen, by inversion [i.e. euphemism] presumably, because of its difficulty; some apply it to people in good spirits, insofar as people who are delighted embrace” (literally “put a bent arm” around one another; cf. 42A n.); cf. Cod. Coislinianus 1.82 (CPG 1.486 n. 4), and for the first explanation, Zenobius vulg. 2.92 (CPG 1.55). See Subsidia.

43

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 12.26 524b–c

45 W

Clearchus in Book 4 of Lives says the Milesians emulated the luxury of the Colophonians and passed it on to those in the surrounding region too; then when they were criticized, they would tell themselves, “Milesian ways and the local ways at home, not out in the open.” In a sequence on “luxury” in various Ionian cities (523e–26f), starting with Miletus; 44 follows directly; cf. Eustathius, On Iliad 24.444, summarizing 523e–25b (all but 44). For Colophon, cf. 526a–d, quoting Xenophanes fr. 3 and tracing their “elegance” (cf. 40) to Lydian influence. A simpler version of the saying is elsewhere tied specifically to the Ionian revolt, when a richly dressed Aristagoras, seeking Sparta support (cf. Hdt. 5.49–51), was told by an Ephor, “[Keep your] Milesian ways at home”; cf. Zenobius vulg. 5.57 (CPG 1.144) = Zenob. Athos 1.1 (CPG 1.321) = Suda οι 91.

44

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 12.27 524c–f

46 W

On the Scythians as well Clearchus next reports the following: “At first the Scythian people followed only shared norms. Then again they became the most miserable of all mortals because of

132

Clearchus of Soli

μὲν γὰρ ὡς οὐδένες ἕτεροι, τῶν πάντων εὐροίας καὶ πλούτου καὶ τῆς λοιπῆς αὐτοὺς χορηγίας κατασχούσης. τοῦτο δὲ δῆλον ἐκ τῆς ἔτι καὶ νῦν ὑπολειπούσης περὶ τοὺς ἡγεμόνας αὐτῶν ἐσθῆτός τε καὶ διαίτης. τρυφήσαντες δὲ καὶ μάλιστα δὴ καὶ πρῶτοι πάντων τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐπὶ τὸ τρυφᾶν ὁρμήσαντες εἰς τοῦτο προῆλθον ὕβρεως ὥστε πάντων τῶν ἀνθρώπων εἰς οὓς ἀφίκοιντο ἠκρωτηρίαζον τὰς ῥῖνας. {ἀφ’} ὧν οἱ ἀπόγονοι μεταστάντες ἔτι καὶ νῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ πάθους ἔχουσι τὴν ἐπωνυμίαν. αἱ δὲ γυναῖκες αὐτῶν τὰς Θρᾳκῶν τῶν πρὸς ἑσπέραν καὶ ἄρκτον {τῶν} περιοίκων γυναῖκας ἐποίκιλλον τὰ σώματα, περόναις γραφὴν ἐνεῖσαι. ὅθεν πολλοῖς ἔτεσιν ὕστερον αἱ ὑβρισθεῖσαι τῶν Θρᾳκῶν γυναῖκες ἰδίως ἐξηλείψαντο τὴν συμφορὰν προσκαταγραψάμεναι τὰ λοιπὰ τοῦ χρωτός, ἵν’ ὁ τῆς ὕβρεως καὶ τῆς αἰσχύνης ἐπ’ αὐταῖς χαρακτὴρ εἰς ποικιλίαν καταριθμηθεὶς κόσμου προσηγορίᾳ τοὔνειδος ἐξαλείψῃ. πάντων δὲ οὕτως ὑπερηφάνως προέστησαν ὥστε οὐδένων ἄδακρυς ἡ τῆς δουλείας ὑπουργία γιγνομένη διήγγειλεν εἰς τοὺς ἐπιγινομένους τὴν ἀπὸ Σκυθῶν ῥῆσιν οἵα τις ἦν. διὰ τὸ πλῆθος οὖν τῶν κατασχουσῶν αὐτοὺς συμφορῶν, ἐπεὶ διὰ τὸ πένθος ἅμα τόν τε τῶν βίων ὄλβον καὶ τὰς κόμας περιεσπάσθησαν, παντὸς ἔθνους οἱ ἔξω τὴν ἐφ’ ὕβρει κουρὰν ἀπεσκυθίσθαι προσηγόρευσαν. 2 ante πρῶτον supplendum esse suspicati sunt Cobet ms. et Kaibel || 3 βροτῶν ἀθλιώτατοι A: ἀθλιωτάτους CE (om. βροτῶν) || ἐγένοντο πάντων ἀθλιώτατοι βροτῶν] cf. Eurip. fr. 158 Kannicht εἶτ᾽ ἐγένετ᾽ αὖθις ἀθλιώτατος βροτῶν || 4 εὐροίας Schweigh. post Mus. (εὐρροίας): εὐβοίας A || 6 ὑπολειπούσης BMP (coni. Mus.): ὑπολιπούσης A || 9 τοσοῦτο coni. Olson || 10 ἀφ’ secl. Kaibel || 13 τῶν del. Wyttenbach 1792, 67–8, “sed fort. περιοικούντων fuit” Kaibel || 16 προσκαταγραψάμεναι Kaibel: προσαναγραψάμεναι ACE, “tum fort. τὰ λοιπά” Kaibel || 22 αὐτοὺς “i.e. Scythas, narratio non satis plana” Kaibel || 24 παντὸς ἔθνους “verba vix integra” Kaibel.

5

10

15

20

25

Text and Translation

133

their abusive ways. For they indulged in luxury like no others as they succumbed to their region’s abundant wealth and resources of every kind; and that is clear from the clothing and habits of their leaders still today. Once they turned to luxury, which they pursued more than any other people and also before any others, they advanced so far in their abuses that they would dock the noses of all the people everywhere they went; the descendants of those people migrated elsewhere and still today bear the name of what they suffered. The Scythian women used to embellish the bodies of the Thracian women living to the west or north of them, using pins to mark them; as a result, many years later the Thracian women who had suffered the abuse effaced their misfortune in a distinctive way by covering the rest of their skin with tattoos, so that by refiguring the abuse and shame stamped on them as embellishment they would efface the indignity with the title of decoration. The Scythians presided over everyone so brutally that no labor provided by any of their subjects was ever performed without tears, which announced to later generations what ‘talk from Scythians’ was like. So, because of the multitude of misfortunes that befell them, when they had been stripped in their grief simultaneously of their prosperous livelihood and their hair, those outside the region called the shearing inflicted by any people as abuse ‘getting Scythized.’” Directly following 43; for the connection, cf. 523e–f, from Ephorus fr. 183 and Aristotle fr. 557, attributing Milesian luxury to an influx of riches from trade and settlements in the Pontus; cf. Sch. Aristoph. Wealth 1002 (cf. Hdt. 5.118–20), Diodorus 10.25.2, Zenobius vulg. 5.80 (CPG 1.152). Doubts raised by Gorman and Gorman 2014: 243–8 about Athenaeus distorting Clearchus here are overstated; cf. Tsitsiridis 2013: 165–7, who also notes a paraphrase of Euripides (Antigone fr. 158 on Oedipus) in the second sentence. For “shared norms” of Scythian nomads as a model of primitive justice, including communal property and wives in a “Platonic” fashion, cf. Strabo 7.3.7–9, drawing on Ephorus fr. 42. For the “docked noses” cf. Strabo 16.2.31, who situates an eponymous town of Rhinokoloura (“Nose-clipped”) on the coast south of Gaza as an Egyptian penal colony; cf. Pausanias 9.25.4 for a Theban legend about Heracles. For tattooing as a token of nobility for Thracians, cf. Hdt. 5.6.2; elsewhere it was generally punitive or a mark of servitude: Hdt. 7.233.2, and στιγματίας for slaves; cf. Lee 2015: 84–6. The phrase “talk from Scythians” is proverbial for blunt speech already in Hdt.

134

Clearchus of Soli

45

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 12.58 541c–e (BT t. 4A, 54.18– 55.17 Olson)

47 W

Περὶ δὲ τῆς Διονυσίου τοῦ νεωτέρου Σικελίας τυράννου τρυφῆς Σάτυρος ὁ περιπατητικὸς ἱστορῶν ἐν τοῖς Βίοις πληροῦσθαί φησιν παρ’ αὐτῷ τριακοντακλίνους οἴκους ὑπὸ τῶν εὐωχουμένων. καὶ Κλέαρχος δὲ ἐν τῷ τετάρτῳ τῶν Βίων γράφει οὕτως· Διονύσιος δ’ ὁ Διονυσίου ἁπάσης γενόμενος Σικελίας ἀλάστωρ εἰς τὴν Λοκρῶν πόλιν παρελθὼν οὖσαν αὐτῷ μητρόπολιν (Δωρὶς γὰρ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ τὸ γένος ἦν Λοκρίς) στρώσας οἶκον τῶν ἐν τῇ πόλει τὸν μέγιστον ἑρπύλλοις καὶ ῥόδοις μετεπέμπετο μὲν ἐν μέρει τὰς Λοκρῶν παρθένους. καὶ γυμνὸς μετὰ γυμνῶν οὐδὲν αἰσχύνης παρέλιπεν ἐπὶ τοῦ στρώματος κυλινδούμενος. τοιγαροῦν μετ’ οὐ πολὺν χρόνον οἱ ὑβρισθέντες γυναῖκα καὶ τέκνα ἐκείνου λαβόντες ὑποχείρια ἐπὶ τῆς ὁδοῦ στήσαντες μεθ’ ὕβρεως ἐνηκολάσταινον αὐτοῖς. καὶ ἐπεὶ τῆς ὕβρεως πλήρεις ἐγένοντο, κεντοῦντες ὑπὸ τοὺς τῶν χειρῶν ὄνυχας βελόναις ἀνεῖλον αὐτούς. καὶ τελευτησάντων τὰ μὲν ὀστᾶ κατέκοψαν ἐν ὅλμοις, τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ κρεανομησάμενοι ἐπηράσαντο {πάντες} τοῖς μὴ γευσαμένοις αὐτῶν. ὅθεν πρὸς τὴν ἀνόσιον ἀρὰν κατήλεσαν αὐτῶν τὰς σάρκας, ἵν’ ἡ τροφὴ σιτοποιουμένων κατεδεσθῇ· τὰ δὲ λείψανα κατεπόντωσαν. αὐτὸς δὲ Διονύσιος τέλος μητραγυρτῶν καὶ τυμπανοφορούμενος οἰκτρῶς τὸν βίον κατέστρεψεν. εὐλαβητέον οὖν τὴν καλουμένην τρυφὴν οὖσαν τῶν βίων ἀνατροπὴν ἁπάντων τε †ὀλέθριον ἡγεῖσθαι† τὴν ὕβριν. 2 Satyrus fr. 21 Schorn. 1 Σικ. dub. Kaibel || 12 ἐκείνου ACE: τἀκείνου Kaibel conl. Ael., Var. hist. 9.8 || 17 κρεανομησάμενοι Cob. ms. et Meineke: κρέα νεμησάμενοι A: κρεανεμησάμενοι CE || πάντες A: om. CE, Ael.: del. Kaibel: πᾶσι Meineke || 16–9 καύσαντες τὰ σώματα κατήλεσαν τὰ ὀστᾶ Strab., “mihi […] scribendum videtur τὰ μὲν ὀστᾶ κατέκοψαν ἐν ὅλμοις καὶ κατήλεσαν, tum delenda verba ὅθεν [18]—κατεδεσθῇ [19] omissa ab Aeliano” Kaibel, sed

5

10

15

20

Text and Translation

135

4.127.4, where it follows a Scythian king’s warning, after rejecting Persian demands to submit, “I tell [you] to weep”; see Asheri et al. 2007 on 4.127, and cf. Demetrius, On Style 216, Zenobius Athos 3.93 = ps.-Plut. 1.62 (CPG 1.331; cf. 86) = Diogenianus 5.11 (CPG 1.250). Scythian habits of scalping made “Scythizing” the standard term for the practice; cf. Hdt. 4.64.

45

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 12.58 541c–e

47 W

About the luxury of Dionysius the younger, tyrant of Syracuse, Satyrus the Peripatetic reports in his Lives that he would have halls of thirty couches filled with guests feasting. So too Clearchus in Book 4 of his Lives writes thus: “Dionysius son of Dionysius, after being the scourge of all of Sicily, went on to the city of Locri, which was his maternal home since his mother Doris was Locrian by birth. He had the largest house in town strewn with thyme and roses, then sent for the daughters of the Locrians one by one, and spared no disgrace in rolling around naked in the blossoms with them naked too. Accordingly, not long thereafter, the families he had abused seized his wife and children and stood them in the road where they brutally raped them; and when they had their fill of abuse, they drove needles under their fingernails and put them to death. After that, they crushed their bones in mortar stones, carved up the remains, and laid a curse on anyone who refused to taste any of it; and so, to uphold their impious curse, they ground up the flesh to make a stew to eat with their bread, then cast the remnants into the sea. Dionysius himself finally ended his life miserably as one of Cybele’s mendicant drummers. One must be wary, then, of what people call luxury, which turns lives upside down, and consider abusive conduct ruinous to all.” In a sequence on individuals notorious for “luxury” (528e–43c), including 51D, 53, 58, 65; for the events, cf. Strabo 6.1.8, Aelian, VH 9.8 (see Subsidia), Plut. Timoleon 13–14. Dionysius II of Syracuse (c. 396–c. 342), deposed by Dion, withdrew to Locri in 356 with his wife Sophrosyne; the events here described occurred when the town revolted after he returned to Syracuse in 346; ousted again by Timoleon two years later, he fled to Corinth; cf. Redfield 2003: 283–9. For “mendicant priests” as an insult (again in 50), cf. Arist. Rhet. 3.2 1405–a10–22, Antiphanes fr. 159; drums were closely associated with the Mother Goddess Cybele, Dionysus, and other exotic cults, and evoked

136

Clearchus of Soli vide Gulick, t. 5, 450–1 || 18 κατήλεσαν CE: κατηλέησαν A || 21 τυμπανοφορούμενος ACE: κρούων τύμπανα καὶ καταυλούμενος Ael.: τυμπανοφορῶν Schweigh. || 22 τὴν καλουμένην dub. Kaibel “est hoc vocabuli veriloquium verum Clearcheum” || 23 “ἁπάντων τε (saltem δὲ) ὀλεθριώτατον Mein(eke); sed hoc ubique agit Clearchus ut doceat lasciviam (ὕβριν) omnibus perniciosam esse” Kaibel; “inter cruces δεῖ vel aliud eiusdem fere sensus deest” Wehrli, recte ut vid.

46

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 12.23 522d–f (BT t. 4A, 22.5–23 Olson)

48 W

Ταραντίνους δέ φησι Κλέαρχος ἐν τετάρτῳ Βίων ἀλκὴν καὶ δύναμιν κτησαμένους εἰς τοσοῦτο τρυφῆς προελθεῖν ὥστε τὸν ὅλον χρῶτα παραλεαίνεσθαι καὶ τῆς ψιλώσεως ταύτης τοῖς λοιποῖς κατάρξαι. ἐφόρουν δέ, φησίν, καὶ παρυφίδα διαφανῆ πάντες, οἷς νῦν ὁ τῶν γυναικῶν ἁβρύνεται βίος. ὕστερον δ’ ὑπὸ τῆς τρυφῆς εἰς ὕβριν ποδηγηθέντες ἀνάστατον μίαν πόλιν Ἰαπύγων ἐποίησαν Κάρβιναν, ἐξ ἧς παῖδας καὶ παρθένους καὶ τὰς ἐν ἀκμῇ γυναῖκας ἀθροίσαντες εἰς τὰ τῶν Καρβινατῶν ἱερὰ σκηνοποιησάμενοι γυμνὰ πᾶσι τῆς ἡμέρας τὰ σώματα παρεῖχον θεωρεῖν. καὶ ὁ βουλόμενος καθάπερ εἰς ἀτυχῆ παραπηδῶν ἀγέλην ἐθοινᾶτο ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις τὴν τῶν ἀθροισθέντων ὥραν, πάντων μὲν ὁρώντων, μάλιστα δὲ ὧν ἥκιστα ἐκεῖνοι προσεδόκων θεῶν. οὕτω δὲ τὸ δαιμόνιον ἠγανάκτησεν ὥστε Ταραντίνων τοὺς ἐν Καρβίνῃ παρανομήσαντας ἐκεραύνωσεν πάντας. καὶ μέχρι καὶ νῦν ἐν Τάραντι ἑκάστη τῶν οἰκιῶν ὅσους ὑπεδέξατο τῶν εἰς Ἰαπυγίαν ἐκπεμφθέντων τοσαύτας ἔχει στήλας πρὸ τῶν θυρῶν. ἐφ’ αἷς καθ’ ὃν ἀπώλοντο χρόνον οὔτ’ οἰκτίζονται τοὺς ἀποιχομένους οὔτε τὰς νομίμους χέονται χοάς, ἀλλὰ θύουσι Διὶ Καταιβάτῃ. 1 ἐν τετάρτῳ Βίων A: om. CE || 4 κατάρξαι A: προκατάρξαι CE || παρυφίδα Kaibel: παρυφὴν ACE: παρυφῆ Olson. Cf. Hesych. π 1018 παρυφή· ὕφασμα (t. 3, 48 Hansen) || 5 ὕστερον CE: δεύτερον A || 8 Καρβινατῶν PM, Mus.: καρβινιατῶν A || 13 “requiro τῶν ante θεῶν” Cobet ms. || 15 ἑκάστη PM, Mus.: ἑκάστηι A || ὅσους Mus.: οὓς οὐχ A || 16 ὑπεδέξατο Schweigh.: ὑπεδέξαντο A: ἀπεδέξατο Meineke || 18 τὰς ν. χ. χοάς MP, Mus.: τoὺς ν. χ. χόας A || 19 Καταιβάτῃ M, Mus.: κατηβάτη A.

5

10

15

Text and Translation

137

unbridled sexuality and decadent luxury; see Reitzammer 2016: 63–70. Allusion to Dionysiac rites also plays on the tyrant’s name; cf. “Dionys(i)us-flatters” in Ath. 6 249f and 254b, 10 435e (Theophr. fr. 548), 12 538f, Arist. Rhet. 1405a23–5, Diog. Laert. 10.8.

46

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 12.23 522d–f

48 W

The people of Tarentum, says Clearchus in Book 4 of Lives, once they acquired might and power, proceeded so far in luxury that they would keep their skin smooth all over their bodies, and this practice of hair removal they introduced to all the rest. They all wore transparent clothing with ornate borders, he says, the kind nowadays fashionable for women. Later they were led by their luxury into wanton abuse, and they laid waste one of the towns of the Iapygians, Carbina. Then they gathered the children, maiden daughters, and the married women in their prime together in the shrines of Carbina, where they arranged curtains for everyone to look at them naked throughout the day; and anyone who wished, as if pouncing on an unfortunate herd, could sate his appetites on his pick of the lovely throng while everyone else watched, and especially the ones they least expected, the gods. So incensed was the deity that every one of the Tarentines who violated his norms in Carbina was struck by his lightning. And to this very day every house in Tarentum has gravestones in front of its gate for each of the men it sent out against Iapygia; and there, on the anniversary of the deaths, they neither lament the departed nor pour the customary libations but rather burn offerings to Zeus Descender. In a sequence on “luxury” in foreign cultures and Greek cities (513f–28e), last of three cities in southern Italy, after Sybaris (cf. 54) and Croton; 47–49 follow directly. Tarentum was by tradition a Laconian settlement c. 700; for its legendary origins, and exceptional military strength, see Strabo 6.3.2–4. For Iapygia, the inland region behind Tarentum, see 47; Carbina probably lay well to the east or northeast, toward Brundisium at the top of the peninsular heel. For conflicts, cf. Hdt. 7.170.3: “the greatest Greek slaughter of all we know” (c. 475: Diod. 11.48.2), Pausanias 10.10.6–8, 10.13.10. For Zeus “Descender,” a title associated with sites sanctified by thunderbolt strikes, cf. Pausanias 5.14.10 and Olson 1998: 75–6 on Aristoph. Peace 41–2; see 47 for

138

Clearchus of Soli

*47

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 12.24 522f–523b (BT t. 4A, 24.23–25.11 Olson)

**

Ἰαπύγων τε αὖ τὸ γένος ἐκ Κρήτης ὄντων κατὰ Γλαύκου ζήτησιν ἀφικομένων καὶ κατοικησάντων, οἱ μετὰ τούτους λήθην λαβόντες τῆς Κρητῶν περὶ τὸν βίον εὐκοσμίας εἰς τοῦτο τρυφῆς, εἶθ’ ὕστερον ὕβρεως ἦλθον ὥστε πρῶτοι τὸ πρόσωπον ἐντριψάμενοι καὶ προκόμια περιθετά {τε} λαβόντες στολὰς μὲν ἀνθινὰς φορῆσαι, τὸ δὲ ἐργάζεσθαι καὶ πονεῖν αἰσχρὸν νομίσαι. καὶ τοὺς μὲν πολλοὺς αὐτῶν καλλίονας τὰς οἰκίας ποιῆσαι τῶν ἱερῶν, τοὺς δ’ ἡγεμόνας τῶν Ἰαπύγων ἐφυβρίζοντας τὸ θεῖον πορθεῖν ἐκ τῶν ἱερῶν τὰ τῶν θεῶν ἀγάλματα, προειπόντας μεθίστασθαι τοῖς κρείττοσιν. διόπερ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ βαλλόμενοι πυρὶ καὶ χαλκῷ ταύτην διέδοσαν τὴν φήμην. †ἐφάνη γὰρ ην† μέχρι πόρρω κεχαλκευμένα τῶν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ βελῶν· καὶ πάντες οἱ ἀπ’ ἐκείνων μέχρι τήμερον ἐν χρῷ κεκαρμένοι καὶ πένθιμον στολὴν ἀμπεχόμενοι ζῶσιν, πάντων τῶν πρὶν ὑπαρξάντων ἀγαθῶν σπανίζοντες. 1 τε αὖ] fort. δ᾽ αὖ Kaibel || ὄντων Meineke: ὄν τῶν ACE || γλαύκου ACE: Δαιδάλου Schweigh. || 3 λαβόντες A: λαβὸν CE || τοῦτο AC: τοσοῦτο E || 5 περιθετά CE: περιθετά τε A (τε deleverat Lobeck) || 6 ἀνθινας (sine accentu) A: ἀνθινὰς CE || ἐργάζεσθαι Kaibel: ἐργάσασθαι ACE || αἰσχρὸν Cobet ms. et Meineke: αἴσχιον ACE || 8 τῶν Ἰαπύγων tamquam ex gloss. del. Olson || 11 ἐφάνη γαρ ην Α, “verba corrupta; dici videtur fulgurum vestigia superesse (ἐφάνη γάρ τινα?)” Kaibel.

*48

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 12.25 523b–c (BT t. 4A, 23.11–13 Olson)

**

Ἴβηρες δὲ καίτοι ἐν τραγικαῖς στολαῖς καὶ ποικίλαις προϊόντες καὶ χιτῶσι ποδήρεσι χρώμενοι οὐδὲν ἐμποδίζονται τῆς πρὸς τοὺς πολέμους ῥώμης. 1 τραγικαῖς P, Mus.: τρατικαις A: στρατηγικαῖς CEB || καὶ ποικίλαις del. Wil.

5

10

15

Text and Translation

139

alternative significance. For “smooth skin” in opposition to body hair and its significance for gender and sexuality, see Lee 2015: 76–81; for diaphanous garments 195–6, and for “ornate borders” 95.

*47

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 12.24 522f–523b

**

The people of Iapygia are in turn originally from Crete, when some arrived in search of Glaucus and then settled there. Later generations forgot the well-ordered life on Crete and went so far in luxury and then later in wanton abuse that they became the first to paint their faces, wear hairpieces, and dress in floral robes, and they considered working the land and physical labor a disgrace. Even the common people made their homes finer than their shrines, and their commanders treated the divine abusively by plundering the images of the gods from their shrines after first telling the gods to make way for their superiors. Consequently, when they were being struck by fire and bronze from the sky, they started passing on this story; for there turned up scraps of the bolts from the sky turned to bronze for a long time afterwards. And their descendants down to today all keep their heads shaved and pass their lives wearing mourning robes, since all the good things they had before are now scarce. Directly following 45 and followed by 47–48; for the attribution to Clearchus, see Nenci 1989, cf. Zecchini 1989: 177, 205. Iapygia is broadly the peninsular region of Italy’s “heel”; inhabitants of the region were also called Messapii. For their legendary Cretan origins, descended from an eponymous Iapyx, son of Daedalus, cf. Hdt. 7.169–170, Strabo 6.3.2 and 5–6. Glaucus was a son of Minos, who came to Sicily in pursuit of Daedalus, cf. Apollod. Epit. 1.13–15, Zenobius vulg. 4.92 (CPG 1.112). Crete along with Sparta was a standard model of εὐκοσμία; cf. Polybius 6.45, Plato, Rep. 544c, Arist. Pol. 2.10, etc. For cosmetics see Lee 2015: 66–9 and Xenophon, Oec. 10; for hairpieces and shaved heads, Lee 2015: 69–76. For thunderbolts and memorials, cf. 46.

*48

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 12.25 523b–c

**

The Iberians, though they go about dressed in elaborately decorated robes fit for tragic performance and wearing long tunics down to their feet, still they remain undiminished in their battle prowess.

140

Clearchus of Soli

*49

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 12.25 523c (BT t. 4A, 23.13–16 Olson)

**

Μασσαλιῶται δ’ ἐθηλύνθησαν οἱ τὸν αὐτὸν Ἴβηρσι τῆς ἐσθῆτος φοροῦντες κόσμον. ἀσχημονοῦσι γοῦν διὰ τὴν ἐν ταῖς ψυχαῖς μαλακίαν καὶ τρυφὴν γυναικοπαθοῦντες· ὅθεν καὶ παροιμία παρῆλθε “πλεύσειας εἰς Μασσαλίαν”. 1–2 μασσαλιῶται—ἀσχημονοῦσι A: μασσαλιῶται δὲ ἰβηρικῶς μέν εἰσιν ἐσταλμένοι, ἐθηλύνθησαν δὲ καὶ ἀσχημονοῦσι CE || 2 γοῦν A: om. CE || 3 καὶ1 Kaibel: διὰ ACE.

50

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 12.8 514d (BT t. 4A, 8.16–23 Olson)

49 W

Κλέαρχος δὲ ὁ Σολεὺς ἐν τετάρτῳ Βίων προειπὼν περὶ τῆς Μήδων τρυφῆς καὶ ὅτι διὰ ταύτην πολλοὺς εὐνουχίσαιεν τῶν περικτιόνων, ἐπιφέρει καὶ τὴν παρὰ Μήδων γενέσθαι Πέρσαις μηλοφορίαν μὴ μόνον ὧν ἔπαθον τιμωρίαν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῆς τῶν δορυφορούντων τρυφῆς εἰς ὅσον ἦλθον ἀνανδρίας ὑπόμνημα· δύναται γάρ, ὡς ἔοικεν, ἡ παράκαιρος ἅμα καὶ μάταιος αὐτῶν περὶ τὸν βίον τρυφὴ καὶ τοὺς ταῖς λόγχαις καθωπλισμένους ἀγύρτας ἀποφαίνειν. 2 ταύτης Schweigh. || 4 μόνον BMP, Mus.: μόνων A (servat Taifacos).

5

Text and Translation

141

Directly following 46–47 and followed by 49. Iberian was a generic label for people of the river Ebro basin and coastal areas, later extended more widely around the peninsula; for their warlike reputation, cf. Arist. Pol. 7.2 1324b18– 21 and Plato, Laws 1 637d, joined in each case by Scythians and other groups that confronted early Greek expansion; for their use as mercenaries, cf. Hdt. 7.165 (in 480), Thuc. 6.90.3 (in 415), Diod. 14.75 (in 396), Xenophon, Hell. 7.1.20 (in 369). For long tunics, compare the “Motya youth” (c. 470 BCE) in a “gown” (ξυστίς), with Papadopoulos 2014, figs. 1–5.

*49

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 12.25 523c

**

But the Massalians, who wore the same fancy clothing as the Iberians, turned effeminate. At any rate, they conduct themselves in unseemly ways, behaving like women because of their delicate souls and luxury; whence arose the saying “Go sail to Massalia!” Directly following 46–48; the sequel discusses another early Greek settlement in southern Italy, Siris, citing Timaeus (frs. 51–2), Aristotle (fr. 601), and poets (523c–e). Massalia, settled from Phocaea c. 600, was discussed in an Aristotelian Constitution; cf. Ath. 13 576a–b (Aristotle, fr. 549), Strabo 4.1.4– 5. The saying, effectively a sexual insult, also appears in the Clearchus sequence in Zenobius Athos (3.91 = ps.-Plut. 1.60: CPG 1.330): “Go sail to Massalia: the Massalians used to live rather effeminately, wearing decorated robes down to their feet, even tying up their hair anointed with myrrh, and because of this delicacy behaving in unseemly ways”; cf. 86 and see Subsidia.

50

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 12.8 514d

49 W

Clearchus of Soloi in Book 4 of Lives, after first discussing the luxury of the Medes and how on account of it they made many of those who lived around them into eunuchs, then cites the Apple-Bearers, which the Persians adopted from the Medes, and not only to avenge what they had suffered but also as a reminder of the luxury the bodyguards enjoyed and how unmanly they became. For evidently the inopportune and pointless involement with luxury can turn even men armed with hooked spears into mendicant priests. In a sequence on luxury in “foreign” cultures, starting with the Persians (513f–15d); 51A follows directly. The Apple-Bearers were an elite corps of royal guards, named for the golden apples decorating the butt-ends of their

142

Clearchus of Soli

LIBER Ε 51A

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 12.9 514d–e (BT t. 4A, 8.23–9.1 Olson)

51a W

Καὶ προελθὼν δὲ γράφει (sc. Κλέαρχος)· τοῖς γοῦν πορίσασί τι αὐτῷ (sc. τῷ Περσῶν βασιλεῖ) ἡδὺ βρῶμα διδοὺς ἆθλα τοῦ πορισθέντος οὐχ ἑτέραις ἡδύνων ταῦτα τιμαῖς παρετίθει, πολὺ δὲ μᾶλλον αὐτὸς ἀπολαύειν αὐτῶν, νοῦν ἔχων· τοῦτο μὲν γάρ ἐστιν ὁ λεγόμενος, οἶμαι, καὶ Διὸς ἅμα καὶ βασιλέως ἐγκέφαλος. Cf. Athen. 12.39 529d (= 51D) 2 αὐτῷ A: τῷ βασιλεῖ CE || 4 ἀπολαύειν A: “verba corrupta sic temptavi οὐχ ἑτέροις ἡδύνειν ταῦτα τιμαῖς παρετίθετο” Kaibel: ἀπολαύων Wehrli: ἀπέλαυεν Cobet ms., “intelligerem: οὐχ ἑτέροις ταῦτα παρατίθει. non probo igitur coniecturam Cobeti” Peppink 1936, 68 || ἔχων Kaibel conl. 529d || μὲν om. 529d, del. Taifacos || 5 καὶ om. 529d, del. Kaibel. Textum traditum servat Olson.

51B

Zenob. vulg. 3.41 (CPG t. 1, 67.10–13 L.–Schn.) ~ Zenob. Ath. 3.94, 373 Miller = Ps.-Plut. 1.63 (CPG t. 1.331.7–8 L.–Schn.) ~ Zenob. rec. B 336 (35 Gaisford)

51b W

Διὸς ἐγκέφαλος· ἐπὶ τῶν ἡδυπαθούντων ἡ παροιμία τέτακται. Κλέαρχος δὲ ἐν τῷ πέμπτῳ Περὶ βίων φησὶ τὰ πολυτελῆ βρώματα παρὰ τοῖς Πέρσαις Διὸς καὶ βασιλέως ἐγκέφαλον καλεῖσθαι.

5

Text and Translation

143

spears, as explained in the preceding excerpt from Heraclides of Cumae (FGrHist 689 fr. 1), or for their “purple and apple-colored” uniforms (539e from Phylarchus fr. 41); they fought beside Darius against Alexander at Gaugamela in 331, cf. Arrian, Anab. 3.11.5. For “mendicant priests,” associated especially with the eunuchs of Cybele later called Galli, cf. 44 and Photius, Lex. κ 1147 with Cratinus fr. 87, Semonides fr. 36.

Book 5 51A

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 12.8 514 d–e

51a W

And further on he writes: “At any rate, for those who supplied him with some delicious dish, while he [sc. the Persian king] would award prizes for what they supplied, he did not add any other honors to enhance the prizes, and he had the insight to enjoy them all the more himself. For that, I guess, is what is meant by Zeus’s brain and at the same time the King’s too.” Directly following 50; the sequel cites various historians for more in the same vein. The final sentence here, coordinated by μέν … δέ with a citation from Chares of Mitylene that follows directly, could be an intervention by Athenaeus (speaking in his own voice in Book 12) rather than a comment from Clearchus; but the parallels in 51B–D support the attribution to Clearchus, and specifically Book 5, the textual variants and abbreviation notwithstanding. For the Persian practice, cf. 58, Aristoxenus fr. 50 at Ath. 12 545d, and for monetary prizes, Theophr. fr. 603 at Ath. 4 144e. For the elaborate dining arrangments, which relied heavily on “tribute” and isolated the King while feeding thousands in his palace, see 145a–46c, largely Heraclides of Cumae fr. 2 (cf. 50 n.), and Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1995.

51B

Zenobius vulgate, Proverbs 3.41 (CPG 1.67) ≈ Zenobius, Proverbs (Athos codex) 3.94 = [Plutarch], Proverbs 1.63 (CPG 1.331) ≈ Zenobius, Proverbs (Bodleian recension) 336

51b W

Zeus’s brain: the saying is applied to those who indulge in pleasures. Clearchus in Book 5 On Lives says that the Persians call costly dishes Zeus’s and the King’s brain.

144

Clearchus of Soli

51C

Hesychius Alexandrinus, Lexicon, s.v. Διὸς ἐγκέφαλος (δ 1927 t. 1, 620 Cunningham)

51c W

Διὸς ἐγκέφαλος· παροιμία, ἣν Κλέαρχος φησὶν εἰρῆσθαι οἷον ἐπὶ τῶν ἄγαν θείων.

51D

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 12.39 529d–e (BT t. 4A, 3.14–25 Olson)

51d W

Κλέαρχος δὲ περὶ τοῦ Περσῶν βασιλέως διηγούμενος ὅτι τοῖς αὐτῷ πορίσασιν ἡδύ τι βρῶμα ἆθλα ἐτίθει, νοῦν οὐκ ἔχων· τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν ὁ λεγόμενος, οἶμαι, Διὸς ἅμα καὶ βασιλέως ἐγκέφαλος. ὅθεν ὁ πάντων εὐδαιμονέστατος Σαρδανάπαλλος ὁ παρ’ ὅλον τὸν βίον τιμήσας τὰς ἀπολαύσεις καὶ τελευτήσας δείκνυσιν ἐν τῷ τοῦ μνήματος τύπῳ τοῖς δακτύλοις οἵου καταγέλωτός ἐστιν ἄξια τὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων πράγματα, οὐκ ἄξια ὄντα ψόφου δακτύλων, ὃν πεποίηται ποιούμενος †δὶς ἐν χορῷ† ἡ περὶ τὰ λοιπὰ σπουδή. φαίνεται οὖν οὐκ ἄπρακτος γενόμενος Σαρδανάπαλλος· καὶ γὰρ ἐπιγέγραπται αὐτοῦ τῷ μνήματι· “Σαρδανάπαλλος Ἀνακυνδαράξεω Ἀγχιάλην ἔδειμε καὶ Ταρσὸν μιῇ ἡμέρῃ, ἀλλὰ νῦν τέθνηκεν”. 2 lacunam post ἆθλα et post ἐτίθει (hic iam Gulick) statuit Wehrli, ipse ἆθλα ἐτίθει, coniciens conl. p. 514e (= 50A), falso || οὐκ secl. Schweigh. || 4 Σαρδανάπαλλος Cobet ms. || 6 τοῖς δακτύλοις vel dub. Kaibel || 8 ὃν πεποίηται A: ὃν χορεύων πεποίηται (nihil amplius) CE: lacunam post πεποίηται ind. Schweigh., “verba restitui nequeunt; Clearchus non solum pro se sed etiam pro aliis laborandum esse dixit (cf. p. 514d), quod vel Sardanapallum fecisse hominem luxuriosum, eundem vero duarum urbium conditorem” Kaibel || 8–9 δὶς ἐν χορῷ A: om. CE: inter cruces pos. Wehrli. Post χορῷ lacunam ind. Gulick, t. 5, 391c et Wehrli, ipse vel “aliud eiusdem fere sensus restituendum esse” coniciens || 9 οὖν] γοῦν Gulick.

5

10

Text and Translation

145

Cf. Eustathius, On Iliad 9.378: “Zeus’s brain: very fine food”; for a variant “satrap’s head” (also punning on κέφαλος for mullet) in a fatal jest by Anaxarchus (cf. 55) to Alexander about the Cypriot tyrant Nicocreon, cf. Diog. Laert. 9.58–9, Ath. 6 251a. For the sequence in Zenobius Athos, cf. 86.

51C

Hesychius of Alexandria, Lexicon, under “Zeus’s brain” (δ 1927)

51c W

Zeus’s brain: a saying, which Clearchus says is used for things extremely godlike.

51D

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 12.39 529d–e

51d W

And Clearchus, in his narrative on the Persian king, that for those who supplied him with some delicious dish, he would give prizes, as he had no insight. For that, I guess, is what is meant by Zeus’s brain and at the same time the King’s. Consequently, Sardanapallus, the happiest man of all, who devoted his whole life to enjoyment, even after his death indicates by the fingers in the relief on his tomb what sort of derision human affairs deserve: not worth a snap of the fingers, which he is portrayed making †twice in a dance† the concern for everything else. Plainly, then, Sardanapallus did not achieve nothing. In fact, it is inscribed on his tomb: “Sardanapallus son of Anacyndaraxes built Anchialê and Tarsus in one day, but now he is dead.” In a sequence on the “luxury” of Asian despots (528e–31e), including 53; the comment on the Persian king (paraphrasing 50A, with ellipsis or a lacuna that distorts the end of the sentence) interrupts an otherwise continuous account of Sardanapallus (a legendary mélange of Assyrian kings), largely dependent on Ctesias fr. 1 (528f–30c). For attribution to Clearchus, see Zecchini 1989: 65, 204–5, who would assign the entire passage to him; or “Consequently” may simply resume what precedes, which recounts the king’s lavish self-immolation; see Subsidia. For the location of the tomb, at Anchiale up the coast from Cilician Soloi, and fuller versions of its famous inscription, see Strabo 14.5.9 and Ath. 8 335f–36b, with Choerilus fr. 16 (SH 335).

146

Clearchus of Soli

52

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 10.9 416b (BT t. 3A, 162.20–3 Olson)

52 W

Κλέαρχος δ’ ἐν πέμπτῳ Βίων Καντιβάρι φησὶ τῷ Πέρσῃ, ὁπότε κοπιάσειε τὰς σιαγόνας ἐσθίων, κεχηνότι καθάπερ εἰς ἄψυχον ἀγγεῖον εἰσαντλεῖν τὴν τροφὴν τοὺς οἰκείους. 1 ἐν πέμπτῳ βίων A: om. CE || Καντιβάρι Schweigh.: καντιβάριν ACE: Καντιβαρί Taifacos || τῷ Πέρσῃ Schweigh.: τὸν Πέρσην ACΕ.

53

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 12.40 530c–d (BT t. 4A, 35.18–25 Olson)

53 W

Κλέαρχος δ’ ἐν πέμπτῳ Βίων Σάγαρίν φησι τὸν Μαριανδυνὸν ὑπὸ τρυφῆς σιτεῖσθαι μὲν μέχρι γήρως ἐκ τοῦ τῆς τίτθης στόματος, ἵνα μὴ μασώμενος πονέσειε, οὐ πώποτε δὲ τὴν χεῖρα κατωτέρω τοῦ ὀμφαλοῦ προενέγκασθαι. διὸ καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης Ξενοκράτην τὸν Χαλκηδόνιον σκώπτων ὅτι οὐρῶν οὐ προσῆγε τὴν χεῖρα τῷ αἰδοίῳ ἔλεγεν· χεῖρες μὲν ἁγναί, φρὴν δ’ ἔχει μίασμά τι. 5 Xenocrates test. 76 Isnardi Parente. Cf. Düring 1957, 325 test. 51b || 7 Euripides, Hipp. 317. 3 πονέσειε A: πονέσειεν CE: πονήσειεν Schweigh. || 4 κατωτέρω CE: κατώτερον A.

54

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 12.15 518c (BT t. 4A, 15.6–9 Olson)

59 W

Διαβόητοι δ’ εἰσὶν ἐπὶ τρυφῇ καὶ αἱ τῶν Σικελῶν τράπεζαι, οἵτινες καὶ τὴν παρ’ αὐτοῖς θάλατταν λέγουσιν εἶναι γλυκεῖαν, χαίροντες τοῖς ἐξ αὐτῆς γινομένοις ἐδέσμασιν, ὥς φησι Κλέαρχος ἐν πέμπτῳ Βίων. 2 οἵτινες A: οἳ CE || θάλατταν λέγουσιν A: θάλασσάν φασιν CE || 3 ἐξ αὐτῆς A: παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς CE.

5

Text and Translation

147

52

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 10.9 416b

52 W

Clearchus in Book 5 of Lives says Cantibaris the Persian, whenever his jaws became tired from his eating, would open his mouth wide and his servants would pour food into him just as they would into an inanimate vessel. In a series of famous gluttons to open Book 10 (411b–18e); cf. Aelian, VH 1.27, listing the full sequence of 415b–16e. Cantibaris is otherwise unknown. For a related device, cf. 53.

53

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 12.40 530c–d

53 W

Clearchus in Book 5 of Lives says Sagaris of the Mariandyni in his luxurious ways had his meals from a nursemaid’s mouth until he reached old age in order to spare himself the labor of chewing; and he never extended his hands below his navel. That is also why Aristotle, making fun of Xenocrates of Chalcedon for not putting his hand on his privates when he urinated, used to say: His hands are chaste, but his mind does hold some stain. In a sequence on the “luxury” of Asian despots (528e–31e), following 50D. The Mariandyni inhabited the southwest coastal region of the Pontus. Sagaris, otherwise unknown, shares his name with the legendary eponym of the Sangarius river, west of Heraclea (Iliad 3.185–9, Strabo 12.3.7, [Plut.] Rivers 12.1), and also a battle-ax associated with Amazons and used by various nomadic groups around the Pontus and beyond; cf. Hdt. 1.215, 4.5.3, Xenophon, Anab. 4.4.16. Aristotle’s verse parodies Euripides, Hippolytus 317: Phaedra speaking of herself (with “my” for “his”); for Xenocrates’ prudery, cf. Diog. Laert. 4.7 ≈ Valerius Max. 4.3 ext. 3.

54

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 12.15 518c

59 W

The tables of the Sicilians too are famous for luxury; even the sea there they say is sweet because they enjoy the food it provides, as Clearchus says in Book 5 of Lives. Following discussion of “luxury” in foreign cultures (cf. 50–51A, 42A), this starts a sequence on West Greeks (cf. 46); Sybaris follows (518c–22a). For the fame of Greek Sicilian cooking, and its emphasis on seafood, see Olson

148

Clearchus of Soli

55

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 12.70 548b–c (BT t. 4A, 67.18–25 Olson)

60 W

Περὶ δὲ Ἀναξάρχου Κλέαρχος ὁ Σολεὺς ἐν πέμπτῳ Βίων οὕτω γράφει· τῷ εὐδαιμονικῷ καλουμένῳ Ἀναξάρχῳ διὰ τὴν τῶν χορηγησάντων ἄγνοιαν περιπεσούσης ἐξουσίας γυμνὴ μὲν ᾠνοχόει παιδίσκη πρόσηβος ἡ προκριθεῖσα διαφέρειν ὥρᾳ τῶν ἄλλων, ἀνασύρουσα πρὸς ἀλήθειαν τὴν τῶν οὕτως αὐτῇ χρωμένων ἀκρασίαν. ὁ δὲ σιτοποιὸς χειρῖδας ἔχων καὶ περὶ τῷ στόματι κημὸν ἔτριβε τὸ σταῖς, ἵνα μήτε ἱδρὼς ἐπιρρέοι μήτε τοῖς φυράμασιν ὁ τρίβων ἐμπνέοι.

5

1 Anaxarchus 72 A 9 D.–K. = fr. 8 Dorandi. 2 τῷ εὐδαιμονικῷ καλουμένῳ Schweigh.: τῶν εὐδαιμονικῶν καλουμένων A || 3 γυμνὴ A: γυνὴ CE || 4 ᾠνοχόει A: οἰνοχόει CE || 7 μήτε E: μή τι C : μηδὲ A. Sequitur Anaxilae fragmentum (fr. 18 K.–A.) quod Clearcho dat Wehrli, falso mea sententia; Athenaei additamentum esse suspicor.

LIBER Η 56

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 12.71 548c–d (BT t. 4A, 68.10–5 Olson)

62 W

Πόσῳ γὰρ τούτων βελτίων Γοργίας ὁ Λεοντῖνος, περὶ οὗ φησιν ὁ αὐτὸς Κλέαρχος ἐν τῷ ὀγδόῳ τῶν Βίων, ὅτι διὰ τὸ σωφρόνως ζῆν σχεδὸν ριʹ ἔτη τῷ φρονεῖν συνεβίωσεν. καὶ ἐπεί τις αὐτὸν ἤρετο τίνι διαίτῃ χρώμενος οὕτως ἐμμελῶς καὶ μετὰ αἰσθήσεως τοσοῦτον χρόνον ζήσειεν, “οὐδὲν πώποτε”, εἶπεν, “ἡδονῆς ἕνεκεν πράξας”.

5

Text and Translation

149

and Sens 2000: xxxvi–ix; for seafood as costly and prestigious, Davidson 1997: 3–35. For “Sicilian tables” (with metonymy for fine dining), see Dalby 1996: 113–29 with Diogenianus 8.7 (CPG 1.158); cf. Plato, Rep. 3 404d: “a Syracusan table and fancy Sicilian fare” for fish as opposed to Homeric roasted meat (cf. 38), whence Zenobius vulg. 5.94 (CPG 1.158) = Photius, Lex. σ 827 ≈ Hesychius, Lex. σ 2762 ≈ Suda σ 1659. Calling the sea “sweet” is an oxymoron because the epithet commonly serves to distinguish “fresh” from seawater; cf. Arist. Meteor. 2.2.

55

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 12.70 548b–c

60 W

About Anaxarchus Clearchus writes in Book 5 of Lives as follows: “Anaxarchus, who was called the ‘happiness man,’ after he happened upon a windfall thanks to the ignorance of his providers, would have his wine poured by a naked slave-girl, a pubescent one chosen as the most attractive of them all, though in truth what she exposed was the lack of self-control in those who treated her so; and he would have his breadmaker wear gloves and a mask over his mouth while he worked the dough so that neither his sweat nor his breath would fall on the mixture as he kneaded.” In a sequence on the “luxury” of philosophers who favored pleasure (544a– 48d) that highlights Aristippus and Epicurus; 56 follows after an excerpt from the comic poet Anaxilas (fr. 18), which Wehrli improbably assigns to Clearchus. For Anaxarchus of Abdera, see Dorandi 1994; reportedly an antagonist of Aristotle’s kinsman Callisthenes, he died a famously brutal death at the hands of Nicocreon the tyrant of Cypriot Salamis. His epithet was ostensibly a sectarian label (Diog. Laert. 1.17); his main “provider” presumably Alexander, whom he accompanied all the way to India (Diog. Laert. 9.61).

Book 8 56

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 12.71 548c–d

62 W

How much better than those men is Gorgias of Leontini? About whom the same Clearchus in Book 8 of his Lives says that by living moderately he maintained a sound mind for nearly 110 years; and when someone asked him what regimen he followed to live so long and so in tune with all his sensibilities, he said, “By never doing anything for pleasure’s sake.”

150

Clearchus of Soli 1 Gorgias 82 A 11 D.–K. 1 βελτίων A: βέλτιον coni. Kaibel || 3 ριʹ (= ἑκατὸν δέκα) Diels: πʹ (= ὀγδοήκοντα) ACE: ρʹ (= ἑκατὸν) Wil. “male editor recepit coniecturam Wilamowitzii, lege mecum σχεδόν τι” Peppink 1936, 75.

LIBRI INCERTI 57

Zenob. vulg. 4.87 (CPG t. 1, 109.1–3 L.–Schn.) ~ Zenob. Ath. 3.95, 373 Miller = Ps.-Plut. 1.64 (CPG t. 1.331.7–8 L.–Schn.) = Zenob. rec. B 591 (70 Gaisford); Suda, s.v. λευχηπατίας (λ 346, LG 1.3, 256.11–3 Adler).

40 W

Λευκηπατίας· Κλέαρχος τῷ Περὶ βίων φησὶ συμβαίνειν τι περὶ τὸ ἧπαρ ἐπί τινων, ὃ δειλοὺς ποιεῖ. εἰρῆσθαι οὖν ἐπὶ τῶν τοιούτων τὴν παροιμίαν. 1 λευκηπατίας Zenob. rec. B: λευχη- Suda || Κλέαρχος—φησὶ Zenob. vulg.: Κλέαρχος φησὶ Zenob. rec. B: φασὶ tantum habent Zenob. Ath. et Suda || ἐν add. Schneidewin.

58

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 12.55 539b (BT t. 4A, 50.14–19 Olson)

50 W

Κλέαρχος δ’ ἐν τοῖς Περὶ βίων περὶ Δαρείου λέγων τοῦ καθαιρεθέντος ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἀλεξάνδρου φησίν· ὁ Περσῶν βασιλεὺς ἀθλοθετῶν τοῖς τὰς ἡδονὰς αὐτῷ πορίζουσιν ὑπὸ πάντων τῶν ἡδέων ἡττωμένην ἀπέδειξε τὴν βασιλείαν καὶ καταγωνιζόμενος ἑαυτὸν οὐκ ᾔσθετο πρότερον ἢ τὸ σκῆπτρον ἕτεροι λαβόντες ἀνεκηρύχθησαν. 3 πορίζουσιν Kaibel conl. Athen. 12.9 514e et 12.39 529d: γνωρίζουσιν ACE.



5

Text and Translation

151

Following 55 and capping a series of philosophical hedonists with a pointed contrast; 60B follows after an alternate version of the same anecdote (below) and two similar reports about temperate rulers (Artaxerxes III, Antipater). Gorgias was a famous centenarian, widely said to have lived for 107–9 years: the chronographer Apollodorus fr. 33 (Diog. Laert. 8.58), Cicero, Senec. 13, Pliny, NH 7.156, Quintilian 3.1.9, Philostratus, VS 1.9, Olympiodorus, In Gorg. Prologue 9, Suda γ 388; cf. Plato, Phdr. 261c. The figure of 80 (π) years in the mss. is consistent if “a sound mind” is achieved only at 30, a common threshold for mature manhood. The anecdote is retold in very similar form (with 108 years) in ps.-Lucian, Macrob. 23, and with a different figure and explanation in the sequel here, citing Demetrius of Byzantium (FHG 2.624), possibly the Peripatetic (Diog. Laert. 5.83): “more than 100 years … never doing anything for another’s sake” (548d).

Unidentified books 57

Zenobius vulgate, Proverbs 4.87 (CPG 1.109) ≈ Zenobius, Proverbs (Athos codex) 3.95 = ps.-Plutarch, Proverbs 1.64 (CPG 1.331) = Zenobius, Proverbs (Bodleian recension) 591; cf. Suda, under “white-livered” (λ 346)

40 W

White-livered: Clearchus On Lives says something happens to the liver in some people to make them cowardly; the saying, then, is applied to people like that. For the Clearchus sequence in Zenobius Athos, cf. 86. See Subsidia for the different gloss “naïve.”

58

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 12.55 539b

50 W

Clearchus in On Lives, when discussing the Darius who was overthrown by Alexander, says: “The Persian king, by setting prizes for those who supplied him with pleasures, showed that his kingdom was being overcome by all of its pleasures, and he did not realize he was defeating himself until others had already seized the scepter and been proclaimed victorious.” In a series of reports about Alexander’s extravagant luxury (537d–40a). For royal prizes, cf. 51A–D from Book 5. Unless mention of the king is simply generic, it most likely refers to Darius III (c. 380–330), killed by the satrap Bessus on his retreat into Bactria after the disastrous defeat at Gaugamela.

152

Clearchus of Soli

59

Zenob. vulg. 6.18 (CPG t. 1, 166.16–19 L.–Schn.)

56 W

Τιθωνοῦ γῆρας· ἐπὶ τῶν πολυχρονίων καὶ ὑπεργήρων τάττεται. ἱστορεῖται δὲ ὅτι Τιθωνὸς κατ’ εὐχὴν τὸ γῆρας ἀποθέμενος τέττιξ ἐγένετο, ὥς φησι Κλέαρχος ἐν τῷ Περὶ βίων.

60A

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 1.10 6b–c (BT t. 1, 12.17–13.5 Kaibel; CB 13 Desrousseaux)

55 W

Θεόφιλος δέ φησιν οὐχ ὥσπερ Φιλόξενον τὸν Ἐρύξιδος· ἐκεῖνος γάρ, ὡς ἔοικεν, ὡς ἔοικεν, ἐπιμεμφόμενος τὴν φύσιν εἰς τὴν ἀπόλαυσιν ηὔξατό ποτε γεράνου τὴν φάρυγγα σχεῖν. [...] Κλέαρχος δὲ Μελάνθιόν φησι τοῦτ’ εὔξασθαι λέγων· Τιθωνοῦ Μελάνθιος ἔοικε βουλεύσασθαι βέλτιον. ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἀθανασίας ἐπιθυμήσας ἐν θαλάμῳ κρέμαται πάντων ὑπὸ γήρως ἐστερημένος τῶν ἡδέων. Μελάνθιος δὲ τῶν ἀπολαύσεων ἐρῶν ηὔξατο τῆς μακραύχενος ὄρνιθος τὸν τράχηλον ἔχειν, ἵν’ ὅτι πλεῖστον τοῖς ἡδέσιν ἐνδιατρίβῃ. Melanthius test. 13 Gentili–Prato; TrGF 23 T 7?a. 6 θαλάμῳ CE: ταλάρῳ Adam fort. recte, cf. Suet. Περὶ βλασφημιῶν § 200 Taillardat (ex cod. Athoo ap. Miller 1868, 423) et Eust., ad Il. Ψ 791, 1330.10–12 (t. 4, 838.11 V. d. Valk) et ad Od. ε 121 (1527.64–5).

5

Text and Translation

153

59

Zenobius vulgate, Proverbs 6.18 (CPG 1.166)

56 W

Old age of Tithonus: applied to the longlived and very old. It is reported that Tithonus, in answer to his prayers, shed his old age and became a cicada, as Clearchus says in On Lives. Cf. 60A–B, and see Subsidia for parallels, including Zenobius Athos 3.99 (cf. 86). The tale of Tithonus, brother of Priam abducted for love by the goddess Dawn, is first recounted in HH 5 Aphrodite 218–38, but implicit already in Iliad 3.145–52 (cf. 11.1–2, 20.237–8), Hesiod, Theog. 984–5, Sappho fr. 58 (cf. 40); cf. Hieronymus of Rhodes fr. 46A–B. For the cicada’s twin association with age and singing, cf. Il. 3.150–2 with Sch. (Hellanicus fr. 140), Plato, Phdr. 259, and Callimachus, Aetia fr. 1.29–40 with Harder 2012: 2.68–87; see Janko 2017, who notes that the word for “old age” (γῆρας) doubles for the slough that it and other creatures shed (Arist. HA 7(8).17 600b15–1a10), and that only male cicadas sing (HA 5.30 556b10–12); cf. Zenobius Athos VA 39.

60A

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 1.10 6b–c

55 W

Theophilus says: “Not like Philoxenus the son of Eryxis; for that man, it seems, finding fault with his natural capacity for indulgence, once prayed to have a gullet like a crane’s.” … Clearchus says that Melanthius made this prayer: “Melanthius it seems came up with a better plan than Tithonus. For that one, who desired to be immortal, hangs suspended in a bed chamber, deprived by old age of everything pleasant; but Melanthius, in his love for indulgences, prayed to have the throat of a longnecked bird so he could concentrate on his pleasures as long as possible.” From an opening survey of famous diners (4a–8c), including 100, 99, 73; directly following 61 and followed directly by 66 in a sequence on one or more figures named Philoxenus (5b–7a); Book 1 is preserved only in the Epitome, but the passage is echoed in 60B. This Theophilus (third century BCE?) may be the one who wrote on Sicilian, Italian, and Peloponnesian lore (FGrHist 296 and 573). This Philoxenus (RE no. 5), a notorious gourmand with an all too aptly named father (“Belch”), is commonly considered distinct from the “Leucadian” poet (RE no. 24); cf. 61. For his wish, cf. Arist. EE 3.2 1231a15–17, EN 3.10 1118a32– 3, Machon fr. 9 (Ath. 8 341d). Melanthius, a tragedian active in the 420s (TrGF 23), was a target of comedy for his eating; cf. Ath. 8 343c, Aristoph. Peace 803–13, 999–1015.

154

Clearchus of Soli

60B

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 12.72 548f–549a (BT t. 4A, 69.1– 6 Olson)

**

Τιθωνὸν δ᾽ ἀπὸ τῆς ἔω μέχρι δυσμῶν κοιμώμενον μόλις ἐπιθυμίαι πρὸς ἑσπέραν ἐπήγειρον· ὅθεν Ἠοῖ συγκοιμᾶσθαι λεχθεὶς διὰ τὸ ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις ἐμπλεπλέχθαι ἐπὶ τῷ γήρᾳ καθεῖρκται, κρεμαστὸς ὢν πρὸς ἀλήθειαν ἐκ τούτων. καὶ Μελάνθιος δὲ τὸν αὑτοῦ τράχηλον κατατείνων ἀπήγχετο ἐκ τῶν ἀπολαύσεων, κνισότερος ὢν τοῦ Ὀδυσσέως Μελανθίου.

5

4–6 καὶ Μελάνθιος—Μελανθίου] Melanth. test. 15 Gentili–Prato; TrGF 23 T 7b. 1 αἱ add. Cobet ms. et Kaibel || 3 lacunam stat. Dindorf, νέος ὢν ἐπὶ γήρως ἐν ταλάρῳ ὥσπερ τέττιξ καθεῖρκται suppl. Kaibel “sed corrupta verba ἐπὶ τῷ γήρᾳ non expedio”.

61

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 1.9 5f–6b (BT t. 1, 12.1–15 Kaibel; CB 12–13 Desrousseaux) et Suda, s.v. Φιλόξενος (φ 395, LG 1.4, 729.11–20 Adler)

57 W

Κλέαρχος δέ φησι Φιλόξενον προλουόμενον ἐν τῇ πατρίδι κἀν ἄλλαις πόλεσι περιέρχεσθαι τὰς οἰκίας, ἀκολουθούντων αὐτῷ παίδων {καὶ} φερόντων ἔλαιον, οἶνον, γάρον, ὄξος καὶ ἄλλα ἡδύσματα. ἔπειτα εἰσιόντα εἰς τὰς ἀλλοτρίας οἰκίας τὰ ἑψόμενα τοῖς ἄλλοις ἀρτύειν ἐμβάλλοντα ὧν ἐστι χρεία, κἆθ’ οὕτως κύψαντα εὐωχεῖσθαι. οὗτος εἰς Ἔφεσον καταπλεύσας εὑρὼν τὴν ὀψοπώλιδα κενὴν ἐπύθετο τὴν αἰτίαν· καὶ μαθὼν ὅτι πᾶν εἰς γάμους συνηγόρασται λουσάμενος παρῆν ἄκλητος ὡς τὸν νυμφίον. καὶ μετὰ τὸ δεῖπνον ᾄσας ὑμέναιον, οὗ ἡ ἀρχή γάμε θεῶν λαμπρότατε πάντας ἐψυχαγώγησεν, ἦν δὲ διθυραμβοποιός. καὶ ὁ νυμφίος, “Φιλόξενε”, εἶπε, “καὶ αὔριον ὧδε δειπνήσεις”. καὶ ὁ Φιλόξενος, “ἂν ὄψον”, ἔφη, “μὴ πωλῇ τις”. 1 Philoxenus Cyth. fr. 15 Page (PMG 828). 1–2 ἐν τῇ πατρίδι κἀν ἄλλαις πόλεσι Suda: om. CE || 3 καὶ om. Suda, expu. Kaibel || 4 ἡδύσματα CE: τῶν ἡδυσμάτων Suda, “fort. recte” Desrousseaux || τὰς ἀλλοτρίας οἰκίας C, Suda: τὸν ἀλλότριον οἰκίας Ε || 5 ὧν ἐστι CE: ὧν ἦν Suda, “copula utrimque frustra suppleta” Desrousseaux || κᾆθ’ Suda: εἶθ’

5

10

Text and Translation

155

60B

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 12.72 548f–549a

**

Tithonus would sleep from dawn to dusk, his desires barely rousing him in the evening; consequently legend has it that he slept with Dawn, and because he entangled himself in his desires, he is encaged in his old age, in reality hanging on them [sc. his desires] in suspense. So too Melanthius stretched out his throat until he choked on his delights, greedier for meat than the Melanthius who served Odysseus. First in a series of heavy eaters (548f–50f), following 56 and three related reports; for attribution to Clearchus, see Subsidia. For Tithonus, cf. 59; for the rationalizing version of his story, cf. Heraclitus, Incred. 28 (Boreas) and 38 (Endymion). For Melanthius, cf. 60A; for the Homeric Melanthius, a goatherd as grubby and treacherous as his name was meant to suggest, Odyssey 17.212–32.

61

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 1.9 5f–6b; cf. Suda, under “Philoxenus” (φ 395)

57 W

Clearchus says Philoxenus, in his hometown and other towns, would first bathe and then go round people’s homes with slaves attending him and carrying olive oil, wine, fish sauce, vinegar, and other seasonings. Then, when he entered someone’s home, he would season the dishes for everyone by adding what was needed, and then after taking a bow he would join in the feast. One time when he sailed to Ephesus, he found the fish market empty; and when he asked why, he learned that everything had already been sold for a wedding feast, so he bathed and went to the bridegroom’s home uninvited; and after the dinner, he sang a nuptial song, which begins: Wedlock, most splendid of gods. He enthralled everyone – his songs were dithyrambs – and the bridegroom said, “Philoxenus, you will dine with us tomorrow as well.” And Philoxenus replied, “If no one is selling fish.” For context see 60A, which follows directly. The preceding discussion quotes a comic parody of “Philoxenus the Leucadian” (5b–d: Plato fr. 189), then mentions parallels for Philoxenus of Cythera and some others (5f); the sequel cites Aristotle fr. 83 toying with the name as “Philo-diner” (φιλόδειπνος) and

156

Clearchus of Soli CE || 6 κύψαντα vel ἑαυτὸν ἀπομύξαντα Roskam 2006, 655 (cf. Plut., De lat. viv. 1128b): εἰς αὐτὸν κύψαντα Suda (probat Maas ms. 56): ἀνακάμψαντα CE || οὗτος οὖν Suda || 7 ὀψοπώλιδα Kaibel: ὀψόπωλιν C (ante ras.), Suda: ὀψόπωλην C (post ras.): ὀψόπ.λ.ν E (-πολον? -πολιν? Desrousseaux): ὀψοπωλίαν Schweigh. || 12 δειπνήσεις Suda: δειπνεῖς CE (probat Maas ms. 56).

62

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 8.32 344c (BT t. 3A, 25.17–21 Olson)

58 W

Κλέαρχος δ’ ἐν τοῖς Περὶ βίων φίλιχθύν τινα ἀναγράφων φησὶν οὕτως· Τέχνων ὁ παλαιὸς αὐλητὴς Χάρμου τοῦ αὐλητοῦ τελευτήσαντος (ἦν δὲ φίλιχθυς) ἀποπυρίδας ἐπὶ τοῦ μνήματος ἐνήγιζεν αὐτῷ. 2 Τέχνων] Stephanis nr. 2621 || Χάρμος] Stephanis nr. 2404.

63

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 9.54 396e (BT t. 3A, 125.9–11 Olson)

61 W

Κλέαρχος δ’ ἐν τοῖς Περὶ βίων εἰς τοῦτό φησιν ὠμότητος Φάλαριν τὸν τύραννον ἐλάσαι ὡς γαλαθηνὰ θοινᾶσθαι βρέφη.

64

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 13.93 611b–c (BT t. 4A, 187.16– 188.3 Olson)

16 W

Συνελόντι δὲ εἰπεῖν κατὰ τὸν Σολέα Κλέαρχον οὐ καρτερικὸν βίον ἀσκεῖτε, κυνικὸν δὲ τῷ ὄντι ζῆτε· καίτοι τοῦ ζῴου τούτου ἐν τέτταρσι τὴν φύσιν περιττὴν ἔχοντος {ὥσπερ ὑμεῖς} τὰ χείρω μερισάμενοι τηρεῖτε. αἰσθήσει τε γὰρ τῇ {πρὸς ὄσφρανσιν καὶ} πρὸς τὸ οἰκεῖον καὶ ἀλλότριον θαυμαστόν, καὶ τῷ συνανθρωπίζον οἰκουρὸν εἶναι καὶ φυλακτικὸν τοῦ τῶν εὖ δρώντων βίου πάντων περιττότατον· ὧν οὐδέτερον πρόσεστιν

5

Text and Translation

157

Phaenias fr. 17 on the Cytherean again (6d–7a). The latter (RE no. 23: c. 435– c. 380) was famous for innovative dithyrambs (PMG 814–35) and figures in sympotic anecdotes thanks to his time in Syracuse at the court of Dionysius I. The Leucadian (RE no. 24), apparently a contemporary, is cited for a verse Dinner (PMG 836) and similar anecdotes, some the same; thus his vita in Suda φ 395 combines 61 with the information cited above from Aristotle fr. 83 and Phaenias fr. 17. For the confusion, see Wilkins 2000: 345–50; if the two are in fact distinct, the Leucadian is marginally more likely to be the subject here.

62

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 8.32 344c

58 W

Clearchus in On Lives describes someone who loved seafood as follows: “Technôn the piper from long ago, when Charmus the piper died, who loved seafood, made sacrificial offerings of small-fry over his grave.” In a sequence on fish-eaters and gourmands (335b–47c); for Charmus of Syracus, cf. 100. “Small-fry” (literally “from the fire”), a descriptive rather than specific term, were so called because they cooked quickly; cf. 75.

63

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 9.54 396e

61 W

Clearchus in On Lives says the tyrant Phalaris went so far in savagery as to feast on suckling babies. Illustrating the term “suckling” (396c–f) in a sequence on meat, mainly fowl and pork (373–402). For the infamous tyrant of Acragas (fl. 560s), see Aristotle fr. 611 no. 69 and Subsidia. For the present allegation, cf. Arist. EN 7.5 1148b22–4 and 1149a12–15.

64

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 13.93 611b–c

16 W

To put it in a nutshell, according to Clearchus of Soloi, it is not a tough life you cultivate but in fact a dog’s life you seek. And yet, when this animal has an exceptional nature on four counts, you people divvy them up and adopt the worse ones. For dogs are amazing in their sense {of smell and} of what is close to them or alien, and exceptional at watching the home of their human companions and guarding the life of all who treat them well. But you who imitate the dog’s life have neither of these

158

Clearchus of Soli

ὑμῖν τοῖς τὸν κυνικὸν βίον μιμουμένοις. οὔτε γὰρ συνανθρωπίζετε οὔτε διαγινώσκετε οὐδένα τῶν ὁμιλούντων, αἰσθήσει τε πολλῷ ὑστεροῦντες ἀργῶς καὶ ἀφυλάκτως ζῆτε. λοιδόρου δὲ καὶ παμφάγου τοῦ ζῴου πεφυκότος, ἔτι δὲ ταλαιπώρου καὶ γυμνοῦ τὸν βίον, ἄμφω ταῦτα μελετᾶτε, κακολόγοι καὶ βοροὶ πρός τε τούτοις ἄνοικοι καὶ ἀνέστιοι βιοῦντες. ἐξ ὧν ἁπάντων ἀλλότριοι μὲν ἀρετῆς, μάταιοι δὲ εἰς τὸ τοῦ βίου χρήσιμον.

10

Diog. cyn. SSR V B 151 || 13 ἄνοικοι καὶ ἀνέστιοι] cf. Hom., Il. Ι 63 ἀθέμιστος ἀνέστιός ἐστιν ἐκεῖνος? 3 ὥσπερ ὑμεῖς secl. Kassel 1963/1991, 57–8 (= 341–2): ὧσπερ A: ὧνπερ Mus. || 3–4 τὰ χείρω Maas per verba ap. Kassel || 4–5 πρὸς ὄσφρανσιν καὶ secl. Kassel τῇ περὶ (κατ᾽ Wil.) ὄσφρανσιν {καὶ πρὸς τὸ} οἰκείων καὶ ἀλλοτρίων dub. Kaibel conl. Sext. Emp., P.H. 1.64. “the Greek is awkward as is to be expected in Clearchus, but there is no need to alter the text” Gulick t. 6, 293e || 5 ἀλλότριον θαυμαστὸν οἰκεῖον A : θαυμαστὸν οἰκεῖον om. CE : θαυμαστὸν οἰκεῖον καὶ ἀλλότριον P: οἰκεῖον del. Mus. || 6 τῷ CE : τὸ A : τότε Mus. || εἶναι ζῷον CE || 10 πολλῷ Casaub.: πολλῶν ACE || 13 βιοῦντες] “hactenus Clearchus” Kaibel || 14 δὲ Kaibel.

65

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 12.57 540e–541a (BT t. 4A, 53.16–54.1 Olson)

44 W

Κλέαρχος δέ φησιν ὡς Πολυκράτης ὁ τῆς ἁβρᾶς Σάμου τύραννος διὰ τὴν περὶ τὸν βίον ἀκολασίαν ἀπώλετο, ζηλώσας τὰ Λυδῶν μαλακά. ὅθεν τῷ τ’ ἐν Σάρδεσιν Ἀγκῶνι Γλυκεῖ προσαγορευομένῳ τὴν παρὰ τοῖς Σαμίοις λαύραν ἀντικατεσκεύασεν ἐν τῇ πόλει καὶ τοῖς Λυδῶν ἄνθεσιν ἀντέπλεξε τὰ διαγγελθέντα Σαμίων ἄνθεα. τούτων δὲ ἡ μὲν Σαμίων λαύρα στενωπή τις ἦν γυναικῶν δημιουργῶν, καὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀπόλαυσιν καὶ ἀκρασίαν πάντων {βρωμάτων} ὄντως ἐνέπλησε τὴν Ἑλλάδα· τὰ δὲ Σαμίων ἄνθη γυναικῶν καὶ ἀνδρῶν κάλλη διάφορα. ἔτι δὲ τῆς συμπάσης πόλεως ἐν ἑορταῖς τε καὶ μέθαις καὶ ταῦτα μὲν ὁ Κλέαρχος. 3 τ’ ἐν Σάρδεσιν Kaibel: τῷ μὲν (μὲν om. CE) Σάρδεων ACE || 5 τοῖς Kaibel: τῶν A || 5–6 ἄνθεσιν ἀντέπλεξε Meineke: ἄνθεσι πάντ᾽ ἔπλεσε A: ἄνθεσι ἀντέπλασε Olson || 7 στενωπή Toup 1790, t. 3, 131: στενή A: στενήν τινα (structura mutata) CE || καὶ dub. Kaibel || 8 βρωμάτων secl. Olson || ὄντως Schweigh. || 9–10 γυναικῶν—διάφορα “haec mutila fort. γυναικῶν καὶ

5

10

Text and Translation

159

traits; for neither do you keep human company nor do you differentiate among those who associate with you; and much their inferiors in sensing, you lead an inactive and unguarded life. But as this animal is also naturally hostile and omnivorous, even leading a rough and naked life, you practice both of those traits, being foul-mouthed and voracious, besides living homeless and hearthless. All of which makes you alien to virtue and worthless for anything useful in life. From a rejoinder by Myrtilus to Cynulcus (610d–12f), after the Cynic dismisses his encomium of women; cf. 23. For discussion and attribution to this work, see Fortenbaugh (in this volume); for criticism of Cynics, cf. 38.

65

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 12.57 540e–541a

44 W

Clearchus says that Polycrates the tyrant of elegant Samos was done in by his intemperate way of life in his rivalry to match the comforts of Lydians. Consequently, to match what in Sardis is called Sweet Bend, he had the lane for Samians built in the town, and to match the flowers of Lydia, he wove together the celebrated flowers of Samos. The Samian lane was an alley of tradeswomen, and in fact it filled Greece with all kinds of {foods for} delight and dissipation; and the flowers of Samos were the exceptional beauties of its women and men. Further, with the entire town feasting and drinking . That is what Clearchus says. In a sequence on the “luxury” of Greek tyrants (540c–43c), starting with Polycrates, who ruled c. 535–522. For the Lydian “Sweet Bend” see 42A. The “Samian lane” (apparently something like a bazaar) and “flowers of Samos” (a site for mixed-gender feasting) were proverbial; cf. Zenobius Athos 3.92 (= ps.-Plut. 1.61: CPG 1.330; cf. 86), Suda λ 152, and Subsidia.

160

Clearchus of Soli ἀνδρῶν κάλλει διάφορα” Kaibel, ipse lacunam post ἀνδρῶν indicans “in hac sententia supplendum esse vidit OCrusius ‘civitas autem dum omnis in epulis et comissatione occupata est, supervenerunt Persae’, quae sane digna Clearcho, cf. prov. Alex.”.

66

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 1.10 6c–d (BT t. 1, 13.5–11 Kaibel; CB 13 Desrousseaux) et Suda, s.v. πίθυλλος (π 1591, LG 1.4, 130.19–22 Adler); s.v. περιγλωττίς (π 1088, LG 1.4, 93.15–18 Adler); s.v. δακτυλήθρα (δ 26, LG 1.2, 3.3–4 Adler)

54 W

Ὁ αὐτός (sc. Κλέαρχος) φησι Πίθυλλον τὸν Τένθην καλούμενον οὐ περιγλωττίδα μόνον ὑμενίνην φορεῖν, ἀλλὰ καὶ προσελυτροῦν τὴν γλῶσσαν πρὸς τὰς ἀπολαύσεις. καὶ τέλος ἰχθύαν τρίβων ἀπεκάθαιρεν αὐτήν. μόνος δ’ οὗτος τῶν ἀπολαυστικῶν καὶ δακτυλήθρας ἔχων ἐσθίειν λέγεται τὸ ὄψον, ἵν’ ὡς θερμότατον ὁ τρισάθλιος ἀναδιδῷ τῇ γλώττῃ.

5

2 μόνον C: μετὰ E || 3 προσελυτροῦν E, Bras Suda π 1088: προσελυτρῶν Suda π 1591: προσεχυτροῦν C || 3–6 τέλος—γλώττῃ ipsissima verba Clearchi secundum Desrousseaux || 4 ἰχθύαν “nescio quis” Kaibel: ἰχθῦν (sic) CE: ἰχθύᾳ Kondos 1877, 430, an recte? || 5 ἀπολαυστικῶν C: ἀπελαυστικῶν E || τὸ C, Suda π 1591 et δ 26.

Litterarum studia Περὶ παροιμιῶν (67–88) LIBER Α 67

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 10.86–87 457c–458a (BT t. 3A, 246.6–247.1 Olson)

63 I W

(praecedit 91) Κἀν τῷ πρώτῳ δὲ Περὶ παροιμιῶν γράφει (sc. ὁ Κλέαρχος) οὕτως· τῶν γρίφων ἡ ζήτησις οὐκ ἀλλοτρία φιλοσοφίας ἐστί, καὶ οἱ παλαιοὶ τὴν τῆς παιδείας ἀπόδειξιν ἐν τούτοις ἐποιοῦντο. προέβαλλον γὰρ παρὰ τοὺς πότους οὐχ ὥσπερ οἱ νῦν ἐρωτῶντες ἀλλήλους, τίς τῶν ἀφροδισιαστικῶν συνδυασμῶν ἢ τίς ἢ ποῖος ἰχθὺς ἥδιστος ἢ τίς ἀκμαιότατος, ἔτι δὲ τίς μετ’ Ἀρκτοῦρον ἢ μετὰ Πλειάδα ἢ τίς μετὰ Κύνα μάλιστα

5

Text and Translation

161

66

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 1.10 6c–d; cf. Suda, under “Pithyllus” (π 1591), under “tongue-cover” (π 1088), under “finger-gloves” (δ 26)

54 W

The same authority [sc. Clearchus] says Pithyllus, who was called a gourmand, not only wore a membrane as a tonguecover but even put a sheath on his tongue for enjoyment; and at the end, he would rub fish skin on it to clean it off. He alone of the voluptuaries is said to have eaten his meals using fingergloves, so the miserable wretch could give his tongue each dish as hot as possible. Directly following 60A. Pithyllus, otherwise unknown, is aptly named “Little Pithos” or “Casklet”; cf. 52. The label τένθης, which Athenaeus uses five times, always of Archestratus except here, was used by the Isocratean Cephisodotus as a slur against Aristotle (Aristocles fr. 2 in Euseb. PE 15.2.7).

Literary Studies On Sayings (67–88) Book 1 67

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 10.86–87 457c–458a

63 I W

So too in Book 1 of On Sayings he [sc. Clearchus] writes as follows: “The investigation of riddles is not alien to philosophy, and the men of old used to demonstrate their learning with them. For they would pose them while drinking, not the way people do nowadays, asking one another: What is the most pleasurable position for sexual intercourse? Or what kind of fish is best, or which type, or which is in peak season? Or again, which is best to eat after Arcturus [rises or sets], or after the

162

Clearchus of Soli

βρωτός; καὶ ἐπὶ τούτοις ἆθλα μὲν τοῖς νικῶσι φιλήματα μίσους ἄξια τοῖς ἐλευθέραν αἴσθησιν ἔχουσι, ζημίαν δὲ τοῖς ἡττηθεῖσιν τάττουσιν ἄκρατον πιεῖν, ὃν ἥδιον τῆς Ὑγιείας πίνουσι· κομιδῇ γάρ ἐστι ταῦτά γέ τινος τοῖς Φιλαινίδος καὶ τοῖς Ἀρχεστράτου συγγράμμασιν ἐνῳκηκότος, ἔτι δὲ περὶ τὰς καλουμένας Γαστρολογίας ἐσπουδακότος. ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον τὰς τοιαύτας, τῷ πρώτῳ ἔπος ἰαμβεῖον εἰπόντι τὸ ἐχόμενον ἕκαστον λέγειν καὶ τῷ κεφάλαιον εἰπόντι ἀντειπεῖν τὸ ἑτέρου ποιητοῦ τινος, εἰς τὴν αὐτὴν εἶπε γνώμην· ἔτι δὲ λέγειν ἕκαστον ἰαμβεῖον. πρός τε τούτοις ἕκαστον εἰπεῖν ὅσων ἂν προσταχθῇ συλλαβῶν ἔμμετρον, καὶ ὅσαπερ τῆς τῶν γραμμάτων καὶ συλλαβῶν ἔχεται θεωρίας. ὁμοίως δὲ τοῖς εἰρημένοις ἡγεμόνος ἕκαστον λέγειν ὄνομα τῶν ἐπὶ Τροίαν ἢ τῶν Τρώων, καὶ πόλεως ὄνομα τῶν ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ λέγειν ἀπὸ τοῦ δοθέντος γράμματος, τὸν δ’ ἐχόμενον τῶν ἐν τῇ Εὐρώπῃ καὶ τοὺς λοιποὺς ἐναλλάξαι, ἄν τε Ἑλληνίδος ἄν τε βαρβάρου τάξῃ τις. ὥστε τὴν παιδιὰν μὴ ἄσκεπτον οὖσαν μηνύματα γίνεσθαι τῆς ἑκάστου πρὸς παιδείαν οἰκειότητος. ἐφ’ οἷς ἆθλον ἐτίθεσαν στέφανον καὶ εὐφημίαν, οἷς μάλιστα γλυκαίνεται τὸ φιλεῖν ἀλλήλους. ταῦτα μὲν οὖν Κλέαρχος εἴρηκε. 11 Archestratus SH 134 = test. 4 Olson–Sens. 4 προέβαλλον A: προέβαλον CE || 6 συνδυασμῶν E, Mus.: συνδιασμῶν C : συνδυασμένων A || 13 γαστρολογίας CE, Mus.: ἀστρολογίας A || 14 ἢ add. Meineke || 15 ἀντειπεῖν τὸ Schweigh.: ἀντειπόντος A: ἀντειπεῖν Olson || 16 ὅτι add. Kaibel, Casaub., Schweigh. || 17 ἰαμβεῖον MP, Mus.: ἰαμβίον Α || 18 ὅσαπερ dub. Dobree 1833, 329: ὅσα ἀπὸ A: “sed ἀπὸ non magis vitiosum quam ἐκ” Kaibel: ἀπὸ secl. Wehrli, post Dobree || 20 ἕκαστον Kassel 1963/1991, 58 (= 343): ἑκάστου A || 21 fort. ἀπό του Kaibel || 24 παιδιὰν Muretus 1789, 444: παιδείαν A || μηνύματα A: μήνυα Coraës ms. || 27 ταῦτα μὲν οὖν κλέαρχος εἴρηκε A.

10

15

20

25

Text and Translation

163

Pleiades, or which after the Dogstar? And as prizes in these contests the winners receive kisses, which deserve the hatred of anyone of freeborn sensibilities; and as penalties they assign the losers a toast of unmixed wine, which they drink more readily than the cup to Health. For that is all entirely typical of anyone habituated to the writings of Philaenis and Archestratus or enthusiastic about the so-called Gastronomies. Instead [men of old did] the following: one man first recited an epic or iambic verse, then everyone in turn recited the following verse; or one man set a topic, then everyone in turn would recite something on the same theme from a different poet; or again everyone in turn recited iambic verses; additionally, everyone would recite verses containing a specified number of syllables, or anything else that requires a command of letters and syllables. Or similar to those described, everyone would name one of the warriors at Troy or one of the Trojan warriors; or first a town in Asia that has a name starting with a given letter, then one in Europe, and so on back and forth, either Greek or foreign towns as assigned. As a result, since their game demanded critical thought, it provided an indication of each man’s learning and aptitude. The prize they awarded for these was a garland and compliments, which do so much to sweeten mutual friendship.” That is what Clearchus says. Directly following 91 in a discussion of riddles (448b–59b); the sequel illustrates some older word games with examples from Homer and comedy (458a– f); for more verbal games cf. 89. Similar titles are attested for Aristotle (Diog. Laert. 5.26 no. 136) and Theophrastus (fr. 727 no. 14); for the topic and the term, see Zucker (in this volume); for the sympotic context here described, see Cameron 1995: 71–103. The stars named here marked cardinal dates by their annual “rising” and “setting” (when they were first or last visible on the horizon at dusk or dawn); according to Eudoxus (c. 370?) and Callippus (c. 330?), as recorded in the calendar (or parapegma) appended to Geminus, Phaenomena, the morning rising of Arcturus marks the start of autumn (early September); the morning setting of the Pleiades marks the start of winter (early November), its rising the start of summer (mid-May); and the morning rising of Sirius brings the “dogdays” of summer (mid-July). For Philaenis (of Samos?) and her erotic writings, apparently cited in Arist. Div. Somn. 464b1–4 (see Ross 1955: 283–4), see Parker 1992, Boehringer 2015. For Archestratus of Gela and his parodic poem on fine dining (c. 350 BCE), see Olson–Sens 2000; cf. 72, 73, 75.

164

Clearchus of Soli

68

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 15.62 701b–d (BT t. 4A, 375.3–17 Olson)

64 W

Τῶν δὲ πολλῶν τὸ ἰὴ παιὼν ἐπιφθεγγομένων ὁ Ποντιανὸς ἔφη· τὸ ἰὴ παιών, ἄνδρες φίλοι, μαθεῖν βούλομαι εἴτε παροιμία ἐστὶν εἴτε ἐφύμνιον εἴτε τι ἄλλο. πρὸς ὃν ὁ Δημόκριτος ἔφη· Κλέαρχος ὁ Σολεὺς οὐδενὸς ὢν δεύτερος τῶν τοῦ σοφοῦ Ἀριστοτέλους μαθητῶν ἐν τῷ προτέρῳ Περὶ παροιμιῶν τὴν Λητώ φησιν ἐκ Χαλκίδος τῆς Εὐβοίας ἀνακομίζουσαν εἰς Δελφοὺς Ἀπόλλωνα καὶ Ἄρτεμιν γενέσθαι παρὰ τὸ τοῦ κληθέντος Πύθωνος σπήλαιον. καὶ φερομένου τοῦ Πύθωνος ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς ἡ Λητὼ τῶν παίδων τὸν ἕτερον ἐν ταῖς ἀγκάλαις ἔχουσα, ἐπιβᾶσα τῷ λίθῳ τῷ νῦν ἔτι κειμένῳ ὑπὸ τῷ ποδὶ τῆς χαλκῆς εἰργασμένης Λητοῦς, ὃ τῆς τότε πράξεως μίμημα γενόμενον ἀνάκειται παρὰ τὴν πλάτανον ἐν Δελφοῖς, εἶπεν, “ἵε παῖ”. τυχεῖν δὲ τόξα μετὰ χεῖρας ἔχοντα τὸν Ἀπόλλωνα. τοῦτο δ’ ἐστὶν ὡς ἂν εἴποι τις, “ἄφιε παῖ” καὶ “βάλε παῖ”. διόπερ ἀπὸ τούτου λεχθῆναί φασιν τὸ “ἵε παῖ” καὶ “ἵε παιών”. 1 ἰὴ MP, Mus.: ἵη A: ἱὴ B || 2 ἰὴ Dalec.: ἵη A: ἱὴ B || 10 ἐπιβᾶσα Kaibel: προβᾶσα E: προσβᾶσα AC || 11 μίμημα A: μίμησις CE: μνῆμα dub. Schweigh. || 12 παρὰ A : πε E: περὶ C || 14 εἴποι A: εἴπη CE || 15 ἵε παιών ACE: ἵη παιών dub. Kaibel. “hucusque Clearchus” Kaibel.

LIBER Β 69A

Scholia vetera (KGEAT1.2) in Theocritum 5.21/22ab (BT, 161.14–8 Wendel)

66a W

21/22a ἐντὶ μὲν οὐδὲν ἱερόν] Παροιμία ἐπὶ τῶν μηδενὸς ἀξίων. φησὶ δὲ Κλέαρχος ἐν δευτέρῳ τῶν Παροιμιῶν, ὅτι Ἡρακλῆς ἰδὼν ἱδρυμένον τὸν Ἄδωνιν ἔφη· b “οὐδὲν ἱερόν”· οὐ γὰρ αὐτὸν ἄξιον τιμῆς καὶ ἱδρύσεως ἔκρινεν.

5

10

15

Text and Translation

165

68

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 15.62 701b–d

64 W

While most [of those present] were crying Iyea paiôn, Pontianius said, “My friends, I would like to learn whether the phrase Iyea paiôn is a saying, a refrain, or something else.” Democritus replied, saying, “Clearchus of Soloi, who is second to none among the wise Aristotle’s students, says in the prior book On Sayings that when Leto was carrying Apollo and Artemis from Chalcis on Euboea up to Delphi, she passed by the cave of the [creature] called Pytho. When Pytho came out after them, Leto, who was holding her son in her arms, stepped on the stone that still today lies beneath the foot of her bronze statue, which was made as a portrait of that very act of hers then and set up beside the plane tree in Delphi; and she cried, ‘Hiye pai!’ Apollo happened to have a bow in his hands, and her cry was like someone saying, ‘Let fly, child!’ or ‘Shoot, child!’ Therefore they say that is the origin of people saying Hiye pai and Hiye paiôn.” From closing remarks on paeans as guests prepare to disperse before the work ends at 702c; portions of text are missing shortly before and after this passage. The sequel reports an alternative account of the refrain (701e): “Many people also utter the cry for things that achieve their end, some claiming the phrase used as a saying is Iyea paiôn though we do not recognize it as a saying because it is so familiar; and others arguing that this phrase is not a saying .” For the paean’s traditional association with Apollo, see Furley and Bremer 2001: 1.77–93. Apollo’s dragon-slaying, which served as aition for the Delphic Septerion rites held every eighth year, was retold diversely; see Richardson 2010: 125–6 and 131–2 on Homeric Hymn 3.300–74 and other versions; for the etymology (from a present imperative of ἵημι), see Callimachus, Hymn 2.97–104 (calling it a “refrain” in 98, but “said” in 104) with Williams 1978: 82–5 for abundant parallels.

Book 2 69A

Scholia on Theocritus, Idylls 5.21–2ab

66a W

It’s nothing sacred: a saying for worthless things. Clearchus says in Book 2 of Sayings that when Heracles saw a statue of Adonis, he said “Nothing sacred,” since he did not judge Adonis worthy of honor and a statue.

166

Clearchus of Soli

2 κλέαρχος K: κλέανδρος GEAT1.2 || τὴν παροιμίαν K || 4 ἔκρινεν K: ἐδοκίμασεν GEA.

69B

Zenob. Ath. 1.12, 222–3 Ruta = Zenob. vulg. 5.47 (CPG t. 1, 140.4–7 L.–Schn.) ~ Diogen. 7.13 (CPG t. 1, 288.16–17 L.– Schn.)

66b W

Οὐδὲν ἱερὸν εἶ· Κλέαρχός φησιν ὅτι Ἡρακλῆς ἰδὼν τὸν Ἄδωνιν ἱδρυμένον ἔφη· “οὐδὲν ἱερόν”. εἴρηται οὖν ἐπὶ τῶν παντελῶς εὐτελῶν καὶ ἀχρήστων ἡ παροιμία.

69C

Apostolius 13.34 (CPG 2, 581.21–582.34) = Arsenius, Violetum 395.3–7 Walz

66c W

Οὐδὲν ἱερόν· Ἡρακλῆς εἶπεν Ἀδώνιδος ἰδὼν ξόανον, ὡς τῶν εὐεργετησάντων τοὺς ἀνθρώπους μόνων ὀφειλόντων τιμᾶσθαι. ἢ ὅτι οἱ καταφυγόντες εἰς αὐτὸ δοῦλοι ἄδειαν οὐκ εἶχον. λέγεται δὲ ἐπὶ τῶν μηδενὸς ἀξίων, ὥς φησι Κλέαρχος ἐν δευτέρῳ Παροιμιῶν.

5

Sine Clearchi nomine, Hesychius, Lexicon, s.v. οὐδὲν ἱερόν (ο 1563, t. 2, 978 Cunningham) et Photius, Lexicon, s.v. οὐδὲν ἱερόν (ο 615, t. 3, 119 Theodoridis) = Suda, s.v. οὐδὲν ἱερόν (ο 798, LG 1.3, 577.29–578.2 Adler). 1–3 οὐδὲν—εἶχον = Photius et Suda “fort. hinc Apost.” (Theodoridis) || 4–5 λέγεται—Παροιμιῶν om. Apost. cod. N. Cf. schol. Theocr. (69A) || 4 κλέαρχος Ars.: κλέανδρος Apost.

70

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 7.102 316f–317b (BT t. 2, 197.16– 26 Kaibel)

75 W

Ἱστορεῖται δὲ καὶ ὅτι φεύγων (sc. ὁ πολύπους) διὰ τὸν φόβον μεταβάλλει τὰς χρόας καὶ ἐξομοιοῦται τοῖς τόποις ἐν οἷς κρύπτεται, ὡς καὶ ὁ Μεγαρεὺς Θέογνίς φησιν ἐν ταῖς ἐλεγείαις. πουλύπου ὀργὴν ἴσχε πολυπλόκου, ὃς ποτὶ πέτρῃ τῇ προσομιλήσῃ, τοῖος ἰδεῖν ἐφάνη.

5

Text and Translation

167

Idyll 5 dramatizes a singing contest between a shepherd and a goatherd; here the shepherd challenges the other to stake one of his “worthless” kids as the prize. For Heracles, cf. 78–80, 88, 128, and 41 n. Adonis, as Aphrodite’s favorite and a lovely youth killed hunting, embodied the antithesis of Heracles (cf. Sch. Iliad 24.23); his cult, a focus of women’s devotion in various forms of Adonia rites, was similarly antithetical to Heraclean manliness; see Reitzammer 2016: 12–29; cf. 106B.

69B

Zenobius, Proverbs (Athos codex) 1.12 = Zenobius vulgate, Proverbs 5.47 (CPG 1.140) ≈ Diogenianus, Proverbs 7.13 (CPG 1.288)

66b W

You’re nothing sacred: Clearchus says that when Heracles saw a statue of Adonis, he said, “Nothing sacred.” So the saying is applied to things that are totally cheap and useless.

69C

Apostolius, Proverbs 13.34 (CPG 2.581–2) = Arsenius, Violets (ου)

66c W

Nothing sacred: [this is what] Heracles said when he saw a sculpture of Adonis, since he thought only those who benefited humankind ought to be honored; or because the slaves who sought refuge there did not receive asylum. It is applied to worthless things, as Clearchus says in Book 2 of Sayings. From two compilations by Michael Apostolius (c. 1420–c. 1480), a refugee scholar from Constantinople; the Violets were edited by his son Arsenius Apostolius (c. 1468–1538).

70

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 7.102 316f–317b

75 W

It is also reported that when it [sc. the octopus] flees, because of fear it changes color to resemble the place where it is hiding, as also Theognis of Megara says in his elegies: Hold to the temper of a multi-twining octopus, which Makes itself look just like the rocks beside it.

168

Clearchus of Soli

ὁμοίως ἱστορεῖ καὶ Κλέαρχος ἐν δευτέρῳ Περὶ παροιμιῶν παρατιθέμενος τάδε τὰ ἔπη, οὐ δηλῶν ὅτου ἐστί πουλύποδός μοι, τέκνον, ἔχων νόον, Ἀμφίλοχ’ ἥρως, τοῖσιν ἐφαρμόζου, τῶν κεν δῆμον ἵκηαι. 4–5 Theognis 215–16 || 8–9 adesp. 2, 1–2 Powell = Theb. fr. 4, 1–2 Bernabé (PEG) = 8 West (GEF); SH 1009. Cf. ps.-Antig. Caryst., Mirab. 25a 2 (31.201–202 Musso) πουλύποδος ὥς, τέκνον, ἔχων ἐν στήθεσι θυμὸν | τοῖσιν ἐφαρμόζειν. Vide SH 1009 ad loc. 9 ἐφαρμόζου CE: ἐφαρμόζων A: ἐφαρμόζειν Antig. || τῶν κεν Schweigh.: ὧν καὶ (κε CE) ACE || κατὰ] “besser ?” Maas ms. 61.

LIBRI INCERTI 71

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 13.2 555c–d (BT t. 4A, 82.21–8 Olson)

73 W

Κλέαρχος δ’ ὁ Σολεὺς ἐν τοῖς Περὶ παροιμιῶν ἐν Λακεδαίμονι, φησί, τοὺς ἀγάμους αἱ γυναῖκες ἐν ἑορτῇ τινι περὶ τὸν βωμὸν ἕλκουσαι ῥαπίζουσιν, ἵνα τὴν ἐκ τοῦ πράγματος ὕβριν φεύγοντες φιλοστοργῶσί τε καὶ ἐν ὥρᾳ προσίωσι τοῖς γάμοις. ἐν δὲ Ἀθήναις πρῶτος Κέκροψ μίαν ἑνὶ ἔζευξεν, ἀνέδην τὸ πρότερον οὐσῶν τῶν συνόδων καὶ κοινογαμίων ὄντων. διὸ καὶ ἔδοξέ τισιν διφυὴς νομισθῆναι, οὐκ εἰδότων τῶν πρότερον διὰ τὸ πλῆθος τὸν πατέρα. 5 ἐν δὲ ἀθήναις πρῶτος κέκροψ A: κέκροψ δὲ πρῶτος ἀθήνησι CE || 6 συνόδων A: γυναικῶν C, comp. E.

5

Text and Translation

169

Clearchus has a similar report in Book 2 On Sayings, where he cites the following verses without identifying the poet: Keep, my child, an octopus’ mind, hero Amphilochus, Tune yourself to those you meet in the town you visit. In a discussion of the octopus (316a–18f), followed directly by 102. Its wellknown ability to camouflage itself by changing color (cited here from Theognis 215–16 and Thebaid fr. 4 = SH 1009) is noted by Arist. HA 8(9) 622a8– 10 (for predation and defense alike) and addressed by Theophr. On Animals that Change Color fr. 365A–D; see Sharples 1995: 90–8.

Unidentified books 71

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 13.2 555c–d

73 W

Clearchus of Soloi in On Sayings says, “In Lacedaemonia there is a festival in which the married women drag any unmarried men around the altar striking them with rods, so that men will shun the humiliation of the event by developing ties of affection and getting married in due season.” In Athens Cecrops was the first to join one woman and one man in union, when coupling had previously been untied and partners were shared freely; that is why some people even decided that Cecrops was thought to have a dual nature, because people previously did not know the father thanks to the multitude. From the opening of Book 13 on love and women (cf. 20), after a similar report on Spartan marital customs from Hermippus (fr. 6); the sequel cites six Peripatetics for Socrates having two wives (555d–56b). For the Spartan ritual, cf. Pausanias 3.16.9–11 on Artemis Orthia, with Calame 2001: 156–69, Plut. Lycurgus 15.1–3, Den Boer 1954: 261–74. Cecrops, as primordial “earthborn” king, was commonly portrayed with a serpent’s lower body; here his “dual nature” is rationalized as establishing parenthood, both father and mother in monogamy; cf. Suda κ 1272 ≈ Sch. Aristoph. Wealth 773, Suda π 2506, Eustathius, On Odyssey 18.491, and differently Plut. Divine Punishment 6 551e–f; cf. Subsidia.

170

Clearchus of Soli

72

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 8.17 337a–b (BT t. 3A, 12.6–11 Olson)

78 W

Κλέαρχος δὲ ἐν τοῖς Περὶ παροιμιῶν καὶ διδάσκαλον τοῦ Ἀρχεστράτου γενέσθαι φησὶν Τερψίωνα, ὃν καὶ πρῶτον Γαστρολογίαν γράψαντα διακελεύεσθαι τοῖς μαθηταῖς τίνων ἀφεκτέον. ἀπεσχεδιακέναι τε τὸν Τερψίωνα καὶ περὶ τῆς χελώνης τάδε· †η κρὴ χελώνης χρὴ ἢ† φαγεῖν ἢ μὴ φαγεῖν ἄλλοι δ᾿ οὕτως λέγουσιν· ἢ δεῖ χελώνης κρέα φαγεῖν ἢ μὴ φαγεῖν.

5

Archestratus test. 3 Olson–Sens. 6 η κρὴ χελώνης χρὴ ἢ A: ἦ ... ἢ Schweigh.: ἢ κρῆ (= κρέα) χελώνης δεῖ Meineke t. 4, 149: ἢ κρῆ χελ. χρὴ Gulick t. 4, 301: κρέα χρῆ χελ. ἢ in Clearcho Wehrli. Sed vide Buehler 1999, 190 “at κρῆ Dor. … offendit … etiam κρέα χρῆ mihi nescio qua causa displicet [paulo minus displiceret χρῆ κρέα] …”.

73

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 1.7 4d–e (BT t. 1, 8.20–9.10 Kaibel; CB 9 Desrousseaux)

79a W

Ὅτι Ἀρχέστρατος ὁ Συρακούσιος ἢ Γελῷος ἐν τῇ, ὡς Χρύσιππος ἐπιγράφει, Γαστρονομίᾳ ὡς δὲ Λυγκεὺς καὶ Καλλίμαχος Ἡδυπαθείᾳ, ὡς δὲ Κλέαρχος Δειπνολογίᾳ, ὡς δὲ ἄλλοι, Ὀψοποιΐᾳ—ἐπικὸν δὲ ποίημα, οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· ἱστορίης ἐπίδειγμα ποιούμενος Ἑλλάδι πάσῃ— φησί κτλ. 1 Archestratus test. 2 Olson–Sens = SH 132 || 2 Lynceus fr. 21a Dalby || 2–3 Callimachus fr. 436 Pf. || 5 Archestratus fr. 1 Olson–Sens = SH 132. 2 λυγγεὺς CE || 3 Κλέαρχος Taifacos 360 conl. Suda, s.v. Ἀθήναιος (α 731, LG 1.1, 69, 31 Adler) et s.v. χάρμος (χ 132, LG 1.4, 790, 20–21 Adler) || 6 sequitur Archestr. fr. 4 Olson–Sens = SH 191.

5

Text and Translation

171

72

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 8.17 337a–b

78 W

Clearchus in On Sayings says that Archestratus had as a teacher Terpsion, who was also the first to write a Gastronomy telling his students what foods to avoid; and Terpsion also improvised the following about the turtle: †Or turtle’s meat we must either† eat or not eat. Others put it this way: Either turtle’s meat we should eat or not eat. After criticizing the fine dining of Archestratus and others (335b–37a), the scholar Democritus begins a sequence on witty diners (337a–52d), including 74. For Archestratus cf. 67; for Terpsion, see Olson and Sens 2000: xxix. The original verse, which apparently plays on “meat” (κρέα) and “must” (χρή), became proverbial; see Subsidia for parallels, including the Attic historian Demon (fl. 300).

73

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 1.7 4d–e

79a W

Archestratus of Syracuse or Gela, in the work which is entitled Gastronomy by Chrysippus, Delectation by Lynceus and Callimachus, Dinner Science by Clearchus, and Cuisine by others – and the poem is in hexameters and begins: Making a model display of research for all of Hellas… – he [sc. Archestratus] says… Closely following 100 and preserved only in the Epitome; another excerpt from Archestratus (fr. 4) follows directly. For author and title, cf. 67. Chrysippus here is not a fellow gastronome from Tyana (cf. Ath. 3 113a–d, 14 647c–48c) but the Stoic scholarch from Cilician Soloi; cf. Ath. 8 335b–f. For Lynceus of Samos, brother of the historian Duris and associate of Theophrastus, see Dalby 2000.

172

Clearchus of Soli

74

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 8.40 347f–348a (BT t. 3A, 31.26– 32.4 Olson)

80 W

Πόθεν δὲ καὶ εἰδέναι δύναται, ἅπερ εἶπεν Στρατόνικος ὁ κιθαριστὴς εἰς Πρόπιν τὸν ῾Ρόδιον κιθαρῳδόν; Κλέαρχος γὰρ ἐν τοῖς Περὶ παροιμιῶν φησιν ὡς ὁ Στρατόνικος θεασάμενος τὸν Πρόπιν ὄντα τῷ μὲν μεγέθει μέγαν, τῇ δὲ τέχνῃ κακὸν καὶ ἐλάττονα τοῦ σώματος, ἐπερωτώντων αὐτὸν ποῖός τις ἐστιν εἶπε· οὐδεὶς κακὸς μέγας ἰχθύς, αἰνισσόμενος ὅτι πρῶτον μὲν οὐδείς ἐστιν, εἶθ’ ὅτι κακός, καὶ πρὸς τούτοις μέγας μέν, ἰχθὺς δὲ διὰ τὴν ἀφωνίαν.

5

1 Στρατόνικος] Stephanis nr. 2310 || 2 Πρόπις] Stephanis nr. 2151. 4 πρόπιν ACE: Πρέπιν Wil. || 6 αἰνισσόμενος A: αἰνιττόμενος CE.

75

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 7.23 285c–d (BT t. 2, 130.16–21 Kaibel)

81 W

Κλέαρχος δ’ ὁ Περιπατητικὸς ἐν τοῖς Περὶ παροιμιῶν περὶ τῆς ἀφύης φησί· διὰ τὸ μικροῦ δεῖσθαι πυρὸς ἐν τοῖς τηγάνοις οἱ περὶ Ἀρχέστρατον ἐπιβαλόντας κελεύουσιν ἐπὶ θερμὸν τήγανον σίζουσαν ἀφαιρεῖν· ἅμα δ’ ἧπται καὶ σίζει, καθάπερ τοὔλαιον, εὐθύς. διὸ λέγεται· ἴδε πῦρ ἀφύη. 2–3 Archestratus fr. 61 Olson–Sens = SH 141. 2 μικροῦ A: μικρὸν CE || 3 ἐπιβαλόντας Kaibel: ἐπιβάλλοντες ACE.

76

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 4.51 160c (BT t. 1, 362.1–3 Kaibel)

83 W

Κλέαρχος δ’ ὁ ἀπὸ τοῦ Περιπάτου ἐν τοῖς Περὶ παροιμιῶν ὡς παροιμίαν ἀναγράφει τὸ “ἐπὶ τῇ φακῇ μύρον”, ἧς μέμνηται καὶ ὁ ἐμὸς προπάτωρ Οὐάρρων ὁ Μενίππειος ἐπικαλούμενος καὶ οἱ πολλοὶ τῶν γραμματικῶν τῶν Ῥωμαϊκῶν οὐχ ὁμιλήσαντες

5

Text and Translation

173

74

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 8.40 347f–348a

80 W

Where can he [sc. Ulpian] find what Stratonicus the kithara player said to the kithara singer Propis of Rhodes? For Clearchus in On Sayings says that after Stratonicus heard a performance by Propis, who was a big man but bad at his art and weak-voiced for his size, when people asked him what sort of singer the fellow is, he said, “No big fish is bad,” enigmatically implying that first Propis was a nobody, then that he was bad, and additionally that despite his size he had a fish’s voice. The Cynic Cynulcus rebukes the learned Ulpian (347d) before recounting a series of anecdotes about Stratonicus (348c–52d), including 16; the sequel adds stories about two similar remarks from Theophrastus (fr. 710) and the Aristotelian Constitution of the Naxians (fr. 566). The kitharist’s reply exploits ambiguous word order to imply that “a nobody with no voice is bad,” since fish were proverbially mute; cf. Arist. HA 5.9 535b12–32, Callimachus fr. 533 (SH 295) with Pfeiffer 1949 ad loc.; see 109 for exceptions.

75

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 7.23 285c–d

81 W

Clearchus the Peripatetic in On Sayings says about sprat: “Because they need little fire in a skillet, those who follow Archestratus say to throw them on a hot skillet and remove them when they sizzle; and they sizzle the moment they’re on the fire, just like olive oil, right away. That’s why people say, ‘Watch the fire, sprat.’” Discussion of “sprat” (ἀφυή), like “small-fry” a name applied indiscriminately to various kinds of small fish and their young (284f–5f); see Thompson 1947: 21–3, cf. 62. For their preparation, see Archestratus fr. 11 with Olson and Sens 2000: 53–61 (cf. 238–9); for his cookbook, 73; for the saying, Zenobius vulg. 2.32 (CPG 1.41), 4.25 (CPG 1.91), Diogenianus 2.41 (CPG 1.201), and cf. 87.

76

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 4.51 160c

83 W

Clearchus from the Peripatos in On Sayings records a saying “perfume on lentils,” which my ancestor Varro, who was dubbed the Menippean, also mentions; and most Roman scholars, since they are unfamiliar with many of the Greek poets and

174

Clearchus of Soli

πολλοῖς Ἑλληνικοῖς ποιηταῖς καὶ συγγραφεῦσιν οὐκ ἴσασιν ὅθεν εἴληφεν ὁ Οὐάρρων τὸ ἰαμβεῖον.

5

3 Οὐάρρων] Varro, Sat. Menipp. fr. 91 Astbury. Loquitur Larensis.

77

Photius, Lexicon, s.v. αἰγὸς τρόπον (α 531, t. 1, 61.20–62.3 Theodoridis) = Paus. Att. Erbse α 42

63 W

Αἰγὸς τρόπον. παροιμία. λέγεται δὲ “αἰγὸς τρόπον μάχαιραν ἐσκάλευσά ”. λέγεται μέντοι καὶ ἑτέρως ἡ παροιμία “αἲξ ποττὰν μάχαιραν”, ὡς Χρύσιππος καὶ Κλέαρχος. τάσσεται δὲ ἐπὶ τῶν ἑαυτοῖς προξενούντων κακά· ἡ γὰρ αἲξ σκάλλουσα τὴν μάχαιραν εὑρίσκει, δι’ ἧς θύεται. 1–2 αἰγὸς— Adesp. com. *483 K.–A. || 3 Chrysippus] testimonium Photii deest in SVF 3, 202. 1 verba αἰγὸς τρόπον. παροιμία. λέγεται om. b || 2 μοι add. Reitzenstein 46 || μέντοι secl. Erbse || 3 ποττὰν E. Schwartz ap. Reitzenstein: παρ᾽ τὰν b z

78

Zenob. vulg. 5.44 (CPG t. 1, 139.6–8 L.–Schn.) ~ Zenob. Ath. 3.100, 373 Miller ~ Ps.-Plut. 1.69 (CPG t. 1, 332.4–5 L.–Schn.) ~ Diogen. 7.23 (CPG t. 1, 290.1–2 L.–Schn.)

65 W

Οἰταῖος δαίμων· Κλέαρχός φησιν ὅτι δαίμων τις Οἰταῖος ἐπωνομάσθη, ὃς ὕβριν καὶ ὑπερηφανίαν πάνυ ἐμίσησεν. 1–2 Κλέαρχός φησιν—ἐπωνομάσθη Zenob. vulg.: om. Diogen.: οὗτος ὁ δαίμων ὕ. Zenob. Ath., ps.-Plut.

5

Text and Translation

175

writers, do not know where Varro found the iambic phrase. The host Larensius caps his Cynic guest’s praise of plain fare like lentil soup (156c–60b) by citing two comic instances of this saying (Strattis fr. 47, Sopater fr. 13), then Clearchus; cf. Wilkins 2000: 13–16. The phrase, comparable to “lipstick on a pig,” served as the title for one of Varro’s Menippean satires (frs. 549–51), subtitled “on timeliness” (περὶ εὐκαιρίας); cf. Cicero, To Atticus 1.19.2 (March 60), punning on Lentulus.

77

Photius, Lexicon, under “goat-like” (α 531): Pausanias the Atticist, α 42

63 W

Goat-like: a saying; it is said “goat-like I scraped up a knife.” But the saying is also put differently: “a goat anent the knife,” according to Chrysippus and Clearchus. It is applied to those who invite troubles on themselves; for the goat scrapes around and finds the knife with which it is sacrificed. The citation in the first gloss is an iambic trimeter, presumably from comedy. Photius, Lex. α 532, glossing the same phrase differently, relates it to Corinthian rites associated with Medea; see Subsidia, and Zenobius vulg. 1.27 (CPG 1.9), Diogenianus 1.52 (CPG 1.188), Zenobius Athos VA 34.

78

Zenobius vulgate, Proverbs 5.44 (CPG 1.139) ≈ Zenobius, Proverbs (Athos codex) 3.100 ≈ ps.-Plutarch, Proverbs 1.69 (CPG 1.332) ≈ Diogenianus, Proverbs 7.23 (CPG 1.290)

65 W

Oetaean deity: Clearchus says the title Oetaean was given to a deity who utterly hated insolence and arrogance. The Athos codex has this in a sequence from Clearchus; cf. 86. “Oetaean” for Mt. Oeta inland from Thermopylae, site of Heracles’ funeral pyre and apotheosis; cf. Sophocles, Trach. 1191–1216, Diodorus 4.38–9. Cf. Sch. Iliad 22.159 for quadrennial rites for the deified hero; Thuc. 3.92 for Sparta’s refoundation of Trachis (at the mountain’s eastern foot) as Heraclea in 426. Potentially relevant is the obscure “sage” Myson of Chên (a village on Mt. Oeta) named in Plato, Protagoras 343a; cf. Diog. Laert. 1.106, 81–2.

176

Clearchus of Soli

79A

Zenob. Ath. 1.6 (Ruta 2020, 172)

67 W

Ἄλλος οὗτος Ἡρακλῆς· Κλέαρχος ἐξηγούμενος τὴν παροιμίαν τὸν Βριάρεω φησὶ καλούμενον Ἡρακλέα ἐλθεῖν εἰς Δελφοὺς καὶ λαβόντα τι τῶν ἐκεῖ κειμηλίων κατά τι παλαιὸν ἔθος, ὁρμῆσαι ἐπὶ τὰς Ἡρακλέ{ι}ους στήλας καλουμένας καὶ τῶν ἐκεῖ περιγενέσθαι. χρόνῳ δὲ ὕστερον τὸν Τύριον Ἡρακλέα ἐλθεῖν εἰς Δελφοὺς χρησόμενον τῷ μαντείῳ. τὸν δὲ θεὸν προσειπεῖν αὐτὸν “ἄλλον Ἡρακλέα”, καὶ οὕτω τὴν παροιμίαν κρατῆσαι.

5

Text and Translation

177

79A

Zenobius vulgate, Proverbs 5.48 (CPG 1.140)

67 W

He’s another Heracles: Clearchus in explaining the saying says that the Heracles called [son] of Briareus came to Delphi, and after taking one of the treasures there according to an ancient custom, he set out for what are called the pillars of Heracles and overcame those there. Sometime later Heracles of Tyre came to Delphi to consult the oracle, and the god addressed him as “another Heracles”; and that is how the saying prevailed. The saying was commonly used to praise feats of strength: Diogenianus 1.63 (CPG 1.190), Hesychius, Lex. α 3180, Aelian, VH 12.22 (a herdsman stronger than Milo); possibly also in Arist. EE 7.12 1245a29 and MM 2.15 1213a12 as a variant for best friends as “another self” (the text is problematic in both cases). Eustathius, On Iliad 5.638 reports diverse accounts of its origin from Aelius Dionysius (α 79 = Photius, Lex. α 1011 = Suda α 1338), that it was “said first of Theseus, or of the Heracles of the Idaean Dactyls, or the son of Alcmene because of the more ancient ones”; and from Pausanias Atticist (α 70): “for Theseus, or one of the Idaean Dactyls, but some (say) for the Egyptian Heracles, and some (say) for the son of Alcmene.” For Theseus, cf. Plut. Theseus 29.3, Ptolemy Chennus 5.21 (in Photius, Bibl. Cod. 190). For seven different Heracles, see Cicero, ND 3.42 and John Lydus, On Months 4.67, both citing unnamed scholarship: their first Heracles, son of “Zeus son of Aether” and an Oceanid (cf. ND 3.53), tried to take Apollo’s oracular tripod (cf. Pausanias 10.13.8); their fourth is from Tyre; cf. Hdt. 2.42–4. For “Heracles [son] of Briareus” see 79B, where the form Βριάρεω, which can also be accusative (so Wehrli 1969: 70), is explicitly genitive. The “pillars of Heracles” were commonly located at the straits of Gibraltar, but also at Gadira (modern Cadiz; cf. 79B), with various names used for each place; see Strabo 3.5.5–6, citing Dicaearchus fr. 125 for the common view; and more fully, Scholia on Dionysius Periegete 64 (on Gibraltar): “they were first called pillars of Kronos because they marked the boundary of his rule; second they were called (pillars) of Briareus, as Euphorion says [fr. 169; cf. Sch. Pindar Nem. 3.40]; and third (pillars) of Heracles”; cf. Aelian, VH 5.3 citing Aristotle (fr. 678) as equating the latter two; see Subsidia to 79B. “Overcame those there”: Heracles’ defeat of Geryon is commonly located on or near an island called Erytheia (cf. 9B n.), widely identified with Gadira; cf. Hesiod, Theog. 287–94, Strabo 3.2.11 with Stesichorus fr. 9, Diodorus 4.17–25, Apollodorus 2.5.10, Davies–Finglass 2014: 230–42. “Heracles of Tyre” was a standard Greek title for the Phoenician god Melqart (Hdt. 2.44); see Malkin 2011: 124–33 for his shrine there, cf. Theophr. Stones 25 (discussing Cypriot copper mines), Josephus, Adv. Apion 1.18. The chief shrine at Tyrian Gadira was also his: Diodorus 5.20.2, Strabo 3.5.3, Silius, Punica 3.14–44.

178

Clearchus of Soli

79B

Tzetzes in Lycophronis Alexandram 649 (t. 2, 216.1–3 Scheer)

**

Κλέαρχος τὰς κατὰ Γάδαιρα στήλας τοῦ Βριάρεω Ἡρακλέος εἶναι λέγει, μεθ᾿ ὃν δεύτερος Ἡρακλῆς ὁ Τύριος ἦλθεν ἐπὶ τὰ Γάδειρα καὶ τρίτος Ἕλλην.

80

Hesychius Alexandrinus, Lexicon, s.v. Διομήδειος ἀνάγκη (δ 1881 t. 1, 617 Cunningham)

68 W

Διομήδειος ἀνάγκη· παροιμία. Κλέαρχος μέν φησι Διομήδους θυγατέρας γενέσθαι πάνυ μοχθηράς, αἷς ἀναγκάζειν πλησιάζειν τινάς, καὶ εὐθὺς αὐτοὺς φονεύειν.

Text and Translation

179

79B

Tzetzes, On Lycophron’s Alexandra 649

**

Clearchus says the pillars near Gadira are named after Heracles [son] of Briareus, and after him Heracles of Tyre came second to Gadira, and third a Greek. For multiple Heracles see 79A; the third here is the son of Alcmene. For the “pillars of Heracles” at Gadira (modern Cadiz), cf. 79A; see Strabo 3.5.5 for the city’s foundation legends: when an oracle directed Tyre to send settlers “to the pillars of Heracles,” a first expedition to the Gibraltar peninsula and a second to an island off the Atlantic coast of Spain by Onoba each returned after failed sacrifices; a third expedition stopped midway between the first two at a coastal island like Tyre, founding Gadira; some identified the “pillars” with eight-cubit bronze tablets inscribed there in the sanctuary of Heracles (Phoenician Melqart). “Briareus,” plainly used as a patronym here, standardly refers to the chief “hundred-handed” Titan in Hesiod’s Theogony, who resides “at the foundations of Ocean” with a daughter of Poseidon as his bride (815–19), which would suit Gadira; cf. Plut. Oracles in Decline 18 420a and Face in the Moon 26 941a–f; but nowhere else is this Titan given a son named Heracles.

80

Hesychius of Alexandria, Lexicon, under “Diomedean necessity” (δ 1881)

68 W

Diomedean necessity: a saying; Clearchus says the daughters of Diomedes were really awful, and he would compel people to sleep with them, then promptly murder them. The saying appears in Aristoph. Assemblywomen 1029, and Plato, Rep. 6 493d, where it applies to crowds “compelling” orators, sophists, and others to pander to popular views; cf. Themistius, Orat. 21 251c. For the rationalizing account of Heracles’ labor, cf. Sch. Eccl. 1029: “Diomedes of Thrace [son of Ares and savage king of Bistonians] had whores for daughters, and he would force visitors to lie with them until the men were satiated and worn out [or done in]; and the legend said they were man-eating mares.” Other accounts of the labor highlight Abdera’s eponymous hero Abderos and the origin of Lake Bistonis: Pindar, Paean 2, Hellanicus fr. 105, Diodorus 4.15.3–4, Apollodorus 2.5.8, with Fowler 2013: 287–8. The rationalizing version fits the Aristophanes’ episode, where new laws compel a young man to have sex with three “old ladies” (γρᾶες); see Ussher 1973: 218–19. Hesychius adds an alternative explanation based on an episode in the Little Iliad (fr. 25) and retold by the mythographer Conon (fr. 1.34 in Photius, Bibl. Cod. 186): the Argive Diomedes, in a dispute with Odysseus after stealing the Palladion from Troy,

180

Clearchus of Soli

81

Diogenes Laertius, Vitae philosophorum 1.30 (84.98–100 Dorandi)

70 W

Δαΐμαχος δ’ ὁ Πλαταιϊκὸς καὶ Κλέαρχος φιάλην ἀποσταλῆναι ὑπὸ Κροίσου Πιττακῷ καὶ οὕτω περιενεχθῆναι (sc. φασίν). Daimachus FGrHist 65 F 6. 1 Δαΐμαχος Casaub.: δαίδαχος BP: δαίδαλος (λ ex χ rasura factum) F || Πλαταιϊκὸς Casaub.: πλατωνικὸς BPF ‘sed considerandum num Δαίδαλος ὁ Πλατωνικὸς verum sit (sic Cobet)’ V. d. Muehll.

82

Diogenes Laertius Vitae philosophorum 1.81 (117.98–9 Dorandi)

71 W

Τούτῳ (sc. Πιττακῷ) γυμνάσιον σῖτον ἀλεῖν, ὥς φησι Κλέαρχος ὁ φιλόσοφος. 1 γυμνάσιον BPΦ: γυμνασία ἦν Cobet, fort. recte.

Text and Translation

181

“drove him on when he was unwilling to proceed by striking him on the back with the flat of his sword; whence the saying ‘D. necessity’ said of everything involuntary”; cf. Zenobius vulg. 3.8 (CPG 1.59–60), Sch. Rep. 493d, and Eustathius, On Iliad 10.531, citing both explanations: “especially when someone is caught conspiring and forced to do something he’s unwilling to do.”

81

Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Philosophers 1.30

70 W

Daïmachus of Plataea and Clearchus say the dish was sent by Croesus to Pittacus and then passed around. From the life of Thales, in a survey of stories about the seven sages and prizes “for the wisest” (1.28–33); cf. 101–4, and see Verhasselt (in this volume). As in the other stories, the intended recipient evidently refused the prize and sent it on to someone else; cf. Diog. Laert. 1.75 for Pittacus refusing a gift from Croesus. This version stands apart on three counts: the prize, here a libation dish (φιάλη) rather than a drinking cup or tripod; its donor, here a foreign king, not a Greek or an oracle of Apollo; and its initial recipient, usually Thales or Bias but here the statesman of Mytilene (cf. 82). For the story of the dish as emblematic of sympotic community, see Gagné 2016. Chronology is problematic: Pittacus retired from public life c. 580 and died 570/69 (Diog. Laert. 1.75 and 79); Croesus inherited the throne c. 560 at the age of 35 (Hdt. 1.26). Daïmachus “of Plataea” (historian, before 350 BCE) is a correction for “the Platonist.”

82

Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Philosophers 1.81

71 W

For exercise he [sc. Pittacus] would mill grain, as Clearchus the philosopher says. In the life of Pittacus of Mytilene (1.74–81), the last in a string of citations impugning Pittacus’ social stature, including eight slurs from Alcaeus; cf. 101–4, and see Verhasselt (in this volume). Plut. Seven Sages 14 facetiously cites folk verses from neighboring Eresos to corroborate the sage’s unmanly habit: “Grind, mill, grind, for Pittacus also grinds great Mytilene as king” (157e: PMG 869); cf. Aelian, VH 7.4, Clement, Paed. 3.10.50, Karanika 2014: 144–53, Budelmann 2018: 262–4. Pittacus (c. 645–c. 570) led Mytilene as elected “overseer” (αἰσυμνήτης) c. 590–580; cf. Arist. Politics 3.14 1285a30–b1 (with Alcaeus fr. 348), Diog. Laert. 1.75 and 79.

182

Clearchus of Soli

83

Scholia (T) in Platonis Lysin 207c (185 Cufalo, nr. 16) = in Platonis Phaedrum 279 c (143 Cufalo, nr. 151)

72 W

κοινὰ γὰρ τὰ τῶν φίλων] Πα(ροιμία) “κοινὰ τὰ φίλων”· ἐπὶ τῶν εὐμεταδότων. φασὶ δὲ λεχθῆναι πρῶτον τὴν παροιμίαν περὶ τὴν μεγάλην Ἑλλάδα, καθ’ οὓς χρόνους ὁ Πυθαγόρας ἔπειθεν τοὺς αὐτὴν κατοικοῦντας ἀδιανέμητα πάντα κεκτῆσθαι. φησὶ γοῦν ὁ Τίμαιος ἐν τῇ †εʹ† οὕτως· προιόντων δ’ οὖν αὐτῷ τῶν νεωτέρων καὶ βουλομένων συνδιατρίβειν, οὐκ εὐθὺς συνεχώρησεν, ἀλλ’ ἔφη δεῖν καὶ τὰς οὐσίας κοινὰς εἶναι τῶν ἐντυγχανόντων. εἶτα μετὰ πολλά φησι· καὶ δι’ ἐκείνους πρῶτον ῥηθῆναι κατὰ τὴν Ἰταλίαν ὅτι κοινὰ τὰ φίλων. ἐμνήσθη δὲ ταύτης καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης ἐν τῷ θʹ τῶν Ἠθικῶν. Κλέαρχος δέ φησιν ὑπὸ Χαλκιδέων τῶν ἐν Εὐβοίᾳ πεμφθῆναι δῶρα εἰς Δελφοὺς Ἀπόλλωνι καὶ Ἀρτέμιδι. τῶν δὲ Δελφῶν μαντευομένων, εἰ ἐξ ἴσης τὴν ἀνάθεσιν ποιήσωνται, ἔφησεν ὁ θεός· “κοινὰ τὰ τῶν φίλων”. καὶ Μένανδρος Ἀδελφοῖς βʹ.

5

10

5 Timaeus FGrHist 566 F 13a || 10 Aristoteles, EN 8.9 1159b31 || 14 κοινὰ τὰ τῶν φίλων] vid. orac. Delph. 422 Parke–Wormell || Menander, Ἀδ. βʹ, fr. 13 K.–A. 13 ποιήσωνται Cufalo ex schol. Phaedr.: ποιήσονται T.

84

Diogenianus Vindobonensis 1.83 (CPG t. 2, 13.9–18 L.–Schn.)

74 W

Ἀρχὴ δέ τοι ἥμισυ παντός· τινὲς μὲν τὴν παροιμίαν ἔταξαν ἐπὶ τῶν εἴς τι προκοπτόντων. Κλέαρχος δὲ αὐτὴν ἐντεῦθέν φησιν εἰρῆσθαι· παρὰ Λακεδαιμονίοις τῶν παίδων ὁ πρεσβύτερος τὴν βασιλείαν διεδέχετο τοῦ πατρὸς τελευτήσαντος. Ἀργείᾳ οὖν τῇ Ἀριστοδήμου γυναικὶ γεγόνασι δίδυμοι, καὶ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς τελευτήσαντος, βουλομένη ἄμφω τοὺς παῖδας βασιλεύειν, Προκλέα καὶ Εὐρυσθέα, οὐκ εἰδέναι ἔφασκεν, ὁπότερος αὐτῶν πρεσβύτερος εἴη. εἶτα ἐρωτηθεὶς ὁ θεὸς εἶπεν· “ἀρχὴ παντὸς ἥμισυ”, δηλῶν ὅτι ἄμφω δεῖ βασιλεύειν, μετέχειν δὲ ἑκάτερον τῆς ἀρχῆς. 1 δέ τοι] δέ τι d || 2 αὐτὴν] αὐτὸν d || 4 βασιλείαν d || 5 ἀριστοδήμου d || πρεσβύτερος εἴη] πρεσβυτερεῖ d.

5

10

Text and Translation

183

83

Scholia on Plato, Lysis 207c = Scholia on Plato, Phaedrus 279c

72 W

For friends’ things are in common: a saying “friends’ things are in common” applied to what is easily shared. They say the saying originated in western Greece in the period when Pythagoras was trying to persuade those who lived in the same home to keep all their possessions undivided. At any rate, Timaeus says in Book †5†: “So when the younger men approached him wanting to study with him, he did not admit them right away; instead he said those he encountered should hold their property in common.” Then much further on he says: “and on their account it was first said in Italy that friends’ belongings are in common.” Aristotle also mentions the saying in Book 8 of the Ethics. Clearchus says the people of Chalcis in Euboea had gifts sent to Delphi for Apollo and Artemis, and when the people of Delphi asked the oracle if they should dedicate equal shares to each of the two gods, the god replied, “Friends’ belongings are in common.” Also Menander in Brothers 2. Glossing a saying that Socrates cites in his conversation with Lysis and his friend Menexenus, and the last words of Phaedrus; parallels in Sch. Republic 4 424a, Zenobius vulg. 4.79 (CPG 1.106), Diog. Laert. 8.10, and elsewhere cite only Timaeus, for whom Photius, Lex. κ 839 ≈ Suda κ 2549 cite “Book 8”; see Subsidia. For Aristotle, see EN 8.9 1159b31, cf. 9.8 1168b7–8, EE 7.2 1237b33, 1238a16.

84

Diogenianus, Proverbs (Vienna recension) 1.83 (CPG 2.13)

74 W

First is half of all: Some assigned the saying to those who are making progress. But Clearchus says this is its origin: Among the Lacedaemonians it was customary for the older son to succeed to the kingship when his father died. Now Argeia, the wife of king Aristodemus, had twins, and when her husband died, she wanted both sons to be king, both Procles and Eurystheus; so she said she did not know which of them was older. Then they consulted the god, who said, “First is half of all,” indicating that both should be king and each have a share in leading. For the first gloss, highlighting the importance of a good “start” (ἀρχή), cf. Polybius 5.32.1, Plato, Rep. 3 377a, Lucian, Hermotimus 3, Iamblichus, VP

184

Clearchus of Soli

85

Zenob. Ath. 3.151, 375 Miller = Zenob. vulg. 6.29 (CPG t. 1, 170.21–171.2 L.–Schn.) = ps.-Plut. 2.11 (CPG t. 1, 338.1–6 L.– Schn.) = cod. Paris. suppl. gr. 676 (Cohn 1887, 81 nr. 86); Photius, Lexicon, s.v. ὑπὲρ τὰ Καλλικράτους (υ 137, t. 3, 529 Theodoridis) = Suda, s.v. ὑπὲρ τὰ Καλλικράτους (υ 365, LG 1.4, 660.26–661.2 Adler).

77 W

Ὑπὲρ τὰ Καλλικράτους· Κλέαρχός φησιν ὅτι Καλλικράτης τις ἐγένετο ἐν Καρύστῳ πλουσιώτατος. εἴ ποτε οὖν ἐθαύμαζόν τινα οἱ Καρύστιοι ἐπὶ πλούτῳ, ὑπερβολικῶς ἔλεγον “ὑπὲρ τὰ Καλλικράτους”. 1 Κλέαρχός φησιν ὅτι om. Zenob. Ath. et ps.-Plut. || 2 Καρύστῳ] Κορίνθῳ Diogen. et Apost. || οὖν ps.-Plut., Paris. 676, Phot., Sud. || 3 ὑπερβολικῶς ps.Plut., Paris. 676, Phot., Sud.

*86

Diogen. Vind. 1.24 (CPG t. 2, 5.6–9 L.–Schn.) = D3 86 (Cohn 1892, 258); Diogen. 2.4 (CPG t. 1, 197.2–3 L.–Schn.); Zenob. Ath. 3.96, 373 Miller = ps.-Plut. 1.65 (CPG t. 1, 331.9–11 L.– Schn.); Zenob. vulg. 1.53 (CPG t. 1, 21.6–9 L.–Schn.); Apost. 1.51 (CPG t. 2, 253.19–21 L.–Schn.); EGen. B, α 333 (hinc EM 49.3–6).

**

Ἀκκίζεσθαι· ἤγουν παραφρονεῖ, μωραίνει. εἴρηται δὲ ἀπὸ ἱστορίας τοιαύτης. Ἀκκώ· γυνὴ Ἀθηναία καὶ μωρίᾳ διαβαλλομένη, ἥν φασι τῇ ἑαυτῆς εἰκόνι κατοπτριζομένην διαλέγεσθαι. ὅθεν καὶ τὸ ἀκκίζεσθαι.

Text and Translation

185

162 with 182–3. The second, interpreting the same term instead as “rule or leadership,” relates it to the legendary origin of Sparta’s dual kingship; see Hdt. 6.52, with a different response from Delphi. Cf. Diogenianus 2.97 (CPG 1.213) deriving the saying from Hesiod, Works 40 (the poet to his brother); Plato, Laws 3 690e with 691 on the origin of Spartan dyarchy, and 6 753e playing on both senses of ἀρχή; Diog. Laert. 1.75 for Pittacus quoting Hesiod’s version (cf. 81–2); Problemata 10.13 applies it to the role of seed in generation (a reference I owe to Robert Mayhew).

85

Zenobius, Proverbs (Athos codex) 3.151 = Zenobius vulgate, Proverbs 6.29 (CPG 1.170–1) = ps.-Plutarch, Proverbs 2.11 (CPG 1.338) = Zenobius, Proverbs (Paris codex) 86; cf. Photius, Lexicon, under “more than Callicrates” (υ 137) = Suda, under “more than Callicrates” (υ 365)

77 W

More than Callicrates: Clearchus says Callicrates was one of the wealthiest men in Carystus; so if people in Carystus were ever impressed with someone’s wealth, they would exaggerate by saying “more than Callicrates.” The Zenobius entry continues by citing the Aristotelian Athenian Constitution (28.3) on an Athenian Callicrates proposing to raise the payment for jury service c. 410; on confusion in the sources, see Subsidia, with further parallels. For the Athenian case, see Rhodes 1981: 338, 354–7.

*86

Diogenianus, Proverbs (Vienna recension) 1.24 (CPG 2.5) = Diogenianus, Collection 86; cf. Diogenianus, Proverbs 2.4 (CPG 1.197); Zenobius, Proverbs (Athos codex) 3.96 = ps.Plutarch, Proverbs 1.65 (CPG 1.331); Zenobius vulgate, Proverbs 1.53 (CPG 1.21); Apostolius, Proverbs 1.51 (CPG 2.253); Etymologicum Genuinum α 333 (whence Etymologicum Magnum 49.3–6)

**

Akkizesthai: or being deluded or stupid. It comes from a story like this: Akko, an Athenian woman denounced for stupidity, who they say would have conversations with her own reflection in a mirror; hence, “acting like Akko.” In a sequence of ten unattributed proverbs in Zenobius Athos (3.91–100 = ps.-Plut. 1.60–9: CPG 1.330–2); the other nine are all elsewhere attributed to Clearchus. For reflections, cf. 4, 5A–B, 36, and Taylor 2008: 53–5.

186

Clearchus of Soli

87

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 3.84 116d–e (BT t. 1, 266.22– 267.4 Kaibel)

82 W

Ἀλλ’ ἐπεὶ περὶ ταρίχων ἐστὶν ὁ λόγος, περὶ ὧν οἶδα καὶ παροιμίαν μνήμης ἠξιωμένην ὑπὸ τοῦ Σολέως Κλεάρχου σαπρὸς τάριχος τὴν ὀρίγανον φιλεῖ, ἔρχομαι κἀγὼ λέξων τι περὶ αὐτῶν {τὰ τῆς τέχνης}. 2 ἠξιωμένην Casaub.: ἠξιωμένης A || 4 αὐτῶν Kaibel, αὐ. Wil. || τὰ τῆς τέχνης tamquam ex glossemate expu. Taifacos.

*88 **

PSI inv. 155 fr. b (s. III p. C.) ῞Υλαν κραυγά]ζειν [ Ἀ]ρ̣ιστοφάνης ̣ ̣ ̣ ..[ ]θεος καὶ Νυμφό[δωρος c. 3 ]σι· καὶ Κλέαρχος ὁ̣ [Σολεύς ? ῞Υλ]αν̣̣ τινὲς Θεοδάμα(ν)[τος ὡς Ἀπολλώ]νιος προκοων`τʹο[ ]ην̣̣ κα ̣ ὶ̣̣ ἐρώμενο(̣ ν) [Ἡρακλέους τ]ῶν Ἀργοναυτῶν [ ]νοσο̣υ[.]. ̣ πάντω(ν) ̣ [ ]α̣ς καὶ τὸν μὲν ῞Υ[λαν ζήτησ]ιν δι᾿ Ε̣ὐφήμου ̣ ̣ ̣[ ]ς ἐπὶ ζήτη ̣ σι ̣ [ν ].υσιαν̣ τὸν ῞Υλ[αν ].....[ ]..[ ---

5

10

15

M–P3 1996.2 = LDAB 7130 = TM 65866. 5 suppl. Salvadori Baldascino || 8–9 ὁ̣ [Σολεύς suppl. dub. ed. princ. : Κ. δ[̣ ὲ | ἐν αʹ (vel βʹ) ἐρωτικ]ῶ̣ν̣ dub. Ruta | 9, 10 suppl. H. Maehler || 10 littera τ supra ο scripta est, ‘forma abbreviationis persaepe ὅτι legenda’ Ruta || ἐρώμενο(ν) scripsit Salvadori Baldascino: ἐρώμενος H. Maehler || 15 suppl. H. Maehler.

Text and Translation

187

87

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 3.84 116d–e

82 W

But since our topic is salt fish, about which I know a saying Clearchus of Soloi deemed worthy of mention: Rotten salt fish likes oregano. I too am going to say something about them. In a discussion of “salt fish” (116a–20b), which cites the saying again (119e): “So too sayings use the masculine: ‘Salt fish is cooked as soon as it sees the fire. Rotten salt fish likes oregano. Salt fish won’t get what it deserves.’” Cf. 75; for “salt fish” (including other forms of preserved fish) see Olson and Sens 2000: 164–5 on Archestratus fr. 39.

*88

Papyrus fragment: PSI inv. 155 fr. b (CPF 1.1 32 T2)

**

… shouting [Hylas … A]ristophanes … […]theus and Nympho[dorus …] and Clearchus [of Soloi … Hyl]as some, son of Theodama[s, Apollo]nius … […] and loved [by Heracles …] the Argonauts […] of all […] and Hylas [… sear]ch via Euphemus […] in search […] Hylas […] From a third-century CE papyrus, apparently containing a collection of sayings in alphabetical order with brief explanations: fr. a has Heracles “cutting a Hydra” (cf. 128, Rep. 4 426e) parallel to his “crying Hylas” here; cf. Zenobius vulg. 6.21 and 26 (CPG 1.167 and 169) and see Dorandi 2006b: 159–62. For the episode, cf. Apollonius, Arg. 1.1207–72, Theocritus, Id. 13, Nicander fr. 48 (Antoninus Lib. Metamorph. 26); see Subsidia for more parallels, most fully Photius, Lex. υ 42 (whence Suda υ 90), summarizing Apollonius. This is the only one among many glosses on the saying that names Clearchus; cf. Zenobius Athos 1.11 = vulg. 6.21 (CPG 1.167): “shouting Hylas: the saying is said of those who cry out futilely, because when Hylas disappeared, Heracles disembarked from the Argo, and after much searching and shouting, he did not find him.” Aristophanes of Byzantium (cf. 124) also collected sayings (frs. 354–62); Nymphodorus is probably the author of a Periplous from Syracuse (FGrHist 572: third century BCE?), distinct from the performer in 96. Euphemus, another Argonaut, is a doublet for Polyphemus in the poets, who also searches for Hylas.

188

Clearchus of Soli

Περὶ γρίφων (89–100) LIBER Α 89

86 W

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 10.69 448b–e (BT t. 3A, 227.22– 228.23 Olson) Μέλλοντος δέ τι τούτοις προστιθέναι τοῦ Οὐλπιανοῦ ὁ Αἰμιλιανὸς ἔφη· ὥρα ἡμῖν, ἄνδρες φίλοι, ζητεῖν τι καὶ περὶ γρίφων, ἵνα τι κἂν βραχὺ διαστῶμεν ἀπὸ τῶν ποτηρίων, οὐ κατὰ τὴν Καλλίου τοῦ Ἀθηναίου ἐπιγραφομένην γραμματικὴν τραγῳδίαν. ἀλλ’ ἡμεῖς ζητήσωμεν πρότερον μὲν τίς ὁ ὅρος τοῦ γρίφου, τίνα δὲ Κλεοβουλίνη ἡ Λινδία προὔβαλλεν ἐν τοῖς αἰνίγμασιν—ἱκανῶς γὰρ εἴρηκε περὶ αὐτῶν ὁ ἑταῖρος ἡμῶν Διότιμος ὁ Ὀλυμπηνός, ἀλλὰ πῶς οἱ κωμῳδιοποιοὶ αὐτῶν μέμνηνται, καὶ τίνα κόλασιν ὑπέμενον οἱ μὴ λύσαντες. καὶ ὁ Λαρήνσιος ἔφη· ὁ μὲν Σολεὺς Κλέαρχος οὕτως ὁρίζεται· γρῖφος πρόβλημά ἐστι παιστικόν, προστακτικὸν τοῦ διὰ ζητήσεως εὑρεῖν τῇ διανοίᾳ τὸ προβληθὲν τιμῆς ἢ ἐπιζημίου χάριν εἰρημένον. ἐν δὲ τῷ Περὶ γρίφων ὁ αὐτὸς Κλέαρχός φησιν ἑπτὰ εἴδη εἶναι γρίφων. ἐν γράμματι μέν, οἷον ἐροῦμεν ἀπὸ τοῦ α, ὡς ὄνομά τι ἰχθύος ἢ φυτοῦ, ὁμοίως δὲ κἂν ἔχειν τι κελεύῃ τῶν γραμμάτων ἢ μὴ ἔχειν, καθάπερ οἱ ἄσιγμοι καλούμενοι τῶν γρίφων. ὅθεν καὶ Πίνδαρος πρὸς τὸ σ ἐποίησεν ᾠδήν, οἱονεὶ γρίφου τινὸς ἐν μελοποιίᾳ προβληθέντος. ἐν συλλαβῇ δὲ λέγονται γρῖφοι, οἷον ἐροῦμεν ἔμμετρον ὁτιδήποτε οὗ ἡγεῖται βα-, οἷον βασιλεύς, ἢ ὧν ἔχει τελευτὴν τὸ -ναξ, ὡς Καλλιάναξ, ἢ ὧν τὸν λέοντα καθηγεῖσθαι, οἷον Λεωνίδης, ἢ ἔμπαλιν τελικὸν εἶναι, οἷον Θρασυλέων. ἐν ὀνόματι δὲ, ἐροῦμεν ὀνόματα ἁπλᾶ ἢ σύνθετα δισύλλαβα, οὗ μορφή τις ἐμφαίνεται τραγικὴ ἢ πάλιν ταπεινή, ἢ ἄθεα ὀνόματα, οἷον Κλεώνυμος, ἢ θεοφόρα οἷον Διονύσιος, καὶ τοῦτο ἤτοι ἐξ ἑνὸς θεοῦ ἢ πλεόνων, οἷον Ἑρμαφρόδιτος. ἢ ἀπὸ Διὸς ἄρχεσθαι Διοκλῆς ἢ Ἑρμοῦ Ἑρμόδωρος· ἢ λήγειν εἰ τύχοι εἰς -νικος. οἱ δὲ μὴ εἰπόντες ὡς προσετάττετο ἔπινον τὸ ποτήριον. καὶ ὁ μὲν Κλέαρχος οὕτως ὡρίσατο· τί δέ ἐστι τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον, καλέ μου Οὐλπιανέ, ζήτει.

5

10

15

20

25

30

Text and Translation

189

On Riddles (89–100) Book 1 89

86 W

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 10.69 448b–e As Ulpian was about to add to his remarks [on drinking: 445f– 48b], Aemilianus said, “It’s time for us, my friends, to investigate riddles some too, so we may take at least a short break from drinking, though we won’t do so the way Callias of Athens does in his play entitled Literate Tragedy. Instead let us investigate first the definition of riddles, and the ones Cleobulina of Lindos used to pose in her puzzles, since our friend Diotimus of Olympene has said plenty about them, but also how the comic poets mention them, and what penalty those unable to solve them had to endure.” Then Larensius said, “Clearchus of Soloi defines them this way: a riddle is a playful problem that requires finding the solution through thoughtful investigation and is posed for a reward or penalty. In On Riddles the same Clearchus says there are seven kinds of riddles: Based on a letter, as when we are to name a fish or plant starting with the letter A; or likewise if we’re told it must contain or not contain a given letter, as in the riddles called asigmatic, which led Pindar to compose a song on the letter S, as if a riddle had been posed for songwriting. Riddles are also based on a syllable, as when we are to recite any sort of verse beginning with Ba, like basileus, or ending in Nax, like Callianax; or starting with Leon, like Leonidas, or conversely ending so, like Thrasyleon. Also based on a word, as when we are to give a simple or compound word in two syllables that has a tragic or a colloquial form; or names that do not name a god, like Cleonymus; or names that do name a god, like Dionysius, and either one god or more, like Hermaphroditus, or starting with Dio [sc. Zeus], like Diocles, or with Hermes, like Hermodorus, or ending for example in Nicus. And those who were unable to say what was required had to drain the cup. That is how Clearchus defined them; but what kind of cup that was, my fine Ulpian, is for you to investigate.”

190

Clearchus of Soli 4 Καλλίου] cf. 92Α–C || 6 Cleobulina test. 12 Matelli || Lasus fr. 2 Brussich || 18 Pindarus fr. 70b Snell–Maehler. De poculo (τὸ ποτήριον), vide 91. 3 διαστῶμεν Meineke: διαστήσωμεν A (def. Ruijgh 2001, 284) || 3–4 οὐ κατὰ A: κοὐ Olson, ‘fort. οὐ’: οὔ κ. Ruijgh || 11–2 ἐστι παιστικόν MP, Mus.: ἐπιπαιστικόν ACE || 15 οἷον A: οἱονεὶ CE || 21 καλλιάναξ ἢ ὧν CE: καλλίαν ἀναξηων A : καλλιάναξ MP, Mus. || 23 οἷον add. Olson || 24 οὗ A: οἷς CE || 28 νικος] νῖκος Schweigh., “forte hic excidit nomen Ἐπίνικος”.

90

85 W

Scholia (R V Lh Ald) in Aristophanis Vespas 20ab (SA t. 2.1, 11–12 Koster) (20a) Οἱ γρίφοι ζητήματα αἰνιγματώδη, οἷς ἐχρῶντο πρὸς τοῖς συμποσίοις· ἑπτὰ τὰ γένη αὐτῶν ἀναγράφει Κλέαρχος ἐν τῷ Περὶ γρίφων (R) (20b) οὐδὲν ἄρα γρίφου] Ἑπτὰ δὲ ἀναγράφει αὐτῶν (sc. γρίφων) γένη ὁ Κλέαρχος ἐν τῷ Περὶ γρίφων συντάγματι. γρίφοι δὲ λέγεται τὰ ἐν τοῖς συμποσίοις προβαλλόμενα αἰνιγματώδη ζητήματα (V L h Ald).

5

Text and Translation

191

Opening a discussion of riddles (the rest of Book 10, through 459b), which includes 67, 91, 92C, and 95–97; see Beta 2012. The summary describes only three of the seven kinds it ascribes to Clearchus, each comprising two or more varieties; for the other four kinds, Wehrli 1969: 76 proposes verses, extemporizing, riddles “in the strict sense,” and ripostes; cf. Luz 2010: 141–6. Given the focus here on diction, the others might have turned on rhythm or metrics (97, 99, cf. 67) and facets of thought, such as ambiguity and metaphor (95–6, 98A–C), or non-verbal signs, as in mime or dance (92, 96). For the topic, cf. Arist. Poetics 22 1458a26–7, Rhet. 3.11 1412a24–8 on “puzzles” (αἰνίγματα); for the term γρῖφος, from γρῖπος or “creel” (for hidden catch?) and used broadly like “poser,” cf. Demetrius, On Style 153, in a series of figures of thought conducive to “charm.” Callias, an older contemporary of Aristophanes, first produced comedies in the 440s; for his Literate Tragedy, see 92C. Cleobulina, daughter of the sage Cleobulus of Lindos (cf. 101–4) and also named Eumetis (Plut. Seven Sages 3 148c–e), was famous for riddles (cf. 95); for the collection of riddling hexameters that circulated under her name (Diog. Laert. 1.89), see Matelli 1997, Kwapisz 2013: 153–4. Diotimus of Olympene (around Mt. Olympus in Mysia) appears only here. For the “definition” see 90; and for penalties, 91, answering the question posed facetiously as a “problem” (ζήτημα) at the end here. For Pindar’s song, see 97; for more word games with letters and syllables, see 67.

90

Scholia on Aristophanes, Wasps 20

85 W

20a] Riddles are puzzling problems that people used at drinking parties; Clearchus lists seven kinds in On Riddles. 20b] “Then it’s no riddle”: Clearchus lists seven kinds of them in his work On Riddles. Riddle is the term used for the puzzling problems posed at drinking parties. Commenting on a joke about the name Cleonymus, cited in 89 as an example of riddles based on names; cf. 8A. “Puzzling problems” or “riddling investigations”; the definition treats “riddles” as a specifically “puzzling” form of “investigative problem”; cf. Beta 2012. Elsewhere the species and differentia often appear to be treated as equivalent; for a different distinction, cf. Sch. Lucian, Vit. auct. 14: “a puzzle you admit to not knowing, a riddle you don’t know but think you understand.”

192

Clearchus of Soli

91

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 10.86 457c (BT t. 3A, 246.4–6 Olson)

63 I W

Τίνα δὲ κόλασιν ὑπέμενον Ἀθήνησιν οἱ μὴ λύσαντες τὸν προτεθέντα γρῖφον, εἴ γε ἔπινον φιάλην κεκερασμένην, ὡς καὶ ὁ Κλέαρχος προεῖπεν ἐν τῷ ὅρῳ; (sequitur 67) 2 Post φιάλην add. ἅλμῃ Dobree 1833, 329, an recte? cf. 10.458f, 459b.

92A

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 7.1 275d–276a (BT t. 2, 111.4–12 Kaibel)

91a W

Κλέαρχος Ἀριστοτέλους μαθητής, Σολεὺς δὲ τὸ γένος, ἐν τῷ προτέρῳ Περὶ γρίφων (κρατῶ γὰρ καὶ τῆς λέξεως διὰ τὸ σφόδρα μοι εἶναι προσφιλῆ) οὑτωσί πως εἴρηκε· Φαγήσια, οἱ δὲ Φαγησιπόσια προσαγορεύουσι τὴν ἑορτήν. ἐξέλιπε δὲ αὕτη, καθάπερ ἡ τῶν ῥαψῳδῶν ἣν ἦγον καὶ τὴν τῶν Διονυσίων· ἐν ᾗ παριόντες ἕκαστοι τῶν θεῶν οἷον τιμὴν ἐπετέλουν τὴν ῥαψῳδίαν. ταῦτ’ εἶπεν ὁ Κλέαρχος. εἰ δ’ ἀπιστεῖς, ὦ ἑταῖρε, καὶ τὸ βιβλίον κεκτημένος οὐ φθονήσω σοι· ἀφ’ οὗ πολλὰ ἐκμαθὼν εὐπορήσεις προβλημάτων· καὶ γὰρ Καλλίαν ἱστορεῖ τὸν Ἀθηναῖον γραμματικὴν συνθεῖναι τραγῳδίαν, ἀφ’ ἧς ποιῆσαι τὰ μέλη καὶ τὴν διάθεσιν Εὐριπίδην ἐν Μηδείᾳ καὶ Σοφοκλέα τὸν Οἰδίπουν. Callias test. *7 K.–A. 2 Περὶ γρίφων Casaub.: περιγραφων A || 3 φαγησίας A : φαγησία C || 5 ῥαψῳδιῶν C || lacunam indicat Kaibel: καὶ τὴν A: καὶ ἡ CE: κατὰ τὴν edd. conl. Athen. 448b, 453c || 6 ἕκαστοι A: ἑκάστῳ Welcker 1835, t. 1, 391 || ἐπετέλουν Ap.c., CE: απετέλουν Aac || 10 γραμματικὴν Schweigh.: γραμματικὸν ACE, sed Καλλίου γραμματικοῦ ἀθηναίου γραμματικὴ τραγῳδία lemma in A || 12 Οἰδίπου A.

5

10

Text and Translation

193

91

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 10.86 457c

63 I W

What punishment did they endure in Athens when they were unable to solve the riddle posed, if they had to drink a dish of wine mixed , as Clearchus said before in his definition? Near the end of the discussion of riddles (448b–59b), directly preceding 67; for the “definition” see 89. For the penalty as supplemented, cf. 458f–59b citing Antiphanes fr. 75, from his burlesque Ganymede, for a Trojan slave forced to down a cup full of wine and saltwater in a single draft. Alternatively, the question here could be ironic: where’s the penalty in drinking a “dish of mixed wine” as in 89, and in a pious φιάλη (cf. 81), far from the barbaric practice of quaffing “unmixed wine” about to be described in 67?

92A

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 7.1 275d–276a

91a W

Clearchus, a student of Aristotle’s and a native of Soloi, in the prior book On Riddles – and I know the words by heart because I’m so very fond of him – says something like this: “The Phagesia [sc. Feasting], which some call the Phagesiposia [sc. Feast-Drinking]. It was discontinued, as was the one for rhapsodes they used to hold and the one at the Dionysia, in which they would each come forward and perform a rhapsody in honor of the gods.” That is what Clearchus said; and if you don’t trust me, my good friend, I have the book and won’t refuse you it. From it you will learn many things and be well supplied for solving problems. In fact, he reports that Callias of Athens composed a Literate Tragedy, from which he says Euripides composed the songs and structure of his Medea and Sophocles his Oedipus. The Cynic Cynulcus cites Clearchus in answer to his own question at the opening of Book 7; reference to “the prior book” (not “first”) here and in 93 suggests the work comprised two books exactly. For the Phagesia, Wehrli 1969: 77 cites an Alexandrian festival for Dionysus popularly called Lagynophoria (“Bottle-carry”) described in the immediate sequel (276a–c), which discusses the Attic Choes (“Jugs”). For Callias and his influence, see 92C.

194

Clearchus of Soli

92B

Eustathius, Commentarii ad Homeri Odysseam φ 263, 1908.43–51 (258.37–41 Stallbaum)

91b W

Ἔνθα ὅρα καὶ ὡς οἱ περὶ τὸ θεῖον ῥᾴθυμοι δι’ ἀνάγκην ἐπὶ τὸ θύειν ἔρχονται οὐδ’ ἐν τῇ θυσίᾳ πάντως ἀπαλλαγησόμενοι τοῦ πολυφαγεῖν, ἵνα καὶ αὐτὴ φάγων ἑορτὴ λέγηται, ὁποία καὶ ἡ παρὰ Κλεάρχῳ τῷ Ἀριστοτέλους μαθητῇ, ὃς καθὰ λέγει Ἀθήναιος φαγησίαν ἑορτὴν ἱστορεῖ, κατὰ δέ τινας φαγησιποσίαν. κρατῶ γάρ, φησί, καὶ τῆς λέξεως διὰ τὸ σφόδρα μοι εἶναι προσφιλῆ τὸν Κλέαρχον.

92C

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 10.79–80 453c–454f (BT t. 3A, 237.25–240.29 Olson)

**

Ὁ δὲ Ἀθηναῖος Καλλίας (ἐζητοῦμεν γὰρ ἔτι πρότερον περὶ αὐτοῦ) μικρὸν ἔμπροσθεν γενόμενος τοῖς χρόνοις Στράττιδος ἐποίησε τὴν καλουμένην γραμματικὴν τραγῳδίαν οὕτω διατάξας. πρόλογος μὲν αὐτῆς ἐστιν ἐκ τῶν στοιχείων, ὃν χρὴ λέγειν διαιροῦντας κατὰ τὰς παραγραφὰς καὶ τὴν τελευτὴν καταστροφικῶς ποιουμένους εἰς τἄλφα· , βῆτα, γάμμα, δέλτα, θεοῦ γὰρ εἶ, ζῆτ᾽, ἦτα, θῆτ᾽, ἰῶτα, κάππα, λάβδα, μῦ, νῦ, ξεῖ, τὸ οὖ, πεῖ, ῥῶ, τὸ σίγμα, ταῦ, ὖ, παρὸν φεῖ, χεῖ τε τῷ ψεῖ εἰς τὸ ὦ. ὁ χορὸς δὲ γυναικῶν ἐκ τῶν σύνδυο πεποιημένος αὐτῷ ἐστιν ἔμμετρος ἅμα καὶ μεμελοποιημένος τόνδε τὸν τρόπον· βῆτα ἄλφα βα, βῆτα εἶ βε, βῆτα ἦτα βη, βῆτα ἰῶτα βι, βῆτα οὖ βο, βῆτα ὖ βυ, βῆτα ὦ βω, καὶ πάλιν ἐν ἀντιστρόφῳ τοῦ μέλους καὶ τοῦ μέτρου γάμμα ἄλφα, γάμμα εἶ, γάμμα ἦτα, γάμμα ἰῶτα, γάμμα οὖ, γάμμα ὖ, γάμμα ὦ, καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν λοιπῶν συλλαβῶν ὁμοίως ἑκάστων τό τε μέτρον καὶ τὸ μέλος ἐν ἀντιστρόφοις ἔχουσι πᾶσαι ταὐτόν. ὥστε τὸν Εὐριπίδην μὴ μόνον ὑπονοεῖσθαι τὴν Μήδειαν ἐντεῦθεν πεποιηκέναι πᾶσαν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ μέλος αὐτὸ μετενηνοχότα φανερὸν εἶναι. τὸν δὲ Σοφοκλέα διελεῖν φασιν ἀποτολμῆσαι τὸ ποίημα τῷ μέτρῳ τοῦτ᾽ ἀκούσαντα καὶ ποιῆσαι ἐν τῷ Οἰδίποδι οὕτως·

5

5

10

15

20

Text and Translation

195

92B

Eustathius, On Homer’s Odyssey 21.263

91b W

See here too how those who are lax about the divine attend sacrifices by compulsion, not about to dispense with their heavy eating entirely even at a sacrifice, in order for it to be called a Feeding festival, just like the one in Aristotle’s student Clearchus, who according to Athenaeus reports a Phagesia festival, or some say Phagesiposia. For I know the words by heart, he says, because I’m so very fond of Clearchus. Commenting on the conduct of the suitors, when the nasty Antinous calls for more wine (21.257–68) as he stops the archery contest after a sacrificial feast for Apollo (20.276–83).

92C

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 10.79–80 453c–454f

**

The Athenian Callias – we were investigating him before [cf. 89] – who was active a little while before Strattis, produced what is called the Literate Tragedy, which he constructed like this: The prologue consists of the letters, which must be spoken by dividing them up by marks and making the end correspond to the Alpha: bêta, gamma, delta, for E is god’s, Zêt’, êta, thêt’, iôta, kappa, labda, mu, Nu, xî, the ou, pî, rhô, the sigma, tau, the U, the phî is here, the chî, and then by psî to O. The chorus is composed of pairs of women who follow the same rhythm and melody like this: bêta alpha ba, bêta E be, bêta êta bê, bêta iôta bi, bêta ou bo, bêta U bu, bêta O bô. And again in the corresponding melody and meter: gamma alpha, gamma E, gamma êta, gamma iôta, gamma ou, gamma U, gamma O. And likewise for each remaining syllable, all in the corresponding meter and melody. As a result Euripides is not only suspected of composing the entire Medea based on this play, but it is plain he has also

196

Clearchus of Soli

ἐγὼ οὔτ᾽ ἐμαυτὸν οὔτε σ᾽ ἀλγυνῶ. ταῦτ᾽ ἐλέγχεις; διόπερ οἱ λοιποὶ τὰς ἀντιστρόφους ἀπὸ τούτου παρεδέχοντο πάντες, ὡς ἔοικεν, εἰς τὰς τραγῳδίας. καὶ μετὰ τὸν χορὸν εἰσάγει πάλιν ἐκ τῶν φωνηέντων ῥῆσιν οὕτως (ἣν δεῖ κατὰ τὰς παραγραφὰς ὁμοίως τοῖς πρόσθεν λέγοντα διαιρεῖν, ἵν’ ἡ τοῦ ποιήσαντος ὑπόκρισις σῴζηται κατὰ τὴν δύναμιν)· ἄλφα μόνον, ὦ γυναῖκες, εἶ τε δεύτερον λέγειν μόνον χρή. (Χο.) καὶ τρίτον μόνον γ’ ἐρεῖς. (Α.) ἦτ’ ἄρα φήσω. (Χο.) τὸ τέταρτόν τ’ αὖ μόνον ἰῶτα, πέμπτον οὖ, τό θ’ ἕκτον ὖ μόνον λέγε. (Α.) λοίσθιον δὲ φωνῶ σοι τὸ ὦ τῶν ἑπτὰ φωνῶν, ἑπτὰ δ’ ἐν μέτροις μόνον. καὶ τοῦτο λέξασ’ εἶτα δὴ σαυτῇ λάλει. δεδήλωκε δὲ καὶ διὰ τῶν ἰαμβείων γράμμα πρῶτος οὗτος ἀκολαστότερον μὲν κατὰ τὴν διάνοιαν, πεφρασμένον δὲ τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον· κύω γὰρ, ὦ γυναῖκες. ἀλλ’ αἰδοῖ, φίλαι, ἐν γράμμασι σφῷν τοὔνομ’ ἐξερῶ βρέφους. ὀρθὴ μακρὰ γραμμή ’στιν· ἐκ δ’ αὐτῆς μέσης μικρὰ παρεστῶσ’ ἑκατέρωθεν ὑπτία. ἔπειτα κύκλος πόδας ἔχων βραχεῖς δύο. ὅθεν ὕστερον, ὡς ὑπονοήσειέ τις, Μαιάνδριος μὲν ὁ συγγραφεὺς μικρὸν διὰ τῆς ἑρμηνείας τῇ μιμήσει παρεγκλίνας συνέγραψεν ἐν τῷ παραγγέλματι φορτικώτερον τοῦ ῥηθέντος, Εὐριπίδης δὲ τὴν ἐν τῷ Θησεῖ τὴν ἐγγράμματον ἔοικε ποιῆσαι ῥῆσιν. βοτὴρ δ’ ἐστὶν ἀγράμματος αὐτόθι δηλῶν τοὔνομα τοῦ Θησέως ἐπιγεγραμμένον οὕτως ἐγὼ πέφυκα γραμμάτων μὲν οὐκ ἴδρις, μορφὰς δὲ λέξω καὶ σαφῆ τεκμήρια. κύκλος τις ὡς τόρνοισιν ἐκμετρούμενος, οὗτος δ’ ἔχει σημεῖον ἐν μέσῳ σαφές· τὸ δεύτερον δὲ πρῶτα μὲν γραμμαὶ δύο, ταύτας διείργει δ’ ἐν μέσαις ἄλλη μία· τρίτον δὲ βόστρυχός τις ὣς εἱλιγμένος· τὸ δ’ αὖ τέταρτον ἡ μὲν εἰς ὀρθὸν μία, λοξαὶ δ’ ἐπ’ αὐτῆς τρεῖς κατεστηριγμέναι εἰσίν. τὸ πέμπτον δ’ οὐκ ἐν εὐμαρεῖ φράσαι·

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Text and Translation

197

adopted the melody itself. And they say Sophocles, after he heard this, made so bold as to divide his verse by the meter and produced the following in his Oedipus [332–3]: I’ll not cause either me or you any grief. do you confute these points? Therefore, all the others, evidently, adopted corresponsions for their tragedies from him. And after the chorus, he [sc. Kallias] again introduces a speech composed out of the vowels, which must be divided up by marks for the speaker as in the previous passage, so that the poet’s delivery is preserved so far as possible, like this: [A] Alpha by itself, my ladies, and second E is yours to say by itself. [Ch] The third by itself you’ll say. [A] Then êta I will say. [Ch] And fourth in turn by itself iôta, fifth the ou, and sixth the U by itself you say. [A] And last I tell you now to say the O, the seven vowels in all, in seven measures alone. And after saying that, go chatter by yourself. He was also the first to reveal through iambic verse some script that is rather indecent in its meaning, but expressed as follows: I’m pregnant, ladies. But in shame, my dears, in letters I’ll tell you two the baby’s name. A line first straight and tall, and from its middle a small one on each side stands reaching up; then comes a circle having two short feet. That, one might suspect, is where the writer Maeandrius later got the idea of adjusting the formulation of the imagery a little when he wrote something more vulgar than that in his Precept. Euripides evidently did the same in composing the speech about letters in his Theseus; an illiterate herdsman there reveals the inscribed form of Theseus’ name this way: I’ve never come to know the ways of letters, but I will tell the shapes and obvious marks. A circle like one measured out by compass, which in the middle has an obvious sign.

198

Clearchus of Soli

γραμμαὶ γάρ εἰσιν ἐκ διεστώτων δύο, αὗται δὲ συντρέχουσιν εἰς μίαν βάσιν. τὸ λοίσθιον δὲ τῷ τρίτῳ προσεμφερές. τὸ δ’ αὐτὸ πεποίηκε καὶ Ἀγάθων ὁ τραγῳδιοποιὸς ἐν τῷ Τηλέφῳ. ἀγράμματος γάρ τις κἀνταῦθα δηλοῖ τὴν τοῦ Θησέως ἐπιγραφὴν οὕτως· γραφῆς ὁ πρῶτος ἦν μεσόμφαλος κύκλος· ὀρθοί τε κανόνες ἐζυγωμένοι δύο, Σκυθικῷ τε τόξῳ τρίτον ἦν προσεμφερές· ἔπειτα τριόδους πλάγιος ἦν προσκείμενος· ἐφ’ ἑνός τε κανόνος ἦσαν {ἐζυγωμένοι} δύο· ὅπερ δὲ τρίτον ἦν {καὶ} τελευταῖον πάλιν. καὶ Θεοδέκτης δ’ ὁ Φασηλίτης ἄγροικόν τινα ἀγράμματον παράγει καὶ τοῦτον τὸ τοῦ Θησέως ὄνομα διασημαίνοντα· γραφῆς ὁ πρῶτος ἦν †μαλακόφθαλμος κύκλῳ. ἔπειτα δισσοὶ κανόνες ἰσόμετροι πάνυ, τούτους δὲ πλάγιος διαμέτρου συνδεῖ κανών. τρίτον δ’ ἑλικτῷ βοστρύχῳ προσεμφερές. ἔπειτα τριόδους πλάγιος ὣς ἐφαίνετο, πέμπται δ’ ἄνωθεν ἰσόμετροι ῥάβδοι δύο, αὗται δὲ συντείνουσιν εἰς βάσιν μίαν· ἕκτον δ’ ὅπερ καὶ πρόσθεν εἶφ᾽, ὁ βόστρυχος. καὶ Σοφοκλῆς δὲ τούτῳ παραπλήσιον ἐποίησεν ἐν Ἀμφιαράῳ σατυρικῷ τὰ γράμματα παράγων ὀρχούμενον. 1 Callias test. *7 K.–A. || Vide Athen. 7.1 276a = 92A || 2 Strattis test. 3 K.– A. || 21 Sophocles test. 175a Radt || 23–4 Sophocles, OR 332–3 || 46 Maeandrius FGrHist 491 F 6 || 49 Euripides fr. 382 Kannicht || 65 Agathon TrGF 39 F 4 Snell–Kannicht || 74 Theodectes TrGF 72 F 6 Snell–Kannicht || 84 Sophocles fr. 121 Radt. 3 τραγῳδίαν M Pmg., Mus.: θεωρίαν A || 4 ἐκ τῶν στοιχείων post λέγειν iteratum del. Petit 1630, 133 || 5 διαιροῦντας Schweigh.: διαιροῦντα A || παραγραφὰς Petit : πάσας γραφὰς A || 7 τὸ ἄλφα suppl. Kaibel (ἄλφα iam Hermann 1827, 137) || θεοῦ γὰρ ἄλφα βῆτα γάμμα δέλτα εἶ Wil. || θεοῦ γὰρ εἶ, | ζῆτ᾽, ἦτα, θῆτ᾽ Hermann (qui etiam πάρ᾽ pro γὰρ): εἶτα θῆτα θεοῦ γὰρ εἰγε A || 9–10 τὸ ter add. Welcker 1844 (a. 1833), 372 || 9 ὖ] ὗ scribendum esse monet Allen 31987, 172 || 15 “Clearchus scripserat γάμμα ἄλφα γαˉ eqs” Kaibel || 17 ἑκάστων CE: ἕκαστον A || 21 πνεῦμα vel ῥῆμα Dobree 1833, 328 || 23–4 ἀλγυνῶ ταῦτ᾽ ἐλεγχθείς A || 33 personas dist. Meineke || ἦτ’—αὖ Meineke: ἦτ’ αραφήσω τὸ τέταρτόν τ’ αὖ A || 35 λέγειν Wil. || 38 γράμματα

65

70

75

80

85

Text and Translation

199

The second then is first two lines, and these another in the middle keeps apart. The third is like a curl that’s twisted round. The fourth again is one line standing straight and three more skewed and fastened to the first. The fifth is not so easy to describe, for there are now two lines that start apart, and then they run together to one base. The very last is like the third exactly. Agathon the tragedian has done the same in his Telephus; for there too an illiterate man describes an inscription of “Theseus” this way: The first of the marks was a circle with a navel; then two rods standing straight and joined together. The third was like a Scythian bow exactly; and then a trident lying on its side. On one straight rod were two {conjoined}; and what was third came at the end again. Theodectes of Phaselis as well brings in an illiterate rustic who also uses signs to convey Theseus’ name: The first mark was a single eye in a circle; and next a pair of rods exactly equal and binding them together a sideways rod; the third just like a curl that twists about. There then appeared a trident on its side; and fifth there came from above two equal staffs that stretched together to a single base. The sixth was what I said before, the curl. Sophocles as well produced something very similar in his satyr play Amphiaraos, where he has someone dance out the letters. In a discussion of riddles (448b–59c), shortly after 96 and closely followed by 97. For Callias and his play, cf. 89 and 92A, and see Subsidia; the return to him here recalls a passing mention in 89 but also the topic raised initially in 92A. The play’s title is aptly multivalent: commonly called the Letters Tragedy or Alphabetic Tragedy, here it is rendered Literate Tragedy to reflect how the passage exhibits a progression from basic to advanced literacy, from deciphering script to grammatical analysis and wordplay. The excerpts deploy the full Ionic alphabet of 24 letters, which is well attested epigraphically

200

Clearchus of Soli Radt || 41 φίλαι Casaub.: φίλαι (η supra αι addito) A: φίλα CE || 43 ἐκ δ’ αὐτῆς Meineke: ἐκ δὲ ταύτης ACE || 46 ἂν add. Meineke || 48 ἓν τῶν παραγγελμάτων Wil., “sed fort. τῶν ἀπαγγ.” Kaibel || 49 τὴν1 del. Schweigh. || “τὴν2 fort. delendum” Kaibel || 50 αὐτόθι Causaub. duce Dalec. (illic) || 59 ἡ Nauck: ἦν A || 68 κύκλος A: τύπος CE || 70 τὸ add. Schweigh. || 72 ἐζυγωμένοι secl. et lacunam ind. Meineke t. 4, 206, ipse proponens ; Waern 1956, 91 || 73 καὶ secl. Wil. ms. et Waern || 76 μαλακόφθαλμος] μεσόφθαλμος Welcker 1841, 107917: μεσόμφαλος ex Agathone Valckenaer 1755, 261: μονόφθαλμος White || κύκλῳ A: κύκλος CE || 77 δισσοὶ Valckenaer: δυο οἱ A || 78 διὰ μέσου Mus. || 79 προσεμφερὲς Mus.: -φερὴς ACE: || 80 ὣς CE: ὥστ᾽ A || 83 εἶφ᾽ ὁ CE: εἶπ᾽ ὁ A (probat Ruijgh 2001, 330120): εἶπο Herwerden 1862, 78 et (“Porsonum non timeo”) Kaibel.

Text and Translation

201

decades before its official adoption by Athens in 403; see D’Angour 1999. If Callias is the prominent poet active from the 440s to 420s (Suda κ 213), and not an otherwise unattested younger homonym, the play can predate the Medea in 431 and the other plays it is said to influence; “a little before” Strattis, whose comedies are first attested in about 410, would still be consistent with the 430s; cf. Thomas 2018: 105–9. The “prologue” excerpt, in iambic trimeters presumably spoken by an actor (a γραμματιστής as in Plato, Protag. 312d?) or the chorus-leader, apparently introduces the 24 members of the chorus, now including the new letters Η, Ω, Ξ, Ψ; cf. Aristoph. Clouds 269–74, Peace 289–300. “Dividing them up”: the meaning is uncertain; “the marks” could serve to articulate words, assign speakers, indicate prosody, or something else again. For E as distinctly Apollo’s, see Plut. E at Delphi. The choral song (“melody”) sampled here, perhaps as the parodos, allegedly combined each consonant in succession with all seven vowels to form a series of 17 verbally identical strophes that would vary slightly in meter; the final syllable of what would be the final strophe, combining two of the new Ionian letters (Ψ and Ω), reappears below in the riddle. “Corresponding melody and meter” apparently refers to strophic responsion, but the two samples are not obviously metrical; cf. Ruijgh 2001: 260–2, 293–8 for a reconstruction in mainly iambic dimeters. The claims of influence are commonly dismissed as preposterous; but for the Medea, see Thomas 2018: 109–20, emphasizing the focus here on “melody” and sung verse. In the verses from Oedipus, a few years later, Teiresias addresses Oedipus (the two words in brackets are missing here and supplied from Sophocles); “dividing his verse by the meter” is again obscure, but the sample (emended to match the play) resembles the Callias excerpts in its loose prosody (synaloephe, frequent elision, even hypermetric); cf. Ruijgh 2001: 316–18. Distribution of parts in the “speech” is problematic: here A for an actor or Chorus leader, Ch for Chorus members; alternatively, the passage is mostly one speaker instructing others, one of whom assents in the first half of the third line (here assigned to A); cf. Ruijgh 2001: 318–24. Dividing single verses between two speakers is another technique absent from the early plays of both tragedians, including the Oedipus, but found in later plays. The graphic riddle on Ψ and Ω could allude to ψώα (“stink” for fart, but rare), or ψωλή (“foreskin”; repeatedly in Aristophanes, e.g. Lysistr. 979), or something visual; cf. Gagné 2013: 308–16. Maeandrius might be the fourth-century historian from Miletus who also wrote on the seven sages (frs. 16–18) and Apollo slaying the dragon to claim Delphi (fr. 14, cf. 68). For the three orthographic accounts of “Theseus,” probably all from messenger speeches, see Slater 2002, Martano 2007, Gagné 2013: 300–4. For Euripides’ play, parodied in 422 by Aristoph. Wasps (cf. Sch. 303, 313) and apparently set in Crete, see Van Looy 2000: 145–65. Agathon’s Telephus has left no other trace; for possible links with Theseus, see Lévêque 1955: 96– 100 and cf. Sophocles, Aleadae (frs. 77–89). For Theodectes, see Martano 2007 and cf. 96 with two other riddles from his plays.

202

Clearchus of Soli

93

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 14.12 620c (BT t. 4A, 204.16–18 Olson)

92 W

Κλέαρχος δ’ ἐν τῷ προτέρῳ Περὶ γρίφων τὰ Ἀρχιλόχου, φησίν, Σιμωνίδης ὁ Ζακύνθιος ἐν τοῖς θεάτροις ἐπὶ δίφρου καθήμενος ἐρραψῴδει. 2 Σιμωνίδης ὁ Ζακύνθιος] Stephanis nr. 1445. 1 Περὶ γρίφων Casaub.: περιγραφῶν A || 2 σιμωνίδης CE: ὁ σ. A.

LIBRI INCERTI 94

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 14.60 648f–649a (BT t. 4A, 264.15–265.4 Olson)

87 W

Τοῦ δὲ ἡμῖν παρακειμένου μελιπήκτου μέμνηται Κλέαρχος ὁ Σολεὺς ἐν τῷ Περὶ γρίφων οὑτωσὶ λέγων· σκευῶν κελεύοντι λέγειν ὀνόματα εἰπεῖν τρίπους, χύτρα, λυχνεῖον, ἀκταία, βάθρον, σπόγγος, λέβης, σκαφεῖον, ὅλμος, λήκυθος, σπυρίς, μάχαιρα, τρύβλιον, κρατήρ, ῥαφίς. ἢ πάλιν ὄψων. οὕτως· ἔτνος, φακῆ, τάριχος, ἰχθύς, γογγυλίς, σκόροδον, κρέας, θύννειον, ἅλμη, κρόμμυον, σκόλυμος, ἐλαία, κάππαρις, βολβός, μύκης. ἐπί τε τῶν τραγημάτων ὁμοίως· ἄμης, πλακοῦς, ἔντιλτος, ἴτριον, ῥόα, ᾠόν, ἐρέβινθος, σησάμη, κοπτή, βότρυς, ἰσχάς, ἄπιος, πέρσεια, μῆλ’, ἀμύγδαλα. ταῦτα μὲν ὁ Κλέαρχος. 2 γρίφων Casaub.: γραφων A || σκευῶν Kaibel : σκέυη A || κελεύοντι Kaibel conl. 10.86 457e: κελεύοντα A: κελεύοντος Schweigh. || 3 ὀνόματα dub. Kaibel ut “v. 7 ὄψων recte habeat”: ὅμοια A: ὁμοίως Wil. || 9 θύννειον Schweigh.: θυννίον A || ἅλμη MP, Mus.: αλλη A || 11 ἔτι τε Meineke, “non recte” Kaibel || 12 ἔντιλτος corruptum censet Kaibel || 12–3 ῥόα, ᾠόν Salmasius 1689, 427: ῥοδῷον A || 14 πέρσεια Salmasius: περσια A || μῆλ’ Schneider (teste Kaibel, locum non inveni), post Salmasium (μῆλε’): μηλέα A.

5

10

15

Text and Translation

203

93

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 14.12 620c

92 W

Clearchus in the prior book On Riddles says Simonides of Zacynthus used to sing the verse of Archilochus in theaters sitting on a stool. In a list of poets recited by public performers (620b–d) within a longer discussion of music and song (616e–24d); for “prior book” cf. 92A. For public presentations of Archilochus, cf. Plato, Ion 531a; the preceding example, from Chamaeleon (fr. 30), refers to singing his verse along with Hesiod and the elegists Mimnermus and Phocylides with “melodies”; and the sequel adds rhapsodic performances of the iambics of Simonides (probably an error for Semonides). For a rhapsode to perform seated is striking; contrast the histrionics of Ion 535b–d.

Unidentified books 94

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 14.60 648f–649a

87 W

The honey-cake now before us is mentioned by Clearchus of Soloi in On Riddles, where he says, “If told to name implements, say: Tripod, stewpot, lampstand, stone-mortar, bench, sponge, kettle, basin, wood-mortar, flask, basket, knife, cup, wine-bowl, needle. Or again for dishes, say: Bean soup, lentil soup, salt fish, fish, turnip, garlic, meat, tuna, brine, onion, salsify, olive, capers, hyacinth, mushroom. Likewise for snacks: Milk cake, pancake, fishcake, sweetcake, pomegranate, egg, chickpea, sesame, poppycake, grapes, dried fig, pear, avocado, apples, almonds.” That’s what Clearchus says. Following a catalogue of cakes and pastries (643e–48c) in a discussion of “second tables” or desserts (640–64). The lists are all in iambic trimeters, presumably cited by Clearchus from another source rather than his own compositions; cf. 98C, 99–100. The “honey-cake” that prompts the quotation is curiously absent.

204

Clearchus of Soli

95

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae, 10.76 452b–c (BT t. 3A, 236.2– 14 Olson)

94 W

Πολλοὶ δὲ γρίφων καὶ τοιοῦτοί τινές εἰσιν οἷον· ἄνδρ’ εἶδον πυρὶ χαλκὸν ἐπ’ ἀνέρι κολλήσαντα, οὕτω συγκόλλως ὥστε σύναιμα ποιεῖν. τοῦτο δὲ σημαίνει σικύας προσβολήν. καὶ τὸ Πανάρκους δ’ ἐστὶ τοιοῦτον, ὥς φησι Κλέαρχος ἐν τῷ Περὶ γρίφων ὅτι βάλοι ξύλῳ τε καὶ οὐ ξύλῳ καθημένην ὄρνιθα καὶ οὐκ ὄρνιθα ἀνήρ τε κοὐκ ἀνὴρ λίθῳ τε καὶ οὐ λίθῳ. τούτων γάρ ἐστι τὸ μὲν νάρθηξ, τὸ δὲ νυκτερίς, τὸ δὲ εὐνοῦχος, τὸ δὲ κίσηρις. καὶ Πλάτων δ’ ἐν πέμπτῳ Νόμων μνημονεύει· τοὺς τῶν τεχνυδρίων φιλοσόφους τοῖς ἐν ταῖς ἑστιάσεσιν ἔφη ἐπαμφοτερίζουσιν ἐοικέναι καὶ τῷ τῶν παίδων αἰνίγματι τῷ περὶ τοῦ εὐνούχου τῆς βολῆς πέρι τῆς νυκτερίδος, ᾧ καὶ ἐφ’ οὗ αὐτὸν αὐτὴν αἰνίττονται βαλεῖν.

5

10

2–3 Cleobulina fr. 1 West2 (IEG) || 4 Panarces (non aliunde notus) 93–4 West2 (IEG) || 9 ἐν πέμπτῳ Νόμων] immo R. 5, 479b–c. 1–4 Dubito an verba πολλοὶ—προσβολήν Athenaeus a Clearcho mutuatus sit. 1 τῶν add. Kaibel || 2–3 testimonia de disticho collegit Neri 2003, 168– 71 ad Erinnae fr. spurium °°10.

96

93 W

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 10.75–8 451e–f et 452e–453a (BT t. 3A, 234.22–235.2, 235.9–12 et 236.28–237.13 Olson) Θεοδέκτην δὲ τὸν Φασηλίτην φησὶν Ἕρμιππος ἐν τοῖς Περὶ τῶν Ἰσοκράτους μαθητῶν ἱκανώτατον γεγονέναι ἀνευρεῖν τὸν προβληθέντα γρῖφον καὶ αὐτὸν προβαλεῖν ἑτέροις ἐπιδεξίως, οἷον τὸν περὶ τῆς σκιᾶς· ἔφη γὰρ εἶναί τινα φύσιν, ἣ περὶ τὴν γένεσιν καὶ φθίσιν ἐστὶ μεγίστη, περὶ δὲ τὴν ἀκμὴν ἐλαχίστη. λέγει δὲ οὕτως [...] κἀν τῷ Οἰδίποδι δὲ τῇ τραγῳδίᾳ τὴν νύκτα καὶ τὴν ἡμέραν εἴρηκεν αἰνιττόμενος· εἰσὶ κασίγνηται διτταὶ, ὧν ἡ μία τίκτει τὴν ἑτέραν, αὐτὴ δὲ τεκοῦσ᾽ ὑπὸ τῆσδε τεκνοῦται. [sequitur 95] τῷ δὲ Θεοδέκτῃ παραπλησίως ἔπαιζε γρίφους καὶ Δρομέας ὁ Κῷος, ὥς φησι Κλέαρχος, καὶ Ἀριστώνυμος ὁ

5

10

Text and Translation

205

95

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 10.76 452b–d

94 W

Many riddles are of that sort, for example: A man I saw did fasten bronze on a man with fire, So tightly fastened they shared the selfsame blood. This signifies the application of a cupping tool. The one by Panarces is also like that, as Clearchus says in On Riddles: that a man not a man with a stone not a stone hit a bird not a bird sitting on a branch not a branch; these are a fennel stalk, a bat, a eunuch, and pumice. Plato as well mentions it in Laws 5; he said “the philosophers of the little arts” [475e] “resemble those who use double meanings at feasts, and also the children’s puzzle about the eunuch and his throw at the bat, in which they make a puzzle out of what and where he threw at it.” In a discussion of riddles (cf. 89), between the two paragraphs of 96. The feature these examples share, as explained in a paraphrase of Republic 479b– c (cf. 98A), is “double meaning” or ambiguity; likewise a preceding example (452a–b: “of that sort”) from Callisthenes (fr. 13) about an obscure message from a Spartan under siege, and a set of “token” precepts of Pythagoras listed subsequently (452d–e). The first riddle, an elegiac distich, is elsewhere ascribed to Cleobulina (cf. 89): Plut. Seven Sages 10 154b–c, cf. Arist. Rhet. 3.2 1405a35–b5, Poetics 22 1458a27–30, Demetrius, On Style 102. Panarces is otherwise unknown; for his riddle, famous from Republic 5 (mistakenly cited as “Laws 5”), see 98A–C, though his authorship of either version in verse cited there is questionable.

96

93 W

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 10.75–8 451e–f and 452e–453a Hermippus in On the Students of Isocrates says Theodectes of Phaselis was adept at solving riddles posed to him and at posing clever ones for others, like the one about the shadow: he said there is some natural being that is biggest at its birth and demise, and smallest in its prime. This is what he says: … [Theodectes fr. 18]. So too in his Oedipus tragedy he describes night and day in a puzzling way: There is a pair of sisters, one of whom gives birth To the other, and after giving birth is from this other born. … [95] … In much the same way as Theodectes, Dromeas of Cos also played with riddles, as Clearchus says, and so did

206

Clearchus of Soli

ψιλοκιθαριστής, ἔτι δὲ Κλέων ὁ Mίμαυλος ἐπικαλούμενος, ὅσπερ καὶ τῶν Ἰταλικῶν μίμων ἄριστος γέγονεν αὐτοπρόσωπος ὑποκριτής. καὶ γὰρ Νυμφοδώρου περιῆν ἐν τῷ μνημονευομένῳ μίμῳ. τούτου δὲ καὶ Ἰσχόμαχος ὁ κῆρυξ ἐγένετο ζηλωτής, ὃς ἐν τοῖς κύκλοις ἐποιεῖτο τὰς μιμήσεις, ὡς δ’ εὐδοκίμει, μεταβὰς ἐν τοῖς θαύμασιν ὑπεκρίνετο μίμους. τοιοῦτοι δ’ ἦσαν οὓς ἐποίουν γρίφους, οἷον ἀγροίκου τινὸς ὑπερπλησθέντος καὶ κακῶς ἔχοντος, ὡς ἠρώτα αὐτὸν ὁ ἰατρὸς μὴ εἰς ἔμετον ἐδείπνησεν, “οὐκ ἔγωγε”, εἰπεῖν, “ἀλλ’ εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν”. καὶ πτωχῆς τινος τὴν γαστέρα πονούσης ἐπεὶ ὁ ἰατρὸς ἐπυνθάνετο μὴ ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχει, “πῶς γάρ”, εἶπε, “τριταία μὴ βεβρωκυῖα;” τῶν Ἀριστωνύμων δ᾿ ἦν εὐπαρύφων λόγων.

15

20

1 Hermippus FGrHistCont 1026 F 48 (Bollansée) || 6 λέγει δὲ οὕτως] sequitur Theodectes TrGF 72 F 18 || 8–9 Theodectes TrGF 72 F 4 || 11 Ἀριστώνυμος] Stephanis nr. 398 || 12 Κλέων] Stephanis nr. 1457 || 14 Νυμφόδωρος] Stephanis nr. 1894. Cf. Athen. 1.35 19e–f || 15 Ἰσχόμαχος] Stephanis nr. 1304. 9 τῆσδε CE : τῇδε A || 10 Θεοδέκτῃ Kaibel : Θεοδέκτει A || 18 *** ἐποίουν Α: ἐποίει Wehrli || γρίφοι Olson || 22 γάρ Kaibel: γε ACE, fort. recte || 23 Ἀριστωνύμου δ᾽ Casaub. || lacunam ind. Dindorf || 24 λόγων Schweigh.

97

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 10.81 454f–455c (BT t. 3A, 241.6–242.11 Olson)

88 W

Τὸ δὲ Καστορίωνος τοῦ Σολέως, ὡς ὁ Κλέαρχός φησιν, εἰς τὸν Πᾶνα ποίημα τοιοῦτόν ἐστι· τῶν ποδῶν ἕκαστος ὅλοις ὀνόμασιν περιειλημμένος πάντας ὁμοίως ἡγεμονικοὺς καὶ ἀκολουθητικοὺς ἔχει τοὺς πόδας, οἷον· σὲ τὸν βολαῖς νιφοκτύποις δυσχείμερον ναίονθ’ ἕδραν, θηρονόμε Πάν, χθόν’ Ἀρκάδων, κλήσω γραφῇ τῇδ’ ἐν σοφῇ πάγκλειτ’ ἔπη συνθείς, ἄναξ, δύσγνωστα μὴ σοφῷ κλύειν, μωσοπόλε θήρ, κηρόχυτον ὃς μείλιγμ’ ἱεῖς,

5

Text and Translation

207

Aristonymus the kithara soloist, and also Cleon, the one called Mime-piper, who was the best at performing the Italian mimes without a mask; he even surpassed Nymphodorus in the mime in question. The herald Ischomachus was a great admirer of his and used to perform his roles in the round; and as he became popular, he moved on to perform mimes alongside the other showmen. These are the kind of riddles they would pose: A farmer felt bad after eating too much, and when the doctor asked if he had eaten to the point of vomiting, he said, “No, not me, only up to my belly.” Or a beggar woman was having stomach pains, and when the doctor asked if she had something in her tummy, she said, “How could I, when I haven’t eaten for three days?” Those of Aristonymus pompous speeches. For context, see 95, which separates the discussion of Theodectes from the other riddlers; for attribution of the first paragraph to Clearchus, see Subsidia. For Theodectes of Phaselis (c. 400–c. 335), a tragedian and rhetorician influential on Aristotle, see Matelli 2007; cf. 92C. For the lowbrow genre of mime, see Davidson 2000. Dromeas could be the same as the “parasite” in Ath. 4 132c. For Aristonymus of Athens, who performed at Alexander’s mass wedding in Susa in 324, cf. Ath. 12 538e. For Nymphodorus, distinct from the scholar in 88, cf. Ath. 19f in another list of riddlers and performers; see Subsidia. The other two remain more obscure. “In the round”: apparently without a “scenic” backdrop, which a platform stage with the “showmen” would afford. “Pompous speeches”: cf. Demetrius, On Style 153; or possibly “double entendres” though the lacuna makes the question moot.

97

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 10.81 454f–455c

88 W

The poem for Pan by Castorion of Soloi, as Clearchus says, is of this sort: since every foot is occupied by whole words, they all alike have feet fit for initial position or one that follows. For example: To you the one who dwells on heights in wintry storms On snow-blown peaks, beast-leader Pan, Arcadian land, I’ll sing these words so wise inscribed in verse farfamed, Composed, my lord, for those unwise to misconstrue. O Muses’ beast, such soothing tunes through wax you blow.

208

Clearchus of Soli

καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον. τούτων δὲ ἕκαστον τῶν ποδῶν, ὡς ἂν τῇ τάξει θῇς, τὸ αὐτὸ μέτρον ἀποδώσει, οὕτως· σὲ τὸν βολαῖς νιφοκτύποις δυσχείμερον, νιφοκτύποις σὲ τὸν βολαῖς δυσχείμερον. καὶ ὅτι τῶν ποδῶν ἕκαστός ἐστι ἑνδεκαγράμματος. ἔστι καὶ μὴ τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον ἀλλ’ ἑτέρως ποιῆσαι, ὥστε πλείω πρὸς τὴν χρῆσιν ἐκ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἔχειν οὕτω λέγοντας· μέτρον φράσον μοι τῶν ποδῶν , λαβὼν μέτρον μοι τῶν ποδῶν μέτρον φράσον. οὐ βούλομαι γὰρ τῶν ποδῶν μέτρον λαβεῖν, λαβεῖν μέτρον γὰρ τῶν ποδῶν οὐ βούλομαι. Πίνδαρος δὲ πρὸς τὴν ἀσιγμοποιηθεῖσαν ᾠδήν, ὡς ὁ αὐτός φησι Κλέαρχος, οἱονεὶ γρίφου τινὸς ἐν μελοποιίᾳ προβληθέντος, ὡς πολλῶν τούτῳ προσκρουόντων διὰ τὸ ἀδύνατον εἶναι ἀποσχέσθαι τοῦ σίγμα καὶ διὰ τὸ μὴ δοκιμάζειν, ἐποίησε πρὶν μὲν εἷρπε σχοινοτένειά τ’ ἀοιδὰ καὶ τὸ σὰν κίβδηλον ἀνθρώποις. ταῦτα σημειώσαιτ’ ἄν τις πρὸς τοὺς νοθεύοντας Λάσου τοῦ Ἑρμιονέως τὴν ἄσιγμον ᾠδήν, ἥτις ἐπιγράφεται Κένταυροι. 5–20 Castorion SH 310 || 21–7 Pindarus fr. 70b 1–2 Snell–Maehler. Versus tradit etiam Athen. 11.30 467b (BT t. 3, 26.26–7 Kaibel) = Aristoxenus fr. 87 Wehrli; laciniae servantur in POxy 1604 (s. II p. C.) col. 2.1–2 π[............................]διθ[υράμβων] | καὶ τὸ σὰ[ν || 28–9 Lasus fr. 2 Brussich = test. 3 Privitera. Cf. 89 (de Pindaro) et Privitera 1965, 29–32; Brussich 2002, 77–80. 2 pro ποδῶν “potius legendum στίχων” Porson 1808, XXVII || 4 πόδας “haec turbata” Kaibel || 5 βολαῖς Meineke: βολοις A: βόλοις BMP, Mus. || 6 ναίονθ’ Casaub.: νεονθ᾽ A || ἕδραν Cobet 1873, 221: ὁδος A: ἕδος Scaliger ms., sed vide Lloyd-Jones–Parsons ad SH 310 || χθόν’ Casaub.: χθὼν A || 7 τῇδ’ ἐν Fiorillo 1803, 81 et Porson: τῇδε A || πάγκλειτ’ Porson: παγκλητ’ A || 8 σοφῷ Meineke: σοφoῖς A || 9 μωσοπόλε Cobet: μουσοπόλε A || μείλιγμ’ ἱεῖς Mus.: μιλιγμιεις A || 10 τὸν Taifacos || ἕκαστον ACE: ἕκαστος Wehrli || 12 βολαῖς Meineke: βολοις A : βόλοις BMP, Mus. || 13 βολαῖς Meineke: βολοις A : βόλοις CEBMP, Mus. || 14 ἑνδεκαγράμματος Schweigh.: δεκαγράμματος A || ἔστι καὶ Schweigh. || 17 μέτρον λαβών suppl. Coraës ms. || 18 post φράσον “duo vel plures versus excidisse videntur” Wehrli || 21 πρὸς] ποιήσας Casaub. || 23 ἀδύνατον Scaliger ms.: δυνατὸν A || 25 ἧρπε Athen. 467b || σχοινοτένειά Athen. 467b: σχοινοτενια A || ex POxy supplendum? an omisit Athenaeus vel eius auctor? || 26 σὰν κίβδηλον Athen. 467b: σαντιβοηλον A.

10

15

20

25

Text and Translation

209

The rest goes the same way. Every one of these feet, in any order you place them, will yield the same measure, like this: To you the one who dwells on heights in wintry storms; Who dwells on heights, to you the one in wintry storms. And every foot has eleven letters. There is also another way of composing verse so as to make multiple verses out of a single verse, like this: Now tell me what the measure is by counting feet; By counting feet now tell me what the measure is. For I wish not to take the measure of the feet; For not the measure of the feet wish I to take. Pindar was responding to the ode composed without any sigmas, as the same Clearchus says, as if a riddle had been posed for songwriting, and many were tripped up because it is impossible to avoid sigma and they were not scrutinizing the riddle, when he wrote: Formerly it crept along taut like a rope, the singing And the san [sc. S] was debased for people. One might highlight these lines in response to those who deny Lasus of Hermione composed the ode without sigmas, which is entitled Centaurs. Following 92C after a short citation from the scholar Neoptolemus of Parium (third century) quoting an alphabetic epitaph for Thrasymachus of Chalcedon (FGE Anon. 1568–9); the sequel cites Heraclides Pont. fr. 113 and supplies the first verse of another asigmatic song by Lasus (PMG 702). For Castorion’s “Hymn to Pan” (SH 310), see Bing 1985, Magnelli 2015: “foot” here is an iambic metron, “measure” the stichic meter of the verses; “whole words” implies diaeresis between every metron, secured by making the “initial” letter always a consonant and the last letter either a long vowel or another consonant; the “eleven letters” include silent iota (subscript here in verses 3 and 4). For the “panic” associated with Pan (cf. 36) and some contemporary resonance, see Tsitsiridis 2013: 146–54. The second set of verses, also iambic trimeters, is unattributed. For Pindar’s verses, which open the best attested and preserved of his dithyrambs, entitled “Descent of Heracles, or Cerberus, for the Thebans” (fr. 70b1–2), see Lavecchia 2013: 68–75. The enigmatic imagery, though its interpretation is controversial, apparently alludes to a shift in choral alignment from linear “like a rope” to circular formations (specified in the following lines, omitted here), which supposedly improved acoustics by synchronizing voices to eliminate discordant effects that were especially noticeable in sibilants, hence “the

210

Clearchus of Soli

98A

Scholia (Α) in Platonis Rem publicam 5.479c (235.5–17 Greene)

95a W

Κλεάρχου γρῖφος· (a) αἶνός τίς ἐστιν ὡς ἀνήρ τε κοὐκ ἀνὴρ ὄρνιθα {τε} κ᾽ οὐκ ὄρνιθα ἰδών τε κ᾽ οὐκ ἰδὼν ἐπὶ ξύλου τε κ᾽ οὐ ξύλου καθημένην {τε κ’ οὐ καθημένην} λίθῳ τε κ᾽ οὐ λίθῳ βάλοι τε κ᾽οὐ βάλοι. ἄλλως· (b) ἄνθρωπος οὐκ ἄνθρωπος, ἄνθρωπος δ’ ὅμως, (ὁ εὐνοῦχος) ὄρνιθα κ᾽οὐκ ὄρνιθα, †ὄρνιθα δ’ ὅμως†, (νυκτερίδα) ἐπὶ ξύλου τε κ᾽ οὐ ξύλου καθημένην (νάρθηκος) λίθῳ βαλών τε κ᾽ οὐ λίθῳ διώλεσεν (κισήρει). Panarces 91–2 West2 (IEG) = fr. 17ab Diehl. 1, 6 “Κλεάρχου γρῖφος, ἄλλως et explicationes prope scholium adscriptas (scil. ὁ εὐνοῦχος, νυκτερίδα, νάρθηκος et κισήρει) exaravit A2; νυκτερίδα ὁ εὐνοῦχος νάρθηκος κισήρει in fine add. Greene (unde Wehrli, West), iterans, sed mutato ordine, explicationes prope sch. adscriptas” Cufalo || 2–3 τε κ᾽ οὐκ ὄρνιθα] κοὐκ ὄρνιθα Suda, καὶ οὐκ ὄρνιθα ps.-Tryph., κοὐκ ὄρνιθ᾽ Diehl, West || ὄρνιθα—λίθῳ cf. 95 || 4 τε κ’ οὐ καθημένην om. Suda, Ioan. Sicel., Diehl, West. Servat Neri (cf. 98C) || 5 βάλοι τε κ᾽ οὐ βάλοι] με βαλὼν διώλεσεν Suda || βάλλει τε καὶ οὐ βάλλει ps.-Tryph. || 8 ὄρνιθα κ᾽ οὐκ ὄρνιθα, ὄρνιθα δ’ ὅμως] ὄρνιν οὐκ ὄρνιν, ὄρνιν δ᾽ ὅμως Dav. || ὄρνιθα δ’ ὅμως crucibus concluserunt Diehl3 et West || νυκτερίδα] ροκτερίδα ut vid. A, fort. ex νοκτ-: ῥοπτερίδα Greene (unde Wehrli et Taifacos) || 9 ἐπὶ ξύλου τε κ᾽ οὐ ξύλου καθημένην] ἐπὶ ξ. καὶ οὐ ξ. καθ. Dav., Ioan. Sicel. || 10 λίθῳ βαλών με κ᾽ οὐ λίθῳ διώλεσεν Sch. λ. τε (om. Ioan. Sicel.) καὶ οὐ λ. βαλὼν διώλεσε Dav., Ioan. Sicel. || τε Dav.: με cod.

5

10

Text and Translation

211

debased san”; see Porter 2010: 371–404, D’Angour 2011: 195–8. For san as the Doric name for the letter sigma, cf. Hdt. 1.139 and the Thrasymachus epitaph (cited above). For Lasus (fl. 510), innovative poet, music theorist, and riddler (cf. Ath. 8 338b–c), see Brussich 2000, Porter 2010: 383–93; for his asigmatic songs, cf. Ath. 14 624e–f (Heraclides fr. 114) with Prauscello 2013.

98A

Scholia on Plato, Republic 5 479c

95a W

A riddle from Clearchus: There is a tale of how a man and not a man, who saw and did not see a bird and not a bird that sat {and did not sit} upon a branch and not a branch, both threw and did not throw with a stone and not a stone. Differently: A person not a person, but still it was a person, (the eunuch) at a bird and not a bird, but still it was a bird, (a bat) that sat upon a branch and also not a branch, (fennel) both threw with a stone and did not kill it with a stone. (with pumice) Glossing a reference to this “children’s puzzle” (παίδων αἰνίγματι) and similar “double entendres [τοῖς ἐπαμφοτερίζουσιν] at feasts” which Glaucon cites to illustrate the indeterminacy of sensible particulars that “neither are nor are not securely” whatever we think they are (478d–79d); cf. 95 for Panarces as the riddle’s source, though not explicitly author of any verse. Both versions are in iambic trimeters; for metrical problems in the transmitted text, see Subsidia, with multiple scholastic parallels for both, characterized variously as a “tale” (αἶνος as in the very first verse here), a “riddle,” or specifically a “puzzle by opposites.” The first version could be attributed to Clearchus as his composition, or simply as found in his work On Riddles; cf. 98C.

212

Clearchus of Soli

98B

Ioannes Siceliotes, In Hermogenis De ideis 1.4.107–8 (t. 6, 201.31–203.8 Walz)

**

῾Ο δὲ τῶν Στωϊκῶν ὁ λέγων τὰ ἐναντία δέχεσθαι τὴν ἀπροσδιόριστον, ἀληθὲς καὶ ψεῦδος, ἀπὸ τῆς τῶν πραγμάτων γριφεύεται φύσεως οἷον ὄρνιθα δ’ οὐκ ὄρνιθα, ὄρνιθα δ’ ὅμως, (τὴν νυκτερίδα·) ἐπὶ ξύλου δὲ καὶ οὐ ξύλου καθημένην, (ἐπὶ τοῦ νάρθηκος) λίθῳ καὶ οὐ λίθῳ βαλὼν διώλεσε, (τῇ κισσήρει·) ὡς ἂν δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς γνοίης, τί ποτέ ἐστι τὸ λεγόμενον, ἄκουσον. oἱ Περιπατητικοὶ οἱ περὶ Πλάτωνα (λέγονται γὰρ οὕτως ἀπὸ τοῦ περιπατεῖν), λέγουσιν ἐπὶ παντὸς πράγματος ἢ ἡ κατάφασις ἢ ἡ ἀπόφασις χωρίζει τὸ ἀληθὲς καὶ τὸ ψεῦδος· εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἡ κατάφασις ψευδής, ἡ ἀπόφασις ἀληθής· εἰ δὲ αὕτη ψευδής, ἐκείνη πάντως ἀληθής, εἰ ἔστι προσδιωρισμένη, τουτέστιν εἰ ἔχει τὸν πᾶς προδιορισμὸν, ἢ τὸν οὐ πᾶς, ἢ τὸν τις, ἢ τὸν οὐδείς· οἷον πᾶς ἄνθρωπος λευκός ἐστι, ψευδής ἐστιν· οὐ πᾶς ἄνθρωπος λευκός ἐστιν ἀληθής ἐστιν· ἡ γὰρ πᾶς καὶ τὶς προτάσεις καταφάσεών εἰσιν· ἡ δὲ οὐ πᾶς καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀποφάσεις· καὶ μερίζουσι τὸ ἀληθὲς καὶ τὸ ψεῦδος κατὰ τὸν ῥηθέντα κανόνα· κατάφασις δέ ἐστι λόγος ὁ τὸ ὄν τινι ἢ μὴ ὂν ὑπάρχειν αὐτῷ λέγων, οἷον πᾶς ἄνθρωπος λευκός· τὶς ἄνθρωπος λευκός. ἀπόφασις δὲ ὁ τὸ μὴ ὄν τινι ἢ ὂν μὴ εἶναι λέγων, οἷον οὐδεὶς ἄνθρωπος λευκός· ψεῦδος· οὐ πᾶς ἄνθρωπος λευκός· τὸ ὂν ὡς ὄν. τούτων οὕτω διηυκρινημένων ἀνθίσταται Πλάτωνι ὁ Ἐπίκουρος φάσκων· ψεῦδός ἐστι τὸ εἶναι πᾶν πρᾶγμα κατὰ τὴν κατάφασιν ἢ ἀπόφασιν ἀληθὲς ἢ ψευδές· ἰδοὺ γάρ, εἰσί τινα τῶν ὄντων ἐφ’ ὧν ἀπροσδιόριστοι, τουτέστιν αἱ μὴ ἔχουσαι τῶν προρρηθέντων προσδιορισμῶν τινα, ἃ οὔτε ἀληθεύουσιν, οὔτε ψεύδονται, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ ἀμφότερα πάσχουσιν· ἡ γὰρ νυκτερὶς ὄρνις μέν ἐστι, διότι ἵπταται, οὐκ ὄρνις δέ, διότι ζῳοτοκεῖ καὶ θηλάζει, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ᾠοτοκεῖ οὐδ᾽ ἐπῳάζει· ὁ δὲ νάρθηξ ξύλον, διότι καίεται καὶ θάμνος ἐστίν, οὐ ξύλον δέ, διότι σομφῶδές ἐστιν· οὕτω καὶ ἡ κισσηρὶς λίθος καὶ οὐ λίθος· τὸ μέν, ὅτι λίθου ἐστὶν εἶδος καὶ ἀπὸ κρημνῶν, τὸ δέ, ὅτι τὰ τοῦ λίθου οὐ σῴζει. ταῦτα μὲν Ἐπίκουρος ἐπ’ ἀνατροπῇ τῶν τοῦ Πλάτωνος, ἃ εἰς μέτρον οἱ ἀστειότεροι συνθέντες ἔπαιζον τὸν Ἐπίκουρον. ταῦτα διῆλθον ἐν τῷ τῆς σαφηνείας λόγῳ, ὡς ἂν γνοίημεν ὅτι μὴ πᾶσα μεμπτή· ἐπεὶ δέ τινα

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Text and Translation

213

98B

John of Sicily, Commentary on Hermogenes, On Types of Style 1.4.107–8

**

The argument of the Stoics that says an unquantified proposition admits the opposites, true and false, poses a riddle based on the nature of things. For example: A bird and not a bird, but still a bird, (the bat) when seated on a branch and also not a branch, (on fennel) he threw with a stone and did not kill it with a stone. (with pumice) So you too might know what in the world that means, read on. The Peripatetics who follow Plato (and they get their name from walking around [peripatein]) argue that for every situation, either the affirmation or the denial separates the true and the false. For if the affirmation is false, the denial is true; and if the latter is false, the former is always true, if it is quantified; that is, if it has the quantifier “every” or “not every” or “some” or “none.” For example, “every person is pale” is false, and “not every person is pale” is true. For the propositions with “every” or “some” are affirmations, and those with “not every” and “none” are denials. And they partition the true and the false by the stated rule: An affirmation is a sentence that says that what is for something, or is not for it, does belong to it; for example, “every person is pale” and “some person is pale.” A denial is a sentence that says that what is not for something, or is for it, is not so; for example, “no person is pale” is false, “not every person is pale” [says] what is as it is. Given these elucidations, Epicurus opposes Plato, claiming: it is false that every situation is true or false by affirmation or denial. For look, some things that are really so are covered by unquantified propositions (that is, ones that do not have any of the quantifiers previously mentioned) and are neither true nor false but rather have both features. For the bat is a bird in that it flies, but not a bird in that it gives birth to live offspring and suckles instead of laying eggs and brooding. And fennel is a branch in that it burns and is a bush, but not a branch in that it is spongy. And likewise pumice is a stone and not a stone: the one because it is a kind of stone and comes from cliffs, and the other because it does not retain the features of stone. That is

214

Clearchus of Soli

ἑρμηνείας ἐδέοντο, καὶ ταῦτα διεπεράναμεν, ἵνα μηδέν τι ἀμφισβητούμενον ᾖ, καὶ τετέλεσται ἡμῖν ἡ εὐκρίνεια. 23 Epicurus fr. 244a Usener (348–9). 26 ἃ secl. Usener || 32 λίθου ἐστὶν εἶδος] Cf. Sedley 2018, 91 adn. 36.

98C

Eustathius, Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem Θ 282, 713.10–17 (t. 2, 580.9–19 V. d. Valk)

95b W

Καὶ συλλαλεῖ τῇ ἐννοίᾳ ταύτῃ καί τις παλαιὸς αἶνος ἤγουν γρῖφος, εἰπεῖν δὲ σαφέστερον αἴνιγμα κείμενον παρὰ Κλεάρχῳ εἰπόντι ἐμμέτρως οὕτω αἶνός τίς ἐστιν ὡς ἀνήρ τε κοὐκ ἀνὴρ ὄρνιθά τε κοὐκ ὄρνιθα ἰδών τε κοὐκ ἰδὼν ἐπὶ ξύλου τε κοὐ ξύλου καθημένην τε κοὐ καθημένην λίθῳ τε κοὐ λίθῳ βάλοι τε κοὐ βάλοι. Ἐνταῦθα γὰρ τὸ μὲν βάλοι ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀφήσοι, πέμψοι, ῥίψοι, τὸ δὲ οὐ βάλοι ἀντὶ τοῦ οὐκ εὐστοχήσοι, οὐκ ἐπιτύχοι, ἵνα λέγῃ τὸ συμποσιακὸν ἐκεῖνο γριφῶδες πρόβλημα, ὅτι εὐνοῦχος νυκτερίδα θεασάμενος καὶ οὐ παριδὼν ἐπὶ νάρθηκος κυρίως

5

10

Text and Translation

215

what Epicurus says to overturn Plato’s claims, which some wits put into verse to poke fun at Epicurus. I went through these points for clarity’s sake, so we might recognize that not all [sc. obscurity] warrants reproach; and since some points needed explication, we detailed those too, in order to leave nothing debatable. And our treatment of elucidation is finished. Discussing rhetorical “elucidation” (εὐκρίνεια) as a species of clarity (σαφήνεια), the Byzantine scholar (c. 1000) illustrates the apt use of unclarity by surveying various kinds of riddles (199.30–200.8); cf. 98A, and see Subsidia for truncated citations in other commentaries on the same topic in Hermogenes’ (fl. 160 CE) handbook. For analysis, and the proposal that Clearchus is one of “the Peripatetic followers of Plato” and the “wit who versified” the riddle, see Sedley 2019. For “quantified” and “unquantified” statements in the technical sense used here, cf. Theophr. fr. 82A–E with Huby 2007: 36–41; for the associated Aristotelian “rule” of Contradictory Pairs, cf. Arist. Interp. 7 with Sedley 2019: 92–3. Epicurus’ argument dispenses with the riddle’s verbs and focuses exclusively on natural kinds, which together encompass animals, plants, and minerals; cf. Sedley 2019: 100, 104. For the bat as an ambiguous or “dualizing” kind, cf. Arist. PA 4.13 697b1–13 (only morphology) with Lloyd 1983: 44– 53. For fennel, cf. Theophr. HP 6.2.7–8, classified as “stalks” (φρυγανικά), and 1.2.7 for its stem turning “woody.” For pumice, cf. Theophr. Stones 19– 22, probably echoed by ps.-Choeroboscus, On Poetic Tropes 20 (see Subsidia), when he cites its “floating in water” to indicate how it is also “not a stone”; see Sharples 1998: 180–1 on fr. 206.

98C

Eustathius, On Homer’s Iliad 8.282

95b W And consonant with this idea [sc. the ambiguity of βάλλειν] there is an ancient tale, or at any rate a riddle, or to be more precise, a puzzle found in Clearchus, who told it this way in verse: There is a tale of how a man and not a man who saw and did not see a bird and not a bird that sat {and did not sit} upon a branch and not a branch both threw and did not throw with a stone and not a stone. For here “threw” stands for “tossed, sent, hurled” and “not throw” for “not accurately, not succeed” in order to pose that riddling problem for a symposium: that a eunuch who had watched and not recognized a bat that was sitting on fennel, not

216

Clearchus of Soli

μὲν οὐ καθημένην, ἄλλως δὲ καθημένην, ἐπειδὴ τὰ πτηνὰ καθέζεσθαί φαμεν, ὅτε μὴ πέτανται, ψευδολίθῳ κισσήρει βάλοι μὲν κατὰ μόνην ῥῖψιν καὶ ἄφεσιν κισσήρεως, οὐ μὴν καὶ βάλοι ἐπιτυχῶς καὶ εὐστόχως. Ἵνα νοῆται, ὅτι ἀφῆκε μὲν βέλος κίσσηριν, οὐκ ἐπέτυχε δέ.

99

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae, 1.6 4d (BT t. 1, 8.20–4 Kaibel; CB 8 Desrousseaux)

89 W

Κλεάνθης δὲ ὁ Ταραντῖνος, ὥς φησι Κλέαρχος, πάντα παρὰ τοὺς πότους ἔμμετρα ἔλεγε, καὶ Πάμφιλος δὲ ὁ Σικελός, ὡς ταῦτα· ἔγχει πιεῖν μοι καὶ τὸ πέρδικος σκέλος. ἀμίδα δότω τις ἢ πλακοῦντά τις δότω.

15

5

Κλεάνθης δὲ ὁ Ταραντῖνος] non aliunde notus || SH 597 1 παρὰ C: περὶ E || 4 μοι C, Es.l., om. E1 || Πέρδικος nomen proprium agnovit Casaub. (probat Desrousseaux).

100

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 1.6 4a–c (BT t. 1, 7.15–8.12 Kaibel; CB 7 Desrousseaux)

90 W

Κλέαρχός φησι Χάρμον τὸν Συρακούσιον εὐτρεπίσθαι στιχίδια καὶ παροιμίας εἰς ἕκαστον τῶν ἐν τοῖς δείπνοις παρατιθεμένων. εἰς μὲν τὸν ἰχθύν· ἥκω λιπὼν Αἰγαῖον ἁλμυρὸν βάθος, εἰς δὲ τοὺς κήρυκας· χαίρετε κήρυκες, Διὸς ἄγγελοι, εἰς δὲ τὴν χορδήν·

5

Text and Translation

217

in the strict sense of sitting but in another way (since we say winged animals “perch” when they are not flying), then threw a piece of pumice, a false stone, only hurling and tossing the pumice, but he did not also throw with success or accurately, so that it is understood that he tossed pumice as a throw but did not succeed. When Agamemnon exhorts the archer Teucer to “keep shooting” (present imperative βάλλε), Eustathius notes the ambiguity of the verb, which is often conative in the present but in the aorist typically implies success (“hit”). For “puzzle” (αἴνιγμα) treated as a species of riddle, cf. 90. In saying Clearchus “told” the riddle in verse, Eustathius may mean to characterize him as its versifier; cf. Sedley 2019: 100–1. Yet Clearchus, while widely attested quoting verse by others, is nowhere else credited with composing any himself; cf. 98A and 94.

99

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 1.6 4d

89 W

Cleanthes of Tarentum, as Clearchus says, would say everything in verse when drinking, and so did Pamphilus of Sicily, for example: Now fill my cup with drink, and hand me a partridge leg. Let someone give me a chamber pot, or give me a cake. In an opening survey of famous diners and dinner parties (4a–8c, including 61, 60A, 66), closely following 100 and followed closely by 73; preserved only in the Epitome. This Cleanthes is not otherwise known. For Pamphilus, see SH 597; for “Sicilian meals” cf. 54; his mention of a “partridge leg” supposedly involves a joke about a lame innkeeper named Partridge; see Subsidia.

100

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 1.6 4a–c

90 W

Clearchus says Charmus of Syracuse was always ready with apt bits of verse and sayings for each of the dishes served at dinners. For the fish: I’m come, forsaking the briny depths of Aegeus. For whelks: Fair greetings all, ye whelks, the messengers of Zeus. For sausage:

218

Clearchus of Soli

ἑλικτὰ κοὐδὲν ὑγιές, εἰς δὲ τὴν ὠνθυλευμένην τευθίδα· σοφὴ σοφὴ σύ, εἰς δὲ τὸ ἐν τοῖς ἑψητοῖς ὡραῖον· οὐκ ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ σκεδάσεις ὄχλον;, εἰς δὲ τὴν ἀποδεδαρμένην ἔγχελυν· οὐ προκαλυπτομένα βοστρυχώδεα τοιούτους πολλούς φησι τῷ Λαρηνσίου παρεῖναι δείπνῳ, ὥσπερ συμβολὰς κομίζοντας τὰ ἀπὸ τῶν στρωματοδέσμων γράμματα. φησὶ δὲ καὶ ὅτι ὁ Χάρμος εἰς ἕκαστον τῶν παρατιθεμένων ἔχων τι πρόχειρον, ὡς προείρηται, ἐδόκει τοῖς Μεσσηνίοις πεπαιδευμένος εἶναι, ὡς καὶ Καλλιφάνης ὁ τοῦ Παραβρύκοντος κληθεὶς ἀρχὰς ποιημάτων πολλῶν ἐκγραψάμενος ἀνειλήφει μέχρι τριῶν καὶ τεσσάρων στίχων, πολυμαθείας δόξαν προσποιούμενος. Cf. Suda, s.v. χάρμος (χ 132, LG 1.4, 790.20–21 Adler) et s.v. Καλλιφάνης (κ 243, LG 1.3, 21.4–7 Adler). 4 Euripides, Tr. 1 || 6 Hom. A 334 || 8 Euripides, Andr. 448 || 10 Euripides, Andr. 245 || 12 Cypr. fr. 16 Bernabé (PEG), Adesp. epic. 7 West (GEF); Bion F 25.4 Kindstrand. Cf. Diog. L. 2.117 || 14 Euripides, Phoen. 1485. 2 παρατιθεμένων C: περιτιθεμένων E || 12 ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ] ἀπό μοι dub. West || 14 βοστρυχώδεα CE: βοστρυχώδεος Eur. ubi corrigendum βοτρυχώδεος || 15 φησι (sc. Athenaeus) || δείπνῳ E: δείπνους C || 17 φησὶ (sc. Clearchus?) || παρατιθεμένων C: περιτιθεμένων E || 20 post πολλῶν add. Desrousseaux e Suda, quae orationem sic refinxit λ. συγγεγραμμένων ἄχρι τρ. ἢ τ. στ. ἀπαγγέλλων π. δ. προσεποιεῖτο.

[Περὶ τῶν σοφῶ]ν ? (101–104) 101A 69d W

PSI 1093, col. 1.24–2.41 (s. II d. C.) (t. 9, 153–7 Vitelli) Ἕρ]μιπποϲ δ’ ἐν [τῶι πρ]ώτωι πε[ρὶ Ἀρ]ιϲτοτέλουϲ [Λάβυν] Δελφὸν εὐ[νοῦχ]όν φηϲιν εἰ[ρηκένα]ι αὐτὸ νε-

25

10

15

20

Text and Translation

219

All twisted, nothing wholesome. For stuffed squid: So smart, so smart you are. For seafood stew: Will you not drive the crowd away from me? For skinned eel: No longer veiled in clustering curls. There were many people of this sort he [sc. Athenaeus] says at Larensius’ dinner party, and as contributions they brought along their sackloads of learned reading. He also says that Charmus, who had something handy for each of the dishes served, as said before, was considered a learned man by the people of Messene. So too was Calliphanes, who was called the son of Gobbler; by copying out and memorizing the first three or four lines of many poems he gained himself a reputation for erudition. After an opening encomium of the host Larensius’ learning and hospitality (2b–4a), the work here shifts focus to famous guests (4a–8c); 99 follows after a short list of dishes; preserved only in the Epitome. For Charmus, cf. 62; his verses are all parodic (in order): Euripides, Troades 1; Iliad 1.334; Eurpides, Andromache 448; Andromache 245; Cypria fr. 16; Euripides, Phoenissae 1485. For similar verse improvisation, cf. 72. “Whelks”: literally “heralds” (cf. Ath. 2 86c), hence the joke on “Zeus’s messengers.” For “Gobbler” cf. Eustathius, On Odyssey 19.163 on βρύκων (quoting Ath. 91d): “eating loudly with a lot of noise … [citing Aristoph. Birds 26], hence also Παραβρύκων, an epithet for some glutton”; cf. Suda κ 243, where he memorizes the opening lines of “speeches” (λόγων).

On [the Wis]e (101–104) 101A

Anonymus papyrus: PSI 1093, col. 1.24–2.41 (CPF 1.1 32 T1)

69d W

Hermippus in Book 1 On Aristotle says [Labys], a eu[nuch] at Delphi who was [warden] of the [Pythian shrine,] s[aid] it. Chamaeleon says [Tha]les of [Miletu]s [sc. said it]. Clearchus in On [the Wis]e says Chilon [firs]t asked the god what is best, and the [Pythia] answered, “Know thyself.”

220

Clearchus of Soli

[ωκόρον] ὄν[τ]α τοῦ [Πυθίου. Χ]αμαιλ[έων δὲ Θα]λῆν τὸν [Μιλήϲιο]ν. Κλέα[ρχοϲ δ᾽ ἐν το]ῖϲ Περὶ [τῶν ϲοφῶ]ν ἐρέϲθαι πρῶτο]ν Χίλω[να τὸν θε]όν, τί ἄρ[ιϲτον ἂν εἴ]η, τὴν [δὲ Πυθίαν] ἀποκρί[ναϲθαι ὅτι] τὸ “γνῶ[θι [ϲεαυτόν”.

30 col. 2

35

40

Mertens–Pack 2292 = LDAB 768 = TM 59666. 24–31 (Πυθίου) Hermippus FGrHistCont 1026 F 29 (Bollansée) || CPF I 1** 59 2T || 33–41 CPF I 1* 32 1T || 27, 36–7 cf. Scholia (T) in Pl., Phil. 48c10 (92 Cufalo, nr. 29) = Hermippus FGrHistCont 1026 F 29 (Bollansée) || Chamaeleon fr. 3A Martano. 31 Πυθίου suppl. Snell: ἱεροῦ dub. Vitelli || 31–3 Χ]αμαι[λέ|ων δὲ Θαλ]ῆν τὸν | [Ἐξαμύο]υ suppl. Snell: Χ]αμαι[λέων | δὲ τὴν γνῶμ]ην τοπ[ά|ζει Θαλοῦ] Vitelli, longius spatio || 33 Dorandi || 34–35 Dorandi duce Verhasselt “possis Περὶ | [τῶν ϲοφῶ]ν” || 36 πρῶτο]ν Lapini. An δὴ τὸ]ν Χ.? Dorandi. Cetera Snell.

101B

Porphyrius, De cognosce teipsum (fr. 273F Smith) ap. Stobaeus 3.21.26 (t. 3, 579.6–580.5 Hense)

69a W

Πορφυρίου ἐκ τοῦ α’ Τί ποτε ἦν ἄρα καὶ τίνος τὸ ἱερὸν πρόσταγμα τὸ ἐν Πυθοῖ, ὃ γνῶναι ἑαυτὸν τοῖς τοῦ θεοῦ δεησομένοις προσαγορεύει; μήτε γὰρ τιμῆσαι θεὸν τὰ προσήκοντα μηδ’ αὖ τυχεῖν τοῦ θεοῦ δεηθέντα τὸν ἀγνοίᾳ τῇ ἑαυτοῦ ἐνισχόμενον παραγγέλλειν ἔοικεν. ἀλλ’ εἴτε Φημονόη ἐπὶ πάντα λυσιτελοῦν τὰ ἀνθρώπινα τοῦτο ἐθέσπισεν, δι’ ἧς πρώτης ὁ Πύθιος λέγεται τὰς εἰς ἀνθρώπους διαδοῦναι χάριτας, εἴτε Φανοθέα ἡ Δελφοῦ, εἴτε καὶ Βίαντος ἢ Θαλοῦ ἢ Χείλωνος ἦν ἀνάθημα, ὁρμηθὲν ἀπό τινος θείας ἐπιπνοίας· εἴτε Κλεάρχῳ προσεκτέον μᾶλλον τοῦ μὲν Πυθίου φράζοντι εἶναι παράγγελμα, χρησθῆναι δὲ Χείλωνι, τί

5

10

Text and Translation

221

On a scrap of papyrus from Oxyrhynchus (second century CE) containing a discussion of sayings attributed to the sages; see Dorandi 2014 and Subsidia. For Peripatetic interest in the topic, cf. Theophrastus fr. 727 no. 12, Demetrius of Phalerum fr. 81 no. 4 and fr. 87, Dicaearchus frs. 36–8 (frs. 53–5 FGrHistCont 1400), Chamaeleon frs. 3A–C, Hermippus frs. 9–20, and see Verhasselt (in this volume). For Clearchus and his title, which has also been restored as On Sayings, see Dorandi 2014; cf. 81–2, which could come from the same work. For the name Labys, see Sch. Plato, Philebus 48c, and for a Labyad tribe at Delphi, Bollansée 1999: 308–9; Hermippus fr. 29b (Anecdota Bekker 1.223) adds that Labys inscribed the saying in Apollo’s temple, as the papyrus says Chilon did (col. 1.1–6; cf. Plato, Protag. 343b). For Chilon, a Spartan Ephor c. 556, see Diog. Laert. 1.68–73; for the disputed attribution of the saying, Verhasselt (in this volume).

101B

Porphyry, On Know Thyself (fr. 273 Smith) in Stobaeus, Anthology 3.21.26

69a W

From Porphyry, Book 1 What exactly was it, then, and whose was it, the sacred injunction at Pytho that addresses “know oneself” to those about to consult the god? For most likely it proclaims that anyone in the grip of self-ignorance is neither to perform the requisite honors for the god, nor again to obtain what he asks of the god. But whether the one who made this decree advancing all human endeavors was Phemonoe, who is said to be the first one through whom the Pythian god delivered his gifts to humanity; or whether it was Phanothea of Delphi; or whether it was an offering dedicated by Bias or Thales or Chilon and inspired by some

222

Clearchus of Soli

ἄριστον ἀνθρώποις μαθεῖν πυνθανομένῳ. εἴτε καὶ πρὸ Χείλωνος ἦν ἔτι ἀνάγραπτον ἐν τῷ ἱδρυθέντι νεῷ μετὰ τὸν πτέρινόν τε καὶ χαλκοῦν, καθάπερ Ἀριστοτέλης ἐν οἷς περὶ φιλοσοφίας εἴρηκεν· τὸ μὲν ὅτου ἂν εἴη, Ἰάμβλιχε, ἀμφισβητήσιμον ἔστω· πάντως δ’ ὅτι ὑπὸ θεοῦ ἢ οὐκ ἄνευ θεοῦ ἐρρήθη, ἐξ αὐτοῦ φαίνοιτ’ ἂν τοῦ ἐν τοῖς Πυθίοις αὐτὸ κεῖσθαι ἀμφήριστον. τί ποτε δ’ ἐστὶν ὃ φράζει καὶ πρό γε τῶν περιρραντηρίων προτελεῖσθαι τῷ θεῷ ἐπιτάττει, ἀναγκαῖον ἂν εἴη γνῶναι. 14 Aristoteles fr. 3 Rose3 ecloga cum lemmate hab. S, om. MA || 1 περὶ τοῦ γνῶθι σαυτόν suppl. Meineke LX || 4 μηδ’ (vel μὴ δ᾽) αὖ S, “quod nescio an servandum sit” Hense: μητ’ αὖ Meineke || 9 ἀνάθημα] ἀπόφθεγμα Nauck 1888, 16533, conl. Porph. ap. Stob. 3.21.12 (t. 3, 559, 1 = 101C) || 11 τί Nauck: τὸ S || 13 ἱδρυθέντι Trinc.: ἱδρυνθέντι S “fortasse recte” Hense || 14 πτέρινον Casaub.: πέτρινον S || 18 ἀμφήριστον S, “quod potest defendi” Hense: ἀναμφήριστον Gesner 1543, 172 in mg. || 19 περιρραντηρίων tacite Gesner : περὶ ῥαντηρίων S.

101C

Stobaeus 3.21.12 (t. 3, 558.14–559.2 Hense)

69c W

Γνῶθι σαυτὸν ὡς παροιμία παραλαμβάνεται, μαρτυρεῖ Θεόφραστος ἐν τῷ Περὶ παροιμιῶν. οἱ πολλοὶ δὲ Χείλωνος εἶναι τὸ ἀπόφθεγμα, Κλέαρχος δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ λεχθῆναι Χείλωνι. 2 Theophrastus fr. 738 FHS&G. eclogam sine lemmate hab. S, om. MA: παροιμία pro lemmate add. Trinc. 133 || 1 γνῶθι σ. dub. Hense || ὡς παροιμ παραλαμβάνεται S: ὡς παροιμία λαμβάνεται Trinc. || 3 λεχθῆναι S: χρησθῆναι mavult Nauck 1888, 16533, conl. Stob. 3.21.26 (t. 3, 579.17 = 101B).

15

20

Text and Translation

223

divine afflatus; or whether we should rather side with Clearchus, who says it is a declaration of the Pythian god delivered in response to Chilon when he asked what is best for humans to learn; or whether even before Chilon it was already inscribed on the shrine founded after the winged one of bronze, as Aristotle says in On Philosophy – the question of whose it might be, Iamblichus, may remain a topic for debate. Yet in any case, that it was spoken by a god or not without a god should be obvious from the very fact that it is a point of contention at the Pythian festival. And what exactly it declares and prescribes performing as initial rites before the ritual lustration, that is a necessity to know. The first of three excerpts from the same work, concluding Stobaeus’ chapter “On the [saying] Know thyself” (cf. 101C); for Porphyry’s title, cf. Stob. 3.21.27 and Suda π 2098, which assigns his work four books, as does the lemma to Stob. 3.21.28. For legends of the early shrine and its oracle, see Pausanias 10.5.5–13, Strabo 9.5.9, Sourvinou-Inwood 1979. For Phemonoe, legendary first Pythian priestess (Strabo 9.3.5), as source of the saying, cf. Antisthenes of Rhodes fr. 3 in Diog. Laert. 1.40, Sch. Plato, Alcibiades 129a. This Phanothea, apparently another Pythian priestess, is not otherwise attested. “Winged one of bronze”: legend distinguished an early temple made of bird-feathers (πτερά) and bees-wax from another made of bronze; but in naming one earlier building, not two (not τόν τε πτέρινον καὶ τὸν χαλκοῦν), the text here suggests that Porphyry adopted a rationalizing account of its “wings” as “dipteral” or “peripteral” columns; cf. Vitruvius 3.2.

101C

Anonymous in Stobaeus, Anthology 3.21.12

69c W

That “Know thyself” is accepted as a saying Theophrastus attests in On Sayings. Most say the dictum is from Chilon, and Clearchus says it was spoken by the god to Chilon. From the same chapter “On the [saying] Know thyself” as 101B; for discussion, see Fortenbaugh 2014: 215–20 on Theophr. fr. 738.

224

Clearchus of Soli

101D

Mantissa Proverbiorum 1.43 (CPG 2, 750.6–751.2 L.–Schn.)

69b W

Γνῶθι σαυτόν· τὸ μὲν ἀπόφθεγμα Βίαντος ὡς παροιμία δὲ λαμβάνεται, μαρτυρεῖ Θεόφραστος ἐν τῷ Περὶ παροιμιῶν. οἱ πολλοὶ δὲ Χίλωνος εἶναι τὸ ἀπόφθεγμα φασίν. Κλέαρχος δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ λεχθῆναι Χίλωνι Δαμαγήτου Λακεδαιμονίῳ. 2 Theophrastus fr. 738 FHS&G. 1 γνῶθι σαυτόν Α: om. E || 1–2 ὡς παροιμία δὲ λαμβάνεται] ἡ μαρτυρία παραλαμβάνεται A.

102 **

Epigramma in lapide Ai Khanoum invento Ἀνδρῶν τοι σοφὰ ταῦτα παλαιοτέρων ἀνάκει[τα]ι ῥήματα ἀριγνώτων Πυθοῖ ἐν ἠγαθέᾳ· ἔνθεν ταῦτ[α] Κλέαρχος ἐπιφραδέως ἀναγράψας εἵσατο τηλαυγῆ Κινέου ἐν τεμένει. Robert 1968/1989; SGO 12/01/01; JE 103A; CII 2.1 nr. 97a.

103

**

Quinque sententiae septem sapientium ad dexteram epigrammatis inscriptae in lapide Ai Khanoum invento = Sosiadis sent. 143–7 ap. Stob. 3.1.173 (t. 3, 126 Hense). παῖς ὢν κόσμιος γίνου, ἡβῶν ἐγκρατής, μέσος δίκαιος, πρεσβύτης εὔβουλος, τελευτῶν ἄλυπος. Robert 1968/1989; SGO 12/01/01; JE 103B; CII 2.1 nr. 97b.

5

Text and Translation

225

101D

Mantissa of Proverbs 1.43 (CPG 2.750–1)

69b W

Know thyself: the dictum is from Bias; and it is taken as a saying, as Theophrastus attests in On Sayings. Most say the dictum is from Chilon, and Clearchus says it was spoken by the god to Chilon son of Damagetas from Lacedaemonia. The entries collected under the label Mantissa are marginal additions to the autograph codex of Apostolius (Parisinus 3059) c. 1465; cf. CPG 2.xi and 69C. Apostolius cites the maxim but no attribution (5.56: CPG 2.349), which could have prompted this supplement. Mention of Chilon’s patronym and homeland is also adventitious; cf. Sch. Plato, Timaeus 20d.

102

Ai Khanoum inscription: CII 2.1 no. 97a

**

These, the words of wisdom from ancient men, stand inscribed, spoken by men of high renown, in holiest Pytho. Whence Clearchus, crafting a sage compilation, had them Posted here to shine afar in Kineas’ precinct. Dedicatory epigram on the face of the base for a stele inscribed with maxims, including 104; for text and discussion see Subsidia and Verhasselt (in this volume), addressing controversial questions of attribution and chronology. The ancient Greek name for the site, at the confluence of the river Oxus and a tributary in eastern Bactria (on the northern border of Afghanistan), is unknown, possibly Alexandria on the Oxus. For Kineas, honored here as the settlement’s founder with burial in an urban sanctuary but otherwise unknown, see Robert 1968: 431–8.

103 **

Ai Khanoum inscription: CII 2.1 no. 97b As a child, be orderly; Maturing, self-controlled; Midway, righteous; Elderly, sound in counsel; Ending, free of sorrow. Inscribed to the right of 102 on the face of the same base; see Subsidia. A list of “Precepts of the seven wise men” attributed to Sosiades in Stobaeus 3.1.173 concludes with the same sequence of five maxims (nos. 143–7), as do “the Inscriptions at Delphi” transcribed in the Rehdiger codex; see Verhasselt (in this volume).

226

104

**

Clearchus of Soli

Duo sententiae septem sapientium in fragmento lapidis Ai Khanoum inventi = Sosiadis sent. 47–8 (ap. Stob. 3.1.173 (t. 3, 126 Hense). ε[ὐλόγει πάντας] φιλόσοφ[ος γίνου Robert 1968/1989; SGO 12/01/01; CII 2.1 nr. 97c Omnia suppl. Robert.

Naturalis historia Περὶ θινῶν (105) 105

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 8.35 345d–e (BT t. 3A, 28.28– 29.3 Olson)

98 W

Οὐκ ἀγνοῶ δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἰχθυοφάγους παῖδας, ὧν Κλέαρχος μνημονεύει ἐν τῷ Περὶ θινῶν, φάσκων Ψαμμήτιχον τὸν Αἰγυπτίων βασιλέα παῖδας θρέψαι ἰχθυοφάγους, τὰς πηγὰς τοῦ Νείλου βουλόμενον εὑρεῖν· καὶ ἄλλους δὲ ἀδίψους ἀσκῆσαι τοὺς ἐρευνησομένους τὰς ἐν Λιβύῃ ψάμμους, ὧν ὀλίγοι διεσώθησαν.

Περὶ τῶν ἐνύδρων (106) 106A

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 8.5 332b–e (BT t. 3A, 3.15–4.8 Olson)

101 W

Οὐκ ἔλαθεν δέ με οὐδὲ Κλέαρχος ὁ ἀπὸ τοῦ Περιπάτου ὅσ’ εἴρηκε καὶ περὶ τοῦ ἐξωκοίτου καλουμένου ἰχθύος ἐν τῷ ἐπιγραφομένῳ Περὶ τῶν ἐνύδρων. εἴρηκε γάρ—κρατεῖν δ’ οἶμαι καὶ τῆς λέξεως οὕτως ἐχούσης ὁ ἐξώκοιτος ἰχθύς, ὃν ἔνιοι

5

Text and Translation

104 **

227

Ai Khanoum inscription: CII 2.1 no. 97c S[peak well of everyone.] [Become] a philosopher. Inscribed on a fragment of the stele that stood on the base inscribed with 102– 3, found beside the base; see Subsidia. Supplements are based on parallels in the list in Stobaeus 3.1.173 (Sosiades nos. 47–8) following Robert 1968: 430– 1; see Verhasselt (in this volume) for alternatives.

Natural History On Dunes (105) 105

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 8.35 345d–e

98 W

And I’m not unaware of the fish-eating slaves, whom Clearchus mentions in On Dunes, saying that Psammetichus the king of Egypt raised some slaves as fish-eaters in his desire to find the sources of the Nile; and others he trained to go thirsty so they could explore the sands in Libya, but few of them survived. In a disquisition on seafood (330c–47c), including 106A, 109, 72, 62. For the title, which encompasses shores, sandbanks, and desert wasteland, cf. Wehrli 1969: 80. For interest of Psammetichus I (664–610) in the source of the Nile, cf. Hdt. 2.28; for the Egyptian “fish-eaters” from Elephantine, similarly dispatched to Ethiopia by Cambyses in the 520s, Hdt. 3.20–4, Strabo 16.4.4.; cf. Marchiori 2000. For “dunes” in the Libyan desert, Hdt. 3.26, Apollonius, Arg. 4.1384, Callimachus fr. 602.

On Aquatic Animals (106) 106A

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 8.5 332b–e

101 W

I haven’t overlooked either all that Clearchus from the Peripatos has said about the fish called the outsleeper in his work entitled On Aquatic Animals. For he says, and I guess I have his words by heart, which go like this: “The outsleeper fish, which some call adônis, got its name because it often takes its rest out

228

Clearchus of Soli

καλοῦσιν ἄδωνιν, τοὔνομα μὲν εἴληφε διὰ τὸ πολλάκις τὰς ἀναπαύσεις ἔξω τοῦ ὑγροῦ ποιεῖσθαι. ἐστὶ δὲ ὑπόπυρρος καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν βραγχίων ἑκατέρωθεν τοῦ σώματος μέχρι τῆς κέρκου μίαν ἔχει διηνεκῆ λευκὴν ῥάβδον. ἐστὶ δὲ στρογγύλος ἀλλ’ οὐ πλατὺς ὢν κατὰ τὸ μέγεθος ἴσος ἐστὶ τοῖς παραιγιαλίταις κεστρινίσκοις. οὗτοι δ’ εἰσὶν ὀκταδάκτυλοι μάλιστα τὸ μῆκος. τὸ δὲ σύνολον ὁμοιότατός ἐστι τῷ καλουμένῳ τράγῳ ἰχθυδίῳ πλὴν τοῦ ὑπὸ τὸν στόμαχον μέλανος, ὃ καλοῦσι τοῦ τράγου πώγωνα. ἐστὶ δ’ ὁ ἐξώκοιτος τῶν πετραίων καὶ βιοτεύει περὶ τοὺς πετρώδεις τόπους καὶ ὅταν ᾖ γαλήνη, συνεξορούσας τῷ κύματι κεῖται ἐπὶ τῶν πετριδίων πολὺν χρόνον ἀναπαυόμενος ἐν τῷ ξηρῷ καὶ μεταστρέφει μὲν ἑαυτὸν πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον. ὅταν δ’ ἱκανῶς αὐτῷ τὰ πρὸς τὴν ἀνάπαυσιν ἔχῃ, προσκυλινδεῖται τῷ ὑγρῷ, μέχρι οὗ ἂν πάλιν ὑπολαβὸν αὐτὸν τὸ κῦμα κατενέγκῃ μετὰ τῆς ἀναρροίας εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν. ὅταν δ’ ἐγρηγορὼς ἐν τῷ ξηρῷ τύχῃ, φυλάττεται τῶν ὀρνίθων τοὺς παρευδιαστὰς καλουμένους, ὧν ἐστι κηρύλος, τρόχιλος καὶ ὁ τῇ κρεκὶ προσεμφερὴς ἑλωριός· οὗτοι γὰρ ἐν ταῖς εὐδίαις παρὰ τὸ ξηρὸν νεμόμενοι πολλάκις αὐτῷ περιπίπτουσιν, οὓς ὅταν προΐδηται φεύγει πηδῶν καὶ ἀσπαίρων, ἕως ἂν εἰς τὸ ὕδωρ ἀποκυβιστήσῃ. 4 ὁ CE: om. A || 5 ἄδωνιν ACE, Hesych. α 1229 Latte (101Β): ἅδωνιν Kaibel || 9 ἐστὶ del. Olson || 21 παρευδιαστὰς vir doctus ap. Dalec.: παρευδιστὰς ACE || 22 ἑλωριός sive ἐλωριός Tsantsanoglou 1984, 54–5 conl. Phot. Lex., s.v. ἐλωρεύς· ὁ ἑρῳδιός (ε 678, t. 2, 68 Theodoridis): ἑλώριος CE: ελωριος A: ἑρῳδιός Wil., “unnecessary” Tsantsanoglou 54 || 25 ἀποκυβιστήσῃ CE (post Casaub. et Schweigh., Animadv. t. 4, 491, def. Tsantsanoglou 138 conl. Phot., Lex., s.v. ἀποκυβιστᾶν [α 2533, t. 1, 234 Theodoridis]): ἀποκυμβήσῃ A: ἀποκολυμβήσῃ Rees 1956, 199.

106B

Hesychius Alexandrinus, Lexicon, s.v. ἄδωνις (α 1229, t. 1, 58 Cunningham)

**

Ἄδωνις· ἰχθὺς θαλάσσιος, οὗ μνημονεύει Κλέαρχος.

5

10

15

20

25

Text and Translation

229

of the water. It is reddish, with a single continuous white stripe on both sides of its body from the gills to the tail. It is round but not wide, equal in size to the little grey mullets that swim by the shore, which are eight fingers long at most. Overall it is most like the little fish called the goat, except for the dark patch under its throat, which people call the goat’s beard. The outsleeper is a kind of rock fish and lives in rocky places, and when the water is calm, it jumps out with the waves and lies on the rocks, resting for a long time on dry land; it turns itself toward the sun, and then when it has had enough rest, it rolls over into the water until the waves catch it again and the eddies carry it back to the sea. When it is awake on land, it watches out for the so-called fair-weather birds, including the kêrylos, the plover, and the kind of heron that is just like the krex; for since these birds frequent the shore in fair weather, they often go after it, so whenever it sees them first, it tries to get way, leaping and puffing until it tumbles back into the water. In a catalogue of exotic fish (331c–32f, including 109) that cites three other amphibious fish from Theophr. On Fish (sc. on dry land) 7–8 (331c) and then 1 (332b); for the wider context, see 105. For the “outsleeper” or adônis, cf. Theophr. On Fish 1, and see Subsidia for Aelian, NA 9.36 and Oppian, Halieutica 1.155–66; for discussion, see Hellmann (in this volume). The title, attested only here, may be a variant for the one cited in 102; such variants are common in Athenaeus, cf. Theophr. frs. 350 no. 8a–d and 384 nos. 1–2. For related work by Theophrastus, see Sharples 1992, Sharples 1995: 41–5; cf. Aristotle frs. 294–333. The kêrylos has plausibly been identified as a kingfisher, the krex as the blackwinged stilt; see Arnott 2007: 93–4 and 120.

106B

Hesychius of Alexandria, Lexicon, under adônis (α 1229)

**

adônis: a marine fish, which Clearchus mentions. The first of four glosses, ending with the proper name Adonis; cf. 69A–C. For the fish’s name, see Aelian, NA 9.36, deriving it from the fate of the divine Adonis, who emerges from the underworld annually to rejoin Aphrodite.

230

Clearchus of Soli

Περὶ τῶν ἐν τῷ ὑγρῷ (107–109) 107

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 7.103 317b–d (BT t. 2, 197.27– 198.19 Kaibel)

102 W

Περὶ δὲ Τροιζῆνα τὸ παλαιόν, φησὶν ὁ αὐτὸς Κλέαρχος, οὔτε τὸν ἱερὸν καλούμενον πουλύπουν οὔτε τὸν κωπηλάτην {πουλύπουν} νόμιμον ἦν θηρεύειν, ἀλλ’ ἀπεῖπον τούτων τε καὶ τῆς θαλαττίας χελώνης μὴ ἅπτεσθαι. ὁ δὲ πουλύπους ἐστὶ συντηκτικὸς καὶ λίαν ἀνόητος· πρὸς γὰρ τὴν χεῖρα τῶν διωκόντων βαδίζει καὶ διωκόμενος ἔστιν ὅτε οὐχ ὑποχωρεῖ. συντήκονται δ’ αὐτῶν αἱ θήλειαι μετὰ τὸν τόκον καὶ παρίενται, διὸ καὶ ῥᾳδίως ἁλίσκονται. ἑωράθησαν δέ ποτε καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ ξηρὸν ἐξιόντες, μάλιστα δὲ πρὸς τὰ τραχέα τῶν χωρίων, φεύγουσι γὰρ τὰ λεῖα. καὶ χαίρουσι δὲ τῶν φυτῶν {καὶ} ταῖς ἐλαίαις καὶ πολλάκις εὑρίσκονται ταῖς πλεκτάναις περιειληφότες τὸ στέλεχος. ἐφωράθησαν δὲ καὶ συκέαις προσπεφυκυίαις τῇ θαλάσσῃ προσπλεκόμενοι καὶ τῶν σύκων ἐσθίοντες, ὥς φησι Κλέαρχος ἐν τῷ Περὶ τῶν ἐν τῷ ὑγρῷ. ἐστὶ δὲ δεῖγμα τοῦ ἥδεσθαι αὐτοὺς τῇ ἐλαίᾳ καὶ τοῦτο. ἐάν τις κλάδον τοῦ φυτοῦ τούτου καθῇ εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν, καθ’ ἥν εἰσιν πολύποδες καὶ μικρὸν ἐπίσχῃ, ἀπονητὶ ἀνέλκει τῷ κλάδῳ περιπλεκομένους ὅσους ἐθέλει. 1 τροιζῆνα CE: τροίζηνα A || 2 πουλύπουν A: πολύπουν CE || 3 πουλύπουν A: πολύπουν CE: tamquam ex glossemate expu. Kaibel || 4 πουλύπους] πολύπους ACE || 8 ἑωράθησαν ACE: ἐφωράθησαν Casaub. || 10 καὶ om. CE, del. Kaibel || 14 ἐν τῷ Περὶ τῶν ἐν τῷ ὑγρῷ A, om. CE.

108

Aelianus, De natura animalium 12.31 (BT t. 1, 300.3–6 García Valdés, Llera Fueyo, Rodríguez-Noriega Guillén)

103 W

Λέγει δὲ Κλέαρχος ὁ ἐκ τοῦ Περιπάτου μόνους Πελοποννησίων Ἀργείους ὄφιν μὴ ἀποκτείνειν. ἐν δὲ ταῖς ἡμέραις, ἃς καλοῦσιν Ἀρνηίδας οἱ αὐτοί, ἐὰν κύων εἰς τὴν ἀγορὰν παραβάλῃ, ἀναιροῦσιν αὐτόν.

5

10

15

Text and Translation

231

On Animals in Water (107–109) 107

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 7.103 317b–d

102 W

Around Troezen long ago, says the same Clearchus, it was forbidden to catch what was called the sacred octopus or the nautilus, and they prohibited touching either them or the turtle. The octopus is prone to colliquescence and is extremely stupid; it proceeds right into the hands of those who are hunting for it, and sometimes it does not retreat when chased. The females, after they spawn, colliquesce and go slack, which is why they are easily caught. They were sometimes seen coming out onto dry land, especially rough ground, since they avoid anything smooth. They also like olive trees and are often found clinging to the base of one with their tentacles. They were also observed wrapped around fig trees that grow by the sea and eating the figs, as Clearchus says in On Animals in Water. Something that shows they like the olive is this: if someone lowers an olive branch into the sea where there are octopi, and holds it there a little, then without any effort he catches as many as he wants wrapped around the branch. In a discussion of the octopus (316a–18f), directly following 70, which draws on lost works of both Aristotle (frs. 305–6, 334–5) and Theophrastus (fr. 365B and On Fish 4–5). Much of the behavior described here echoes Arist. HA 8(9).37 622a2–34: stupidity, caught by hand, colliquescence, post partum females, emerging onto land, dislike for smooth surfaces; see Hellmann (in this volume). The title may be an alternate form of the one cited in 106A; for local prohibitions, cf. 108, and for turtles, 72. For “colliquescence” or deliquescence (literally “melting together”), a medical term for the process and result of flesh breaking down under exertion, see Roselli 2002.

108

Aelian, On Animals 12.34

103 W

Clearchus from the Peripatos says that the people of Argos alone among those in the Peloponnese will not kill a snake; but on the days which they call “Lambsons,” if a dog enters the marketplace, they kill it.

232

Clearchus of Soli 1 Πελοποννησίων] πελοπονη- VL: πελλοποννη- P || 3 κύων] ἦν V || εἰς] ἐς β || παραβάλῃ] παραβάλλῃ PA: παραβάλοι V.

109

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 8.6 332e–f (BT t. 2, 231.21–7 Kaibel)

104 W

Ἔτι ὁ αὐτὸς Κλέαρχος καὶ ταῦτά φησι, σαφέστερον τοῦ Κυρηναίου Φιλοστεφάνου, οὗ πρότερον ἐμνήσθην· ἐπεί τινες τῶν ἰχθύων οὐκ ἔχοντες βρόγχον φθέγγονται. τοιοῦτοι δ’ εἰσὶν οἱ περὶ Κλείτορα τῆς Ἀρκαδίας ἐν τῷ Λάδωνι καλουμένῳ ποταμῷ. φθέγγονται γὰρ καὶ πολὺν ἦχον ἀποτελοῦσιν.

5

2 πρότερον] Athen. 8.2, 331d–e.

Περὶ νάρκης (110) 110

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 7.95 314b–c (BT t. 2, 191.18–27 Kaibel)

105 W

Θεόφραστος δ᾿ ἐν τῷ Περὶ τῶν φωλευόντων διὰ τὸ ψῦχός φησι τὴν νάρκην κατὰ γῆς δύεσθαι. ἐν δὲ τῷ Περὶ τῶν δακέτων καὶ βλητικῶν διαπέμπεσθαί φησι τὴν νάρκην τὴν ἀφ’ αὑτῆς δύναμιν καὶ διὰ τῶν ξύλων καὶ διὰ τῶν τριοδόντων, ποιοῦσαν ναρκᾶν τοὺς ἐν χεροῖν ἔχοντας. εἴρηκε δὲ τὴν αἰτίαν Κλέαρχος

5

Text and Translation

233

In a series of local and ethnic customs involving animals, the only one for which Aelian names an authority; Wehrli 1969: 38 attributes only the first report to Clearchus (cf. 107), and Aelian is fond of juxtaposing contrasting data. For the sanctity of snakes, cf. 122. “Lambsons” (Arneïdae) names the date for annual rites in the “Lamb” month of Arneios honoring a son of Apollo named Linus, raised by a shepherd and killed by his dogs; for the aetiology, see Conon (FGrHist 26) fr. 1.19, Pausanias 1.43.7–8, FGE 1456–61 with Page 1981: 388–91, and Harder 2012: 2.255–77 on Callimachus, Aetia frs. 25e–31b, drawn from local Argive histories (FGrHist 305 fr. 8); cf. Pausanias 2.24.1 for related monthly rites, and Hdt. 2.79 with Karanika 2014: 127–32 for association with Maneros (cf. 13).

109

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 8.6 332e–f

104 W

Further, the same Clearchus also says this, and more clearly than Philostephanus of Cyrene, whom I mentioned earlier [sc. 331d]: since some fish utter sounds despite having no windpipe. Those in the River Ladon around Cleitor in Arcadia are like that, for they utter sounds and make much noise. In a list of exotic fish (331c–32f), including 106A; for the wider context, cf. 105; for the proverbial muteness of fish, cf. 74. The fish around Cleitor were famous; cf. 331d–e, controverting Aristotle fr. 300 by citing both Philostephanus (fr. 9 Badino) for the “speckle-fish” (ποικιλίας) in “the Aroanius river” (a tributary of the Ladon) sounding like a thrush, and the third-century geographer Mnaseas of Patras (fr. 14 Cappelletto) for unnamed fish in “the Cleitor river” (a tributary of the Aroanius); cf. Pausanias 8.21.2 for “speckle-fish” in the Aroanius river; Pliny, NH 7.90 conflates 106A and 109; cf. Thompson 1947: 64, 203–4, and 239, citing an explanation in Suda π 1826 (s.v. πνεύμων) distinct from Aristotle’s in HA 4.9 535b14–25.

On the Torpedo Fish (110) 110

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 7.95 314b–c

105 W

Theophrastus in On Animals that Hibernate says the torpedo fish burrows under the dirt because of cold; and in On Animals that Bite or Sting he says the torpedo fish transmits the power it emits through both wooden poles and forked spears, making anyone who is holding one in their hands go numb. Clearchus of Soloi gives the explanation in On the Torpedo Fish, which I have forgotten because it is so long, so I refer you to his book.

234

Clearchus of Soli

ὁ Σολεὺς ἐν τῷ Περὶ νάρκης, ἅπερ μακρότερα ὄντα ἐπιλέλησμαι, ὑμᾶς δὲ ἐπὶ τὸ σύγγραμμα ἀναπέμπω. 1 Theophrastus fr. 369 FHS&G. || 2 δακέτων A: δακετῶν CE.

Περὶ σκελετῶν (111–114) 111A

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 9.59 399b (BT t. 3A, 129.19–21 Olson) 106a W Κλέαρχος δ’ ἐν δευτέρῳ Περὶ σκελετῶν οὕτως φησί· σάρκες μυωταὶ καθ’ ἑκάτερον μέρος (sc. τῆς ῥάχεως), ἃς οἱ μὲν ψύας, οἱ δὲ ἀλώπεκας, οἱ δὲ νευρομήτρας καλοῦσι. 3 νευρομήτρας ACE: νεφρομήτρας vel νεφρομήτορας Casaub. conl. Suda, s.v. ψόα (ψ 118, LG 1.4, 848.4 Adler) ἐν ταύταις ἔγκεινται οἱ νεφροί.

111B

Rufus Ephesius, De corporis humani appellationibus 188–92 (159.11–160.2–5 Daremberg–Ruelle)

Οἱ δὲ μύες οἱ ἔνδοθεν τῆς ὀσφύος, ψόαι, οἵπερ καὶ μόνοι τῆς ἄλλης ῥάχεως τῇ ὀσφύι παραπεφύκασιν. ἄλλοι δὲ νευρομήτρας καλοῦσιν· ἄλλοι δὲ ἀλώπεκας. τοῦτο ἄρα ἦν καὶ τὸ ἐν ταῖς Κνιδίαις γνώμαις γεγραμμένον· ἢν δὲ νεφρῖτις ἔχῃ, σημεῖα τάδε· ἐὰν οὐρῇ παχύ, πυῶδες, καὶ ὀδύναι ἔχουσιν ἔς τε τὴν ὀσφὺν καὶ τοὺς κενεῶνας, καὶ τοὺς βουβῶνας, καὶ τὸ ἐπίσειον, τοτὲ δὲ καὶ ἐς τὰς ἀλώπεκας. ᾧ καὶ δῆλον ὅτι χρήσιμον τὰ τοιαῦτα εἰδέναι εἰς διάγνωσιν τῶν οὕτως ὠνομασμένων. 106b W Κλέαρχος δὲ τοὺς ἔξω κατὰ τῆς ῥάχεως μύας ψόας καὶ νευρομήτρας καὶ ἀλώπεκάς φησι καλεῖσθαι, οὐκ ὀρθῶς. 1–3 (ἀλώπεκας) Sent. Cnid. test. 14 Grensemann.

5

10

Text and Translation

235

In a sequence on the torpedo fish (314a–e), sandwiched between Theophrastus fr. 369 and Aristotle fr. 324 (paraphrasing HA 8(9).37 620b19–23 with 5.5. 540b17–19). For ancient accounts of the torpedo fish (νάρκη, literally “numbing fish”), see Thompson 1947: 169–71. The book title, attested only here, may be only descriptive, or an alternate title used by Athenaeus or an intermediary for part of the work cited in 106A or 107; cf. Theophr. fr. 384 no. 1k–l, 2f–g, 3–4, with Hellmann (in this volume).

On Skeletons (111–114) 111A

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 9.59 399b

106a W

Clearchus in On Skeletons 2 says the following: “the flesh is muscular around both parts [sc. of the spine], which some call loins, others call foxes, and others womb-sinews.” In an excursus on terms for loins and adjoining parts (399a–d) in a discussion of game and other kinds of meat; the sequel cites Hippocrates and a pair of fanciful etymologies. For the title cf. Galen, Oss. 2.734 K (in the singular); if authentic, it is the earliest attested use of the word in this sense, unless Clearchus used it in its root sense of “dried out” or “withered” (hence “bony”), as in Posidippus, Epigr. 95, for a Ptolemaic doctor from Olynthus; cf. Bing 2002, Diog. Laert. 5.72.

111B

Rufus of Ephesus, On Terms for the Human Body 188–92

The muscles inside the lumbar region are the loins, which are the only ones along the lower spine beside the lumbar region; others call them womb-sinews, and others foxes. That then was also written in the Cnidian Insights: “These are signs if the patient has kidney disease: if the urine is thick like pus, and if there is pain in the lumbar region, the flanks, the groin, and the pubic area, and then also in the foxes. Which makes it clear that knowing these sorts of things is useful for diagnosing the parts bearing those names.” 106b W Cle{it}archus is not correct when he says the muscles outside the spine are called loins, womb-sinews, and foxes.

236

Clearchus of Soli 4 ἢν Jouanna: ἐὰν codd. || 5 ἐὰν οὐρῇ codd.: οὐρεῖ Jouanna, post Ermerins, Hipp. Vict., Leiden 1842, 101 (οὐρέει) || ἔχωσιν Daremberg || 9 Κλέαρχος Casaub. ex Polluce (= 111C): κλείταρχος codd. (servat Daremberg. Cf. 123).

111C

Pollux, Onomasticon 2.185 (LG t. 9.1, 140.8–10 Bethe)

107 W

Οἱ δὲ ἔνδοθεν κατὰ τὴν ὀσφῦν μύες καλοῦνται ψόαι καὶ νευρομῆτραι καὶ ἀλώπεκες. Κλέαρχος δὲ οὕτως ὀνομάζει τοὺς ἔξωθεν κατὰ τῆς ῥάχεως μῦς. 1 ψόαι] ψοιαί Π: φύες A || 2–3 ὁ δὲ κλ. τοὺς ἔξωθεν τῆς ῥ. μῦς οὕτως ὀνομ. BC || 3 ἔξωθεν] ἔξω Rufus Eph.

112

Pollux, Onomasticon 2.146 (LG t. 9.1, 128.10–11 Bethe)

108 W

Τῆς μὲν οὖν ὅλης χειρὸς ὀστᾶ ἓξ καὶ εἴκοσιν εἶναί φησιν ὁ Σολεὺς Κλέαρχος, εἷς τῶν Ἀριστοτέλους μαθητῶν.

113A

Scholia (TW) in Platonis Hippiam minorem 368c (265 Cufalo, nr. 3a)

109 W

Λέγουσι δὲ τὴν λάγυνον λήκυθον καὶ τὸ μεταξὺ τοῦ λαυκανίου καὶ αὐχένος ἠχῶδες, ὥς φησι Κλέαρχος. 1 τοῦ λαυκανίου TWac: τῆς λαυκανίας Wpc: τοῦ λαυκαιου Hesych. cod. H.

Text and Translation

237

In a handbook of anatomical terms by Rufus, a prominent physician and medical authority in the later first century CE. Citation is sparse, mainly medical authorities (Hippocrates 7 times, Herophilus 6, Praxagoras 4) but also Homer (4 times) and philosophers: Aristotle (twice) and Clearchus, Empedocles, Epicharmus, Zeno (of Citium) once each. For Cleitarchus of Aegina (firstcentury BCE?), author of Glosses, see Matthaios 2005: 53–8; cf. 124–5.

111C

Pollux, Terminology 2.185

107 W

The internal lumbar muscles are called loins, womb-sinews, and foxes. But Clearchus applies those names to the external muscles along the spine. Opening a section on legs (2.185–200) in Book 2 on terms for parts of the human body in the topically organized thesaurus of Julius Pollux (c. 170 CE); his dedication to Commodus in 2.1 names “the habitués of the Peripatos” and physicians as his main sources.

112

Pollux, Terminology 2.146

108 W

Now the whole hand has twenty-six bones, says Clearchus of Soloi, one of Aristotle’s students. From a section on the hand (2.143–7); cf. 111C. For the hand, cf. Arist. HA 1.15 493b27–33, PA 4.10 687a8–b25; the total of 26 presumably counts two (outer?) carpal bones as one.

113A

Scholia on Plato, Hippias minor 368c

109 W

They say a flask is the flagon, also the resonant part between the throat and neck, as Clearchus says. Comment on one of several items Socrates says the sophist Hippias of Elis made for himself. The distinctive narrow neck of “flasks” or lekythoi either reflects or explains the word’s use for a part of the neck, apparently the larynx or Adam’s apple; cf. Hesychius, Lex. λ 857 s.v. λήκυθος, reversing the order of glosses. The “throat” (λαυκανίη), which some followed Iliad 22.325 in locating at the base of the neck at the jugular notch, was standardly located at the top below the chin, as here; cf. Rufus, Corp. 48 and 68, Pollux 2.97–8 and 206.

238

Clearchus of Soli

113B

Scholia (Pex) in Platonis Hippiam minorem 368c (265 Cufalo, nr. 3b)

**

Λέγουσι δὲ τὴν λάγυνον λήκυθον καὶ τὸ μεταξὺ τοῦ λαυκανίου καὶ αὐχένος ἠχῶδες

114

Pollux, Onomasticon 2.164 (LG t. 9.1, 133.17–18 Bethe)

110 W

Μόνα δὲ ἐν στήθεσιν ἔχει μαστοὺς ἄνθρωπος καὶ νυκτερὶς καὶ ἐλέφας. καὶ οὕτω μὲν ὁ Σολεύς. 1 μόνα] μόνον Π.

Περὶ †οἴνων† (115) 115

Photius, Lexicon, s.v. νεοττός (ν 152, t. 3, 19 Theodoridis) = Suda, s.v. νεοττός (ν 214, LG 1.3, 451.18–30 Adler)

76b W

Νεοττός· ἡ τοῦ ᾠοῦ λέκιθος, καὶ τὸ πυρρόν. Μένανδρος Ἀνδρίᾳ καὶ τεττάρων ᾠῶν μετὰ τοῦτο, φιλτάτη, τὸ νεοττίον. Κλέαρχος ἐν τῷ Περὶ †οἴνων† συγγράμματί φησιν· ᾧ διαδίδοται ἡ ἀρχὴ ὑπὸ τὸν ὑμένα λευκόν· ἐν τούτῳ γὰρ τὸ σπέρμα καὶ οὐκ ἐν τῷ καλουμένῳ νεοττῷ. διεψεύσθησαν γὰρ οἱ πρῶτοι τοῦτο φήσαντες· καὶ ἔστι τὸ ὠχρὸν περίττωμα τοῦ σπέρματος. ὅτι δὲ τὸ ὠχρὸν νεοττὸν ἔλεγον, μαρτυρεῖ καὶ Χρύσιππος ἐν τῷ Περὶ χρησμῶν· ὄναρ γάρ τινά φασιν θεασάμενον ἐκ τῆς κλίνης αὐτοῦ κρέμασθαι ᾠά, προσαναθέσθαι ὀνειροκρίτῃ· τὸν δὲ εἰπεῖν· “ὀρύττων θησαυρὸν εὑρήσεις κατὰ τὸν τόπον ἐκεῖνον”. εὑρόντα δὲ σταμνίον ἐν ᾧ ἀργύριον ἦν καὶ χρυσίον, ἐνεγκεῖν τι τοῦ ἀργυρίου τῷ μάντει· τὸν δὲ μάντιν εἰπεῖν “τοῦ δὲ νεοττοῦ οὐδέν μοι δίδως;” καὶ Δίφιλος κέχρηται τῇ λέξει ᾠῶν δ’ ἐν αὐτῇ διέτρεχεν νεοττία.

5

10

15

Text and Translation

239

113B

Scholia on Plato, Hippias minor 368c

**

They say a flask is the flagon, also the resonant part between the throat and neck.

114

Pollux, Terminology 2.164

110 W

The only animals that have breasts on the chest are humans, bats, and elephants. So says the one from Soloi. From a section on the human torso (2.162–84); cf. 111C. For humans and elephants, cf. Arist. HA 2.1 497b32–98a2; for bats, Aristophanes Byz., Epitome of On Animals 2.439.

On Wines [?] (115) 115

Photius, Lexicon, under “neottos” (n 152) = Suda, under “neottos” (n 214)

76b W

Neottos: the kernel of an egg, and the yellow; Menander in Woman of Andros: and after that, from four eggs, my dearest, the yolklet. Clearchus in his work On Wines says: to which the principle [of life] distributes the white under the membrane; for that, and not what is called the yolk, contains the seed; for the first ones to say it is the yolk were mistaken; and the yellow is a residue of the seed. That they used to call the yellow “yolk” Chrysippus attests in On Oracles; for they say someone dreamt he saw some eggs hanging from his bed and consulted an interpreter of dreams, who said, “If you dig in that spot, you will find a treasure.” When he found a little wine-pot containing silver and gold, he took some of the silver to the seer; and the seer said, “Are you giving me none of the yolk?” Diphilus also uses the term: The yolklets of eggs were running across it there.

240

Clearchus of Soli 1 Menander fr. 40 K.–A. || 9 Chrysippus SVF II F 1202. Cf. Cic., De div. 2.134 (SVF II F 1201) defert ad coniectorem quidam somniasse se ovum pendere ex fascea lecti cui cubicularis (est hoc in Chrysippi libro somnium); respondit coniector thesaurum defossum esse sub lecto; fodit, invenit auri aliquantum, idque circundatum argento; misit coniectori quantulum visum est de argento. tum ille “nihilne” inquit “de vitello”, id enim ei ex ovo videbatur aurum declarasse, reliquum argentum || 14 Diphilus fr. 120 K.–A. 1 λέκιθος zpc, Sud., Eust.: λέκηθος g, zac || 2–3 sic versus digessit Meineke 1823, 19 || 3 φιλτάτη] φίλταται Erbse || τὸ νεοττίον Meineke: τὸν νεοττόν Phot., Sud. codd. praeter V (τῶν νεοττῶν): τὸ νεοττόν Sud. ed. princ. Chalcondylis a. 1499 || τὸν νεοττόν Thierfelder ap. Erbse et Koerte 1959, 292 || 4 οἴνων Phot., Sud.: θινῶν Athen. 8.35 345e (= 105) “recte” Theodoridis: ᾠῶν “temere” (Adler) Toup 1790, t. 1, 415 : παροιμιῶν L.–Schn. 2, 542 “verum videtur”; “suspicor” Wehrli || ᾧ g zac Sud. cod. E: ὃ Sud. codd. AGFMV (unde zpc) ᾠῷ Dobree 1833, 45, , ὃ Erbse || 5 ἡ ἀρχὴ Phot.: ἀρχὴ Sud. || τὸ add. Dobree || λευκὸν Erbse || 7 pro οἱ πρῶτοι coni. οἱ πρὸ τοῦ vel πρότερον Dobree || 8 fort. ὠχρὸν Erbse || 10 κρέμασθαι zpc: κρέμμασθαι g: κρεμᾶσθαι zac || 16 ᾠῶν Sud.: ὠὸν Phot. || διέτρεχεν Sud.: διέτρεχε Phot. || νεοττία g zac: νεοττιά zpc: νεόττια Sud.

Text and Translation

241

The entry for a word normally used for “chick” (gestating or hatched) and by extension for the “yolk” of an egg, with a diminutive νεοττίον for both “chicklet” and “yolklet”; cf. Arist. HA 6.10 565a3 similarly flagging the idiom (καλούμενος). The extension reflects a popular belief, which Clearchus corrects in line with Aristotle’s embryology in HA 6.3, esp. 561a24–6, and GA 3.1–2, esp. 751b4–11, though he refers to “semen” (γονή) rather than “seed” and describes the yolk as “food” for the embryo. GA 3.2 also singles out Alcmaeon of Croton (A16 DK) for the belief here ascribed to “the first ones”: that egg-white, not yolk, must be what feeds “chicks” because it resembles milk (752b23–8); cf. Anaxagoras fr. 22 (Ath. 2.50 57d), Hippoc. Nature of the Child 30.8 (536 L). The title is attributed to Clearchus only here, and absent any obvious connection to either eggs or chickens, it has elicited proposals to emend: On Eggs (cf. 33A), On Dunes (cf. 105), or On Proverbs (cf. 67–76); cf. Dorandi 2006b: 169. But related work is well attested for several associates: On Wine and Olive Oil by Theophrastus (fr. 384 no. 2f with Sharples 1995: 132–3); On Drunkenness for Theophrastus (fr. 436 no. 31 with Fortenbaugh 2011: 222– 6), Aristotle (frs. 100–11), Chamaeleon (frs. 10–14), Hieronymus (frs. 28–9); and Problems 3 “On Wine-drinking and Drunkenness” (with Fortenbaugh 2015). GA 3.2 also supplies a plausible link in an analogy it draws to explain how overheating “ruins” gestation in eggs: just as heat turns wine “sour” or vinegary by “stirring up its sediment” to make it “turbid,” so in excess it makes eggs turbid by dissolving the earthy yolk so that it mixes with the watery albumen (753a17–b12); cf. Theophr. frs. 426–7. The key concept of “concoction” (πέψις) underlies Aristotle’s accounts of both processes; see Lloyd 1996. If authentic, the plural title would suit either sympotic (cf. Ath. 2.13 40f) or medical topics (cf. Dioscorides, MM 5 arg., Oribasius, CM 5.6). For Menander’s play (here fr. 40), cf. Terence, Andria 8–23; both he and Diphilus (fr. 120) were contemporaries of Clearchus but most likely cited alongside him here as an independent witness for the secondary meaning of the two words; cf. Wehrli 1969: 72. For “distributes,” alternatively read ὃ διαδίδοται ἀρχὴ ὑπὸ τὸν ὑμένα λευκὸν : “which is distributed as principle under the membrane when white”; cf. GA 3.1 751b4–7, 752a1–4 for the “vital heat” as the “principle” of development supplied by the male sperm. For Chrysippus (fr. 2.1202), cf. Cicero, Div. 2.134, citing his “book on dreams” as Book 2 of the same work from which Photius cites Book 1 “on oracles” (cf. Div. 1.6). Both the dream and the seer’s rejoinder are riddling: yolk and white for gold and silver; cf. 95–6. The rejoinder may have become proverbial; cf. Apostolius, Prov. 12.7 (CPG 2.542–3), though his severely condensed entry (plainly based on Photius) does not favor assigning 115 to On Sayings as Wehrli 1969: 72 suggests.

242

Clearchus of Soli

FRAGMENTA INCERTORUM LIBRORUM (116–123) 116

97 W

Plutarchus, De facie in orbe lunae 2–4 920C–921E (BT t. 5.3, 32.1–35.11 Hubert–Pohlenz–Drexler; LCL t. 12, 36–47 Cherniss) (920C) Ὁρᾷς γὰρ εὐθὺς ὡς ἄτοπος ὁ λέγων τὸ φαινόμενον εἶδος ἐν τῇ σελήνῃ πάθος εἶναι τῆς ὄψεως, ὑπεικούσης τῇ λαμπρότητι δι’ ἀσθένειαν, ὃ καλοῦμεν, οὐ συνορῶν ὅτι πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον ἔδει τοῦτο γίνεσθαι μᾶλλον ὀξὺν ἀπαντῶντα καὶ πλήκτην (ὥς που καὶ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τὴν ἑκατέρων ἀποδίδωσιν οὐκ ἀηδῶς διαφοράν Ἥλιος ὀξυβελὴς ἠδ’ ἱλάειρα σελήνη, (D) τὸ ἐπαγωγὸν αὐτῆς καὶ ἱλαρὸν καὶ ἄλυπον οὕτως προσαγορεύσας), ἔπειτα λόγον ἀποδιδούς, καθ’ ὃν αἱ ἀμυδραὶ καὶ ἀσθενεῖς ὄψεις οὐδεμίαν διαφορὰν ἐν τῇ σελήνῃ μορφῆς ἐνορῶσιν, ἀλλὰ λεῖος αὐταῖς ἀντιλάμπει καὶ περίπλεως αὐτῆς ὁ κύκλος, οἱ δ᾽ ὀξὺ καὶ σφοδρὸν ὁρῶντες ἐξακριβοῦσι μᾶλλον καὶ διαστέλλουσιν ἐκτυπούμενα τὰ εἴδη τοῦ προσώπου καὶ τῆς διαφορᾶς ἅπτονται σαφέστερον· ἔδει γάρ, οἶμαι, τοὐναντίον, εἴπερ ἡττωμένου πά ὄμματος ἐποίει τὴν φαντασίαν, ὅπου τὸ πάσχον ἀσθενέστερον, εἶναι τὸ φαινόμενον. ἡ δ’ ἀνωμαλία καὶ παντάπασιν ἐλέγχει τὸν λόγον· οὐ γὰρ ἔστι (E) συνεχοῦς σκιᾶς καὶ συγκεχυμένης ὄψις, ἀλλ’ οὐ φαύλως ὑπογράφων ὁ Ἀγησιάναξ εἴρηκε πᾶσα μὲν ἥδε πέριξ πυρὶ λάμπεται, ἐν δ’ ἄρα μέσσῃ γλαυκότερον κυάνοιο φαείνεται ἠύτε κούρης ὄμμα καὶ ὑγρὰ μέτωπα· τὰ δὲ ῥέθει ἄντα ἔοικεν. ὄντως γὰρ ὑποδύεται περιιόντα τοῖς λαμπροῖς τὰ σκιερὰ καὶ πιέζει πάλιν ὑπ’ αὐτῶν καὶ ἀποκοπτόμενα, καὶ ὅλως πέπλεκται δι’ ἀλλήλων, γραφικὴν τὴν δια εἶναι τοῦ σχήματος. καὶ πρὸς Κλέαρχον, ὦ Ἀριστότελες, οὐκ ἀπιθάνως ἐδόκει λέγεσθαι τὸν ὑμέτερον· (F) ὑμέτερος γὰρ ἁνήρ, Ἀριστοτέλους τοῦ παλαιοῦ γεγονὼς συνήθης, εἰ καὶ πολλὰ τοῦ Περιπάτου παρέτρεψεν. ὑπολαβόντος δὲ τοῦ Ἀπολλωνίδου τὸν λόγον καὶ τίς ἦν ἡ δόξα τοῦ Κλεάρχου διαπυθομένου, παντὶ μᾶλλον, ἔφην, ἀγνοεῖν ἢ σοὶ προσῆκόν ἐστι λόγον ὥσπερ ἀφ’ ἑστίας τῆς γεωμετρίας ὁρμώμενον. λέγει γὰρ ἁνὴρ εἰκόνας ἐσοπτρικὰς εἶναι καὶ

5

10

15

20

25

30

Text and Translation

243

UNASSIGNED TEXTS (116–123) 116

97 W

Plutarch, On the Face in the Moon 2–4 920c–921e [2] “You see right away how bizarre it is for someone to say that the figure appearing in the moon is a reaction of our vision when it succumbs to the moon’s brightness because of its own weakness, a reaction we call . First, he fails to notice that we should have this reaction even more to the sun, since its light is sharp and striking, as Empedocles says somewhere too in a lovely rendering of the difference between the two: Sun of beams so sharp and gently gleaming Moon – describing thereby the moon’s allure as gentle and painless. Next, he [sc. the theory’s proponent] proposes an account according to which people who have dull or weak vision do not make out any different shapes in the moon and its circle instead shines back smooth and full for them, whereas those who have sharp and keen vision see more exactly, distinguishing the facial features delineated there and grasping the differentiation more clearly. For the opposite should happen, I think, if in fact the appearance were produced by a reaction in the eye when it is overcome: wherever the eye that reacts is weaker, the appearance should be . “The irregularity [of the features] actually refutes this account totally; for what we see is not a continuous, dense shadow. Rather, Agesianax depicts it well when he says: This one shines with fire all around, and in its middle Lighter than cyan blue it glows even as a maiden’s Eye and tender brows, and the rest all like her in aspect. For in fact the shadowy areas surround and insinuate themselves into the shining areas, pressing and back by them and cut off, all entirely entwined with one another the figure is de like a painting. “, Aristotle, not implausibly seemed to apply to your Clearchus too; and the man is one of yours, since he was an associate of the Aristotle long ago, even though he distorted many views of the Peripatos.”

244

Clearchus of Soli

εἴδωλα τῆς μεγάλης θαλάσσης (921A) ἐμφαινόμενα τῇ σελήνῃ τὸ καλούμενον πρόσωπον· ἥ τε γὰρ ὄψις ἀνακλωμένη πολλαχόθεν ἅπτεσθαι τῶν οὐ κατ’ εὐθυωρίαν ὁρωμένων πέφυκεν, ἥ τε πανσέληνος αὐτὴ πάντων ἐσόπτρων ὁμαλότητι καὶ στιλπνότητι κάλλιστόν ἐστι καὶ καθαρώτατον. ὥσπερ οὖν τὴν ἶ οἴεσθε ὑμεῖς ἀνακλωμένης ἐπὶ τὸν ἥλιον τῆς ὄψεως ἐνορᾶσθαι τῷ νέφει λαβόντι νοτερὰν ἡσυχῇ λειότητα καὶ ξιν, οὕτως ἐκεῖνος ἐνορᾶσθαι τῇ σελήνῃ τὴν ἔξω θάλασσαν, οὐκ ἐφ’ ἧς ἐστι χώρας, ἀλλὰ ὅθεν ἡ κλάσις ἐποίησε τῇ ὄψει τὴν ἐπαφὴν αὐτῆς καὶ τὴν ἀνταύγειαν. ὥς που πάλιν ὁ Ἀγησιάναξ εἴρηκεν (B) ἢ πόντου μέγα κῦμα καταντία κυμαίνοντος δείκελον ἰνδάλλοιτο πυριφλεγέθοντος ἐσόπτρου. ἡσθεὶς οὖν ὁ Ἀπολλωνίδης ὡς ἴδιον εἶπε καὶ καινὸν ὅλως τὸ σκευώρημα τῆς δόξης, τόλμαν δέ τινα καὶ μοῦσαν ἔχοντος ἀνδρός· ἀλλὰ πῆ τὸν ἔλεγχον αὐτῷ προσῆγε; πρῶτον μέν, εἶπον, ᾗ μία φύσις τῆς ἔξω θαλάσσης ἐστί, σύρρουν καὶ συνεχὲς πέλαγος, ἡ δ’ ἔμφασις οὐ μία τῶν ἐν τῇ σελήνῃ μελασμάτων, ἀλλ’ οἷον ἰσθμοὺς ἔχουσα, τοῦ λαμπροῦ διαιροῦντος καὶ διορίζοντος τὸ σκιερόν· ὅθεν ἑκάστου τόπου χωρισθέντος καὶ πέρας (C) ἴδιον ἔχοντος αἱ τῶν φωτεινῶν ἐπιβολαὶ τοῖς σκοτεινοῖς ὕψους εἰκόνα καὶ βάθους λαμβάνουσαι τὰς περὶ τὰ ὄμματα καὶ τὰ χείλη φαινομένας εἰκόνας ὁμοιότατα διετύπωσαν· ὥστ’ ἢ πλείονας ἔξω θαλάσσας ὑποληπτέον ἰσθμοῖς τισι καὶ ἠπείροις ἀπολαμβανομένας, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἄτοπον καὶ ψεῦδος, ἢ μιᾶς οὔσης οὐ πιθανὸν εἰκόνα διεσπασμένην οὕτως ἐμφαίνεσθαι. ἐκεῖνο μὲν γὰρ ἐρωτῶν ἀσφαλέστερόν ἐστιν ἢ ἀποφαίνεσθαι σοῦ παρόντος, εἰ τῆς οἰκουμένης εὖρος ἐχούσης καὶ μῆκος ἐνδέχεται πᾶσιν ὡσαύτως ἀπὸ τῆς σελήνης ὄψιν ἀνακλωμένην ἐπιθιγγάνειν τῆς θαλάσσης, καὶ τοῖς ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ μεγάλῃ (D) θαλάττῃ πλέουσι νὴ Δία καὶ οἰκοῦσιν, ὥσπερ Βρεττανοῖς, καὶ ταῦτα μηδὲ τῆς γῆς, ὥς φατε, πρὸς τὴν σφαῖραν τῆς σελήνης κέντρου λόγον ἐπεχούσης. τουτὶ μὲν οὖν, ἔφην, σὸν ἔργον ἐπισκοπεῖν, τὴν δὲ πρὸς τὴν σελήνην {ἢ} τῆς ὄψεως κλάσιν οὐκέτι σὸν οὐδ᾽ Ἱππάρχου· καίτοι γε φιλοπράγμ, ἀλλὰ πολλοῖς οὐκ ἀρέσκει φυσιολογῶν περὶ τῆς ὄψεως αὐτῆς, ὁμοιοπαθῆ κρᾶσιν ἴσχειν καὶ σύμπηξιν εἰκός ἐστι μᾶλλον ἢ πληγάς τινας καὶ ἀποπηδήσεις, οἵας ἔπλαττε τῶν ἀτόμων

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

Text and Translation

245

[3] Apollonides interrupted and asked what was the view Clearchus held. “You least of all,” I said, “should be unaware of a theory that springs as it were from geometry’s hearth. For the man [sc. Clearchus] claims that the so-called face is a set of mirror images and projections from the great sea that appear in the moon: for vision,1 as it is reflected from many sides, naturally makes contact with things not directly visible; and the full moon is itself in its uniformity and sheen the finest and clearest mirror of all. Just as you people hold, then, that the r, when vision is reflected at the sun, is seen in clouds that in a calm have acquired a moist smoothness and lidity, likewise that man held that the outer sea is seen in the moon, not the region directly below it, but the region from where the reflection made contact with our vision and so made it shine back, as again Agesianax says somewhere: Or a great wave on the sea as it waves around askant us Might resemble the look of a mirror blazing with wildfire.” [4] Well, Apollonides was delighted and said, “What a distinctive and entirely original doctrine to devise, and from a man of considerable boldness and erudition. But how did he [sc. your companion] proceed to refute it?” “First this way,” I said, “that the outer sea, as a continuous ocean flowing , has a single nature, whereas the dark spots in the moon do not form a single image, but rather narrow strips like isthmuses, with the bright part dividing and marking off the shadowy part. Hence, as each area is separated and has its own boundary, the incursions of the illuminated areas into the shadowy areas, as they acquire a semblance of height and depth, delineate the images we observe that look so much like eyes and lips. So we must either suppose there are multiple outer seas cut off by various isthmuses and mainlands, which is bizarre and false; or if there is one sea, it is not plausible for its image to appear all disjointed in this way. “Now, in your presence, that other point is safer to pose as a question instead of asserting it: given that the inhabited world has width and breadth, is it possible for everyone’s vision to reflect off the moon and reach the sea in the very same way, even those sailing on the great sea itself, by Zeus, or dwelling

246

Clearchus of Soli

Ἐπίκουρος. οὐκ ἐθελήσει δ᾽ οἶμαι τὴν σελήνην ἐμβριθὲς ὑποθέσθαι σῶμα καὶ στερεὸν ἡμῖν ὁ Κλέαρχος, ἀλλ᾽ ἄστρον αἰθέριον καὶ φωσφόρον, ὥς φατε· τοιαύτῃ τὴν ὄψιν ἢ θραύειν προσήκει ἢ ἀποστρέφειν, ὥστ᾽ οἴχεσθαι τὴν ἀνάκλασιν. (E) εἰ δὲ προσδεῖταί τις ἡμᾶς, ἐρησόμεθα πῶς μόνον πρόσωπόν ἐστιν ἐν τῇ σελήνῃ τὸ τῆς θαλάσσης ἔσοπτρον, ἄλλῳ δ᾽ οὐδενὶ τῶν τοσούτων ἀστέρων ἐνορᾶται· καίτοι τό γ᾽ εἰκὸς ἀπαιτεῖ πρὸς ἅπαντας ἢ πρὸς μηθένα τούτων πάσχειν τὴν ὄψιν. 7 Empededocles 31 B 40 D.–K. || 20–2 Hegesianax SH 466 = Coll. Alex. 1 Powell || 45–6 SH 467 = Coll. Alex. 2 Powell. Loquitur Lamprias, cf. 24 937D. 3 ὃ vac. 8 litt. E: 9 B: Cherniss: Wytt. 486: Pohlenz: Raingeard 2: Xyl. || 7 ὀξυβελὴς Turn.: ὀξυμελὴς EB || ἠδὲ (ἠδ᾽ Dindorf) ἱλάειρα Turn.: ἠ δὲ λάιρα EB: ἠδ’ ἱλ. Wil., ἠδ’ ἱλ. Xyl. || 8 οὕτως E: οὕτω B || 9 ἔπειτ’ Vassis 1897, 49: ἔπειτα λ. Emperius 1836 (1848), 287, sed vide Pohlenz “negationem antea vel post λόγον addunt, sed sensus est: ‘rationem sententiae reddens infirmissismos oculos faciem lunae omnino non distinguere adfert’. Quod iterum contra eum valet, ἔδει” || 15 πάθος Wytt.: πα lacunam 4 litt. E, 5 B || 16 σαφέστερον Wytt., post Amyot et Kepler || 17 ἔστι Wytt.: ἔτι EB || 19 ἀγησιάναξ EB: Ἡγησιάναξ Turn.: Ἑρμησιάναξ Hartman 1916, 560 || 20 μέσσῃ E: μέσῃ B || 22 δὲ ῥέθει Salmasius: δ᾽ ἐρεύθει EB || 23 περιιόντα Turn.: περιόντα EB. Vide Donini 2011, 253 || 24 πιεζόμενα add. Pohlenz et Cherniss: πιέζει πάλιν EB || lacunam 4 litt. E, 8 B: ὥστε add. Kepler 101 (duce Amyot), ὡς μονονοὺ dub. Pohlenz || 25 διατύπωσιν Kepler: δια lacunam 5 litt. E, 8 B || 26 σχήματος vac. 7 litt. EB: τοῦτο δὲ Bern., ταὐτὸ δὲ Pohlenz || 28 ἁνήρ Bern. (ὁ ἀνήρ Duebner): ἀνήρ EB || Ἀριστοτέλους Turn.: ὁ ἀριστοτέλης ΕΒ || 30 ἀπολλωνιάδου EB || 33 ἁνήρ Duebner (vir ille Kepler): ἀνήρ EB || 35 ὄψις Turn., Vulc., Kepler: ἴτυς EB, an recte ?: ἀκτὶς Pohlenz || 36 κατ’ εὐθυωρίαν E: κατευθυωρίαν B || 39 τὴν ἶ vac. 3 E, τὴν vac. 4 B: ἶριν Xyl., Turn.: || 40–1 καὶ vac. 2 ξιν EB: πῆξιν Turn., Vulc. || 43 τῇ ὄψει Wytt., 488: τὴν ὄψιν EB || 45 ἢ EB: ᾗ Emperius || 47 ἡσθεὶς Xyl.: πεισθεὶς EB || 49 προσῆγε sc. ὁ ἑταῖρος EB (cf. 929b): προσῆγες Adler 1909, 306 et 1910, 7 || 50 ᾗ Wytt.: εἰ EB || 51 lacunam 5 litt. ΕΒ: κύκλῳ Pohlenz: ἑαυτῷ Adler 1910a, 91 || 55 ὕφους— βάθους EB : ὕφους—βάθος Leonicus || 56–7 εἰκόνας φαινομένας EB, transp. Bern. || 62 ἐχούσης Leonicus: ἴσης EB: τοσαύτης Pohlenz, secl. Xyl. Vide Cherniss 1951/1977, 137–8 (= 479–80) || 63 πᾶσιν Bern.: πᾶσαν EB || 64 lacunam post θαλάσσης falso statuit Duebner, καὶ = “atque adeo” (Pohlenz) || 66 φατε Wytt., 489 post Amyot et Kepler: ἔφατε EB || 68 ἢ secl. Pohlenz, om. Bas.: ἢ Cherniss 1951/1977, 139 (= 481) || 69 Ἱππάρχου] Κλεάρχου Adler 1910a, 93 || φίλε πριαμ lacunam 2 litt. E, 3 B: φιλοπράγμ Pohlenz 1912, 649–50: ἐφιλέργει ἁν Cherniss: γ᾽ ἐφιλεπόνει ἁν Mayhew || 70 αὐτῆς ἣν Wytt.: αὐτὴν EB: αὐτὴν Pohlenz || 71 ὁμοιοπαθῆ Adler 1910, 8 post Bernardakis: ὁμοπαθῆ EB || 74 ἡμῖν Cherniss, post Amyot, Xyl. et Kepler: ὑμῖν EB || 75 τοιαύτῃ δὲ Wytt.: τοιαύτη EB: τοιαύτην Bas. || 76 θραύειν Turn., Vulc.: θραῦσιν EB || ἢ Pohlenz: καὶ EB ({ἢ} θραύειν προσ. καὶ ἀποστρ. vulgo) || 77 προσδεῖταί EB: παραιτεῖταί Wytt. 490: προσαμυνεῖταί Pohlenz (“alius Clearchi causam suscipiens”) || αἰτίας pro ἡμᾶς Emperius || ἐρησόμεθα Wytt., post Amyot et Xyl.: χρησόμεθα EB || 80 τούτων B: τοῦτο E.

117

99 W

Themistius, In Aristotelis De anima (Β 1, 412a 22–8) 3.1 (CAG t. 5.3, 41.30–7 Heinze) Tί μὲν οὖν ἐστὶν ἡ ψυχὴ κατὰ τὸ γένος, εἴρηται· οὐσία γὰρ ἡ κατὰ τὸν λόγον καὶ ἐντελέχεια ἡ πρώτη. τίνος δὲ αὕτη, λοιπὸν ἀποδοῦναι. ὅτι μὲν δὴ σώματος, δῆλον· ὁποίου δέ, σαφέστερον ἐφεξῆς διοριστέον. φαίνεται δὴ τῶν σωμάτων τὰ μὲν εἶναι φυσικά, τὰ δ’ οὔ, λέγω δὲ φυσικὰ μὲν ὅσα ἔχει καθ’ ἑαυτὰ κινήσεως ἀρχήν, οἷον γῆ καὶ ὕδωρ καὶ φυτὰ καὶ ζῷα, οὐ φυσικὰ δὲ ὅσα μὴ ἔχει, οἷον κλίνη καὶ ναῦς καὶ ἱμάτιον. καὶ ταῦτα διώρισται σαφῶς καὶ ἡμῖν καὶ πρώτῳ Ἀριστοτέλει ἐν τοῖς περὶ τῶν ἀρχῶν τῆς ὅλης φύσεως. τῶν δὲ φυσικῶν, τὰ μὲν ἔχει ζωήν, τὰ δ’ οὐκ ἔχει. τίνα δὲ λέγομεν τὴν ζωὴν ἔφθημεν εἰπόντες, ὅτι τὴν δι’ ἑαυτοῦ τροφήν τε καὶ αὔξησιν. ταῦτα δὲ ἦν τὰ ζῷα καὶ τὰ φυτά. τὰ γὰρ λεγόμενα στοιχεῖα φυσικὰ μέν, ὅτι κινήσεως ἀρχὴν ἔχει, οὐ ζῶντα δὲ, ὅτι μὴ τρέφεται δι’ ἑαυτῶν. ἡ γὰρ τῶν λίθων αὔξησις ὁμώνυμος ὅτι προσθήκη. ἢ εἴπερ καὶ οἱ λίθοι δι’ ὅλου αὔξονται, εἴη ἂν ἐν τούτοις εἶδος ζωῆς, ἀλλὰ λίαν γε ἀμυδρᾶς, ἐπεὶ καὶ γεννᾶν τινὲς λίθοι λέγονται, ὡς Κλέαρχός φησιν. 8 Ἀριστοτέλει] Arist., Phys. Β 1, 192b 13.

5

10

15

Text and Translation

249

§4] Hipparchus of Nicea (fl. 140 BCE), not yet eclipsed by Ptolemy, was still the paragon of astronomy; his innovations, based on Babylonian records and extensive new observations, included eccentric orbits for both moon and sun (to explain inequality of the seasons), and major advances in understanding lunar cycles, which enabled reliable prediction of eclipses (cf. 931d–e). The preferred account of vision echoes Timaeus 45c; cf. Defect. orac. 433d.

117

99 W

Themistius, On Aristotle’s On Soul 3.1 What kind of thing the soul is, then, has been said; for it is a definable substance and a first actuality. What it belongs to remains to be explained. That it belongs to a body is obvious; but the kind of body must next be defined with more clarity. Plainly some bodies are natural, some not; and by natural I mean all those that have in themselves a principle of change, like earth, water, plants, and animals; and not natural are all those that do not have one, like a bed, ship, or cloak. And these points have been defined with clarity both by us and first by Aristotle in the work on the principles of nature as a whole. Among natural bodies, some have life, some do not. What kind of life we mean we already said: self-nourishment and selfgrowth; and those were the animals and plants. For what are called elements are natural because they have a principle of change, but not living because they do not nourish themselves. For growth in stones is homonymous, because it is an accretion; or if in fact stones also grow through and through, there must be a form of life in them, albeit an extermely faint one, since some stones are even said to generate, as Clearchus says. Commenting on “natural body” in Aristotle’s definition of soul (412a20, a27– 8) in De anima 2.1; see Subsidia. The reference to his “work on the principles of nature as a whole” is to Physics 2.1. For “generating” stones, cf. Theophr. On Stones 5 for stones “giving birth” (τικτόντων), with Pliny, NH 36.149–51 on four kinds of “eagle-stone” (ἀετίτης), including one peculiar to Cyprus; see Eichholz 1965: 91, naming limonite as an example, and Sharples 1998: 181–3 on fr. 207.

250

Clearchus of Soli

118

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 2.19 43f (BT t. 1, 101.15–19 Kaibel; CB 107 Desrousseaux)

96 W

Κλέαρχός φησι τὸ μὲν ὕδωρ ὥσπερ καὶ τὸ γάλα λευκὸν λέγεσθαι, οἶνον δὲ καθάπερ καὶ τὸ νέκταρ ἐρυθρόν, μέλι δὲ καὶ ἔλαιον χλωρόν, τὸ δ’ ἐκ τῶν μύρτων θλιβόμενον μέλαν. 3 μύρτων Schweigh. conl. Diosc. 5.28: μύρων CE: μόρων Coraës ms. conl. Athen. 2.36 51d (= Aeschylus fr. 264 Radt).

119

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 2.33 49f (BT t. 1, 116.15–6 Kaibel; CB 123 Desrousseaux)

100 W

Κλέαρχος δ’ ὁ Περιπατητικός φησι Ῥοδίους καὶ Σικελιώτας βράβυλα καλεῖν τὰ κοκκύμηλα ὡς καὶ Θεόκριτος ὁ Συρακούσιος […] καὶ πάλιν […] ἐστὶ δὲ τοῦτο τὸ ἀκρόδρυον μικρότερον μὲν τῇ περιφορᾷ τῶν κοκκυμήλων, τῇ δ’ ἐδωδῇ τὸ αὐτό, πλὴν ὀλίγον δριμύτερον. Σέλευκος δ’ ἐν Γλώσσαις βράβιλά φησιν ἦλα κοκκύμηλα μάδρυα τὰ αὐτὰ εἶναι· τὰ μὲν μάδρυα οἷον μαλόδρυα, τὰ δὲ βράβυλα ὅτι εὐκοίλια καὶ τὴν βορὰν ἐκβάλλοντα, ἦλα δὲ οἷον μῆλα, ὡς Δημήτριος ὁ Ἰξίων λέγει ἐν Ἐτυμολογίᾳ.

5

2 Theocritus 7.146 et 12.3–4 || 5 Seleucus Alexandrinus fr. 42 Mueller || 8 Demetrius Ixion fr. 42 Staesche. 1 κλέαρχος CE: κρέαρχος B || σικελιώτας CE: σικελιτω B.

120

Plutarchus, De animae procreatione in Timaeo 20, 1022C–E et 1027F–1028A (BT t. 6.1, 182.4–183.4 Hubert–Drexler; LCL t. 13.1, 316–21 Cherniss)

4W

‘Yποδεδειγμένων δὲ τούτων, τὸ μὲν συμπληροῦν τὰ διαστήματα καὶ παρεντάττειν τὰς μεσότητας, εἰ καὶ μηδεὶς ἐτύγχανε πεποιηκὼς πρότερον, ὑμῖν ἂν αὐτοῖς ἕνεκα γυμνασίας παρῆκα· νῦν δὲ πολλοῖς κἀγαθοῖς ἀνδράσιν ἐξειργασμένου τούτου μάλιστα δὲ Κράντορι καὶ Κλεάρχῳ καὶ Θεοδώρῳ τοῖς Σολεῦσι, μικρὰ περὶ τῆς τούτων διαφορᾶς εἰπεῖν οὐκ ἄχρηστόν ἐστιν. ὁ γὰρ Θεόδωρος οὐχ ὡς ἐκεῖνοι δύο στίχους ποιῶν ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ μιᾶς

5

Text and Translation

251

118

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 2.19 43F

96 W

Clearchus says water is said to be white just as milk is, wine red just the way nectar is, honey and olive oil green, and myrtleberry juice black. In a discussion of water and its local variation (40f–46e), preserved only in the Epitome. See Tsitsiridis 2013: 173–6 for Homeric parallels and the focus here on fluids and the standard four primary colors.

119

Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 2.33 49F

100 W

Clearchus the Peripatetic says Rhodians and Sicilians call plums brabyla [blackthorn?], and so does Theocritus of Syracuse: … [Idyll 7.146], and again … [Idyll 12.3–4]. This fruittree is smaller in girth than the plum but the same for eating except a little more sour. Seleucus in Glosses says brabila, êla, plums, and madrya [“runnies”] are the same. Madrya [are so called] like “tree-fruits” [mâlodrya], brabyla because they are laxative and expel food [boran ekballonta], and êla like “fruits” [mêla], as Demetrius Ixion says in Etymology. In a discussion of fruits served as appetizers (49d–52a), preserved only in the Epitome. For plums (kokkumêla as if “cuckoo fruits”), cf. Theophr. HP 4.2.10; typical in its fruit, seed, and flowers (1.10.10, 1.11.1, 1.13.1) but distinctive in taste (1.12.1). Seleucus of Alexandria (first century CE) and Demetrius “Ixion” of Adramyttium (second century BCE?) were both grammarians.

120

Plutarch, On the Creation of the Soul in the Timaeus 20, 1022C–E and 1027F–1028A

4W

With those points expounded, the task of filling the intervals and inserting the means I would have left to you as exercises, if there were no one who had done it previously. But now, since it has been worked out by many good men, and above all Crantor, Clearchus, and Theodorus, all from Soloi, it is not inappropriate to say a little about their disagreement. For Theodorus, who does not make two rows, as they do, but instead arranges the doubles and triples one after the other in a single straight

252

Clearchus of Soli

εὐθείας ἐφεξῆς τούς τε διπλασίους ἐκτάττων καὶ τοὺς τριπλασίους, πρῶτον μὲν ἰσχυρίζεται τῇ λεγομένῃ κατὰ μῆκος σχίσει τῆς οὐσίας, δύο ποιούσῃ μοίρας ὡς ἐκ μιᾶς, οὐ τέσσαρας ἐκ δυεῖν. ἔπειτά φησι τὰς τῶν μεσοτήτων παρεντάξεις οὕτω λαμβάνειν προσήκειν χώραν· εἰ δὲ μή, ταραχὴν καὶ σύγχυσιν ἔσεσθαι καὶ μεταστάσεις εἰς τὸ πρῶτον εὐθὺς τριπλάσιον ἐκ τοῦ πρώτου διπλασίου τῶν συμπληροῦν ἑκάτερον ὀφειλόντων. τοῖς δὲ περὶ τὸν Κράντορα βοηθοῦσιν αἵ τε θέσεις τῶν ἀριθμῶν, ἐπιπέδων ἐπιπέδοις καὶ τετραγώνων τετραγώνοις καὶ κύβων κύβοις ἀντιθέτως συζυγούντων, τῇ τε μὴ κατὰ τάξιν αὐτῶν λήψει, ἀλλ’ ἐναλλὰξ ἀρτίων καὶ περιττῶν · τὴν γὰρ μονάδα κοινὴν οὖσαν ἀμφοῖν προτάξας λαμβάνει τὰ ὀκτὼ καὶ ἐφεξῆς τὰ κζʹ, μονονουχὶ δεικνύων ἡμῖν ἣν ἑκατέρῳ γένει χώραν ἀποδίδωσι. 5 Crantor fr. 11a 59–76 Mette || 10 τῆς οὐσίας] Plato, Tim. 36b6–7 || 18 αὐτὸς ὁ Πλάτων Plato, Tim. 35b4–c2. 3 ἡμῖν e f m r u Escor. 72 || 7 στοίχους f m r (cf. 1027D ἐν δυσὶ στίχοις) || 10 σχίσει (ΐ ex έ) m (coni. Turn.): σχέσει EB e f r u Escor. 72 || 12 προσήκει EB e u Escor. 72 || 13 μεταστάσεις Emperius 1847, 340 post Xyl. (“traiectiones”): μεταστὰς εἰς EB e f m r u Escor. 72 || 14 συμπληροῦν EB: συμπληρούντων e f m r u Escor. 72, συμπληροῦν Mette || 18 ἀρτίων καὶ π (sic) lacunam 41/3 linearum E, 21/2 linearum B tum secuntur verba 1022E κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ EB: ἀρτίων καὶ ἐπὶ lacunam c. 13 litt. κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ f m r: ἀρτίων καὶ ἐπὶ κατὰ e u Escor. 72 deinceps in omnibus codd. ἔχον ὡς (122E) κτλ. usque ad 1016F δευτέρα. Capita transposuerunt Maurommates 1848 et Mueller 1870 Vide Hubert–Drexler adn. ad p. 155.19 et 167.22; Cherniss 1976, 2122 et 3186 || δευτέρα περιττῶν EB: δευτ. (δευτ. δὲ f) τῶν περ. f m r: δευτεριττῶν pro δευτέρα περιττῶν e u Escor. 72 {δευτέρα} †περιττῶν† Wehrli, sed vide Hubert–Drexler adn. ad p. 167.22 || αὐτὸς ὁ Πλάτων Pohlenz post Mueller 1870, 403 () et Bern. ( -ῆς or -εῖς, gen. pl. συρβηνέων. 36 The term “solecism,” for instance, derives from the inhabitants of (Cilician) Soli. 37 Adagia 2.7.60 no.1660, s.v. Syrbenae chorus. 38 According to LSJ, σύρβα is a variant of τύρβα/η “confusion, turmoil” (cf. Lat. turba). This is the etymology accepted by modern scholars. See Wehrli (1969) 50.

380

Clearchus of Soli

Interesting and elegant though these two etymologies may sound— introduced by Erasmus into the Latin tradition from ancient lexicographers and paroemiographers—they have, however, found no acceptance from modern scholarship, including Tsitsiridis.39 Neither the derivation of a supposed but non-existent meaning of σύρβη = “aulos sheath” nor the connection of σύρβη/συρβηνεύς with similarly sounding words, such as σῦς/συώδης = “pig/herding swine,” can stand up to modern criticism. For the etymology “aulos sheath” is based on a confusion of σύρβη with ἡ συβήνη = “sheath, quiver,” and the derivation from σῦς/συώδης is based on the influence of certain passages in the already mentioned Thraittai by Cratinus. A modern, scientifically valid derivation, Tsitsiridis claims, can only be as follows: The noun συρβηνεύς = “tumultuous noisemaker” stems from the adjective συρβηνός = “tumultuously noisy,” which in turn is derived from the noun σύρβη = “turmoil, tumultuous noise,” itself a secondary form of the original τύρβη (Latin turba). We do not know, unfortunately, whether Clearchus already knew the two ancient etymologies, since he explains only the meaning of syrbêni chorus, not its etymology, nor does he so much as hint at a possible etymology related to aulos sheaths or to the world of swineherds. Of course, the context of choral singing in theater history suggests the first etymology, but this is all that we can glean from the fog the Clearchus fragments are mired in. The etymology of a phrase, though, however much it may have interested Clearchus in this passage of Περὶ παιδείας, cannot have been as much in the foreground here as it would be in his Παροιμίαι. Rather, the explicit referencing of the quotation to ἐν δευτέρῳ περὶ παιδείας shows that the fragment must have been primarily embedded in the didactic-pedagogical context of the ancient Greek concept of paideia. The fact that issues of musical education probably found their genuine place in an educational text after the section on gymnastics has already been pointed out in connection with 13. Thus, both texts belong in this thematic context; 13 is certainly to be placed before 14. In 13, as we have seen, an aetiological introduction deals with the πρῶτος εὑρετής of μουσική and, so to speak, the first folk song, whereas 14 addresses choral music in theaters, in particular the vocal performance of a choral ode and its rehearsal by the chorodidaskalos. The fact that in this way a 39

Cf. Tsitsiridis (2009) 124–7.

Clearchus’ Περὶ παιδείας

381

central topic of musical education is addressed in the context of paideia is not difficult to understand. For it is well attested since Plato how important a role choral music played in education with its three school requirements in the area of singing, dancing, and instrumental music (especially, of course, the aulos), although it cannot be demonstrated in detail here due to limitations of space.40 I will just point to Plato’s famous remarks in the second book of the Laws (654a–b), where he even declares the learning of choral music (and that means singing and dancing) to be a conditio sine qua non of educational maturity.41 That in the present text only singing is referred to, not dance, is certainly only a consequence of random excerpting. It is more than likely, in any case, that Cleachus deemed choral music an important element of education and therefore dealt with all of its parts, including dance. However, it is far less certain, I think, on the basis of our text, how high an educational value Clearchus ascribed to choral music specifically. Whether he shares Plato’s high appreciation of classical choral music, as Wehrli suspects,42 cannot be properly assessed without further evidence, as I have noted under 13; at best, this could only be read between the lines. The only thing that is communicated with absolute clarity is the humorous and satirical criticism of a kind of anarchic choral singing that is obviously seen as decadent and a sign of degeneracy, stemming from a pedagogical failure on the part of the musical educator. To what extent this implies a general laudatio temporis acti with regard to classical choral music and a criticism of the decadence of contemporary choral music in the wider context of the text is unfortunately beyond our ken. However, it is certain that such criticism of contemporary choral music actually existed in the Peripatetic school, as we know from no less a source than Aristoxenus: “It is the same with us, Aristoxenus continues. Our theaters have become barbaric; this vulgar music

40 See Marrou (1977) 97–8, 261–4, Neubecker (1977) 62–8, and Seidensticker (2010) 42–5 and 73–7. 41 Pl. Lg. 2.654a: “Shall we say then that the uneducated man lacks choral training, but the educated man only is adequately chorus-trained?” (οὐκοῦν ὁ μὲν ἀπαίδευτος ἀχόρευτος ἡμῖν ἔσται, τὸν δὲ πεπαιδευμένον ἱκανῶς κεχορευκότα θετέον;). And both song and dance belong to this (654b): “Consequently, a well educated man will have the ability to sing and dance well” (ὁ καλῶς ἄρα πεπαιδευμένος ᾄδειν τε καὶ ὀρχεῖσθαι δυνατὸς ἂν εἴη καλῶς). 42 Wehrli (1969) 50.

382

Clearchus of Soli

has progressed to full depravity. Only we few remind each other of what music used to be like.”43 4. Text 64 On the fourth and last fragment, I can be brief, not only for reasons of space but also because since long before Wehrli this difficult and often discussed text has been attributed not to Clearchus’ educational work but to his writing Περὶ βίων both by previous editors and currently most strongly by Tsitsiridis, whom I follow here.44 The fragment transmitted by Athenaeus (13.93.611b–d), without any indication of source, reports a polemical remark by Clearchus against the Cynic philosophers in the form of an address to an unknown 2nd person plural. Here is a paraphrase: “In choosing your lifestyle you have taken not an ascetichuman life but a dog’s life as a model, and in so doing you have picked for imitation not their four positive characteristics (sharp sense of smell, precise knowledge of the pack, social symbiosis with humans, and the function as a watch dog) but only the four negative ones (aggression, gluttony, laboriousness, nudity).45 From such a misguided imitation, however, no viable philosophy can arise.” Such a passage obviously fits much more naturally into the work Περὶ βίων than into Clearchus’ educational works; so it must suffice here to sketch the main arguments that Tsitsiridis puts forth in favor of Περὶ βίων:46 although overlap of content and topics between educational writings and the writings of the type of Περὶ βίων is quite conceivable, the stress laid on the term bios as well as other nuances of content that point towards the topic of “gluttony, revelry” make it much more likely to ascribe the fragment to Περὶ 43 Aristox. fr. 124 Wehrli (= Ath. 14.31.631f–632b). Similar complaints relating to theater music of his time are also found later in Quint. Inst. 1.10.31ff. On the problem of the ethical evaluation of music from Damon to Plato and from Aristotle to Aristoxenus, among others, and on the complaints about decadence associated therewith, which I cannot go into here, see the detailed discussion in Neubecker (1977) 127–45. 44 See Wehrli (1969) 51 and Tsitsiridis (2013) 157–8. 45 Usually, the qualities of dogs are limited to a total of four. Two of these, the negative ones, are imitated by the Cynic philosophers; the other two, the positive ones, in contrast, are not. See Tsitsiridis (2013) 157. The present passage, however, seems to me to presuppose a symmetry of four virtues and four vices of dogs, of which the positive ones are not imitated at all, but only two of the negative ones. 46 See the already mentioned passage in Tsitsiridis (2013) 157–8. See previously Tsitsiridis (2008) 66–7. Cf. for detailed discussion of 64 Fortenbaugh (this volume).

Clearchus’ Περὶ παιδείας

383

βίων. Another indication is the distinctively dialogical character of the excerpt, since Περὶ βίων was almost certainly a dialogue. Therefore we can be reasonably certain that 64 does not belong to Περὶ παιδείας. So what do we know based on the three unquestionably genuine fragments of Clearchus’ Περὶ παιδείας? Little, if anything! It was a major monograph in at least two, probably more than two books, that dealt in detail with the topic of paideia, which was often addressed in the Peripatos and in other schools of philosophy. In the first book, there was evidently a general introduction into the history of philosophy and pedagogy, out of which we have received, in 12, an indication of the relative chronology of Indian Gymnosophists after the Persian Magi. Then, perhaps still within the first, or at least in the second book, musical education was presented as the second major subject. At this point, there was apparently another introductory passage with a πρῶτος εὑρετής aetiology relating to the history of the discipline, in which the spotlight fell on the Egyptian Manerôs as the first pupil of the Muses (13). In the following–this time clearly in the second book–again as a part of the treatment of musical education, we find the satirical criticism of the chaotic, freely improvising performance of the chorus of syrbêni and of its chorus master in the theater (14). That is everything we know: there obviously remain large gaps in our knowledge of the overall content and structure of the work, gaps that the philologist’s imagination will be all too eager to fill. Everyone knows the danger that threatens now: one is tempted to fill in the gaps with the help of extant or more completely preserved educational writings by other Peripatetic philosophers or by Hellenistic thinkers from other schools, of which there has indeed been a considerable number; needless to say, we would think especially of the educational books 7 and 8 of Aristotle‘s Politics.47 I shall bravely resist that temptation, since I do not believe that we can really gain any more secure knowledge about Clearchus’ work by projecting onto Περὶ παιδείας content from earlier writings. The result would still remain in the realm of speculation.

47

Marrou (1977) 194, lists them and includes among the Peripatetics, beside Aristotle’s Politics 7–8, also Theophrastus Περὶ παίδων ἀγωγῆς and Περὶ παιδείας ἢ περὶ ἀρετῶν ἢ περὶ σωφροσύνης and Aristoxenus᾿ Παιδευτικοὶ νόμοι.

384

Clearchus of Soli

Works Cited Altenmüller, H. 1998. “Maneros – Trinkspruch oder Klagelied?” in Archäologische Studien in Kontaktzonen der antiken Welt, ed. R. Rolle and K. Schmidt (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), 17–26. Apelt, O. 1921. Diogenes Laertius. Leben und Meinungen berühmter Philosophen. Übersetzt und erläutert, vol. 1: Buch I–VI (Leipzig: Felix Meiner). Ax, W. 2001. “Dikaiarchs Bios Hellados and Varros De vita populi Romani” in Dicaearchus of Messana: Text, Translation, and Discussion (Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities 9), ed W.W. Fortenbaugh and E. Schütrumpf (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers): 279–310. Kaibel, G. 1890. Athenaei Naucratitae Dipnosophistarum libri XV, vol. 3: Libri XI–XV et indices (Leipzig: Teubner). Kühner, R. and B. Gerth. 19043. Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. Zweiter Teil. Satzlehre, vol. 2 (Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung). Lefebvre de Villebrune, J.B. 1791. Banquet des savans, par Athénée, Traduit tant sur les Textes imprimés, que sur plusieurs Manuscrits, vol. 5 (Paris: Imprimerie de Monsieur). Marrou, H.I. 1977. Geschichte der Erziehung im Klassischen Altertum (Munich: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag). Neubecker, A.J. 1977. Altgriechische Musik (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft). Olson, S.D. 2012. Athenaeus. The Learned Banqueters, vol. 8: Book 15. Indices (Loeb Classical Library 519) (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). Pfeiffer, M. 2003. Die Gymnosophisten – Indische Asketen aus der Perspektive antiker Quellen (Grin: Munich). Seidensticker, B. 2010. Das antike Theater (Munich: C.H. Beck). Tsitsiridis, S. 2008. “Die Schrift Περὶ βίων des Klearchos von Soloi” Philologus 152: 65–76. ––– 2009. “Adnotationes Variae” Hermes 137: 124–8. ––– 2013. Beiträge zu den Fragmenten des Klearchos von Soloi (Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 107) (Berlin: de Gruyter). Wehrli, F. 19692. Die Schule des Aristoteles. Texte und Kommentar, vol. 3: Klearchos (Basel: Schwabe).

Clearchus’ Περὶ παιδείας

385

Yonge, C.D. 1854. The Deipnosophists or Banquet of the Learned of Athenaeus. Literally Translated by C.D.Y. with an Appendix of Poetical Fragments, Rendered into English Verse by Various Authors, and a General Index, 3 vols. (Bohn’s Classical Library) (London: Henry G. Bohn). Appendix* Some Notes on Clearchus’ Περὶ παιδείας Gertjan Verhasselt Ad p. 364 n. 2: It is also possible that, in 12, the book number has fallen out (ἐν τῷ Περὶ παιδείας). So also Verraert (1828) 36 and Weber (1880) 19. Ad p. 365: For Diogenes Laertius’ proem, see also Gigon (1960). Ad p. 367: Diogenes’ statement that “some people claim that the Jews also descend from them” (ἔνιοι δὲ καὶ τοὺς Ἰουδαίους ἐκ τούτων εἶναι) was not included as part of the fragment of Clearchus by Verraert (1828) 36, Müller (1848) 313, and Wehrli (1969) 18. So also Dorandi in his edition and the Subsidium interpretationis for 12. It was printed, however, by Taifacos (2007) 52. Ad p. 367 n. 7: Aristotle’s view in On Philosophy that the Magi are older than the Egyptians also contradicts what he himself writes in Mete. 1.14.352b and Pol. 7.10.1329b, where he considers the Egyptians the oldest nation. Ad p. 370 n. 14: The conjecture Μουσῶν for μάγων goes back to Valesius. Although in his edition Taifacos (2007) 52 printed Μάγων, in his commenary (p. 318) he argued that Μουσῶν should be accepted. Cherniss (1949) 415, in contrast, defended the reading Μάγων. Dorandi (2015) 411–6, too, kept Μάγων and further accepted Latte’s conjecture ἀμαλογῆσαι (with smooth breathing). This is also the text as printed in Latte and Cunningham (2020) 789. See also Dorandi (2011) 12. The supposed meaning of the latter word is debated. According to von Wilamowitz-Moelendorff (1909) 466–7 n. 1, the word ἀμαλογία (attested in the letter of Menander to Glycera in Alciphr. 4.18.10 =

* Most of these notes offer minor additions, further bibliography, and cross-references to other contributions in this volume. If Ax were still alive, we would have simply passed these on to him as feedback. Since we did not want to alter his text, however, we thought it more appropriate to separate these notes from Ax’s essay. —Robert Mayhew

386

Clearchus of Soli

Men. T 20 Kassel–Austin) goes back to *ἀμαλο-λογία (through haplology) and denotes a ritual collecting of sheaves (“Garbenlese”; cf. ἄμαλλα/ἀμάλη “sheaf”); in the letter of Menander, Wilamowitz claimed that it refers more specifically to the Attic harvest festival called Haloea. Latte (1952) 37–8 expanded on Wilamowitz’ theory and interpreted ἀμαλογία as the song sung while collecting the sheaves. Latte therefore corrected ὁμολογῆσαι to ἀμαλογῆσαι and defended this by pointing out that Pollux calls Maneros the inventor of agriculture. See also Bungarten (1967) 55–6. However, Latte did not explain the exact meaning of ἀμαλογῆσαι in Hesychius (particularly whether, in his view, it means “singing” or “harvesting”). DGE s.v. ἀμαλογέω, at any rate, translates the verb as “cantar una canción de engavillador.” Dorandi (2015) 411–6 continued along the lines of Latte. He interpreted the lemma μανέρως in Hesychius not as a proper name but as a common noun, indicating the Maneros song (τοῦτον (sc. θρῆνον)), and translated the verb as “singing a refrain” (intonare un ritornello) or “reciting in a chanting manner” (recitare in maniera cantilenante (un canto o lamento)). Thus, he translated the text as follows: “Manerote: Si dice che recitavano in maniera cantilenante questa canzone (lamentosa = il canto di Manerote) / intonavano questo ritornello egiziano (= il canto di Manerote o il brindisi) appresa all’origine dai Magi e che per questo è sulla bocca di tutti, come racconta Clearco nei libri Sulla educazione.” So, according to Dorandi, Clearchus stated that the Maneros song was derived from the Magi. However, in that case, Hesychius would have probably used a passive verb (ἀμαλογηθῆναι) instead of an active one (ἀμαλογῆσαι). Moreover, there is no evidence that ἀμαλογέω ever meant “sing” or “recite.” The word is otherwise attested only in a glossary with the meaning “chatter” or “trifles”: Corpus glossariorum Latinorum II p. 19 (apinae ἀμα-λογίαι); p. 32 (garrulus φλύαρος βαττολάλος ἀμάλογος); p. 67 (effutat ἀμαλογεῖ (corrected from ὁμολογεῖ)) Goetz–Gundermann. See also Bücheler (1903) 456–8. It is also attested in Glossaria Bilinguia I 4.126 Kramer (fr. H sup. verso) = Corpus glossariorum Latinorum II p. 561 Goetz–Gundermann (ἀμۤο‫ۥ‬αλογία). The evidence adduced by Latte and Dorandi is that the Latin words cantilena and decantare can denote songs or trifles. But this does not tell us anything about the semantic scope of ἀμαλογία and ἀμαλογέω. Even the association with sheaves (ἄμαλλα, ἀμάλη) is uncertain. See also Frisk (1960–70) s.v. ἀμαλογία and Beekes (2010) s.v. ἀμαλογία. In fact, even in the abovementioned passage in the letter of Menander, it is far from certain that ἀμαλογία in τῆς χθίζης ἀμαλογίας refers to a harvest festival. See, e.g., the translation of Benner and Fobes (1949) 319: “our prattle of yesterday.” Conca and Zanetto (2010) 115–7 translated “l’intrattenimento di ieri”; Avezzù and Longo (1985) 165 translated the phrase as “il nostro incontro di ieri.” According to Grošelj (1957) 40, ἀμαλόγος is derived not from ἄμαλλα “sheaf” but from ἀμαλός “weak”: “Garrulus enim vana, inania loquitur.” In his edition, Dorandi still accepts

Clearchus’ Περὶ παιδείας

387

Μάγων but now reads ὁμολογῆσαι instead of ἀμαλογῆσαι and assumes a lacuna after διδαχθέντα (suggested to him by Guida—see above p. 82). Ad p. 375 n. 24: The reading λείπεται τίς ὁ συρβηνέων χορός is also accepted by Οlson (2012) 180; (2019) 363. Schweighäuser (1805) 553, Dindorf (1827) 1555, Meineke (1859) 261, and Taifacos (2007) 50 printed λείπεταί τις ὁ, etc. Müller (1848) 313 translated this as “Superest aliquis Syrbenaeorum chorus in quo,” but this would require λείπεταί τις συρβηνέων χορός, without the article ὁ. Von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (1923) 74 n. 1 deleted τις as an erroneous repetition taken from the preceding sentence (σὺ δὲ μόνον δίδασκε τίς ὁ συρβηνέων χορός). So also Gulick (1941) 238 and Citelli in Canfora (2001) vol. 4, 765. Dorandi in his edition follows Wilamowitz as well. Ad p. 375 n. 25: Peppink (1936) 93 pointed out that the correction λέγεται was already proposed by Wyttenbach. Ad p. 375 n. 26: Peppink (1936) 93 suggested correcting κατασαιδεῖ (as the word is read in the codex Marcianus gr. 447 (A) fol. 369r) to κατᾴδει, which would eliminate the necessity of an accusativus cum infinitivo. So also Gulick (1941) 240. In his apparatus, Kaibel (1890) 545, in his turn, conjectured καταυλεῖ. Tucker (1908) 209 proposed κατασ ᾄδει. Note, however, that the two main manuscripts of the epitome of Athenaeus (Parisinus Suppl. gr. 841 (C) fol. 202v and Laurentianus 60.2 (E) fol. 397r) likewise read κατάσαι δεῖ (most likely with a wrong accent, so probably an error for κατᾶσαι δεῖ). Ad p. 375 n. 27: Dorandi in his edition does not adopt the supplement but follows von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (1923) 74 n. 1 in supplementing before θεατής. So also Gulick (1941) 240 and Citelli in Canfora (2001) vol. 4, 765. Ad p. 377 n. 31: Cf. Friedrich in Friedrich and Nothers (2001) 508: “ohne daß er auf den Anführer und Leiter der Gruppe achtet”; Rimedio in Canfora (2001) vol. 3, 1799: “senza prestare alcuna attenzione a chi dirige o istruisce il coro.” Ad p. 379 n. 38: Erasmus’ source for the first etymology is Zenobius (Zen. 6.1): cf. Erasmus De choreis incompositis ac tumultuosis olim dictitatum; nam σύρβη quidam vocem existimant, qua subulci erga sues utantur, unde et σύρβα pro tumultu abutuntur ~ Zen. αὕτη τέτακται κατὰ τῶν ἀτάκτων χορῶν, ἀπὸ τοῦ τινὰς τοῖς ὑσὶν ἐπιφωνεῖν σύρβας. σύρβην δὲ τὸν τάραχον ἔλεγον.

388

Clearchus of Soli

Ad p. 379 n. 38: Because of the variation τύρβη/σύρβη, Beekes (2010) s.v. τύρβη considers it a Pre-Greek (i.e., non-Indo-European) word; he explains Lat. turba as a Greek loanword. See also the discussion in Ernout and Meillet (1959) s.v. turba, Frisk (1960–70) s.v. τύρβη, and Chantraine (1977) s.v. τύρβη. According to Frisk, the form with σ- may have arisen under the influence of the verb σύρω. According to de Vaan (2008) s.v. turba, both Greek and Latin independently borrowed the word from a nonIndo-European language. Ad p. 382 n. 44: 64 was also attributed to Περὶ βίων by Müller (1848) 310, Zecchini (1989) 204 n. 20, Taifacos (2007) 12–13; 243–4, and Tsitsiridis (2008) 66–7. So also Dorandi in his edition and Fortenbaugh (in this volume) 456–7. See also Verhasselt (2016) 66. Pédech (1992) 388, in contrast, attributed it to Περὶ παιδείας. Schorn (2017) 326–7 is agnostic.

Works Cited Avezzù, E. and O. Longo. 1985. Alcifrone. Lettere di parassiti e di cortegiane (Venice: Marsilio Editori). Beekes, R.S.P. 2010. Etymological Dictionary of Greek. With the Assistance of L. Van Beek (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series 10/1) (Leiden: Brill). Benner, A.R. and F.H. Fobes. 1949. The Letters of Alciphron, Aelian and Philostratus with an English Translation (Loeb Classical Library 383) (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). Bücheler, F. 1903. “Ueber Alkiphron” RhM 58: 453–8. Bungarten, J.J. 1967. Menander und Glykeras Brief bei Alkiphron (Diss. Bonn: Rheinische Friedrich–Wilhelms–Universität Bonn). Canfora, L. 2001. Ateneo. I deipnosofisti. I dotti a banchetto. Prima traduzione italiana commentata su progetto di L.C. Introduzione di C. Jacob, 4 vols. (Rome: Salerno Editrice). Chantraine, P. 1977. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. Histoire des mots, vol. 4.1: Ρ–Υ (Paris: Klincksieck). Cherniss, H. 1949. Review of Wehrli, F. 1948. Die Schule des Aristoteles, vol. 3: Klearchos (Basel: Schwabe) AJPh 70: 414–18. Conca, F. and G. Zanetto. 20102. Alcifrone, Filostrato, Aristeneto. Lettere d’amore. Introduzione, restituzione del testo originale, traduzione e note (Classici greci e latini) (Milan: Biblioteca universale Rizzoli). de Vaan, M. 2008. Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic Languages (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series 7) (Leiden: Brill).

Clearchus’ Περὶ παιδείας

389

Dindorf, W. 1827. Athenaeus, vol. 3 (Leipzig: Weidmann). Dorandi, T. 2011. “Prolegomeni a una nuova raccolta dei frammenti di Clearco di Soli” GFA 14: 1–15. ––– 2015. “Due note a Clearco e Galeno” in Literature, Scholarship, Philosophy, and History. Classical Studies in Memory of Ioannis Taifacos. ed. G.A. Xenis (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag), 411–20. Ernout, A. and A. Meillet. 19594. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine. Histoire des mots (Paris: Klincksieck). Friedrich, C. and T. Nothers. 2001. Athenaios. Das Gelehrtenmahl, vol. 5: Buch XIV und XV. Eingeleitet und übersetzt von C.F. Kommentiert von T.N. (Bibliothek der griechischen Literatur 54) (Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann). Frisk, H. 1960–70. Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, 2 vols. (Heidelberg: Winter). Gigon, O. 1960. “Das Prooemium des Diogenes Laertios: Struktur und Probleme” in Horizonte der Humanitas. Eine Freundesgabe für Professor Dr. Walter Wili zu seinem 60. Geburtstag (Bern: Haupt), 37–64. Grošelj, M. 1957. “Etyma Graeca” ŽA 7: 40–4, 225–9. Gulick, C.B. 1941. Athenaeus. The Deipnosophists with an English Translation, vol. 7 (Loeb Classical Library) (London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). Kaibel, G. 1890. Athenaei Naucratitae Dipnosophistarum libri XV, vol. 3: Libri XI–XV et indices (Leipzig: Teubner). Latte, K. 1952. “Zur griechischen Wortforschung” Glotta 32: 33–42. Latte, K. and I.C. Cunningham. 2020. Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon, vol. 2: E–O (Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Grammatiker 11) (Berlin: De Gruyter). Meineke, A. 1859. Athenaei Deipnosophistae, vol. 3: Continens lib. XIII–XV. Summaria et indices (Leipzig: Teubner). Müller, K. 1848. Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, vol. 2 (Paris: Didot). Olson, S.D. 2012. Athenaeus. The Learned Banqueters, vol. 8: Book 15. Indices (Loeb Classical Library 519) (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). ― 2019. Athenaeus Naucratites. Deipnosophistae, vol. 4A: Libri XII–XV (Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana) (Berlin: De Gruyter). Pédech, P. 1992. “Cléarque le Philosophe” in Au miroir de la culture antique. Mélanges offerts au Président René Marache par ses collègues, ses étudiants et ses amis (Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes), 385–91. Peppink, S.P. 1936. Observationes in Athenaei Deipnosophistas (Leiden: Brill). Schorn, S. 2017. Review of Tsitsiridis (2013) AC 86: 324–7.

390

Clearchus of Soli

Schweighäuser, J. 1805. Ἀθηναίου Ναυκρατίτου Δειπνοσοφισταί. Athenaei Naucratitae Deipnosophistarum libri quindecim, vol. 5 (Strasbourg: Typographia Societatis Bipontinae). Taifacos, I. 2007. Ἀρχαία Κυπριακὴ γραμματεία 6. Φιλοσοφία. Κλέαρχος, Περσαῖος, Δημῶναξ καὶ ἄλλοι Κύπριοι φιλοσόφοι (Lefkosia: Leventis). Tsitsiridis, S. 2008. “Die Schrift Περὶ βίων des Klearchos von Soloi” Philologus 152: 65–76. Tucker, T.G. 1908. “Emendations in Athenaeus”, CQ 2: 184–209. Verhasselt, G. 2016. “What Were Works Περὶ βίων? A Study of the Extant Fragments” Philologus 160: 59–83. Verraert, J.B. 1828. Diatribe de Clearcho Solensi (Ghent: M.A. Mahne). von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. 1909. “Lesefrüchte” Hermes 44: 445–76. ––– 1923. “Lesefrüchte” Hermes 58: 57–86. Weber, M. 1880. De Clearchi Solensis vita et operibus (Wrocław: Typis S. Schottlaenderi). Wehrli, F. 19692. Die Schule des Aristoteles. Texte und Kommentar, vol. 3: Klearchos (Basel: Schwabe). Zecchini, G. 1989. La cultura storica di Ateneo (Scienze storiche 43) (Milan: Vita e pensiero).

5 Clearchus on Love Stephen White À l’égal de Paphos les étoiles t’admirent, Et Vénus à bon droit peut jalouser… Baudelaire, “Lesbos”

Clearchus devoted a work in at least two books to the topic of eros. Like most of what survives from his once substantial corpus, the remains of this work display unusual erudition, especially in poetry and cultural history, and a moralizing orientation. For Wehrli in his influential edition, its main theme was that eros is something to avoid, a dangerous and often pathological condition liable to ruin even exemplary men.1 Whatever its initial reception, the work eventually shared the fate of most of what was written under the auspices of the early Lyceum. All that survives are a handful of passages in Athenaeus (19– 33A), most very brief, and possibly some references from scholarship on early poetry (33B–35; cf. n. 27 below). The remains are too meager to support any reconstruction of the work’s structure or scope. But we can make out some of its interests and themes, and they indicate a stance less severe than Wehrli envisioned. The philosopher from Cyprus, birthplace and favorite abode of Aphrodite Cypris, discussed 1 Wehrli (1969) 54: “Eros erscheint also im Lichte des Sophrosyne-ideals als verwerflich.”

391

392

Clearchus of Soli

love, especially between the sexes, with more sympathy and subtlety than scholarship has recognized. His work on eros also appears to be in tune with significant trends in early Hellenistic poetry, though again the meager remains of both make speculation about influence in either direction hazardous. 1. Title and Format Athenaeus cites a work by Clearchus entitled “Erotics” eleven times, always in the plural, usually without an article, and only in the dative or genitive: either “in (the) Erotics” or in a specified book “of (the) Erotics.”2 Unfortunately, his use of oblique cases conceals the gender of the title. Wehrli initially construed the title as masculine Erôtikos, agreeing with an implied logos or dialogos.3 Although his later preference for a neuter plural has been widely followed, several considerations suggest his initial assessment of the gender was on the mark.4 To be sure, neuter plurals serve as titles for many contemporary works from the Lyceum; witness Analytics, Topics, Physics, Meteorologica, or Ethics, to name but a few. Erôtika would then indicate Clearchus’ topic: “studies of eros.”5 Yet abstract titles like those, whether neuter plural or feminine singular like Rhetoric, standardly indicate a systematic treatment of a recognized discipline or area of expertise, and that suits neither eros itself nor the remains of this work, which bear little resemblance to the others in either format or analytical method.6 Conversely, when neuter plurals serve as titles for unsystematic works, they are typically joined by a noun or phrase indicating 2 Genitive Ἐρωτικῶν eight times (19–26), dative Ἐρωτικοῖς three times (27, 32, 33A), and seven times without any article; see Appendix for synopsis and analysis. 3 Wehrli (1948) 54; his revised edition (1969) favors the neuter. 4 Neuter Erotica in Wehrli (1983), Laurenti (1987) 565–7, Olson (2006–12), Fortenbaugh (2011) 213, Tsitsiridis (2013) 9–11, among others. 5 The title would then be equivalent to the alternative On Love (Περὶ ἔρωτος) attested for Theophrastus (fr. 436 no. 30), the Socratics Simmias (D.L. 2.124) and Simon (D.L. 2.122), the Stoic Cleanthes (D.L. 7.174), and adopted at some stage as a label for Plato’s Phaedrus (D.L. 3.58); cf. Περὶ ἐρώτων (cases or kinds of love?) by Persaeus (D.L. 7.36), and Περὶ ἀφροδισίων for a work ascribed to the aptly named courtesan Philaenis; cf. Parker (1992). 6 Contrast Ἐρωτικὴ τέχνη attested for the Stoics Cleanthes and Chrysippus (D.L. 7.175, 7.34), and Ovid’s parodic Ars Amatoria; cf. White (2002b) 15–16.

Clearchus on Love

393

their format or approach, such as “problems” or the like; and here Athenaeus uses only the one term.7 Granted, two excerpts (21 and 27) mimic the “problem” format closely. But the rest of what survives shows very different approaches, including several anecdotes that would not fit readily within such a format. Unless the work was simply a collection of disjointed notes and ruminations or Lesefrüchte, like the “scattered studies” attributed to Hieronymus of Rhodes (frs. 47 and 49 White), then the likeliest format for mingling anecdotes with problems, historical examples with snatches of poetry, narrative with analysis, as we find Clearchus doing in what Athenaeus reports, would be some sort of informal discussion, either a continuous dialogue or a series of conversations or disquisitions. In any case, this very diversity in content and approach points to a work aimed at a wider audience beyond strictly philosophical circles; and that in itself tells against a more technical title in the neuter (absent an adjoining hypomnêmata or the like), and in favor of something more discursive, whether dialogues or talks of some other sort, hence Erôtikoi as something like “discussions of love.” Not only would the alternative Erôtika be unique among the many titles attested on this topic. Parallels for the masculine form are both plentiful and apt. An Erôtikos is attested first for Antisthenes (D.L. 6.16) and the Megaric Euclides (D.L. 2.108), then for Heraclides Ponticus (D.L. 5.87, cf. fr. 37) and three of Clearchus’ associates in the Lyceum: Aristotle (D.L. no. 9 = Hesych. no. 12, cf. frs. 95–8), Theophrastus (fr. 436 no. 29),8 and Demetrius of Phalerum (D.L. 5.81: fr. 81 no. 7). The same title was also given to disquisitions ascribed to Lysias (Or. 35 = Phdr. 230e–34c) and Demosthenes (Or. 61), and Plu7

Contrast Θέσεις ἐρωτικαί ascribed to Aristotle (D.L. 5.24, Hesych. no. 66, Ptol. no. 64), Προβλήματα πολιτικά, φυσικά, ἐρωτικά, ἠθικά to Theophrastus (fr. 727 no. 4), Ἐρωτικὰ ὁμοῖα to Aristo of Ceos (frs. 10–14), and Ἐρωτικαὶ διατριβαί by him or the Stoic Aristo of Chios (D.L. 7.163 with Panaetius fr. 151); cf. Fortenbaugh (2012). The neuter plural ἐρωτικά, when used to specify writings rather than a topic (“matters of love”), standardly refers to songs, as in 26 (ἐρωτικὰ ᾄσματα; see §5 below); cf. Aeschines, Tim. 1.135, Aristoxenus frs. 82, 125, Chamaeleon fr. 27, and Lasserre (1944) 172–4. 8 The Theophrastus catalogue lists two distinct works: Erôtikos (so cited three times by Athenaeus: frs. 559, 561, 567A), and immediately after it, “another On Love” (so cited by Strabo: fr. 560). Fortenbaugh (2011) 212–18 argues that the first but not the second was a dialogue; cf. Fortenbaugh (1984) 120–1.

394

Clearchus of Soli

tarch later revived it for a dialogue of his own. As far as we can tell, the gender always reflects an understood logos or dialogos and implies a dialogue, speech, or similarly informal format.9 It appears that most of these works were fairly short. Only in Aristotle’s case is any of them assigned more than one book, and only his work also receives a plural title. His Erôtikos, which has a single book in the Hellenistic lists of his works (D.L. no. 9 = Hesych. no. 12), is listed with three in the later catalogue preserved in Arabic (no. 14);10 and when Athenaeus cites a passage from its second book, he uses the plural for its title just as he does for Clearchus’ work (15 674b: fr. 95). Discrepancies in its size aside, the evidence for Aristotle’s work is consistent on the point at issue here: a plural title Erôtikoi applies to a work in multiple books or sections.11 The title of Clearchus’ work is probably best explained the same way. The gender then reflects the format of his work and the plural its size and structure, namely, its two (or possibly more) books. The plural could also reflect the work’s format. Just as a singular title suits a single unified treatment, whether a continuous dialogue like Plutarch’s Erôtikos or a single speech like the one in the Phaedrus ostensibly from Lysias (introduced as his λόγος ἐρωτικός at 227c), the plural Erôtikoi might indicate a series of discourses on the same topic (cf. Lysias fr. 271e). Titles of works ascribed to two third-century Stoics are suggestive: Dialogoi Erôtikoi by Sphaerus (D.L. 7.178) and Erôtikai Diatribai by Aristo of Chios or Ceos (D.L. 7.163, cf. n. 7 above). No number of books is specified for either, but whether one or more, the plurals presumably indicate distinct units: either conversations, as in Xenophon’s Recollections of Socrates, or some other sort of “talks” or discussions.12 A much closer parallel suggests a similar but more complex format. Aristotle, in his critique of Plato’s Politeia in Politics 2.1–5, cites remarks by Aristophanes ἐν τοῖς ἐρωτικοῖς λόγοις (2.4 1262b11), by which he means his speech in the Symposi9 See Lasserre (1944), who rules out the alternative associated with some similar terms: not an “expert in eros” like the “statesman” of Plato’s Politikos, as in the misleading Latin title for Plutarch’s Amatorius. 10 On the origins of the Aristotle catalogues, see Primavesi (2007); for their handling of this and his other dialogues, Moraux (1951) 27–35. 11 The same goes for what is probably a different work, or perhaps set of works, listed along with several doubtful ascriptions appended to the Hesychius list: both plural Erôtikoi and in six books (Hesych. no. 182). 12 For the technical sense of διατριβή, see Glucker (1978) 159–65.

Clearchus on Love

395

um. Here the plural reflects the other speeches delivered by Agathon and his guests, which are aptly cited collectively as a set because of their unified framework, a continuous narrative of a single evening’s discussions. As the closest verbal parallel to the phrasing Athenaeus uses in citing Clearchus’ work, and contemporary with it as well, Aristotle’s reference makes it tempting to conclude that Clearchus’ Erôtikoi was a similarly unified dialogue comprising a series of speeches and spanning two or more books. Nevertheless, three points encourage caution. First, Aristotle’s plural fits Plato’s Symposium well in part because its multiple speakers present very different accounts of love. But we do not have sufficient evidence to tell whether Clearchus canvassed similarly diverse views in his work. In fact, what does survive shows no clear sign of adversarial argument, and as we shall see, its picture of love is largely consistent. Second, the polyphony of the Symposium is distinctly Platonic, reflecting his dramatic art, the dialectical nature of his approach, and his aversion to writing in his own voice. Dialogues by Aristotle and his colleagues, so far as we can tell, differed decisively. A single speaker typically dominated and spoke authoritatively; rival views and objections might be canvassed, but only to be rebutted or modified in the interest of building the main speaker’s case.13 Only if Clearchus presented rival speakers would the plural Erôtikoi suit a single discussion, no matter how many books it filled. But again, there is no clear sign of any controversy; and at least in the case of On Sleep, which is the only work of his we can be certain was a dialogue, Clearchus seems to have followed the standard “Aristotelian” form of magisterial dialogue.14 Finally, there is simply no clear textual evidence of a conversational format in this case. The one instance Wehrli initially cited as evidence for speakers, the use of “among us” (παρ᾿ ἡμῖν) in 33A (Ath. 2 57e), he later abandoned:15 The part of houses now called “uppers” [ὑπερῷα] among us [παρ᾿ ἡμῖν] they also used to call “overs” [ᾠά], says Clearchus in Erôtikoi, claiming that when Helen was reared in that kind of dwelling, many people came to believe she had been born from an egg [ἐξ ᾠοῦ].

13

On the Aristotelian format, see Laurenti (1987) 55–73, Janko (1991) 55–8. See 6A with Tsitsiridis (2013) 56–7 and Verde (in this volume). 15 Cf. Wehrli (1948) 57 and Wehrli (1969) 57 on his fr. 35. 14

396

Clearchus of Soli

The passage comes from Book 2 of Athenaeus, which survives only in a Byzantine epitome that typically condenses and paraphrases even the portions it records. Wehrli initially assumed the phrase “among us” comes from Clearchus; but it could equally be a comment made by one of Athenaeus’ deipnosophists, which the epitome has obscured by eliding the original context. Wehrli also argued, on the basis of a scholium on Iliad 16.184 (33B) that locates the idiomatic use of “overs” – as if by aphaeresis from “abovers” (ὑπερῷα) but a homophone for “eggs” (ᾠά) – in Laconia, that the speaker must not be the Cypriot Clearchus but a Laconian. Yet even if the mention of “us” did appear in Clearchus’ work, it is clearly not limited to Laconians, since the contrast highlighted in both passages is not geographic at all but temporal: between an archaic usage (ἐκάλουν), which conveniently lent itself to a rationalizing explanation for the myth of Helen’s birth from an egg in Sparta, and the current usage of “uppers” (τὰ νῦν καλούμενα), which was virtually universal, standard in Attic already by Clearchus’ time and widely attested in later usage.16 In short, the comment could come from anyone, either Clearchus in his own voice or some other speaker in a more discursive format, be it dialogue, speech, narrative, or something else. If the argument so far is on the right track, Clearchus called his work Erôtikoi, not Erôtika. Gulick, in his Loeb edition, translates this as Love Stories, which reflects an implicit Logoi, but rather dismissively, in line with his general distaste for Clearchus.17 More faithful to the work’s title and remains alike would be Discussions of Love. But to minimize misconceptions, I shall simply transliterate the title. Although we lack conclusive evidence for the work’s format, conventions of genre and subject suggest – but by no means prove – that it was some sort of dialogue, if not a continuous discussion, possibly extending over two or more days as in the two books of Cicero’s first Academici (sc. libri), then probably a series of shorter discussions on related topics, as in Cicero’s Tusculan Disputations or either Plu16 See LSJ s.v. ὑπερῷον and ὑπερῷος. Similar phrasing in 33B suggests a common origin, either via scholarship familiar with Clearchus, or directly from Athenaeus’ original text before it was epitomized; cf. Matthaios (2005) 64–5, 69–75, and Arnott (2000) for the epitome. 17 Gulick (1925–41) 7: 88 on 669f calls both 21 and 27 “balderdash”; 6: 337 on 619c adds 25 “to the list of his stylistic sins.”

Clearchus on Love

397

tarch’s Symposiakoi (sc. logoi; cf. ἀναγράψασθαι λόγους, QC 1 612e), which of course also carried plural titles. Whatever the format of Clearchus’ Erôtikoi, an excerpt in Athenaeus from Book 1 of his On Proverbs (67) neatly captures the kind of edifying topics we find discussed in its remains. There, after bemoaning the fashion “nowadays” of discussing the finer points of food and sex at symposia, Clearchus calls for a return to older and more edifying norms: reciting verses of poetry, debating questions of metrics and grammar, and cataloguing heroes and sites. In lieu of kissing and heavy drinking, he concludes, guests should strive for “a garland and compliments, which do so much to sweeten mutual friendship” (457f). In short, Clearchus endorses the kind of symposium depicted by Plato and Xenophon before him (cf. Xenophanes fr. 1 DK) and by Plutarch and Athenaeus much later: one devoted to instructive conversation, not carnal indulgence. The topics addressed in his Erôtikoi follow similar norms. There is no mention of food or drink and little of sex, at least in what survives. Rather, eros is largely a matter of love and longing, mainly as found in history, legend, and literature, and primarily in heterosexual couples. In fact, there is little discussion of pederasty, and in a surprisingly critical light as a counterpoint to Aphrodite’s realm. Of course, our sample may be distorted. What survives, however, addresses mainly three themes: a visual basis for attraction, the emotional intensity of love, and its literary manifestations. Clearchus appears to be opposed equally to unbridled passion or promiscuity on one side, and to abstinence or asceticism on the other. Love, in his view, is both a natural form of attraction and subject to an Aristotelian doctrine of the mean: critical of both Asiatic excess and Cynic austerity, he apparently explored sentiments of love in both healthy and unhealthy forms.18 2. Text and Context Before turning to the fragments, I should say a few words about the context in which we find them. Most of what we know about Clearchus comes from Athenaeus, who preserves two thirds of the texts in 18

Cf. Theophr. fr. 559 and the formula in fr. 557 characterizing eros as “an excess of a kind of non-rational appetite”; Aristotle describes it more generously as “an excess of liking” (EN 9.10 1171a10–13).

398

Clearchus of Soli

Tiziano Dorandi’s new edition, including most of any length.19 Athenaeus also quotes from or refers to nearly every known work by Clearchus.20 Conversely, Clearchus is among the writers he cites most frequently. Dorandi assigns eighteen passages to the Erôtikoi (19–35, including 33B), all but three from Athenaeus, who cites the work by title eleven times, seven times from its first book, once from its second, and three times without specifying a book (see Appendix). Wehrli added four more passages, all from Book 13 and all very brief, which name Clearchus but no title. Two of these follow closely on other fragments that do name the title (24 with 31, 22 with 30); and the other two (28, 29) occur in the same context as the latter pair (shortly before 22 and 30) and share the same theme. If Wehrli was right to add these four passages, which I see no reason to doubt, then Athenaeus cites Clearchus’ Erôtikoi at least nine times in Book 13: the first book four times and the rest unplaced. This is significant on two related counts, one contextual and one thematic. Athenaeus names Clearchus eleven times in Book 13. Only once does he name another title, when the host Larensis cites On Proverbs (71) at the outset (555c–d) to open the discussion of women that will fill the entire book.21 Every other citation in Book 13, including the following nine from the Erôtikoi, is introduced by the scholar Myrtilus, the first in a rejoinder to the Cynic Cynulcus (20 at 564a–b), then eight in a long encomium of hetairas, and finally a stinging rebuke to Cynic austerity (64) that closes Book 13 (611b–d). This last citation 19

Athenaeus is our source for 82 of the 123 genuine texts (148 counting parallels), and one of the Dubia; the proportion is about the same in Wehrli (1969): 77 of 115 texts. 20 Athenaeus is home to 15 of 17 texts (with only 1 parallel) assigned to the Erôtikoi, all 30 (with 5 parallels) from Lives, 11 of 12 (with 4 parallels) from On Riddles, 10 of 22 (3 parallels) from On Proverbs, all from On Friendship, Gergithios, the work on Plato’s Republic (1 parallel), and On Panic, and references to On Education (14) and all the known scientific works: six of seven to the works on marine animals, including the only references to On Torpedo Ray and On Shores (110, 105), and one to On Skeletons (111A). The only known titles missing are Encomium of Plato, On Sleep, Arcesilas, the conjectural On the Wise (101A), and the uncertain title of 115. For an overview of the known works, see Tsitsiridis (2013) 8–20. 21 Citations from Clearchus’ Lives are similarly concentrated in Book 12 on luxury (18 texts, 12 by title), which conversely cites only two other works by him, once each and both by title: On Friendship 15 and Erôtikoi 27 (near the end, transitional to Book 13); cf. Tsitsiridis (2013) 155–60.

Clearchus on Love

399

has no title. Wehrli assigned it hesitantly to On Education, which Athenaeus cites only once by title, in Book 15 (14); Dorandi follows others in assigning it to the Lives.22 Context and theme would equally suit the Erôtikoi (see further sec. 4 below). Be that as it may, Athenaeus’ frequent use of that work throughout Book 13 very likely reflects its main themes in turn, as similar “clusters” of material from a single source tend to do.23 Clearchus’ Erôtikoi, it thus appears, was a fertile source for learned encomia of heterosexual relations. Athenaeus gives other books in his magnum opus a similarly sharp thematic focus. Yet only Book 13 receives its own title in the manuscripts: both a titulus and a subscriptio label it On Women (Περὶ γυναικῶν). Whatever its origin, the title is apt. The entire discussion centers on women, and Athenaeus himself announces it accordingly.24 The focus throughout is almost exclusively on their more intimate relationships with men: as wives, lovers, courtesans, and other “companions.” The proem, in Athenaeus’ own voice, entitles what is to follow his “discussion of matters of eros” (τὸν περὶ ἐρωτικῶν λόγον, 555a), then, invoking the muse Erato, a “catalogue of eros” (τὸν ἐρωτικὸν κατάλογον) and “discourses on eros itself and matters of eros” (λόγοι περὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἔρωτος καὶ τῶν ἐρωτικῶν, 555b). This emphasis stems from the literary conceit underlying the entire work, whereby the sequence of topics mimics the successive stages of a lavish banquet.25 Talk thus turns to women at the stage when a less refined party might turn its attention to available sexual partners.26 But Athenaeus narrows the focus further by staging a debate about hetairas in which a Cynic’s crude objections to heterosexual relationships are answered at overwhelming length by a learned encomium of female companions and lovers. Book 13 thus dwells mainly on eros as love, and specifically love between men and women, and says little about anything overtly sexual.

22

Wehrli (1969) 50–1; see Subsidium interpretationis for 64 and Fortenbaugh (in this volume). 23 See Pelling (2000) for the term and the tendency. 24 So περὶ γαμετῶν καὶ ἑταιρῶν λόγοι at 555b, κατάλογος γυναικῶν at 590a and 590c; cf. Murray (2015) 40. 25 Cf. the preamble in the Epitome, summarizing the original preface (1b); see Lukinovic (1990), Murray (2015). For Book 13, see McClure (2003) 46–58. 26 Cf. Davidson (1997) 91–7.

400

Clearchus of Soli

Athenaeus’ citations from Clearchus’ Erôtikoi exhibit the same twofold emphasis. Nearly all discuss women, and mainly as loved or desired by men: five of seven from Erôtikoi 1, including three of the four in Book 13 (20, 23, 24; also 21, 25), all three cited only by title (27, 32, 33A), and all four cited without title (28–31). Another, from Erôtikoi 2 (26), is about “love songs” like those by Sappho and Anacreon, which could encompass attraction to the same as well as to the other sex. The two others both appear in Book 13, one entirely general and suited to either gender (19; likewise 21, 27), and the other on a child’s pet goose (22). This much is clear: amorous relations between the sexes, and mainly between couples, received substantial discussion – and pace Wehrli, often in a favorable light. That these excerpts mirror the emphasis of Book 13 where most are found calls for caution. But two points encourage confidence in the reliability of our sample. First, the six citations elsewhere in Athenaeus show the same emphasis, so context is at least not decisive. Conversely, the “clustering” in Book 13 suggests that Athenaeus turned to this work here because he found it especially useful for its topic, not only best suited among that author’s works but better suited than available work by most others.27 In the surviving passages, three themes predominate, which we shall consider in turn: first, some passages about visual attraction and its natural basis; then three about love affairs involving famous leaders; and finally some about love as a theme for poetry. The second set was apparently critical, but not unreservedly so. The others, I shall argue, portray love as a fundamentally natural impulse and a source, even when unrequited, of noble sentiment and song. 3. Natural Attraction Three texts clustered together near the end of Book 13 discuss eros in animals: attraction to people in 22 and 30, and to man-made images of animals in 29. Only 22 is cited by book, from Book 1, but their 27 Unattributed excerpts may of course lurk elsewhere. For example, Zecchini (1989) 66, 72, 198, 203–4, would assign five more passages in Book 13 to the Erôtikoi: 576d–e, 586c, 589d–90a, 594d, 605d–e; but his proposals remain too speculative to be considered here. I likewise forego discussion of 34–5 because their attribution to Clearchus is questionable and their connection to the Erôtikoi tenuous; see notes to 34–5 (in this volume).

Clearchus on Love

401

shared theme makes it likely that all come from the same original context. Aristotle has plenty to say about the sexual habits of animals, mainly from a zoologist’s perspective in his studies of reproduction, its anatomy, physiology, ecology, and ethology. But he never reports any sexual relations between animals and humans, and only rarely any other interactions with people. A passing reference to the “loves and desires” dolphins have for children refers not to anything sexual but simply the famous friendliness that dolphins display toward humans (HA 9.48).28 Theophrastus also discussed a dolphin that loved a boy (fr. 568), and a goose that “loved” a boy figured in his own Eroticus (fr. 567A), as Athenaeus reports when he recounts Clearchus 22 about the same goose and then 30 about a peacock and a girl (13 606b–c). Even non-rational animals have fallen in love with people [ἀνθρώπων ἠράσθη]. … And in Aegium, a goose fell in love with a boy [παιδὸς ἠράσθη], as Clearchus reports in Book 1 of Erôtikoi; the boy’s name, Theophrastus says in his Erôtikos, was Amphilochus and he was from Olenus. Hermias son of Hermodorus from Samos fell in love [ἐρασθῆναι] with Lacydes the philosopher.29 And in Leucadia, Clearchus says, a peacock was so in love with a maiden [ἐρασθῆναι παρθένου] that when she passed away, it died too.

Theophrastus’ report, which supplies the child’s name, was apparently fuller than Clearchus’ and possibly his source. Elsewhere we learn that Theophrastus told how the boy was held with other exiles from Olenus in nearby Aegium (fr. 567B: Aelian, NA 5.29, cf. Pliny, NH 10.51, Plut. De soll. 972f). Yet none of these accounts makes any mention of the boy’s feelings for the goose, only its special fondness for him. The widespread cultivation of domesticated geese for eggs (cf. Ath. 2 58a–b), down, food, and other uses provides a ready explanation.30 The goose’s “love” was simply the common attraction a household animal or pet has to its chief caretaker, as was clearly the 28 See White (2002a) 225; cf. φιλανθρωπότατον in Ath. 606d, between similar tales from Duris (fr. 7 FGrH 76) and Phylarchus (fr. 26 FGrH 81). 29 This sentence lacks a finite verb and a subject for ἐρασθῆναι, which I have supplied in brackets; unless it is a scribal error, the resulting anacolouthon implies an ellipsis that tightens the link between 22 and 30, here separated only by the parenthetical details from Theophrastus and the parallel from Hermeias. 30 Domesticated geese appear already in the Odyssey (Penelope’s flock in 19.536– 53, Menelaus’ in 15.161–2), and still in Attic comedy and Plato; see Thompson (1936) 326–7.

402

Clearchus of Soli

case in the parallel story Athenaeus cites about the Academic Lacydes in Athens (fr. 10c Mette, cf. fr. 3 from Numenius in Euseb. PE 14.7).31 Clearchus’ adjacent report about the peacock in 30 is best understood in similar terms, especially given his debunking of Helen’s mythical birth from a swan’s egg in 33A. As in 22, we hear nothing about the maiden’s feelings or any interactions between the two, only that the peacock was devoted to her. Widely known in Greece, peacocks were first domesticated in Asia (Persia, Babylon, India), introduced to sixth-century Samos, where they were sacred to Hera and appeared on coinage, and brought to Athens in the fifth century.32 They were prized not only for their beauty and magnificent feathers but also for food, and especially their eggs, which were considered the very best.33 Aristotle’s detailed account of the bird’s reproductive cycle (HA 6.9, cf. 6.3) suggests that its cultivation had by then become common. Domestic animals easily and often bond with those who tend them, as Clearchus’ peacock evidently did. Whether a household pet or a sacred bird in a sanctuary, it clearly liked the girl’s company – so much so that it died without her. In neither of Clearchus’ two reports, then, is the bird’s attraction sexual; nor is there any hint of bestiality. In both, eros is simply a form of attraction: a natural desire to be with someone. Athenaeus’ summary does not specify the basis for this attraction. But in both cases, the object of eros is young, and given the Greek attraction to youths of both sexes (cf. 19, 20, 28, and esp. 27, discussed below), 22 and 30 may have depicted youthful good looks as inciting eros, and eros in turn as entailing desire to be in the physical presence of the beloved. 31 Theophrastus also recounted a goose’s “love” for a young woman named Glauke, apparently a Chian harpist who played for Ptolemy Philadelphus (fr. 567B– C). If the identification is correct, then Theophrastus’ work must come from his last years: Philadelphus was born in 308 and raised on Cos until brought to Alexandria c. 290 to marry Arsinoe, shortly before Theophrastus died c. 287; cf. Fortenbaugh (2011) 698–706. Both this second story (from Strato as Ptolemy’s tutor?) and details about the boy at Aegium are ascribed only to Theophrastus, which makes it unlikely that Clearchus was his source; if vice versa, then Clearchus’ Erôtikoi would also postdate 290. Among extant versions, first Pliny, then Plutarch, Athenaeus, and Aelian tell the stories together, which points to a common source, if not Clearchus or Theophrastus, presumably a compendium of some sort. 32 See Thompson (1936) 277–81. 33 Ath. 2 58b, citing two cookbooks, ranks theirs first, and goose eggs second best.

Clearchus on Love

403

Visual attraction among animals of the same species is the focus of 29, which appears shortly before 22. Athenaeus first cites Clearchus for a generalization about the psychology of eros, that it normally subsides when it seems fruitless. Aristotle reports the same thesis in Rhetoric 2.19 among topoi “on possibilities and impossibilities,” where he observes that in “love or desire that is natural … nobody loves or desires what is impossible, for the most part” (1392a23–4). In 29, Clearchus supplies some evidence for this claim: four cases involving animals and a fifth involving a man (13 605e–f). You philosophers [said Myrtilus to the Cynic Cynulcus], even if you ever fall in love [ἐρασθέντες] with a woman and get the idea success is impossible, learn love subsides,34 as Clearchus says. For a bullock mounted the bronze cow in Peirene,35 a dog approached and jumped onto a picture of a dog, a dove did the same with a picture of a dove, and a goose with a picture of a goose; but once the impossibility became clear to them, they all gave up [ἀπέστησαν], just as Cleisophos of Selymbria did. For he fell in love [ἐρασθείς] with the Parian statue on Samos and locked himself in the temple so he could couple [πλησιάσαι]; and when he was unable because the stone was cold and hard, then he gave up his desire, and by extending the little flesh in front, he did couple.

The story of Cleisophos acquired some notoriety. Athenaeus goes on to quote allusions to it in Alexis (Painting fr. 41 KA) and Philemon (fr. 127 KA), names the sculptor Ctesicles (citing the scholar Adaios of Mytilene), and adds a similar story about a statue of a boy at Delphi (from Polemo of Ilium, fr. 56 Preller), before returning to animals and citing Clearchus’ reports about the goose and the peacock (22 and 30).36 What exactly transpired in the temple is not spelled out, and the 34 Wehrli adopts Kaibel’s supplement ὅτι ἀδυνατοῦσι (“that for those who are unable”); Gulick proposes ὅτι τοῖς ἀδυνάτοις (“that when things are impossible”); Olson simply marks a lacuna. I supply the necessary conjunction but further supplement is doubtful and otiose. 35 A sacred spring in the precinct of Aphrodite on Acrocorinth, reportedly where Alexander’s painter Apelles first saw a lovely maiden Laïs (588c). For the bull’s behavior, cf. a famous bronze mare at Olympia supposedly imbued with “mare’s frenzy”: Pausanias 5.27.1–4 and Aelian, NA 14.18 with Arist. HA 6.18 572a5–30, Theophr. fr. 362A, C, E, and Sharples (1995) 79. 36 Both Alexis and Philemon were active well into the third century and could have taken the story from Clearchus; Alexis specifies a κόρη, which would suit an archaic statue, presumably clothed. Topical details give the story an air of authenticity, and Clearchus was probably familiar with two similar cases: the legend of Pygmalion, first

404

Clearchus of Soli

text may be corrupt.37 A man “fell in love” (cf. ἠράσθη in Philemon, ἐπεθύμησεν in Alexis) with a beautiful statue, probably of a goddess (ἀγάλματος). Deterred by the “Parian” marble, he first “gave up his desire” (τῆς ἐπιθυμίας ἀπέστη), just as all the animals in the passage do. But unlike them, he still managed to satisfy his sexual urge (“couple” for ἐπλησίασεν), apparently by masturbating. In that respect, his case might seem exceptional, and it might not even come from Clearchus.38 On the other hand, it does conform with the first four cases, and it also confirms the same thesis that eros subsides, provided that involves more than sexual arousal. After all, Cleisophos’ attraction to the statue did subside once he found another outlet for his initial sexual urge. Whatever its source, then, this strange case further confirms the opening thesis that Athenaeus explicitly attributes to Clearchus. In fact, if he followed Aristotle’s topos in restricting his thesis to “natural” eros, as the appeal to animal behavior suggests he did, then he could even explain apparent exceptions (cf. “for the most part” in Rhet. 1392a23–4) – notorious infatuation with a statue, for example— as pathological and “unnatural.” All five cases in 29 involve males attracted to females of the same species, and all illustrate the role of vision in arousing male sexual desire. All also involve deceptively realistic images, the mere sight of which stimulates eros. The four animals show that this is a natural impulse, and the Samian case illustrates how people can respond in similar ways. Excerpts from two other works by Clearchus, both in Athenaeus’ lengthy discussion of birds in Book 9, also highlight the visual attested in Philostephanus (fr. 13 FHG 3.31), which derives from Phoenician cult of Astarte at Cypriot Paphos, cf. Dörrie (1974) 24–8; and a case involving Praxiteles’ celebrated Aphrodite at Cnidos (c. 350, also of Parian marble), told by Posidippus (the comic playwright or the poet from Pella; see FHG 4.482), when a large female nude could still scandalize; cf. Pliny, NH 36.20–1 and Stewart (1997) 97–107. 37 Editors of Athenaeus emend τὸ σαρκίον to τι σαρκίον (“some piece of flesh”; cf. Philip Roth’s Portnoy?); Wehrli marks a crux; Dorandi retains the article. The diminutive might be a euphemism for his penis, and the article then possessive; I have not found a parallel, but cf. Rufus, Corp. hum. 111 and Soranus, Gun. 1.18.2 (for the clitoris), and Clement, Excerpta ex Theodoto 1.1: ὃ προέβαλε σαρκίον τῷ Λόγῳ ἡ Σοφία, τὸ πνευματικὸν σπέρμα, τοῦτο στολισάμενος κατῆλθεν ὁ Σωτήρ. 38 Use of καθάπερ (cf. 20, 28, 592c, 602c) might already mark an addition by Athenaeus, who most likely supplies the following parallels from Alexis and Philemon, though Wehrli includes them in his fr. 26.

Clearchus on Love

405

basis of erotic attraction. In a work “entitled On the Mathematical Statements in Plato’s Republic” (cited only here), Clearchus reported that quail and crows are so attracted to their own reflections that they can easily be caught, as even their own image (τὸν ἐμφαινόμενον) stimulates their mating impulse “because of their natural affection” (διὰ τὴν φυσικὴν φιλοστοργίαν, 393a–b: 4–5A). An excerpt from On Panic (also cited only here) reports that male sparrows, partridge, roosters, and quail are aroused simply by the sight of the females, or even their voice; and the cause (αἴτιον) of this reaction, Clearchus adds, is a kind of imaginative association, by which visual stimuli prompt the males to imagine mating (389f: 36).39 Two other excerpts from Erôtikoi, both in Book 13 of Athenaeus, highlight visual attraction between people. Shortly before 29, Athenaeus cites Clearchus for a remark by the courtesan Glycera: “boys too are beautiful only so long as they look like women” (605d: 28). Myrtilus quotes her comment to rebuke “you philosophers” – by which he means Cynulcus and his fellow Cynics – for dishonoring Aphrodite in favoring pederasty (“using Aphrodite unnaturally”: παρὰ φύσιν), which Glycera contends is dependent on heterosexual attraction, and specifically to sexually mature women (γυναιξί) rather than girls. Glycera’s point, Wehrli suggests, was to recommend courtesans, presumably at a symposium where both women and boys were in view and sexually available.40 He also suggests that “for Clearchus, the impermanence of boyhood beauty is an argument against love.” But that inverts the point of the remark, which is plainly to encourage interest in older women. Nor does Athenaeus give us any reason to think Clearchus disagreed with the courtesan: he frames the comment as what she “used to say” (ἔφασκεν) and then adds “just as Clearchus reports” (ἱστορεῖ). Evidently, then, he made the same point that both she and Myrtilus make: that mature female beauty is the standard by 39 The behavior was well known, and partridges were notorious for lechery; cf. Xen. Mem. 2.1.4, Thompson (1936) 236–7. But the explanation draws on Aristotelian psychology and zoology; see Tsitsiridis (2013) 144–51, and White (2002a) on animal φαντασία. 40 Wehrli (1969) 55. A Glycera contemporary with Clearchus succeeded Pythionikê in Harpalus’ affections (586c), beguiled Menander (585c), and challenged the Megaric Stilpo at a symposium (584a). Anecdotes about witty courtesans were collected by Lynceus of Samos, brother of the historian Duris and student of Theophrastus; see Dalby (2000), McClure (2003) 79–105.

406

Clearchus of Soli

which to judge the looks “both” of boys (καὶ οἰ παῖδες) and implicitly of younger women too. That stance accords with another passage from Erôtikoi 1, where Clearchus quotes verses by the largely forgotten Lycophronides (fr. 1: 843 PMG) about which is most attractive: male youths, female youths (παρθένων: “virgins”), or mature women (20: 564a–b). In fact, men long ago used to love boys [παίδων], as Aristo [of Ceos fr. 13A] said too, which led to the ones they loved being called boyfriends [παιδικά]. For just as Clearchus says in Book 1 of the Erôtikoi, Lycophronides has spoken to the truth, he says:41 Neither is the face of a boy nor of maidens decked in gold, nor of buxom women beautiful unless it is decorous; for modesty sows its bloom.

Athenaeus goes on to add a similar remark from Aristotle, that “lovers gaze at nothing else in the body of the one they love than their eyes, where modesty resides” (fr. 96, standardly assigned to his Erôtikos). Both Clearchus and Aristotle emphasize the role of sight in stimulating eros. Yet both highlight something often contrasted with the erotic: not the body or figure as a stimulus to sexual desire, but the modesty (αἰδώς) visible in facial expression and demeanor.42 Unlike the various animals in 29, or the birds in 4–5 and 36, whose responses to visual stimuli are all overtly sexual, people feel and express eros in more complex ways, based on perceptions not only of bodily form but of sentiment and character as well, as the present passage illustrates. Theophrastus invokes the same contrast when he praises contests that honor women for temperance – the virtue most closely associated with eros and modesty alike – but criticizes the contests of his native Lesbos that celebrate only visual beauty (fr. 564; cf. fr. 565). The ethical basis for the contrast is readily apparent in 19, again from Erôtikoi 41

If φησίν here is genuine, its subject is presumably Aristo, citing Clearchus to support his point about “boyfriends,” though possibly Hegesander (cited previously) or the speaker Myrtilus (with historic present); cf. Fortenbaugh (2012) 20–1. Olson (2006–12) 6: 269 follows Meineke in deleting the word, which makes Clearchus the direct source of the comment on Lycophronides and his verses but deprives the main clause of a finite verb. 42 This “modesty in the eyes” was proverbial: Arist. Rhet. 2.6 1384a34, CPG 1.381; cf. EN 9.5 1167a3–8 and Price (1989) 242–3, Sihvola (2002).

Clearchus on Love

407

1 (6 255b), which is followed almost directly by two longer excerpts on flattery from the Gergithios (17 and 18): Clearchus of Soli says in Book 1 of the Erôtikoi, “No flatterer is worth much for friendship, for time uncovers the falsity in his pretense; and the lover is a flatterer feigning friendship [κόλαξ φιλίας] on account of vigor or beauty.”

Clearchus characterizes the typical “lover” as a flatterer, which led Wehrli to infer that he was universally critical of love. But three points favor a more nuanced assessment. First, in singling out a male “lover” (ὁ ἐραστής) attracted to youthful “vigor” (ὥραν), Clearchus focuses his criticism specifically on older partners in pederastic pairs, not people in love (οἱ ἐρῶντες) generally. Moreover, in attributing their erotic interest specifically to the boyfriend’s “vigor or beauty” (δι᾿ ὥραν ἢ κάλλος), he assigns their attraction a natural basis in line with what we see in 20 and 28 (cf. 27). What makes the typical lover objectionable here, then, is his penchant for ingratiating flattery. In highlighting deception and duplicity – “the falsity in his pretense” – Clearchus targets the kinds of manipulative ploys satirized in Socrates’ first speech in the Phaedrus (238e–41c) and illustrated by the preceding speech attributed to Lysias (230e–34c): not the lover’s attraction to a comely youth, not his sexual preference, but his “feigning friendship” by catering to his boyfriend’s interests only in order to serve his own. A lover like that is literally “a flatterer of friendship” (κόλαξ φιλίας) because his outward solicitude for the youth creates an illusion of friendship, and one designed to advance his own erotic interests.43 If his attentions are thwarted or rejected (cf. 29), however, or if other interests intervene, such lovers are liable to leave their boyfriends in the lurch; they are not “worth much for friendship” (διαρκεῖ πρὸς φιλίαν), as Clearchus puts it. Despite its basis in natural attraction, then, erotic

43

Clearchus’ phrasing is characteristically compressed. In Antiphon fr. 65 DK, τύχης κόλακας is elliptical for panderers who exaggerate their target’s good fortune; by analogy, a κόλαξ φιλίας should then be someone who shows exaggerated concern for another, acting friendlier than he is; cf. Arist. EN 4.6 1127a6–10. Contrast Heraclides Pont. fr. 36 (assigned to his Eroticus by Wehrli and Schütrumpf), which follows the Phaedrus palinode in making φιλία the proper goal of eros and sex only an incidental outcome (κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς ἐκπίπτειν εἰς ἀφροδίσια); cf. Arist. An. pr. 2.22 68a39–b6 and Top. 6.7 146a7–12 with Price (1989) 237–41.

408

Clearchus of Soli

interest of this sort is typically a poor basis for stable personal relations. In designating visual attraction as the efficient cause of pederastic eros, Clearchus assigns it a natural basis that aligns it with animal behavior generally. In characterizing the pederast’s conduct as a form of flattery, however, he invokes higher standards and distinctly human norms of social conduct, specifically a presumption of honesty in intimate personal relations between rational animals. By that standard, a pederast’s behavior resembles friendship only superficially because his “flattery” is fundamentally duplicitous, only mimicking a friend’s outward gestures but lacking the candor and commitment that differentiate the two. How Clearchus articulated this deficiency further, if he did, whether for example he construed it in Aristotelian terms as lacking concern for the youth for his own sake, or more in line with the Phaedrus palinode or some other model, we have insufficient evidence to say. Denigrating some lovers as flatterers, however, does not imply any blanket critique of eros in humans. On the contrary, it focuses criticism on duplicity, and the contrast with friendship indicates what Clearchus thought was missing. If a lover’s solicitude is honest and reliable, not simply ingratiating, then eros can provide an integral basis for friendship. Only if eros somehow precludes honest commitment would this critique have wider scope; for then eros would be incompatible with friendship. Absent any basis for such a categorical objection here, we need to see what Clearchus says elsewhere about people in love. Does he extend his criticism of pederastic lovers for manipulative deception more widely? Or does he present some lovers in a more positive light, either as paradigms of friendship or for other desirable traits or accomplishments they exhibit? 4. Leaders and Lovers Both 19 and 20 highlight factors that figure in widely respected forms of love: modesty and friendship. Together they suggest that Clearchus recognized and approved forms of eros centered on character, which would count as a special type of Aristotle’s paradigm form of friendship, namely, character friendship. In fact, love of this sort is a species of the closest type of such friendship, what Aristotle labels “companionship” (ἑταιρική) in contrast to “kinship” (συγγενική) or

Clearchus on Love

409

looser forms of “partnership” or association (κοινωνία) like “civic friendship” (EN 8.12; cf. 9.10 1171a10–13). Moreover, the notion of companionship is central to a trio of passages that discuss three famous leaders involved with women who were not their wives: Gyges and an unnamed woman described as his “companion” (23), Pericles and the celebrated “companion” Aspasia (24), and Epaminondas and another man’s “woman” or wife (31). All three passages appear in Athenaeus Book 13, and perhaps not coincidentally, in chronological sequence. The first two Athenaeus assigns to Erôtikoi 1, and the third, which closely follows the second, could readily come from the same context. Unlike the passages considered so far, here Clearchus draws on historical sources. The first involves what was ancient history already for him: early in the seventh century, at the starting point of Herodotus’ History. The second reaches back over a century before his time to the third quarter of the fifth century. Even the third most likely occurred before he was born (Epaminondas died in 362, Pelopidas two years earlier). Absent any context, it is plausible to assume, as Wehrli does, that all three cases were cited by Clearchus to show how eros can ruin powerful men.44 In Athenaeus, however, they all appear in Myrtilus’ catalogue of beautiful women loved by powerful men. And again there are signs that Clearchus’ assessment, though not entirely positive, was not entirely negative either. First the case of Gyges, legendary lord of Lydia (23: 573a–b): Clearchus in Book 1 of Erôtikoi says, “Gyges the King of Lydia was famous for the woman he loved not only in her lifetime, when he entrusted both himself and all his realm to her hands, but also after her death, when he brought together all the Lydians in the land and erected what is still now called the Consort’s Monument, which he raised so high that when he made his rounds of the Tmolus valley, he could see the monument wherever he happened to turn, and it was visible to all the inhabitants of Lydia.”

Clearchus does not name the woman Gyges loved so much that he shared his rule with her, then granted such exalted honors in death.45 44

Wehrli (1969) 56. Her name may lurk behind the corrupt ἔχωσε μὲν λυδίας (cod. A: ἔχωσε τὸ νῦν CE); Schweighäuser proposed Μεναλίας, Gulick Μαιναλίδος; cf. Μεγάστρυ στήλην in Hipponax fr. 7.3 Degani, and Μυτάλιδι (or Μυταλίδεω; cf. Hesych. s.v. μυττάλυτα) 45

410

Clearchus of Soli

Instead, he calls her first the king’s “beloved” (τὴν ἐρωμένην), then his “consort” (τῆς ἑταίρας). The second label, even if only a Greek designation (τὸ νῦν ἔτι καλούμενον), is significant because it makes explicit that she was considered not his legitimate wife but some other sort of companion.46 Yet it also implies, at least to Greek ears, that she enjoyed Gyges’ special favor, not as one among many royal concubines, a pallakê of the sort widely associated with Asian potentates, but as his preferred companion.47 In short, she was Gyges’ lover, and if not his official consort, then clearly his favorite and partner. If we wonder why she lacks the title of Queen, we might recall the famous tale of how the wife of Candaules (who also remains unnamed) delivered Gyges the throne in the first place (Hdt. 1.7–14). In his virtual monogamy, then, Gyges conforms with traditional Hellenic norms, and though we may safely assume that Clearchus did not cite his love for one woman to justify or excuse his excesses, his faithful devotion sounds a positive note in what would otherwise be a typical tale of barbarian opulence and a tyrant unmanned.48 The monumental tumulus, which evidently became customary for Lydian royalty, Clearchus quite likely censured; and Wehrli may be right that he did so in light of the recent scandal of Harpalus’ lavish monuments to his mistress, the courtesan Pythionikê, in Athens as well as Babylon – something Dicaearchus also mentioned with scorn (fr. 81).49 Yet Dicaearchus also had high praise for the Babylonian Ninus (fr. 60), who legend had it was overcome by eros for Semiramis (Plut. Amat. 753d–e). Reproach and respect are hardly incompatible if the basis differs, and in 7.4, after mention of Gyges’ own tomb. On the relation between these tombs and excavated tumuli, see Ratté (1994); only a later tomb for Alyattes is singled out as enormous by Hdt. 1.93, who says it was funded in part by contributions from prostitutes. 46 Strabo calls it the “prostitute’s monument” (πόρνης μνῆμα, 13.4.7); cf. the Giza pyramid he calls “the Companion’s Tomb” (τῆς ἑταίρας τάφος, Strabo 17.1.33), associated with the Thracian courtesan Rhodopis in Hdt. 2.134–5. 47 On the παλλακή or παλλακίς, and the barbarian overtones of this term, see McClure (2003) 18–21; cf. Davidson (1997) 73–136. Clearchus describes ritual prostitution as ἑταιρισμός in 42A. 48 Cf. 42A on Omphale and Lydian promiscuity; even Heracles was supposed to have succumbed to this redoubtable queen. 49 Wehrli (1969) 56; see McClure (2003) 137–49 on the transgressive nature of these and similar inversions of civic and personal honors; cf. Keesling (2006).

Clearchus on Love

411

Gyges’ retention of the throne makes it unlikely that Clearchus portrayed this famously Hellenizing ruler (Hdt. 1.14) as ruined by love: distracted, clearly, perhaps to some detriment to his kingdom or people, but hardly undone. In another case, Clearchus evidently did highlight the wider impact of a leader’s love. Echoing Old Comedy, which brazenly blamed the Peloponnesian War on Pericles and Aspasia (Aristoph. Ach. 527– 31),50 he portrays their affair as a source of calamity for “all of Greece” (24: 589d). As for Pericles the Olympian, as Clearchus says in Book 1 of Erôtikoi, was it not for the sake of Aspasia (not the younger one but the one who consorted with the wise Socrates) that, despite the preeminence he acquired for his insight and political influence, he threw all of Greece into turmoil?51

In Athenaeus, this is only one in a string of cases Myrtilus recounts to vindicate love for hetaeras by cataloguing their relations with famous men of intellect and influence (588a–599d). Four philosophers precede Pericles, and not only the hedonists Epicurus and Aristippus but also Aristotle and Plato (588a–589d);52 and there follow three more leaders, several Attic orators, and Sophocles the tragedian (589f–593a), before the focus shifts to Hellenistic dynasts. Although most of these figures are criticized for their affairs in other sources, Myrtilus portrays them in a largely favorable light. For him, their affairs are models of romantic love, and Pericles is meant to illustrate how much love can matter even to men of the highest public stature. Recovering Clearchus’ assessment of Pericles from this context therefore requires special caution. He was clearly critical of Pericles’ conduct; the charge that he ignited Panhellenic “turmoil” (συνετάραξε πᾶσαν τὴν Ἑλλάδα) is plainly negative. It is, however, only one side of a striking antithesis built around a distinctly favorable reference to 50

Perhaps also Athenian subjugation of Samos in 441/0; so Duris of Samos fr. 65 FGrH 76 = Theophr. fr. 627. See Henry (1995) 19–28; cf. Podlecki (1998) 109–17, Schwarze (1971). 51 The parenthesis mentioning another Aspasia, a Phocaean loved by the younger Cyrus (RE no. 2, cf. Plut. Per. 24.11–12), is probably an interpolation by Athenaeus. 52 Aristotle for his second partner Herpyllis (Hermippus fr. 28 FGrH 1026, cf. D.L. 5.12–14), and Plato for the epigram to Archeanassa (cf. D.L. 3.31: Pal. 7.217 “by Asclepiades”).

412

Clearchus of Soli

Pericles’ exceptional “insight and political ability” (συνέσεως καὶ πολιτικῆς δυνάμεως). The basis for Clearchus’ criticism, in short, is political, not moralizing, and his target not Pericles’ love for Aspasia in general but specifically the way his personal relationship affected his conduct of public affairs. The contrast with other critics is instructive. Athenaeus goes on to report allegations of sexual excess, including an allegation from Stesimbrotus that Pericles seduced the wife of his own son.53 Returning to Aspasia, he then cites Antisthenes objecting (presumably in his dialogue Aspasia) to Pericles kissing Aspasia whenever he left home and again when he returned, and to his effusive display of emotion when speaking in her defense in court (fr. 143 SSR).54 The proto-Cynic Antisthenes was scandalized by such breaches of traditional mores, which condemned public displays of affection even with a legitimate wife (cf. Plut. Conj. praec. 139e). But there are grounds for doubting that Clearchus endorsed so stern a verdict. In 64, he castigates Cynic austerity as uncivil and inhumane. The “tough life” cultivated by the Cynics (καρτερικὸν βίον; cf. D.L. 6.2), he argues, adopts only undesirable traits of their eponymous dog, since they mimic only its snarling independence and not its protective and companionable nature (611b–d). Wehrli assigns the passage to On Education, Dorandi and others to the Lives. Whatever its original home, it shows that Clearchus rejected Cynic hostility to female companionship and affection, and in ways that make it unlikely that he shared Antisthenes’ blanket disapproval of Pericles’ love for Aspasia. At least in 24, Clearchus charges Pericles only with letting his domestic life interfere with his public responsibilities. That leaves open the possibility – even the likelihood, given his praise for Pericles’ political judgment – that Clearchus did not take his affair as evidence of any general moral corruption or decline. Heraclides, by way of contrast, accused Pericles of “preferring the life of pleasure” and criticized him on three counts: for divorcing his wife, for living with Aspasia, and for exhausting his es53 Stesimbrotus fr. 10 FGrH 107, disimissed by Plutarch as invidious “blasphemy” (Per. 13.16) and “slander” (36.6), apparently fabricated by the son; see Stadter (1989) ad loc. and lxii; cf. Podlecki (1998) 148. 54 For the “kisses,” which may have no more basis than a pun on her name and ἀσπάζεσθαι, cf. Plut. Per. 24.9; for the trial, cf. Per. 32, citing Aeschines fr. 67, and Podlecki (1998) 115–17.

Clearchus on Love

413

tate on her (12 533c = fr. 43). That Athenaeus relies on other sources for such broad criticism suggests he found nothing comparable in Clearchus. In singling out the public impact of Pericles’ love, moreover, Clearchus implicitly restricts the scope of his criticism to leaders. He clearly considered Pericles’ devotion excessive, and the consequences, thanks to his political prominence, calamitous. But that does not show that he found fault with his loving or living with a female “companion,” especially one of such celebrated attainments as Aspasia.55 A third passage about a leader shows a similarly nuanced assessment. Shortly after the mention of Pericles in 24, Athenaeus has Myrtilus quote Clearchus again for a comment about Epaminondas (31: 590c). Clearchus says this about Epaminondas: “Epaminondas of Thebes had lapses in judgment in personal affairs that, while more dignified than those, were still unbecoming, if one considers what he did [τὰ πραχθέντα αὐτῷ] concerning a Spartan’s wife.”

What transpired between Epaminondas and the Spartan’s wife – or possibly “Lacon’s” (τὴν Λάκωνος γυναῖκα) – Athenaeus does not explain.56 In the context of Myrtilus’ speech, it is natural to suspect some sort of sexual liaison, and a sordid tale of sexual bribery or adultery.57 But two points of diction tell against such suspicions. First, the reference to “personal affairs” (περὶ τὰς ὁμιλίας) does not imply it. Though sometimes a euphemism for sexual relations, the term has very wide scope, and its primary sense (which the plural here favors) covers any kind of social interaction. Second, before Clearchus criticizes Epami55

Precedents include Aeschines and Xenophon, who wrote admiring accounts of Aspasia and her influence, contrary to the critical Antisthenes; see Henry (1995) 29– 56 and Kahn (1996) 18–29. 56 A fellow Theban named Lacon is possible but unlikely; Thebes and Sparta, though bitter enemies late in Epaminondas’ life, had close ties earlier, and the name is attested for two Thebans c. 425 (LGPN 3B). The name is better attested elsewhere: the Aegean islands (9 times in LGPN 1), the Peloponnese (6 times outside Laconia, but not there until the late first century: LGPN 3A), and even Athens (16 times in LGPN 2). 57 So Gulick (1927–41) 6: 184, citing parallels in Plutarch (discussed below): “the man’s wife approached Epaminondas with her blandishments”; Wehrli (1969) 56 labels the woman “seiner Geliebten.”

414

Clearchus of Soli

nondas for doing something “unseemly” (οὐκ εὐσχημόνως δέ), he first commends his exceptional “dignity” (σεμνότερον μὲν τούτων), a term that virtually precludes any sexual innuendo. Moreover, the anecdote is supposed to illustrate repeated lapses in judgment, since the verb’s imperfect tense (ἐσφάλλετο) implies not one but multiple “slips.” Yet Epaminondas’ reputation is otherwise unblemished by allegations of sexual impropriety. Quite the contrary, he is widely portrayed as a model of integrity and self-control.58 The brevity of the excerpt is frustrating, but the culprit is clearly Athenaeus, who chose only to mention rather than recount the anecdote Clearchus cited to confirm his assessment of Epaminondas. Certainty is of course impossible, but the episode that Clearchus went on to report is very likely the same one Plutarch recounts twice without attribution.59 In Precepts for Politics, Plutarch tells how Epaminondas, when his fellow commander Pelopidas asked him to release a merchant held in custody, first refused, then relented when pressed by the man’s “beloved” (808d–e). The same story appears in Sayings of Kings and Generals (192e), with the additional detail that the man was held for a minor offense (ἐξημαρτηκότα τι τῶν μετρίων). In both versions, the point of the anecdote lies in what Epaminondas then said to Pelopidas, that “it is fitting [πρέπον ἐστίν 808e: πρέπει 192e] for lady friends [ἑταιριδίοις] to obtain such favors [χάριτας] but not for generals.” Plutarch pointedly introduces the anecdote in Precepts with the twofold rule that a leader should do “honorable and merciful favors” for deserving friends but “rebuff base and inappropriate requests, not harshly but gently, by instructing and advising [his friends] that their requests are unworthy of their virtue and stature” (808d). Not only is there no hint of any sexual liaison here; Plutarch even praises his compatriot for handling the awkward situation “best of all people,” then pointedly contrasts his gracious comment with a stinging rebuke the younger Cato delivered to a similar request (808e, cf. Cato min. 16.5–10). The anecdote, in short, turns not on favoritism but on leni58 If the antecedent of τούτων here includes Pericles, as Wehrli (1969) 56 suggests, then Clearchus’ verdict on Epaminondas is all the more favorable. Cf. the eulogy in Diod. 15.88, based on Ephorus, and Plut. Pel. 26.5; Westlake (1939) argues for the influence of Callisthenes’ Hellenica and suspects a Peripatetic biography. 59 The case must have occurred after Epaminondas first became Boeotarch in 371 and before Pelopidas died in 364.

Clearchus on Love

415

ency. Epaminondas relents not to favor either his own interests or his colleague’s, but solely out of compassion for the prisoner’s “beloved” (τῆς ἐρωμένης, 808e and 192e); and the decisive factor in his clemency is the woman’s love, not for himself, but for her husband, or her lover if she was not his wife. If Plutarch’s anecdote concerns the same case as the one that Clearchus mentions in 31 and presumably went on to recount, then its relevance to the Erôtikoi is clear, and so too the basis for his criticism of the celebrated Theban. While praising him for outstanding integrity, Clearchus faults his “judgment” (γνώμην) in handling matters of private life. In particular, he faults him for letting an appeal based on love outweigh his public duty to administer justice. That is not to impugn his virtue or integrity. Rather, taking “judgment” in the strict Aristotelian sense of a “correct assessment of fairness” in particular cases (EN 6.11), the charge is that he misapplied sound principles.60 His mistake, in short, was excessive leniency. Rather than adhering too strictly to justice, he would show compassion when circumstances did not warrant it. Clearchus’ criticism of Epaminondas is thus closely related to his criticism of Pericles. In each case, he targets a conflict between public and private life; each case illustrates how love can distort an otherwise admirable leader’s handling of public affairs. But whereas Pericles’ judgment was clouded by his own love, Epaminondas acted without any personal stake at all. By Clearchus’ lights, he still violated decorum in letting another couple’s love influence his decision. What worried Clearchus, evidently, is not love in and of itself but its sometimes insidious influence on public policy and conduct. For his stern assessment of leaders is balanced in other texts by a notably sympathetic treatment of love in private life and the domestic realm. 5. Love Songs The interplay of love and poetry figures in several excerpts from the Erôtikoi, mainly in the form of romantic longing and especially as an inspiration to song. Six texts discuss or quote poets singing about love, ostensibly including their own: not only the renowned Sappho and Anacreon, and the fashionable Antimachus, but also some otherwise 60

Cf. White (2019) 320–6.

416

Clearchus of Soli

forgotten poets and folksongs. One, and only one, appears in Book 13 of Athenaeus. To close his encomium of courtesans, Myrtilus names four poets who he claims dedicated poems to women they loved: first, on the authority of Clearchus (32), Antimachus of Colophon and Lamynthius of Miletus and the Lyde each composed; then their archaic forerunner, Mimnermus of Smyrna and Colophon and his elegiac Nanno; and finally their early Hellenistic imitator, Hermesianax of Colophon, whose elegiac Leontion Athenaeus then excerpts at length (597b–599b). Myrtilus was about to stop at that point when he said, “But I almost forgot to tell you, my friends, about Antimachus’ Lyde, and also the courtesan of the same name of whom Lamynthius of Miletus was fond [ἠγάπα]. For each of these poets, as Clearchus says in the Erôtikoi, in the grip of desire for the foreigner Lyde, composed a poem called Lyde, the one in elegiacs and the other in lyrics. I also left out Mimnermus’ piper Nanno, and Hermesianax of Colophon’s Leontion; for after she became his beloved [ἐρωμένης] he wrote three books of elegiacs, in the third of which he produces a catalogue of love tales [κατάλογον ἐρωτικῶν].” [596f–597a: 32]

Antimachus was a favorite of learned readers of the fourth century, including Plato, who reportedly had Heraclides travel to Colophon to collect his poetry.61 His Lyde in particular was widely admired and imitated by contemporaries of Clearchus.62 The poets Asclepiades and Posidippus proclaim the work a masterpiece, and they highlight traits Clearchus probably approved. Asclepiades, ascribing the Lyde jointly to the Muses and Antimachus, declares it “more dignified [σεμνοτέρη] than all the daughters of Codrus” (Pal. 9.63 = 32 GP); whether his contrast refers specifically to the citizen women of Colophon (the city claimed two sons of Codrus as its founding fathers) or more generally to the women of Ionia, or rather alludes to contemporary poetry, his adjective extols the poem’s elevated style and tone, and in terms

61 Heracl. Pont. fr. 8 = Antim. T 3 Matthews; cf. T 4–5, and Matthews (1996) 17– 18. Heraclides’ role dates this to the last two decades of Plato’s life; see Gottschalk (1980) 2–6. 62 Including Philitas, Apollonius, Callimachus, Nicander, Alexander of Aetolia, Hermesianax, Phanocles, the author of PBerol. 21340, and probably Hedylus; see Cameron (1995) 303–38, 485–7; cf. Krevans (1993).

Clearchus on Love

417

Clearchus uses approvingly of Epaminondas in 31 (σεμνότερον).63 Posidippus, toasting both the Lyde and its putative model, Mimnermus’ Nanno, calls Antimachus “temperate” (σώφρονος) in contrast to his “amorous” (φιλεράστου) forebear (Pal. 12.168 = 9 GP).64 Too little remains of Antimachus’ poem to support firm conclusions, but other testimony provides a likely explanation for these reactions and its peculiar appeal. According to his fellow Colophonian Hermesianax (fr. 7.41–6: 598a–b, following 32), Antimachus depicted himself mourning the untimely death of his beloved Lyde – probably not wife but “companion” and lover – and assuaging his grief by “recounting heroic misfortunes” (ἡρωικὰς συμφοράς).65 The novel device of embedding a series of exemplary tales within a confessional frame, which pioneered a new form of elegiac narrative in a distinctly personal mode that blazed the trail for subjective love elegy, enabled Antimachus both to link his legendary tales directly to the present and to highlight their psychological impact. And at least within the poem, their impact was thoroughly edifying; for according to Hermesianax, who mimicked the Lyde in his own Leontion, Antimachus’ singing healed his suffering (fr. 7.46). That outcome, and the moralizing approach it implies, is probably one reason why the poem appealed to stern critics like Plato. A related factor, over and above its severe style and innovative format, was evidently the poem’s lofty vision of love. Hermesianax calls its two volumes “sacred” (fr. 7.46), and the pseudoPlutarchan Consolation for Apollonius describes the poet’s feelings for his beloved as “affectionate” (φιλοστόργως, 106b). We need not imagine Lyde as Antimachus’ Beatrice or Laura, let alone his Diotima. Yet diction, tone, focus, and frame conspire to suggest that love figured in 63

Cameron (1995) 304–7 proposes an allusion to Callimachus; for a literal reading, see Gow and Page (1965) 138–9. Cf. Quint. 10.1.53 on his gravitas et minime vulgare eloquendi genus, which helps to explain Plato’s admiration; see Gottschalk (1980) 137, 158–9. 64 See Gow and Page (1965) 2: 488; φιλεράστου is an emendation for the corrupt φερεκάστου in the opening line; alternative proposals include φιλακρήτου and φέρ᾽ ἐραστῶν. 65 The last phrase, from [Plut.] Cons. Ap. 106b–c, seems to include misfortune in love; extant fragments involve Jason and Medea (frs. 67–77 Matthews), Bellerophon and Anteia (frs. 80–3), Oedipus (fr. 84), Meleager and his wife Cleopatra (frs. 88–9), Diomedes and his wife Aegialea (fr. 90), and Adonis (fr. 92). See Matthews (1996) 32–7 and 207–64; cf. Krevans (1993) 154, Cameron (1995) 315.

418

Clearchus of Soli

the poem as a fundamentally noble sentiment and a potent source of poetry and edifying tales. Athenaeus does not say whether Clearchus shared Plato’s admiration for Antimachus, or his contemporaries’ fascination with the Lyde. But our evidence for the poem and its reputation makes it likely that he did approve of its “dignified” and “temperate” treatment of love, Wehrli’s contrary verdict notwithstanding.66 If so, then his opinion of the other Lyde was probably favorable too, or so the close parallelism in the passage suggests. About Lamynthius and his lyric Lyde we know little else. An entry in Photius’ Lexicon labels him “a poet of love lyrics” (ποιητὴς ἐρωτικῶν μελῶν, s.v. Lamynthius); and a fragment of mid-fourth century comedy by Epicrates names him alongside Sappho and two others as composers of “love tales” (ἐρωτικά).67 For Wehrli, this link to Sappho and “erotica” confirms that Clearchus shared “das allgemeine philosophische Mistrauen gegen die Lyrik.”68 But the context again favors a friendlier view. In Athenaeus, where Epicrates is quoted near the end of Myrtilus’ defense of eros (605e, between 28 and 29), the term refers to songs of love and longing, including lyrics by Alcman (600f: fr. 59 PMG, from Chamaeleon fr. 27), Ibycus (601b: fr. 5 PMG), and Pindar (601c–d: frs. 123, 127 Maehler). Similarly in Epicrates’ own verses, the mention of Sappho is clearly not derogatory, and for Lamynthius to be named alongside the archetypal love poet can only add to his stature and that of his fellow Sapphic emulators. The lines of Epicrates are quoted, moreover, to controvert the Cynics, whom Myrtilus denounces for their “unnatural and sacrilegious abuse of Aphrodite” (605d), as he calls their crude reduction of eros to sex and their general contempt for love and affection (cf. 571b–e and 64). The “erotic” poets named by Epicrates stand at the opposite pole, presenting a more generous and humane conception of eros. Lamynthius thus belongs in the tradition of refined love lyric

66

Wehrli (1969) 57 on 26: “Antimachos tritt als Zeuge für die Leiden der Liebenden neben Sappho.” 67 Epicrates’ AntiLais fr. 4 KA, also naming Cleomenes of Rhegium, a dithyrambist (9 402a: fr. 838 PMG) and “rhapsode” (Ath. 14 620d, cf. 638d), and a Meletus, perhaps the Athenian known for skolia (Aristoph. Ran. 1301–7, cf. frs. 117, 156 KA) and/or tragedy (TrGF 47–8; cf. Plat. Ap. 23c). Cf. West (1992) 349. 68 Wehrli (1969) 57.

Clearchus on Love

419

that stretches from Sappho down to Horace and beyond, via Antimachus and his Hellenistic emulators. If the poetry of Antimachus appealed to Clearchus, then Lamynthius might do so too, at least for his themes; and if Lamynthius, then likewise Sappho. Or is Wehrli right to find an unfavorable judgment of Sappho in the sole fragment ascribed to Erôtikoi 2 (26: 14 639a)? And Telecleides in the Toughs [fr. 36 KA] says that he [sc. Gnesippus] also dwells on seduction [περὶ μοιχείας ἀναστρέφεσθαι]. Clearchus in Book 2 of Erôtikoi says that love songs and those called Locrian songs are no different from Sappho’s and Anacreon’s. Further, those of Archilochus and most of Homer’s Thrush Songs touch on something of these feelings in verse, and so do Asopodorus’ compositions about love, and the entire genre of love letters is a kind of love poetry in prose.69

For Wehrli, the assimilation of “love songs” (ἐρωτικὰ ᾄσματα) and “Locrian songs” to the lyrics of Sappho and Anacreon reflects poorly on the two poets. But in making this celebrated pair the standard for comparison, Clearchus more likely sought to make the opposite point: to raise the stature of the lesser songs, not denigrate either of the recognized classics.70 Context is again suggestive. Athenaeus has just recited a series of excerpts from Old Comedy about Gnesippus (638d– f), a fifth-century “skit-writer” (παιγνιαγράφος) who evidently adapted themes of archaic lyric and elegy for performance in miniature lyrical mimes.71 His main subject was love, especially heterosexual seduction (taking μοιχείας strictly), and the tone of his vignettes romantic and “sweetly” sentimental. The affinity with Sappho and Anacreon is obvious; and though evidence for “Locrian songs” is scarce, the one extant example, in which a woman begs her lover to depart before they 69

The text and sense of the final phrase are uncertain: ἐρωτικῆς τινος διαλόγου [διὰ λόγου Casaubon] ποιήσεως could highlight a prose format, or conversational tone, or both; cf. Ath. 10 445b for Asopodorus’ “iambics (or invectives?) in prose” (τοῖς καταλογάδην ἰάμβοις), with Rohde (1900) 265–6. 70 “No different” (οὐδὲν διαφέρειν) can mean “no better,” but only if the other term of the comparison is itself pejorative; and here the comparanda are exemplary love poets. Cf. “the divine Sappho” in Demetr. Eloc. 127, where her poetry is cited to exemplify the charm of the elegant (γλαφυρός) style; cf. D.H. Comp. 23 with fr. 1 and n. 75 below. 71 See Davidson (2000). An excerpt from Chionides’ Beggars (fr. 4 KA at 638e) ranks Gnesippus with Cleomenes, whom Epicrates names alongside Lamynthius; see n. 67 above.

420

Clearchus of Soli

are caught (Ath. 15 697b: Carm. pop. 7 = fr. 853 PMG), shares these same features.72 The point of Clearchus’ comparison, then, is evidently thematic: common to all four sets of songs listed in 26 is a focus on intimacy between men and women. That he condoned the sympathetic portrayal of illicit affairs is unlikely; after all, “seduction” is one of Aristotle’s example of acts that are always wrong in any situation (EN 2.6 1107a8–17). But legitimate relations with wives and “companions” – respectable women, not courtesans – are also prominent in Sappho and Anacreon; and the same was apparently true of the other songs Clearchus names in 26.73 That their content was tasteful and their tone restrained is likely, given the other examples cited here by Athenaeus. Although his mention of the famously blunt Archilochus would otherwise point to something coarse, the Thrush Songs must have kept well within the bounds of propriety. According to Menaechmus of Sicyon, a contemporary of Clearchus, these were hexameters for children (Ath. 2 65a–b: fr. 3 FGrH 131); and their ascription to Homer, though apocryphal, makes anything bawdy or coarse unlikely. Likewise for the rest. About Asopodorus of Phlius we hear only that he cultivated a turgid style (Ath. 10 445b) and disdained the approval of crowds (Ath. 631f); but that suggests bombast, not anything racy or coarse. Finally, if Alciphron’s book of “courtesan letters” (Epistulae 4) typifies what Athenaeus had in mind in citing “love letters” here, then they too favor the sentimentality of New Comedy over the bawdy carnality of Old Comedy. The evidence for most of this “erotic” literature is too tenuous to support firm conclusions. But it is sufficient to cast doubt on Wehrli’s verdict, and doubt should turn to disbelief when we find Clearchus quoting Sappho twice elsewhere, both times with evident approval. In 72

Cf. Davidson (2000) 50–1. Athenaeus introduces the verses by calling Locrian songs “seductive” (μοιχικαί), so the woman is often assumed to be an unfaithful wife; but μοιχεία encompasses any illicit relations with free women, so other scenarios are possible, such as an unmarried daughter and her suitor, as often in New Comedy. These songs also seem to have used exotic “Asian” rhythms and instrumentation; see West (1992) 349 and 75–7, and the prudish assessment of Garrod (1923). 73 Davidson (2000) argues that mimes often centered on gods or heroes in love, including paragons like Hector and Andromache, or Alcestis, as well as illicit lovers like Paris and Helen, or Jason and Medea. What Clearchus had to say about Anacreon in 34–5, and whether it had any relation to his Erôtikoi, remain idle questions; cf. n. 27 above.

Clearchus on Love

421

On Lives 3 (Ath. 15 687a–c), he apparently cites a distich of hers (fr. 58.25–6 = 58B.15–16) to support the thesis that “elegance” (ἁβροσύνη), unlike mere “luxury” (τρυφή), has a fundamental affinity to virtue (40: 687a–b). And you all suppose that elegance [τὴν ἁβρότητα] apart from virtue has something luxurious [τρυφερόν] about it? And yet Sappho, who was truly a woman and a poetess too, was nonetheless too modest [ᾐδέσθη] to deprive elegance of its beauty when she said: But me, I’m fond [φίλημμ᾿] of elegance and for me Love has obtained the radiance and beauty of the sun.74 She makes it clear to all that for her the desire to be alive possessed radiance and beauty, and those are features characteristic of virtue [οἰκεῖα τῆς ἀρετῆς].

Tendentious interpretation aside, Clearchus clearly takes Sappho to agree with his claim that elegance is not only compatible with virtue but intimately related to it, sharing its “characteristic features” of both radiance and beauty.75 In citing her modesty, moreover, he evidently means to praise her “fondness” for elegance, presumably for its restraint and moderation (cf. 20 above). And yet this fondness is central to her fascination with love, which she likens to the splendor and beauty of the sun: the very beacon of her life. It is hard to resist the conclusion that Clearchus is sympathetic to the way she portrays love in her poetry. He quotes another phrase of hers to similar effect in the Erôtikoi, in the last of six explanations for why people in love like to carry flowers (27: 12 554b): Or is it because all those in love, as if luxuriating [ἐκτρυφῶντες] in the experience and refreshing themselves with fresh things, make themselves elegant [ἁβρύνονται]? For surely it is natural for those who think they are beautiful and fresh to gather flowers. That is why Persephone and her company are depicted gathering flowers, and why Sappho says she saw 74 The quotation is plainly elliptical and its original sense uncertain; see Budelmann (2018) 152. For Athenaeus, whose paraphrase might follow Clearchus here, the second verse affirms rather that “love for the sun” (using a common metonym for life) has a radiant beauty. 75 That this is Clearchus’ point is confirmed by another example he gives in the sequel: despite reproaching the painter Parrhasius elsewhere for excessive luxury (cf. 41 in 12 543c), here in 40 he endorses his claim that elegance belongs with virtue (687b– c). Cf. Arist. Rhet. 1.9 1367a6–15 citing Sappho fr. 137 with similar approval on a related theme.

422

Clearchus of Soli a girl so tender [ἄγαν ἁπαλάν] picking flowers.

Clearchus alludes to the opening lines of the Homeric Hymn to Demeter, which pictures Persephone collecting flowers in the company of Oceanids (5–8). Equally chaste is Sappho’s vision of a “tender” girl (fr. 122). In each, the imagery has sexual undertones; as Clearchus suggests, and Persephone’s imminent abduction by Hades in the Hymn confirms, the young women are themselves figured as flowers ripe for picking. But the dominant motif is rather of lovely innocence and the “tender” grace and beauty associated with “elegance.” Clearchus thus appeals to Sappho again as an exemplary poet of love, whose “love songs” are not to be condemned as provocations to sexual indulgence or promiscuity but on the contrary cited admiringly for their refined vision of grace and beauty. Two final passages about love and poetry in rustic settings corroborate both Clearchus’ interest in romantic themes and his sympathetic handling of them. In one, he epitomizes the poignant tale of a rustic maiden named Eriphanis and her unrequited love for a reluctant swain by the name of Menalcas (25: 14 619c–d). Clearchus in Book 1 of Erôtikoi says there is a song [ᾠδήν] called “pastoral” [νόμιον] after Eriphanis, writing as follows: “Eriphanis the lyric poet [ἡ μελοποιός] fell in love [ἐρασθεῖσα] with Menalcas when he was hunting with his dogs, and she went hunting too, racing after him in her desire; for she would go out roaming, wandering all the mountain copses as in the tale of Io’s fabled courses. As a result, not only people with the coldest hearts but even the wildest of the beasts wept with her in her sorrow once they sensed her hopes for love [ἐρωτικῆς ἐλπίδος];76 and so she composed songs, and then she would prowl the lonely wilderness, so they say, crying out and singing [ἀναβοῶσα καὶ ᾄδουσα] the so-called pastoral, which includes the phrase: Tall are the oaks, o Menalcas.”

Here, as in 32 on Antimachus and Lamynthius, Clearchus depicts unrequited love as an inspiration for poetry. Like Antimachus, who portrayed himself singing to soothe his broken heart, Eriphanis turns to song when spurned by the one she loves. Clearchus, in calling her a “songmaker” – a standard label for “lyric poets” – and describing her as “composing” (ἐποίησέ τε καὶ ποιήσασα) her song, likens her to 76 An obscure but suggestive phrase, perhaps both “high hopes for reciprocity” and “desperate straits.”

Clearchus on Love

423

Sappho, whose famous stanzas to Aphrodite depict herself similarly lovelorn (fr. 1). Yet the source of his tale is puzzling. Clearchus clearly interpreted the “song of Eriphanis” as an authentic confession by its subject. But a poet named Eriphanis is otherwise unattested; and like others in the Lyceum who succumbed to the biographical fallacy, he may have mistaken a song about her for a song by her.77 So the context in Athenaeus suggests. The passage appears in a survey of different types of “songs” (ᾠδαί), first folksongs and folktales (618c–620a), then various kinds of performance and mime (620b–623d). The survey begins with a list of songs or refrains distinguished by singer or occasion: songs for millers, weavers, spinners, and so on. Although most are cited without any account of their content, at least some involve aetiological tales. The song of Eriphanis is the first of five at the end of this list that are named after individuals whose tales they tell. All five are tales of longing for young men: first those of Eriphanis and two other maidens spurned in love, then two about youths who vanished like Hylas. The two other tales about maidens come from Aristoxenus, who traces one about a chaste Calyce to Stesichorus (fr. 277 PMG: fr. 89 Wehrli) and another about a forlorn Harpalyce to traditional rites (fr. 129 Wehrli).78 Context thus suggests that Clearchus’ account of Eriphanis derives from a local legend or regional folktale that might have reached him or his source orally if not already recast in anonymous verse.79 Unlike Eriphanis, who is otherwise unknown, her beloved bears a familiar name. It belongs to a prominent figure in pastoral legend who regularly appears as a companion or rival of Daphnis, the archetypal hero of the bucolic genre.80 Hermesianax in his Leontion told both of 77

See Podlecki (1969), Schorn (2012). Authorship of the Calyce song is disputed; cf. Hes. fr. 245 MW, Lehnus (1975) 191–6. The tale of Harpalyce may have been the subject of a poem by Parthenius (fr. 23 Lightfoot), who also summarizes a gruesome tale of an apparently different Harpalyce from Euphorion’s Thrax (fr. 413 SH) in his own Erotica Pathemata 13; see Lightfoot (1999) 164, 446–54. 79 So Wehrli (1969) 56–7. Cf. the song of the similarly named Erigone, a folktale retold by Theodorus of Colophon (see Arist. fr. 515 in Ath. 618e–f, preceding 25) and then Eratosthenes (frs. 22–7 CA). 80 Daphnis is uniformly depicted as a cowherd, Menalcas as a shepherd; the difference most likely reflects some sort of literary hierarchy of tone or genre; see Gutzwiller (1983) 171–82, cf. Hunter (1999) 60–8. 78

424

Clearchus of Soli

Daphnis’ love for Menalcas (fr. 2) and of Menalcas’ own unrequited love for Euhippe, which drove him to precipitate his own death (fr. 3). Menalcas also appears in the probably spurious Idylls 8 and 9 in the Theocritean corpus (cf. 27.44), and again in Virgil’s Eclogues 3 and 5 (cf. 2.15, 9.10–20, 10.20).81 If Clearchus’ Eriphanis and Hermesianax fr. 3 involve the same Menalcas, then his fate parallels that of Daphnis: each spurns one maiden’s love only to die of longing for another.82 It is unsafe to assume that any particular Menalcas is the same as any other. Ancient scholars distinguished a Sicilian in the Idylls from a Euboean in Hermesianax (Sch. Theocr. 8.55–6, 9 hypoth.), and by Virgil’s time if not before, the name may have been little more than a generic marker for pastoral verse. In Clearchus, nonetheless, the name has the authentic ring of folktale; and unless he wrote after Hermesianax and Theocritus’ imitators – which would push his date implausibly far into the third century – we have here in his report a precursor to that new Hellenistic genre. By his account, in fact, the song that Eriphanis sang in her sorrow was already called “pastoral” (τὸ καλούμενον νόμιον); and as Wehrli observes, the rhythm of the plaintive phrase that Clearchus quotes (Carm. pop. 4 = fr. 850 PMG) suits a refrain from a rustic song or contest.83 The pastoral setting of 25 colors the tenor and tone of Clearchus’ report. Although the ironies of a hunter fleeing and a maiden in pursuit, which the comparison to Io underscores, might otherwise suggest a moralizing treatment, the rustic ambiance of simplicity and innocence suits a sympathetic response, which Clearchus’ sentimentalizing rhetoric serves to reinforce. Most striking is his use of the “pathetic fallacy” (cf. Theocr. Id. 1.71–5, 7.73–7), which he amplifies with a pair of superlatives: everyone who encountered Eriphanis, animals included, “wept with her” (συνδακρῦσαι) at her affliction, not only the most cold-hearted people (τοὺς ἀστοργίᾳ διαφέροντας) but even the wildest of beasts (τοὺς ἀνημερωτάτους). With the sole exception of 81

Also in the satyr-play Lityerses by Sositheus (fr. 1 TrGF 99), a contemporary of Theocritus, but nowhere in the genuine work of Theocritus himself. On the authorship of Id. 8–9, see Gow (1952) 170–1, 185–6; cf. Fantuzzi (1998). 82 Cf. Theocr. Id. 1.64–142, Parthenius, Erot. Path. 29 = Timaeus fr. 83 FGrH 566; see Hunter (1999) 63–8, Lightfoot (1999) 526–8. 83 Wehrli (1969) 56; cf. Ap. Rhod. Arg. 1.578 for a pastoral νόμιον. Or the term could simply indicate an astrophic song; see West (1992) 212–17, Rutherford (1995).

Clearchus on Love

425

Menalcas, sympathy was universal; and in so claiming, Clearchus implicitly endorses their response. This trope highlights another significant feature of his report, that it is otherwise told entirely from the unhappy lover’s point of view. As in every other anecdote from his Erôtikoi, Clearchus highlights the lover’s perspective, not the beloved’s. Here, moreover, that is a woman’s point of view. As in the Locrian song cited previously (fr. 853 PMG) and often in Sappho, we are led to share a woman’s experience, as we follow Eriphanis first wandering the hills in search of her beloved, then moving others to share her tears, and finally roaming the woods alone, calling out her beloved’s name. It is hard to imagine a more sympathetic treatment. Far from faulting her for passionate excess or folly, Clearchus implicitly rebukes anyone unmoved by her plight (assuming ἀστοργίᾳ is pejorative). His rhetoric not only heightens the pathos of the tale; it fosters respect as well as compassion for Eriphanis and her devotion. One last passage displays similar respect for a lover’s devotion. Athenaeus begins a lengthy discussion of garlands (15 669c–686c) by posing a pair of “problems” (669c–d): “Why, when their garlands come undone, are people said to be in love?” and “Why do people in love hang garlands on the doors of the ones they love?” To answer both questions, he quotes a long excerpt from Erôtikoi 1 (21: 669f– 670f).84 The response to the first of these “problems” presents eight distinct explanations. The second problem Clearchus addresses more briefly, providing only two explanations before appending related explanations for two similar customs. The excerpt concludes with a rustic vignette in lyrics by Lycophronides (cf. 20 in sec. 3 above) in which a lovelorn swain dedicates his hunting gear (fr. 2: 844 PMG).85 People in love hang garlands on the doors of the ones they love, either in their honor, as if at the doorway of some god [sc. its shrine]; or dedicating the garlands not to the one they love but to Love, they garland the one they love an icon [ἄγαλμα] of Love and his house the god’s temple. That is why some even perform sacrifices at the doors of the one they love. Or instead, when they believe, and rightly so, that the one they love has despoiled their soul of its

84 Some or all of this passage may be condensed or abbreviated. For example, if the Erôtikoi was a dialogue, the multiple explanations offered here could come from multiple speakers, though the excerpt shows no such traces. 85 Although the cap (κυνέα) and spear (hapax λογχίς) would equally suit military service, the epithet θηροφόνος establishes a pastoral context.

426

Clearchus of Soli decorum [κόσμον], then carried away by their experience and despoiling themselves of their own body’s decoration [κόσμον], they dedicate that to their beloved. Everyone in love does this [sc. if the loved one is present];86 and if the loved one is absent, they dedicate the obstacle. That is why Lycophronides depicted his goatherd in love saying: This rose I dedicate to you, a lovely bloom [ἄνθημα Casaubon: νόημα A], and my sandals and cap, and my beast-slaying javelin, since my mind is otherwise absorbed with the girl dear to the Graces and lovely. [670d–f]

The setting for these wistful verses is again pastoral, and the perspective again the lover’s. A goatherd declares his love by offering a rose and giving up his gear. His vow, which specifies neither where nor to whom he makes his offering, is probably part of a longer song or mime, or so Clearchus’ introductory reference suggests: “that (wellknown) lover” (τὸν ἐρῶντα ἐκεῖνον).87 But uncertainty about the original setting for his vow does not obscure the basic scenario. Clearchus adduces the passage to illustrate a variation on the custom in question: whereas lovers typically consecrate their vows of love by hanging gifts on the door of their beloved’s home – either garlands, as in the first two explanations here, or clothing and related gear, as in the second pair – they hang their gifts elsewhere when they are apart. As the context shows, the example involves a twofold contrast: both what the lovers dedicate, and where they do so. The passage directs our attention primarily to the items dedicated: although most lovers hang garlands, some “strip themselves” (σκυλεύοντες ἑαυτούς) and hang up their clothing or gear. Location is only a secondary factor introduced to explain why people dedicate the other items they do. As Lycophronides pointedly explains, the goatherd deposits his hunting gear – in addition to a rose and rather than anything else – not simply because he is apart from his beloved, but because (as emphasized by ἐπεί in the third line) the gear embodies the cause of his absence, namely, 86

The text is awkward and may be corrupt: τοῦτο δρᾷ μέν, μὴ παρόντος δὲ. Editors sharpen the contrast by adding παρόντος after μέν; but the contrast is clear as the text stands, and balance might be better restored simply by inverting word order to τοῦτο μὲν δρᾷ. The antecedent of τοῦτο in any case is the custom of dedicating gifts to a loved one, be it a garland or anything else. 87 This would also help to explain why the beloved goes unnamed here; emending παῖδα καὶ καλάν to παῖδ᾿ Ἀκακαλλίδα, as Wilamowitz proposed, is neither necessary nor apt.

Clearchus on Love

427

his herd and hunting. Or as Clearchus observes before citing these lines, lovers dedicate “the obstacle” that separates them from their beloved.88 Where they do so, and hence where exactly the goatherd hangs his gear, is irrelevant; that matters only if the beloved is present to receive their gift. The crucial point in this case, then, is that the goatherd’s offering is a renunciation of what has hitherto separated him from the one he loves. Unlike Menalcas in 25, this goatherd chooses love over his herd and the hunt. A similar scene in the closing stanza of Horace’s ode to Pyrrha (Carm. 1.5) provides an instructive contrast. There a jilted lover dedicates his dripping clothes to Neptune as an emblem of the romantic “shipwreck” which he has managed with the god’s help to survive (13–16). The offering thus represents a disavowal of love. Here, however, the goatherd is still very much in love. Even apart from Clearchus’ preceding comment about lovers “carried away by their passion” (ὑπὸ τοῦ πάθους ἐξαγόμενοι), Lycophronides indicates his character’s devotion repeatedly: in his initial offering of a rose, which was a favorite token of love (cf. Theocr. Id. 10.34, 11.10); in his total “absorption” (κέχυται ἐπί) with his girlfriend; again in his envoi hailing her lovely grace; and in a striking shift in focus that dramatizes his yearning and mimics heartfelt effusion: opening with a direct apostrophe to his beloved (σοι), but ending with a newly distant proclamation of “her” beauty.89 Yet in proclaiming his girlfriend “dear to the Graces,” the goatherd exhibits a “modest” love of the sort Clearchus explicitly approves in his other citation of Lycophronides (20, cf. 32). Indeed, so far as the excerpt permits us to see, Clearchus presents this infatuated youth without a trace of scorn or reproach. As with Eriphanis, he ignores the irony of a hunter caught in the toils of love; and in neither case does he show any trace of disdain either for their rusticity or for their unaffected passion.90 On the contrary, he singles out both for the 88 Transmitted τοῦ ἐμποδών is sound; the genitive depends on τὴν ἀνάθεσιν and refers to the items dedicated, not to where or to whom, as Gulick supposes (“to anyone who is [sc. there]”) when he follows Edmonds in emending to dative τῷ. 89 For σοι addressing the beloved, cf. Theocr. Id. 3.10 (and τοι passim) to an absent Amaryllis. If σοι refers to the site of dedication, the likeliest spot is a woodland cave or tree – anywhere a rose can hang (ἀνατίθημι) and the other gear rest – rather than a herm or shrine, which piety would require naming; cf. Leonidas Epigr. 47, 50, 96 GP. 90 Contrast the sly incongruities cultivated by Theocritus, Herodas, and others in their portraits of rustics and other “demotic” figures echoing Homeric diction or aping

428

Clearchus of Soli

purity of their feelings. As Eriphanis elicits universal sympathy and like Antimachus transmutes her sorrow into song, so the goatherd exemplifies a lover’s eagerness to “honor” his beloved (τιμῆς χάριν) and venerate her as a holy “icon” (ἄγαλμα) of Eros himself; for that is the twofold explanation for the custom of dedicating gifts to one’s beloved that Clearchus cites these verses to illustrate. In so doing, he implicitly commends such lovers by ascribing their behavior to motives of pious modesty. I have argued that Clearchus’ Erôtikoi presented eros in a largely favorable light. In his view, it is a natural human impulse, stimulated by visual beauty, driven by affection, aspiring to intimacy, and both an inspiration to poetry and a source of edification. Some of my case is necessarily conjectural. But in most of what remains of this work, we find eros portrayed as something very similar to what today we would call romantic love. This, then, is the “moralizing orientation” I ascribed to the material at the outset: not the stern disapproval imagined by Wehrli, but a distinctly positive view of interpersonal love as an expression of admirable sentiments and aspirations.91 Such an orientation would also help to explain why Clearchus appeals so often to lyric poetry, and especially less celebrated poets and genres. In the grand classics of epic and tragedy, heterosexual love is typically either marital or ruinous, and often both. But in lyric, and apparently in the novel elegiacs of Antimachus, love in other contexts – both extra-marital and premarital – is also portrayed as tender, chaste, and pure. In citing this work, Clearchus evidently countered the dominant tendency of earlier philosophical discourse. Lycophronides and the song of Eriphanis would otherwise be wholly unknown, and Lamynthius only a name. Likewise, his willingness to cite women as authorities, and not only poets like Sappho and the putative Eriphanis but even the courtesan Glycera (28), runs counter to prevailing norms. But in both the manners of urban elites. The Hellenistic taste for pointed incongruity evidently still lies in the future. 91 If the work was a dialogue, as proposed above in sec. 1, then much or all of what survives could have been voiced by characters whose views Clearchus did not share. Yet the consistency of our evidence, even across both books, suggests otherwise; and absent any clear sign of opposing views, it remains a likely hypothesis that the extant passages reflect the author’s perspective expressed through his speakers, whether or not one dominated as Aristotle apparently did in On Sleep (see 6A–B, 7, 9A–C), and whether or not any of them bore Clearchus’ name.

Clearchus on Love

429

regards, as in his sympathetic handling of eros generally, Clearchus also looks forward to coming generations. Like other Peripatetic research into literary traditions and forms, his Erôtikoi must have been a rich resource for – perhaps even an influence on – learned Hellenistic poets. He may have been in the vanguard of changing interests and tastes. In any event, the overall tenor of his work, at least the little of it that survives, has clear affinities to much that was soon to follow.92 Eros, for Clearchus, was both a subject eminently worthy of intellectual attention, and as befits a native son of the isle of Cypris, a facet of human life equally worth cultivating, at least in appropriate circumstances and within due measure.93 Appendix Table 1. Athenaeus passages assigned to Erôtikoi Athenaeus 2 57e 6 255b 12 553e 13 564a 13 573a 13 589d 13 590c 13 597a 13 605d 13 605e 13 606c 13 606c 14 619c 92

Dorandi 33A 19 27 20 23 24 31 32 28 29 22 30 25

Wehrli 35 21 25 22 29 30 31 34 23 26 27 28 32

Citation (Mss.) ἐν Ἐρωτικοῖς (CE) ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ τῶν Ἐρωτικῶν (A) ἐν τοῖς Ἐρωτικοῖς (A) ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ τῶν Ἐρωτικῶν (A) ἐν πρώτῳ Ἐρωτικῶν (A) ἐν πρώτῳ Ἐρωτικῶν (A) – ἐν τοῖς Ἐρωτικοῖς (A) – – ἐν πρώτῳ Ἐρωτικῶν (A) – ἐν πρώτῳ Ἐρωτικῶν (A: που CE)

Cf. Rohde (1900) 61–3. Familiar parallels include, for the fallen garlands in 21, Asclepiades Epigr. 18 GP, Callim. Epigr. 13 GP; for garlands on doors, Asclepiades Epigr. 12 GP; for Eriphanis’ hopeless pursuit in 25, Callim. Epigr. 1 GP, Theocr. Id. 3; for poetry as love’s cure in 32, Callim. Epigr. 3 GP, Theocr. Id. 11. 93 Versions of this paper were presented at conferences on Clearchus sponsored by the University of Cyprus in 2001, and by Simon Fraser University and the University of British Columbia in 2013. My thanks to the organizers and participants on both occasions for helpful discussion, to Tiziano Dorandi for advance access to his edition, to Stefan Schorn for pressing the question of titles, and to Michael Gagarin, Laura McClure, and Christopher Ratté for valuable guidance on points of (respectively) legal, literary, and Lydian history.

430 14 639a 15 669f

Clearchus of Soli 26 21

33 24

ἐν δευτέρῳ Ἐρωτικῶν (A) ἐν πρώτῳ Ἐρωτικῶν (A)

The evidence calls for two comments. First, when Athenaeus cites the title without specifying a Book, he includes an article two of three times; the exception (33A) occurs in the Epitome (CE), which is heavily abbreviated and eliminates every other reference to this title (only που for 25, nothing for any others). Second, when Athenaeus does specify a book for this work, he normally dispenses with articles, and the two exceptions are readily explained: one (19) is the first citation preserved in the complete text of Marcianus (A), and the other (20) is the first citation in Book 13, hence the first in its thematic sequence and shortly after a typical citation by title alone (27). The variation, which may be merely coincidental, matches a convention still commonly followed (cf. “the Iliad” but “Iliad 1”); for evidence of the same convention in his citations of Aristoxenus, see Villari (2000). Works Cited Arnott, G. 2000. “Athenaeus and the Epitome: Texts, Manuscripts, and Early Editions” in Braund and Wilkins (2000), 41–52. Braund, D. and J. Wilkins, eds. 2000. Athenaeus and His World (Exeter: Exeter University Press). Budelmann, F. 2018. Greek Lyric: A Selection (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Cameron, A. 1995. Callimachus and His Critics (Princeton: Princeton University Press). Dalby, A. 2000. “Lynceus and the Anecdotists” in Braund and Wilkins (2000), 372–94. Davidson, J. 1997. Courtesans and Fishcakes: The Consuming Passions of Classical Athens (London: HarperCollins). ––– 2000. “Gnesippus Paigniagraphos: The Comic Poets and the Erotic Mime” in The Rivals of Aristophanes, ed. D. Harvey and J. Wilkins (London: Classical Press of Wales), 41–64. Dörrie, H. 1974. Pygmalion: Ein Impuls Ovids und seine Wirkungen bis in die Gegenwart (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag).

Clearchus on Love

431

Fantuzzi, M. 1998. “Textual Misadventures of Daphnis: the PseudoTheocritean Id. 8 and the Origins of the ‘Bucolic’ Manner” in Genre in Hellenistic Poetry, ed. M. A. Harder, R. F. Regtuit, and G. C. Wakker (Groningen: Forsten), 61–79. Fortenbaugh, W.W. 1984. Quellen zur Ethik Theophrasts (Amsterdam: Grüner). ––– 2011. Theophrastus of Eresus: Commentary, vol. 6: Sources on Ethics (Leiden: Brill). ––– 2012. “Aristo of Ceus: The Fragments Concerning Eros” in Islamic Philosophy, Science, Culture, and Religion, ed. F. Opwis and D. Reisman (Leiden: Brill), 11–23. Garrod, H.W. 1923. “Locrica” Classical Review 37: 161–2. Glucker, J. 1978. Antiochus and the Late Academy (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht). Gottschalk, H.B. 1980. Heraclides of Pontus (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Gow, A.S.F. 1952. Theocritus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Gow, A.S.F. and D.L. Page. 1965. Hellenistic Epigrams (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Gulick, C. B. 1927–41. Athenaeus: The Deipnosophists, 7 vols. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). Gutzwiller, K. 1983. “Character and Legend in Idyll 8” Transactions of the American Philological Asociation 113: 171–82. Henry, M. 1995. Prisoner of History: Aspasia of Miletus and Her Biographical Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press). Hunter, R. 1999. Theocritus: A Selection (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Janko, R. 1991. “Philodemus’ On Poems and Aristotle’s On Poets” Cronache Ercolanesi 21: 5–64. Kahn, C. 1996. Plato and the Socratic Dialogue (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Keesling, C. 2006. “Heavenly Bodies: Monuments to Prostitutes in Greek Sanctuaries” in Prostitutes and Courtesans in the Ancient World, ed. C. Faraone and L. McClure (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press), 59–76. Krevans, N. 1993. “Fighting Against Antimachus: The Lyde and the Aetia” in Callimachus, ed. M.A. Harder, R.F. Regtuit, and G.C. Wakker (Groningen: Forsten), 149–60

432

Clearchus of Soli

Lasserre, F. 1944. “Ἐρωτικοὶ λόγοι” Museum Helveticum 1: 169–78. Laurenti, R. 1987. Aristotele. I frammenti dei Dialoghi. Naples: Luigi Loffredo Editore. Lehnus, L. 1975. “Note Stesicoree: I poemati ‘minori’ (fr. 277–9 PMG)” Studi classici e orientali 24: 191–6. Lightfoot, J.L. 1999. Parthenius of Nicaea (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Lukinovic, A. 1990. “The Deipnosophistae of Athenaeus” in Sympotica, ed. O. Murray (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 263–71. Matthaios, S. 2005. “Κλέαρχος oder Κλείταρχος? Zur Urheberschaft zweier Worterklärungen und zur Autorschaft eines Glossenwerks in der Überlieferung des Klearchos aus Soloi” Rheinisches Museum 148: 47–79. Matthews, V. J. 1996. Antimachus of Colophon (Leiden: Brill). McClure, L. 2003. Courtesans at Table: Gender and Greek Literary Culture in Athenaeus (New York: Routledge). Moraux, P. 1951. Les listes anciennes des ouvrages d’Aristote (Louvain: Éditions universitaires de Louvain). Murray, O. 2015. “Athenaeus the Encyclopedist” in A Companion to Food in the Ancient World, ed. J. Wilkins and R. Nadeau (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 30–42. Olson, S.D. 2006–12. Athenaeus: The Learned Banqueters, 8 vols. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). Parker, H.N. 1992. “Love’s Body Anatomized: The Ancient Erotic Handbooks and the Rhetoric of Sexuality” in Pornography and Representation in Greece and Rome, ed. A. Richlin (New York: Oxford University Press), 90–111. Pelling, C. 2000. “Fun with Fragments: Athenaeus and the Historians” in Braund and Wilkins (2000), 171–90. Podlecki, A.J. 1969. “The Peripatetics as Literary Critics” Phoenix 23: 114–37. ––– 1998. Perikles and His Circle (London: Routledge). Price, A.W. 1989. Love and Friendship in Plato and Aristotle (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Primavesi, O. 2007. “Ein Blick in den Stollen von Skepsis: Vier Kapitel zur frühen Überlieferung des Corpus Aristotelicum” Philologus 151: 51–77.

Clearchus on Love

433

Ratté, C. 1994. “Not the Tomb of Gyges” Journal of Hellenic Studies 114: 157–61. Rohde, E. 1900. Der griechische Roman und seine Vorläufer (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel). Rutherford, I. 1995. “Apollo’s Other Genre: Proclus on Νόμος and His Source” Classical Philology 90: 354–61. Schorn. S. 2012. “Chamaeleon: Biography and Literature Peri tou deina” in Praxiphanes of Mytilene and Chamaeleon of Heraclea: Text, Translation, and Discussion, ed. A. Martano, E. Matelli, and D. Mirhady (New Brunswick: Transaction), 411–44. Schwarze, J. 1971. Die Beurteilung des Perikles durch die attische Komödie und ihre historische und historiographische Bedeutung (Munich: Beck). Sihvola, J. 2002. “Aristotle on Sex and Love” in The Sleep of Reason, ed. M.C. Nussbaum and J. Sihvola (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), 200–21. Stadter, P. 1989. A Commentary on Plutarch’s Pericles (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press). Stewart, A. 1997. Art, Desire, and the Body in Ancient Greece (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Thompson, D.W. 1936. A Glossary of Greek Birds (London: Oxford University Press). Tsitsiridis, S. 2013. Beiträge zu den Fragmenten des Klearchos von Soloi (Berlin: de Gruyter). Villari, E. 2000. “Aristoxenus in Athenaeus” in Braund and Wilkins (2000), 445–54. Wehrli, F. 1948; rev. 1969. Die Schule des Aristoteles, vol. 3: Klearchos von Soloi (Basel: Schwabe). ––– 1983. “Klearchos von Soloi” in Die Philosophie der Antike, ed. H. Flashar, vol. 3 (Basel: Schwabe), 547–51. West, M.L. 1992. Ancient Greek Music (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Westlake, H.D. 1939. “The Sources of Plutarch’s Pelopidas” Classical Quarterly 33: 11–22. White, S. 2002a. “Eudemus the Naturalist” in Eudemus of Rhodes, ed. I. Bodnár and W.W. Fortenbaugh (New Brunswick: Transaction), 207–41.

434

Clearchus of Soli

––– 2002b. “Opuscula and Opera in the Catalogue of Theophrastus’ Works” in On the Opuscula of Theophrastus, ed. W.W. Fortenbaugh and G. Wöhrle (Stuttgart: Steiner), 9–37. ––– 2019. “Aristotle on Good Citizenship” in Philosophie für die Polis, ed. C. Riedweg (Berlin: de Gruyter), 301–31. Zecchini, G. 1989. La cultura storica di Ateneo (Milan: Vita e Pensiero).

6 Clearchus, On Lives William Fortenbaugh

Clearchus of Soli belongs among the early Peripatetics. He studied under Aristotle, the founder of the Peripatos, and most likely outlived Theophrastus, who succeeded Aristotle as head of the School. According to Josephus, Clearchus was “second to none of the Peripatetic philosophers” (Against Apion 1.22 = 6A). That appears to be overstatement; at least, the surviving evidence suggests a more modest assessment. Regrettably, Diogenes Laertius never wrote a life of Clearchus. Had he done so and included a catalogue of Clearchus’ writings as he does for Aristotle, Theophrastus, Strato and Demetrius of Phalerum,1 then we might be able to make a more informed judgment concerning his place among the early Peripatetics. The same would be true, were the number of fragments (quotations and reports) in later authors greater. Nevertheless, it is a fair guess that Clearchus was not a copious/encyclopedic author. Only sixteen different titles are mentioned in our sources, and their range is limited. Schneider recognizes four groups of writings: those referring to Plato, and those dealing with Psychology,

1 I omit Heraclides of Pontus, whom Diogenes wrongly includes among the Peripatetics and for whom he gives a catalogue of writings (Lives 5.86–8).

435

436

Clearchus of Soli

Ethics and Natural Science. 2 Writings on logic, metaphysics, rhetoric and poetics are not attested. One title, On Lives or simply Lives, stands out in that it is attested more often than the other fifteen titles, and the material conveyed by the fragments is greater than that attributed to other works. In what follows, I shall discuss 1) the Clearchan title, indicating my preference for the longer form On (Types of) Lives, 2) earlier and contemporary discussions of types of lives, 3) the Clearchan work, and 4) the relevant portion of a later epitome/résumé of Peripatetic ethics commonly attributed to Arius Didymus. 1. The Clearchan Title The title under consideration refers to lives, βίοι. Athenaeus cites it twenty-one times in The Sophists at Dinner, and does so in two different forms: On Lives, Περὶ βίων occurs five times (8.344C, 9.396E, 12.515E, 539B, 15.687A) and Lives, Βίοι, is found sixteen times (4.157C, 6. 234F, 8.344C, 9.396E, 10.416B 12.514D, 518C, 522D, 524B, 530C, 540F, 541C, 543C, 548B, 548C, 15.681C). If the number of occurrences were decisive, then the shorter title would be preferred, but counting occurrences cannot decide the issue. Moreover, Zenobius, who predates Athenaeus, cites the Clearchan work three times and each time as On Lives (Epitome, Cent. 3.41, 4.87, 6.18).3 In addition, Diogenes Laertius includes the title On Lives in his catalogues of writings by Theophrastus and Strato (5.42 = 436 no. 16 FHS&G and 5.59 = fr. 82 no. 4 Sh.). And in his biography of Plato, Diogenes attributes the title to Dicaearchus (3.4 = fr. 47 M). Since all three were Peripatetics and contemporaries of Clearchus, On Lives might be regarded as a common title that Clearchus shared with Theophrastus, Dicaearchus and Strato. I am inclined to such a view, but with a caveat: while members of the Peripatos did indeed share common interests and titles,4 it would be 2

Schneider (1994) 417–20. Since Zenobius lived under the Roman Emperor Hadrian, (117–38 AD), he is noticeably older than Athenaeus (fl. 200 AD) and therefore might be taken as more reliable in regard to the title of the Clearchan work. Although I agree with Zenobius in preferring On Lives, it should be emphasized that Zenobius is hardly an early witness (he postdates Clearchus by four centuries), and the Zenobian work in question is itself an epitome of a collection of proverbs assembled by Didymus of Alexandria and Lucillus of Tarrha. 4 E.g., in the book lists preserved by Diogenes Laertius, the title On Pleasure is attributed to Aristotle, Theophrastus and Strato (5.22, 44 and 59). See the next note. 3

Clearchus, On Lives

437

false to say that they always preferred shared titles. On some occasion and in some context, they might prefer to vary a title in order to avoid confusion.5 A different issue is whether the quest to pin down a genuine Clearchan title is misguided or at least hazardous, for it is not certain that the early Peripatetics were careful to assign titles to their writings. In addition, the titles that have come down to us are transmitted by later authors like Zenobius, Athenaeus and Diogenes. Stephen White has made the point forcefully in regard to Diogenes’ catalogue of Theophrastean titles: “We should be wary of two anachronistic assumptions: that any of these titles originated with Theophrastus, or that any work had a single standard title.”6 My own inclination is to be more accepting of the titles that have come down to us.7 The practice of assigning titles appears to have developed in the fourth century, and a scholarch like Theophrastus had good reason to make use of titles. His library will have contained numerous works, not only his own but also those inherited from Aristotle.8 To facilitate finding a given work, the assignation of titles and the tagging of roles seem too obvious to have been ignored. To be sure, Clearchus was not a scholarch and his personal library may have been comparatively modest. But his writings will have found a place in the School library, probably identical with that of Theophrastus, and are likely to have been labeled with both name and title. Moreover, in the case of exoteric works intended for a wide audience, it seems reasonable to believe that they were assigned titles before they went into

5

Tsitsiridis (2008) 66 dismisses the problem of Clearchus’ title as a Scheinproblem, and in doing so he cites a dissertation, now more than 130 years old, in which M. Weber tried to explain variation in the Clearchan title by positing two Clearchan works. One is said to have been five books long; it carried the title On Lives and contained a discussion of different lifestyles by representatives of different philosophical schools. The other Clearchan work is said to have run for eight books, carried the title Lives, and contained lives/biographies of philosophers. To be sure, no one today accepts Weber’s explanation, but interest in titles and their variation remains. Moreover, it is an oversimplification to attribute variation to inexact citation by ancient authors and to ignore the more fundamental question whether the early Peripatetics regularly assigned titles to their works. See the next paragraph. 6 White (2002) 10. 7 In what follows, I shall repeat some observations made earlier in other places: Fortenbaugh (2003) 55–6, (2005) 52–3, (2011) 126–7. 8 Concerning Theophrastus, see Düring (1956) 14 and cf. Schmalzriedt (1970) 82.

438

Clearchus of Soli

circulation. The Clearchan work concerning lives was almost certainly an exoteric work, a dialogue,9 and as such is likely to have received a title. I find the preceding argument reasonable but still open to doubt. In particular, I want to acknowledge that at a later date a bookseller or a librarian might change or add a title based on the incipit: perhaps the phrase “on lives” occurred in the opening line or lines of the work in question. More important is the fact that the overwhelming majority of the fragments of the Clearchan work on lives are preserved by Athenaeus, who lived much of his life in Rome, where he will have had access to the library of his patron P. Livius Larensis. According to Athenaeus, Larensis’ collection of ancient Greek books surpassed those of other persons renowned for their collections (1 3A–B).10 That may be an exaggeration intended by Athenaeus to flatter his patron, but it need not be wildly wrong. It is at least conceivable that Larensis library contained a copy of the Clearchan work in question. Whether that copy carried an original Clearchan title or one that was assigned by the library, it is easy to imagine Athenaeus accepting it as authoritative. Most likely it was the longer title, which Athenaeus did not hesitate to abbreviate11 and even to omit entirely on at least one occasion (64).12 Since Athenaeus took pains to cite his sources, both author and work,13 it is possible that the omission is not only exceptional but also attributable to a change in source. That is, on occasion Athenaeus may have drawn on a collection/anthology that named Clearchus but omitted the title of the Clearchan work. That is speculative, but it cannot be discounted. Indeed, it has been argued in the scholarly literature that Athenaeus did not know Aristotle at first hand, and if that is correct we may suspect that Athenaeus knew Theophrastus, Clearchus and other early Peripatetics through secondary sources.14 Whichever of the two titles is given preference, a different and more important concern is the meaning of the plural noun βίοι, “lives.” It 9

See below, Section 3 p. 461. See Jacob (2000) 89, who adds that Athenaeus will have been acquainted with the Library in Alexandria. 11 For an example, see below p. 466 on 40–1. 12 On 64, see below pp. 456–8. 13 See Arnott (2000) 41 and Davidson (2000) 295. 14 Regarding Aristotle, see Düring (1950) 41 and Jacob (2000) 551 n. 178; on Theophrastus, see Fortenbaugh (2011) 56–7. 10

Clearchus, On Lives

439

might refer to biographies, and in a title it might refer to a collection of biographies. Alternatively, it might refer to different kinds or modes of life, in which case the title is apt to refer to a discussion that compared and contrasted lives devoted to, e.g., civic involvement, contemplation and enjoyment. The former possibility might be suggested by the writings of Aristoxenus, Clearchus’ contemporary and fellow Peripatetic. He wrote Βίοι, Lives of Pythagoras, Archytas, Socrates and Plato,15 so that one might imagine Clearchus writing biographies, which he or someone else collected and published under the title Lives or On Lives. The Clearchan title Arcesilas (2 no. 4) most likely refers to the Academic philosopher Arcesilaus,16 who was born at Pitane in Asia Minor, where he studied with the astronomer Autolycus. Subsequently he went to Athens, where he studied in the Peripatos under Theophrastus.17 Later he moved to the Academy, where in c. 268 BC he initiated a turn to scepticism. It is not impossible that Clearchus recorded these facts in the work entitled Arcesilas, but on the basis or our sources, we cannot conclude that the Clearchan work was a proper biography, i.e., an account of Arcesilaus’ life from birth to death. 18 Indeed, our sources are of little help. There are only two brief notices, 10 (a scholium on Plato’s Laws 739A, p. 321.3–7 Greene) and 11 (Eustathius, Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey 1.107 p. 1397.34 ed. Rom. = p. 29.1–2 ed. Leipzig), both of which refer to a board game played with pebbles. They cannot be said to encourage or discourage the idea that the Clearchan work was a biography. Moreover and more importantly, when one considers that Arcesilaus was noticeably younger than Clearchus, the idea of a proper

15 Momigliano (1993) calls Aristoxenus the first Peripatetic biographer. For βίος used in reference to Aristoxenus’ biographies or as part of a particular title, see, e.g., Plutarch, A Pleasant Life is Impossible 10 1093C = fr. 10a Wehrli, Clement of Alexandria, Patchwork 1.14 62.2 = fr. 11b W, Athenaeus, The Sophists at Dinner 12 545A and Theodoretus, Cures for Greek Maladies 12.61 = fr. 54b W. 16 Tsitsiridis (2013) 88 thinks that the title as transmitted may involve an error (a single letter at the end of the name) but Dorandi (2014) 05.33 n.8 points out that the form Arkesilas is used by Philodemus to refer to the Academic philosopher Arcesilaus (Acad. Ind. 16.14 and Stoic. Ind. 22.3 and 7). 17 Diogenes Laertius, Lives 4.22 = Theophrastus fr. 18 no. FHS&G and Numenius ap. Eusebius, Evangelical Preparation 14.6.4 = Th., fr. 16. 18 For this notion of a proper/complete biography, see Momigliano (1993) 11 and Cooper (2002) 314–15.

440

Clearchus of Soli

biography seems fanciful.19 There is, however, no reason why Clearchus cannot have written a partial biography, which recorded Arcesilaus’ birth and early years in Pitane,20 his presence in and departure from the Peripatos and possibly his role in founding the Sceptical Academy. Alternatively we might follow Wehrli, who has suggested that the Clearchan work was a dialogue, in which a young Arcesilaus played a role, perhaps in beginning the discussion, which conceivably covered a variety of topics including Platonic/Academic theology.21 That early Peripatetics took an interest in and responded to Academic theology is not to be doubted. I cite Theophrastus, who wrote a work entitled On Divine Happiness in Response to the Academics (Diogenes Laertius, Lives 5.49 = Theophrastus fr. 436 no. 13 FHS&G). But a Theophrastean work, for which we have only the title (no fragments survive), cannot decide what was discussed in a Clearchan work entitled Arcesilas. 22 Still, a different possibility has been suggested by Tsitsiridis, who suggests that Arcesilaus was not an interlocutor within a dialogue that carried his name, but rather the focus of the work. More precisely, Clearchus focused on the character of Arcesilaus, emphasizing his manner of speech, his humor and his preference for luxury. That would not exclude certain biographical elements, but it need not have begun at birth and ended at death. Nor would it exclude all mention of Arcesilaus’ philosophical positions (his removal from the Peripatos to the Academy will not have been ignored), but according to Tsitsiridis, the focus will been on Arcesilaus’ “controversial personality.”23 19

Given that Clearchus was a student of Aristotle, who left Athens in 323 and died the next year, Clearchus must have been born no later than 340 BC (Wehrli [1969] 45, Schneider [1994] 416). Hence, he would have been in his seventies when Arcesilaus became head of the Academy. That makes writing a proper, i.e., complete biography of Arcesilaus unlikely. Indeed, Clearchus would have been a centenarian, when Arcesilaus died in 241–0. 20 There is one Clearchan work in which we can be sure that Clearchus took note of a person’s birth. That work is the Encomium of Plato (1B no. 1). For according to Diogenes Laertius 3.2 = 3A Clearchus recorded the story of Apollo’s role in the birth of Plato.20 That is, indeed, beginning at the beginning, but there is no reason to think that Clearchus took the story seriously. Rather, he found it suitable to an encomium, which may share elements with a biography but is not to be confused with a biography proper. 21 Wehrli (1969) 49 compares Plato’s Phaedrus, in which the eponymous youth functions as an interlocutor. 22 For brief comment on the Theophrastean work, see Fortenbaugh (2011) 161–5. 23 Tsitsiridis (2013) 94.

Clearchus, On Lives

441

There is a second title, Gergithius (1B no.7), which might suggest a biography, for Gergithius is the name of a flatterer of Alexander the Great. But in this case we are provided with better evidence concerning the content of the work. Our source is Athenaeus, who refers to the Clearchan work by title and states that in this work Clearchus gave an account of the origin of the name “flatterer.”24 We are told that Clearchus represented Gergithius as one of Alexander’s flatterers, after which he explained that flattery debases the characters, ἤθη, of flatterers, for they are despised by the people around them. Proof is found in the fact that flatterers knowingly submit to everything and those who are flattered become puffed up, holding exaggerated opinions of themselves. After that we read about an unnamed youth on Paphos (western Cyprus), who reclined in luxury while attended by three flatterers, whose services were degrading. The three acquired curious names, all of which were derived from the services they performed. The Clearchan material ends with two explanations of the word “flattery” (17–18 = 6 255C–257C, 258A–B). What Athenaeus reports is selective and abbreviated, but it is enough to permit some observations. We are not dealing with a biography of Gergithius but with two lifestyles: that of the flatterer and the flattered. Both are judged negatively and particular cases are invoked to support that judgment.25 In addition, there is an interest in lexical issues. I am reminded of the Theophrastean work On Characters/Dispositions, Περὶ ἠθῶν (436 no. 1 FHS&G), which seems to have been rich in both particular cases and lexical material. At least Athenaeus reports that Adrastus published five books On Questions of History and Style in the On Dispositions of Theophrastus and a sixth On the (Same Matters) in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics (15 673E–F = fr, 437 FHS&G).26 Had Adrastus got hold of the Clearchan work and found 24

Citing Athenaeus 6.255, Heckel (2006) 125 reports the title as Gergithios or Kolokeia. That is an error; Athenaeus does not cite a double title. The sentence in question contains no “or,” ἤ. Perhaps Heckel has misunderstood the meaning of the initial καί (255C), which can be translated with “etiam” (Schweighaeuser [1802] 2.478) or “again” (Gulick [1929] 151). Be that as it may, the text in question is part of an ongoing discussion of flattery. Clearchus has been mentioned already in regard to the short-lived affection shown to a flatterer (255B = 19). Now he is introduced in regard to a different matter: not only the origin of the name “flatterer” but also the baseness of the practice. 25 On particular cases/examples in On Lives, see below p. 451 with n. 54 on 51D and p. 466 on 40–1. 26 On 437 FHS&G see Fortenbaugh (2011) 235–42.

442

Clearchus of Soli

time to write comments on it, he might have researched the youth at Paphos and reported his name. And he might have commented on the lexical material, sometimes agreeing and sometimes disagreeing with what he read.27 Be that as it may, we have in the Clearchan Gergithius a discussion of flattery as a life style that may well have found a second home in Clearchus’ work On Lives. Turning now to the second alternative put forward above, I want to endorse the idea that the plural noun βίοι as it occurs in the title Περὶ βίων refers to different kinds or modes of life, and that the work On Lives aimed at pinning down the best life open to a human being. Such a concern was not peculiar to the Peripatetics. It has roots in early Greek poetry, among the pre-Socratics and in the Platonic Academy.28 It is also fundamental to the Theophrastean and Dicaearchan works On Lives. In the following section, I shall develop the idea by considering Pythagoras and Heraclides of Pontus, portions of Plato’s Republic, Aristotle and his successors in the Peripatos. 2. Earlier and Contemporary Discussions of Lives Well known is the comparison between the lives men lead and the intentions of persons attending a market or fair which is held in conjunction with a magnificent display of games and attended by people from the whole of Greece, i.e., the Olympic games. The comparison is tripartite: persons whose life is focused on amassing wealth are likened to persons who attend the games in order to make money; persons who seek honor in civic life are compared with the competitors at the games; and persons who devote themselves to contemplating the nature of things are analogous to spectators who studiously observe what is being done and how. This comparison is reported in Cicero’s Tusculan Disputations 5.3.8–9, where Cicero cites Heraclides of Pontus, who was a member of the Academy29 and is said to have attributed the comparison to Pythagoras. In mentioning Heraclides (fr. 85 Schütrumpf), Cicero does not refer to a particular work, but Diogenes Laertius provides a catalogue of Heraclides’ writings, which includes a work On Lives in 2 books (5.87 = fr. 17 no. 23 Sch). It is reasonable to conjecture that the 27

On lexical material in On Lives, see below p. 456 n. 70. Joly (1956) 12–20. 29 See above, n. 1. 28

Clearchus, On Lives

443

comparison was to be found in that work. The attribution to Pythagoras has been challenged by Jaeger, who notes that the comparison occurs also in Aristotle’s Protrepticus (fr. B44 Düring), an early work written before Aristotle left the Academy. Both Heraclides and Aristotle, we are told, owe the doctrine of three lives to the Academy where the comparison between pure science and onlookers at the Olympic games had become classical.30 Jaeger’s argument has been criticized by Joly, who thinks that the comparison goes back not to Pythagoras himself but to a certain Pythagorean sect, whose members were critical of other Pythagoreans for their involvement in politics. 31 For our purposes, it is comparatively unimportant to pin down who first developed a doctrine of three lives and who first likened it to different behaviors at the Olympic games. More important is the fact that the doctrine is found in Plato’s Republic, where it plays a role in determining the best/happiest mode of life for human beings. I am thinking of Books 8 and 9, in which Socrates argues that the life of the best and most just individual is the happiest and that the life of the worst and most unjust individual is the most wretched. The argument divides into three segments, the first of which relates the lives of individuals to different kinds of constitution, i.e., the different ways in which city-states are organized. We are told that the existence of the latter depends upon the existence of the former, (8 544D–E), but in the subsequent discussion, Socrates treats constitutions before the lives of individuals on the grounds that the characters, ἤθη, of different city states are easier to discern than those of individuals (8 545B). Moreover, since aristocracy and the aristocratic man have already been discussed and deemed good and just, ἀγαθός and δίκαιος (8 544E, cf. 5 449A), Socrates turns to four other pairs, which are said to be inferior or worse (545A). He begins with timocracy, i.e., the organization of the timocratic state and then takes up the corresponding individual. We are told that the state is marked by contentiousness and love of honor and the individual by a love of office and honor (545C–550C). The correlation 30 Jaeger (1948) 432. Düring (1961) 212, in his comment on Protrepticus fr. B44, calls attention to the play on the Greek words θέα and θεωρία, “spectacle” and “contemplation,” and suggests that Aristotle, not Heraclides, created the topos, i.e., comparing the viewing of games with engaging in philosophical contemplation. Both activities are chosen for their own sake without concern for gain. 31 Joly (1956) 33–5.

444

Clearchus of Soli

between the two is clear, as it is in the other pairs: the oligarchic state and the oligarch/money-maker (550C–555B), the democratic state and individual (555B–562A), and tyranny and tyrant (562A–9 580A). This survey is followed by a ranking of the lives of individuals. First place is assigned to that of the good and just person, who is said to be the happiest, εὐδαιμονέστατος. The other lives follow in order, the last being that of the tyrant, who is said to be not only most evil and most unjust but also most wretched, ἀθλιώτατος. (580B–C, cf. 854A). In the second segment, Socrates recalls the tripartite soul, already introduced in Book 4 (435B–441C), and considers the pleasures proper to each part. Put succinctly, he divides the soul into a rational part by which a person learns and gains wisdom, a spirited part on account of which a person feels anger and strives for honor, and an appetitive part, which is concerned with food, drink and love. Socrates recognizes that different parts of the soul are dominant in different people and that people claim that the pleasures tied to their dominant part are superior to those tied to other parts. Rather than surrender to this difference in assessment, Socrates argues that a correct judgment can be reached through experience, intelligence and reasoning. Since only the lover of wisdom, the φιλόσοφος, in whom the rational part is dominant, has the requisite experience as well as intelligence and reasoning capacity, his judgment is authoritative and his life is deemed most pleasant (9 580D– 583A). Two things interest me here. First, the noun βίος is used for each of the three lives (583A, cf. 581E and the verb βιοῦν at 591C). That is in line with construing βίοι in the Clearchan title as lifestyles or kinds of life. Second, to make the present argument, which is based on the tripartite soul, harmonize with the preceding argument, in which four kinds of life are recognized (not counting that of the tyrant), Socrates argues that money is loved for the sake of satisfying intense appetites for food, drink and sex, and that both money-loving and the intense appetites should be assigned to one and same part of the soul (580D– 581A). Hence at 581C we learn that what might have been a four-part soul can be viewed as tripartite, and that gives rise to three primary classes of men: those who love wisdom, victory and gain.32 That is both like and unlike what we find in Aristotle (see below). 32

The phrase “the three primary, πρῶτα, classes” is striking. It may reflect Plato’s thinking at the time of writing, but it might be understood to refer to an earlier origin. Cf. above on three classes of lives which Heraclides is reported to have attributed to

Clearchus, On Lives

445

The third segment is based on the tripartite soul and a distinction between real and unreal pleasures. The rational part of the soul is said to love wisdom and to find pleasure in knowledge and true opinion, which are ever the same and therefore partake of reality in a way that is not true of the pleasures desired by the other two parts of the soul. Persons who follow their appetites tend to confuse pleasure with absence of pain and to pass through life, βίος (9 856A), without ever tasting pure and stable pleasure. The same holds for people who are driven by spirit without the guidance of reason. In contrast, the person who follows reason is said to experience true and proper pleasure. He is the polar opposite of the tyrant, who lives in a manner that is most unpleasant, ἀηδέστατα βιοῦν (587B). Turning now to the Peripatos, we can say that Aristotle, in both the Nicomachean and the Eudemian Ethics, follows his teacher Plato in recognizing three prominent33 lives, βίοι: the apolaustic life or that of enjoyment, the political life of civic involvement and the philosophic life of leisured reflection (EN 1.5 1095b14–19. EE 1.4 1215a35–b1). But in neither work, does Aristotle suggest deriving the three primary lives from a threefold division of the soul. Instead, he works with a bipartite soul, which is based on a distinction between emotion and reason.34 In discussing the three lives, Aristotle tells us that people derive their idea of the best life from the lives they themselves lead (EN 1.4 10995a14). We may compare the Republic in which Socrates calls attention to the fact that people call that life most pleasurable, which relates to the dominant part of their soul (581C).35 Moreover, we can say that Aristotle agrees with Plato not only in recognizing the superiority of the life devoted to philosophic reflection (EN 10.7–8 1177a12–1178bb32, EE 8.3 1249b9–23)36 but also in taking note of the life devoted to accumulating wealth, which he criticizes as constrained and a means to something Pythagoras. Be that as it may, Plato is careful to recognize intermediate lives, μεταξύ, that could increase the number beyond three or four kinds of life (8 544D). 33 The phrase “prominent, προύχοντες, lives” might be compared with Plato’s phrase “primary classes” (see the preceding note), but to suggest that Aristotle is recalling and varying the Platonic passage would be going too far. 34 Fortenbaugh (1975) 23–37. 35 See above on “the second segment.” 36 Caveat: EE 8.3 1249b9–23 is a difficult text, concerning which scholars disagree; See, e.g., Joly (1955) 117–23, Dirlmeier (1962) 501–4, Kenny (1978) 173–89 and Woods (1982) 193–8.

446

Clearchus of Soli

else. For that reason, it is not to be listed alongside the three prominent lives (EN 1.5 1096a5–7, EE 1.4 1215a25–32, 1.5 1216a26–9).37 Aristotle discusses lives not only in his ethical treatises but also in the Politics. I am thinking especially of Chapters 1–3 of Book 7, where the discussion concerns what life, βίος, is the most worthy of choice, αἱρετώτατος, and whether the same life is best for both an individual and a city-state. In answer, three goods are recognized: those that are external to an individual, those that are bodily and those that belong to the soul. We are told that all three goods are necessary, if a person is going to be considered blessed, and that the goods of the soul, i.e., virtue and wisdom are the most important. The same is said to be true of the city-state (7.1 1323a14–b26). In what follows, two lives are picked out for special attention: the active life of a political person and the contemplative life of a philosopher. They are said to be preferred by persons keen in the pursuit of virtue, both in times past and in the present. That rules out the active life of a tyrant (his life is driven by vice, not virtue), but it does not decide between the political and the philosophical life, for both may be virtuous. Initially, the idea that happiness is virtuous activity might be thought to favor political involvement, but that would depend on a narrow conception of activity. Thoughts and reflections are also actions and all the more so in that they are independent and complete in themselves (7.3 1325b19–21).38 What is missing in Politics 7.1– 3 is a serious consideration of the lives devoted to money and pleasure. To be sure, the former is mentioned briefly alongside the tyrannical and virtuous lives (7.2 1324a8–13) and pleasure and money are not altogether rejected (they can be included among the external and bodily goods, which are acknowledged at 7.1 1323a24–7), but Aristotle is focused on those virtuous lives that have found approval among virtuous predecessors and contemporaries (1324a29–31).39 37 Instructive is EE 1.5 1216a26–9: After remarking that most people adopt a political life for the sake of money and gain, Aristotle declares it obvious that everyone attributes happiness to one of three lives: the political, philosophical or apolaustic. The pursuit of wealth is missing. Shortly thereafter Aristotle focuses on the life of pleasure and refers to the means, διὰ τίνων, of procuring pleasures (1216a31). That recalls Plato collapsing the life of money-making into that of pleasure. 38 Cf. EN 10.6 1176b6–9, 10.7 1177a12–18. For discussion, see Joly (1956) 109–12, Schütrumpf (2005) 283–4. 39 It might be argued that Aristotle anticipates the omission early in 7.1, when he says that he is drawing on exoteric works (1323a22–3). The alert reader will understand

Clearchus, On Lives

447

From what has been said, it should be clear that Aristotle took a keen interest in different kinds of life. But when one looks for a work entitled On Lives, it is not to be found either in Diogenes’ catalogue of Aristotelian writings (5.22–7) or elsewhere. Perhaps such a work has been lost, but it seems more reasonable to conclude that Aristotle never wrote a work that carried the title On Lives. That is not true of Theophrastus and Dicaearchus. Both were pupils of Aristotle and both are reported to have written a work On Lives. As already stated above,40 our source is Diogenes Laertius, who attributes the title to Theophrastus in his catalogue of Theophrastean writings and refers to Dicaearchus’ work in order to document Plato’s participation in the Isthmian games. The Theophrastean work is reported to have been three books long. We can imagine that each of the books was devoted to a particular kind of life. If we look to Aristotle’s ethical treatises, we might choose the lives of pleasure, political involvement and philosophic contemplation (NE 1.5 1095b17–19 and EE 1.4 1215a35–b1). But that is no more than a guess. If we look to the Politics, we might think that the first two books dealt with the lives of the politician and the philosopher (7.2 1324a25–9), while the third book dealt with other topics like the pursuit of wealth41 and the enjoyment of pleasures. Or again, it could be that the first of the three books discussed the most recognized kinds of life (either two or three) and that the later books discussed other topics like marriage and old age. The length of Dicaearchus’ work is uncertain. When Diogenes refers to the work he mentions the first book, which tells us that the work was at least two books long, but it may have been much longer and discussed a variety of different lives from various points of view. Of especial interest is a letter from Cicero to Atticus, in which we read of a great controversy, tanta controversia, between Dicaearchus and Theophrastus. The former is said to rate the active life far above all other lives, while the latter is said to prefer the contemplative life (1.16.3). By “active life” we are to understand one that involves that Politics 7.1–3 is selective and that fuller discussion can be found in works written for a wider audience outside the classroom, e.g. the Protrepticus. 40 In Section 1 on p. 436. 41 The life devoted to making money might itself be subdivided into several different lives. Cf.. EE 1.4 1215a25–32, where Aristotle recognizes various modes of life that are not concerned with well-being but rather with what is necessary: e.g., lives concerned with vulgar arts or mechanical arts or buying and selling.

448

Clearchus of Soli

political/civic involvement and by “contemplative life” that of the philosopher. Scholars have tended to see here a significant disagreement between two leading Peripatetics concerning the best life. That is an error. What we have here is playful correspondence between two intelligent individuals. Cicero calls himself the friend of Theophrastus, who advocates a life of contemplation. He calls Atticus an intimate of Dicaearchus, who champions an active life of political involvement. That is a reversal of roles: Cicero, once the proud politician has, now embraced leisure, while Atticus, an Epicurean by persuasion, has become a man of action. The reversal is lighthearted and should not be used to document a significant disagreement/a great controversy between two prominent Peripatetics.42 The preceding argument is not intended to rule out all disagreement between Theophrastus and Dicaearchus. If we can trust our sources, Theophrastus followed Aristotle and recognized the divine character of intellect (fr. 271 FHS&G). In contrast, Dicaearchus denied the existence of the soul (fr. 14–19 M). That is a fundamental disagreement, which might have encouraged Dicaearchus on some occasion to deemphasize the importance of the philosophic life. Moreover, Diogenes Laertius reports that Dicaearchus viewed the Seven Sages as neither wise nor philosophic, but rather shrewd and adept at legislation (Lives 1.40 = fr. 37 M). And a Vatican codex tells us that Dicaearchus opposed attributing sayings to the ancients. In their time wisdom was the practice of noble deeds; the art of popular speech developed later. They did not inquire whether they should engage in politics or whether they should marry. Rather they did so and regarded the use of sayings (proverbs) as vulgar (cod. Vat. 435 = fr. 36 M). Opposing noble deeds to the art of popular speech might be construed as a poke at Theophrastus, whose interest in attractive speech is well known (fr. 681–704 FHS&G), So too the idea that the ancients did not enquire whether they should marry might be directed against Theophrastus, who never married and is reported not only to have addressed the question in a book on marriage but also to have characterized wives in a most unflattering manner. True enough, but the report comes from Saint Jerome, a misogynist, and what Jerome offers most likely has its roots in a rhetorical exercise, in which both sides of the issue were argued (Against Jovinian 1.47–8 = fr. 486 42

For further discussion see Fortenbaugh (2013) 515–19.

Clearchus, On Lives

449

FHS&G).43 Moreover, there are texts that document Theophrastus’ interest in family and in practical matters like loaning money and assisting friends even when it might be unjust to do so (Stobaeus, Anthology 3.3.42 and Gellius, Attic Nights 1.3 = fr. 523 and 534 FHS&G). Similarly, it would be wrong to think of Dicaearchus as a man wholly committed to a life of action. His publications on scientific subjects (Circuit of the Earth, Measurements of the Mountains, On the Soul) and on cultural topics (Summaries of the Plots of Euripides and Sophocles, Hypothesis to Alcestis, On Alcaeus) are sufficient to make the point (fr. 1 M). Theophrastus’ successor, Strato of Lampsacus also wrote a work entitled On Lives. It is listed sixth in Diogenes’ catalogue of Strato’s writings immediately before the title On Happiness. That is suggestive: the works may be appropriate neighbors in that both are concerned with the life most worthy of choice, i.e., the life that brings the most happiness. Fair enough but the position in Diogenes’ catalogue is not to be pressed. With a single exception, the first nine titles are all loosely related in that they announce ethical–theological–political subjects.44 That explains the position of On Lives early in the catalogue, but its position next to On Happiness may be of no special significance. Be that as it may, no fragment of On Lives has come down to us. That is disappointing, but it does not prevent a reasonable guess: namely, that the work of Strato was closely related to the like named works of Theophrastus and Dicaearchus in that it discussed various kinds of life with a view to determine which is most worthy of choice. The same is likely to be true of the Clearchan work On Lives. 3. The Clearchan Work In his 1969 edition of the fragments of Clearchus, Wehrli printed 30 numbered texts under the heading “Über Lebensformen (fr. 37–62).” 45 43

It is telling that after formulating the question, Jerome gives first a positive response and then a negative one. Only the positive response is reduced to c. two lines (fr. 486.8–10 FHS&G). See Fortenbaugh (2011) 410–15. 44 The single exception is On First Principles, which comes fifth. With the tenth title, On the Void, the catalogue begins to list works on nature broadly construed. 45 Wehrli (1996) 20. Text 43 is an a–b series and text 51 is an a–d series. That brings the total to 30.

450

Clearchus of Soli

All but five are drawn from Athenaeus’ The Sophists at Dinner (the exceptions are 40 = 57, 43b = 42B, 51b–c = 51B–C, 56 = 59). To this material several additions have been made. In 1989 Nenci, taking his cue from Gulick,46 argued that 48 = Athenaeus 12.522D–F = 46 should be extended to include 522F–523B = *47, which almost doubles the length of the fragment.47 In 2006 Tsitsiridis, also following Gulick,48 proposed assigning to On Lives a text of Athenaeus, 12.548F–549A, which does not mention Clearchus. In 2008, Tsitsiridis, following Müller,49 made the case for assigning 16 = 13.611B = 64 to On Lives and not to On Education as Wehrli had done. And in Taikafos’s 2013 edition of the fragments of Clearchus, additional texts were added from ps.Plutarch, Alexandrian Proverbs 1.60 and 61 = app. *49 and app. 65 and from Athenaeus 12 523B–C = *48–*49.50 That is considerable material, of which a thorough discussion would be book length. Accordingly in what follows I propose to be selective, first calling attention to Tsitsiridis’ overview of the Clearchan work (subsection i) and then picking out several fragments for special consideration: 64 (subsection ii), 40 (subsection iii) and 41 (subsection iv). i. Tsitstiridis points out that Wehrli’s arrangement of the fragments deviates from that of Clearchus. A clear case is said to be 54, in which 46 Gulick (1933) 5.357 n. c refers to affected language and comments, “This passage also is probably from Clearchus.” 47 The combination τε αὖ, “and again” (522F; Nenci [1989] 895 cautiously suggests reading δ᾽ αὖ), can be read as signaling continuation. Other (admittedly clearer) examples of Athenaeus signaling continuation of Clearchan material are προειπών … ἐπιφέρει, “having said … proceeds to add” (12.514D = 50), προελθών, “going on” (12.514E = 51A) and ὁ αὐτός, “the same” (1.6C = 66, 12.548D = 56). N.B., I have written “Clearchan material” and not “the Clearchan passage,” in order to avoid suggesting that the second passage is always the immediate continuation of the first passage. In the case of 56, Athenaeus is explicit that the preceding passage, 55, is drawn from a different book: 56 is said to be drawn from Book 8 and that which precedes from Book 5. 48 Gulick (1933) 5.489 n. c, who writes, “The difficult and allegorical language, as well as the content, points to Clearchus.” 49 Müller (1878) 2.310 no. 24. 50 Tsitsiridis (2013) 158 thinks the additions most likely correct. Regarding ps.-Plutarch, he cites Taifakos (2008) 277–9.

Clearchus, On Lives

451

Σικελῶν τράπεζαι, “Sicilian tables,” are discussed. Wehrli groups the fragment together with those concerned with gourmands,51 but it is clear from the content of 54 and from the Athenaean context that the tables of the Sicilians are mentioned only as an example of luxury among the inhabitants of the Greek islands.52 After that Tsitstiridis focuses on Book 12 of the Sophists at Dinner and offers three observations. 1) The book contains at least seventeen fragments, of which the overwhelming majority come from Books 4 and 5 of the Clearchan work On Lives. According to Tsitsiridis, that can only mean that Athenaeus had firsthand knowledge of On Lives and that this work served as his primary source.53 2) Athenaeus arranges the Clearchan fragments concerning luxury according to peoples and according to individuals. In regard to the latter, he does not follow Clearchus. Sagaris comes before Dionysius in the Sophists at Dinner (12.530C = 53, 12.541C = 45), but in On Lives the order was reversed: Sagaris is mentioned in Book 5 and Dionysius in Book 4. In regard to the former, Athenaeus’ discussion is said to be quite plausible and in line with the Greeks’ normal view of the development of luxurious living. It took root first among the Persians and Medes, after which it was embraced by the Lydians. 3) The treatment of peoples was organized according to large geographic units and presupposes the influence of one group on another. In the case of influence at great distance, migration is said to provide a reasonable hypothesis: e.g., the movement of the Lydians to Magna Graeca. That spread luxurious living from east to west, from non-Greek to Greeks.54

51 In Wehrli’s collection, a string of fragments preceding 59 = 54 concern gourmands and unusual eating habits. The fragments are 51a–b = 51A–B, 51d–55 = 51D, 52–3, 66, 60A and 57–8 = 61–2. Fragments 51c = 51C and 56 = 59 do not make explicit mention of food, but they are not misplaced. The mention of Διὸς ἐγκέφαλος in 51c = 51C explains the position of the fragment alongside 51a–b and d = 51A–B and D. And the mention of Tithonus and the reference to prayer explain placing 56 = 59 after 55 = 60A. The former refers to On Lives, while the latter cites no work, There is, however, no good reason to doubt that both texts derive from On Lives and from a passage in which Melanthius was compared with Tithonus. Fragments 51a, c and d = 51A, C and D fail to refer to On Lives, but given the mention of Διὸς ἐγκέφαλος as well as the focus on pleasure and the Persian kings, the attribution is not to be doubted. 52 Tsitsiridis (2008) 67, (2013) 158. 53 I.e., Athenaeus’ primary source for what is reported concerning Clearchus. 54 Tsitsiridis (2008) 68–9, (2013) 159–60.

452

Clearchus of Soli

Tsitsiridis twice presents in schematic form his view of how the fragments were arranged in On Lives.55 He does so with only minor changes, which is not surprising, since not a few fragments refer to a particular book within On Lives. And when a book number is lacking, similarity of content (an A, B, C series) or an indication that Clearchan material is being continued (see above, n. 46) may support assignation to a particular book. Nevertheless, we should keep in mind that fragments that lack a book number open the door to uncertainty, so that Dorandi may be thought prudent to print several texts under the heading “Libri incerti” (57–66). In addition, no surviving fragment tells us that On Lives was only eight books long and no longer. Perhaps there was a ninth or tenth book to which a surviving unassigned fragment belonged. Tsitsiridis is confident that the work was a dialogue. That is probable, but accepting the dialogue form does not tell us who spoke when and where.56 Nor does it tell us how we should think of the dialogue. Tsitsiridis warns against thinking in terms of a Platonic dialogue with its short speeches and dialectical exchanges. Rather we should think of an Aristotelian dialogue. There will have been introductory passages not only at the beginning of the work but also at the beginning of long sections. And in between these passages, the dialogue figures will have spoken at length. One figure sets forth a thesis, e.g., “The end of life is luxury,” and defends the thesis with arguments. A second figure then opposes the thesis, arguing against luxury and in favor of a different end. 57 That may be correct, but I become worried when Tsitsiridis opposes ἡδονή to σωφροσύνη, “pleasure” to “temperance,” as two competing goals of life and then proceeds to set forth his view of the structure of the work as a whole.58 He tells us that Book 1 will have contained explanations of important concepts (like ἀπόλαυσις, ἐπιθυμία, ἡδονή, “enjoyment, desire, pleasure”), in which key points of Aristotelian doctrine were reviewed. An argument favoring pleasure is likely to have followed. Then beginning already in Book 2 a counter argument will 55

Id. (2008) 69, (2013) 160. See below, sub-section iii, on the beginning of 40. 57 Tsitsiridis (2008) 69–70, (2013) 161. 58 The Gesamtaufbau of the work; so Tsitsiridis (2008) 70, 2013 161. It seems likely that Tsitsiridis is influenced by Wehrli (1969) 58 and Cooper (2002) 323, both of whom hold that the work is focused on the antithesis of ἀρετή and ἡδονή and the punishment, which the latter brings on itself. 56

Clearchus, On Lives

453

have been put forward. Book 3 will have taken account of great poets and painters who recognized the value of virtue. In Book 4 there followed a string of peoples famous for luxury, and in Book 5 well-known gourmands will have been introduced. Concerning the rest nothing can be said, save that in Book 8 Gorgias will have been cited as a representative of the life of temperance.59 My worry here is not that Tsitsiridis is presenting what he thinks probable (vermutlich). Rather, it is that he announces an overview of the whole work and sees in the surviving fragments grounds for positing an extended attack on the life focused on luxury, especially the excessive luxury that originated in the East among non-Hellenic people. But some thirty-six fragments60 hardly constitute an adequate sample of the work as a whole (it ran at least eight books), and the fact that some nineteen61 fragments come from Book 12, in which Athenaeus is focused on luxury,62 should remind us that the fragments have been selected by Athenaeus in accordance with his own interests. He is not deliberately misrepresenting the content of the Clearchan work, but he is being selective.63 In fairness to Tsitsiridis, it should be acknowledged that the opposition between ἡδονή and σωφροσύνη, which sets in motion his account of the Clearchan work, is not a creation ex nihilo. Rather, it occurs in 56, in which Athenaeus tells us that Clearchus attributed the longevity of Isocrates (110 years) to living temperately, σωφρόνως. And when Isocrates was asked how he was able to live so long elegantly and with his senses intact, he replied that he had never done anything for the sake of ἡδονή. In addition to citing Clearchus, Athenaeus cites Book 8 of On Lives. If we think that Book 8 was the last book of the Clearchan work, we might see in the anecdote an opposition between ἡδονή and σωφροσύνη, which is intended to characterize the work as a whole. But that would be no more than a guess and a bold one at that. 59

Tsitsiridis (2008) 70, (2013) 161–2. The number 36 includes both lettered (B, C, D) and app. fragments in Dorandi’s edition. 61 The number 19 is based on Dorandi’s edition. 62 The focus is announced at the end of Book 11.509E. 63 The view that I am presenting is quite close to that of Bollansée (2008) 403–11. When I wrote the present paper, I was unaware of Bollansée’s article, which was subsequently called to my attention by Stefan Schorn. When Tsitsiridis published his 2008 article, he will not have known the article of Bollansée, for both articles were published in the same year. Why he fails to cite Bollansée in his 2013 article is unclear. 60

454

Clearchus of Soli

Or am I ignoring what follows immediately in the text of Athenaeus: namely a competing anecdote concerning Isocrates? According to Demetrius of Byzantium, when Isocrates was asked how he was able to live so long, he replied that he had never done anything for the sake of another person (12.548D). It might be argued that Clearchus chose to report the first version and not the second, and in making that choice he indicated the weight he attached to the opposition between ἡδονή and σωφροσύνη. Perhaps, but it hardly proves or even strongly suggests that the opposition between ἡδονή and σωφροσύνη was intended by Clearchus to be a kind of emphatic finale to On Lives taken as a whole. My own guess is that On Lives was much richer than the surviving fragments suggest. Clearchus will have known Plato’s Republic well and the same holds regarding Heraclides’ work On Lives and Aristotle’s ethical treatises. As discussed above in Section 2, each of these philosophers took account of three competing lives: those of enjoyment, action and philosophy. That Clearchus did otherwise strikes me as unlikely,64 only in the fragments preserved by Athenaeus one stands out, the hedonistic life, because it suits Athenaeus’ own interests. A final worry: Tsitsiridis first asserts and later suggests that the moral tendency of Clearchus’ whole work leaves no room for a subtle ethicalpsychological analysis such as occurs in Aristotle’s discussion of hybris

64 In saying that Clearchus is likely to have taken account of three competing lives, I do not want to suggest that he treated the three as entirely distinct, so that mixed lives were not a consideration. An interesting case is Sardanapalus, whom Aristotle names in order to illustrate the life devoted to enjoyment conceived of as a life suitable to cattle (NE 1.5 1095b20–2). Clearchus is more complicated. At least Athenaeus attributes to Clearchus a report concerning the inscription on Sardanapalus’ tomb (12.529D–E = 51D), which differs markedly from the inscription as reported by Chrysippus (8.335F– 336B). Whereas the latter mentions feasting, wanton love and riches, the former characterizes Sardanapalus as someone who was not inactive, οὐκ ἄπρακτος: he is said to have built Anchialê and Tarsus in a single day. That is, of course, not to be believed. Artistobulos, who reports in passing that Sardanapalus built the two named cites, does not add “in a single day” (12.530B). And if Sardanapalus was driven to suicide by a defeat in battle against Arbaces (12.529B–D), it is hard to imagine the erection of a tomb complete with an inscription that included one or more details favorable to Sardanapalus. But for our purposes, the veracity of what Clearchus wrote is of lesser importance than the fact that Clearchus is said to have presented material that presented a second side of Sardanapalus: a life primarily focused on pleasure might still make room for action in the civic arena.

Clearchus, On Lives

455

in Book 2 of the Rhetoric. 65 I agree that Aristotle’s analysis is commendable, but I am not convinced that the moral focus of the Clearchan work precludes subtle analysis. I offer three considerations. 1) A moral tendency, even a strong moral tendency, need not block subtle analysis. To do so, it would have to be unusually restrictive: e.g., limited to the repeated use of imperatives, explicit or implicit, supplemented by striking examples of what happens when one fails to act as directed. I do not want to deny that Clearchus offered directives together with examples of unwanted consequences (see 42A–50, 65 on luxury and hybris), but it needs to be shown that Clearchus limited himself to such an approach.66 And to do that would require a large increase in the number of surviving fragments. 2) It might be thought that a dialogue format is incompatible with subtle analysis. It is better suited to moral exhortation, in which one figure addresses another without engaging in subtle analysis. But if we follow Tsitsiridis and think of an “Aristotelian dialogue” with introductory passages and unbroken speeches, then it is hard to understand why the dialogue form rules out subtle analysis. Indeed, Tsitsiridis’ tells us that Book 1 will have contained an analysis of important concepts and a review of Aristotelian doctrine. 3) In discussing Plato’s Republic and Peripatetic works On Lives,67 I had occasion to refer to different views of the soul (it is tripartite/bipartite; the intellect is divine; the soul does not exist) and the role such views play in deciding which life is most worthy of choice. That Clearchus, too, took account of the soul and more generally of human nature in his work On Lives seems likely. To be sure, not every reference to the soul will have involved or been based on subtle analysis,68 but my guess is that some will have been serious and refined. Indeed, a work that ran for at least eight books will have made room for much more than moral exhortation combined with edifying examples. It will have made room not only for an analysis of the soul but also for physiological conditions that affect

65

In his earlier article Tsitsiridis (2008) 71 writes, “lässt allerdings keinen Raum,” Later in his book (2013) 167 n. 48, he writes, “liess vielleicht wenig Raum.” 66 In regard to examples, see above, p. 5. concerning the youth at Paphos. 67 Above, in Section 2. 68 See 38, which tells us that according to Clearchus, the Pythagorean Euxitheus used to say that the soul is bound to the body as a punishment and that the god threatens greater torments should a person seek relief in suicide. On this fragment, see below Section 4.

456

Clearchus of Soli

a person’s behavior,69 as well as matters that are of interest quite apart from morality: e.g., lexical issues, firsts or beginnings and proverbs.70 ii. Fragment 64 occurs in Book 13 of The Sophists at Dinner, a book that carries the heading “On Women” and has much to say about prostitutes. The text occurs toward the end of the book, where the grammarian Myrtilus of Thessaly and a Cynic philosopher appropriately named Cynulcus are trading barbs.71 The two detest each other. That has been clear in what precedes. Now comes a final exchange in which Cynulcus attacks the learning of Myrtilus, who responds first with a general attack against philosophers and rhetoricians (610D–611B) and then with criticism directed specifically at the Cynics (611B–D). Myrtilus begins the specific criticism by citing Clearchus, after which he says that you (Cynics) live the life of a dog, bios kynikos. More precisely, you not only exhibit a dog’s worst attributes: you are given to snarling and have a voracious appetite, but also lack a dog’s good qualities: you are unable to differentiate between the familiar and strange, τὸ οἰκείον καὶ ἀλλότριον, (611C), and to be guardians of a household. Indeed you lead an abject life without home or hearth (611B–D). The opening reference to Clearchus makes clear that Athenaeus is drawing on the Peripatetic philosopher, but no particular work is cited. That work may have been On Education. At least, Wehrli tentatively72 places the Athenaean text next to three other texts that make explicit mention of On Education 69 See 57, where we read of a condition of the liver that causes cowardice. Tsitsiridis (2008) 72–3, (2013) 169 tells us that for Aristotle human behavior is based less on natural endowment than on dispositions acquired through habituation. That may be true of Aristotle’s ethical writings, but we should not underestimate Aristotle’s concern with natural endowment: whole races (Greeks vs. people to the north and to the south), male and female, and individual temperaments that differentiate one person from another. Theophrastus will have shared such concerns (e.g., lethargy and excitability in Callisthenes and Alexander [Fortenbaugh 2011] 469 and 473), and Clearchus may well have done the same. 70 On lexical issues see 37, 42A, 44, 60B, 65 and p. 441 on the Gergithius; on firsts/ beginnings see 44, 47; and on proverbs see 42B, 43. 71 Cynulcus’ proper name is Theodorus; see 15 669E. 72 In his commentary, Wehrli (1969) 51 acknowledges that attribution to the work On Lives is worth considering.

Clearchus, On Lives

457

(12–14). Some support for this arrangement might be found in Book 2 of Plato’s Republic, where Socrates introduces a comparison between a well-born youth and a well-bred dog. He credits the latter with the ability to distinguish between the familiar and the strange, τὸ οἰκείον καὶ ἀλλότριον (376B),73 and then turns to education (376C). Perhaps Clearchus, too, used the canine comparison to introduce a discussion of education or some aspect of education. Nevertheless, it should be emphasized that 64 contains no explicit reference to education. Instead, there is repeated mention of the life one lives (βίος 611B, thrice 611C, βιοῦν 611C), and the focus throughout is on the Cynic mode of life: a most unusual/alarming life style, in which human interaction, συνανθρωπίζειν, has no place (611C). That suggests to me that the assignation of 64 to On Lives is correct. The opening sentence of 64 runs: “Briefly put, 74 according to Clearchus of Soli you (pl.) do not practice a life of endurance but rather you live the life of a dog” (611B). In writing this sentence, Athenaeus is marking the beginning of Clearchan material. Put in the mouth of Myrtilus, it indicates that he is leaving behind the extended indictment of philosophers and rhetoricians. He will be zeroing in on the Cynics and Cynulcus as their representative, and in doing so he will be brief. What is not clear is whether the Clearchan material will be a verbatim quotation of what Clearchus wrote, or whether it will involve changes including abbreviation. Olson seems to embrace the former; at least he translates the phrase κατὰ τὸν Σολέα Κλέαρχον with “to quote Clearchus of Soli.” Or is Olson using the verb “to quote” loosely, so that it does not imply a word for word quotation? That is, the expression and formulation of the attack on Cynulcus will be Clearchan in that it will be based on what Clearchus wrote, but it will involve alterations introduced by Athenaeus. That is of some importance in regard to the use of the second person plural both in verb forms and in the pronoun “you” (611B–C).75 For if we think in terms of verbatim quotation, then we are apt to see in 64 proof that On Lives was a dialogue, in which Cynic philosophers were addressed directly and criticized for having a mistaken view of the good life. But it is not certain that the passage in question is a word for 73

Kassel (1963) 58. For the Greek phrase συνελόντι εἰπεῖν, see LSJ s.v. συναιρέω I.2b. 75 In 64 = 611B–C, verbs in the second person plural occur five times. The plural pronoun “you” occurs once. 74

458

Clearchus of Soli

word quotation; in fact, I doubt that it is. Nevertheless, I do not want to deny that On Lives was a dialogue,76 in which the Cynics took a thumping. Rather, I am suggesting that in 64 we have Athenaeus adapting Clearchan material and putting it in the mouth of a diner named Myrtilus.77 Kassel observes that 64 is our earliest evidence for an interpretation of the name “Cynic” by reference to the nature, φύσις, of a dog.78 But that does not tell us with whom the interpretation originated. If Diogenes of Sinope was characterized as a “dog” during his lifetime (c. 412/403–c. 324/321),79 it was in all likelihood because of his shamelessness and not because he lacked two of the four attributes recognized in 64 (611B–C). I leave the issue undecided. Kassel calls attention to the phrase τὴν φύσιν περιττὴν ἔχοντος, which occurs early in 64, when Myrtilus says that the dog “possesses an extraordinary nature” in four respects (611B). Kassell compares Aristotle, History of Animals 4.6 531a9 and Parts of Animals 4.12 692b16, where the phrase φύσις περιττή occurs. He labels the phrase a technical expression of Aristotelian zoology and asserts that in 64 it can be attributed only to Clearchus and not to Athenaeus. Most likely Kassel is correct in asserting that the phrase was used by Clearchus, but that does not mean that the whole of 64 is a verbatim quotation. Moreover, the use of φύσις in regard to canine qualities occurs in Plato’s Republic 2 375E–376B, where Socrates refers to the exquisite trait of a dog’s nature: κομψὸν … τὸ πάθος αὐτοῦ (κυνὸς) τῆς φύσεως, i.e., the dog’s capacity to distinguish between the familiar and strange. To be sure, the fact that Aristotle uses the adjective περιττός in combination with φύσις is not to be ignored, but περιττός is not an uncommon adjective,80 so

76

See Tsitsiridis (2008) 69–70, citing Weber (1880) 17 and Schorn (2004) 35–6, who in regard to Clearchus inserts the qualifier “möglicherweise.” Also Tsitsiridis (2013) 160–1. 77 To be entirely clear, I am not denying that in On Lives the second-person plural was never used in exchanges between figures within the dialogue. But in saying that I do not want to rule out passages in which Athenaeus himself introduced the second person plural in order to adapt Clearchan material to his own dialogue. 78 Kassel (1963) 58. 79 Diogenes Laertius, Lives 6.55. 80 A TLG search of Athenaeus turned up 44 occurrences of περριτός and περριτός in their various forms.

Clearchus, On Lives

459

that I am hesitant to label the phrase φύσις περιττή as a terminus technicus that is peculiarly Peripatetic.81 I am also hesitant to follow Kassel in identifying two glosses that need to be removed from the text. The first is ὥσπερ ὑμεῖς. If ὥσπερ is emended to read ὧνπερ, the text makes good sense, and the explicit use of the second person plural pronoun adds punch to the criticism directed at the Cynics. The second is πρὸς ὄσφρανσιν καί. The Greek is awkward, but I do not think it impossible.82 In context, the preposition πρός expresses respect or relationship: we are told that the animal/dog is remarkably perceptive in regard to its sense of smell.83 More troubling is the mention of smell. At first reading that seems out of place (in the Republic passage sight is in play: the dog sees someone familiar or strange [376A–B]), but an explanation is possible. Aristotle recognized that in many animals the sense of smell is more precise than in human beings (On Soul 29.9 421a9–10).84 The dog belongs among the many, which may have prompted a scribe to make a marginal note that mentioned smell and eventually made its way into the text. But it is also possible that Clearchus himself chose to mention smell, because dogs are known to be good at distinguishing between odors. Having done so, Clearchus then went on to mention discriminating between the familiar and the strange. Perhaps he did not think it necessary to mention sight; alternatively a reference to sight either fell out in transmission or was passed over by Athenaeus. Be that as it may, I would prefer to print the transmitted text, use the apparatus to record possible emendations and add a detailed footnote to the translation. 81

The adjective recurs in the next sentence. Gulick (1937) 293 n. e writes, “The Greek is awkward as is to be expected in Clearchus, but there is no need to alter the text.” 83 The Greek sentence divides into two parts. The first begins with αἰσθήσει τε and ends with θαυμαστόν, and the second begins with καὶ τῷ and ends with περιττόταταον. Each of the two parts also divides in two. In the first part, the sense of smell is distinguished from the capacity to pick out the familiar and the strange. In the second part, the distinction is between being domestic and being protective. The adjective θαυμαστόν, with which the first part ends, is specified by αἰσθήσει (dative of respect), which needs further specification. That is accomplished by the use of πρός, first with regard to smell and then with regard to the familiar and strange. In the latter case, the reader understands that sight is in play. 84 Cf. Aristotle, On Sensation 4 440b32–441a1 and ps.-Aristotle, Problems 10.18 892b25–6 and 33.10 962b11–12, in which the contrast with other animals is not qualified by “many.” 82

460

Clearchus of Soli

Whereas the beginning of Clearchan material is clear, the ending is less so. Wehrli cuts off with the phrase ἄνοικοι καὶ ἀνέστιοι “homeless and hearthless” (611C ad fin.), which Olson identifies as an echo of Homer’s Iliad 9.63 ἀθέμιστος ἀνέστιος.85 If that is correct, Clearchus is again appealing to the alert reader, who will recognize a Homeric reminiscence and be pleased with himself.86 Or is the second reminiscence the work of Athenaeus, who wants his diners to display their knowledge of earlier literature? Possible, but in my judgment the decision to cut off the Clearchan material with the phrase “homeless and hearthless” is almost certainly correct. What follows begins with ἐξ ὧν ἁπάντων, “from all this” (611D ad init.) The phrase is both forward and backward looking: it introduces Myrtilus’ conclusion based on what has been said. We may compare the phrase with which the Clearchan material begins: “briefly put.” Athenaeus marks the beginning and end of the Clearchan material in a way that ties the material to what precedes and what follows, and at the same time signals the introduction and conclusion of the material. iii. Text 40 is taken from Book 15 of the Sophists at Dinner (687A–C). In what precedes a discussion of garlands has been completed (669C– 686B), and the impending death of Ulpian mentioned (686C).87 There follows a discussion of perfumes (686C–692F). Cynulcus, whose name reflects his Cynic views,88 takes the lead and speaks negatively of perfumes. He cites Xenophon, Chrysippus, the Spartans and Solon (686D– 687A), after which he refers to Clearchus and to Book 3 of On Lives (687A = 40). Problematic is the opening word of the Clearchan material, i.e., νῦν (687A), “now.” Since the phrase “as Clearchus says” occurs in the same sentence, it seems reasonable to construe “now” as a reference to Clearchus’ own time, but caution is in order, for Athenaeus 85

Olson (2011) 91 n. 141. Peripatetics understood that a reader or listener is pleased when he understands/supplies something for himself. On omission qua part of “audience psychology” see Fortenbaugh (2005) 78–9, 314. 87 The identification of Ulpian is problematic. For summary discussion with references to the literature, see Fortenbaugh (2011) 53–4. 88 See above, p. 456. 86

Clearchus, On Lives

461

might refer to Clearchus as the author of his source text and not the author or speaker of what is reported: namely, that scents and complexions89 make the user effeminate. We may compare the preceding reference to Xenophon. Athenaeus has Cynulcus not only cite the title of Xenophon’s work, i.e., the Symposium, but also name Socrates as the speaker within that work whose words are reported (686D–F).90 In regard to Clearchus, Athenaeus has Cynulcus say only that he is drawing on a work entitled On Lives. He does not make explicit who, Clearchus or someone else, said that nowadays, nËn, perfumes and complexions effeminize the user.91 Theoretically at least, that leaves open the possibility that “now” refers to a time earlier than Clearchus. Reading on we encounter a sentence addressed to some unidentified people in the second person plural: ὑμεῖς. That suggests a dialogue in which Clearchus or someone else addresses two or more interlocutors. That On Lives was in fact a dialogue is most likely correct, but without further evidence we cannot assume that Clearchus is the person addressing interlocutors. Indeed, we cannot assume that Clearchus played any role, let alone the lead role. A related concern is whether the sentence addressed to “you” plural is Clearchan in the sense that it comes from Clearchus’ work On Lives. To be sure, Clearchus is mentioned in the previous/first sentence, but he is not referred to in the following/second sentence, and that opens the door to doubt. We should keep in mind that in this portion of the Sophists at Dinner Cynulcus is speaking. A half page earlier he expressed annoyance that perfume had been smeared on him; he called for someone to wipe it off and addressed the dinners, saying ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε, “don’t you know” (686D) what Xenophon makes Socrates say in the 89

Olson (2012) 117 n. 166 explains: “presumably, ‘(the substances they apply to their skin to alter) their complexions.’” 90 I am ignoring Callias who is named and whose brief question interrupts the words of Socrates (686D). 91 A different example and one that is like 40 in that a book number is given occurs at Sophists at Dinner 2.7 38D, where we read “Plato in the second (book of the) Laws says that the use of wine is for the sake of health.” Here we have author, title and book number. The Laws is a dialogue and the reference is to the end of Book 2 at 647B, where the Athenian Stranger is speaking. His exact words are: “nor by day is anyone at all (to taste wine), unless for training and diseases (i.e., health).” 40 may be similar: the stated author is not the speaker. Only the Clearchan work has not survived, so that a certain conclusion is elusive.

462

Clearchus of Soli

Symposium. It seems quite possible that a half page later “you” plural, ὑμεῖς (687A), is similarly directed at the diners. After that Athenaeus has Cynulcus introduce Sappho and only later return to Clearchus when he cites Parrhasius (687B).92 Another concern is whether the sentence addressed to unidentified people, “you” plural, is a question or a statement. Beginning with Casaubon, editors including Gulick, Olson and Dorandi punctuate with a question mark at the end of the sentence. Wehrli marks corruption at the end of the sentence (cruces are placed around τρυφερόν) and in that way avoids choosing between a question and a statement.93 Punctuating as a question is certainly possible, but it strikes me that a statement is also possible. The speaker may be telling the auditors what they believe; i.e. he is, as it were, accusing them of thinking that ἁβρότης by itself, i.e. apart from virtue, χωρὶς ἀρετῆς, contains something luxurious. Such a reproach makes sense coming from Cynulcus, who has just been subjected to shabby treatment. Moreover, the sentence that follows begins with καίτοι, “and yet,” which signals an objection or correction. Sappho is cited because she is a woman and a poetess and therefore apt to be fully familiar with ἁβρότης. In addition, she is unwilling to separate ἁβρότης from τὸ καλόν. That is aimed at the preceding sentence, i.e. at “you” plural, who entertain the idea of ἁβρότης without ἀρετή, “virtue.” If that is correct, then we may want to say that the second sentence is not only spoken by Cynulcus but also addressed to the diners with whom he is annoyed. For the moment, Athenaeus is focused on the dramatic context and not drawing on a Clearchan text. The preceding two paragraphs have suggested reasons for thinking that 40 is not from beginning to end uninterrupted Clearchan material. Nevertheless, caution is in order. Here are five considerations. 1) The judgment of Wehrli and Gulick, who view 40 from beginning to end as unbroken Clearchan text, should not be lightly dismissed. The former assigns a single fragment number to the text (no. 41), and the latter’s

92 Hammerstaedt (2010) 23 thinks that not only the second sentence but also the subsequent material concerning Sappho are not Clearchan. He refers to discussion at a later time. 93 Wehrli (1969) 21 (in the critical apparatus) suggests that καλόν or something similar has fallen out.

Clearchus, On Lives

463

use of quotation marks makes no provision for interruption.94 2) Luxury is a common thread running throughout 40. 3) The phrase with which 40 ends (“These things Clearchus says”) seems to refer back to the initial reference to Clearchus at the beginning of 40 (“as Clearchus says”). 4) Although the dramatic context may suggest that the second sentence is addressed by Cynulcus to the diners, who have annoyed him, it is possible that Athenaeus is drawing on a Clearchan passage that works well with the dramatic situation, i.e., a response to bad manners. 5) Although the initial reference to Clearchus mentions Book 3, it need not be that everything reported in 40 is drawn from a single passage in Book 3. The material concerning Sappho (687A–B) might come from a different book or from a different portion of Book 3, as might the material concerning Parrhasius (687B–C). And if that is the case, then we have uninterrupted Clearchan material (“These things Clearchus says,” 687C), albeit separated within the Clearchan work. I leave the issue undecided. The noun ἁβρότης is ambiguous in that it may refer to “daintiness,” which in English has a negative ring, and also to “charm” or “grace” which has a positive ring.95 That is important for what follows. We are told that Sappho (7th–6th century) asserted her love of ἁβροσύνη (the variation in spelling is unimportant) and said that her longing for the sun (i.e., for life96) has obtained for her τὸ λάμπρον καὶ τὸ καλόν, “brightness and beauty/nobility” (fr. 58 continued).97 As I understand 94 Wehrli (1969) 21 and Gulick (1941) 179, 181. Olson (2012) seems not to be concerned by the sentence addressed to “you” plural in 40 687A, but he does query the later reference to a “clever” person in 687B (118 n. 167). 95 See LSJ s.v. ἁβρότης I and II as well as ἁβρός. Less negative and in some contexts positive might be “delicacy.” Mostly positive would be “refinement.” 96 That is how Clearchus understands Sappho’s words. After quoting Sappho, he writes, “making it clear to all that for her the desire to live involves the bright and the beautiful.” See Lardinois (2009) 44, who cites Boedecker (2009) 72 and suggests that the reference to the sun (in the genitive) is be taken with both ἔρος, “longing/love” and with τὸ καλόν, “beauty.” That gives the following: “love of the sun/life has obtained for me the brightness and beauty (of the sun/life).” 97 The two Sapphic lines cited at 15.687B, along with two partial lines that precede, have long been known from Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 1787 (15 [1922] 28–9). These four lines (labeled “fr. 58 continued” by Obbink [2009] 13) follow twelve Sapphic lines that are commonly referred to as the “Tithonus poem” (fr. 58). In a recently published papyrus, Cologne inv. 21351 (2004), the Tithonus poem recurs but the additional four lines do not. That might be thought to prove that the Tithonus poem is complete in

464

Clearchus of Soli

the poet, she is speaking of physical and aesthetic qualities:98 in particular, she uses τὸ καλόν to refer to what is beautiful and not to what is honorable or noble.99 But what we read in 40 involves a clever misinterpretation, which plays with the ambiguity inherent in both ἁβρότης and τὸ καλόν. When the former is construed as charm or grace and the latter as nobility, then the poet may be said to make clear her enthusiasm for living a graceful life that involves what is bright and noble, i.e., qualities which are οἰκεῖα τῆς ἀρετῆς, “proper to virtue” (687B). A scholar focused on Greek lyric poetry might grumble, but in certain contexts and especially in a dialogue, there is room for playful misrepresentation.100 I would like to think that the playfulness goes back to Clearchus, but if he is not Athenaeus’ source, then perhaps to Athenaeus himself. After Sappho our attention is turned to the painter Parrhasius (687B–C),101 who worked in Athens and shared with Sappho a delight in ἁβρότης. We are told that the painter indulged himself inappropriately above his station as an artist, and that he drew from styluses102 from certain cups the life of a gentleman. There is a textual difficulty here: two prepositional phrases appear awkwardly together. Kaibel suggested supplying ὡς, “as,” between the two phrases, so that the second qualifies the first. That is an attractive suggestion, for the verb on which the prepositional phrases depend is ἕλκειν. Its primary meaning is to drag or draw and applied to Parrhasius’ lucrative career as a painter, we are apt to translate “he drew or obtained from his stylus the life of a free man.” But ἕλκειν can be used of drinking a long draught, i.e., quaffing generous portions of wine.103 That would add a humorous touch to the description of Parrhasius’ inappropriate indulgence. I can twelve lines and that the additional four lines found in the Oxyrhynchus Papyrus are a separate poem or a fragment of one, but in fact the newly published Cologne papyrus has stirred up considerable debate concerning the relation between the Tithonus poem and the additional lines. See Greene and Skinner 2009. 98 By writing “and aesthetic qualities,” I want to suggest that τὸ καλόν includes beautiful music, vocal and instrumental. See Lardinois (2009) 44. 99 LSJ I.3 vs. III.1. 100 See Wehrli (1969) 60 and Gulick (1941) 7.178–9 n. c. In translating τὸ καλόν in the Sapphic verse with “what is beautiful,” Olson (2012) 119 captures Sappho’s meaning. 101 Parrhasius hailed from Ephesus; his floruit is 430–380 BC (Page [1981] 496). 102 I.e., the stylus used by an artist in encaustic painting. 103 See LSJ s.v. II.4.

Clearchus, On Lives

465

imagine Clearchus adding the second prepositional phrase preceded by “as,” in order to call the reader’s attention to the ambiguity in ἕλκειν or perhaps to his own cleverness in using ἕλκειν ambiguously. That may seem heavy handed, so that an editor may prefer to delete the second phrase as a gloss that a scribe introduced into the text either on his own or from an interlinear or marginal note.104 But given Peripatetic interest in ambiguity and the playful tone in what precedes, I am reluctant to dismiss the questionable phrase. At very least it should be printed in the text in square brackets.105 After the initial negative characterization of Parrhasius, we are told that he embraced virtue λόγῳ γοῦν, “at least verbally,” by inscribing over all his works in Lindus the words: “Parrhasius, a dainty/graceful man, ἁβροδίαιτος ἀνήρ, and one who honors virtue painted these works.” We are also told of a clever man who was so pained with Parrhasius for besmirching the grace and nobility of virtue, τὸ τῆς ἀρετῆς ἁβρὸν καὶ καλόν, and for using resources provided by fortune in a vulgar manner, 106 that he added alongside Parrhasius’ words the following: “a man who lives by (the painter’s) stile,” ἁβροδίαιτος ἀνήρ (687B–C). Once again the ambiguity involved in ἁβρότης and τὸ καλόν is in play. Having been told that Parrhasius indulged himself above his station, we are apt to understand Parrhasius’ self-description as a ἁβροδίαιτος ἀνήρ negatively: someone whose daintiness was tasteless. But most likely Parrhasius meant the description to be construed positively: someone who lives gracefully. In what follows, the ambiguity is emphasized by reference to a clever man who made fun of Parrhasius’ self-description by adding a like-sounding description: namely ῥαβδοδίαιτος ἀνήρ. The similarity in sound is playful, and the less than subtle reference to Parrhasius’ trade (painters use a ῥαβδίον) is intended to diminish Parrhasius. 104

The idea of adding ὡς is that of Kaibel, who nevertheless would prefer to delete the second phrase. Gulick (1941) 7.178 adds ὡς, but Olson (2012) 118 deletes the second phrase. 105 Pace Olson (2012) 118. The second phrase is found in codex A. Its absence in C and E is hardly decisive, for these two codices derive from of an epitomized version of Athenaeus’ work. The epitomator may have removed the phrase as unnecessary. 106 The connection between resources and fortune, χορηγία and τύχη, prompts Wehrli (1969) 61 to compare Aristotle, Politics 7.13 1331b41–1332a1. The comparison is apt in that both Aristotle and Clearchus recognize that resources are provided by fortune. Only Aristotle is not focused on a single individual. His remarks are general and inclusive: he observes that fortune plays a role in both possessing and lacking resources.

466

Clearchus of Soli

40 ends with a concession: “Nevertheless, since (Parrhasius) says that he honors virtue, he is to be tolerated” (687C). The remark seems disingenuous. And when it is combined with the earlier comment concerning Parrhasius’ embrace of virtue: “at least verbally” (687B), the idea of tolerating Parrhasius is not one of redemption. He remains a largely unattractive figure. Too bad for the painter, but in the Clearchan work On Lives, the painter may have served a useful purpose as an example of misused wealth. iv. In certain respects, 41 is a duplicate of 40. With little variation in vocabulary and word order, we are told that Parrhasius engaged in luxury inappropriately above his station as an artist, that he verbally laid claim to virtue, that his paintings were accompanied by an inscription referring not only to his style of life but also to his reverence for virtue, and that a distressed individual added the phrase “a man who lives by the stile” (543C–D). New is the generalization that the ancients were given to luxury and large expenditure. Also new is the description of Parrhasius’ dress—he wore purple and a golden crown—which is followed by the phrase, “as Clearchus reports in the Lives (543C).” Here the phrase marks neither the beginning nor the end of Clearchan material. Rather, it looks both backward and forward. The occurrence of the shorter version of the title, Lives as against On Lives, might be explained by its position in the middle of Clearchan material (contrast the fuller version with the book number 3, γ´, at the beginning of 40), but that is only a suggestion. 107 Another difference between 41 and 40 is that the latter, but not the former, is embedded within the dialogue between diners. In 40 the words are spoken by Cynulcus, but 41 is not part of that dialogue. Rather Athenaeus is speaking in his own voice to Timocrates, to whom the account of the dinner is being related.108 Moreover, the end of the Clearchan material is not clearly marked. Rather, there is an abrupt return to 107 On the longer and shorter versions of the title see above, Part 1 “The Clearchan Title.” 108 See Sophists at Dinner 1 1A, 12 510A, 11 509E. Following Wilkins (2000) 24 and Guillén (2000) 250–2, we might distinguish between the “external” and “internal dialogue/narrative.” 41 belongs to the former and 40 to the latter.

Clearchus, On Lives

467

the words that Parrhasius inscribed over his paintings. These words are now extended from a single line to a four-line epigram (543D), to which four more lines are added (543E). Moreover, a reference is made to “many of his (Parrhasius’) works” (543D). That differs from 40, in which reference is made to “all his works in Lindus” (687B). We should, I think, conclude that the abrupt return to the words of Parrhasius (543D) marks a change in Athenaeus’ source.109 That need not mean, however, that what follows the abrupt return is irrelevant to our understanding of Clearchan material. In 40 the name Parrhasius concludes the inscription that accompanied his paintings (687B ad fin.). In 41 that name is omitted from the inscription (543D ad init.), but from what follows it is clear that the name is the beginning of the second line of an eight-line epigram. My guess is that the original Clearchan text contained all eight lines. In 40 the name was included to make clear the subject of the quoted portion. In 41 it is missing, perhaps because the second line, indeed all eight lines, would be given in what follows (543D–E). Be that as it may, in Book 12 we seem to be confronted with a preliminary draft that contained overlapping material and awkward transitions, which might have been artfully dealt with, had Athenaeus got round to converting Book 12 to dialogue format.110 Above I spoke of “the inscription that accompanied his (Parrhasius’) paintings.” In doing so, I avoided a problem: namely, how we should understand the verb ἐπιγράφειν. Both Gulick and Olsen translate with “to inscribe” and do so not only in 41 but also in 40. In itself that is unobjectionable, but when it becomes part of a sentence that refers to Parrhasius’ paintings, then the question arises how to translate the prefix ἐπι-. Olsen translates with “on”: “(he) inscribed on all the works he completed on Lindus” (40) and “he used to inscribe on the works he completed (41). Gulick translates with “over” and “on”: “he inscribed over all his works in Lindus” (40) and “inscribing on the works of art wrought by him” (41). I much prefer “over,” for “on” suggests that Parrhasius inscribed the epigram on the paintings themselves. And if “all” is taken to mean “each and every” painting, then we have the same 109 Page (1981) 75, who calls attention to the fact that whereas Clearchus refers to a golden crown (543C), the new source mentions a white chaplet (543F). 110 I.e., had Athenaeus got round to changing external dialogue to internal dialogue (see above, n. 108). Or did Athenaeus view long stretches of external dialogue as a welcome variation on internal dialogue? I leave the answer to experts on Athenaeus.

468

Clearchus of Soli

epigram repeated time and again, which seems foolish and even laughable. In addition, “over” is compatible with and even suggests a single, separate tablet, on which the epigram was inscribed and which was placed together with Parrhasius’ paintings in such a way that the epigram was understood to apply to the several paintings. It may have been placed over the paintings, but alongside or beneath them is also possibile. That said, I do not claim that Parrhasius never inscribed an epigram on one of his paintings. But an epigram of some length (eight lines) on many paintings (543D–E) strikes me as quite unlikely.111 A further concern is whether the epigram attributed to Parrhasius is genuine or fabricated. Page is cautious. He accepts the epigram as genuine, but he is clear that his judgment is subjective: the words have “the ring of authenticity, not forgery.” Page also tells us that “almost all famous names of the pre-Hellenistic period attached to epigrams owe that attachment to forgery, guesswork or copyists’ carelessness.” If we add to this general consideration the particular judgment that Duris is the likely source of the material beginning with the epigram in eight lines, then accepting Page’s subjective judgment may seem quite imprudent, for Duris is notoriously unreliable.112 Fair enough, but Page also notes that Parrhasius aside, “none of the numerous other poetical quotations in Clearchus is suspect.”113 Rather than forcing a decision one way or the other, I prefer to offer a general observation. Whereas scholars working on a fragmentary author like Clearchus are apt to focus on the reliability of the surviving sources, e.g. Athenaeus, Zenobius and Hesychius, a fragmentary author himself may be a source whose reliability needs to be considered. Put differently, Clearchus himself is an intermediary between Parrhasius and Athenaeus. Even if Athenaeus cites Clearchus at first hand and with care, in regard to Parrhasius he is dependent on a secondary source, Clearchus, who in turn might be dependent on a still earlier source. Immediately after the eight-line epigram (543D–E), Athenaeus reports that Parrhasius competed against an inferior painter in Samos. His subject was Ajax and the arms of Achilles. Parrhasius is said to have lost, and when consoled by his friends, to have replied that he himself cared little but sympathized with Ajax, who lost for the second time. 111

See Page (1981) 75–6. See Plutarch, Life of Pericles 28, cited by Page (1981) 405. 113 Page (1981) 130. 112

Clearchus, On Lives

469

We are then told that Parrhasius dressed in a luxurious manner and yet painted not without pleasure. Rather, he worked with ease, so that he even sang while painting. These reports are attributed to Theophrastus, who recorded them in his work On Happiness (543E–F = 552B FHS&G). A slightly longer version, which names Theophrastus but not his work On Happiness, is found in Aelian (Miscellaneous History 9.11 = 552A FHS&G).114 Both versions seem more favorable to Parrhasius than what Clearchus is said to have reported. We might say that Theophrastus offered a balanced assessment contrasting luxurious dress with joyful work and a capacity for sympathy. But we must keep in mind that no source reports how Clearchus reported Parrhasius’ loss on Samos, assuming that he did report the loss, and if Clearchus did record all eight lines of the epigram in Lindus, then he will have recorded the closing words: “Nothing done by mortals is blameless” (543E). Those words may be viewed as disingenuous self-awareness, added in closing to disarm critics by suggesting a measure of modesty. But perhaps the words are a straightforward recognition of the human condition and a second reason for tolerating Parrhasius (cf. 687C). Two final observations: First, finding reports concerning Parrhasius in a Peripatetic work entitled On Happiness as well as in one entitled On Lives should not surprise us. The titles announce two closely related topics, and Parrhasius’ reputation made him an ideal illustration of luxurious living. We are not told that Clearchus wrote a work On Happiness, but we are told that Theophrastus wrote a work On Lives. No fragment survives, but it is a reasonable guess that Parrhasius was referred to in that work. Second, Peripatetic works On Happiness and On Lives were not biographies. To be sure, historical individuals were important to these works: they served as examples, which had a claim to be taken seriously that fictitious figures lack. But there was no need to treat the examples fully and with complete fairness. That is not to say, an unfair presentation was always acceptable providing it gave the reader pleasure. I would like to think that Clearchus recognized limits, and in the case of Parrhasius he was serious when he recommended tolerance, but the truth may be otherwise.

114 For more detailed remarks on the two Theophrastean texts, see Fortenbaugh (2011) 645–8.

470

Clearchus of Soli

4. The Epitome Commonly Attributed to Arius Didymus After Aristotle, Theophrastus, Dicaearchus, Clearchus and Strato, the Peripatetics continued to discuss the most choice worthy life. No text tells us that a later Peripatetic wrote a work that carried the title On Lives, but that matters little, for we can be certain that the Peripatetics joined issue with the Stoics and Epicureans concerning the best life. Of especial interest is Book 2, Chapter 7 of Stobaeus’ Anthology. The Chapter carries the heading “On the Ethical Form of Philosophy” and divides into three parts: an introduction, an epitome of Stoic ethics, and another concerning Peripatetic ethics (37.15–57.12, 57.13–116.18, 116.19–152.25 W). Our special concern is the third part. 115 A paragraph from this part recurs in Book 4 of the Anthology, where it is said to be from the epitome of Didymus (4.28 918.15–919.6 H). Given that information, it is reasonable to believe that the whole of the third part can be attributed to Didymus. More problematic is who this Didymus may be. The weight of scholarly opinion favors identifying him with the doxographer Arius Didymus, who was closely associated with the Emperor Augustus. But the identity cannot be demonstrated and has been challenged in recent years by Görannson, whose arguments have been criticized by Inwood. My own inclination is to accept the identification, as does Pomeroy.116 Toward the end of the Peripatetic part there is a brief discussion of the life most worthy of choice.117 It begins as follows: βίον δ᾽ αἱρήσεσθαι τὸν σπουδαίον τὸν μετ᾽ ἀρετῆς, “The morally good man will choose the life with/involving virtue” (143.24). The text goes on to describe a life marked by various kinds of political activity: the virtuous man might be in a position of leadership or live with a king (as an advisor to him) or be involved in legislation or be politically active in some other way (143.25–144.2). After that we are told what the morally good man will do when political involvement is not possible: he will adopt 115

For discussion, see especially Arnim (1926) 83–95, Walzer (1929) 149–57, Joly (1956) 148–57, Moraux (1973) 403–18 and Hahm (1990) 2935–3055. 116 Görannson (1995) 182–226, Inwood (1995) ad fin. and Pomeroy (1999) 2 n. 6. 117 The passage in question follows a discussion of the mean in regard to us (which is attributed to Theophrastus [140.7–142.5]), the relationship between moral virtue and practical wisdom (142.6–13), the πάθη of the soul (142.14–24), φιλία and χάρις (143.1– 23). The end of the passage is clearly marked by the transitional phrase “these things having been considered (145.11).

Clearchus, On Lives

471

the life of an ordinary person or one of contemplation or that of teaching, which is intermediate (between the two). For he will choose both to do and to contemplate what is noble (144.2–5). But if circumstances prevent involvement in both, he will embrace one of them, giving precedence to the life of contemplation, but on account of his sense of community, διὰ τὸ κοινωνικόν, he will experience an urge/desire to be politically active. Wherefore he will beget children, participate in politics, make love with moderation, engage in social drinking and continue to live, taking his own life only when constrained to do so and after making arrangements for his burial (144.5–15). There is a certain awkwardness here. At least the move from desiring political activity to marrying and begetting children may seem something of a leap, which is more masked than explained by the relative phrase δι᾽ ὅ, “on account of which/wherefore” (144.8).118 But the awkwardness may be more apparent than real. In any case, it is almost certainly attributable to the epitomist, who thought the preceding reference to the morally good man’s sense of community, τὸ κοινωνικόν (144.7), a sufficient explanation of the move to marriage and children.119 Given our interest in Clearchus, more interesting may be the reference to taking one’s own life on account of necessities, δι᾽ ἀνάγκας, and after giving forethought to one’s own burial in accordance with the law and ancestral custom (144.12–15).120 Scholars have noted that in the Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle speaks negatively concerning suicide121 and that the Epicurean notion of the wise man rules out concern for one’s own burial.122 That may suggest that the epitome is reporting a view of later Peripatetics who were both influenced by the Stoic acceptance of suicide and critical of the Epicurean wise man. Fair enough, but what we read in the Nicomachean Ethics is problematic. In Book 3, 118

See Moraux (1973) 406. Earlier in the epitome, we are told that a human being is a living creature inclined to mutual affection and community, φιλάλληλον καὶ κοινωνικὸν ζῷον (120.14; cf. 125.18, 126.4). 120 The idea of taking one’s own life has been introduced earlier in the epitome: for persons who cannot accomplish actions involving community and politics and contemplation, suicide has been deemed reasonable (126.3–11, cf. 134.2–4). 121 See Aristotle, EN 3.7 1116a12–15 with Joly (1956) 153 and EN 5.11/EE 4.11 1138a4–14. 122 See Plutarch, Is “Live Unknown” a Wise Precept? 3 1129A with Moraux (1973) 414. 119

472

Clearchus of Soli

Aristotle calls it cowardly to seek death as an escape from poverty, eros and something painful (1116a13). That is hardly a blanket condemnation of suicide, whatever the circumstances might be. And in Book 5, he tells us that the law does not enjoin suicide and what it does not enjoin it forbids (1138a6–7). As worded that is hard to accept,123 and the subsequent example of striking oneself on account of anger (1138a9– 10) is quite limited: it is not representative of the various circumstance that might justify suicide. Be that as it may,124 our primary concern is Clearchus, who is reported to have taken notice of suicide in a Pythagorean context. I am thinking of fragment 38, which occurs in Book 4 of Athenaeus’ The Sophists at Dinner. There we are told of a dinner held at the home of Cebes of Cyzicus.125 Among the participants was Carneius of Megara,126 who cited Book 2 of Clearchus’ Lives, in which the Pythagorean Euxitheus described human souls being bound to the body as a form of punishment. Should a person refuse to endure this punishment and seek his own release, he would be forced to endure even greater torment. For this reason persons fear taking their own life and welcome the death that comes with old age. In conclusion, Euxitheus is made to say “To these principles we subscribe” (4.157C–D).127 Unfortunately we are left guessing concerning the context in which Clearchus introduced Euxitheus. We might guess that the Peripatetic was discussing suicide as a way to end an unbearable life, but if we do, we are still left with the question, whether Clearchus joined Aristotle in opposing suicide or went his own way and accepted suicide under certain conditions or left the issue undecided. After the mention of suicide and burial arrangements, the epitome refers to three forms of life: the practical, the contemplative and that which combines the two. The epitome continues, saying that the 123

See, e.g., Ostwald (1962)143 n. 75. In my judgment, Aristotle will have accepted suicide in certain circumstances. See Rist (1969) 235–6 and Fortenbaugh (2018) sections 1a and 2b. 125 Cebes of Cyzicus in Mysia on the Propontis is not to be confused with Cebes of Thebes, who is known to us from Plato’s Phaedo and who is mentioned by Diogenes Laertius as the author of three dialogues (2.125). Arnim (1922) col. 103 suggests that the Cyzician may not be a historical person. 126 At 4.156E Carneius is introduced as a dog-leader, κυνουλκός, i.e., a Cynic-master. 127 If I understand correctly, “we” refers to Euxitheus and other Pythagoreans, who endorse the teaching concerning souls. 124

Clearchus, On Lives

473

apolaustic life falls short of being human and that the contemplative life is judged superior to the others (144.16–19). That recalls the three prominent lives, προύχοντες βίοι, listed by Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics: the apolaustic, political and contemplative (1.5 1095b17–19). At first reading one might see a difference between the political life (Aristotle) and the practical life (Arius), but it is clear from what follows that they are one and the same (1095b22–3; 144.20–1). And when Aristotle describes the apolaustic life as that of cattle (1095b20), he anticipates Arius who speaks of a life that falls short of being human (144.17–18). But what about Clearchus? Unless I have overlooked a fragment, there is no reference to three prominent forms of life. That might mean that Clearchus’ interest in luxury and the potential for disastrous consequences was so overriding that it prevented him from giving serious consideration to political and theoretical modes of life. But once again we need to remember that the fragments are few and the work was long. We cannot assume that a lack of relevant fragments reflects a lack of interest on the part of Clearchus. In what follows, we are told that the best life is that according to virtue among things according to nature, i.e., external goods,128 and second is that according to the intermediate disposition, possessing the most and the most important of the things according to nature. Both are said to be worthy of choice, but the life according to vice is to be avoided (144.21–145.2). Of interest is the idea of an intermediate disposition between virtue and vice, which is worthy of choice as long as it is provided with things according to nature. That is a common sense position that was recognized by the Peripatetics in opposition to the Stoics.129 No Clearchan fragment makes explicit mention of an intermediate disposition, but when Clearchus tells us that Parrhasius is to be tolerated (40), he suggests that there is an intermediate disposition between virtue and vice. The importance of a life supplied by things according to nature, is reinforced by the subsequent distinction between the happy life and the noble one, ὁ εὐδαίμων βίος and ὁ καλὸς βίος. The former, we are told, 128 Concerning the phrase “things according to nature,” τὰ κατὰ φύσιν, see Dirlmeier (1937) 36–7 and Joly (1956) 155. 129 On the Stoic denial of an intermediate disposition between virtue and vice, see, e.g., Plutarch, On Stoic Self-Contradictions 31 1048E and On Common Conceptions 10 1063A with Sharples (1996) 105–6.

474

Clearchus of Soli

calls for things according to nature throughout, while the latter does not. Put differently, virtue is sufficient for a noble life but not for a happy one (145.3–6). That is Aristotelian as is the addition of “throughout (a person’s life),” διὰ παντός (145.4–5). Like Priam, a person who is especially well off may encounter great misfortune in his old age (EN 1.9 1100a4–9). The Clearchan fragments offer no example of a virtuous person enjoying great prosperity only to be overtaken by misfortune late in life, but the fragments do make clear that a person enjoying great prosperity in the form of excessive luxury may bring disaster on himself (42a–50). Work Cited Arnim, H v. 1922. “Kebes 2.” Paulys Realencyclopädie 11: col. 102–5. ––– 1926. Arius Didymus’ Abriss der peripatetischen Ethik, SB Wien 204.3: 3–161. Arnott. W. 2000. “Athenaeus and Epitome: Texts, Manuscripts and Early Editions” in Athenaeus and His World: Reading Greek Culture in the Roman Empire, ed. D. Braund and J. Wilkins. Exeter: University Press: 41–52. Boedecker, D. 2009. “Aging in the New (and Old) Sappho,” in Greene and Skinner.71–83. Bollansée, J. 2008. “Clearchus’ treatise On modes of life and the theme of tryphè,” Ktèma 33 (2008) 403–11. Braund, D. and Wilkins, J. edd. 2000. Athenaeus and His World: Reading Greek Culture in the Roman Empire. Exeter: University Press. Cooper, C. 2002. “Aristoxenos, Peri biôn and Peripatetic Biography, Mouseion. Series III.2: 307–39. Davidson, J. (2000) “Pleasure and Pedantry in Athenaeus” in Athenaeus and His World: Reading Greek Culture in the Roman Empire, ed. D. Braund and J. Wilkins. Exeter: University Press: 292–303. Dirlmeier, F. 1937. Die Oikeiosis-Lehre Theophrasts = Philologus Supplementband 30: 1–100. ––– 1962. Aristoteles, Eudemische Ethik. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Düring: I. 1950. “Notes on the History of the Transmission of Aristotle’s Writings,” Symbolae Philologicae Gotoburgenses 3: 37–70. ––– 1956. “Ariston or Hermippus?” Classica et Mediaevalia 17: 11–21.

Clearchus, On Lives

475

––– 1961. Aristotle’s Protrepticus: An Attempt at Reconstruction = Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia 12. Fortenbaugh, W. 1975, 2nd ed. 2002. Aristotle on Emotion. London: Duckworth. ––– 2003. Theophrastus of Eresus, On Sweat, On Dizzines and On Fatigue, ed. W. Fortenbaugh, R. Sharples and M. Sollenberger. Leiden: Brill. ––– 2005. Theophrastus of Eresus: Sources for his Life, Writings, Thought and Influence: Commentary Volume 8 on Rhetoric and Poetics. Leiden: Brill. ––– 2011. Theophrastus of Eresus: Sources for his Life, Writings, Thought and Influence: Commentary Volume 6a, Sources on Ethics. Leiden: Brill. ––– 2013. “Cicero’s Letter to Atticus 2.16: ‘A Great Controversy,’” Classical World 106: 515–19. ––– 2018. “On Types of Life” in Didymus on Peripatetic Ethics, ed. W. Fortenbaugh. New York: Routledge. Görannson, T. 1995. “Albinus, Alcinous, Arius Didymus,” Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia 61: 182–226. Greene, E. and Skinner, M, edd. 2009. The New Sappho on Old Age: Textual and Philological Issues. Washington D.C.: Center for Hellenic Studies. Guillén, L. 2000. “Are the Fifteen Books of the Deipnosophistae an Excerpt?” in Braund and Wilkins 244–55. Gulick, C. 1928. Athenaeus, The Deipnosophists. London: Heinemann. Hammerstaedt, J. 2010. “Un passo della Poeticai di Filodemo (PHerc. 994 col. 36, 11–37, 13)’ in Miscellanea Papyrologica Herculanensia I. Pisa–Roma 101–14. Heckel, W. 2006. Who’s Who in the Age of Alexander the Great. Oxford: Blackwell. Inwood, B. 1996. “Review of Görannson,” Bryn Mawr Classical Review 7: 25–30. Jacob, Chr. 2000. “Athenaeus the Librarian,” in Athenaeus and His World, ed. D. Braund and J. Wilkins. Exeter: University Press: 85– 110. Jaeger, W. 1948. “On the Origin and Cycle of the Philosophic Ideal of Life” translated by Richard Robinson from the German (1928) and

476

Clearchus of Soli

published as an appendix in Aristotle: Fundamentals of the History of His Development, 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press: 426–61. Joly, R. 1956. Le Thème Philosophique des Genres de Vie dans l’ Antiquité Classique. Bruxelles: Palais des Académies. Kassel, R. 1963. “Peripatetica,” Hermes 91:57–8. Kenny, A. 1978. The Aristotelian Ethics. Oxford: Clarendon. Lardinois, A. 2009. “The New Sappho Poem (P. Köln 21351 and 21367): Key to the Old Fragments” in Greene and Skinner. 41–57. Momigliano, A. 1993. The Development of Greek Biography. Cambridge, MA: Harvard. Moraux, P. 1973. Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias 1. Berlin: De Gruyter. Müller, C. 1878. Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum II, Paris: Didot. Nenci, G. 1989. “Un nuovo frammento di Clearco sulla tryphe iapigia (Athen. 12, 522f–523b),” Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa 19.3: 893–901. Obbink, D. 2009. “Sappho Fragments 58–59: Text, Apparatus Criticus, and Translation” in Greene and Skinner. 7–16. Olson, S.D. 2011. Athenaeus: The Learned Banqueters, Books 13.594b–14. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ––– 2012. Athenaeus: The Learned Banqueters, Book 15. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ostwald, M. 1962. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics. Indianapolis: BobbsMerrill. Page, D. 1981. Further Greek Epigrams. Cambridge UK: University Press. Schmalzriedt, E. 1970. Peri physeôs: zur Frühgeschichte der Buchtitel. Mûnchen: Fink. Schneider, J-P. 1994.“Cléarque de Soles,” in Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, ed. R. Goulet. Paris: CNRS Éditions. Vol. II: 415–20. Schorn, S. 2004. Satyros aus Kallatis. Basel: Schwabe.& Schweighaeuser, I. 1801–4. Athenaei Naucratitae Deipnosophistas. Strassburg: Societas Bipontina. Taifakos, I. 2008. Ἀρχαία Κυπριακὴ γραμματεία. 6. Φιλοσοφία. Κλέαρχος, Περσαῖος, Δημῶναξ, ἄλλοι Κύπριοι φιλόσοφοι. Nicosia: Idryma Anastasios G. Leventēs. Tsitsiridis, S. 2006. “Ein Klearchos-Fragment in Athenaeus, Deipn. XII 548F–549A,” Philologus 150: 354–7.

Clearchus, On Lives

477

––– 2008. “Die Schrift ΠΕΡΙ ΒΙΩΝ des Klearchos von Soloi,” Philologus 152: 65–76. ––– 2013. Beiträge zu den Fragmenten des Klearchos von Soloi. Berlin: De Gruyter. Walzer, R. 1929. Magna Moralia und aristotelische Ethik. (Neue philologische Untersuchungen 7.) Berlin: Weidemann. Weber, M. 1880, De Clearchi Solensis vita et operibus, Diss. Breslau. Wehrli, F. 1969. Die Schule des Aristoteles: Texte und Kommentar. vol.3. Basel: Schwabe. White, S. 2002. “Opuscula and Opera in the Catalogue of Theophrastus’ Works” in On the Opuscula of Theophrastus, ed. W. Fortenbaugh and G. Wöhrle. Stuttgart: Steiner = Philosophie der Antike 14: 9–37. Wilkins, J, 2000. “Dialogue and Comedy: The Structure of the Deinosophistae” in Braund and Wilkins 23–37. Woods, M. 1982. Aristotle’s Eudemian Ethics, Books I, II and VIII. Oxford: Clarendon.

7 Clearchus and Paremiology Arnaud Zucker

1. The Παροιμία is Not a Proverb It is striking how constantly and naively scholars adopt the modern word “proverb” to translate the Greek παροιμία appearing in the title of one of the Clearchus’ fragmentary works (Περὶ παροιμιῶν 1B no. 11).1 Yet even a cursory survey of the paremiographic literature clearly shows that the term is inadequate for the disparate lemmata of the Byzantine collections, as well as the ancient fragments. Even in the prehistory of official paremiography, to which Clearchus belongs, the consensual translation appears inappropriate. To identify the possible content and stress the perspective of the paremiographic practice in the early Peripatos, where it seemed to be widespread, it is necessary to discard some prejudices and establish the pragmatic and socio-linguistic features of the παροιμίαι. It is easier to “stay at home” and use a conventional and idealized form and recognize a constant ontological reality beyond the minor differences in a folk “genre” intuitively considered as a cultural universal. But words are words, and meaning is use, as

1 Even when they briefly confess that the word had “a rather wide meaning” (Kindstrand (1978) 74).

479

480

Clearchus of Soli

Wittgenstein said. Beyond the loose and disputed definition of “proverb,”2 nobody would say that “an Arab flute-player” (Ἀράβιος αὐλητής: Diog. 1.28), “tears of blood” (Αἵμασι κλαίειν: Diog. 1.32), “easy prey” (Μυσῶν λείαν: Diog. 6.423) —or English expressions such as “curb your hilarity,” “spic and span”4 or “duty calls”—are proverbs. However, such short syntagmas (two-word expressions) and stereotyped non-phrastic expressions, sometimes even reduced to a single word,5 represent an essential part of the items in the paremiographic collections. A semasiologic approach of the word shows that the παροιμία refers to an expressive locution or frozen expression, which is often a nonpropositional expression and even a much-reduced syntagmatic locution, which could be labelled as an idiomatic “cliché.” The word covers not only a “stereotype of thought,” as for proverbs or maxims, representing a semantically autonomous propositional structure,6 but also a “stereotype of language,” as fixed locutions.7 Moreover, the linguistic 2 On the equivocal definition of proverb, see Anscombre (1994) 95–6. Here are some authoritative definitions of “proverb”: “a short pithy saying in general use, stating a general truth or piece of advice” (Oxford Dict.) ; “a well-known phrase or sentence that gives advice or says something that is generally true, for example “Waste not, want not’” (Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dict.) ; “a brief popular saying (such as “Too many cooks spoil the broth”) that gives advice about how people should live or that expresses a belief that is generally thought to be true” (Merriam-Webster Dict.); “a short well– known statement that gives practical advice about life” (MacMillan Dict.); “a short sentence, etc. usually known by many people, stating something commonly experienced or giving advice” (Cambridge Dict.) ; “succinct and pithy saying in general use, expressing commonly held ideas and beliefs” (Encyclopedia Britannica). 3 Cf. D., De corona 72; Arist., Rh. 1372b33; Lib., Ep. 194.1; Phot. M 283; etc. 4 Huxley (1981) 13. 5 See Zen. 1.53 (ἀκκώ), considered by Crusius (1883) 83, Taifacos (100 Taifacos; cf. Taifacos (2008) 354–5) and Dorandi (*86) as a Clearchan fragment); Zen. 4.87 (Λευκηπατίας: 57); cf. Zen. 2.60 (Βόκχορις), 4.50 (κερκωπίζειν), etc. See Appendix 1 for a table of the length of lemmata in Zenobius. The proverb, according to Seiler (1922) 2 must be a self-contained saying “by which he means that none of their essential grammatical units may be replaced” (Norrick (1985) 32). They must be complete sentences (Norrick (1985) 33). 6 See Fournier (2010) 96–7: “Tous les énoncés stéréotypés proverbiaux sont, comme leur nom l’indique, des structures propositionnelles porteuses d’un message achevé et complet […] L’autonomie sémantique du proverbe est directement liée à sa structure linguistique: le proverbe comme tout énoncé parémique est un système anaphorique clos.” 7 See Schapira (1999), Fournier (2010) 96.

Clearchus and Paremiology

481

treatment of the two kinds of stereotypes is different. In the examples of παροιμίαι transmitted through the Clearchus fragments, the metonymic distortion of the modern translation by “proverb” appears blatant, since it only concerns two sentences with a moral intention: 74 and 101A–D. The treatise from which the quotations are extracted is not mentioned, and although 84 could have been in the Περὶ παροιμιῶν, that is less probably the case for 101A–D.8 Nevertheless, the proportion of full sentences (maxims or proverbs) in the Clearchan fragments is very low, compared to the 12 or 13 (see 87) “fixed expressions.” In the following pages, we will thus retain that more adequate “translation” as a modern equivalent to the word παροιμία.9 The term refers indeed to various “crystallized” locutiones, eventually shortened to opacity, which are not necessarily expressions of popular wisdom or common experience.10 The metonymic reduction of the meaning of παροιμία to proverb is so widely accepted that it seems difficult to restore the genuine and adequate conception and translation. Παροιμία covers various kinds of common expressions, stock phrases or locutiones, characterized by veiled reference requiring a cultural background, and now part of the public domain with a metaphorical meaning. Among classicists the linguistic approach is often ignored, which perpetuates a misconception of the very nature of Greek paremiology. If the modern concept of “proverb” did exist in ancient Greece, we could expect it to have a name. But neither ἀπόφθεγμα, nor παροιμία nor γνώμη, which is probably the closest lexical equivalent, matches this idea.11 The three constant characteristics of proverbs listed by 8

See infra for further discussion. This is the general lemma (subsuming idioms and abbreviated in FEI) adopted, for simplicity's sake, by Moon (1998) in her study. The terminology is basically unsatisfactory and ambiguous, in so far as the linguistic forms concerned are difficult to differentiate on universal principles, and because scholars use it in conflicting ways both as experimental and theoretical tools. 10 In fact, “didactic content in one way or another has consistently been predicated by paremiologist of various persuasions” (Norrick (1985) 4). It is a definitional criterion for Seiler (1922) 2–4. 11 On the perplexity of the authors and the difficulty of a clear definition, see Tosi (2010) “brève et lapidaire expression traditionnelle,” 17; “expressions sententielles, parmi lesquelles les παροιμίαι, qui correspondent à nos ‘proverbes,’” 20; “Notons d’ailleurs qu’en général le concept grec de παροιμία est plus ample et moins précis que notre concept de ‘proverbe’ puisque ce terme désigne des expressions topiques répertoriées dans les matériaux recueillis par les parémiographes, des érudits byzantins qui se référaient essentiellement, pour repérer ce matériel, à des œuvres littéraires,, 20. 9

482

Clearchus of Soli

Kindstrand (1978) 71, who briefly informs the reader on the very wide meaning of the word παροιμία, are equally erroneous for παροιμίαι: (1) “it is popular in character”; (2) “it has a definite form”; (3) “it is an expression of wisdom.”12 Yet 69A–C offer a clear refutation of the second feature: the paroimia appears with the same “meaning” in three different forms: Ἐντὶ μὲν οὐδὲν ἱερόν (Schol. Theocrit. V21–22a Wendel [fr. 48 Müller]); Οὐδὲν ἱερὸν ὑπάρχεις (Zen. V.47); Οὐδὲν ἱερόν (Apostolius XIII.34).13 Kindstrand’s third feature is irrelevant14 as well as absent from almost all the Clearchus examples.15 The disputed 101A– D and 84 are, as we said, the only two texts corresponding to this feature. What Kindstrand calls “the Greek concept” is in fact anything but Greek, and Russo (1983) 121, who argued in her study on “ancient Greek proverbs”16 that “among all the varied genres of traditional folk art, the proverb is probably the most truly universal,” cannot but overlook the original conception of the Greek paroimia, which requires a systematic analysis of the context of the lemmata. Her definition of it as a “brief, well-shaped complete sentence, understood by its users as anonymous in authorship, existing in the language for a long time in almost invariant form, stating a general truth […] that must be taken seriously” (ibid.), is entirely irrelevant and anachronistic for the ancient 12 This is a common idea in ancient Greek studies; see, e.g., the opening postulate of Schirru (2005) 5–6 (“per proverbio (παροιμία) si intende qui un’espressione linguistica breve, contenente un precetto derivato dal cosiddetto ‘senso commune’, avente una forma definita e popolarmente nota […] la παροιμία esprime di per sé un insegnamento di portata ‘universal’”); Meliadó (2010) 28 (“Qualità fondamentali del proverbio, riconosciute gia nell’antichità, sono l’essere latore di una sapienza popolare, cioè propria del δῆμος…”); etc. 13 77 offers two versions of the same paroimia: Αἰγὸς τρόπον μάχαιραν ἐσκάλευσά : λέγεται [μέντοι] καὶ ἑτέρως ἡ παροιμία· αἲξ ποττὰν μάχαιραν. Cf. also Ar.Byz., fr. 355 Slater. This characteristic (the definite form) for the proverb stricto sensu has been criticized since Anscombre (2003, 2006). 14 Rupprecht (1949) 1709 admits, for the “sprichwörtliche Redensarten,” that they do not match this condition: “Ferner fehlt durchaus das lehrhafte, ethische Element”; see Id., p. 1737: “nicht alle Sprichwörter ethisch eingestellt sind.” On the definition of a “paremic minimum” and the difference between the two common categories, loosely differentiated by Rupprecht, of “Sprichwörter” and “sprichwörtliche Redensarten,” see Permjalov (1979). 15 See, e.g., 68 (Ath. 15.701b): ἰὴ παιών; 115 (Phot. , s. v. νεοττός, ν 152 Theodoridis): Νεοττοῦ οὐδέν μοι δίδως; or 74 (Ath. 8.347f): οὐδεὶς κακὸς μέγας ἰχθύς. 16 Russo never mentions the Greek word παροιμία, and it is difficult to know, in spite of the paper’s title, whether she means a Greek or the modern concept.

Clearchus and Paremiology

483

paroimiai. All the (29) examples of Greek proverbs given by Russo are full sentences with verbs (or implying εἶναι/ἐστίν), which is far from being the common structure of paroimiai, the “fixed expressions” being often reduced to a mere incipit.17 As for the alleged anonymousness of the παροιμίαι, it is noticeable that the paroimiographoi clearly consider it possible (and desirable) to identify the “author” of a paroimia (either a writer or, more generally, a group of people contemporaneous to the “paremiogenetic event”), which is perceived as originally contextualized and sometimes even attributable to a person (cf. Zen. 1.26, 1.50,…). It does not precipitate wisdom, but is a formula (αἶνος) that reveals a particular experience (and not as “proverb” a collective reference from a common experience). It might be objected that this historicization of the paroimia is a generic characteristic of the collections of grammarians and that it is impossible to be sure that the expressions occurring in literary texts were perceived either as personal formulations or merely rephrasing.18 The etymological meaning of παροιμία, linked to or contaminated by οἴμη (song),19 and used frequently in a metaphorical way for “poetic course”20 is “what goes along with the poetic hymn.”21 García Romero draws attention to the homology with Latin ad-agio, and Bei-wort in German. From the meaning “lo que se encuentra junto a la narración” to infer “lo que no pertenece a la narración propiamente dicha […] pero se deduce de ella como corolario, como enseñanza de sabiduría” or a γνώμη “als Wegbegleitung” and to assert that “aus der Weisung des erfahrenen Mannes an den ausziehenden Helden wird der Rat des Wissenden als Begleiter und Wegweiser auf der schweren Reise durch das irdische Leben” are arbitrary extrapolations.22 Assenting to the basic interpretation, however, it is possible to consider the παροιμία as originally an adopted (and not original) phraseologic segment of a poem. It

17

Russo (1983), Tosi (1994) 186. Tosi (2010) 23. 19 This etymology is accepted by Chantraine (1968) 783, s.v. οἴμη. See Bieler (1936) 242–7, Huxley (1981) 332. See http://appsweb-cepam.unice.fr/ etygram/taxonomy/ term/9. 20 h.Hom., h.Merc 450–2: οἶμος ἀοιδῆς; Pi., O. 9.47: ἐπέων οἶμον; Call., Jov. 78: λύρης οἴμους; etc. See García Romero (1999) 222. See also Rupprecht (1949) 1707. 21 García Romero (1999) 222. Cf. Rupprecht (1949) 1708. 22 Cf. Bieler (1936) 246–7, cf. 251: “Das Sprichwort enthält, wie ich oben zu zeigen versuchte, ursprüngliche Lebensregeln in Form von Erfahrungssätze.” 18

484

Clearchus of Soli

could primarily call attention to idiomatic syntagmas or phrasemes already present (as a correlation of words) in the language and not necessarily phrastic and syntactically complete sentences alien to the speaker. Besides, the pragmatic and semantic evolution of the word in classical times may be important. Moreover, the mention of many metrical παροιμίαι —collected in a separate set by Aristophanes of Byzantium, who apparently composed the first collection of Μετρικαὶ παροιμίαι (frr. 358–62 Slater) in two books, along with Ἄμετροι παροιμίαι (frr. 354–7 Slater) in four books23—together with the lack of any consideration in the collections on the systematic preexistence of popular versions suggests that the question was irrelevant, or the originality of personal paremic locutions tacitly admitted. 2. The Ancient Meaning In his exhaustive study, Rupprecht regrets the absence of theoretical concern in Clearchus’s treatise, which is the most documented of ancient writings of that kind: “Zu bedauern ist nur, dass er den Begriff ‘Sprichwort’ nicht schärfer abgegrenzt hat.”24 The fondness of ancient Greeks for etymology and the typical classical practice of this hermeneutic discourse, aiming to motivate and remotivate the semantic and cultural connotations of a word—and not to discover the phonetic or more generally linguistic biography (archeology and evolution)—help us to grasp the cultural meaning. In a short prooimion, Diogenianus (praef. 1.1–10) gives two “etymologies” of the word, selected for their semantic relevance (and of course not based on a study of phonetic history), pointing out two characteristics: popularity (οἶμος = road, because they were written on the road as public instruction),25 and metaphor (ὅμοιον = similar, because they are used metaphorically). The second aspect is critical for Aristotle, whose definition of παροιμίαι is precisely μεταφοραὶ ἀπ’ εἴδους ἐπ’ εἶδος (Rh. 3.11 23 Eusebius, Adversus Marcellus 1.3: Aristophanes of Byzantium seems to have been only interested in his two collections of proverbs in frequently cited expressions having known variants. See Pfeiffer (1968) 208–9. But some poetic paremies are in the Ἄμετροι παροιμίαι (Slater (1986) 127). 24 Rupprecht (1949) 1738. 25 Cf. Basil., Homiliae 12.2 (PG XXXI, 388b–c). See also, on the relation between “way” and “fixed expression,” Apostolius, praef. 7: Ἡ δὲ παροιμία ἐκ τῆς παρὰ προθέσεως καὶ τοῦ οἶμος ἡ ὁδός· παραοιμία καὶ παροιμία· ἤτοι τὸ παροδικὸν τρίμμα τε καὶ διήγημα.

Clearchus and Paremiology

485

1413a17).26 The transfer of an expression to another object or context is emphasized as the characteristic of the social and linguistic use of παροιμίαι: Παροιμία ἐστὶ λόγος εἰρημένος ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς ἕτερον, λεγόμενος δὲ ὑφ’ ἡμῶν κατὰ ἀνακύκλησιν πρός τινα τῶν ὁμοηθῶν, ὡς παρὰ Σαπφοῖ, a παροιμία is an expression/saying originally uttered for something else, that we use by repetition/recurrently for something of the same kind, as the saying from Sappho “for me neither honey, neither bee.”27

Despite the opinion of Tosi,28 there is always, pragmatically, a metaphorical process in proverbs as there is in fixed expressions, even when locutions are not themselves metaphorical, in so far as their use is based on a figurative sense and they require a non-literal reception. Furthermore, in order to make use of metaphors correctly one has to identify the similarity (ὁμοιότης).29 Diogenianus adds a proper rhetorical definition, not derived from a paronymy but which reflects the conventional meaning: Ἔστι δὲ ἡ παροιμία τρόπος καὶ τῆς καλουμένης ἀλληγορίας The “fixed expression” is a trope which pertains to what is called allegory (praef. 1.9–10).

26 Cf. Arist., Po. 1457b6–9: μεταφορὰ δέ ἐστιν ὀνόματος ἀλλοτρίου ἐπιφορὰ ἢ ἀπὸ τοῦ γένους ἐπὶ εἶδος ἢ ἀπὸ τοῦ εἴδους ἐπὶ τὸ γένος ἢ ἀπὸ τοῦ εἴδους ἐπὶ εἶδος ἢ κατὰ τὸ ἀνάλογον. 27 Trypho, Trop. III, 191.24, 192.1, 206.19–22 Spengel. “Plusieurs grammairiens (Donat, 402, 11 K.; Carisius, 276 K.; Diomède, 46, 62 K.; cf. aussi Isidore, Origines 1.37.28) définissent la paremia comme une expression traditionnelle appliquée à une situation particulière” (Tosi 2010: 36); the definition of Isidorus (Et. 1.37.28) is: Paroemia est rebus et temporibus adcommodatum proverbium Rebus, ut: "Contra stimulum calces" dum significatur adversis resistendum. Temporibus, ut: "Lupus in fabula" Aiunt enim rustici vocem hominem perdere, si eum lupus prior viderit. Vnde et subito tacenti dicitur istud proverbium: "Lupus in fabula"; cf. Isid., Et. 1.37.2: [on metaphora] haec verba aliunde transferuntur. 28 Tosi (1994) 180: “Molti proverbi, ma non tutti, sono basati su metafore.” 29 See Top. 140a8–11; Po. 1459a7–8.

486

Clearchus of Soli

The παροιμία is thus reported as an allegoric way of speaking,30 corresponding to an extended metaphor,31 along with enigma (αἴνιγμα) and irony (εἰρωνεία).32 The general definitions of ἀλληγορία in the rhetorical treatises fit this conception of the παροιμία.33 This pragmatic characteristic is common to real proverbs and “fixed expressions,” and the salience of this quality of indirect and figurative speech using common locutions, could explain why the same word is applied in Greek for both categories. 3. The Supposed Philosophical Way of Peripatetic Paremiology We know of various compositions on παροιμίαι before the major but late Byzantine collections edited by Leutsch and Schneidewin in 1851 (containing Zenobius, Diogenianus, Gregorius Cyprius, Macarius, Apostolius). Yet the first author mentioned by these scholars (praef. I), and historically a pioneer in paremiological studies is certainly Aristotle, who is credited with a book on παροιμίαι.34 Following him, three of the more prominent personalities of the first Peripatos in Aristotle’s time

30

See Ieraci Bio (1984) 86–7. The Latin proverbium (Bieler (1936) 247–50) is glossed by Diomedes in the same way (Gramm. Lat. I., 162,29 Keil): parhoemia est vulgaris proverbii usurpatio rebus temporibusque adcommodata, cum aliud significature quam quod dicitur; “Zur Bedeutung ‘Sprichwort’ führt von hier kein Weg” (Bieler (1936) 249); cf. Varro, LL 7.31: adagio est littera commutata abagio, dicta ab eo, quod ambit orationem neque in aliqua una re constitit sola. Before this definition Varro says that the word is almost out of use: quod verbum usque eo evanuit, ut Graecum pro eo positum magis sit apertum: nam idem est quod παροιμίαν vocant Graeci. 31 See Quint. (9.2.46): ἀλληγορίαν facit continua μεταφόρα (cf. Id. 8.6.44). 32 Phld, Rh. IV, 2, col. XXIII, 18–25 (p. 181 Sudhaus); see Berra (2008) 414–5. Cf. Athanasius, Synops. Script. Sacr. (MPG 28.340), on the Proverbs of Solomon: παροιμίαι εἰσὶ λόγοι σοφῶν, ὡς αἰνίγματα, ἅτινα ἕτερον μέν τι αὐτόθεν δηλοῦντά ἐστιν, ἕτερον δὲ ἐν ὑπονοίᾳ ἀπαγγέλλουσι. 33 See Trypho, Trop., p.193.5 Spengel: Ἀλληγορία ἐστὶ λόγος ἕτερον μέν τι κυρίως δηλῶν, ἑτέρου δὲ ἔννοιαν παριστάνων καθ’ ὁμοίωσιν ἐπὶ τὸ πλεῖστον; Rhetorica Anonyma, Περὶ ποιητικῶν τρόπων, 3, p. 207.19 Spengel: λέξις ἕτερον μὲν λέγουσα, ἑτέρου δὲ ἔννοιαν παριστῶσα; cf. Suda, A 1170: ἡ μεταφορά. ἄλλο λέγον τὸ γράμμα καὶ ἄλλο τὸ νόημα. 34 DL 5.26, in one book (#138). In spite of Rose and Crusius (1883) 81 n.4, the arguments and analysis of Rupprecht, Tosi, etc. induce us to accept as litteral the mention of an Aristotelian treatise (Περὶ παροιμιῶν and not Παροιμίαι as in DL 5.26); the title is corrupt in Hsch., A 127 (Προοιμίων α´; see Moraux (1951) 199), and the catalogue of Ptolemaios (Προοιμία γ᾽, #66). See Moraux (1951) 128–9, Pfeiffer (1968) 83.

Clearchus and Paremiology

487

dealt with this same subject: Theophrastus (DL 5.45; 737–8 FHS&G),35 Clearchus, and Dicaearchus (44, 68, 75, 97–8 Mirhady).36 A wellknown anecdote informs us on the intellectual discredit of this inclination, regarded as unworthy of a philosopher.37 This kind of disdain, due to the popular character of the παροιμιαζόμενοι,38 and because it belongs to the ἔξωθεν ἐπινοίαι39 seems to concern precisely the collecting of the παροιμίαι. It is precisely one of the intellectual merits of Aristotle to deal, also in that area, against the current, even if it is difficult to assess, especially for the Aristotelian treatise, what the main issues of his investigation were.40 It is commonly accepted that the interest of Aristotle and his Peripatetic heirs for the παροιμίαι lies in the conception of these expressions as remains of ancient philosophy.41 Leutsch and Schneidewin (1851) praef. I, mentioning Aristotle as the father of paremiography, were the first to point out this intellectual argument (priscae huiusdam sapientiae arguta brevitate impressa vestigia). They paraphrased (and quoted) a well-known reflection of Aristotle, at the beginning of the Metaphysica (1074a38–b13), where he values ancient poetry—and not paroimiai. There is apparently a conflation of the two discourses, assumed by the tradition and admitted by Kindstrand,42 but the argument for it is all but 35 See Keaney (1968) 282 n.7: “Jacoby also points out ([1954: IIIBI] p. 203) that Aristotle and Theophrastus each wrote one book of Proverbs, and Clearchus wrote two.” The “fragment” quoted by Stobaeus (3.36.17; cf. Apostol. 6.36; Arsenius 5.55a) results of misreading and is not collected in FHS&G. Thphr. 469 FHS&G could be a fragment of On Proverbs (Fortenbaugh 2011: 371); cf. also 666 no. 7 FHS&G. 36 In priore primum locum obtinent Aristoteles eiusque asseclae Peripatetici (Crusius (1883) 81). On the fixed expressions in the Peripatetic texts (including Duris, Chamaileon and Heraclides Ponticus), see Crusius (1883) 81–6. For a clear account on the Peripatetic interest in proverbs, see Fortenbaugh (2014) 195–207. 37 Ath. 2.60d–e (see the commentary of Fortenbaugh (2014) 196–7). See also Rupprecht (1949 1711: “Der Gebieldete bedient sich des Sprichwortes selten.” 38 Cf. Kindstrand (1978) 72: “they were rooted in the spoken language of the poorly educated. Consequently little attention was paid to them by those with a wider education, like philosophers and rhetors.” 39 Cf. Ps.-Aristid., Rhet. 1.32, p. 52 Schmid. 40 It is also difficult to guess the order of the book of Aristotle (Leutsch and Schneidewin (1851) praef. II). 41 See Tschajkanovitsch (1908) 24, Ruprecht (1949) 1737, Jacoby (1954) IIIBI 203, Pfeiffer (1968) 83, Huxley (1981) 332, Tosi (1994) 179–80, Tosi (2010) 23–4, Tosi (1994) 180, Ieraci Bio (1984) 84. 42 See Kindstrand (1978) 85: “Aristotle’s view of myths and proverbs is very similar.”

488

Clearchus of Soli

clear. Aristotle finds in ancient mythological theology (ἐν μύθου σχήματι) a philosophical truth: heaven is one, and the first substances are gods; but there is absolutely no trace here of the paroimiai tradition. The crucial text that seems to support this traditional conception is an assertion by Synesius, in an epidictic and humorous text, the Encomium calvitii (22). Apart from the fact that the frame of this juvenile jeu d’esprit makes the testimony unreliable and could warn us against an immediate connection,43 this passage, a pseudo-fragment generally attributed to the Περὶ φιλοσοφίας,44 is a clear parody by a young sophist (not yet a neo-Platonist philosopher nor a venerable bishop), of the text of Aristotle, replacing μῦθος by παροιμία, for the purpose in hand. We must never forget the importance of the authorial intention in quoting or mentioning sources. Compare: παλαιᾶς εἰσι φιλοσοφίας ἐν ταῖς μεγίσταις ἀνθρώπων φθοραῖς ἀπολομένης ἐγκαταλείμματα, περισωθέντα διὰ συντομίαν καὶ δεξιότητα (Encom. Calv. 22; Arist., fr. 13 Rose) proverbs have been saved, owing to their conciseness and cleverness, as remnants by which to recall the old philosophy that perished in the great destructive revolutions of humanity….

and: κατὰ τὸ εἰκὸς πολλάκις εὑρημένης εἰς τὸ δυνατὸν ἑκάστης καὶ τέχνης καὶ φιλοσοφίας καὶ πάλιν φθειρομένων καὶ ταύτας τὰς δόξας ἐκείνων οἷον λείψανα περισεσῶσθαι μέχρι τοῦ νῦν (Metaph. 12 1074b10–13) and reflect that whereas every art and philosophy has probably been repeatedly developed to the utmost and has perished again, these beliefs of theirs have been preserved as relics of former knowledge. 43

This παιγνίον, a sophistic amplification of a paradoxal topic, is probably the first composition of Synesios (ca 396) being less than thirty years of age (Lacombrade (1951) 14–15), and qualified by Lacombrade (1951) 79, 82, 83 as “élégant badinage,” “traité bouffon,” and “acrobaties dialectiques.” 44 By Rose (fr. 13), Ross (fr. 8) and Walzer (fr. 8), Untersteiner (fr. 1). This passage is connected with Philoponus, in Nicom. Isagogen 1.1. See Untersteiner (1963) 119 sq. Chroust (1973) 118. Rupprecht (1949) 1736–7 commented it as part of the Περὶ παροιμιῶν. According to Tarán (2001) 366 “since in some of the extant works of Aristotle […] there are statements that may have given rise to Synesius’s assertion, it is well to conclude that we have no evidence that Aristotle in the De Philosophia spoke about the periods of the history of civilization.”

Clearchus and Paremiology

489

Grammaticaly, the beginning of the text of Synesius suggests that the statement of Aristotle could concern traces of an ancient heritage (περὶ ὧν) more generally and not specifically the παροιμία (singular): Εἰ δὲ καὶ ἡ παροιμία σοφόν· πῶς δ’ οὐχὶ σοφόν, περὶ ὧν Ἀριστοτέλης φησίν, ὅτι… If the proverb is wise. And how could it not be wise on which matters Aristotle says that…?

Since Aristotle did not consider the paroimiai as ancient φιλοσοφία, but as rhetorical tools (Rh. 1.15.14 1376a2–3) conveying popular—if not “demagogic’—clichés, this isolated testimony cannot be taken seriously for equating his conception of mythological discourse and paremiological discourse. Even if we take into account only the species of παροιμίαι that is considered as being also γνῶμαι,45 this tactical conflation is clearly refuted in the Rhetoric by the critical commentary on τεθρυλημέναις καὶ κοιναῖς γνῶμαις […] διὰ τὸ γὰρ εἶναι κοινὰ, ὡς ὁμολογοῦντων πάντων, ὀρθῶς δοκοῦσιν (Rhet. 2.21.12 1395a11–12) common and frequently quoted maxims […] for because they are common, they seem to be true, since all aknowledge them as such;

and by the assumption that γνωμολoγεῖν is typical of the “rustics” (ἀγροῖκοι) or uneducated (ἀπαίδευτοι) persons: “rustics are especially fond of coining maxims (γνωμοτύποι) and ready to make display of them.”46 There is no philosophical commentary on the παροιμίαι that could confirm this presumed character,47 and among the four alleged uses of paroimiai (philosophia, res antiquae, grammatica, rhetorica),48 the first 45

Cf. Arist., Rhet. 1395a19: Ἔτι ἔνιαι τῶν παροιμιῶν καὶ γνῶμαί εἰσιν. Rhet. 2.21.9 1395a2–7: ἁρμόττει δὲ γνωμολογεῖν ἡλικίᾳ μὲν πρεσβυτέρων, περὶ δὲ τούτων ὧν ἔμπειρός τίς ἐστιν, ὥστε τὸ μὲν μὴ τηλικοῦτον ὄντα γνωμολογεῖν ἀπρεπὲς ὥσπερ καὶ τὸ μυθολογεῖν, περὶ δὲ ὧν ἄπειρος, ἠλίθιον καὶ ἀπαίδευτον. σημεῖον δὲ ἱκανόν·οἱ γὰρ ἀγροῖκοι μάλιστα γνωμοτύποι εἰσὶ καὶ ῥᾳδίως ἀποφαίνονται. 47 See Tosi (1994) 192: “non si cerca certamente di individuare la sapienza dei popoli, o le tracce di una sapienza pre-letteraria.” 48 See Leutsch and Schneidewin (1851) praef. I. 46

490

Clearchus of Soli

one is missing, at least in Peripatetic paremiology. The commentary of Clearchus is, indeed, by no means a commentary and exegesis of the philosophical content and dimension of the παροιμίαι, but an attempt to tease out the historical and linguistic context of the emergence of the saying. His interest is not “philosophical and stylistic-rhetorical”49 but rather historical and etiological.50 Contrary to a current cliché,51 Plato does not deal more philosophically with the paroimial resources. The mention of παροιμίαι in Plato,52 even when the speaker agrees with them,53 is not stated as proof or as expressions of true wisdom.54 The late Byzantine definitions often focus on useful and gnomic sentences,55 and the question of the authority of these sentences is a particular topic;56 this issue is mentioned once in the Clearchus fragments (69A–C), which likely did not belong to the Περὶ παροιμιῶν,57 giving rise to a specialised type of book, where they are collected and discussed, and is not representative of the genre.58 The syntagm ὥσπερ ἡ παροιμία, current in Aristotle, while it also occurs in the classic period

49

Kindstrand (1978) 73, 84. On this trend, see also 64. 51 See García Romero (1999) 219: “se refiere a menudo en sus escritos a los proverbios como saber antiguo y tradicional, depositario de verdades que merece la pena obedecer.” Kindstrand (1978: 73) shares this point of view, concluding that Plato shows “respect for proverbs” and considers that “they express a truth which should be accepted”; but their presence in the Platonic dialogs is mainly rhetorical. 52 Ly. 216c4–7; Mx. 248a5–6; R. 329a1–4; Cra. 384a8–b1; Lg. 741d4–e1. 53 Phlb. 59e10–a2; Sph. 231c5–6. Cf. Arist., EN 1168b4: ὑπάρχει μάλιστ’ αὐτῷ πρὸς αὑτόν, καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ δὴ πάνθ’ οἷς ὁ φίλος ὁρίζεται· εἴρηται γὰρ ὅτι ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ πάντα τὰ φιλικὰ καὶ πρὸς τοὺς ἄλλους διήκει. καὶ αἱ παροιμίαι δὲ πᾶσαι ὁμογνωμονοῦσιν. 54 See Tosi (2010) 23: “Platon, de son côté, reprit souvent le matériel gnomique traditionnel, mais le plus souvent à des fins purement expressives (pour donner plus de vivacité à ses dialogues) sans leur attribuer une validité spéculative particulière.” 55 See, e.g., Hsch. Π 963 Schmidt: · παραινέσεις, παραμυθίαι, νουθεσίαι, ἠθῶν ἔχουσαι καὶ παθῶν ἐπανόρθωσιν; · βιωφελὴς λόγος, παρὰ τὴν ὁδὸν λεγόμενος, οἷον παροδία. γὰρ ἡ ὁδός. Cf. Psellos, Theologica 7.28 Gautier: αἱ δὲ Παροιμίαι λόγοι τινές εἰσιν ἠθικοὶ τὴν ψυχὴν ἀρρενοῦντες καὶ σωφρονίζοντες. 56 Rupprecht (1949) 1737. 57 Cf. Dorandi (2006) 168–70. 58 Cf. Tosi (2010) 34. See also Usener (1858) 20, on Theophrastus: “Erstlich steht fest, dass er ausser andern rhetorischen Schriften ein Buch Περὶ γνώμης geschrieben hat.” Cf. Rosenthal (1897) 318. 50

Clearchus and Paremiology

491

in many other texts,59 introduces an alternative formulation, an ἀλληγορία and not an argument for the statement. Παροιμίαι are regarded only as a kind of ancient testimony (μαρτύρια: Rh. 1.15 1376a2– 3). The παροιμία is not even a major rhetorical tool, as it should be, if it were really the expression of a general experience or a traditional (or doxological) truth. According to Aristotle, there is a difference between γνῶμαι and παροιμίαι: γνώμη (maxim) is a statement, not however concerning particulars, as, for instance, what sort of a man Iphicrates was, but general; it does not even deal with all general things, as for instance that the straight is the opposite of the crooked, but with the objects of human actions, and with what should be chosen or avoided with reference to them (Rhet. 2.21.2 1394b21–5);60

The examples given by Aristotle are all full (prescriptive or general) sentences with moral concern, which could be completed by a reason (or ἐπίλογος) to form an ἐνθύμημα. Nevertheless, he asserts that certain kinds of παροιμίαι are also γνῶμαι (Rhet. 1395a19), but the only example he gives as an illustration is Ἀττικὸς πάροικος, which can be considered as a γνώμη (i.e., a practical and general statement) only if completed in a manner like: “ the Attic neighbour.” There is also a difference from the ἀποφθέγματα (Λακωνικὰ ἀ.) and the αἰνιγματώδη (Rhet. 2.21.8 1394b35). In Aristotle’s Rhetoric it is only then in a marginal way (ἔνιαι) that the παροιμία, when it is also a γνώμη and conveys a judgement, shares the function of the γνῶμαι as an (untechnical) tool, meant to impress the audience.61 And Kindstrand is wrong in arguing that “the reason for regarding only some proverbs as γνῶμαι may be that many of them were too popular in character without any ethical content and did not express the ancient wisdom, which Aristotle expected to find in them” (emphasis added).62

59

Cf. Aesch., Ag. 264; Soph., fr. 282 Radt, etc. (cf. Otto (1890), Morgan (2007) 6). See the Theophrastus 676 FHS&G: γνώμη ἐστὶ καθόλου ἀποφάσις ἐπὶ τοῖς πρακτέοις (Gregorius Corinthius, scholia to Hermogenes, Walz VII.1154.23); cf. Rosenthal (1897). 61 Rhet. 2.21.12 1395a19: ἔτι ἔνιαι τῶν παροιμιῶν καὶ γνῶμαί εἰσιν, οἷον παροιμία “Ἀττικὸς πάροικος.” 62 Kindstrand (1978) 74. 60

492

Clearchus of Soli

4. Proverbialization vs. Theoretical Typology Searching for a theoretical view in the treatise,63 Kindstrand inferred (after many other scholars) from 101C–D that Clearchus discerned a difference between paroimia and apophthegma:64 γνῶθι σαυτόν· τὸ μὲν ἀπόφθεγμα Βίαντος ὡς παροιμία δὲ λαμβάνεται, μαρτυρεῖ Θεόφραστος ἐν τῷ Περὶ παροιμιῶν. οἱ πολλοὶ δὲ Χίλωνος εἶναι τὸ ἀπόφθεγμα φασίν. Κλέαρχος δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ λεχθῆναι Χίλωνι Δαμαγήτου Λακεδαιμονίῳ. (101D) Know thyself: the dictum is from Bias; and it is taken as a saying, as Theophrastus attests in On Sayings. Most say the dictum is from Chilon, and Clearchus says it was spoken by the god to Chilon, son of Damagetas from Lacedaemonia.

This assumed theoretical distinction, missing in Aristotle,65 would be introduced by Theophrastus,66 where it appears in 737 FHS&G concerning the proverb ἀρχὴ ἄνδρα δείκνυσι.67 Yet it must be noticed that this discrimination should be credited to Sophocles, since the statement is said to occur in his Elegies: Σοφοκλῆς μὲν οὖν ἐν ταῖς Ἐλεγείαις Σόλωνός φησιν αὐτὸ εἶναι ἀπόφθεγμα.68 However, this assertion is 63 Kindstrand (1978) 75–6 repeatedly laments not finding it, either in Theophrastus, or in Dicaearchus or Clearchus. 64 He suggests as possible that Theophrastus, who “went further than his master Aristotle,” already made the distinction. The 69c W of Clearchus (= 101C) is 738 FHS&G of Theophrastus. On the Delphic γνώμη, see also Fortenbaugh (2011) 402 and Arist., Rhet. 1395a21–3. 65 See Tschajkanovitsch (1908) 24: Inter proverbium et apophthegma Aristoteles nullum discriminem posuit; cf. Rupprecht (1949) 1737. 66 See Dorandi (2006) 162: “il filosofo aveva ben chiara la differenza di tipo funzionale fra παροιμίαι (proverbi) e ἀποφθέγματα (detti celebri)”; Rupprecht (1949) 1738: “Beachtung verdient, dass auch Chrysippos, ebenso wie Theophrast das ἀπόφθεγμα von der παροιμία scheidet”; see also Leutsch and Schneidewin (1851) VI, Kindstrand (1978) 76. Tosi (2010) 35, 41 considers this discrimination as essential. But Fortenbaugh (2014) 216–7 is quite properly more skeptical. 67 In the Theophrastean fr. 132 Wimmer (excluded from the edition FHS&G), we find the same expression in Apostolius’ compilation (6.36): Γλώσσῃ ματαίᾳ ζημία προστρίβεται· Αἰσχύλου· τὸ μὲν ἀπόφθεγμα Βίαντος, ὡς παροιμία δὲ λαμβάνεται ὡς μαρτυρεῖ Θεόφραστος ἐν τῷ Περὶ παροιμιῶν. It appears that Bias is the author of the ἀπόφθεγμα, quoted or used by Aeschylus and labelled as a παροιμία by Theophrastus (737–8 FHS&G; 101D). 68 Harp., Lex. 61. Cf. Soph., Ant. 175–7.

Clearchus and Paremiology

493

more basically questionable, and the dissentio between Clearchus and the general belief lies elsewhere: Clearchus’s opinion is that the “offpatent” sentence, freed from its original context and used as a common expression, as Theophrastus says (ὡς παροιμία παραλαμβάνεται, μαρτυρεῖ Θεόφραστος ἐν τῷ Περὶ παροιμιῶν) is not an original utterance (ἀπόφθεγμα) of the Wise Chilon, but a divine answer (παράγγελμα in 101B) delivered to him. There is no contradistinction between ἀπόφθεγμα and παροιμία, or between παροιμία and παράγγελμα (which is curiously omitted by the scholars in the restitution of the typology of sayings) but only chronological differences.69 A παροιμία, as we saw before in the authorized definition of Trypho,70 may be originally a personal saying (ἀπόφθεγμα) affected by “proverbialization,” which is a diachronic phenomenon transforming a particular expression into a paroimiac saying.71 Indeed, many παροιμίαι appear to have an author, and Clearchus seems to intend to assign, as far as possible, each fixed locution to an author (poet, god, local community). In four cases, the παροιμία is considered by him as being originally a divine answer of Delphic Apollo in a special context, and this tendency seems to be characteristic of the Clearchan archeology of the παροιμίαι, especially for the real “proverbial” ones.72 The identification of the author of the fixed expression has thus no consequence for the pragmatic qualification of the γνῶθι σαυτόν as a paroimia. A παροιμία is always a second status for a logos (syntagm or sentence), when in its cultural evolution it becomes a common saying: 69

In Zenobius (6.43) the apophthegms of the wise are named παραγγέλματα, in a strange comment: Χρήματα χρήματ’ ἀνήρ: αὕτη ἀποφθεγματικὴ ἐστὶν, ὡς τὰ παραγγέλματα τῶν ἑπτὰ σοφῶν. There is a clearer but only potential distinction between παροιμία and ἐφύμνιον; see Ath. 15.701c (= 68): Τὸ ἰὴ παιών, ἄνδρες φίλοι, μαθεῖν βούλομαι εἴτε παροιμία ἐστὶν εἴτε ἐφύμνιον εἴτε τι ἄλλο […] πολλοὶ δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῖς τέλος ἔχουσιν ἐπιφθεγγόμενοι οἳ μὲν ἐν παροιμίᾳ φασὶν οὕτως τοῦτο δὴ τὸ λεγόμενον “ἰὴ παιών,” διὰ δὲ τὸ λίαν ἡμῖν εἶναι σύνηθες λανθάνον ὂν ἐν παροιμίᾳ. οἳ δὲ τὸ τοιοῦτο λέγοντες οὐχ ὡς παροιμίαν… 70 Trypho, Trop., III, 191.24, 192.1, 206.19–22 Spengel. 71 Cf. Schapira (2000). 72 See 79A: ἄλλος οὗτος Ἡρακλῆς (cf. 128; 101B–D: γνῶθι σαυτόν; 83: κοινὰ τὰ τῶν φίλων; 84: ἀρχὴ ἥμισυ παντός. The three latter maxims are generally credited to some wise σόφος. The last one is attributed to Pythagoras by Iamblichus (VP 29), to Hesiodus by Lucian (Hermot. 3), to the ancients (οἱ ἀρχαῖοι) by Polybius (5.22.3). See Tschajkanovitsch (1908) 26: Clearchus sapienter dicta inter oracula numerabat; sapientium vero Pythagorae apophthegmata ne recepisse quidem in collectionem videtur.

494

Clearchus of Soli

many verses, metaphors, or apophthegms evolve into paroimiai (εἰς παροιμίαν ἦλθε/παροιμιάζεται).73 This interpretation is not even inconsistent with the idea that a παροιμία is popular and common.74 Conscious of this chronological operation giving birth to fixed expressions, Clearchus ascribes and “registers” poetical public-domain expressions as παροιμίαι (ὡς παροιμίαν ἀναγράφει: 76);75 and he points out the process:76 …καὶ οὕτω τὴν παροιμίαν κρατῆσαι (79A).77 From a particular situation he indicates the extension to a metaphorical use by generalizing a locution: Κλέαρχός φησιν ὅτι Καλλικράτης τις ἐγένετο ἐν Καρύστῳ πλουσιώτατος. εἴ ποτε οὖν ἐθαύμαζόν τινα οἱ Καρύστιοι ἐπὶ πλούτῳ, ὑπερβολικῶς ἔλεγον “ὑπὲρ τὰ Καλλικράτους” (85) Clearchus says Callicrates was one of the wealthiest men in Carystus; so if people in Carystus were ever impressed with someone’s wealth, they would exaggerate by saying “more than Callicrates.”

73 Frequent similar indications are found in the paremiographic corpus. Cf., e.g., the Aristotelian fragment in Zen. 4.83 : τοῦτο εἰς παροιμίαν ἦλθε διὰ τὰ Κυθνίοις συμβάντα. φησὶ γὰρ οὕτω κακῶς αὐτοὺς διατεθῆναι ὑπὸ Ἀμφιτρύωνος ὥστε τὰς μεγάλας συμφορὰς κυθνώλεις καλεῖσθαι. Cf. Plato, Phlb. 45d7–e2: τοὺς μὲν γὰρ σώφρονάς που καὶ ὁ παροιμιαζόμενος ἐπίσχει λόγος ἑκάστοτε, ὁ τὸ “μηδὲν ἄγαν” παρακελευόμενος. 74 See Demetr., Eloc. 232.3 Radermacher: δημοτικόν τί ἐστιν ἡ παροιμία καὶ κοινόν. For a contrary point of view, see Tosi (1994) 180, who says that Demetrius “contrappose le παροιμίαι […] alle sentenze […] e sembra aver decisamente imboccato la strada che esclude quella valenza dotta e letteraria dei proverbi che con ogni probabilità era invece presente ad Aristotele e Teofrasto.” 75 The same verb is used in a Chrysippus’ fragment (XLV.2.3 Von Arnim = Schol Pind. I., II.17) where an expression is said to be registered among παροιμίαι by some authors, and to be a sentence of Aristodemos: Χρήματα χρήματ’ ἀνήρ] τοῦτο ἀναγράφεται μὲν εἰς τὰς παροιμίας ὑπ’ ἐνίων, ἀπόφθεγμα δέ ἐστιν Ἀριστοδήμου, καθάπερ φησὶ . τοῦτον δὲ τὸν Ἀριστόδημον Πίνδαρος μὲν οὐ τίθησιν ἐξ ὀνόματος, ὡς δήλου ὄντος ὅς ἐστιν ὁ τοῦτο εἰπών, μόνον δὲ ἐσημειώσατο τὴν πατρίδα ὅτι Ἀργεῖος etc. (cf. Tosi (2010) 25, for an adversative or exclusive interpretation of the δέ). 76 In this fragment the syntax (infinives dependent on φησι) leads us to think that the conclusion is part of the Clearchus’ text. 77 Cf. Demo FGH 327F16: Τὸν δὲ χρησμὸν διὰ τὴν ἀλήθειαν εἰς παροιμίαν ἐλθεῖν.

Clearchus and Paremiology

495

5. The Clearchus Collection A Clearchus treatise Περὶ παροιμίων does seem to have existed, but the number and identification of the fragments attributable to this text have not been constant.78 Athenaeus mentions the title of the treatise on eight occasions (3.116d, 4.160c, 7.285c–d, 7.317b, 8.337a–b, 8.347b, 13.555c–d, 15.701c), in a consistent form, too general to give an idea of the conception of the author: Περὶ παροιμίων.79 We also find it in a scholia to Theocritus (Schol. Theocrit. vetus V 21–22a) and in Apostolius (13.34). Reference is made either to the first book (ἐν τῷ προτέρῳ/πρώτῳ Περὶ παροιμίων: 67, 68), to the second book (ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ Περὶ παροιμίων: 69A, 69C, 70), or in general (ἐν τοῖς Περὶ παροιμίων: 71, 72, 74, 75, 76). We have no idea of the distribution and precise content of the two books, let alone their arrangement.80 The wide presence of παροιμίαι in the extant corpus of Clearchus81 points to evidence of the interest of scholars for these locutiones, but it also makes it more difficult to define the list of integrated fragments and the range of the text. Some, especially when the mention of a book title is missing (*5B, 69B, 73, 77, 78, 79A–B, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 101B– D),82 are perhaps from other works. When the locutiones are about food or wine, they may have been part of the Περὶ βίων and among the Wehrli fragments of the section called Sprichwörter und ähnliches (frr. 78 See the differences among Verraert (1828), Müller (1848), and Wehrli (1948, with 6 fragments identified by Kroll (1921, and the revised and enriched version 1969), Taifacos (2008) and Dorandi (2012). 79 On the exact title, see the remarks by Fortenbaugh (2014) 125–6. 80 It is however tempting to imagine that this order could have been alphabetic, in spite of all the denial of an existence of this ordering before Callimachus (ἰὴ παιών, 68: book 1; (ἐντὶ μὲν) οὐδὲν ἱερόν, 69A: book 2; οὐδὲν ἱερόν, 69C: book 2; πολύποδος νόον ? [see Thgn. 215; cf. Πολύποδος πολυχρόου νόον ἴσχε: Diogenianus 1.23, Apostolius 2.39] 70: book 2). The compilation of Zenobius (Z. vulgatus) offers a sequence (5.44–49), which could be entirely extracted from Clearchus, comprising 78 (Οἰταῖος δαίμων: 5.44), 69B (Οὐδὲν ἱερὸν ὑπάρχεις: 5.47), 79A (Οὗτος ἄλλος Ἡρακλῆς: 5.48), and 128 (οὐδ’ ὁ Ἡρακλῆς; cf. οὐδὲ Ἡρακλῆς πρὸς δύο: 5.49). The ancient collections were probably organized by theme or by formal analogy (Lelli (2007) 139). On the order of the collection of Zenobius Athoa (alphabetici ordinis vestigia, mainly in centuriae 1 and 3), see Crusius (1883) 70–81. 81 Already stated by Leutsch and Schneidewin (1851) IV: Clearchi in nostris Paroemiographis haud rara est mentio. 82 See Dorandi (2006) 168 (who curiously adds 76).

496

Clearchus of Soli

63–83). Some of them are probably not assigned to the treatise On Proverbs: 73, 82, 87 and maybe also 81.83 According to Dorandi the attribution to this treatise of 73, 81–83, and 115 (the latter still listed here in the libri incerti), is matter for discussion.84 Conversely, if there were no explicit mention of the Περὶ βίων (On Lives) in fragments such as 57,85 51B86 or 5987 (all in Zenobius), they would certainly be assigned to the Περὶ παροιμίων, as would also be the case for 10 (On Arcesilas).88 The Photian quotation (α 408 Th. = *5B) mentioned by Dorandi (2006) 157– 158 after Gottschalk (1973) 92, who considered On Proverbs as “a most likely source” is connected to 4 (attributed to the Περὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ Πλάτωνος πολιτείᾳ μαθηματικῶς εἰρημένων) but in too different a shape to be considered as a distorted version. The more plausible interpretation of this similitude is not a contamination, but a recurrent use of proverbs in various works. The paroimiai are indeed so pervasive that one could almost imagine that the treatise could be in fact a posthumous collection of sentences, with commentary, found in the historical works of Clearchus; this is the radical position of Crusius, refuting the very existence of the treatise.89 Here is the updated list of the Clearchus fragments, apart from the Wehrli section, containing παροιμίαι: 10, 57, 42B, 51B, 51C, 59; and maybe 4 (Dorandi (2006) 158), 11, 65, 44; and *5B, 18B Taifacos90 & *49 (cf. Crusius (1883) 83), 79B, *88, 128 (Dorandi (2006) 159–61).

83

There is no paroimion in the remnant collections with the word φιάλη. Dorandi (2006) 168–170. 85 Λευκηπατίας: Κλέαρχος ἐν τῷ Περὶ Βίων φησὶ συμβαίνειν τὶ περὶ τὸ ἧπαρ ἐπί τινων, ὃ δειλοὺς ποιεῖ· εἰρῆσθαι οὖν ἐπὶ τῶν τοιούτων τὴν παροιμίαν (Zen. 4.87). 86 Διὸς ἐγκέφαλος: ἐπὶ τῶν ἡδυπαθούντων ἡ παροιμία τέτακται. Κλέαρχος δὲ ἐν τῷ πέμπτῳ Περὶ βίων φησὶ, τὰ πολυτελῆ βρώματα παρὰ τοῖς Πέρσαις Διὸς καὶ βασιλέως ἐγκέφαλον καλεῖσθαι (Zen. 3.41). 87 Τιθωνοῦ γῆρας: ἐπὶ τῶν πολυχρονίων καὶ ὑπεργήρων τάττεται. Ἱστορεῖται δὲ, ὅτι Τιθωνὸς κατ” εὐχὴν τὸ γῆρας ἀποθέμενος τέττιξ ἐγένετο, ὡς φησὶ Κλέαρχος ἐν τῷ Περὶ βίων (Zen. 6.18). 88 Παρὰ παροιμίας φησὶ τῆς κινήσω τὸν ἀφ᾽ ἱερᾶς, ἣ τέτακται ἐπὶ τῶν τὴν ἐσχάτην βοήθειαν κινούντων. Μετείληπται δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν πεττευόντων, παρὰ τούτοις γὰρ κεῖταί τις ψῆφος οἷον ἱερὰ καὶ ἀκίνητος, θεῶν νομιζομένη, ὥς φησιν Κλέαρχος ἐν Ἀρκεσίλᾳ (schol. in Plat. Lg. 5, 739 a). See Fortenbaugh (2014). 89 Crusius (1883) 83. 90 Zenob. Ath. 3.92, 373 Miller = Ps.-Plut.1.61, CPG t. 1.330.11–6 L.–Schn. 84

Clearchus and Paremiology

497

The attribution and extension of some fragments are still disputed, e.g., the 122 and 123, a passage of Phlegon,91 with a correction suggested by Müller (Κλέαρχος instead of Κλίταρχος),92 or the 128 (= fr. 57 de Müller), missing in Wehrli (πρὸς δύο οὐδ᾽ὁ Ἡρακλῆς), and attributed by the manuscript to Κώμαρχος.93 Two other fragments pose specific problems: 67 explicitly attributed by Athenaeus to the Περὶ παροιμιῶν, but mainly dealing with γρῖφοι and their definition (maybe in a section: ἐν τῷ ὅρῳ); and the corrupted form Περὶ †οἴνων† (115).94 These questions have to be considered in the new general edition of Clearchus, but the connection between γρῖφοι (riddles) and παροιμίαι95 deserves to be discussed briefly. In spite of the first impression of the reader that γρῖφοι and παροιμίαι share a common tendency to allegorical meaning, there is a crucial pragmatic difference between the two kinds of statements: the γρῖφος is an enigmatic and deliberately crypted expression supposed to raise a metaphorical interpretation and lead to a determined λύσις, while a παροιμία is a traditional and common expression whose origin could have been lost for the audience, and as well as, in certain cases, its correct context of use and the situation it marks. How can we then justify the presence of a definition of the γρῖφοι in the treatise Περὶ παροιμίων (67)? Actually the fragment does not give a definition (which belongs to the Περὶ γρίφων, 89), but the social context and educational relevance of the γρῖφοι in ancient times. It could be that, dealing with the utility of a treatise on παροιμίαι, Clearchus, who seems to like the excursus (παρεκβάσεις, see 6A), mentions in the beginning or προοιμίον of the text (ἐν τῷ ὅρῳ, ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ Περὶ παροιμίων) the

91 See Dorandi (2006) 163–4; cf. Dicaearchus 69 Mirhady, in Fortenbaugh and Schütrumpf (2001). 92 Cf. Matthaios (2005). 93 Corrected by Müller (1848) II.320 in Κλέαρχος; see Dorandi (2012) 5–6. For the extension of 68, see infra. See also in Taifacos’ (101D Taifacos = Ath. 10.88 458f– 459a, BT t. 2, 497.4–8 Kaibel) and Dorandi’s editions (128 = 93 Taifacos: πρὸς δύο οὐδ’ ὁ Ἡρακλῆς) other fragments added to Wherli selection, without mention of Clearchus. 94 Cf. Cherniss (1949) 416: “I think Wehrli is probably right in suspecting that Περὶ οἴνων in the text of Suidas is a mistake for Περὶ παροιμιῶν; for the rest of his treatment of this fragment there is no foundation whatever”; cf. for a more cautious opinion Dorandi (2006) 169. 95 They are also in relation to oracles (see 101B–D, 83) and the genre of Προβλήματα (Berra (2008) 388).

498

Clearchus of Soli

context of a related “way of speaking.’ Clearchus could have reported the differences between the two utterance situations.96 Here is the list of the παροιμίαι in the Clearchus fragments:97 x with mention of the title (Περὶ παροιμίων): ἰὴ παιών (68); ἐντὶ μὲν οὐδὲν ἱερόν (69A); οὐδὲν ἱερόν (69C); †η κρὴ χελώνης χρὴ ἢ† φαγεῖν ἢ μὴ φαγεῖν (72); οὐδεὶς κακὸς μέγας ἰχθύς (74); ἴδε πῦρ ἀφύη (75); ἐπὶ τῇ φακῇ μύρον (76)98; [Πολύποδος πολυχρόου νόον ἴσχε (70)]; x (aˊ) with probable and restored mention: γνῶθι σαυτόν (101A); x (b) without the mention of the treatise: ἡ Σκυθῶν ῥῆσις (44); αἰγὸς τρόπον (77); Οἰταῖος δαίμων (78); οὐδὲν ἱερὸν ὑπάρχεις (69B) οὗτος ἄλλος Ἡρακλῆς (79A; cf. 79B); Διομήδειος ἀνάγκη (80); γνῶθι σαυτόν (101D [cf. Taifacos 2008: 341] and 101C); κοινὰ τὰ φίλων (83); ἀρχὴ δέ τοι ἥμισυ παντός (84); τοῦ νεοττοῦ οὐδέν μοι δίδως (115); ὑπὲρ τὰ Καλλικράτους (85); ἀεὶ κολοιὸς παρὰ κολοιὸν ἱζάνει (*5B); σαπρὸς τάριχος τὴν ὀρίγανον φιλεῖ (87); ῞Υλαν κραυγάζειν (*88); x (bˊ) without the synthetic expression: Σαμίων ἄνθη καὶ Σαμιακὴ λαύρα (65 ; cf. 18B Taifacos [not in Dorandi]); x (c) attributed to others treatises: κινήσω τὸν ἀφ’ ἱερᾶς (10); λευκηπατίας (57); γλυκὺς ἀγκών (42B); Διὸς ἐγκέφαλος (51B; and 51C); Τιθωνοῦ γῆρας (59; cf. 60A–B); x (d) without the name of Clearchus: πλεύσειας εἰς Μασσαλίαν (*49; [πρὸς δύο] οὐδ’ ὁ Ἡρακλῆς (128).99

96

See Tosi (1994) 180: “pare lecito dedurre que Clearcho accostasse ‘aristotelicamente’ παροιμίαι e γρῖφοι.” On the γρῖφοι, although they receive a clear definition (τὰ ἐν τοῖς συμποσίοις προβαλλόμενα αἰνιγματώδη ζητήματα, 90) unlike the παροιμίαι, see Berra (2008) 404, in his conclusion to Clearchus: “L’origine du terme nous échappe. Ses significations—consigne claire difficile à respecter ou énoncé obscur difficile à comprendre—se présentent à nous déjà nouées dans les textes de l’époque classique.” 97 For a more complete table, see Appendix 3. 98 Cf. Sopater, fr. 14 Kaibel. 99 Among them, five paroimiai also appear in Aristotle: 84 (cf. Pol. 1303b29, EN 1098b7, Pr. 892a30; cf. SE 183b22; cf. CPG 1.213, 385); 101 (cf. Rhet. 1395a20; cf. CPG 1.391, 2.19, 750); 79A (cf. Arist., EE 1245a30, 1213a12; cf. CPG 1.140, 190 et 2.59); 83 (cf. Arist., Pol. 1263a30); 85 (cf. Arist., fr. 462 Rose; cf. Arist., Ath. pol. 28.3; cf. CPG 1.170, 318; 2.224, 701); the fragment κοινὰ τὰ φίλων occurs in Aristotle (EN 1159b31–3, approved with ὀρθῶς), Theophrastus (535 FHS&G, and in Menander’s play The Brothers, fr. 10 Koerte–Thierfelder); see Timaios, FGrH 566F13a. See Aristotle, frr. 463–4 (Gigon).

Clearchus and Paremiology

499

6. The Exegetical Issues and Etiological Process It is impossible to imagine a complete collection of the fixed expressions and Clearchus has selected and registered only some paroimiai (cf. Ath. 3.116d: παροιμίαν μνήμης ἠξιωμένην). Besides, the two books of Clearchus, like the book of Aristotle,100 were not a mere inventory of recurrent linguistic units. He was a παροιμιογράφος writer, in the critical sense,101 who was probably dealing with paremiology, as a cultural commentary genre. As we saw, it is currently admitted that there is a difference between the Peripatetic perspective, perceived as more philosophical, and the Alexandrine, more lexicographic and antiquarian (Tosi: 1994). This evolution is, however, largely prejudiced by our modern reception, and it is hard to argue for a treatment different from the other ancient compilations of Demo,102 Chrysippus,103 Aeschylus,104 Lucius Tarraius,105 Didymus,106 or the Pseudo-Plutarch.107 If the term “proverb” is thus inapropriate for these catchphrases,108 which can be sometimes literary and authoritative expressions,109 it seems that the 100

See above the use of the reductive qualification for the treatise’s scope: τὸ παροιμίας ἀθροῖσαι (Ath. 2.60d–e). 101 See Rupprecht (1949) 1735 on the two meanings of the term. 102 FGrH 327F18 in Zenobius; frr. 5–21 FHG 1 Müller = FGrH 327F3 et F7–21 Jacoby. The treatise was probably in four books and not in forty (in spite of Leutsch and Schneidewin: VIII [Edidit Demo Περὶ παροιμιῶν libros, ut minimum, quadraginta]; and Crusius (1883) 150; see FGrH 327F4 and Jacoby IIIBI 203–4. 103 DL 7.1, on the nickname of Zeno as Αἰγυπτία κληματίς [cf. Zeno, fr. 1 Von Arnim]; DL 7.200, in two books [= Chrysippus, fr. 16 Von Arnim]. The schol. ad Pind. I., 2.17 gives the title for the treatise of Chrysippus: Περὶ παροιμιῶν (without the adress πρὸς Ζηνόδοτον; see Tosi in Montanari (1994) 201). 104 Zen. 5.85. It is most likely the Alexandrine poet (see Crusius in RE, I.1, 1893, p. 1084–1085, Aischylos 14; and Leutsch–Schneidewin (1851) I.XI). 105 Ammonius, de adfinium voc., s.v. αἶνος καὶ παροιμία, 18 Nickau; Steph. Byz., s.v. Τάρρα, 604.8–9 Meinecke. Lucius of Tarrha, probably an epitomator of the collection of Didymos and not responsible for a new collection (Tosi (2010) 31). On the recensio Athoa of Zenobius (close to the original) vs. the Zenobius vulgatus, see Bühler (1987) 41–89. 106 Cf. Phot., Bibl. 279, 530a: Ὅτι Δίδυμος Περὶ παροιμιῶν δεκατρία βιβλία συντέταχε, πρὸς τοὺς Περὶ παροιμιῶν συντεταχότας ἐπιγράψας αὐτά. 107 Writer of a sylloge, the so-called Alexandrian Proverbs. 108 See Partridge (2004). 109 See Zen. 3.4: Γηράσκω δ᾽ αἰεὶ πολλὰ διδασκόμενος:> ἐπὶ τῶν διὰ τὸ γῆρα ἐμπειροτέρων. Εἵλκυσται μέντοι ἐκ τῶν Σόλωνος ἐλεγείων.

500

Clearchus of Soli

general and common perspective is that of a “cultural idiomatic locution.” Clearchus is also interested, as an Alexandrine would be, in nonAttic fixed expressions,110 and the linguistic diachrony and evolution, if we ascribe to him the sentence which follows 68 and concludes the demonstration: ἔνιοι δὲ παρεγκλίνοντές τε τὴν λέξιν καὶ ἐπὶ τοῖς δεινοῖς ἀλεξητήριόν τινα παροιμίαν λέγουσιν “ἰὴ παιών” καὶ οὐχὶ “ἵε παῖ” Many people also utter the cry for things that achieve their end, some claiming the phrase used as a saying is Yea paiôn though we do not recognize it as a saying because it is so familiar; and others arguing that this phrase is not a saying .

The ancient scholars in general used to be opportunistic, to leave no stone unturned, and to distort inherited data in the re-contextualization of their personal work.111 The fact that Athenaeus conveys 10 of the fragments leads us to link the paremiographic practice with a symposiac context, although it could be a bias produced by the intermediary. The citational role involves text reformatting, semiotic change and a pragmatic shift. Nevertheless, it seems rational, from a methodological point of view, to consider as probably typical of Clearchus’s treatise the kind of information or discourse appearing in both paremiographical (Zenobius) and sympotic (Athenaeus) intermediaries, which have clearly different pragmatic purposes. The exegetic module of the Clearchan paremic ἱστορία is composed of two main explicative elements: (1) the origin, or original context (historical literal meaning), and (2) the application (secondary or figurative meaning). The first is the context of the emergence of the locution, historically determined, which is accompanied sometimes by a narrative which may be very detailed, and sometimes by a physical or biological explanation; the second expresses the

110

See Rupprecht (1949) 1738. Kindstrand (1978) 77 blames Chrysippus for this very common and oportunistic behaviour: “Chrysippus shows little respect for proverbs as he changes texts to suit his own ideas.” The parodic distortion of a proverb (see Strabo 14.5.14 and Macarius 4.11, vs. Ar.Byz., fr. 358 Slater; and maybe Clearchus, 75–87) is a current practice, not only in comedy. 111

Clearchus and Paremiology

501

current and contemporary context of the use of the expression by naming the persons or the situations targeted by the expression.112 We could sum up the module in two words, which constantly occurs in the paremiologic collections: ὅθεν, ἐπί. The program of the Byzantine collection includes the two issues, but is somehow more complete and covers: (1) the historical reason (or literal explication and justification: ἀπὸ τοῦ..., γάρ, ἐντεῦθεν etc.); (2) in which situation or for whom it is used (ἐπὶ τῶν ... [εἴρηται, τάττεται], πρὸς τούς...); (3) paroimiai with similar (metaphorical) meanings (ὅμοιον...); (4) the author using the expression (μέμνηται X).113 On the basis of so-called “fragments” we only meet echos of the text by Clearchus so we cannot generalise the model. However, the two issues are present in the segments attributed to him, and it is striking that the probable direct remnants are mostly narrative ones. On the one hand, as for Theophrastus,114 Clearchus exhibits a great interest in historical details, and in the majority of fragments he develops the historical context (φησιν ὅτι...) (1); on the other hand, according to 69C, he also gave the information, i.e. the correct use of the paroimia (2): λέγεται δὲ ἐπὶ τῶν μηδενὸς ἀξίων, ὥς φησι Κλέαρχος ἐν δευτέρῳ Παροιμιῶν115 It is applied to worthless things, as Clearchus says in Book 2 of Sayings.

His paremiology is an exegetical and an archeological genre, looking for an interpretation of the παροιμία (Κλέαρχος ἐξηγούμενος τὴν παροιμίαν τὸν Βριάρεώ φησι…, 79A), through the identification of the birth context of the expression: ἐντεῦθεν (84),116 ὅθεν (11, 42B, *49, 85 *86).117 The etiology or motivation is mainly to be found in history, but

112

This program is very close to the linguistic program according to Varro (LL 7.32): Quom tria sint coniuncta, in origine verborum quae sint animadvertenda, a quo sit impositum et in quo et quid. 113 See Appendix 2. 114 See Fortenbaugh (2011) 546. 115 See also 77. Demon (fl. ca 300) seems to treat the παροιμίαι in the same way: exegetic element 1 (FGrH 327F15, 8, 12, 11, 19, 16, 18, 21, 14, 10, 20, 4, 17); exegetic element 2 (FGrH 327F19, 18a–b, 21, 20). 116 Κλέαρχος δὲ αὐτὴν ἐντεῦθέν φησιν εἰρῆσθαι. 117 Cf. Arist., Rhet. 1371b15: ὅθεν αἱ παροιμίαι εἴρηνται; cf. Thphr., Vent. 5: ὅθεν καὶ ἡ παροιμία συμβουλεύει τὰ περὶ τοὺς πλοῦς.

502

Clearchus of Soli

sometimes requires ethnological,118 or natural exegesis (on biology and physics).119 In Aristotle, we find eight occurrences of “ὅθεν καὶ ἡ παροιμία” or a similar expression; the origin is either a common natural knowledge presented in a short form (HA 611a26; Mete. 346b13), a literal judgement on life described in a methaphorical way (Rhet. 1371b15, 1383b23, 1384a34), or the very situation or historical anecdote leading to a saying, which eventually turned into a paroimia (frr. 462, 513 [= 518 Gigon], 471 Rose). The three perspectives (descriptive, metaphoric and historic) correspond to three different contexts: science, rhetoric and history. 7. The Opacity of the “Fixed Expressions” An exegesis is necessary because the meaning of fixed expressions, even when they are felt as common and part of the public domain, remains sometimes opaque. This opacity mainly concerns the literal meaning, but also eventually the figurative meaning that speakers need to master in order to use the expressions in the right context. Apostolius (praef. 3) refers to these two levels of the παροιμία and its semantic gap: Παροιμία μὲν οὖν ἐστὶ λόγος ἐπικαλύπτων τὸ σαφὲς ἀσαφείᾳ· ἢ δι’ αἰσθητῶν πραγμάτων σημαίνων πράγματα νοητά· ἢ ἐπικεκρυμμένως τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἐπεμφαίνων a paroimia is a locution obscuring what is clear, or expressing intellectual realities under sensible ones, or displaying the truth in a cryptic way.120

There is no discussion on the adequate contextual use of a fixed expression in the Clearchan fragments, but the debate is frequently attested in the late collections, and particularly on the sentence quoted in 72 and giving rise to disagreement on the injonction and metaphorical

118

Clearchus (51B) mentions in the Περὶ βίων a Persian metaphorical expression to explain the locution Διὸς ἐγκέφαλος. 119 See *5B, 70, 115. 120 …Καὶ ἔτι τόνδε τὸν τρόπον· παροιμία ἐστὶ διήγημα παροδικὸν, ἢ ῥῆμα τετριμμένον ἐν τῇ χρήσει τῶν γε πολλῶν, ἀπό τε μικρῶν τινῶν καὶ ὀλίγων ἐφ’ ὅμοια πλείω καὶ μείζω μεταληφθῆναι δυνάμενον. On the second semiologic relation (something concrete for something abstract) see Bieler (1936) 240.

Clearchus and Paremiology

503

meaning involved.121 The more recurrent presence of information (2) [ἐπὶ τῶν…] in late collections could be the symptom of a progressively vanishing transparence of the figurative meaning: the evidence conveyed by the traditional use is balanced not only by the diffusion and distortion of the paroimiai, but also by the evolution of cultural references.122 The παροιμίαι, including proverbs, are generally in a semiotic paradoxical situation, in which the literal meaning appears to be more opaque than the figurative one.123 As Norrick (1981) 36 says, “my prov-

121

See Diogenianus 2.82: τῆς χελώνης ὀλίγα μὲν κρέα βρωθέντα στρόφους ποιεῖ, πολλὰ δὲ καθαίρει· ὅθεν ἡ παροιμία ὑποτίθησιν ἢ μηδόλως ἀπάρξασθαι πρᾶγμά τι, ἢ ἀπαρξαμένου τούτου μὴ ἀτελὲς ἐᾶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τέλος ἐπιτιθέναι. Ἕτεροι δέ φασιν εἰρῆσθαι ἐπὶ τῶν ἀποδύντων μὲν πράγματα, συστρατευομένων δέ. Μέμνηται δὲ ταύτης Τερψίων. Cf. Demon FGH 327F10: Ἡδέα χελώνης κρέα φαγεῖν ἢ μὴ φαγεῖν. Τῆς χελώνης ὀλίγα κρέα βρωθέντα στρόφους ποιεῖ, πολλὰ δὲ καθαίρει. Ὅθεν καὶ τὴν παροιμίαν. Δήμων. For a debate involving an other Peripatetic, see Dicaearchus 44 Mirhady (= Zen. 3.65): Ἐν πίθῳ τὴν κεραμείαν μανθάνω: παροιμία ἐπὶ τῶν τὰς πρώτας μαθήσεις ὑπερβαινόντων, ἁπτομένων δὲ εὐθέως τῶν μειζόνων. ὡς εἴ τις μανθάνων κεραμεύειν, πρὶν μαθεῖν πίνακας ἢ ἄλλο τι τῶν μικρῶν πλάττειν, πίθῳ ἐγχειροίη. Δικαίαρχος δέ φησιν ἕτερόν τι δηλοῦν τὴν παροιμίαν, οἱονεὶ τὴν μελέτην ἐν τοῖς ὁμοίοις ποιεῖσθαι, ὡς κυβερνήτης ἐπὶ τῆς νηὸς καὶ ἡνίοχος ἐπὶ τῶν ἵππων. It seems that some expressions are completely out of use in the time of Zenobius (see 5.34: Ἐπὶ τοίνυν τῶν πανωλεθρίᾳ διεφθαρμένων καιρὸν ἔσχεν ἡ παροιμία). 122 Note that the continuation of the text of Ath. 15.701b–d (68), which could be also ascribed to Clearchus (and not to Δημόκριτος the Deipnosophist) says: πολλοὶ δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῖς τέλος ἔχουσιν ἐπιφθεγγόμενοι οἳ μὲν ἐν παροιμίᾳ φασὶν οὕτως τοῦτο δὴ τὸ λεγόμενον “ἰὴ παιών,” διὰ δὲ τὸ λίαν ἡμῖν εἶναι σύνηθες λανθάνον ὂν ἐν παροιμίᾳ οἳ δὲ τὸ τοιοῦτο λέγοντες οὐχ ὡς παροιμίαν . . . . The sentence is interrupted, but the first part (“many people also say this at the conclusion of a task and some claim that the phrase “iê paiôn” is proverbial when used this way, but that our over-familiarity with it we fail to recognize that it is said as a paroimia; but others use the same expression not as a paroimia…”) clearly suggests that the frequent use of it erases the consciousness of the metaphorical status and meaning. On conflicting interpretations on the figurative meaning of γόνυ κνήμης ἔγγιον in paremiographic collections (cf. Arist., EN 1168b) see Meliadò (2010) 33–34. 123 See Georgius Cedrenus, Compendium historiarum, 1.97.18 Bekker: παροιμία δ’ ἐστὶ λόγος ἀπόκρυφος δι’ ἑτέρου προδήλου σημαινόμενος. Cf. Schol. Plat., Hipp. 288b5 Greene: Τῶν γὰρ παροιμιῶν αἱ μὲν καθ᾽αὑτὰς λέγονται, αἱ δ’ ἐπιλόγῳ σαφηνίζονται. However, the meaning is sometimes considered as clear (see Diogenianus 1.87: λείπει, Ἡ παροιμία δήλη).

504

Clearchus of Soli

erb utterance tips off my hearer to look for a non literal reading by failing to contribute relevantly on the literal level.”124 This is a notable difference between ordinary fossilized expressions (as Διομήδειος ἀνάγκη: 80) and proverbs (as ἀρχὴ ἥμισυ παντός: 84). While the latter are apparently transparent,125 the first, belonging to the category of “idiom of decoding” (Makai (1972) 24–5) are not easy to interpret and require knowledge of the historical origin.126 The major assignement and exegetic mission of the paremiographic comment of the paremiographer is not only to complete the elliptical expression and disambiguate the polysemy of names but to elucidate precisely the inaugural event. Indeed, the obscurity of the paremic lemma comes from its twofold elliptical character: the textual current condensation (in the non-phrastic παροιμίαι), and the constant contextual poverty.127 The Περὶ παροιμιῶν aims then to compensate the evaporation of the context and identify the historical situation which produces the first utterance: Clearchus explains, generally developing etiological myths, the original and native context of the first utterance in order to restore the complete meaning of the expression. The paremiological historical investigation leads to conflicting and sometimes contradictory interpretations.128 Many παροιμίαι are referred to various alleged original contexts, manifesting a hard competition among scholars. This concerns, for example, the syntagma mentioned 124

See Grzybek (1984) 410–12. See Schapira (1999) 58, describing the proverb as “un énoncé sémantiquement autonome, transparent, à sens métaphorique.” Anscombre (2003) and Kleiber (2010) assert that the so-called metaphorical proverbs are not opaque as the idiomatic expressions are. See the restricted definition of idiom given by Moon (1998) 4: “[a kind of unit] that is fixed and semantically opaque or metaphorical, or, traditionally, ‘not the sum of its parts,’ for example, kick the bucket or spill the beans […] semi-transparent and opaque metaphorical expressions such as spill the beans and burn one’s candle at both ends, as opposed to other kinds of expression.” Cf. Fontenelle (1994) 43: “What characterizes idioms is the fact that they constitute a single semantic entity, and that their meaning is not tantamount to the sum of the meanings of the words they are made up of.” 126 Moon (1998) 23 states that “[…] opaque metaphors, pure idioms, are those where compositional decoding and interpretation of the image are practically or completely impossible without knowledge of the historical origins of the expression.” 127 The συντομία, which is the χάρις of the fixed expression (Demetr., Eloc. 137), refers to the allusive (and elusive) character of the expression, which sums up and epitomizes a situation. 128 Cf. Zen. 3.45: Καδμεία νίκη. Περὶ ταύτης τῆς παροιμίας ἄλλοι ἄλλως λέγουσιν. 125

Clearchus and Paremiology

505

in 80, differently explained by Aristophanes and Clearchus;129 the expression quoted in 74 and contextualized in three different ways by Aristotle, Theophrastus and Clearchus (Ath. 347f–348c); or the expression ὑπὲρ τὰ Καλλικράτους (85) referred to different persons and context by Aristotle and Clearchus.130 On Σαρδάνιος γέλως there are numerous explanations and an abundant tradition.131 Jacoby presents a synthetic exposition of the case:132 there are six testimonies, mentioning the opinion of Demon, Aischylos (dub. fr. 455 Nauck2), Timaios, Philoxenos, Kleitarchos (for Clearchus),133 Silenos, Simonides, Lukillos and collective interpretations (φασί, λέγουσι, τίνες, ἄλλοι, ἔνιοι = Homer). The alleged aition represents either different ethnological customs (killing of the old Sardinians over 70 years, or sacrifice of old prisoners to Cronos), a Sardinian plant with special spasmodic properties (βοτάνη or λάχανον), or an etymological derivation (ἀπὸ τοῦ σεσηρέναι) with a mythological context (Talos in Sardinia). 8. Humorous or Generic Treatment? The historical report is expected to offer, as usual in such archeologic investigations, the most likely context, but it is in fact often an eccentric

129

See Suda Δ 1164, s.v. Διομήδειος ἀνάγκη; Hsch. Δ 1881 s.v. Διομήδειος ἀνάγκη; Pausanias, Atticista δ 14 Erbse. The origin, given by Zenobius (3.8) is the famous episod of the Troian Palladion. Diomedes is thus identified with the Achean hero, and not, as in the Clearchan version, the Thracian king, who seems to be a much more improbable candidate. But the story told by Zenobius (inspired by the Iliad of Lesches, and reported by Conon in Narrationes), is eccentric and not really etiological. Eustathius (Com. Il. 3.124 Van der Valk) records the two identifications (Καίτοι τινὲς τὴν τοιαύτην παροιμίαν ἀπὸ τοῦ Θρᾳκὸς Διομήδους φασὶν ἐκπεσεῖν) and points out that the daughters were ugly (αἰσχραῖς οὔσαις ταῖς αὐτοῦ θυγατράσι). 130 See Paus.Gr. Υ 10 (= Phot. Υ 623 = Souda Υ 365): · Κλέαρχός φησιν (85), ὅτι Καλλικράτης τις ἐγένετο ἐν Καρύστῳ πλουσιώτατος· εἴ ποτε οὖν ἐθαύμαζόν τινα οἱ Καρύστιοι ἐπὶ πλούτῳ ὑπερβολικῶς, ἔλεγον· “Ὑπὲρ τὰ Καλλικράτους.” Ἀριστοτέλης δέ φησιν ἐν τῇ Ἀθηναίων πολιτείᾳ (28, 3) Καλλικράτην τινὰ πρῶτον τοὺς δικαστικοὺς μισθοὺς εἰς ὑπερβολὴν αὐξῆσαι· ὅθεν καὶ τὴν παροιμίαν εἰρῆσθαι. 131 See Phot. (Σ 500 Porson, s.v. Σαρδόνιος γέλως) and the Suda (Σ 124 Adler, s.v. Σαρδάνιος γέλως) offering up to six different interpretations. 132 Jacoby 1954 IIIBI 214–7; Demon, FGrH 327F18. 133 Cf. Dorandi (2006) 164–5.

506

Clearchus of Soli

and artificial re-motivation.134 Clearchus, who seems to be a passionate storyteller, although far less logical than Demon,135 and prone to select very precise and unique contexts,136 offers some explanations we can hardly keep from finding ludicrous and off-the-wall. The complex and original playscript (scenario) he constructs137 to explain the origin of ἰὴ παιών (68), including a lexical deformation (ἵε παῖ > ἰὴ παιών) looks like a joke. Such is also the subtile exegesis he offers for the very common idea ἀρχὴ ἥμισυ παντός (84);138 taking advantage of a story told by Herodotus (5.52) on the mythological origin of the Spartan diarchy, he gives it for a χρησμός, an answer given by the god (scil. Apollo),139 and interprets it (with a pun on ἀρχή) in a very counterintuitive way, as meaning “the whole power must be shared in two.” The aitiologicos logos of Clearchus in the Περὶ παροιμιῶν expresses the playful manner this author can display in the other treatises (Περὶ παιδείας, Περὶ ὕπνου, Περὶ βίων)140 as well as the sensibility to humour which led him to deal with γρῖφοι and other strange stories.141 He seems to enjoy distorting the original meaning of the παροιμία in his archeological investigation/invention of its historical background,

134

See Huxley (1981) 333. In the Σαρδάνιος γέλως case, the plant seems to be a mere invention of Silenos (Jacoby (1954) IIIBI 216). 135 See Huxley (1981) 335. 136 Aristotle, when relating the historic source of a fixed expression often refers to general context. Such is his etiological explanation of the proverb πάλαι ποτ᾽ ἦσαν ἄλκιμοι Μιλήσιοι (fr. 557 Rose), refuted by Demon (FGrH 327F16), who prefers a very precise and datable context (ca 494) and considers the παροιμία as a divine answer, — a type Clearchus is very fond of; cf. FGrH 327F7, for another divine answer on the white ravens, and the different exegesis of Aristotle [fr. 496 Rose]. 137 There is no Alexandrine parallel for this story on Leto and Python (probably directly echoed in Heliodorus, ap. Tzetz, in Lyc. 208; Anth. Pal. 3.6). Neither for the stories told in 78, 69A, and 71. 138 Plato (Lg 753e6–754a2) provides the classical and intuitive meaning of the sentence (τό γε καλῶς ἄρξασθαι πάντες ἐγκωμιάζομεν ἑκάστοτε); cf. πλέον ἥμισυ παντός (Hes., Op. 40). 139 Compare the very different answer in Hdt. 5.52: Τὴν δὲ Πυθίην σφέας κελεύειν ἀμφότερα τὰ παιδία ἡγήσασθαι βασιλέας, τιμᾶν δὲ μᾶλλον τὸν γεραίτερον. 140 See Berra (2008) 387: “Cléarque aborde l’éthique avec une tendance à la paradoxographie, et l’histoire naturelle avec une tendance à l’anecdote.” 141 See also the joke in 74, and the commentary of Berra (2008) 502.

Clearchus and Paremiology

507

but this oddity is maybe more deeply a general consequence of paremiology142 and other “etiological” genres in Alexandrine period. His exegesis of the expression οὗτος ἄλλος Ἡρακλῆς (79A), as initially delivered by Apollo and refering to a homonym of the hero,143 seems at first glance to be a useless complication for a transparent proverb. Doing so, Clearchus actually favours a literal original meaning as if this was precisely a necessary part of the hermeneutic program of paremiology. He seems to have adopted a systematic approach of the fixed expressions forcing him (1) to state in all cases the primacy of a literal meaning of the metaphorical expressions; (2) to present a precise historical birth, i.e., anecdotal context of first utterance (found out or invented) of the expressions. Clearchus refers many times to a mythological context or to the sudden appearance of the paroimia (79A, 80, 71; cf. 77, 78)—which is sometimes even expressed by a mythological hero or god (68, 69A– C)—and this is typical of Alexandrine etiology and a general trend of the main paremiographic collections (Zenobius, Diogenianus).144 There is in fact no trace of a specific text by Clearchus on the myths,145 and the widespread presence of mythological heroes, especially Heracles, is a generic character.146 However a close similarity does exist between paremiological and mythical historical exegesis, represented respectively by Clearchus and Palaiphatus. The way Clearchus, in 33A (from the Ἐρωτικά), elucidates the origin of the myth of the birth of Helen in an egg could be a Palephatean aition: 142

There is also a touch of fantasy in the Byzantine collections (see, e.g., Zen. 3.87: ἐν Θεσσαλίᾳ τόπος ἐστὶ Κόρακες, ὅπου τοὺς κακούργους ἐνέβαλλον· ὅθεν ἡ παροιμία). Find a more or less plausible origin for a fossilized expression could be a symposiac competition and entertainment: “where does this paroimia come from?” 143 On this “second” Heracles, see Aelian, VH 5.3: τὰς νῦν Ἡρακλείους στήλας καλουμένας πρὶν ἢ κληθῆναι τοῦτό φησι Βριάρεω καλεῖσθαι αὐτάς; Hsch., B 1133, s.v. Βριάρεω στῆλαι: αἱ Ἡράκλειοι λεγόμεναι (cf. Schol. ad Pind. Nem. 3.38; Charax, FHG, fr. 16 Müller; Schol. ad Dionys. Per. 64). 144 In the paremiographic collections, the mythological stories are reported at length and build the longest entries (see, e.g., Zen. 1.18: Ἀδμήτου μέλος; 1.30: Ἀδράστεια Νέμεσις; 1.33: Αἰθὴς πέπλος; 1.41: ῞Αιδος κυνῆ; 2.48: Ἀμαλθείας κέρας; 2.68: Βοιώτια αἰνίγματα…). 145 See the discussion on this matter in Dorandi (2006) 166–7. 146 See Rupprecht (1949) 1729. Cf. Lelli (2007) 144 noticing the “huge presence, in the Greek patrimony of proverbs, of maxims and expressions focused on gods and heroes.”

508

Clearchus of Soli ἐκάλουν δὲ καὶ τὰ νῦν τῶν οἰκιῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν καλούμενα ὑπερῷα ᾠά, φησὶ Κλέαρχος ἐν Ἐρωτικοῖς, τὴν Ἑλένην φάσκων ἐν τοιούτοις οἰκήμασι τρεφομένην δόξαν πενέγκασθαι παρὰ πολλοῖς ὡς ἐξ ᾠοῦ εἴη γεγεννημένη The part of houses now called among us “uppers” [hyperôa] they also used to call “overs” [ôa, sc. eggs], says Clearchus in Discussions of Love, claiming that since Helen was reared in that kind of dwelling, many people came to believe that she had been born from an egg.

Thanks to a linguistically naive trick147 and looking for the literal original formulation of the idea, Clearchus offers a rationalized version of the “mytheme.’ Just like Palaiphatus, through very simplistic historical fantasies, who repairs a misconception distorted by the corrupt narration of a real historical experience,148 Clearchus tries to restore—or construct!—a likely historical story which could explain the locution, as if there were no metaphorical gaps but rather a generalization between the (primitive) literal use and the (contemporaneous) figurative meaning. The paroimia is a “relict” expression whose rhetorical efficiency presupposes a shared cultural background, controlled and manipulated in fine by scholars. The elucidation and exegesis of the literal meaning is in fact not pragmatically necessary, and belongs to scholarly exercises, similarly to other cultural or antiquarian commentaries. Nevertheless, by motivating the expression, paremiologists like Clearchus help maintain it in a status of expressive shortcut. The Clearchan collection does not allow the assertion of a philosophical specificity of Peripatetic paremiology, nor a distinguishing perspective towards Alexandrine practice. The consideration for the literal level and for historical precision, regarded as a warrant or a token of truth is also characteristic of the Alexandrine scholarship. The early Peripatetic school plays a pivotal role between classical philosophy and Alexandrine philology, but

147

Who could reasonably assume, even in the Greek etymological license that ὑπέρ is accessory and the suffix supports the meaning “upper level”? Schrader (1894) 52 already pointed out the similarity: Clearchi Solensis, et ipsius Aristotelis discipuli, tres fabularum explicationes Palaephateis consimiles iam Ziebenus attulit (cf. frr. 35, 68, 73 = 33A, 80, 71). 148 This operation is called θεραπεία; see Eustathius, in Od. 6.34: θεραπεία δὲ τοῦ μύθου κατὰ Παλαίφατον; cf. also in Od. 2.195: ἀνδρὸς σοφοῦ θεραπεύσαντος μύθους πρὸς ἱστορίαν.

Clearchus and Paremiology

509

is usually considered as rather belonging to the former intellectual context. The Clearchan paremiology could be another symptom of the fact that the practices and issues destined to play a major role in the Alexandrine culture are already present and crucial in the Aristotelian turning point. Appendix 1 The 552 lemmata in Zenobius’ collection [with numbers corresponding to each of the 6 centuria] Lemmata

 ȋ‘‘Ȍ

ͳ™‘”†

ʹǦʹǦͲǦͶǦͳǦͳ

ʹ™‘”†•

ͶͲǦͶͲǦ͵͵ǦͶͺǦ͵͸Ǧʹͺ

͵™‘”†•

ͳͻǦʹͷǦ͵ͳǦ͵͵Ǧʹ͹ǦͳͲ

ͶΪ™‘”†•

͵ͻǦ͵͵ǦͶ͸ǦͳͷǦ͵͸Ǧͳ͵

‡–‡…‡•

‹†ƒ…–‹… ’”‘˜‡”„•

ʹʹǦ͸Ǧ͹ǦͺǦͳ͸Ǧͷ

ͺǦͳͷǦʹͲǦͳ͵ǦͳͷǦ͹

Appendix 2 The 552 lemmata of Zenobius (comment) [with numbers corresponding to each of the 6 centuria]

Lemmata

ᚌɎɜ

ᚌɎɜ ȋʹ‘” ‘”‡Ȍ

͹ͷǦ ͹ͶǦ ͸ͷǦ ͷʹǦ ͶͶǦ ʹ͹

͵ǦͶǦͷǦ ʹǦ͵ǦͲ

ᚿɅɂɋ

ͶͷǦ ͷͲǦ ͶͶǦ ͸ͻǦ ͸͹Ǧ ͵Ͷ

ᚿɅɂɋ ȋʹ‘” ‘”‡Ȍ

ɊɚɊɋɄɒȽɇ

’ƒ”ƒ’Š”ƒ•‡

ͶǦ͵ǦͳǦ ͻǦ͸Ǧ͸

͸ǦʹͷǦ ͳͻǦͳ͸Ǧ ͵ͳǦʹʹ

ͻǦͻǦͳͷǦ ͳͶǦͳͳǦ͸

510

Clearchus of Soli

Appendix 3 Characteristics of the Clearchan παροιμίαι ‡ƒ–ƒ *5B 11

  ȋβƬ Ȍ

ᙳɂᚷɈɍɉɍɇᛂɑ ɎȽɏᙼɈɍɉɍɇᛂɋ ᚯɃəɋɂɇ Ɉɇɋɛɐɘɒᛂɋᙳɔǯ ᚯɂɏᙽɑ

‡–‡…‡

‹†ƒ…–‹… ’”‘˜‡”„ š

ᚌɎɜ

š

ᚿɅɂɋ

š

57

ɉɂɓɈɄɎȽɒɜȽɑ

š

š

š

42

ɀɉɓɈᛑɑᙳɀɈɣɋ

š

š

44

ᚘȭɈɓɅᛟɋᛄ᚞ɐɇɑ

š

š

51

ȟɇᛂɑᚌɀɈɚɔȽɉɍɑ

š

59

ȮɇɅɘɋɍᛒɀ᚞ɏȽɑ

š

š

77

ȽᚭɌɎɍɒɒᙼɋ ɊəɖȽɇɏȽɋ

š

š

68

ᚫ᚝ɎȽɇɣɋ

š

š

78

ȪᚫɒȽᚸɍɑɁȽɜɊɘɋ

š

š

69

ᚌɋɒᚷɊᚓɋɍᛅɁᚓɋ ᚯɂɏɟɋ ɍᛅɁᚓɋᚯɂɏɟɋ ɍᛅɁᚓɋᚯɂɏᛂɋ ᛉɎəɏɖɂɇɑ ɍᛌɒɍɑᙴɉɉɍɑ ᘢɏȽɈɉ᚞ɑ

B

B

79 A

š

š

š š

š

š

š

80

ȟɇɍɊɛɁɂɇɍɑ᩶ᙳɋ əɀɈɄ

š

š

101

ɀɋᛟɅɇɐȽɓɒɟɋ

š

š

83

Ɉɍɇɋᙼɒᙼɔɜɉɘɋ

š

š

Clearchus and Paremiology 84 115 85 72 74 87 76 *88

ᙳɏɖ᚝Ɂɚɒɍɇ ᚙɊɇɐɓɎȽɋɒɟɑ ɋɂɍɒɒɍᛒɍᛅɁɚɋ ɊɍɇɁɜɁɘɑ ᛉɎᚓɏɒᙼ ȥȽɉɉɇɈɏəɒɍɓɑ ȘɄɈɏ᚝ɖɂɉɣɋɄɑ ɖɏ᚝ᚖȘɔȽɀɂᚸɋ ᚖɊ᚝ɔȽɀɂᚸɋ ɍᛅɁɂᚷɑɈȽɈᛂɑ ɊɚɀȽɑᚫɖɅɠɑ ɐȽɎɏᛂɑɒəɏɇɖɍɑ ɒ᚝ɋᚻɏɜɀȽɋɍɋ ɔɇɉɂᚸ ᚌɎᚷɒᚪɔȽɈᚪ Ɋɠɏɍɋ ឲȯɉȽɋ ɈɏȽɓɀəɃɂɇɋ

š š š

511 š

š

š

š

š š

š

š š

š š

š

[implicit] *49 65 70

128

πλεύσειας εἰς Μασσαλίαν Σαμίων ἄνθη καὶ Σαμιακὴ λαύρα Πολύποδος πολυχρόου νόον ἴσχε Πολύποδος ὁμοιότης [πρὸς δύο] οὐδ” ὁ Ἡρακλῆς

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Works Cited Anscombre, J.-C. 1994. “Proverbes et formes proverbiales: valeur évidentielle et argumentative” Langue Française 102: 95–107. ––– 2003. “Les proverbes sont-ils des expressions figées ?” Cahiers de Lexicologie 1: 159–73.

512

Clearchus of Soli

––– 2006. “Les Proverbes: un figement du deuxième type?” Linx. Revue des linguistes de l’Université Paris X Nanterre 53: 17–33. Berra, A. 2008. Théorie et pratique de l’énigme en Grèce ancienne (Paris: École des hautes études en sciences sociales). Bieler, L. 1936. “Die Namen des Sprichworts in den klassischen Sprachen” Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 85 (3): 240–53. Bühler, W. 1987. Zenobii Athoi Proverbia, Volumen Primum, vol. 1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Chantraine, P. 1968. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque (Paris: Klincksieck). Cherniss, H. 1949. “Die Schule des Aristoteles. Texte und Kommentar by Fritz Wehrli” The American Journal of Philology 70: 414–18. Chroust, A.H. 1973. “The Great Deluge" in Aristotle’s on Philosophy” L’Antiquité Classique 42(1): 113–22. Crusius, O. 1883. Analecta Ad Paroemiographos Graecos (Leipzig: Teubner). ––– 1893. “Aischylus 14” in Realencyklopädie, ed. A. Pauly and G. Wissowa, I.1:1084–85. Dorandi, T. 2006. “Il Περὶ παροιμιῶν di Clearco: Contributi a una edizione dei frammenti” Eikasmos 17: 157–70. ––– 2012. “Prolegomeni a una nuova raccolta dei frammenti di Clearco di Soli” Göttinger Forum für Altertumswissenschaft 14: 1–15. Fontenelle, T. 1994. “What on Earth are Collocations?” English Today 10 (04): 42–8. Fortenbaugh, W.W, and D. Gutas. 2014. Theophrastus of Eresus. Commentary, Volume 9.2 (Leiden: Brill). Fortenbaugh, W.W. 2011. Theophrastus of Eresus. Commentary Volume 6.1. Sources on Ethics. With Contributions on the Arabic Material by Dimitri Gutas. (Philosophia Antiqua 123) (Leiden: Brill). Fortenbaugh, W.W. and E. Schütrumpf. 2001. Dicaearchus of Messana: Text, Translation, and Discussion (Abingdon: Routledge). Fournier, Phi Nga. 2010. “Le stéréotype dans le lexique” Résumé 85: 99. García Romero, F. 1999. “Sobre la etimología de paroimía” Paremia 8: 219–24. Gottschalk, H.B. 1973. “Addenda Peripatetica” Phronesis 18: 91–100. Huxley, G.L. 1981. “Stories explaining Origins of Greek Proverbs” in Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. Section C: Archaeology, Celtic Studies, History, Linguistics, Literature 331–43.

Clearchus and Paremiology

513

Ieraci-Bio, A.M. 1984. “Le concept de Παροιμία : Proverbium dans la haute et basse Antiquité” in Richesse du Proverbe. II, ed. F. Suard and C. Buridant, 83–113 (Lille: Presses du Septentrion). Jacoby, F. 1954. Fragmente Der Griechischen Historiker IIIb1. n°327, 88–96, 201–19. Keaney, J.J. 1968. “Corrupt Book Numbers in the Lexicon of Harpocration” Classical Philology 63 (4): 281–3. Kindstrand, J.F. 1978. “The Greek Concept of Proverbs” Eranos. Acta Philologica Suecana Uppsala 76 (2): 71–85. Kleiber, G. 2010. “Proverbes: transparence et opacité” Meta: Journal des traducteurs 55 (1): 136–46. Kroll, W. 1921. “Klearchos 11” in Realencyklopädie 11.1, 580–3. Lacombrade, C. 1951. Synésios de Cyrène: Hellène et Chrétien (Paris: Les Belles Lettres). Lelli, E. 2007. “Towards a Classification of Greek Proverbs” Paremia 16: 139–48. Leutsch, E. von, and F.W. Schneidewin. 1851. Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum (CPG) (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht). Makkai, A. 1972. Idiom Structure in English, vol. 48 (The Hague: Mouton). Matthaios, S. 2005. “ΚΛΕΑΡΧΟΣ ΟDER ΚΛΕΙΤΑΡΧΟΣ? Zur Urheberschaft zweier Worterklärungen und zur Autorschaft eines Glossenwerks in der Überlieferung des Klearchos aus Soloi” Rheinisches Museum Für Philologie 148 (1): 47–79. Meliadò, C. 2010. “Proverbi e falsi proverbi in Teocrito” Antica. Παροιμιακός. Il Proverbio in Grecia E a Roma 3: 28–36. Moon, R. 1998. Fixed Expressions and Idioms in English: A CorpusBased Approach (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Moraux, P. 1951. Les Listes anciennes des ouvrages d’Aristote (Louvain: Éditions universitaires de Louvain). Morgan, T. 2007. Popular Morality in the Early Roman Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Müller, C. 1848. Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum.Bd. I (Paris: Firmin Didot). Norrick, N. 1981. Semiotic Principles in Semantic Theory, vol. 20 (Amsterdam: John Benjamins). ––– 1985. How Proverbs Mean: Semantic Studies in English Proverbs, vol. 27 (Berlin/ New York: Mouton).

514

Clearchus of Soli

Otto, A. 1890. “Die Sprichworter und sprichwortlichen Redensarten der Römer” (Leipzig: Teubner). Partridge, E. 2004. A Dictionary of Catch Phrases (London: Routledge). Pfeiffer, R. 1968. History of Classical Scholarship. From the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Rosenthal, G. 1897. “Ein vergessenes Theophrastfragment” Hermes 32: 317–20. Rupprecht, K. 1949. “Paroimia. Paroimiographoi” in Realencyklopädie, XVIII, 2, ed. A. Pauly and G. Wissowa, 1707–78 (Stuttgart). Russo, J. 1983. “The Poetics of the Ancient Greek Proverb” Journal of Folklore Research 20 (2/3): 121–30. Schapira, C. 1999. Les Stéréotypes en français: Proverbes et autres formules (Paris: Ophrys). ––– 2000. “Proverbe, proverbialisation et déproverbialisation” Langages 34 (139): 81–97. Schirru, S. 2005. “La tradizione paremiografica nelle commedie di Menandro” Annali della facoltà di lettere e filosofia 59: 5–24. Schrader, J. 1894. Palaephatea, vol. 1 (Berlin: R. Heinrich). Seiler, F. 1922. Deutsche Sprichwörterkunde (Munchen: C.H. Beck). Slater, W. 1986. Aristophanis Byzantii Fragmenta (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter). Taifakos, I. 2008. Ἀρχαία Κυπριακὴ γραμματεία. 6. Φιλοσοφία. Κλέαρχος, Περσαῖος, Δημῶναξ, ἄλλοι Κύπριοι φιλόσοφοι (Λευκωσία: Idryma Anastasios G. Leventēs). Tarán, L. 2001. Collected Papers (1962–1999) (Leiden: Brill). Tosi, R. 1994. “La lessicografia e la paremiografia in età alessandrina ed il loro sviluppo successivo” in XL Entretiens de la fondation Hardt. La philologie grecque à l’époque hellénistique et romaine, ed. F. Montanari (Genève) 143–209. Tosi, R. 2010. Dictionnaire des sentences latines et grecques 2286 sentences avec commentaires historiques, littéraires et philologiques. Transl. R. Lenoir, with an essay by U. Eco (Grenoble: J. Million). Tschajkanovitsch, W. 1908. Quaestionum Paroemiographicarum Capita Selecta (Tübingen: apud H. Laupp jun). Untersteiner, M. 1963. Aristotele. Della Filosofia (Roma: Edizioni di storia e letteratura). Usener, H. 1858. Analecta Theophrastea (Leipzig: Teubner).

Clearchus and Paremiology

515

Verraert, J.B. 1828. Diatribe de Clearcho Solensi, Philosopho Peripatetico, Conscripta a Joanne Baptista Verraert (Ghent: MA Mahne). Wehrli, F. 1983. “Klearchos aus Soloi” in Grundriß der Geschichte der Philosophie. Die Philosophie der Antike. Bd. 3: Ältere Akademie– Aristoteles–Peripatos, ed. H. Flashar, 547–51 (Basel: Schwabe Verlag).

8 The Seven Sages and the Inscription of Ai Khanoum Gertjan Verhasselt

1. Introduction In the prologue to his Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers, Diogenes Laertius lists several examples of ancient wisdom:1 the Persian Magi, Musaeus, Linus, Orpheus, the Indian Gymnosophists, the Celtic Druids, the Egyptian priests, and finally the so-called Seven Sages, who are the topic of the first book. These seven wise men included both historical and semi-legendary figures. The canonical list (derived from Demetrius of Phalerum and Callimachus2 ) consists of Thales, Pittacus, Bias, Solon, Cleobulus, Chilon, and Periander, but many variants are found, especially among pre- and early Hellenistic

1

See also the discussion by Ax (in this volume) 365–70. Dem. Phal. F 87 SOD = Stob. 3.1.172 p. 111–25 Hense; Call. Iamb. 1 F 191.52– 77 Pfeiffer2 = F 151.52–77 Asper = P.Oxy. VII 1011 fol. 3v, 119–38 + Ach. Tat. Intr. Arat. 1 p. 29 Maass + Choerob. De orthographia s.v. Χίλων, An. Ox. II p. 277 Cramer + EM s.v. Θαλῆς p. 442 Kallierges + D.L. 1.29; Diegesis, P.Mil.Vogl. I 18 col. 6. 2

517

518

Clearchus of Soli

writers.3 Individual Sages from the collegium already appear in Herodotus, who calls them “sophists,”4 but the earliest attestation of a group of Seven is found in Plato.5 They were remembered for the gnomic wisdom expressed in their maxims (such as “know yourself” 6 and “nothing in excess”), were involved in the contest for the prize of wisdom, were associated with the Lydian king Croesus, and were imagined to have gathered at a symposium.7 At one point in history, an epistolary novel containing letters from the Sages and Croesus also seems to have circulated.8 The lore of the Seven Sages attracted the interest of numerous historians, philosophers, and poets. In the Peripatos, it was treated by Aristotle, Theophrastus, Demetrius of Phalerum, Aristoxenus, Dicaearchus, Hermippus, and Satyrus.9 Monographs entitled On the (Seven) Sages 3 Pl. Prt. 343a; Andron FGrHist 1005 F 2a = D.L. 1.30–1; F 2b = schol. vet. Pi. I. 2.17 Drachmann; Ephor. FGrHist 70 F 182 = D.L. 1.41; Eudox. F 371 Lasserre = FGrHist 1006 F 1 = D.L. 1.29–30; Leandrius FGrHist 492 F 16 = D.L. 1.41. See especially D.L. 1.41 (with anonymous variants). Dicaearchus (F 38 Mirhady = FGrHist 1400 F 54 = D.L. 1.41) tried to systemize these traditions by distinguishing between fixed and variable members. Hermippus (FGrHist 1026 F 10 = D.L. 1.42) later compiled a list of all possible candidates (seventeen in total). Hippobotus (F 6 Gigante = D.L. 1.42) drew up a similar list, containing some idiosyncratic candidates (Orpheus, Linus, and Epicharmus). See also my discussion in Verhasselt (2018) 455–67 with further literature. 4 Hdt. 1.23–4; 1.27; 1.29–33 (1.29: ἀπικνέονται ἐς Σάρδις ἀκμαζούσας πλούτῳ ἄλλοι τε οἱ πάντες ἐκ τῆς Ἑλλάδος σοφισταί); 1.59; 1.74–75; 1.170; 3.48–51; 4.46–47; 4.76–77; 5.92ζ–η; 5.95; 7.235. Aristotle (F 5 Rose3 = F 871 Gigon = EM s.v. σοφιστής p. 722 Kallierges) also called them sophists. 5 See Pl. Ti. 20d (ὁ τῶν ἑπτὰ σοφώτατος Σόλων); Prt. 343a. 6 On this saying, see § 2 below. 7 See Snell (1938) 56–9, who attributed the skolia of the Seven Sages to an epistolary novel (see below). The most famous literary example is Plutarch’s Banquet of the Seven Sages. Another text is the hexametric account of their symposium, quoted in PSI IX 1093.1–23. See Snell (1954). This papyrus is an anthology of gnomic literature and contains other learned citations, among others of Clearchus: see § 2 below. 8 Diogenes Laertius probably took the spurious letters quoted in his first book from this novel. See Snell (1938) 116–27 and Dührsen (1994). 9 Arist. F 3(1) Rose3 = F 28 Gigon = Porph. F 273 Smith = Stob. 3.21.26 p. 579 Hense; F 3(2) Rose3 = F 29 Gigon = Clem. Al. Strom. 1.14.60.3; F 4 Rose3 = F 29 Gigon = Clem. Al. Strom. 1.14.61.2; F 5 Rose3 = F 871 Gigon = EM s.v. σοφιστής p. 722 Kallierges; F 517 Rose3 = F 522 Gigon = D.L. 1.99; F 891 Gigon = Harp. α 245 Keaney, s.v. ἀρχὴ ἄνδρα δείκνυσι (not in Rose3); Thphr. F 583 FHS&G = Plu. Sol. 4.7–8; F 737

Seven Sages

519

(Περὶ τῶν (ἑπτὰ) σοφῶν) were written by Theophrastus and Hermippus.10 2. Clearchus on γνῶθι σαυτόν (101A–D) 101A–D deal with the saying “know yourself” (γνῶθι σαυτόν), the most famous of the Delphic maxims.11 Clearchus is cited (1) in a papyrus text (101A), (2) in Porphyry’s Περὶ τοῦ γνῶθι σαυτόν (101B), (3) and in Stobaeus (101C). 101D (a passage from the Mantissa proverbiorum12) is derived from a slightly more complete version of Stobaeus. The information also recurs in a scholion on Plato, without a citation of Clearchus but merely with a vague reference to “some” (οἱ δέ). The texts are presented in Table 1 below. Clearchus’ fragment is generally attributed to On Sayings.13 For the fragment under discussion, the title is found only in the papyrus text, where it is usually supplemented as [ἐν το]ῖς Περὶ | [παροιμιῶ]ν. 14 However, “know yourself” was not always treated in works on sayings: FHS&G = Harp. α 245 Keaney, s.v. ἀρχὴ ἄνδρα δείκνυσι; F 738 FHS&G = Stob. 3.21.12 p. 558 Hense; Dem. Phal. F 87 SOD = Stob. 3.1.172 pp. 111–25 Hense; Aristox. F 130 Wehrli2 = D.L. 1.107; Dicaearch. F 36 Mirhady = FGrHist 1400 F 55 = Ineditum Vaticanum 1; F 37 Mirhady = FGrHist 1400 F 53 = D.L. 1.40; F 38 Mirhady = FGrHist 1400 F 54 = D.L. 1.41; Hermipp. Hist. FGrHist 1026 F 9–20; F 29; Satyr. F 8 Schorn = D.L. 1.82–3. Other potential members of the Peripatos are Sotion (F 2 Wehrli = D.L. 1.98) and Antisthenes (F 3 Giannattasio Andria = FGrHist 508 F 3 = D.L. 1.40), who both wrote Successions of Philosophers. The works of Hermippus, Satyrus, and Sotion were epitomized by Heraclides Lembus (FHG III, 169–70 F 6–10; P.Oxy. XI 1367 fr. 2). 10 Thphr. F 1.48 = F 727.12 FHS&G = D.L. 1.48; Hermipp. Hist. FGrHist 1026 T 8a–e. On Theophrastus, see Fortenbaugh (2014) 124–6; 200–1. On Hermippus, see Bollansée (1999) 27–44. 11 On γνῶθι σαυτόν, see especially Brunco (1884) 383–91, Wilkins (1917); (1929) 49–73, and Tortzen (2002). 12 The Mantissa proverbiorum is the name given by Leutsch and Schneidewin to the sayings found in the margins of several manuscripts of Apostolius’ Collectio paroemiarum. 13 See Vitelli (1929a) 156; (1929b) 7, Snell (1954) 107, Wehrli (1969) 29; 70, Montanari (1989), Dorandi (2006a) 162, and Taïfakos (2007) xxi; 78–81. “Know yourself” was also discussed in Theophrastus’ work On Sayings (F 738 FHS&G = Stob. 3.21.12 p. 558 Hense). K. Müller (1848) 317 attributed the fragment to Clearchus’ Arcesilas, since he assumed that this work may have discussed other philosophers alongside the Academic philosopher Arcesilaus. 14 So Wehrli (1969) 29, Montanari (1989) 433, Dorandi (2006a) 162, Taïfakos (2007) 78, and Ruta (2020) 111 n. 1.

520

Clearchus of Soli

Aristotle discussed it in On Philosophy, Chamaeleon in On Gods, Hermippus in On Aristotle, and Antisthenes of Rhodes in the Successions of Philosophers (see below). Since no complete list of Clearchus’ works has been transmitted, the fragment might also derive from an unattested work (e.g., Περὶ | [τῶν σοφῶ]ν would also fit the lacuna15). Therefore, although the traditional supplement is plausible, some caution is in order. 101A PSI IX 1093.33– 41

schol. Pl. Phlb. 48c, 29 Cufalo

101B Porph. F 273 Smith = Stob. 3.21.26 p. 579 Hense

101C Stob. 3.21.12 p. 559 Hense

Κλέα[ρ-] [χος δ᾿ ἐν το]ῖς Περὶ [ c. 7 ]ν ἐρέ[σθαι δὴ τὸ]ν Χίλω[να τὸν θε]όν, τί ἄρ̣[ι-] [στον ἂν εἴ]η, τὴ̣ν̣ [δὲ Πυθίαν] ἀποκρί[νασθαι ὅτι] τὸ γνῶ[θι] [σεαυτόν.]

οἱ δέ φασιν ὅτι Χίλωνος ἐρομένου τὸν θεὸν τί εἴη ἄριστον, εἶπεν ἡ Πυθία· τὸ γνῶθι σαυτόν.

Κλέαρχος δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ λεχθῆναι Χείλωνι.

Clea[rchus in] the books On [...] (says that) Chilon asked [the god] what [would be] the best thing, and the [Pythia] replied: know [yourself].

Others say that, when Chilon asked the god what was the best thing, the Pythia said: know yourself.

εἴτε Κλεάρχῳ προσεκτέον μᾶλλον τοῦ μὲν Πυθίου φράζοντι εἶναι παράγγελμα, χρησθῆναι δὲ Χείλωνι, τί ἄριστον ἀνθρώποις μαθεῖν πυνθανομένῳ. Or we should follow Clearchus instead, who claims that it (sc. “know yourself”) is a commandment of the Pythian god, and that the oracle was given to Chilon, when he inquired what was the best thing for humans to learn.

But Clearchus says that the god said it (sc. “know yourself”) to Chilon.

101D Mantissa proverbiorum 1.43 Leutsch‒ Schneidewin Κλέαρχος δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ λεχθῆναι Χίλωνι Δαμαγήτου Λακεδαιμονίῳ.

But Clearchus says that the god said it (sc. “know yourself”) to Chilon of Sparta, son of Damagetas.

Table 1: The fragments of Clearchus on γνῶθι σαυτόν.

15 This supplement has recently been defended by Dorandi (2014). See also Dorandi’s Introduction (in this volume) 11 and his edition of 101A.

Seven Sages

521

Many sources report that the maxim “know yourself” was inscribed in the temple of Delphi.16 The first writer to attest a connection between the Delphic maxims and the Seven Sages is Plato,17 but the association of the Sages with Delphi must be older.18 A popular discussion concerned the origin of specific maxims and their attribution to individual Sages. Demetrius of Phalerum, for instance, compiled a list of sayings for each Sage.19 Most sources attribute the maxim “know yourself” to Chilon. This attribution is first attested in Demetrius of Phalerum20 but probably pre16

Pl. Phlb. 48c–d; Alc. 1 124a–b; 129a; 132c; Chrm. 164d–65a; Phdr. 229e; Prt. 343b; [Pl.] Amat. 138a; Hipparch. 228e; X. Mem. 4.2.24; Isoc. 12.230; D.S. 9.10.1; Plin. Nat. 7.119; Plu. De E apud Delphos 2.385d; 21.394c; De tranq. anim. 23.472c; De garr. 17.511b; Adv. Col. 20.1118c (citing Aristotle’s Platonica [F 1 Rose3 = F 709 Gigon]); [Plu.] Cons. ad Apoll. 28.116c–d; Porph. F 273 Smith = Stob. 3.21.26 p. 579–80 Hense; Jul. Or. 11.8; Macrob. In Somn. 1.9.2; Sat. 1.6.6; Glossae rhetoricae s.v. γνῶθι σαυτόν p. 233 Bekker; schol. Pl. Phdr. 229e, 23 Cufalo. 17 Pl. Prt. 343a–b. 18 See Pi. F 35b Snell‒Maehler = Heph. Enchiridion de metris p. 51 Consbruch + schol. E. Hipp. 264b1 Cavarzeran; E. Hipp. 264–6 (both connecting the Delphic maxim μηδὲν ἄγαν with the Sages). Later sources include Luc. Phal. 1.7, Plu. De E apud Delphos 17.391f, Paus. 10.24.1, D. Chr. 72.12, Macrob. Sat. 1.6.6, and Recensio Parisina 2 title. On Diodorus, PSI IX 1093, and Porphyry, see below. The connection is also attested in the inscription of Ai Khanoum (see § 5 below). In Plu. De E apud Delphos 3.385d–f, the interlocutor Lamprias associates the Sages with Delphi in an idiosyncratic way: he claims that the EI inscription of the Delphic temple was dedicated by the five “real” members of the Seven Sages (i.e., excluding the “impostors” Cleobulus and Periander); however, Plutarch immediately rejects this fanciful explanation (Plu. De E apud Delphos 4.386a–b). According to Busine (2002) 37–8, the association of the Seven Sages with the sanctuary of Apollo originated in Delphi in the sixth century BCE. Already Hipponax (F 65 Degani = F 63 West2 = D.L. 1.107) mentions the story that Myson was proclaimed the wisest by Apollo (see § 3 below). 19 Dem. Phal. F 87 SOD = Stob. 3.1.172 p. 111–25 Hense. The list is also preserved in the first Recensio Parisina, edited by Tziatzi-Papagianni (1994) 129–254. It was used by Diogenes Laertius, who included lists of sayings in his biographies of the Seven Sages. Later Byzantine collections of sayings related to the Recensio Parisina conflated Demetrius’ list with that of Sosiades (see § 5 below). 20 Dem. Phal. F 87.3.1 SOD = Stob. 3.1.172 p. 116 Hense. See also D.S. 9.10.1; Hyg. Fab. 221.2; Plin. HN 7.119; Auson. 303 p. 176 Peiper = XXVI p. 189 Green (Ludus septem sapientium 138); [Auson.] 316 p. 409 Peiper = Appendix A 5.2 p. 676 Green (De septem sapientibus 3); Sid. Apoll. Carm. 2.163; 15.50; Olymp. in Alc. 129a, 201 Westerink; AP 9.366.3; Anecdota Graeca p. 143 Boissonade (= App. Anth. 4.48.4 Cougny); Anth. Lat. 1.346.3–4 (Luxorius); Stob. 3.21.13 p. 559 Hense; Hsch. γ 743

522

Clearchus of Soli

dates him. 21 Chamaeleon in On Gods, however, suggested Thales. 22 Other candidates were Solon23 and Bias.24 According to Aristotle, the Latte; Suid. γ 333, s.v. γνῶθι σαυτόν (= Greg. Cypr. Paroemiae codicis Vaticani 1.55); schol. vet. Pi. P. 2.63; 3.106 Drachmann; schol. Pl. Prt. 343a, 34 Cufalo; schol. Luc. Phal. 1.7 Rabe; Arethas in D. Chr. 72.12 p. 127 Sonny; Macar. Paroemiae 3.3; Demetrius Chomatenus, Ponemata diaphora 8.1; Apostol. Collectio paroemiarum 18.26. The attribution to Chilon is mentioned along with other variants in Porph. F 273 Smith = Stob. 3.21.26 pp. 579–80 Hense, Clem. Al. Strom. 1.14.60.3, Anonymi Vita Pythagorae ap. Phot. Bibl. codex 249 p. 440b Bekker, schol. Pl. Phlb. 48c, 29 Cufalo; Alc. 1 129a, 92 Cufalo, and Glossae rhetoricae s.v. γνῶθι σαυτόν p. 233 Bekker. Chilon is also portrayed with this saying in a mosaic from Baalbek, which displays the Seven Sages, each with their own maxim (IGLS VI 2884 = Merkelbach and Stauber, SGO IV 20/13/03 = National Museum of Beirut, Fig. 314 Richter 1965 = Fig. 267 Schefold2). Another, similar depiction of Chilon (citing the saying as σαυτὸν γνῶθι) is found in a mosaic from Apamea: see SEG LXIV 1577 = Balty (1970) 86–7. See further Hauser (1992) 70–4. Finally, the epigram from the Anthologia Graeca containing the sayings of the Seven Sages (AP 9.366) is also inscribed on silver spoons from Lampsacus (for Chilon and his saying, see SEG XLII 1096 A 1 = British Museum inv. 388): see Baratte (1992) 5–10 and Hauser (1992) 69–70. 21 The two other famous Delphic maxims, μηδὲν ἄγαν and ἐγγύα πάρα δ᾿ ἄτα, were also often attributed to Chilon (though not by Demetrius). For μηδὲν ἄγαν, see Critias F 7 West = schol. E. Hipp. 264c Cavarzeran; Arist. Rh. 2.12.14.1389b; D.S. 9.10.1, PSI IX 1093.1–22; Plin. HN 7.119; Plu. Conv. sept. sap. 20.163d; Clem. Al. Strom. 1.14.61.1; D.L. 1.41; schol. T Hom. Il. 10.249a1 Erbse; schol. E. Hipp. 265a Cavarzeran. For ἐγγύα πάρα δ’ ἄτα, see Arist. F 4 Rose3 = F 29 Gigon = Clem. Al. Strom. 1.14.61.2; D.S. 9.10.1; 4–5; PSI IX 1093.1–22; Plin. HN 7.119; Clem. Al. Strom. 6.2.21.5; D.L. 1.73; Suid. θ 17, s.v. Θαλῆς. The sayings are listed along with γνῶθι σαυτόν at the end of Chilon’s maxims in Recensio Parisina 1 Chilon 22; however, this is an interpolation from D.S. 9.10.1; 4–5: see Tziatzi-Papagianni (1994) 189–90. 22 Chamael. F 3a Martano = PSI IX 1093.31–3; F 3b Martano = Clem. Al. Strom. 1.14.60.3; F 3c Martano = Glossae rhetoricae s.v. γνῶθι σαυτόν p. 233 Bekker. See also schol. vet. Pl. R. 600a Greene; Suid. θ 17, s.v. Θαλῆς. The attribution to Thales is mentioned among other variants in Porph. F 273 Smith = Stob. 3.21.26 p. 579 Hense, D.L. 1.40 and as an alternative for Solon in Recensio Bodleiana B 266 Gaisford = V 37 Schottus = Appendix Proverbiorum 1.80 Leutsch‒Schneidewin (see [Diogenian.] codex Vindobonensis 2.10). 23 Suid. σ 776, s.v. Σόλων. Solon is mentioned as an alternative to Thales in the Recensio Bodleiana (see n. 22) and for Chilon in Auson. 301 p. 172 Peiper = XXVI p. 185 Green (Ludus septem sapientium 52–5). 24 Bias is one of the candidates in Porph. F 273 Smith = Stob. 3.21.26 p. 579 Hense and Stob. 3.21.11 p. 558 Hense; 14 p. 559 Hense. He is also mentioned in Mantissa Proverbiorum 1.43 Leutsch‒Schneidewin (omitted in Stob. 3.21.12 pp. 558–9 Hense). If Βίαντος is no later addition, the attribution probably goes back to Theophrastus, who

Seven Sages

523

maxim was coined by the Pythia and inscribed before Chilon.25 Clearchus seems to reconcile Aristotle’s explanation with that of Demetrius by claiming that Chilon received the maxim from Apollo through the Pythia.26 Antisthenes in his Successions makes a similar combination: he claims that Phemonoe (the first Pythia and daughter of Apollo) coined the saying but Chilon later adopted it as his own.27 Porphyry also mentions Phemonoe along with another Delphic woman: Phanothea, daughter of Delphus.28 In Xenophon, the Delphic answer is not given to Chilon but to Croesus (who is often connected with the Seven Sages: see § 3 below).29 Hermippus attributes the saying to a Delphic eunuch named Labys.30 Other sources name Sodamus,31 the Amphictyons32 or even Homer.33 The early Peripatetics Demetrius, Chamaeleon, Clearchus, and perhaps also Theophrastus34 appear to have preferred the connection with the Seven Sages.

is cited in the same passage (F 738 FHS&G). Theophrastus also attributed the saying “rule reveals the man” (ἀρχὴ ἄνδρα δείκνυσι) to Bias (F 737 FHS&G = Harp. α 245 Keaney, s.v. ἀρχὴ ἄνδρα δείκνυσι), on which see Fortenbaugh (2014) 211–14. A proBias tradition further recurs in Thphr. 583 FHS&G = Plu. Sol. 4.7: see § 3 below. 25 Arist. F 3(1) Rose3 = F 28 Gigon = Porph. F 273 Smith = Stob. 3.21.26 p. 579 Hense; F 3(2) Rose3 = F 29 Gigon = Clem. Al. Strom. 1.14.60.3. Pl. Lg. 11.923a already alludes to the attribution of the maxim to the Pythia. [Arist.] MM 2.15.6.1213a, however, attributes the maxim to the Sages. 26 The maxim is also attributed to Apollo in Cic. Leg. 1.58, Sen. Dial. 6.11.2, S.E. M. 7.266, Jul. Or. 11.3, and Anonymi Vita Pythagorae ap. Phot. Bibl. codex 249 p. 440b Bekker. The belief that the saying “came from heaven” recurs in Juv. 11.27 and Iohannes Saresberensis, Policraticus 3.2.480a; Epistulae 301. 27 Antisthenes F 3 Giannattasio Andria = FGrHist 508 F 3 = D.L. 1.40. See also schol. Pl. Alc. 1 129a, 92 Cufalo. 28 Porph. F 273 Smith = Stob. 3.21.26 p. 579 Hense. 29 X. Cyr. 7.2.20. 30 Hermipp. Hist. FGrHist 1026 F 29a = PSI IX 1093.24–31; F 29b = Glossae rhetoricae s.v. γνῶθι σαυτόν p. 233 Bekker; F 29c = schol. Pl. Phlb. 48c, 29 Cufalo. 31 Schol. vet. Pi. P. 2.63 Drachmann. 32 Plu. De garr. 17.511b. 33 Schol. b Hom. Il. 3.53b1 Erbse; Plu. Conv. sept. sap. 21.164b–c; Eust. ad Il. 7.108–14, vol. 2, p. 412 van der Valk. 34 See n. 24.

524

Clearchus of Soli

3. Clearchus on the Prize of Wisdom (81) In 81, Clearchus gives his version of the agon for the prize of wisdom. Δαΐμαχος δ᾿ ὁ Πλαταιϊκὸς καὶ Κλέαρχος φιάλην ἀποσταλῆναι ὑπὸ Κροίσου Πιττακῷ καὶ οὕτω περιενεχθῆναι (sc. φασίν). Daïmachus of Plataea and Clearchus say that a bowl was sent by Croesus to Pittacus and was thus passed around.

The fragment is cited by Diogenes Laertius as one of many versions.35 Table 2 below summarizes the main versions with the most significant differences.36 “Milesian” story 1

Theophrastus

Prienian story (Satyrus)

Andron’s Tripod

golden tripod discovered by Coan fishermen quarrel leads to war oracle: to the wisest

tripod

bronze tripod discovered by Messenian fishermen

tripod

inscription: for the wisest

for the wisest

offered by Argives

“Milesian” story 2 (Leandrius, Callimachus, Eleusis, Alexon, Phoenix) golden cup/bowl left by Bathycles

Eudoxus and Euanthes

Daïmachus and Clearchus

cup

bowl

given by Croesus

given by Croesus

for the wisest

for the wisest

35 D.L. 1.27–33. Diogenes Laertius cites the versions in the following order: (1) the Athenian version of the Milesian fishermen story (see n. 44); (2) Callimachus and Leandrius; (3) Eleusis and Alexon; (4) Eudoxus and Euanthes; (5) Clearchus and Daïmachus; (6) Andron; (7) the story that the tripod originally belonged to Periander and was found in Coan waters; (8) Phanodicus (see n. 43); (9) the story that the tripod was created by Hephaestus and belonged to Helen; (10) the Milesian fishermen story. 36 On the agon, see Barkowski (1923) 2248–51, Wiersma (1933–4), Paladini (1956) 379–82, Parke and Wormell (1956) 387–9, Manfredini and Piccirilli (1977) 124–7, Fehling (1985) 25–39, Bollansée (1998a) 137–40; (1998b) 172–4, Schorn (2004) 349– 55, and Engels (2010) 82–3.

Seven Sages sent to Thales declared Bias wiser circuit among Sages back to Thales dedicated to Apollo of Didyma

sent to Bias

back to Bias sent to Delphi

sent to Bias

only Apollo is wise

Aristodemus ceded to Chilon

525

sent to Thales declared Bias wiser

sent to Thales

sent to Pittacus

circuit among the Sages back to Thales dedicated to Apollo of Didyma

circuit among the Sages ends with Chilon oracle: Myson

circuit

Table 2: The different versions of the story about the agon of wisdom.

According to one version37 (probably of Milesian origin38), the prize was a golden tripod, discovered by Coan fishermen, who got into a dispute over it with their customers. This quarrel resulted in a war between Cos and Miletus.39 When Apollo was consulted about the duration of the war, the god revealed that it would end if they sent the tripod to the wisest among the Greeks. It was therefore sent to Thales, who refused it and declared Bias wiser. It then passed from one Sage to another until it came back to Thales, who dedicated it to Apollo of Didyma.40 A variant of the Milesian story is found in Theophrastus, who claims that the tripod was first sent to Bias (not Thales) and, after going round, also came back to Bias, who then sent it to Delphi (not Didyma).41 This pro-Bias tradition might be inspired by the independent Prienian tripod

37 D.S. 9.3.2; Plu. Sol. 4.2–6; D.L. 1.32–3. Tz. ad Ar. Pl. 9 Positano follows Diogenes Laertius (although he changes the Coan fishermen to Milesian ones, perhaps on the basis of D.L. 1.27). 38 See Wiersma (1933–4) 152. 39 Thus Plu. Sol. 4.3–4 and D.L. 1.32–3. In D.S. 9.3.2, by contrast, both cities were already at war before the discovery of the tripod. 40 In Plu. Sol. 4.6, the prize is sent to the Ismenian Apollo, probably a patriotic innovation by Plutarch: see Fehling (1985) 29. 41 Thphr. F 583 FHS&G = Plu. Sol. 4.7.

526

Clearchus of Soli

story,42 found in Satyrus.43 In this version, a bronze tripod (not a golden one) was discovered by Messenian (not Coan) fishermen, and the tripod had the inscription “for the wisest” (i.e., there was no oracle). In the assembly, some Messenian maidens who had been rescued before by Bias declared him the wisest. The tripod was subsequently sent to Bias, who refused it, declaring that only Apollo was wise.44 Another independent version is found in Andron’s Tripod. Here the tripod was not found by fishermen but was offered by the Argives to the wisest. Aristodemus (an obscure Sage who did not make it to the canonical list45) was judged the winner but ceded the prize to Chilon.46

42

According to Schorn (2004) 354, Satyrus’ version was inspired by Theophrastus’. However, apart from the prize going to Bias, the Prienian story in Satyrus shares little with Theophrastus’ version, which is closer to the Milesian story. In Theophrastus, the tripod also passed around all Seven Sages and was eventually dedicated to Apollo (two elements absent in the Prienian version). On Thphr. F 583 FHS&G, see Fortenbaugh (2014) 116. 43 Satyr. F 8 Schorn = D.L. 1.82–3. See also D.S. 9.13.2. Diodorus’ account is probably derived from Satyrus: see Schorn (2004) 353–4. An Athenian version of this story is found in Phanodicus (FGrHist 397 F 4a = D.L. 1.31; F4b = D.L. 1.82–3), who probably relied on Satyrus (rather than the other way around). Phanodicus moves the scene to Athens and therefore cannot have the maidens speak in the Athenian assembly: since only men are allowed to do this, he has the maidens’ father speak instead. See Schorn (2004) 352. Moreover, the tripod is sent to Heracles in Thebes, an element not found in any other version. 44 The moral of this story (god is wiser than any mortal) was incorporated into an Athenian version of the Milesian story: see D.S. 9.3.1; 3; Val. Max. 4.1 ext. 7; D.L. 1.27–8. In this Athenian version, the tripod does not return to Thales but ends with Solon, who dedicates it to Apollo, since the god is the wisest. See Wiersma (1933–4) 152–4. A similar pro-Solon tradition may have inspired Plato’s claim that Solon is the wisest of the Seven (Pl. Ti. 20d). Porphyry (F 203 Smith = F 4 Sodano = FGrHist 260 F 5 = Cyr. Juln. 1.38; F 203a Smith = al-Mubaššir, Muḫtār al-ḥikam wa-maḥāsin alkalim p. 42–43 Rosenthal) combines elements from various stories: he largely follows the Milesian fishermen story but includes the moral of the Prienian/Athenian story and has the tripod sent to Delphi (not Didyma). A similar mix is found in Auson. 305 p. 177–8 Peiper = XXVI p. 190 Green (Ludus septem sapientium 165–74). See also schol. vet. Ar. Pl. 9c Chantry = schol. rec. Ar. Pl. 9a Chantry = Tz. ad Ar. Pl. 9a Positano (with the omission of the war and without naming the first and last recipients of the tripod). 45 Aristodemus is mentioned in the lists of Dicaearchus (F 38 Mirhady = FGrHist 1400 F 54 = D.L. 1.41) and Hermippus (FGrHist 1026 F 10 = D.L. 1.42). 46 Andron FGrHist 1005 F 2a = D.L. 1.30–1.

Seven Sages

527

According to yet another version (probably of Milesian origin as well), the prize was a golden cup or bowl, left by the artist Bathycles47 for the wisest. As in the other Milesian story, the object was first sent to Thales, who declared Bias wiser. It passed from one Sage to the other until it was sent to Thales again, who dedicated it to Apollo of Didyma. This version is found in Callimachus, who adopted it from Leandrius (probably from his Milesiaca).48 The story also recurs in Eleusis and Alexon of Myndus and likely also in the early Hellenistic poet Phoenix.49 A related story connects the prize with king Croesus. According to Eudoxus and Euanthes, Croesus offered the prize (a cup) for the wisest. As in the two Milesian stories (i.e., the fishermen story and the Bathycles story), the prize was first given to Thales and then went around the other Sages; however, it did not come back to Thales. Apollo also plays a role in the final destination of the prize, though not as a recipient. When Chilon received the cup, he consulted the oracle, which revealed

47

On Bathycles, see C. Robert (1897), W. Müller (2001), and Kansteiner and Lehmann (2014). 48 Call. Iamb. 1, F 191.32–77 Pfeiffer = P.Oxy. VII 1011 fol. 2r, 102–18 + fol. 3v, 119–38 + Ach. Tat. Intr. Arat. 1 p. 29 Maass + Choerob. De orthographia s.v. Χίλων, An. Ox. II p. 277 Cramer + EM s.v. Θαλῆς p. 442 Kallierges + Apollonius Dyscolus De constructione 3 p. 309 Uhlig + Pron. p. 22 Schneider = p. 26b Bekker; Dieg., P.Mil.Vogl. I 18 col. 6 + D.L. 1.28–9; Leandrius FGrHist 492 F 18 = D.L. 1.28–9. According to the diegesis, the bowl passed by Thales, Bias, Periander, Solon, Chilon, and Cleobulus and then came back to Thales. Note, however, that Callimachus did not derive these names from Leandrius, who actually included Leophantus and Epimenides instead of Cleobulus and Myson (FGrHist 492 F 16 = D.L. 1.41). Callimachus’ list was probably adopted from Demetrius (F 87 SOD = Stob. 3.1.172 p. 111–25 Hense + Recensio Parisina 1). 49 Eleusis FGrHist 55 F 1 = D.L. 1.28; Alexon of Myndus ap. D.L. 1.28; Phoen. F 4 Powell = Ath. 11.495d. Unlike the Athenian version of the first Milesian story (see n. 43), the Bathycles story does not mention Solon as the last recipient before Thales. The version of Eleusis and Alexon (according to whom the prize was a drinking cup, not a bowl) is probably also reflected in Plu. Sol. 4.8 (οἱ δὲ ποτήριον Βαθυκλέους ἀπολιπόντος εἶναι λέγουσιν): see Keller (1867) 14, Prinz (1867) 37, and Manfredini and Piccirilli (1977) 126. The tradition is jestingly alluded to in Plu. Conv. sept. sap. 13 155e–f: during the banquet of the Seven Sages, Periander drinks to Chilon in a big cup, and Chilon in his turn to Bias; Ardalus (one of the guests) complains to Aesop that the Sages are sending the cup to and fro to one another “as though it were the cup of Bathycles” and are not giving anyone else a chance at it.

528

Clearchus of Soli

Myson (included in Plato’s list of Seven Sages50) as the wisest.51 This is the only version (apart from Andron’s) where a human wins the prize. Myson is also proclaimed the wisest man by Apollo in Hipponax.52 Similarly, according to Diogenes Laertius, when Anacharsis (another man often included among the Seven Sages53) asked the oracle whether anyone was wiser than himself, the Pythia named the farmer Myson.54 Given the oracle, the preference for Myson might be a Delphic tradition.55 The story in Clearchus resembles that of Eudoxus and Euanthes, where Croesus also donates the prize. However, in Clearchus, the object is not a cup but a bowl (a similar variation recurs in the Bathycles story). More importantly, it is first sent to Pittacus (not Thales) and is then passed around. The first Sage to get the prize differed from one version to another: the Milesian versions prefer Thales, but other candidates are Bias (in the Prienian version and in Theophrastus) and Aristodemus (in Andron’s Tripod). Whether the preference for Pittacus is an old tradition or a later innovation remains unclear. Diogenes Laertius cites Clearchus alongside Daïmachus of Plataea. 56 If Jacoby was right to identify this man with Daïmachus the Elder (who lived in the fourth

50

In Plato (Prt. 343a), Myson appears instead of Periander, whereas in Eudoxus (F 371 Lasserre = FGrHist 1006 F 1 = D.L. 1.29–30) he replaces Cleobulus. 51 Eudox. F 371 Lasserre = FGrHist 1006 F 1 = D.L. 1.29–30; Euanthes ap. D.L. 1.29–30. 52 Hippon. F 65 Degani = F 63 West2 = D.L. 1.107 (ὃν Ὡπόλλων ἀνεῖπεν ἀνδρῶν σωφρονέστατον πάντων). 53 See Nic. Dam. FGrHist 90 F 104 = Stob. 3.1.200 p. 151 Hense; Plu. Conv. sept. sap.; Georgius Syncellus, Ecloga chronographica p. 286 Mosshammer. Anacharsis is mentioned as a possible or alternative candidate in Clem. Al. Strom. 1.14.59, Porph. F 203a Smith = al-Mubaššir, Muḫtār al-ḥikam wa-maḥāsin al-kalim p. 42–1 Rosenthal, and Theodoretus, Graecarum affectionum curatio 5.63. He also recurs in the lists of Dicaearchus (F 38 Mirhady = FGrHist 1400 F 54 = D.L. 1.41), Hermippus (FGrHist 1026 F 10 = D.L. 1.42), and Hippobotus (F 6 Gigante = D.L. 1.42). 54 D.L. 1.106. Bollansée (1998c) 182–3 included this passage in the fragment of Euthyphro (FGrHist 1007 F 1), cited in D.L. 1.107. 55 See Parke and Wormell (1956) 389. Lasserre (1966) 267 and Bollansée (1998b) 173–4 compare the answer in Eudoxus and Euanthes (a simple, unknown man is proclaimed the wisest) to the Chaerephon oracle and consider it a literary motif. 56 Daïmachus FGrHist 65 F 6. Δαΐμαχος ὁ Πλαταιϊκὸς is a correction by Casaubon for δαίδαχος ὁ πλατωνικὸς (read by the medieval manuscripts).

Seven Sages

529

century BCE), 57 Clearchus might rely on him. Daïmachus and/or Clearchus may also in their turn have been the source for Plutarch’s alternative story in his Life of Solon, according to which the object was not a tripod but a bowl sent by Croesus.58 The prominence of Pittacus in Clearchus/Daïmachus suggests that the story is a Lesbian variant. It is uncertain, however, whether the Croesus stories of Eudoxus/Euanthes and Clearchus/Daïmachus are old or a derivative of the Bathycles story. The connection with king Croesus recalls the stories about the Sages visiting the Lydian king in Herodotus, Ephorus, Diodorus, and Plutarch.59 Diogenes Laertius even quotes several (spurious) letters from the Sages to Croesus, probably taken from an epistolary novel.60 It is possible that at a later stage Bathycles was replaced by Croesus, whose connection with the Sages was better known (through Herodotus among others). Thus, Clearchus’ story may reflect a preference for the more famous name Croesus over the obscure Bathycles.

57 Jacoby (1926) 4. There were two historians named Daïmachus of Plataea: one lived in the fourth century BCE and wrote a work entitled Poliorcetica (FGrHist 65); the other lived in the early third century BCE and wrote a work entitled Indica (FGrHist 716). According to Jacoby, Daïmachus the Elder also wrote a work entitled Hellenica, to which he attributed the fragment on the agon of the Seven Sages, but Engels (2011) was more hesitant. On Daïmachus see also Dognini (2000), who assumes a local history of Aetolia and Thessaly for Daïmachus the Elder. 58 Plu. Sol. 4.8 (οἱ μὲν φιάλην ὑπὸ Κροίσου πεμφθεῖσαν). Pace Keller (1867) 14, Prinz (1867) 37, and Manfredini and Piccirilli (1977) 126, this probably does not refer to Eudoxus/Euanthes, since in their version the object is a drinking cup, not a bowl. 59 Hdt. 1.27 (Bias or Pittacus); 1.29–33 (Solon); 1.75.3 (Thales); Ephor. FGrHist 70 F 181 = D.L. 1.40 (all Sages except Thales); D.S. 9.25 (Bias or Pittacus); 9.26–7 (Anacharsis, Bias, Solon, and Pittacus); Plu. Sol. 27–8 (Solon). 60 Diogenes includes letters from Solon (D.L. 1.67), Pittacus (D.L. 1.81), and Anacharsis (D.L. 1.105). In 1.99, he quotes a letter in which Periander invites the Sages to come to Corinth as a follow-up to their gathering in Sardis the year before. Indeed, Periander was sometimes considered the host of the banquet of the Seven Sages (rather than a member of the Seven Sages): see Plu. Conv. sept. sap.; Sol. 4.1.

530

Clearchus of Soli

4. Clearchus on Pittacus (82) Pittacus is also the subject of 82. The fragment is found at the end of Diogenes Laertius’ biography of Pittacus, following a series of invectives by Alcaeus and before the alleged letter from Pittacus to Croesus. τούτῳ (sc. Πιττακῷ) γυμνάσιον σῖτον ἀλεῖν, ὥς φησι Κλέαρχος ὁ φιλόσοφος. His exercise was to grind grain, as Clearchus the philosopher says.

According to Clearchus, Pittacus ground grain. The story was probably originally an indication of Pittacus’ low birth,61 but Clearchus reinterpreted the activity as a gymnastic exercise, perhaps trying to portray Pittacus as having a healthy mind in a healthy body. The same story recurs in Clement of Alexandria and Aelian. Clem. Al. Paed. 3.10.50.262 ἀλλὰ γὰρ μικροῦ δεῖν ἔλαθέν με [εἰπεῖν] ὁ Πιττακὸς ἐκεῖνος, ὅτι ἤληθεν ὁ Μιτυληναίων βασιλεὺς ἐνεργῷ γυμνασίῳ χρώμενος. But it almost escaped my attention that this Pittacus, the king of the Mitylenaeans, used to grind (grain), using it as an active exercise. Ael. VH 7.4 ὅτι Πιττακὸς πάνυ σφόδρα ἐπῄνει τὴν μύλην, τὸ ἐγκώμιον αὐτῆς ἐκεῖνο ἐπιλέγων, ὅτι ἐν μικρῷ τόπῳ διαφόρως ἔστι γυμνάσασθαι. ἦν δέ τι ᾆσμα ἐπιμύλιον οὕτω καλούμενον. Pittacus greatly praised the millstone, adding the following eulogy of it, viz. that it is possible to exercise greatly in a small area. There was also a certain song called the millstone song.

61 See Wehrli (1931) 19. According to Page (1959) 170 n. 5, the grinding “may be a metaphor for oppressive exaction of claims and penalties.” 62 Clement is probably the source for Isidorus Pelusita, Epistulae de interpretatione divinae scripturae 1.470, who writes: ὁ Μιτυληναῖος δὲ Πιττακός, καίτοι βασιλεὺς ὤν, τὸν μύλωνα ηὐτούργει, καὶ ἐνεργῶς γυμναζόμενος, καὶ τὴν τροφὴν ἐργαζόμενος.

Seven Sages

531

Aelian also mentions a millstone song. This song is found in Plutarch’s Banquet of the Seven Sages, where Thales jestingly says that Epimenides (another man sometimes included among the Seven Sages63) was right not to wish to grind his grain like Pittacus. Thereupon, Thales quotes a song which he heard a woman sing in Eresus on Lesbos:64 ἄλει, μύλα, ἄλει· καὶ γὰρ Πιττακὸς ἄλει μεγάλας Μυτιλάνας βασιλεύων

Grind, millstone, grind. For Pittacus too used to grind, who ruled over great Mytilene.

Plutarch, Clement, and Aelian probably draw on Clearchus, who may have derived this information from the millstone song.65 Clearchus uses similar poetic quotations in the Erotica/Erotici,66 On Lives, On Sayings, and On Riddles.67 81 and 82 may be part of the same account on Pittacus. They are generally attributed to Clearchus’ On Sayings on the basis of 101A, where this work is supposedly cited.68 However, the two fragments are not connected with any saying. An attribution to Clearchus’ On Lives is more probable.69 Alternatively, it might have also belonged to On Education, since that work seems to have contained a discussion of the origin of philosophy, which could have commented on the Seven 63 See Leandrius FGrHist 492 F 16 = D.L. 1.41; Hermipp. Hist. FGrHist 1026 F 10 = D.L. 1.42; F 12a = Procl. ad Hes. Op. 41; D.L. 1.13; 1.109–15; Porph. F 203a Smith = al-Mubaššir, Muḫtār al-ḥikam wa-maḥāsin al-kalim p. 41 Rosenthal. 64 Plu. Conv. sept. sap. 14.157e = Carmina popularia F 23 Page, PMG 869. 65 See von Wilamowitz-Möllendorff (1890) 225–6, Bowra (1961) 132, and von Blumenthal (1940) 125–7, but contra Wehrli (1969) 71. Wilamowitz assumed Hermippus as an intermediate source. See also the discussion in Lo Cascio (1997) 226–7. 66 On the title of Clearchus’ work on love, see White (in this volume) 392–7. 67 Lycophronides (20 and perhaps 21), Eriphanes’ pastoral song (25), Sappho (27 and 40), an epigram of Parrhasius (40–1), Philoxenus (61), a fragment of a hexametric Thebaid (70), Terpsion (72), Castorion (97), Pindar (97; see also 89), Pamphilus (99); perhaps also Alexis (29), Antiphanes (39), Anaxilas (55), and Agesianax (116). Clearchus also mentioned Locrian songs (26), the poems for Lyde by Antimachus and Lamynthius of Miletus (32), Archestratus’ gastronomic poem (72), and Callias’ Letter Tragedy, which was supposedly the model for Euripides’ Medea and Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex (92A). 68 See Wehrli (1969) 29 and Taïfakos (2007) xxi; 80–1. K. Müller (1848) 317 attributed the fragments to Clearchus’ Arcesilas (see n. 13). 69 See Ionsius (1716) 113, Wehrli (1969) 71, Busine (2002) 81, and Dorandi (2006a) 168. In his edition, Dorandi attributes 81 and 82 to On Lives. For Dorandi’s reconstruction of a work On the Sages, see § 2 above).

532

Clearchus of Soli

Sages as well.70 Since there is no complete list of Clearchus’ works, the fragments may also derive from an unattested work. 5. The Inscription of Ai Khanoum (102–4) One final text connected with the Seven Sages is an inscription from Ai Khanoum (in modern Afghanistan). The site of Ai Khanoum was excavated from 1965 to 1978 by the Délégation Archéologique Française en Afghanistan (DAFA). The stone with the inscription was found in the pronaos of the funerary monument of Cineas (probably the founder of the city)71 in 1966 (during the second archaeological campaign).72 The right-hand side preserves five maxims related to the stages of life (I.Estremo Oriente 384 = 103): παῖς ὢν κόσμιος γίνου ἡβῶν ἐγκρατής μέσος δίκαιος πρεσβύτης εὔβουλος τελευτῶν ἄλυπος

As a child, be well-behaved; in puberty, be self-restraint; in middle age, be righteous; as an old man, be well-advised; upon death, be without sorrow.

The left-hand side of the stone preserves an epigram (in elegiac couplets), according to which Clearchus copied the maxims from the temple in Delphi73 and had them inscribed on the monument (I.Estremo Oriente 382 = 102): ἀνδρῶν τοι σοφὰ ταῦτα παλαιοτέρων ἀνάκει[τα]ι ῥήματα ἀριγνώτων Πυθοῖ ἐν ἠγαθέαι· ἔνθεν ταῦτ[α] Κλέαρχος ἐπιφραδέως ἀναγράψας εἵσατο τηλαυγῆ Κινέου ἐν τεμένει.

70

See Ax (in this volume) 365–70. Cineas is usually considered the founder of the city, since only such people were buried intra muros: see L. Robert (1968) 431–2, Foray, Helly, Laronde et al. (1971) 185, Bernard (1973) 105–6, Merkelbach and Stauber (2001) 6–7; (2005) 8, and Rougemont (2012) 202–3 with n. 703; 205. 72 See L. Robert (1968) 417; 422. 73 Πυθοῖ ἐν ἠγαθέαι is a Homeric phrase: see Hom. Od. 8.80 and h.Hom. in Vestam 2 (Πυθοῖ ἐν ἠγαθέῃ). 71

Seven Sages

533

These wise words of men of old are set up in most holy Pytho as sayings of famous men. There Clearchus wrote them down meticulously and dedicated them in the shrine of Cineas to shine from afar.

The Delphic maxims are also transmitted in several other lists: (1) Sosiades’ Commandments of the Seven Sages, quoted in Stob. 3.1.173 p. 125–8 Hense (Σωσιάδου τῶν ἑπτὰ σοφῶν ὑποθῆκαι)74 and also preserved in a medieval collection of sayings dubbed the second Recensio Parisina;75 (2) an inscription from Miletupolis, datable to the late fourth or early third century BCE (Syll.3 1268 = I.Miletoupolis 2);76 (3) the collection of Delphic maxims in the codex Vratislavensis Rehdigeranus gr. 12. 77 Shorter fragments include the school exercise in P.Athen. inv. 2782 ([ὑποθῆκαι τῶν ἑ]|π̣τά “Commandments of the Seven”) 78 and P.Oxy. LXI 4099, a mythological compendium with Delphic maxims.79 Other testimonies are two second- or third-century CE ostraca from Narmuthis80 and a fourth-century BCE inscription from Thera (IG XII.3

74

See Althoff and Zeller (2006) 61–71. The incipit of this collection reads ἔστι δὲ καὶ ὑπ᾿ αὐτῶν ἐπιγεγραμμένα ἐπὶ τοῦ ἐν Δελφοῖς κίονος τάδε “the following sayings have also been inscribed by them (sc. the Seven Sages) on the column in Delphi.” In late antiquity, Sosiades’ collection circulated together with that of Demetrius of Phalerum (quoted in Stob. 3.1.172 p. 111– 25 Hense and also preserved in the first Recensio Parisina). The first and second Recensio Parisina have been published by Tziatzi-Papagianni (1994) 61–336. The two Parisian texts keep Sosiades and Demetrius separate, but other related Byzantine collections have conflated them (often adding material from Diogenes Laertius and elsewhere): see Tziatzi-Papagianni (1994) 4–5; 21–43; 53–60. The Recensio Laurentiana and the Recensio Aldina have been shown to be derived from the Recensio Parisina and can therefore be discarded: see Tziatzi-Papagianni (1994) 49–53; 116–25. 76 See also Althoff and Zeller (2006) 53–9. 77 The incipit of this collection reads τὰ ἐν Δελφοῖς ἀναγεγραμμένα πρὸς τὴν τῶν ἀνθρώπων εὐκοσμίαν “the inscriptions in Delphi engraved for the sake of human decency.” A transcription of the text is found in Tziatzi-Papagianni (1994) 447–8. 78 LDAB 6923 = TM 65670, ed. Oikonomides (1980) 181–3. See also Maltomini (2004) 19–21 and Althoff and Zeller (2006) 71–3. 79 The papyrus has been re-edited by Huys (1996), who identified the presence of the Delphic maxims. See also van Rossum-Steenbeek (1998) 135–6; 320–1, Maltomini (2004) 17–19, and Althoff and Zeller (2006) 73–5. 80 OMM inv. no. 779 (LDAB 5083 = TM 63869) and 1197 (LDAB 5080 = TM 63866), Pintaudi and Sijpesteijn (1989) 88–91. See also Maltomini (2004) 21–2 and Althoff and Zeller (2006) 75–6. 75

534

Clearchus of Soli

1020a). However, these testimonies deviate more from the other versions; the ostraca, for instance, list the maxims in alphabetical order. The five maxims of Ai Khanoum are also found in this order at the end of Sosiades’ collection and at the end of the list in the codex Rehdigeranus, which confirms that they closed the Delphic list. The stone with Clearchus’ inscription served as the base for a stele on which the maxims were written (probably in three columns). On account of the lack of space, the stonecutter wrote the last five maxims on the remaining space of the base.81 A small fragment from the bottom of this stele was found about 1 meter from the base. It preserves traces of three maxims belonging to the foot of col. 1 (I.Estremo Oriente 383 = 104). [̣ εὐ̣[λόγει πάντας] φιλόσοφ[ος γίνου]

? Speak well of everyone. Be a lover of wisdom.

The third maxim can be identified as the saying φιλόσοφος γίνου, found in Sosiades82 and in the codex Rehdigeranus no. 18 (φιλόσοφος ). The saying that precedes starts with epsilon, followed by a trace at line level. Robert suggested εὐ̣[λόγει πάντας] “speak well of everyone,” which is also the preceding maxim in Sosiades’ collection as quoted by Stobaeus.83 In Sosiades this is preceded by δόλον φοβοῦ “beware of deceit,” but the round trace in the inscription is incompatible with delta. According to Canali De Rossi, the correct saying may be the subsequent maxim in Sosiades/Stobaeus: ὅσια κρῖνε “make pious judgments.”84 Indeed, the order of the sayings varies slightly from one version to another. In fact, in (the model of)85 the codex Rehdigeranus, the saying δόλον φοβοῦ appears after φιλόσοφος . 81 See L. Robert (1968) 429–31. According to Bernard and Thiollier ap. Hoffmann (2016) 209–10, however, the five maxims were deliberately separated from the other sayings because of their importance. 82 Stob. 3.1.173 no. 48 p. 126 Hense (φιλόσοφος γίνου) and the second Recensio Parisina no. 20 (φιλός γίνου). 83 Stob. 3.1.173 no. 47 p. 126 Hense. It does not recur in the second Recensio Parisina. It should perhaps be supplemented in the codex Rehdigeranus, either as φιλόσοφος πάντ(ας) or as φιλόσοφος †πάντας (pro γίνου). See L. Robert (1968) 430. 84 See Canali De Rossi (2004) 225. 85 The model of the codex Rehdigeranus had one pair of maxims per line, but the

Seven Sages

535

Merkelbach and Stauber, and De Rossi, used Sosiades’ collection in Stobaeus to reconstruct the lost maxims of the stele in Ai Khanoum.86 However, the other versions of the Delphic maxims should also be used, since several maxims are absent in one or more versions. A comparison of these versions indicates that the Delphic maxims were pairs of sayings: e.g., ἕπου θεῷ and νόμῳ πείθου; θεοὺς σέβου and γονεῖς αἰδοῦ; γαμεῖν μέλλε and καιρὸν γνῶθι. Variants in the individual maxims are frequently found. For the maxims preserved in the inscription from Ai Khanoum, the texts in Sosiades (as quoted by Stobaeus) and the codex Rehdigeranus are as follows: Sosiades παῖς ὢν κόσμιος ἴσθι ἡβῶν ἐγκρατής μέσος δίκαιος πρεσβύτης εὔλογος τελευτῶν ἄλυπος

Codex Rehdigeranus παῖς ὢν κόσμιος γίνου ἡβῶν ἐγκρατής ἔσο μέσος δίκαιος πρεσβύτης εὔβουλος τελευτῶν ἄλυπος

The inscription of Ai Khanoum confirms the readings γίνου against ἴσθι in the first maxim and εὔβουλος against εὔλογος in the fourth. In the editio princeps, Robert identified the Clearchus mentioned in the epigram with the Peripatetic Clearchus.87 Lerner and Martinez-Sève rejected this identification on chronological grounds.88 However, the chronology of ancient Ai Khanoum is a vexed question, especially with respect to the earliest phase of the city. Archaeologists have used pottery to draw up a relative chronology for Ai Khanoum, distinguishing

scribe copied these erroneously as two columns. As a result, the pairs got split. Something similar happened in the second Recensio Parisina. See Führer (1997). 86 Merkelbach and Stauber (2005) 9–12 and Canali De Rossi (2004) 226. 87 The identification has been accepted by des Places (1969), Foray, Helly, Laronde et al. (1971) 184, Courcelle (1974) 11, Oikonomides (1980) 179–80 with n. 5; (1987) 67, Schmitt (1990) 56, Schneider (1994) 416, Tziatzi-Papagianni (1994) 6 n. 23, Wiesehöfer (1994) 160, Merkelbach and Stauber (2001) 7; (2005) 13–5, Bernard (2002) 75–8, Maltomini (2004) 4, Taïfakos (2007) xxv–xxvi; 377–9, and Hoffmann (2016) 205–27. See also Engels (2004) 870–1 and Guarducci (2005) 271. Dorandi (2006b) 50– 2 was initially more agnostic, but later considered the identification probable: Dorandi (2011) 11; (2014) 67–8 and Dorandi’s Introduction (in this volume) 11. See also the discussion between Hoffmann and Bernard, reported in Hoffmann (2016) 229–32. 88 Lerner (2003–4) 391–5; Martinez-Sève (2020) 357–60.

536

Clearchus of Soli

eight ceramic phases,89 but it remains difficult to assign absolute dates to this relative chronology.90 In the monument of Cineas, four stages can be distinguished. The shrine was rebuilt twice (at the second and third stage); at the fourth stage, it merely underwent minor restorations and was used as a house.91 The stone with the inscription was reused as a pedestal, with its inscribed face turned toward the wall in the pronaos.92 This suggests that the column supported by the base was already gone when the stone was reused (i.e., the inscription had lost its meaning). Since there is no radical change between stage III and IV, the inscription on the base and column must originally date to stage I or II, i.e., the oldest stages. Lerner attributed the inscription to the second stage of the shrine and connected this with the so-called fourth ceramic phase of Ai Khanoum (generally placed in the early second century BCE93). He argued that the Clearchus of the inscription came to Ai Khanoum shortly after the Far Eastern expedition by Antioch III (212–205 BCE). Such a dating would exclude the Peripatetic Clearchus.94 However, in the shrine of Cineas only pottery from the first ceramic phase was found (viz. in the first stage of the shrine);95 therefore, Lerner’s connection of the inscription with the fourth ceramic phase is questionable.96 Recently, Lyonnet and Martinez-Sève have dated the foundation of the city and the construction of the first buildings not to the time of

89

See Gardin (1985); (1990), Leriche (1986) 105–6, Lyonnet (1998) 141–3; (2012) 144–59, and Martinez-Sève (2020) 353–4. 90 See Leriche (1986) 79–81. 91 See Bernard, Le Berre, and Stucki (1973) and Lerner (2003–4) 383–90. 92 See Bernard, Le Berre, and Stucki (1973) 95–6. 93 See Lerner (2003–4) 380–3, Lyonnet (2012) 156–7, and Martinez-Sève (2013) 215–7; (2020) 354–7. 94 Lerner (2003–4). 95 See Lyonnet (2012) 147. 96 According to Yailenko (1990), the Delphic maxims found in Ai Khanoum inspired the edicts of the Indian emperor Ashoka, which propagated similar popular commandments instructing temperance and obedience. The first of these edicts dates to the tenth year of his reign (i.e., 259 BC), which would invalidate Lerner’s hypothesis. Bernard (2002) 77, however, rejected the Indian parallel as too generic. See also Hoffmann (2016) 214–16.

Seven Sages

537

Alexander the Great or Seleucus I (as many scholars had assumed before) but to the reign of Antioch I (281–261 BC).97 If these scholars are correct, the date of the inscription is moved further down into the third century BCE. According to Martinez-Sève, the new date under Antioch I excludes the identification of the Clearchus of the inscription with the Peripatetic. Since we have little biographical information on Clearchus, the precise dates of his life are uncertain. Because he is attested as one of Aristotle’s pupils98 and Aristotle taught in Athens from 335 to 322 BCE, Clearchus was probably born no later than 340 BCE.99 Wehrli derived a terminus post quem for his death from Clearchus’ Arcesilas (10–1).100 This work is usually assumed to have been named after the Academic Arcesilaus, who was born in 316 BCE, was a pupil of Theophrastus and was head of the Academy from 268 BCE (succeeding Crates) until his death in 241 BCE.101 If this identification is correct, Clearchus was still active in the first quarter of the third century BCE, since Arcesilaus must have been old enough or at the very least significant enough to 97 Lyonnet (2012) 157–9; Martinez-Sève (2013) 214; (2020) 357–60. According to Lyonnet (2012) 147, the pottery of the first ceramic phase found in the shrine can be associated with that of the second and third ceramic phase attested in the oldest levels of the so-called “Temple with indented niches.” These oldest levels have been dated to the time of Antioch I on the basis of numismatic evidence: see Martinez-Sève (2010) 201. Martinez-Sève considers the oldest stage of the shrine of Cineas and that of the Temple with indented niches more or less contemporary. 98 See 6A (Κλέαρχος γὰρ ὁ Ἀριστοτέλους ὢν μαθητὴς... φησὶν Ἀριστοτέλην τὸν διδάσκαλον αὐτοῦ); 8A (ὁ μαθητὴς Ἀριστοτέλους Κλέαρχος); 37 (Κλέαρχος δ᾿ ὁ Σολεύς, εἷς δ᾿ οὗτος τῶν Ἀριστοτέλους ἐστὶ μαθητῶν); 68 (Κλέαρχος ὁ Σολεὺς οὐδενὸς ὢν δεύτερος τῶν τοῦ σοφοῦ Ἀριστοτέλους μαθητῶν); 92A (Κλέαρχος Ἀριστοτέλους μαθητής); 92B (παρὰ Κλεάρχῳ τῷ Ἀριστοτέλους μαθητῇ); 112 (ὁ Σολεὺς Κλέαρχος, εἷς τῶν Ἀριστοτέλους μαθητῶν); 116 (Ἀριστοτέλους τοῦ παλαιοῦ γεγονὼς συνήθης). 99 See Weber (1880) 8–9, Wehrli (1969) 45, Wehrli, Wöhrle and Zhmud (2004) 583, Tsitsiridis (2013) 4, and Fortenbaugh (in this volume) 440 n. 19. According to Moraux (1950), however, Clearchus never attended the lectures in Athens but was only a pupil of Aristotle, when the latter stayed in Assos or Mitylene (i.e., ca. 347–343 BCE), i.e., Clearchus was only influenced by the “young” Aristotle. Therefore, Moraux dated Clearchus’ birth no later than 380–370 BCE. So also Taïfakos (2007) xxviii–xxxv. In order to uphold this early date, Moraux rejected the existence of the Arcesilas, but this is unnecessary. See also Engels (2004) 870; 874. 100 Wehrli (1969) 46. 101 So Müller (1848) 317, Kroll (1921) 581, Wehrli (1969) 45; 49, Tsitsiridis (2013) 88–94, Ruta (2020) 124, White ad 10, Fortenbaugh (in this volume) 439–40, and Mayhew (in this volume) 604–6.

538

Clearchus of Soli

give his name to Clearchus’ work. This would mean that Clearchus was old when he died (probably 80 years or older). However, it is possible that the Arcesilas is not named after the philosopher Arcesilaus at all.102 Regardless of this, the archaeological evidence remains insufficient to rule out an earlier date for the inscription.103 Moreover, the presence of several pre-Seleucid coins and coins issued under Seleucus I104 in Ai Khanoum indicates that the city likely had an earlier settlement (either under Alexander or under Seleucus I).105 Another controversial element adduced by Narain against an early date of the inscription is a brick used to seal the sarcophagus in the shrine (which belongs to its first stage). This brick shows a stamp with a Greek monogram and supposedly the Brāhmī letter jha.106 Since the Brāhmī script is first attested under the Indian emperor Ashoka, Narain argued that the brick must be dated between ca. 250 and 165 BCE. However, the relevance of this brick and the identification of the symbol as a Brāhmī letter have now been refuted.107 102 See Weber (1880) 9; Robert (1968) 446 n. 4; Taïfakos (2007) xlviii; 369. Verraert (1828) 108 n. 1 was agnostic. The two extant fragments of the Arcesilas (10–1) discuss a certain boardgame. Tsitsiridis (2013) 91–2 suggested that the title might alternatively refer to a famous player of this game named Arcesilaus, attested in a fourth-century BCE inscription from Epidaurus (IG IV2 1.159). The inscription is found on a stone table that appears to be a copy of the game and names Arcesilaus and Lysander as its dedicators (Ἀρκεσίλαος | Λύσανδρος | ἀνεθέταν). Tsitsiridis ultimately rejected this alternative explanation in favor of the identification with Arcesilaus of Pitane, but Schorn (2017) 326 considered the identification with the homonymous player more likely. 103 According to the chronological scheme developed by the archaeologists, the pottery found in the shrine of Cineas predates that of the temple (although the time between ceramic phase I and II–III may be small). Therefore, it remains possible that the shrine and the inscription are slightly older than the temple. However, Lyonnet and MartinezSève now consider ceramic phases I and II–III contemporary: see n. 97. 104 See Bernard (1985) 19–41. 105 According to Lyonnet (2012) 158–9, the earlier settlement was a military garrison. See also Martinez-Sève (2020) 359–60. 106 The Greek monogram is found on Seleucid coins, issued under Antioch I, Seleucus II (who ruled from 246 to 226 BCE), and Diodotus I (king of the independent Graeco-Bactrian kingdom from 246 to 234 BCE): see Narain (1986a); (1986b); (1987a) 278–80; (1987b). Other Indian elements are bilingual coins of Agathocles and the references to receipts of Kārshāpaṇas from Taxila on the ostraca from the treasury of Ai Khanoum: see Narain (1986a) 800. 107 See Falk (1993) 334, Martinez-Sève ap. Rougemont (2012) 205 n. 721, and Bernard in Rougemont (2012) 208–9. Falk considers it an eta, whereas Bernard associates it with an Aramaic letter.

Seven Sages

539

In fact, the paleography of the inscription, especially that of the epigram, suggests a date in the late fourth century BCE.108 As Robert observed, the hand of the epigram (which is different from that of the maxims) imitates the book hand of literary papyri.109 Especially the fourbarred sigma (Σ instead of the lunate sigma ϲ) points to an early date: in papyri, this feature disappeared in the early third century BCE.110 Robert adduced the following arguments in favor of identifying the Clearchus of Ai Khanoum with the Peripatetic: (1) the inscription reflects Clearchus’ interest in the Seven Sages and in sayings, also manifested in his works On Sayings and On Lives; (2) an oriental journey matches Clearchus’ interest in barbarians (Persians, Indians, Jews), seen in On Sleep (6A–B) and On Education (12);111 (3) the popular wisdom of the Delphic maxims befits Clearchus as a moralist, who also gave instructions about the right way of life in his work On Lives; (4) the epigram displays Clearchus’ literary knowledge, in particular of epigrammatic poetry (see Parrhasius’ epigram in 40–1 from On Lives) and his pedagogic mission (see his work On Education); (5) the epigram echoes Plato, who was the subject of two works by Clearchus: an Encomium of Plato (2–3) and On Mathematical Expressions in Plato’s Republic (4–5).112 The Sages and Delphi are also combined in Clearchus’ comment on the maxim γνῶθι σαυτόν in 101A–D (the Delphic maxim was given to 108

For the paleography of the maxims, see Rougemont (2012) 202 n. 698. L. Robert (1968) 424. See also Bernard (2002) 78 and Rougemont (2012) 206–7. 110 See Cavallo and Maehler (2008) 8. Another archaic feature is the bridge-shaped omega (Ω instead of ω), which disappears around the mid-third century BCE. 111 According to Stein (1931), Jaeger (1938) 140–2, Schuhl (1955) 126, and Wehrli (1969) 45, Clearchus derived the association between the Indian Brahmins and the Jews (in 6A) from Megasthenes’ Indica. L. Robert (1968) 450–4, by contrast, assumed that Clearchus continued his journey from Bactria to India, where he met the Brahmins in person (along with Megasthenes). If Lyonnet and Martinez Sève’s new dating of the foundation of the city to the reign of Antioch I is correct, however, Clearchus cannot have met Megasthenes, who was sent out as a diplomat to India by Seleucus I between 302 and 291 BCE. According to Tsitsiridis (2010) 297 n. 19; (2013) 59, Clearchus did not rely on Megasthenes, since he did not use the names found in Megasthenes (Βραχμᾶνοι and Συρμᾶνοι) but instead calls the Gymnosophists Καλανοί (after the Indian sage Calanus). 112 L. Robert (1968) 443–9. His arguments were reiterated by Merkelbach and Stauber (2005) 13–14. See also Foray, Helly, Laronde et al. (1971) 184–5, Rougemont (2012) 203, and Tsitsiridis (2013) 7. 109

540

Clearchus of Soli

the Sage Chilon through the Pythia). A link with Delphi is further seen in three paroemiographical fragments. In 68, Clearchus explains the cultic exclamation ἰὴ παιών. When Leto came to Delphi with her children, Apollo and Artemis, she happened upon the Pytho snake in a cave. Since Apollo was carrying a bow, she encouraged him to shoot the monster (ἵε, παῖ). 113 According to Clearchus, the stone on which Leto jumped to evade the snake is still found at Delphi: it lies at the foot of a bronze statue of Leto near the plane tree. This detail implies that Clearchus went to Delphi, where he saw the statue and the stone. 79A deals with the saying οὗτος ἄλλος Ἡρακλῆς “this is another Heracles.” According to Clearchus, “Heracles, who is also called Briareos”114 robbed the sanctuary in Delphi;115 when later the Tyrian Heracles came to consult the oracle, the god interrupted him proclaiming that “this is another Heracles.”116 In 83 Clearchus explains the proverb κοινὰ τὰ τῶν φίλων “the possessions of friends are shared.” When the Chalcideans sent gifts to Apollo and Artemis in Delphi, the Delphians asked the oracle

113

A similar explanation is found in Duris FGrHist 76 F 79 = EM s.v. ἱήϊε p. 469 Kallierges and Call. Ap. 96–104. 114 Βριάρεω in τὸν Βριάρεω (...) καλούμενον Ἡρακλέα should probably be interpreted as an accusative rather than as a genitive (the nominative is Βριάρεως, declined like λαγώς), since a Heracles, son of Briareos is not attested anywhere else. So also Wehrli (1969) 70 and Ruta (2020) 114 with n. 18. Clearchus probably identified Heracles (son of Alcmene?) with Briareos, because the pillars of Heracles (Ἡράκλειοι στῆλαι) were also called the pillars of Briareos (Βριάρεω στῆλαι): see 79B and Arist. F 678 Rose3 = F 790 Gigon = Ael. VH 5.3; Parth. F 34 Lightfoot = schol. D.P. 456 Müller; schol. D.P. 64 Müller (citing Euphorion) ~ Eust. in D.P. 64; schol. Pi. N. 3.40 Drachmann; Hsch. β 1133 Latte. Contra White ad 79A. 115 This seems to refer to the myth of Heracles stealing the tripod from the oracle of Delphi: see Cic. Nat. D. 3.42; Plu. De E apud Delphos 6.387d; De def. or. 7.413a; De sera 12.557d; 17.560d; Paus. 3.21.8; 8.37.1; 10.13.7–8; [Apollod.] 2.6.2 (2.130); Hyg. Fab. 32; Serv. Dan. Aen. 8.299; Historia Alexandri Magni recensio α 1.45.2; schol. Pi. O. 9.43; 44a; 48 Drachmann; schol. Tricl. Pi. O. 9.48 Abel. The problem is that Briareos-Aegaeon was one of the Hecatoncheires, who helped Zeus in the war against the Titans, so that identifying him with Heracles, son of Alcmene, is quite odd. It is possible that Clearchus merged or confused the Gigantomachy (in which Heracles, son of Alcmene, helped the Olympian gods) and the Titanomachy (in which Briareos helped Zeus) and thus considered them one and the same person. Alternatively, it is possible that Clearchus considered the thief Heracles-Briareos different from Heracles, son of Alcmene. 116 See also Paus. 10.13.8.

Seven Sages

541

whether they should dedicate the gifts to the gods equally; the god replied with that proverb. It is unclear whether the connection with Delphi in those three fragments was invented by Clearchus or already existed before him, and how seriously we should take these explanations.117 The link with Delphi is extremely contrived in any case. The pseudo-etymological explanation of ἰὴ παιών sounds ludicrous. “Another Heracles” is not interpreted as a metaphor (someone as strong as Heracles) but supposedly refers to an actual second Heracles.118 Clearchus’ explanation of κοινὰ τὰ τῶν φίλων does not even work, since Apollo and Artemis are brother and sister, not φίλοι.119 Robert was right to recognize in Clearchus’ epigram an echo to a passage in Plato on the dedication of the maxims by the Seven Sages (Prt. 343a–b): Plato too calls the maxims ῥήματα and considers them a manifestation of archaic philosophy (τῶν παλαιῶν). Robert also connected Clearchus’ epigram with [Pl.] Hipparch. 228e, where Hipparchus’ maxims (τὰ Ἱππάρχου ῥήματα... σοφὰ) are compared to the Delphic ones (τὰ ἐν Δελφοῖς γράμματα τὰ σοφὰ ταῦτα).120 An additional argument in favor of identifying the Clearchus of Ai Khanoum with the Peripatetic is a papyrus found in the treasury of the palace during the excavations of 1976–77 (therefore not yet known to Robert).121 The text is an unknown philosophical dialogue that treats the

117 On this aspect of Clearchus’ research on sayings, see Zucker (in this volume) 505–9. 118 The explanation in Arist. EE 7.12.12.1245a and [Arist.] MM 2.15.5.1212b is also far-fetched: the saying supposedly refers to one’s alter ego, i.e., a friend. A metaphorical sense lies behind Plu. Thes. 29.3 (where the saying refers to Theseus’ exploits) and Ael. VH 12.22 (where the saying originally referred to a cowherd named Titormus, whose strength was tested by Milo of Croton). 119 Incidentally, Timaeus (FGrHist 566 F 13a = schol. Pl. Phdr. 279c, 151 Cufalo; F 13b = D.L. 8.10) attributed this proverb to Pythagoras (not the Delphic oracle). See also Iamb. VP 32; 92; D.L. 10.11. 120 L. Robert (1968) 422–3. On Clearchus’ relation to Plato, see also Schorlemmer (in this volume) and Verde (in this volume) 341–2. 121 See Tziatzi-Papagianni (1994) 6 n. 23, Wiesehöfer (1994) 160, Dorandi (2006b) 51–2; (2014) 67, and Tsitsiridis (2013) 7.

542

Clearchus of Soli

Platonic theory of Forms,122 perhaps written by Aristotle.123 Thus, it attests the interest of the local intelligentsia in Platonic and/or Aristotelian philosophy. Cavallo dated the papyrus to the middle of the third century BCE on paleographical grounds.124 In conclusion, the chronological arguments against the identification of the Clearchus of Ai Khanoum as the Peripatetic are not compelling. Even if the inscription dates to the time of Antioch I (instead of Alexander the Great or Seleucus I), Clearchus was probably still active at about that time. Moreover, the inscription attests Clearchus’ interest in Delphi and the Seven Sages, which he shared with several fellow students and contemporaries. Therefore, although the name Clearchus is frequently attested in the Greek world in the fourth and third centuries BCE,125 it is highly likely that “Clearchus” was Clearchus of Soli. He probably traveled to Bactria, where he had a copy of the Delphic maxims inscribed on a stele in the shrine of Cineas in imitation of the Delphic list. His journey to Ai Khanoum may have been connected with the expeditions of Alexander, Seleucus I or Antioch I. Other early Hellenistic literary men who joined such expeditions or went on diplomatic missions are the Peripatetic Callisthenes and Megasthenes. Clearchus 122 The papyrus is now lost, but part of the text survives, since the ink got printed on decomposed unbaked bricks. The text has been edited by Rapin, Hadot, and Cavallo (1987) 232–49, Isnardi Parente (1992), Rapin (1992) 115–21; ap. Rougemont (2012) 238–40, Lerner (2003), Canali De Rossi (2004) 269–70, Auffret (2019), and Bonazzi (2019). See also La Croce (1989), Vendruscolo (1997), Bernard (2002) 81, and http://claude.rapin.free.fr/3Textes_Akhpapyrus1.htm. 123 Hadot in Rapin, Hadot, and Cavallo (1987) 248, Berti (1988) 39, and Auffret (2019) suggested Aristotle’s On Philosophy, whereas Isnardi Parente (1992) 181–2 proposed Aristotle’s Sophist. See also Hoffmann (2016) 184–205. Privitera (2011) 131–2 was more skeptical and also tentatively suggested Heraclides Ponticus’ work On Forms (Περὶ εἰδῶν), of which no fragment has otherwise survived. 124 Cavallo in Rapin, Hadot, and Cavallo (1987) 236–7. See also Crisci (1996) 165. The contrast between broad and narrow letters is found in third-century BCE papyri: see Cavallo and Maehler (2008) 9; 39; 44. A remarkably archaic feature is the square epsilon, which alternates with a more rounded form. Other archaic letter shapes are the kappa with a long upright and small obliques and theta with a middle dot instead of a middle stroke. On the other hand, the hand shows phi with rounded ovals, the lunate sigma, and omega with a double curve (as opposed to the angular phi, the sigma in four strokes, and the omega with a middle arc, found in late fourth- and early third-century BCE papyri). 125 See Fraser and Matthews (1987–2018) I, II, IIIA, IIIB, IV, VA, VB, VC s.v. Κλέαρχος and Trismegistos (People) under Κλέαρχος.

Seven Sages

543

may have been recruited by one of those monarchs to contribute to the foundation of the Hellenistic city.126 The list of maxims and the epigram confirming its authority (it is a faithful copy of that in Delphi) probably have a political meaning too: the inscription is found in one of the oldest buildings of the city and is meant to establish Greek culture in nonGreek territory. At the same time, it reflects Delphic propaganda, also seen in other fragments of Clearchus. 6. Conclusion The few extant fragments show that Clearchus shared the Peripatetic interest in the Seven Sages. Like many of his colleagues, he discussed their sayings (101A–D) and the story of the prize of wisdom (81), the latter perhaps in a digression on Pittacus (see 82). Despite objections by modern archaeologists, the Clearchus mentioned in the inscription of Ai Khanoum (102–4) is probably the Peripatetic Clearchus. The inscription further attests Clearchus’ interest in the lore of the Seven Sages and their connection with Delphi, also propagated by Plato and several other early Peripatetics. Works Cited Althoff, J. and D. Zeller. 2006. Die Worte der Sieben Weisen. Herausgegeben, übersetzt und kommentiert. Mit Beiträgen von M. Asper, D. Zeller und L. Spahlinger (Texte zur Forschung 89) (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft). Auffret, T. 2019. “Un « nouveau » fragment du Περὶ φιλοσοφίας : le papyrus d’Aï Khanoum” Elenchos 40: 25–66. Balty, J. 1970. “Une nouvelle mosaïque du IVe s. dans l’édifice dit ‘au Triclinos’ à Apamée” AArchSyr 20: 81–92. Baratte, F. 1992. “Vaisselle d’argent, souvenirs littéraires et manières de table: l’exemple des cuillers de Lampsaque” CArch 40: 5–20. 126 See Merkelbach and Stauber (2005) 14–15. According to Tsitsiridis (2013) 8, Clearchus may have been invited to Ai Khanoum by his compatriot Stasanor of Soli, who had been appointed satrap of Bactria in 316 BCE. This theory presupposes that Clearchus came from Soli on Cyprus (not Soli in Cilicia). On this issue, see Taïfakos (2007) xxvi–xxviii and Tsitsiridis (2013) 1–3.

544

Clearchus of Soli

Barkowski, O. 1923. “Sieben Weisen” RE 2 A 2: 2242–64. Bernard, P. 1973. “Résumé chronologique” in Fouilles d’Aï Khanoum, vol. 1.1: Campagnes 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968. Texte et figures (Mémoires de la Délégation archéologique française en Afghanistan 21), ed. P. Bernard (Paris: Klincksieck), 104–11. ––– 1985. Fouilles d’Aï Khanoum, vol. 4: Les monnaies hors trésors. Questions d’histoire gréco-bactriane (Mémoires de la Délégation archéologique française en Afghanistan 28), ed. P. Bernard (Paris: de Boccard). ––– 2002. “Langue et épigraphie grecques dans l’Asie Centrale à l’époque hellénistique” in Greek Archaeology without Frontiers (Open Science Lecture Series) (Athens: National Hellenic Research Foundation), 75–108. Bernard, P., M. Le Berre and R. Stucki. 1973. “Architecture. Le téménos de Kinéas” in Fouilles d’Aï Khanoum, vol. 1.1: Campagnes 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968. Texte et figures (Mémoires de la Délégation archéologique française en Afghanistan 21), ed. P. Bernard (Paris: Klincksieck), 85–102. Berti, E. 1988. “Le nuove ricerche sui frammenti di Aristotele” Bollettino filosofico 22: 33–9. Bollansée, J. 1998a. “1005. Andron of Ephesos” in Felix Jacoby. Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker Continued. Part Four. Biography and Antiquarian Literature. Edited by G. Schepens. IVA: Biography. Fascicle 1. The Pre-Hellenistic Period, ed. J. Bollansée, J. Engels, G. Schepens and E. Theys (Leiden: Brill), 122–67. ––– 1998b. “1006. Eudoxos of Knidos” in Felix Jacoby. Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker Continued. Part Four. Biography and Antiquarian Literature. Edited by G. Schepens. IVA: Biography. Fascicle 1. The Pre-Hellenistic Period, ed. J. Bollansée, J. Engels, G. Schepens and E. Theys (Leiden: Brill), 168–81. ––– 1998c. “1007. Euthyphron, Son of Herakleides Pontikos” in Felix Jacoby. Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker Continued. Part Four. Biography and Antiquarian Literature. Edited by G. Schepens. IVA. Biography. Fascicle 1. The Pre-Hellenistic Period, ed. J. Bollansée, J. Engels, G. Schepens and E. Theys (Leiden: Brill), 183– 91. ––– 1999. Hermippos of Smyrna and His Biographical Writings. A Reappraisal (Studia Hellenistica 35) (Leuven: Peeters).

Seven Sages

545

Bonazzi, M. 2019. “2. P.Ai Khanum. Dialogo sulla μέθεξις” in Corpus dei papiri filosofici greci e latini (CPF). Testi e lessico nei papiri di cultura greca e latina, vol. 2.1*: Frammenti adespoti (Accademia Toscana di Scienze e Lettere “La Colombaria”) (Florence: Olschki), 3–13. Bowra, C.M. 19612. Greek Lyric Poetry. From Alcman to Simonides (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Brunco, G. 1884. “De dictis VII sapientium a Demetrio Phalereo collectis” in Acta seminarii philologici Erlangensis, ed. I. Mueller and A. Luchs (Erlangen: Deichert), 299–397. Busine, A. 2002. Les Sept Sages de la Grèce antique. Transmission et utilisation d’un patrimoine légendaire d’Hérodote à Plutarque avec une postface de B. Decharneux (Culture et cité 1) (Paris: de Boccard). Canali De Rossi, F. 2004. Iscrizioni dell’estremo oriente greco. Un repertorio (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 65) (Bonn: Habelt). Cavallo, G. and H. Maehler. 2008. Hellenistic Bookhands (Berlin: de Gruyter). Courcelle, P. 1974. Connais-toi toi-même de Socrate à Saint Bernard, vol. 1 (Études augustiniennes. Série Antiquité 58) (Paris: Études Augustiniennes). Crisci, E. 1996. Scrivere greco fuori d’Egitto. Ricerche sui manoscritti greco-orientali di origine non egiziana dal IV secolo a.C. all’VIII d.C. Premessa di G. Cavallo (Papyrologica Florentina 27) (Florence: Gonnelli). des Places, É. Review of Wehrli (1969) AC 38: 554. Dognini, C. 2000. “Daimaco di Platea! Chi era costui?” Aevum 74: 95– 104. Dorandi, T. 2006a. “Il Περὶ παροιμιῶν di Clearco di Soli. Contributi a una raccolta dei frammenti” Eikasmos 17: 157–70. ––– 2006b. “Le traité Sur le sommeil de Cléarque de Soles. Catalepsie et immortalité de l’âme” ExClass 10: 31–52. ––– 2011. “Prolegomeni a una nuova raccolta dei frammenti di Clearco di Soli” GFA 14: 1–15. ––– 2014. “Un’ opera di Clearco di Soli sui Sette Sapienti? Rileggendo il PSI IX 1093” ZPE 190: 62–8. Dührsen, H.C. 1994. “Die Briefe der sieben Weisen bei Diogenes Laertios. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Rekonstruktion eines verlorenen griechischen Briefromans” in Der griechische Briefroman.

546

Clearchus of Soli

Gattungstypologie und Textanalyse (Classica Monacensia 8), ed. N. Holzberg (Tübingen: Narr), 84–115. Engels, J. 2004. “Klearchos von Soloi über Juden und Judentum – Eine Interpretation von Klearchos fr. 6 Wehrli III” in Orbis antiquus. Studia in honorem Ioannis Pisonis, ed. L. Ruscu, C. Ciongrandi, and R. Ardevan (Cluj-Napoca: Nereamia Napocae Press), 864–80. ––– 2010. Die sieben Weisen. Leben, Lehren und Legenden (Beck’sche Reihe 2485) (Munich: Beck). ––– 2011. “Daimachos (716)” in Brill’s New Jacoby, ed. I. Worthington (http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-newjacoby/daimachos-65-a65). Falk, H. 1993. Schrift im alten Indien (ScriptOralia 56) (Tübingen: Narr). Fehling, D. 1985. Die sieben Weisen und die frühgriechische Chronologie. Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Studie (Bern: Lang). Foray, R., B. Helly, A. Laronde et al. 1971. Nouveau choix d’inscriptions grecques. Textes, traductions, commentaires par l’Institut Fernand-Courby (Nouvelle collection de textes et documents) (Paris: Les Belles Lettres). Fortenbaugh, W.W. 2014. Theophrastus of Eresus. Commentary, vol. 9.2: Sources on Discoveries and Beginnings, Proverbs et al. (Texts 727–741). With Contributions on the Arabic Material by D. Gutas. (Philosophia Antiqua 136) (Leiden: Brill). Fraser, P.M. and E. Matthews. 1987–2018. A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, vol. 1: The Aegean Islands. Cyprus. Cyrenaica (1987); vol. 2: Attica, ed. M.J. Osborne and S.G. Byrne (1994); vol. 3A: The Peloponnese. Western Greece. Sicily and Magna Graecia (1997); vol. 3B: Central Greece from the Megarid to Thessaly (2000); vol. 4: Macedonia. Thrace. Northern Regions of the Black Sea (2005); vol. 5A: Coastal Asia Minor: Pontos to Ionia, ed. T. Corsten (2010); vol. 5B: Coastal Asia Minor: Caria to Cilicia, ed. J.-S. Balzat, R.W.V. Catling, É. Chiricat and F. Marchand (2014); vol. 5C: Inland Asia Minor, ed. J.-S. Balzat, R.W.V. Catling, É. Chiricat and T. Corsten (2018) (Oxford: University Press). Führer, R. 1997. “Zur handschriftlichen Anordnung der inschriftlichen 7-Weisen-Sprüche” ZPE 118: 153–61. Gardin, J.-C. 1985. “Les relations entre la Méditerranée et la Bactriane dans l’Antiquité, d’après des données céramologiques inédites” in De l’Indus aux Balkans. Recueil à la mémoire de Jean Deshayes, ed.

Seven Sages

547

J.-L. Huot, M. Yon and Y. Calvet (Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les civilisations), 447–60. ––– 1990. “La céramique hellénistique en Asie centrale. Problèmes d’interprétation” in Akten des XIII. Internationalen Kongresses für Klassische Archäologie. Berlin 1988 (Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern), 187–93. Guarducci, M. 2005. L’epigrafia greca dalle origini al tardo impero (Rome: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato). Hauser, S.R. 1992. Spätantike und frühbyzantinische Silberlöffel. Bermerkungen zur Produktion von Luxusgütern im 5. bis 7. Jahrhundert (Jahrbuch für antike und Christemtum Ergänzungsband 19) (Münster: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung). Hoffmann, P. 2016. “La philosophie grecque sur les bords de l’Oxus: un réexamen du papyrus d’Aï Khanoum” in Colloque. La Grèce dans les profondeurs de l’Asie. Actes (Cahiers de la Villa “Kérylos” 27), ed. J. Jouanna, V. Schiltz and M. Zink (Paris: de Boccard), 165–232. Huys, M. 1996. “P. Oxy. 61.4099. A Combination of Mythographic Lists with Sentences of the Seven Wise Men” ZPE 113: 205–12. Ionsius, I. 17162. De scriptoribus historiae philosophiae libri IV (Jena: Vidua Meyeriana). Isnardi Parente, M. 1992. “Il papiro filosofico di Aï Khanoum” in Studi su codici e papiri filosofici. Platone, Aristotele, Ierocle (Accademia Toscana di Scienze e Lettere “La Colombaria”. Studi 129) (Florence: Olschki), 169–88. Jacoby, F. 1926. Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (FGrHist). Zweiter Teil. Zeitgeschichte C. Kommentar zu Nr. 64–105 (Berlin: Weidmann). Jaeger, W. 1938. Diokles von Karystos. Die griechische Medizin und die Schule des Aristoteles (Berlin: de Gruyter). Kansteiner, S. and L. Lehmann. 2014. “Bathykles (Βαθυκλῆς) aus Magnesia am Mäander” in Der Neue Overbeck. Die antiken Schriftquellen zu den bildenden Künsten der Griechen, vol. 1: Frühzeit, Archaik, Frühklassik. Bildhauer und Maler von den Anfängen bis zum 5. Jh. v.Chr. DNNO 1–179, ed. S. Kansteiner, L. Lehmann and K. Hallof (Berlin: De Gruyter), 218–24. Keller, O. 1867. “Ueber die Quellen des Plutarch in der Lebensbeschreibung des Solon” in Programm der Realschul und des Progymnasiums, sowie der Vereinigten Städtischen Schulen zu Saalfeld (Saalfeld: Wiedemannsche Hofbuchdruckerei), 1–24.

548

Clearchus of Soli

Kroll, W. 1921. “Klearchos 11” RE 11.1: 580–3. La Croce, E. 1989. “El papiro de Aï Khanum” Méthexis 2: 69–72. Lasserre, F. 1966. Die Fragmente des Eudoxos von Knidos (Texte und Kommentare. Eine altertumswissenschaftliche Reihe 4) (Berlin: de Gruyter). Leriche, P. 1986. Fouilles d’Aï Khanoum, vol. 5: Les remparts et les monumets associés (Mémoires de la Délégation archéologique française en Afghanistan 29), ed. P. Bernard (Paris: de Boccard). Lerner, J.D. 2003. “The Aï Khanoum Philosophical Papyrus” ZPE 142: 45–51. ––– 2003–4. “Correcting the Early History of Āy Ḵānom” Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 35–6: 373–410. Lo Cascio, F. 1997. Il convito dei sette sapienti. Introduzione, testo critico, traduzione e commento (Corpus Plutarchi moralium 26) (Naples: D’Auria Editore). Lyonnet, B. 1998. “Les Grecs, les Nomades et l’indépendance de la Sogdiane, d’après l’occupation comparée d’Aï Khanoum et de Marakanda au cours des derniers siècles avant notre ère” Bulletin of the Asia Institute N.S. 12: 141–59. ––– 2012. “Questions on the Date of the Hellenstic Pottery from Central Asia (Ai Khanoum, Marakanda and Koktepe)” Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 18: 143–73. Maltomini, F. 2004. “Sulla trasmissione dei ‘Detti dei Sette Sapienti’” in Aspetti di letteratura gnomica nel mondo antico II (Accademia Toscana di Scienze e Lettere “La Colombaria”. Studi 225), ed. M. S. Funghi (Florence: Olschki), 1–24. Manfredini, M. and L. Piccirilli. 1977. Plutarco. La Vita di Solone (Scrittori greci e latini) (Florence: Mondadori). Martinez-Sève, L. 2010. “À propos du temple aux niches indentées d’Aï Khanoum. Quelques observations” in Paysage et religion en Grèce antique. Mélanges offerts à Madeleine Jost (Travaux de la Maison René-Ginouvès 10), ed. P. Carlier and C. Lerouge-Cohen (Paris: De Boccard), 195–207. ––– 2013. “Conclusion. Considérations architecturales et historiques” in Fouilles d’Aï Khanoum IX. L’Habitat (Mémoires de la Délégation archéologique française en Afghanistan 34), ed. G. Lecuyot (Paris: de Boccard), 209–20.

Seven Sages

549

––– 2020. “Recherches récentes sur la Bactriane et la Sogdiane à l’époque hellénistique” in New Perspectives in Seleucid History, Archaeology and Numismatics. Studies in Honor of Getzel M. Cohen (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 355), ed. R. Oetjen and F.X. Ryan (Berlin: de Gruyter), 348–74. Merkelbach, R. and J. Stauber. 2001. Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten, vol. 3: Der “Ferne Osten” und das Landesinnere bis zum Tauros (Munich: Saur). ––– 2005. Jenseits des Euphrat. Griechische Inschriften. Zusammengestellt, übersetzt und erklärt. Ein epigraphisches Lesebuch (Munich: Saur). Montanari, F. 1989. “32. Clearchus. 1T. De proverbiis” in Corpus dei papiri filosofici greci e latini (CPF). Testi e lessico nei papiri di cultura greca e latina. Parte I. Autori noti, vol. 1* (Accademia Toscana di Scienze e Lettere “La Colombaria”) (Florence: Olschki): 433–4. Moraux, P. 1950. “Cléarque de Soles, disciple d’Aristote” LEC 28: 22– 6. Müller, K. 1848. Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, vol. 2 (Paris: Didot). Müller, W. 2001. “Bathykles” in Künstlerlexikon der Antike, ed. R. Vollkommer, vol. 1 (Munich: Saur): 114–15. Narain, A.K. 1986a. “The Earliest Brāhmī Inscription Outside India” JAOS 106: 797–801. ––– 1986b. “The Greek Monogram and Ai-Khanum. The Bactrian Greek City” Numismatic Digest 10: 4–15. ––– 1987a. “Notes on Some Inscriptions from Aï Khanum (Afghanistan)” ZPE 69: 277–82. ––– 1987b. “On the Foundation and Chronology of Ai-Khanum. A Greek-Bactrian City” in India and the Ancient World. History, Trade and Culture Before A.D. 650 (Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta 25), ed. G. Pollet (Leuven: Departement Oriëntalistiek), 115–30. Oikonomides, A.N. 1980. “The Lost Delphic Inscription with the Commandments of the Seven and P. Univ. Athen 2782” ZPE 37: 179–83. ––– 1987. “Records of the ‘Commandments of Seven Wise Men’ in the 3rd c. B.C. The Revered ‘Greek Reading-Book’ of the Hellenistic World” CB 63: 67–76. Page, D. 19592. Sappho and Alcaeus. An Introduction to the Study of Ancient Lesbian Poetry (Oxford: Clarendon Press).

550

Clearchus of Soli

Paladini, M.L. 1956. “Influenza della tradizione dei Sette Savi sulla ‘Vita di Solone’ di Plutarco” REG 69: 377–411. Parke, H.W. and D.E.W. Wormell. 1956. The Delphic oracle, vol. 1: The History (Oxford: Blackwell). Pintaudi, R. and P.J. Sijpesteijn. 1989. “Ostraka di contenuto scolastico provenienti da Narmuthis” ZPE 76: 85–92. Pordomingo Pardo, F. 1991. “Las citas de ‘Carmina popularia’ en Plutarco” in Strutture formali dei “Moralia” di Plutarco. Atti del III Convegno plutarcheo. Palermo, 3–5 maggio 1989, ed. G. D’Ippolito and I. Gallo (Naples: D’Auria Editore), 213–24. Prinz, R. 1867. De Solonis Plutarchei fontibus (Bonn: Karl Georg). Privitera, I. 2011. “Aristotle and the Papyri: The Direct Tradition” Quaestio 11: 115–40. Rapin, C. 1992. Fouilles d’Aï Khanoum, vol. 8: La trésorerie du palais hellénistique d’Aï Khanoum. L’apogée et la chute du royaume grec de Bactriane. Plans de J.-Cl. Liger et G. Lecuyot (Mémoires de la Délégation archéologique française en Afghanistan 33), ed. P. Bernard (Paris: de Boccard). Rapin, C., P. Hadot and G. Cavallo. 1987. “Les textes littéraires grecs de la Trésorerie d’Aï Khanoum” BCH 111: 225–66. Robert, C. 1897. “Bathykles 2” RE 3.1: 124–37. Robert, L. 1968. “De Delphes à l’Oxus. Inscriptions grecques nouvelles de la Bactriane” CRAI 112: 416–57. Repr. 1973. “Les inscriptions” in Fouilles d’Aï Khanoum, vol. 1: Campagnes 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968. Texte et figures (Mémoires de la Délégation archéologique française en Afghanistan 21), ed. P. Bernard (Paris: Klincksieck): 207–37. Repr. in Robert, L. 1989. Opera minora selecta. Épigraphie et antiquités grecques, vol. 5 (Amsterdam: Hakkert), 510–51. Rougemont, G. 2012. Inscriptions grecques d’Iran et d’Asie centrale. Avec des contributions de P. Bernard (Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum 2.1.1) (London: School of Oriental and African Studies). Ruta, A. 2020. “Mitologia e filosofia morale nel Περὶ παροιμιῶν e nel Περὶ βίων di Clearco di Soli” Eikasmos 31: 111–33. Schmitt, R. 1990. “Ex occidente lux. Griechen und griechische Sprache im hellenistischen Fernen Osten” in Beiträge zur hellenistischen Literatur und ihrer Rezeption in Rom (Palingenesia. Monographien und Texte zur klassischen Altertumswissenschaft 28), ed. P. Steinmetz (Stuttgart: Steiner), 41–58.

Seven Sages

551

Schneider, J.-P. 1994. “Cléarque de Soles” in Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, ed. R. Goulet, vol. 2 (Paris: CNRS éditions): 415– 20. Schorn, S. 2004. Satyros aus Kallatis. Sammlung der Fragmente mit Kommentar (Basel: Schwabe). ––– 2017. Review of Tsitsiridis (2013) AC 86: 324–7. Schuhl, P.-M. 1955. “Sur un fragment de Cléarque . Les premiers rapports entre savants grecs et juifs” RHR 147: 124–6. Snell, B. 1938. Leben und Meinungen der Sieben Weisen. Griechische und lateinische Quellen aus 2000 Jahren mit der deutschen Übertragung (Tusculum-Bücherei) (Munich: Heimeran). ––– 1954. “Zur Geschichte vom Gastmahl der sieben Weisen” in Thesaurismata. Festschrift für Ida Kapp, ed. O. Hiltbrunner, H. Kornhardt and F. Tietze (Munich: Beck): 105–11. Repr. in Snell, B. 1966. Gesammelte Schriften (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht): 115–18. Stein, O. 1931. “Klearchos von Soloi” Philologus 86: 258–9. Taïfakos, I. 2007. Ἀρχαία Κυπριακὴ γραμματεία 6. Φιλοσοφία. Κλέαρχος, Περσαῖος, Δημῶναξ καὶ ἄλλοι Κύπριοι φιλοσόφοι (Lefkosia: Leventis). Tortzen, C.G. 2002. “Know Thyself. A Note on the Success of a Delphic Saying” in Noctes Atticae. 34 Articles on Graeco-Roman Antiquity and its Nachleben. Studies Presented to Jørgen Mejer on his Sixtieth Birthday March 18, 2002, ed. B. Amden, P. Flensted-Jensen, T.H. Nielsen et al. (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum), 302–14. Tsitsiridis, S. 2010. “Die Schrift Über den Schlaf des Klearchos von Soloi” RhM 153: 291–322. ––– 2013. Beiträge zu den Fragmenten des Klearchos von Soloi (Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 107) (Berlin: de Gruyter). Tziatzi-Papagianni, M. 1994. Die Sprüche der Sieben Weisen. Zwei byzantinische Sammlungen. Einleitung, Text, Testimonien und Kommentar (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 51) (Stuttgart: Teubner). Van Rossum-Steenbeek, M. 1998. Greek Readers’ Digests? Studies on a Selection of Subliterary Papyri (Mnemosyne Supplements 75) (Leiden: Brill).

552

Clearchus of Soli

Vendruscolo, F. 1997. “Note testuali al papiro di Ai-Khanum” in Papiri filosofici. Miscellanea di Studi, vol. 1 (Accademie Toscana di Scienze e Lettere “La Colombaria”. Studi 163) (Florence: Olschki), 145–51. Verhasselt, G. 2018. Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker Continued IV B: History of Literature, Music, Art and Culture. Fascicle 9: Dikaiarchos of Messene [No. 1400] (Leiden: Brill). Verraert, J.B. 1828. Diatribe de Clearcho Solensi (Ghent: M.A. Mahne). Vitelli, G. 1929a. “1093. Frammento di letteratura gnomologica” in Papiri greci e latini (Pubblicazioni della Società italiana), vol. 9 (Florence: Stabilimento Tipografico E. Ariani), 153–7. Vitelli, G. 1929b. “Frammenti di una monografia di letteratura gnomica” BSAA 24: 4–8. von Blumenthal, A. 1940. “Beobachtungen zu Griechischen Texten II” Hermes 75: 124–8. von Wilamowitz-Möllendorff, U. 1890. “Zu Plutarchs Gastmahl der Sieben Weisen” Hermes 25: 196–227. Wehrli, F. 1931. Λάθε βιώσας. Studien zur ältesten Ethik bei den Griechen (Leipzig: Teubner). ––– 19692. Die Schule des Aristoteles. Texte und Kommentar, vol. 3: Klearchos (Basel: Schwabe). Wehrli, F., G. Wöhrle and L. Zhmud. 20042. “Klearchos aus Soloi” in Die Philosophie der Antike, vol. 3: Ältere Akademie. Aristoteles. Peripatos (Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie), ed. H. Flashar (Basel: Schwabe), 583–7. Wiersma, W. 1933–4. “The Seven Sages and the Prize of Wisdom” Mnemosyne ser. 3, 1: 150–4. Wiesehöfer, J. 1994. Das antike Persien. Von 550 v. Chr. bis 650 n. Chr. (Zürich: Artemis & Winkler). Wilkins, E.G. 1917. “Know Thyself” in Greek and Latin Literature (Chicago: University Press). ––– 1929. The Delphic Maxims in Literature (Chicago: University Press). Yailenko, V.-P. 1990. “Les maximes delphiques d’Aï Khanoum et la formation de la doctrine du Dhamma d’Asoka” DHA 16.1: 239–56.

9 Clearchus and Peripatetic Research on Aquatic Animals1 Oliver Hellmann

1. Introduction Aristotle’s reputation as the founder of biology and its most important representative in antiquity rests not least of all on his research on sea life. Research conditions were favorable in this field and fishermen had a lot to tell about aquatic creatures. Aristotle and his Peripatetic collaborators gathered masses of information for their biological research which was primarily interested in aetiological explanation. Theophrastus shared Aristotle’s interests. We have several fragments from his biological works dealing with aquatic animals and one treatise seems to be transmitted as a whole. It is entitled On Fish in our manuscripts, but according to its content the appropriate title appears to be On Creatures that Remain on Dry Land.2 Place names show that 1 I thank B. Herzhoff (Trier), G. Wöhrle (Trier) and A. Zucker (Nice) for helpful comments and suggestions, and H. Enders (Heidelberg) for the correction of an earlier version of the text. Some parts of this paper were also presented at the Freie Universität Berlin on November 5, 2015. 2 See Thphr. 350.8, 363–364 FHS&G and Sharples (1992) and (1995), 44–45 and 84–89.

553

554

Clearchus of Soli

Aristotle did a lot of his biological research on Lesbos and at the coasts of Asia Minor,3 and we have every reason to assume that he cooperated intensively with Theophrastus in this field, even though there might have been individual interests.4 In the following, I will argue that Clearchus was part of the Peripatetic biological project, too. An analysis of the existing fragments shows that his research on aquatic animals is in line with Peripatetic customs. I have consciously chosen the term Peripatetic here—instead of Aristotelian—since the fragments give us the impression that Clearchus’ research has more in common with Theophrastus than with Aristotle. My remarks also intend to challenge Wehrli’s thesis of the paradoxographical nature of Clearchus’ biological writings.5 2. Sources Our main source for Clearchus’ writings on sea animals is Athenaeus. Four of the five main texts come from his Sophists at Dinner (106A, 107, 109, 110) only one short passage (108) was found in Aelianus. Another little fragment from Hesychius’ lexicographical work (106B)6 confirms Clearchus’ study of the Adonis fish as documented by Athenaeus in 106A. In conclusion, our picture of Clearchus as a biologist rest essentially on Athenaeus. Without his information, our biologist would almost disappear. This situation is aggravated by the fact that the biological nature of text 108 from Aelianus is dubious. We do not know for sure, if this information was part of a zoological work. Aelianus reports that Clearchus said that in the Peloponnese only the people of Argos do not kill snakes. Now there is mention of a snake, but Aelianus’ whole chapter 12.31 is dealing with people of different regions and their individual behavior towards animals. Focus in Aelianus is on human behavior, not 3

See Lee (1948) and (1985) and Kullmann (2014) 78–112. See Kullmann (2014) 78–122 for Aristotle’s expeditions and his cooperation with Theophrastus. 5 Wehrli (1969a) 81: “K. behandelte die einzelnen Tiere monographisch, besonders ausführlich und mit stark paradoxographischem Einschlag die Lebensweise.” Cf. Wehrli (1969b) 103–104, Althoff (1999), 158, Wehrli †, Wöhrle, Zhmud (2004) 586– 587 and Tsitsiridis (2013), 10. 6 Hesychius α 1229 Latte, added by Ioannes Taifacos. Clearchus F72b Taifacos = 106B. 4

Clearchus on Aquatic Animals

555

on animals.7 But Wehrli had his arguments for his attribution. As he explains in his short note on fr. 103 W (= 108), there is a thematic link to fr. 102 W (= 107), since we have evidence that snakes in Argos were not killed due to their holiness, and the same holds true for the polyp and the κωπηλάτης of fr. 102 W (= 107).8 This is indeed a fine observation, but we do not know where the information in the first part of 107 comes from. By writing “says the same Clearchus” at the beginning, Athenaeus indicates only the author. Clearchus is mentioned again at the very end, and in this case a title is given: “in On Animals in Water.”9 This could be an indication that we are dealing with two different sources.10 If this were so, the zoological context of the first part of 107 about the prohibition of killing a polyp and Kopelates remains uncertain.11 And, as a consequence, Wehrli’s argument for the zological nature of fr. 103 W ( = 108) is weak. The text could also derive from a non-zoological script.12 3. Titles Three titles are given in the texts: (1) Περὶ τῶν ἐνύδρων (106A)—On Aquatic Animals (2) Περὶ τῶν ἐν τῷ ὑγρῷ (107)—On Animals in Water (3) Περὶ νάρκης (110)—On the Torpedo Fish The main question here is: How many works by Clearchus do these titles refer to? Answers range from one to three. First, there is a discussion about the identity of title 1 and 2. Wehrli, Kroll and others see (2) as an alternative title for (1), and this implies that there is actually only 7

Though one has to admit that in the opening sentence of 12.31 Aelianus directs his attention to the animals involved: Καὶ ταῦτα μὲν ὑπὲρ ζῴων εἰπεῖν οὐκ ἔστιν ἀπὸ μούσης. But this seems to be caused by the general theme of his work. 8 Wehrli (1969a) 82. 9 Translations of the source texts for Clearchus are those of Stephen White (in this volume). 10 Taifacos (2008) 66–68 seems to suppose 3 different sources, since he edits Athenaeus 7.103 31B–D as F 74a, F 74b and F 75. Cf. Dorandi (2011) 9 with n. 54, who gives a very useful analysis of the existing collections. 11 Müller (1848) attributed this text (as nr. 47) to Περὶ παροιμιῶν. 12 Taifacos (2008) 110 (F 133) classifies this text under the heading “Varia”.

556

Clearchus of Soli

one work here. 13 In this case, the original title seems to be Περὶ τῶν ἐνύδρων rather than Περὶ τῶν ἐν ὑγρῷ,14 since the term ἔνυδρα is often used in biological contexts, especially in Peripatetic texts. With τὰ πεζά and τὰ πτηνά it forms a threefold system of the animal kingdom in zoological contexts.15 And Aristotle himself sometimes uses τὰ ἐν τῷ ὑγρῷ as a synonym for τὰ ἔνυδρα, as in Generation of Animals 3.11, in respect to every form of life in the sea.16 The content of our fragments (106A, 107 and 109) dealing with fish and cuttlefish agrees well with the title On Aquatic Animals.17 A contrary view was presented by Ioannes Taifacos. He postulates the existence of two different works: Περὶ τῶν ἐνύδρων in his eyes dealt with fishes, while περὶ τῶν ἐν τῷ ὑγρῶ dealt with other aquatic creatures.18 This view seems to be supported by the different species treated in our fragments, although one might ask why the title of the work postulated to be dealing with fish is Περὶ τῶν ἐνύδρων and not simply Περὶ ἰχθύων, as in the case of Theophrastus.19 One has to bear in mind how Athenaeus is citing Peripatetic texts here. William Fortenbaugh has demonstrated convincingly that Athenaeus is using alternative titles for the same works of Theophrastus and quite likely also of Phaenias. For example, he refers to Theophrastus’ Research on Plants with three different titles: Περὶ φυτῶν (Ath. 2 70D) Φυτικά (Ath. 2 54F) and Περὶ φυτῶν ἱστορία (Ath. 1 31E).20 This makes it very likely that the titles given for Clearchus, Περὶ τῶν ἐνύδρων and Περὶ τῶν ἐν τῷ ὑγρῷ refer 13 Cf. Weber (1880) 45; Wehrli (1969a) 37–38 assigning fr. 101–104 to περὶ τῶν ἐνύδρων; Kroll (1921) 581 and Wehrli †, Wöhrle, Zhmud (2004) 583 and 586. 14 Note the use of ἐπιγραφομένῳ in 106A that could point to the actual title. (I owe this point to Florian Feicht, Heidelberg). 15 For ἔνυδρα and its usage see Zucker (2005) 157–159. 16 Cf. GA 3.11, 761a30–33 with Zucker (2005) 157 with note 263. 17 A comment on Wehrli’s commentary is necessary here. On Clearchus’ title Περὶ τῶν ἐνύδρων Wehrli (1969a) 81 comments: “Für den Titel cf. Aristoteles Περὶ ἰχθύων (Περὶ τῶν ἐνύδρων) fr. 294ff. R.”. But the fragments from Aristotle’s lost writings never cite the title Περὶ τῶν ἐνύδρων. It is the conjecture of Rose based on Clearchus’ title, due to the fact that some fragments of Aristotle deal with μαλάκια. Cf. Rose (1863) 281; (1886) 216 and 227. 18 See Taifacos (2008) xlvii with n. 255 and 329. Cf. Verraert (1828) 7 and 78–79; Müller (1884) 318–319 and 325 who sees 107 = 102 W = 47 Müller as part of Clearchus’ work Περὶ παροιμιῶν. 19 Cf. Sharples (1992). 20 See Fortenbaugh (2015) 115–116 with n. 45.

Clearchus on Aquatic Animals

557

to the same work, too. Since we are given no book-numbers and have only a very small number of texts, we can only speculate on the scope of this work. Its rather generic title could be a sign for a larger text in several books. But we have no positive information on this. The situation is different in the case of title (3), Περὶ νάρκης. Most commentators agree that this work is a kind of monograph On the Torpedo Fish.21 The extraordinary ability of this species seems to have motivated Clearchus to study it in detail. If this general assumption is right, as I believe, the extent of this work could not be too large,22 although one has to take into account Athenaeus’ words here, who says explicitly that Clearchus’ explanation was quite detailed.23 Some time ago Maximilian Weber put forward the hypothesis that Περὶ νάρκης was the title of οne book of the larger opus Περὶ τῶν ἐνύδρων.24 If this were true, we would only have one great work on aquatic animals by Clearchus. But as far as I can see, he found no followers with his idea. Weber reconstructed two further possible titles of individual books from our fragments: “περὶ πολύποδος”25 and “de adonide vel exocoito.”26 But this is pure speculation. We have no evidence that the species treated in our texts as the πολύπους or the ἐξώκοιτος were topics of entire books. And apart from that, it is rather unlikely that Clearchus should devote a whole book to each species he talked about, as Weber’s thesis seems to imply. 4. Subjects and Fields of Research Regarding species, we can see that all species treated by Clearchus were examined in the Peripatos already before him. The ἐξώκοιτος (106A), literally “outsleeper” with its habit to stay on land is treated in

21

See Wehrli (1969a) 83; Kroll (1921) 582; Pédech (1992) 387; Taifacos (2008)

330. 22

Cf. Taifacos (2008) 330: “αὐτοτελὲς μικρὸ ἔργο” and the German translation of Athenaeus 7 314 C by Friedrich (1999) 70: “Klearchos aus Soloi hat den Grund in seinem Aufsatz «Über den Zitterrochen» erläutert.” (Italics: O.H.). 23 Athenaeus 7 314 C: ... ἅπερ μακρότερα ὄντα ἐπιλέλησμαι ... 24 Weber (1880) 45–46. 25 Weber (1880) 46. Cf. 107. 26 Weber (1880) 46. Cf. 106A.

558

Clearchus of Soli

detail in Theophrastus’ On Fish 1. Aristotle does not mention him. His identification will be discussed below.27 The πολύπους, the common octopus (Octopus vulgaris Cuvier, 1797) (107) is mentioned often in Aristotle’s biological works. Clearchus’ account how easy it is to catch has close parallels to a passage from History of Animals 9.37.28 Just like Clearchus, Aristotle talks about the animal’s visits to dry land.29 Theophrastus discusses this issue in his On Fish as well.30 But we have no further information on the other cuttle fish added by Clearchus, the κωπηλάτης, literally “the rower”. Wehrli assumed it to be the “nautilos” of Aristotle.31 However, due to the lack of information a definite identification is impossible.32 Finally the sea turtle (θαλαττία χελώνη) appears in 107. It is almost superfluous to note here that this species may be found in Aristotle.33 The same may be said about the Torpedo Fish (110). As in the other cases noted above, Aristotle’s description of the animal’s way of catching pray, based on eyewitness reports, is part of the same chapter 9.37 of History of Animals cited above.34 Theophrastus commented on this fish in two of his zoological works: On (Ceatures) that Retreat into Holes and On (Creatures) that Bite and Sting, a fact we know from a passage from Athenaeus 7.95 314B–C (= Theophrastus 369 FHS&G), that precedes our information about Clearchus’ work on the Torpedo Fish. The information for Theophrastus is limited here, but, regarding the title On

27

See below p. 561. HA 9.37, 622a3–4 and 14–21. 29 HA 9.37, 622a31–33. 30 On Fish 4. Cf. 365B FHS&G. 31 See Wehrli (1969a) 82 referring to Arist. HA 622b5ff. Aristotle’s description of the ναύτιλος refers to Argonauta argo L., 1758, see Scharfenberg (2001), 159–171. 32 Cf. below 566. 33 Cf. Bonitz (1955) 849b55–850a8. Θαλαττία χελώνη is the ancient Greek name for several modern species: The loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta L., 1758), the green sea turtle Chelonia mydas L., 1758), the leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea Vandelli, 1761) and the hawsbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata L., 1766), see Kitchell (2014), 186–188 and Epstein (2019) 529. 34 HA 9.37, 620b10–14 and 19–23; Cf. Arist. fr. 324 R3. Gr. νάρκη denotes modern Torpedo marmorata Russo, 1810 and other Torpedinidae, see Thompson (1947), 169– 171 and Fajen (1999), 358. 28

Clearchus on Aquatic Animals

559

(Creatures) that Bite and Sting, we may assume that Theophrastus had more to say about it.35 109 gives us no names of species. But the underlying question about fishes that create sounds is extensively treated by Aristotle.36 To sum up: As far as we can see, Clearchus’ fields of research were the same as those of Aristotle and Theophrastus. In Athenaeus, Clearchus’ comments on aquatic animals are presented side by side with other Peripatetic information. In his eyes, we may conclude, Clearchus was “one of them,” and it seems that he was right. 5. Methods and Arrangement of Data This thesis finds support by an analysis of methods and the arrangement of data in our texts. I will start with 110 On the Torpedo Fish. We are dealing with a special kind of reference here, since Athenaeus uses a kind of praeteritio. After paraphrasing Theophrastus’ statement that the Torpedo Fish sends his current even through wood and tripods, that is metals, Athenaeus (7 314 C) adds: εἴρηκε δὲ τὴν αἰτίαν Κλέαρχος ὁ Σολεὺς ἐν τῷ Περὶ νάρκης, ἅπερ μακρότερα ὄντα ἐπιλέλησμαι, ὑμᾶς δὲ ἐπὶ τὸ σύγγραμμα ἀναπέμπω. Clearchus of Soloi gives the explanation in On the Torpedo Fish, which I have forgotten because it is so long, so I refer you to his book. (text: Dorandi, tr.: White)

We would have wished to read Clearchus’ explanation here, since it could have told us a lot about the character of his biological research. But even so, we can trace some interesting points from Athenaeus. The key-term here is αἰτία. One immediately thinks of Aristotle’s aetiological writings. If Clearchus did anything like what we find in Parts of Animals or Generation of Animals, this would be quite remarkable, since the Peripatetics after Aristotle and Theophrastus seem not to have focused their research on this field.37 Generally speaking, there are a lot of questions to be asked about the material or final causes of the electric 35

The Torpedo Fish is mentioned by a great number of ancient writers starting with Plato. A collection of references can be found in Sharples (1995) 100 n. 303. 36 Cf. HA 4.9, 535b14–536a4 and fr. 300,1–3 and 301 R3. 37 Cf. Lennox (1994).

560

Clearchus of Soli

shocks of rays. And Athenaeus tells us explicitly that Clearchus’ explanation was “long”. However, the other ichthyological fragments do not indicate specifically aetiological research, but this may be explained by a different scientific approach in the two works On the Torpedo Fish and On Aquatic Animals. In text 36, that comes from Clearchus’ On Panic but deals with birds, there is a detailed aetiological explanation and even the term αἰτία is used. After all this, can we trust Athenaeus’ statement about Περὶ νάρκης? Ioannes Taifacos suggested that Athenaeus “did not hold the book in his hands” but simply “saw the title in his sources”.38 If this were so – and possibly it is – the source value of Athenaeus would be limited. But Athenaeus encourages his readers to check his statements. Was it actually possible for them to do so? We do not know. But Athenaeus quotes copiously from On Aquatic Animals (see below on 106A). And we have to keep an eye on another point here. Athenaeus’ primary focus may not have been Clearchus’ work. As Benoît Louyest argued, Athenaeus had other goals and produced a situation that is quite comic. Showing on other occasions that he is very well capable of giving long quotations from Clearchus “Athénée feint une paralysie de l’esprit imputable à la torpille dont il est justement question. De façon ironique, la performativité des mots l’emporte sur la volonté des personnages.”39 What might be the consequences for what we know about Περὶ νάρκης? Athenaeus may have had literary goals, but they do not impugn the impression of a technical treatise On the Torpedo Fish that is difficult to cite from memory. And Athenaeus’ joke doubtlessly is more effective, if he speaks about an existing work. Text 106A is our best witness for content and method in On Aquatic Animals. Athenaeus quotes a long description of the ἐξώκοιτος verbatim that is generally praised for its accuracy. D’Arcy Thompson, to give just one example, speaks of a “remarkable description.”40 I quote it in full: ὁ ἐξώκοιτος ἰχθύς, ὃν ἔνιοι καλοῦσιν ἄδωνιν, τοὔνομα μὲν εἴληφε διὰ τὸ πολλάκις τὰς ἀναπαύσεις ἔξω τοῦ ὑγροῦ ποιεῖσθαι. ἐστὶ δὲ ὑπόπυρρος καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν βραγχίων ἑκατέρωθεν τοῦ σώματος μέχρι τῆς κέρκου μίαν ἔχει διηνεκῆ 38

Taifacos (2008) 330: “Τὸ πιθανότερο ὄμως εἶναι ὄτι ὁ Ἀθήναιος δὲν εἶχε στὰ χέρια του τὸ σύγγραμμα, εἶδε τὸν τίτλο στὶς πηγές του ...”. (Translations O.H.) 39 See Louyest (2009) 301–302, citation 302. 40 Thompson (1947) 64. Cf. Kroll (1921) 581, Taifacos (2008) 328.

Clearchus on Aquatic Animals

561

λευκὴν ῥάβδον. ἐστὶ δὲ στρογγύλος ἀλλ᾿ οὐ πλατὺς ὢν κατὰ τὸ μέγεθος ἴσος ἐστὶ τοῖς παραιγιαλίταις κεστρινίσκοις. οὗτοι δ᾿ εἰσὶν ὀκταδάκτυλοι μάλιστα τὸ μῆκος. τὸ δὲ σύνολον ὁμοιότατός ἐστι τῷ καλουμένῳ τράγῳ ἰχθυδίῳ πλὴν τοῦ ὑπὸ τὸν στόμαχον μέλανος, ὃ καλοῦσι τοῦ τράγου πώγωνα. The outsleeper fish, which some call adônis, got its name because it often takes its rest out of the water. It is reddish, with a single continuous white stripe on both sides of its body from the gills to the tail. It is round but not wide, equal in size to the little grey mullets that swim by the shore, which are eight fingers long at most. Overall it is most like the little fish called the goat, except for the dark patch under its throat, which people call the goat’s beard. (text: Dorandi, tr.: White)

The description of the outside appearance is accurate indeed. Color, shape and size are well described. In addition, a comparison helps the reader to visualize the text. Starting from this description, one may think that the identification of the species should be easy for modern ichthyologists. But this is not the case.41 The key problem here is to get Clearchus’ description of the external appearance in line with the fact that the species is amphibious. Starting from this last piece of information the species has been identified with a kind of goby or blenny. In view of Clearchus’ description, Mair suggested an identification with “Montague’s Blenny (B. Montagui)” (Blennius montagui Valenciennes, 1836 = Blennius galerita L., 1758). His suggestion has been adopted by Fajen.42 But Thompson objected to Mair that the identification “does not tally with the old descriptions.” And after citing Clearchus he added: “This description points to no recognizable fish but suggests vaguely some brightly coloured foreign species.”43 Since I am no zoologist, I am not the one to decide this case. But there are certainly some problems with Mair’s identification. The guide to the fauna and flora of the Mediterranean edited by the eminent biologist Rupert Riedl describes the size and external appearance of Blennius galerita L. as follows: “Bis 7 cm. Allgemein dunkeloliv oder graubraun, Querstreifen und Flecken

41 There is a full discussion of all problems concerning the identification of the ἐξώκοιτος in Sharples (1992) 368–370. See also Thompson (1947) 63–64. 42 Mair (1963) 220–221 n. b followed by Fajen (1999) 333–334 s.v. ἄδωνις. Cf. Strömberg (1943) 58. 43 Thompson (1947) 63 and 64.

562

Clearchus of Soli

unregelmäßig, Reihen von weißsilbrigen Punkten an den Seiten.”44 This hardly fits exactly what we read in Clearchus. But I would like to emphasize another point: What we are dealing with here is a problem of modern identification. It seems obvious that in his times, Clearchus knew well what he was talking about. His description is certainly not an invention. Ioannes Taifacos thought it to be based on autopsy.45 In that case, we would have a fine document of Clearchus’ careful observational skills in research. But the possibility cannot be ruled out that Clearchus adopted material from other Peripatetic sources. In either case Clearchus intended to give a detailed description of the species. And the reception of good information is an accepted method in ancient scientific research. In its general character Clearchus’ description is not in the mode of the mass of descriptions in Aristotle’s biology. Aristotle is primarily interested in the relationship of form and function in animal parts. For that reason, his investigations are focused on animal groups and bodyparts in regard to their functional design. In most cases, he is not focused on color or external appearance.46 But it has to be recognized here that if one intends to distinguish and classify only a limited number of the masses of fish in the Mediterranean, he must certainly take into account the external appearance. The short passage from the modern biological work of Riedl cited above is a good proof of this. We have several descriptions of fishes in the fragments of Aristotle that show remarkable similarities to the present case. Friederike Berger has drawn our attention to these.47 In most cases, these fragments come from Athenaeus and are attributed to Aristotle’s περὶ ζωικῶν or περὶ ζωικῶν ἢ ἰχθύων.48 Berger gives as examples Athenaeus 7 286 F = fr. 297 R3, 7 327 F = fr. 296 R3 and 7 313 D = fr. 298 R3. To give an impression I will cite the last passage, Athenaeus 7 313 D:

44

Riedl (1983) 707. Taifacos (2008) 328: “προφανῶς ἀπὸ αὐτοπρόσωπη παρατήρηση ... ”. 46 On a basic level of data collection, the situation might have been different, as Mayhew (2020), 136–137 argues. And his assumption that the Zoika were a collection of that kind is most likely. Cf. also Liatsi (2000) 51–56 for theoretical questions in regard to hair color and eye color in Aristotle. 47 See Berger (2005) 25–26. 48 On the fragments in Athenaeus 7 see now Mayhew (2020). 45

Clearchus on Aquatic Animals

563

Ἀριστοτέλης δ᾿ ἐν τῷ Περὶ Ζωικῶν γράφει οὕτως· ὀρροπυγόστικτοι δὲ τῶν ἰχθύων μελάνουρος καὶ σαργὸς πολύγραμμοί τε καὶ μελανόγραμμοι. Aristotle in his On Living Creatures writes as follows: Among the fish, the melanouros and the sargue have spotted tails and numerous black strips. (text / tr.: Olson 2008a)

Immediately it leaps to the eye that the general focus on outside appearance is quite similar to that in Clearchus’ 106A. And as typical characteristics color and stripes are mentioned, too. Berger has given only three examples, but more passages could be added here: Aristotle fr. 29449, 295, 299, 32850 R3 (all from Athenaeus).51 There is a terminological link to Clearchus here, because in two cases the author uses ῥάβδος or compound-adjectives from this term to describe the appearance of individual fish-species. I limit myself here to giving only one example, Ath. 7 319 C = fr. 295 R3: Ἀριστοτέλης ἐν τῷ περὶ Ζωικῶν ἀκανθοστεφῆ φησιν εἶναι καὶ ποικιλόχροα φυκίδα. τῶν δὲ γραμματοποικίλων πλαγίαις τε ταῖς ῥάβδοις κεχρημένων πέρκη. Aristotle in his On Living Creatures says that the phukis-wrasse has spines along its back and variegated coloring. The perch is one of the fish with stripes and lines that run sideways. (text / tr.: Olsen 2008a)

And further parallels to other fragments on fish can be detected. In some cases, there are etymologies of individual names as in Clearchus 106A,52 and in one case, similarities to other species are mentioned.53 There are three main possibilities to explain these similarities: (1) The fragments attributed to Aristotle come from a Peripatetic collection that included material from Clearchus. In this case, they could give us more information about Clearchus. 49

Roses’ title περὶ ζωικῶν is a conjecture, the MSS give περὶ ζῴων. In this case, ἐν πέμτῳ ζῴων μορίων is given as title. 51 Regarding color cf. Arist. fr. 307 (Rose: περὶ ζωικῶν; MSS: περὶ ζῴων), 310, 314 3 R (all from Athenaeus). 52 Arist. fr. 308, 322, 332 R3. 53 Ath. 7 300 E (= Arist. fr. 313 R3): Ἐρυθρῖνος. Ἀριστοτέλης ἐν τῷ Περὶ Ζῴων καὶ Σευσίππος παραπλήσιά φησιν εἶναι φάγρον, ἐρυθρῖνον, ἥπατον (ed. Olson 2008a). Rose made a full stop after Περὶ Ζῴων, but I think Olsons punctuation without stop is preferable. 50

564

Clearchus of Soli

(2) Clearchus used Peripatetic material for his works, and therefore his texts resemble fragments attributed to Aristotle. The extent of his own research cannot be determined in this case. But (3) a combination of both hypotheses cannot be ruled out. Clearchus may have adopted Peripatetic material and added his own. Let us return to text 106A, and this time focus will be on the arrangement of data. Modifying John Richmond’s analysis, 106A can be structured as follows: 1) name(s) (with etymology) 2) external appearance a) color b) size (with comparison) 3) habitat 4) behavior Richmond analyzed the transmission of the ichthyological data in detail, especially in view of Plutarch, Aelianus and Oppianus. In an appendix at the end of his work, he shows that the arrangement in Clearchus’ 106A parallels Oppianus’ description of the Adonis fish 1.155sq.54 And the same pattern appears in the descriptions of three further fishes in Oppianus and Aelianus: βοῦς, ἐχενηίς, ἡγεμών.55 “It is hard to avoid the conclusion,” says Richmond, “that it is probable that the other accounts set out above owe something to Clearchus in their arrangement.”56 This is indeed probable, and we may guess that the influence is not limited to the arrangement but pertains to content as well. As in the cases noted above, we have only indications, no proof and especially no name. But even if only some material were to come directly from Clearchus, the scope of his Περὶ τῶν ἐνύδρων must have been considerable.

54

Richmond (1973) 73–74. His criteria are slightly different from the scheme presented above. For Clearchus (106A) he gives: “names – colour – size – comparison – habitat.” (74). Cf. White’s note on 106A in this volume. 55 Richmond (1973) 73 gives the following references: “Bos (Ael. 1.19; cf. Opp. 2.141sq.), Echeneis (Ael. 2.17; cf. Opp. 1.212sq.), ... Hegemon (Opp. 5.62sq.; cf. Ael. 2.13).” 56 Richmond (1973) 74.

Clearchus on Aquatic Animals

565

From the structure of 106A alone, we may assume that Clearchus’ work was organized by species.57 Text 107 about the Polypus supports this view. Only text 109 is concerned with a group of fish. But this short passage could well have been part of a larger work organized by species. Aristotle’s biological works, of course, are not organized in this way. But there are clear signs that the lost Zoika were.58 And the Epitome of Aristotle’s zoological writings by Aristophanes of Byzantium shows also this arrangement.59 An arrangement by species supports the view that the main focus of the treatise On Aquatic Animals was on description and not on aetiological research. Overall Clearchus seems to be in accordance with Peripatetic methods that might have been developed in Aristotle’s own times for collection of data60—since the Zoika seem to have been a kind of collection of data—and were adopted later by some Peripatetics for their biological works. 6. Terminology This picture of Clearchus as a Peripatetic zoologist whose work seems on the one hand to be based on Aristotle’s groundwork and on the other hand shows some new aspects is supported, when we take a closer look on terminology. First a caveat is necessary here, since the empirical basis of just a handful of text is (too) small for a general statement. But some interesting observations can be made even on this basis. Of special importance is 106A, since the text is marked in Athenaeus as a verbatim quotation.61 On the one hand, the description uses Aristotelian vocabulary, for example the adjective ὑπόπυρρος to denote the reddish color62 or the term ῥάβδος to denote the fish’s stripes.63 And to describe the habitat, Clearchus uses the adjective πετραῖος, used often 57

Cf. Wehrli (1969a) 81. See De Stefani (1904) 429–430. But I do not think De Stefani (433–434) is right to identify the Zoika with the Epitome of Aristophanes of Byzantium. 59 Edition Lambros (1885). Cf. Hellmann (2006) especially 335–336 for an analysis of the arrangement of data. 60 Cf. Düring (1966) 513 and Tsitsiridis (2013), 5 with n. 16. For a contrary view cf. Berger (2005) 26. 61 Athenaeus 8 332 C: ... κρατεῖν δ᾿ οἶμαι καὶ τῆς λέξεως οὕτως ἐχούσης· 62 Cf. Arist. HA 5.22, 554a25 and 9.14, 616a21. 63 Cf. Arist. HA 4.1, 525a12. 58

566

Clearchus of Soli

by Aristotle to denote rock-fish.64 On the other hand in this single fragment there are several words that are used neither by Aristotle nor by Theophrastus. First, Adonis, the alternative name for the Exokoitos. The parallel to Athenaeus found in Aelianus 9.36, that does not name Clearchus as a source,65 gives an Etymology for this name: Ἄδωνιν δ᾿ ἐθέλουσι λέγειν αὐτόν, ἐπεὶ καὶ γῆν καὶ θάλατταν ἔχει φίλην, τῶν πρώτων ἐμοὶ δοκεῖν θεμένων τὸ ὄνομα αἰνιξαμένων ἐς τὸν τοῦ Κινύρου παιδὸς βίον τὸν διῃρημένον δύο δαίμοσι, τῆς μὲν ὑπὸ γῆς, τῆς δὲ ἄνω γῆς ἐρώσης αὐτοῦ. People like to call it ʻAdonisʼ because it loves both land and sea, and those who first gave it this name were hinting (so I think) at the son of Cinyras whose life was divided between two goddesses;66 one who loved him was beneath the earth, the other above. (text / tr.: Scholfield 1959)

Max Wellmann and Fritz Wehrli argued that this etymology was part of Clearchus’ text.67 If they are right, Clearchus might have had a special interest in alternative names including their etymologies. But here we enter again the field of speculation. So, I will return to Clearchus’ terminology. Another phrase not found in Aristotle is Clearchus’ comparison of this fish with “the little grey mullets that swim by the shore”—τοῖς παραιγιαλίταις κεστρινίσκοις (106A). The diminutive of the κεστρεύς can be found only here (and as a conjecture in Theophrastus, On Fish 9),68 and the adjective παραιγιαλίτης occurs for the first time here. If we take a further look at the other fragments, the species named κωπηλάτης, vaguely identified with the Nautilos by Wehrli,69 is found only in Clearchus’ 107 and in Eustathius’ Commentary to the

64

See Zucker (2005) 178–181. A second parallel is Opp. 1.155–167. Cf. White’s note on 106A. 66 Aphrodite and Persephone. Cf. Scholfield 1959, 257 n. b. 67 Wellmann (1895) 164; Wehrli (1969a) 81–82. 68 Cf. Strömberg (1943) 47 who gives as a parallel “κεντρίσκος 171, 9 W” (= On Fish 9). See however the commentary in Sharples (1992) 379–380, who is sceptical about the transmitted name κεντρίσκος and adopts Schneiders conjecture κεστρινίσκος. 69 Wehrli (1969a) 82. 65

Clearchus on Aquatic Animals

567

Odyssey.70 And Eustathius’ text here quite obviously depends on Athenaeus.71 This is only a small list, but all these extraordinary expressions can be found in about one and a half pages of Wehrli’s edition. And for that reason, it seems quite clear that Clearchus was not afraid to break new ground in the field of terminology.72 It is interesting to see here that the fragments of the Zoika show similar traits. Any reader of these will immediately note the bulk of compound-adjectives to describe the external appearance of fish. I will give a number of examples with their translation from LSJ: δίρ(ρ)αβδος— “with two stripes,” ἐρυθρόγραμμος—“with red lines” (Aristotle fr. 294 R3), ἀκανθοστεφής—“prickle-backed,” γραμμοποίκιλος— “striped” (fr. 295 R3), ποικιλερυθρόμελας—“marked with red and black,” ποικιλόγραμμος—“striped” (fr. 296 R3), νωτόγραπτος—“having markings on the back,” σκολιόγραπτος—“marked with oblique lines” (fr. 297 R3), ὀρροπυγόστικτος—“having a spotted tail,” πολύγραμμος— “marked with many stripes,” μελανόγραμμος—“with black stripes” (fr. 298 R3), μελανόστικτος—“black-spotted,” ποικιλόστικτος “mottled/ dappled” (fr. 299 R3). All of these can be found in six short fragments. They are not used in the Corpus Aristotelicum or by Theophrastus, and many of them are hapax legomena. These are clear signs that there were efforts in the Peripatos—presumably after Aristotle and Theophrastus—to create new terminology for scientific descriptions. We do not know if Clearchus invented all these terms, but his texts indicate at least that he was part of this movement.73 The fragments of Aristotle show that new species were examined. In the six fragments cited above, two species appear that are not mentioned in the biological works of Aristotle: 1. The σεσερῖνος (which cannot be identified due to our sparse information) is mentioned in fr. 294 R3 only.74 2. The χοῖρος of fr. 300 R3, a catfish of the Nile, is probably

70

Eusthatius ad Od. 5. 432, 1541,26. Cf. Taifacos (2008) 330. 72 Cf. Tsitsiridis (2013) 12–14 for rare words in Clearchus. 73 Cf. Berger (2005) 26: “Es ist daher anzunehmen, daß das Fischbuch des Klearchos nach den aristotelischen Werken entstand und die in ihm gebrauchte Terminologie sich erst im Peripatos entwickelte.” 74 Cf. Thompson (1947) 231. 71

568

Clearchus of Soli

Synodontis schall, Bloch & Schneider 1801).75 A third fish is mentioned as ῥαφίς in fr. 294 R3. Thompson comments on this: “Aristotle is here speaking of the Pipefish (Syngnathus), which is toothless, as he does elsewhere under the name of βελόνη.”76 Maybe this name was used as a synonym in the way Clearchus presented the name Adonis for Exocoitos. All these phenomena suggest that the research on fish was continued after Aristotle, and that some of Aristotle’s followers did more than reproduce the knowledge and the results of the Stagirite. 7. Paradoxography? Finally, some remarks concerning the so-called paradoxographical traits in the zoological texts of Clearchus. At the end of his collection, in his great “Rückblick,” Wehrli presents a picture of Peripatetic zoological research that is dominated more and more by Mirabilia presented for entertainment. To support his view, he comments on several Peripatetic writers and their zoological work. Clearchus is characterized as follows: “Einem ausgesprochen paradoxographischen Thema, dem Zitterrochen, widmet Klearchos eine Monographie (Kl 105), und auch seine Schrift über Wassertiere (Kl 101–104) scheint vor allem das Auffällige und Wunderbare hervorgebehoben zu haben.” 77

First of all, we may say that the Torpedo Fish may well have been a topic for paradoxography, but the only fragment gives us absolutely no signs of that. On the contrary, the sparse information we have points to aetiological research, as argued above (section 5). Second, it seems necessary to set apart two things: (1) a narration with a surprising, astonishing or extraordinary content, and (2) paradoxography as a literary genre.78 In this genre, emerging in the third century B.C., paradoxographical stories are put together 75

See Thompson (1947) 291. Thompson (1947) 220. 77 Wehrli (1969b) 103–104, citation 104. 78 For a general characterization of paradoxography see Giannini (1964) and esp. Schepens / Delcroix (1996). Collection of texts in Giannini (1966). 76

Clearchus on Aquatic Animals

569

in collections with a strict “focus on ‘wonders’.”79 To create credibility, these collections usually name their sources or present witnesses.80 There is no scientific context here,81 as far as we can see, these texts were produced for “royal interest”82 and served as entertainment for a “popular audience.”83 Now the first phenomenon (1) may be found in a lot of different types of ancient texts including scientific writings. Wehrli himself pointed out that we can find in Aristotle’s History of Animals a lot of stories about extraordinary characteristics and habits of animals.84 And the same applies to Clearchus. But I would deny that Clearchus’ primary aim was entertainment. His works on sea life are not to be seen as a step in the direction of paradoxography and literature for entertainment addressed to a wider audience.85 To show this, we need to examine the passages with allegedly paradoxographical traits in the texts of Clearchus in their context. And we must keep in mind that our picture of Clearchus may be fundamentally determined by his receptors, in our case Athenaeus. The two main passages in this regard may be found in 106A and 107. In the second part of 106A (Athenaeus 332 D–E) we read: ἐστὶ δ᾿ ὁ ἐξώκοιτος τῶν πετραίων καὶ βιοτεύει περὶ τοὺς πετρώδεις τόπους καὶ ὅταν ᾖ γαλήνη, συνεξορούσας τῷ κύματι κεῖται ἐπὶ τῶν πετριδίων πολὺν χρόνον ἀναπαυόμενος ἐν τῷ ξηρῷ καὶ μεταστρέφει μὲν ἑαυτὸν πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον. ὅταν δ᾿ ἱκανῶς αὐτῷ τὰ πρὸς τὴν ἀνάπαυσιν ἔχῃ, προσκυλινδεῖται τῷ ὑγρῷ, μέχρι οὗ ἂν πάλιν ὑπολαβὸν αὐτὸν τὸ κῦμα κατενέγκῃ μετὰ τῆς ἀναρροίας εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν. ὅταν δ᾿ ἐγρηγορὼς ἐν τῷ ξηρῷ τύχῃ, φυλάττεται τῶν ὀρνίθων τοὺς παρευδιαστὰς καλουμένους, ὧν ἐστι κηρύλος, τρόχιλος καὶ ὁ τῇ κρεκὶ προσεμφερὴς ἑλωριός· οὗτοι γὰρ ἐν ταῖς εὐδίαις παρὰ τὸ ξηρὸν νεμόμενοι πολλάκις αὐτῷ

79

Schepens / Delcroix (1996), 381. See Schepens / Delcroix (1996) 382–389. 81 The stories are not part of scientific investigations, as though some collections might have been used as “reference books” for the authors themself and other “poets and writers” as in the case of Callimachus, see Schepens / Delcroix (1996), 403–404. 82 See Schepens / Delcroix (1996), 404–407. 83 See Schepens / Delcroix (1996), 407–408. 84 Wehrli (1969b) 103–104. 85 As an argument from silence, note that Clearchus – unlike other Peripatetics, like Aristotle and Theophrastus and Phaenias – was not a source for Callimachus’ collection of marvels. See the full list of sources in Schepens / Delcroix (1996), 383. 80

570

Clearchus of Soli περιπίπτουσιν, οὓς ὅταν προΐδηται φεύγει πηδῶν καὶ ἀσπαίρων, ἕως ἂν εἰς τὸ ὕδωρ ἀποκυβιστήσῃ. The outsleeper is a kind of rock fish and lives in rocky places, and when the water is calm, it jumps out with the waves and lies on the rocks, resting for a long time on dry land; it turns itself toward the sun, and then when it has had enough rest, it rolls over into the water until the waves catch it again and the eddies carry it back to the sea. When it is awake on land, it watches out for the so-called fairweather birds, including the kêrylos, the plover, and the kind of heron that is just like the krex; for since these birds frequent the shore in fair weather, they often go after it, so whenever it sees them first, it tries to get way, leaping and puffing until it tumbles back into the water. (text: Dorandi, tr.: White).

This passage starts with a description of the habitat. In this context the exōkoitos is an exceptional case. Since it is a fish, its habitat is—of course—water. But the exōkoitos stays on dry land too. In Aristotelian categories he is among the ἐπαμφοτερίζοντες, the intermediate species. Exactly this context is given in the treatment of the exōkoitos in Theophrastus’ On Fish 1.86 He even uses the verb ἐπαμφοτερίζειν.87 It is easy to see that such creatures are of special interest, for example in regard to classification.88 In other words, what we are dealing with here is a typical topic of Peripatetic research since the times of Aristotle. Now the main passage that might call to mind paradoxography is the description of the actual stay on land, the other features do not give such an impression. The fish’s movement in and out with the help of the waves as well as the cautious behavior on land, due to the threat of birds, fit very well into the scientific context. The last point could be called into question by a remark by Thompson. He argued that “all three birds” that threaten the fish on land “are legendary or poetic”.89 But this is actually not the case. The kērulos is probably to be identified with the Common Kingfisher (Alcedo atthis L., 1758),90 Tρόχιλος is the name for the Egyptian plover.91 The name was used also to denote other species. With regard to our text, Arnott referred to the “Sanderling

86

See Sharples (1992) 352 on Theophrastus. Thphr. On Fish 1: φαίνεται δ᾿ οὖν, εἴπερ δύναται δρᾶν, ἐπαμφοτερίζειν. 88 Cf. Kullmann (2007) 756 on PA 697 b1ff. 89 Thompson (1947) 64. 90 Cf. Arnott (2007) 93–94. 91 Olson (2008b) 11 adopted this identification for his translation of Athenaeus. 87

Clearchus on Aquatic Animals

571

(Calidris alba)”.92 The κρέξ is mentioned several times in the works of Aristotle. His identification is disputed, but Arnott has recently argued for an identification with “the Black-winged Stilt (Himantopus himantopus)”.93 All this shows clearly that Clearchus was speaking about real birds and no creatures from legend. But what about the actual stay on land? The text seems to draw a picture of a fish that relaxes in the sun like an exhausted human being. This is surely not the aim of fish spending time on land. Most species with such behavior go on land to get food. But if we take a look at Theophrastus’ On Fish, it is likely that in this case Clearchus depended on the report of others. For Theophrastus says: “... for they say that this every day makes its bed on the land ...”. In Theophrastus the foreign source is clearly marked by “they say” (φασιν).94 And the long stay in the sun seems to be emphasized by Clearchus not for its sensational value. From the ancient perspective it is an important point concerning the basic question about the fishes’ stay on land. According to the Peripatetic view, fish were thought to be cooled by taking in water. Now if there is no water, how should they cool down? 95 This problem is aggravated, of course, if there is enormous heat from the sun. That is, in my eyes, the key to understand Clearchus’ description here. The question how does cooling function in extreme conditions on land has to be answered. Clearchus probably talked about this point in a lost section of his work. We cannot prove this, but Theophrastus discusses exactly this point in his On Fish. His solution is quite simple. The Exokoitos has a double life, he takes in water and air “in order to preserve its life”.96 Acting so, he combines two ways of cooling. The cooling by air, that is usually practiced by land animals and the cooling by water used by fish.97 Having reviewed this passage, it seems reasonable to assume that Clearchus did not intend to give “paradoxographical” entertainment

92

Arnott (2007) 247. Arnott (2007) 120. 94 Thphr. On Fish 1: τοῦτον γάρ φασιν ὁσημέραι ποιεῖσθαι τὴν κοίτην ἐν τῇ γῇ ... (tr. Sharples). 95 See Sharples (1992), 352–354 for a discussion of the Peripatetic concepts of cooling in view of Theophrastus’ On Fish. 96 Thphr. On Fish 1: πρὸς τὴν τοῦ ζῆν διαμονήν (tr.: Sharples). 97 See Arist. Resp. 10, 475b15–476a2 and Sharples (1992), 353. 93

572

Clearchus of Soli

here, but rather studied an individual fish-species with extraordinary behavior in a scientific context. The second text with allegedly paradoxographical character comes from text 107. Clearchus is dealing here with cattle-fish. After discussing how easy they are to catch in specific situations, a fact that was described already in Aristotle’s History of Animals 9.37,98 he talks about the stay on land of the Polypous. So, the underlying phenomenon is the same as in 106A: aquatic creatures out of their habitat, precisely what Theophrastus examined in his On Creatures that Remain on Dry Land. The text runs as follows (Ath. 7 317 B–D = part of 107): ἑωράθησαν δέ ποτε καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ ξηρὸν ἐξιόντες, μάλιστα δὲ πρὸς τὰ τραχέα τῶν χωρίων, φεύγουσι γὰρ τὰ λεῖα. καὶ χαίρουσι δὲ τῶν φυτῶν {καὶ} ταῖς ἐλαίαις καὶ πολλάκις εὑρίσκονται ταῖς πλεκτάναις περιειληφότες τὸ στέλεχος. ἐφωράθησαν δὲ καὶ συκέαις προσπεφυκυίαις τῇ θαλάσσῃ προσπλεκόμενοι καὶ τῶν σύκων ἐσθίοντες, ὥς φησι Κλέαρχος ἐν τῷ Περὶ τῶν ἐν τῷ ὑγρῷ. ἐστὶ δὲ δεῖγμα τοῦ ἥδεσθαι αὐτοὺς τῇ ἐλαίᾳ καὶ τοῦτο. ἐάν τις κλάδον τοῦ φυτοῦ τούτου καθῇ εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν, καθ᾿ ἥν εἰσιν πολύποδες καὶ μικρὸν ἐπίσχῃ, ἀπονητὶ ἀνέλκει τῷ κλάδῳ περιπλεκομένους ὅσους ἐθέλει. They were sometimes seen coming out onto dry land, especially rough ground, since they avoid anything smooth. They also like olive trees and are often found clinging to the base of one with their tentacles. They were also observed wrapped around fig trees that grow by the sea and eating the figs, as Clearchus says in On Animals in Water. Something that shows they like the olive is this: if someone lowers an olive branch into the sea where there are octopi, and holds it there a little, then without any effort he catches as many as he wants wrapped around the branch.99 (text: Dorandi, tr.: White)

There are certainly fantastic details in this story. But we have no evidence that Clearchus was aiming for entertainment here. And not every phenomenon reported is fantasy. About 20 years ago, a German scholar, Laila Scharfenberg, wrote a dissertation on the cattle-fish in Aristotle and compared Aristotle’s information on this subject with the results of

98

Cf. above p. 558. For other stories about octopuses on land see Ael. NA 13.6 and Plin. Nat. 9.92. For an interpretation of the octopuses as “transgressors of the vulnerable boundary between wild nature and the urban” and related modern legends see Asplund Ingemark (2008), citation 145. I thank Arnaud Zucker for calling my attention to this article. 99

Clearchus on Aquatic Animals

573

modern biological research.100 Identifying the Polypous with Octopus vulgaris she confirms that this species goes out of water when pursuing a crab.101 She also points out that the Octopus vulgaris prefers to stay on rocks, rather than on silty and muddy ground.102 Of course, this preference relates to parts of the sea and not, as in Clearchus, to dry land. But in his report, Clearchus is simply following his predecessor Aristotle (HA 9.37, 622a32–33). So, what is left, is the fabulous story of the Octopus’ stay on fig-trees. This story has parallels in Aelianus 9.45 and in Oppianus’ Halieutica 4.264–307.103 Aelian’s story is even more fantastic than the one we find in Athenaeus, since in his story the animals are caught and punished by the farmers for eating the fruits. Wehrli presumed that this story might come from Clearchus,104 but we have no proof for this. Aelianus could have elaborated on an existing report here. Clearchus seems to have adopted uncritically a story from some fisherman or sailor. The story is introduced by the passive ἑωράθησαν, “they were sometimes seen” — we do not know who declared to have seen this, but it seems not have been Clearchus himself.105 A last remark on the following δεῖγμα that was introduced as an indication that the story is true. It is actually redundant to say that this is no evidence. Even though the indicative phenomenon is essentially right, as modern research shows. The Octopus holds on to baits firmly with its suckers, as described also by Aristotle.106 8. Résumé To give a short résumé. An analysis of the texts we have does not support the view that Clearchus was dealing with biological matters for “paradoxographical” entertainment. There are clear signs that he 100

Scharfenberg (2001). Scharfenberg (2001) 140: “Bei der Verfolgung einer Krabbe verlässt er sogar das Wasser, um das Tier auf dem Trockenen weiterzuverfolgen.” 102 Scharfenberg (2001) 139: “Er hält sich bevorzugt auf Felsen auf, weniger auf schlickigem oder schlammigem Grund.” 103 Cf. Sharples (1992) 372. 104 Wehrli (1969a) 82. 105 For modern Micronesian reports about octopuses that climb trees see Davis (2002) 74 with n. 32. I thank Arnaud Zucker for pointing out this work to me. 106 Cf. Scharfenberg (2001) 127 and 143 and Arist. HA 4.8, 534b25–29. 101

574

Clearchus of Soli

followed the traces of Aristotle and Theophrastus in biology.107 He worked on animals that, for the most part, had already been extensively examined by other Peripatetics, he shared the same fields of research, he worked on problems frequently discussed in other Peripatetic texts and we have even an indication that he may have been interested in causal explanation.108 The appearance of some new species in our texts as well as the striking use of innovative terminology may be interpreted as clear signs that Clearchus did his own research and was not simply reproducing existing information. This point may be validated by text 109. As already mentioned, Clearchus is dealing here with a problem intensively discussed in Peripatetic texts. Wehrli remarked that Clearchus’ theoretical basis is Aristotle’s explanation of the different sounds of fish in History of Animals 4.9.109 He does not comment on the example given by Clearchus, but the case is quite interesting here. Aristotle lists a lot of species, but he does not mention the fish in the Cleitor-river in Arcadia. Further texts indicate that there was a broad discussion about the species of this category,110 as Aristotle’s fr. 300 R3 from Athenaeus 8 331 D: Μνασέας δὲ ὁ Πατρεὺς ἐν τῷ Περίπλῳ τοὺς ἐν τῷ Κλείτορι ποταμῷ φησιν ἰχθῦς φθέγγεσθαι, καίτοι μόνους εἰρηκότος Ἀριστοτέλους φθέγγεσθαι σκάρον καὶ τὸν ποτάμιον χοῖρον. Mnaseas of Patras in his Voyage along the Coast (fr. 14 Cappelletto) claims that the fish in the Cleitor River produce articulate sounds, although Aristotle says that the only ones that actually do so are the parrot-wrasse and the river-schall. (text / tr.: Olson 2008b)

Matters are not easy to disentangle here. The two species attributed to Aristotle cannot be found in the biological works we have. But this is another problem. The important point here is that the fish of the Cleitor can be seen as another sign that Clearchus did not simply reproduce Aristotle. It looks as if he was searching for additional species that produce sounds.

107

Cf. the general judgement of Tsitsiridis (2013) VII. Cf. the full list of titles of Clearchus’ works with their parallels in Aristotle and other Peripatetics in Tsitsiridis (2013) 10–11. 109 See HA 4.9, 535b14–32 and Wehrli (1969a) 82. 110 See Strömberg (1943) 63–78. 108

Clearchus on Aquatic Animals

575

The picture of Clearchus as an investigator of sea life presented here is not without parallels in the Peripatos, Eudemus may be placed side by side to Clearchus. After careful analysis Eudemus is “ranked among the pioneers of ethology” by Stephen White in his paper “Eudemus the Naturalist,”111 the same Eudemus, who was interpreted by Wehrli as a colleague of Clearchus on the way to paradoxography.112 Works Cited Althoff, J. 1999. “Biologie im Zeitalter des Hellenismus (ca. 322–31 v. Chr.)” in Wöhrle (1999), 155–180. Arnott, W.G. 2007. Birds in the Ancient World from A to Z (London: Routledge). Asplund Ingemark, C. 2008. “The Octopus in the Sewers: An Ancient Legend Analogue,” Journal of Folklore Research 45: 145–70. Berger, F. 2005. Die Textgeschichte der Historia Animalium des Aristoteles (Serta Graeca 21) (Wiesbaden: Reichert). Bodnár, I. and W.W. Fortenbaugh eds. 2002. Eudemus of Rhodes (Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities 11) (New Brunswick: Transaction). Bonitz, H. 1955. Index Aristotelicus, 2nd Ed. (Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt). Davis, A.E. 2002. “Suggestions for Study of the Native Knowledge of Marine Animals in the Eastern Caroline Islands,” in: Oceanographic History: The Pacific and Beyond, ed. K. R. Benson and P.F. Rehbock (Seattle and London: University of Washington Press), 71–84. Dorandi, T. 2011. “Prolegomeni a una nuova raccolta dei frammenti di Clearco di Soli,” Göttinger Forum für Altertumswissenschaft 14: 1– 15. Düring, I. 1966. Aristoteles. Darstellung und Interpretation seines Denkens (Heidelberg: Winter).

111

White (2002), citation 237. Wehrli (1969b) 104: “In unserer Sammlung wird das wunderbare Verhalten von Tieren bei Eudemus (Eu 125–132) durch Beispiele veranschaulicht.” This statement is followed by the remark on Clearchus, quoted above p. 568. 112

576

Clearchus of Soli

Epstein, K. 2019. Aristoteles, Historia Animalium V. Übersetzt, eingeleitet und kommentiert (Aristoteles Werke in deutscher Übersetzung, hg. v. Ch. Rapp, Bd. 16,3), (Berlin / Boston: De Gruyter). Flashar, H. ed. 2004. Ältere Akademie. Aristoteles. Peripatos (Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie 3) (Basel: Schwabe). Fortenbaugh, W.W. 2015. “Two Eresians: Phainias and Theophrastus.” in Hellmann/Mirhady (2015), 101–131. Fortenbaugh, W.W. and D. Gutas eds. 1992. Theophrastus: His Psychological, Doxographical, and Scientific Writings (Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities 5) (New Brunswick: Transaction). Fortenbaugh, W.W. and S.A.White eds. 2006. Aristo of Ceos: Text, Translation, and Discussion (Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities 13) (New Brunswick: Transaction). Friedrich, C. 1999. Athenaios. Das Gelehrtenmahl. Buch VII–X (Bibliothek der griechischen Literatur 51) (Stuttgart: Hiersemann). Giannini, A. 1964. “Studi sulla paradossografia greca II, da Callimaco all’eta imperiale: la letteratura pradossografica”, Acme 17: 99–140. ––– ed. 1966. Paradoxographorum Graecorum Reliquiae, recognovit, brevi adnotatione critica instruxit, latine reddidit A. G. (Milano: Ist. Ed. Italiano). Gotthelf, A. ed. 1985. Aristotle on Nature and Living Things: Philosophical and Historical Studies; Presented to David M. Balme on his 70. Birthday (Pittsburgh: Mathesis). Hellmann, O. 2006. “Peripatetic Biology and the Epitome of Aristophanes of Byzantium” in Fortenbaugh/White (2006), 329–359. Hellmann, O. and D. Mirhady eds. 2015. Phaenias of Eresus. Text, Translation, and Discussion (New Brunswick: Transaction). Kroll, W. 1921. “Klearchos 11” in: Paulys Realencyclopädie 11,1: 580–583. Kullmann, W. 1998. Aristoteles und die moderne Wissenschaft (Philosophie der Antike 5) (Stuttgart: Steiner). ––– 2007. Aristoteles. Über die Teile der Lebewesen (Aristoteles. Werke in deutscher Übersetzung 17,1) (Berlin: Akademie Verlag). ––– 2014. Aristoteles als Naturwissenschaftler (Philosophie der Antike 38), (Boston et al.: De Gruyter). Lambros, S.P. 1885. Excerptorum Constantini De natura animalium libri duo. Aristophanis Historiae animalium epitome, subiunctis

Clearchus on Aquatic Animals

577

Aeliani, Timothei aliorumque eclogis. (Supplementum Aristotelicum 1, 1) (Berlin: G. Reimer). Lee, H.D.P. 1948. “Place-Names and the Date of Aristotle’s Biological Works” Classical Quarterly 42: 61–67. Lee, H.D.P. 1985. “The Fishes of Lesbos Again” in Gotthelf (1985), 3– 8. Lennox, J.G. 1994. “The Disappearance of Aristotle’s Biology: A Hellenistic Mystery” Apeiron 27: 7–24. Liatsi, M. 2000. Aristoteles, De Generatione Animalium, Buch V. Einleitung und Kommentar (Trier : Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier). Louyest, B. 2009. Athénée de Naucratis. Mots de poissons. Le banquet des sophistes livres 6 et 7 (Cahiers de philologie 26) (Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses Univ. du Septentrion). Mair, A.W. ed. 1963. Oppian, Colluthus, Tryphiodorus, with an English Translation (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). Marache, R. 1992. Au miroir de la culture antique: Mélanges offerts au président René Marache (Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes). Mayhew, R. 2020. “Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistae 7 and Aristotle’s lost Zoïka or On Fish” in A.P. Mesquita, S. Noriega-Olmos, and C. Shields eds., Revisiting Aristotle’s Fragments: New Essays on the Fragments of Aristotle’s Lost Works (Boston et al.: De Gruyter), 109–39. Müller, C. 1848. Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum. Vol. 2 (Paris: Didot). Olson, S.D. 2008a. Athenaeus. The Learned Banqueters. Books 6–7 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). Olson, S.D. 2008b. Athenaeus. The Learned Banqueters. Books 8– 10.420E (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). Pecere, O. and A. Stramaglia eds. 1996. La letteratura di consumo nel mondo greco-latino: Atti del convegno internazionale, Cassino, 14 – 17 settembre 1994 (Cassino: Univ. degli Studi di Cassino). Pédech, P. 1992. “Cléarque le Philosophe” in Marache (1992), 385– 391. Richmond, J. 1973. Chapters on Greek Fish-Lore (Hermes Einzelschriften 28) (Wiesbaden: Steiner). Riedl, R. 1983. Fauna und Flora des Mittelmeeres. Ein systematischer Meeresführer für Biologen und Naturfreunde, 3. Auflage (Hamburg et al.: Parey). Rose, V. 1863. Aristoteles pseudepigraphus. (Lipsiae: Teubner).

578

Clearchus of Soli

Rose, V. 1886. Aristotelis qui ferebantur librorum fragmenta (Lipsiae: Teubner) (= R3) Scharfenberg, L.N. 2001. Die Cephalopoden des Aristoteles im Lichte der modernen Biologie. (AKAN-Einzelschriften 3) (Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier). Schepens, G. and K. Delcroix. 1996. “Ancient Paradoxography: Origin, Evolution, Production and Reception” in: Pecere/Stramaglia (1996), 373–460. Scholfield, A.F. (ed.) 1959. Aelian. On the Characteristics of Animals, Vol. II (London: W. Heinemann/Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). Sharples, R.W. 1992. “Theophrastus: On Fish” in Fortenbaugh/Gutas (1992), 347–385. ––– (1995). Theophrastus of Eresus. Sources for his Life, Writings, Thought & Influence. Commentary, Vol. 5: Sources on Biology (Leiden et al.: Brill). Stefani, L. de. 1904. “Per l’epitome Aristotelis de animalibus di Aristofane di Bizanzio,” Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica 12: 421–445. Strömberg, R. 1943. Studien zur Etymologie und Bildung der griechischen Fischnamen (Göteborg: Elander). Taifacos, I. 2008. Ἀρχαία Κυπριακὴ γραμματεία. 6. Φιλοσοφία. Κλέαρχος, Περσαῖος, Δημῶναξ, ἄλλοι Κύπριοι φιλόσοφοι (Leukōsia: Lebentēs). Thompson, D’Arcy W. 1947. A Glossary of Greek Fishes (St. Andrews University Publications 45) (London: Cumberlege). Tsitsiridis, S. 2013. Beiträge zu den Fragmenten des Klearchos von Soloi (Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 107) (Berlin et al.: De Gruyter). Verraert, J.B. 1828. Diatribe de Clearcho Solensi philosopho Peripatetico (Gandavi: M.A. Mahne). Weber, M. 1880. De Clearchi Solensis vita et operibus (Vratislaviae: Schottländer). Wehrli, F. ed. 1969a. Klearchos (Die Schule des Aristoteles 3), 2nd ed. (Basel et al.: Schwabe). ––– ed. 1969b. Hieronymos von Rhodos, Kritolaos und seine Schüler, Rückblick: Der Peripatos in vorchristlicher Zeit, Register (Die Schule des Aristoteles 10), 2nd edn. (Basel et al.: Schwabe). Wehrli, F.†, G. Wöhrle and L. Zhmud. 2004. “Der Peripatos bis zum Beginn der römischen Kaiserzeit” in Flashar (2004), 493–666.

Clearchus on Aquatic Animals

579

Wellmann, M. 1895. “Leonidas von Byzanz und Demostratos” Hermes 30: 161–176. White, S.A. 2002. “Eudemus the Naturalist” in: Bodnár / Fortenbaugh (2002), 207–241. Wöhrle, G. ed. 1999. Geschichte der Mathematik und der Naturwissenschaften in der Antike 1: Biologie (Stuttgart: Steiner). Zucker, A. 2005. Les classes zoologiques en Grèce ancienne: D'Homère (VIIIe av. J.-C.) à Elien (IIIe ap. J.-C.) (Textes et documents de la Méditerranée antique et médiévale) (Aix-en-Provence: Publications de l'Université de Provence).

10 Clearchus on the Face in the Moon Robert Mayhew

1. Prelude: Aristotle on the Face in the Moon Early in the Metaphysics, Aristotle explains the origin of philosophy as follows: It is owing to their wondering that people both now begin and at first began to philosophize, wondering at the beginning about the difficulties at hand, then advancing little by little and puzzling over the greater matters, for example, about the properties of the Moon (περί τε τῶν τῆς σελήνης παθημάτων) and those of the Sun and stars, and about the genesis of the universe. (A.2.982b12–17)1

Though Aristotle devotes substantial attention to these greater matters generally, he mentions one well-known property or condition of the Moon—namely, the “face” appearing in it—only once. In the De caelo he writes: “But that the stars (i.e., the celestial bodies) do not roll either is obvious, since what rolls necessarily rotates, whereas what is called the face of the Moon (τῆς σελήνης . . . τὸ καλούμενον πρόσωπον) is always visible” (2.8.290a24–27).2 1 2

Except where indicated, translations from the Greek are my own. For more on the Moon, see Cael. 2.11. Rolling involves both rotation about an

581

582

Clearchus of Soli

In his commentary on this passage, Simplicius writes: “It is clear that this argument proceeds on the basis of an axiom which says that what holds of one thing holds of all; and the axiom is reasonable in the case of divine things” (in Cael. 457.6–8).3 Precisely because this might seem to be an axiom that Aristotle accepts “in the case of divine things,” the face in the Moon presents a genuine challenge for Peripatetics: According to Aristotle, in contrast to the things of the Earth and its atmosphere (the sublunary world), the heavenly bodies (including the Moon) are ungenerated and indestructible spheres, made solely of a fifth element (aither), which is distinct from the other four.4 But how does one reconcile the conception of the Moon as a uniform sphere made of one substance, with the apparent imperfections that the face in the Moon seems to represent or imply?5 There is no clear answer in Aristotle; and as to what he might have said, the best we can do is to speculate. First, two passages (at least), one each from the De Caelo and the Meteorologica, arguably imply that not all celestial objects are equally perfect and pure—perfect spheres and perfectly uniform—but that the outermost sphere of the fixed stars is the most perfect, while the Moon (which of course borders the sublunary world) is least perfect. I begin with a passage from Cael. 2.4: Now it is clear from these (foregoing arguments) that the world is spherical, and that it is so accurately turned (κατ’ ἀκρίβειαν ἔντορνος οὕτως) that nothing handmade nor anything else appearing to our eyes (here) comes close to it. For of the things out of which it is composed, none is so able to receive evenness and accuracy (ὁμαλότητα … καὶ ἀκρίβειαν) as the nature of the surrounding body; for it is clear that it involves proportion (ἀνάλογον ἔχει): just as water is in relation to earth, internal axis and at the same time the change in location of the rotating object. Aristotle says “do not roll either” because he had just argued that it is obvious that celestial objects do not rotate while staying in the same place. He holds that celestial objects, including the Moon, do not themselves move, but that each is attached to a sphere that moves itself (Cael. 2.8.289b32). As Alan Bowen pointed out to me, in arguing against rolling Aristotle does not consider the case in which the period of rotation is the same as the period of revolution—which is what actually happens in the case of the Moon: it rotates about its axis in the same time that it takes for it to orbit the Earth. But that would seem to be ruled out for anyone maintaining that the Moon is attached to a sphere. 3 Translations of Simplicius come from Mueller (2004), with revisions. 4 See especially Cael. 1.2–3. 5 This problem is well presented by Lucius (a Pythagorean of sorts) in Plutarch’s De facie 16 (Moralia 928E–929A).

Clearchus on the Moon

583

the more distant of the elements are as well (in relation to the less distant). (287b14–21) Now this could mean simply that just as water is finer and lighter than earth, so is the celestial realm in proportion to the sublunary one. But it might also mean that just as there is a scale or proportion from the more fine and light to the less so—from fire to air to water to earth— so too there is a scale or proportion from the more perfect to the less in the celestial realm (among the bodies made of aither), from the outer sphere of the stars (the sphere of the entire world) down to the Moon, and that beyond the Moon the scale continues as described, from fire to air, etc. The latter reading gets some support from a passage in Mete. 1.3:6 Indeed, the upper region and as far (down) as the Moon (τὸ . . . ἄνω καὶ μέχρι σελήνης) we claim to be a body distinct (ἕτερον εἶναι σῶμα) from both fire and air, but nevertheless in it (ἐν αὐτῷ, i.e. this body) there are differences—on the one hand being purer, on the other less unalloyed (τὸ μὲν καθαρώτερον εἶναι τὸ δ’ ἧττον εἰλικρινές)—and especially where it leaves off, toward the air and toward the world surrounding the Earth (μάλιστα ᾗ καταλήγει πρὸς τὸν ἀέρα καὶ πρὸς τὸν περὶ τὴν γῆν κόσμον). (340b6–10)

It sounds as if Aristotle is saying that celestial bodies are less perfect —less pure and more mixed—as they get closer to the Earth, and that this is especially so where the celestial realm meets the sublunary one.7 6

See also Cael. 2.12.292b19–25. There are two unusual passages in which Aristotle seems to take seriously the idea of living beings on the Moon (MA 4.699b17–21 and especially GA 3.11.761b8–23), which was, according to the later doxographical tradition, taken as evidence that the Moon was Earth-like. (See Aëtius Placita 2.30.) I think the MA passage can be set aside as merely a heuristic hypothesis—see Nussbaum (1975) 314–15—but not so (or not so easily) the GA passage, though it is speculative. Note that the Aristotelian Averroes [Ibn Rushd], in De substantia orbis 2, writes: “And since it is apparent in the case of the moon that it is dense and dark by its very nature, and that it receives its light from another planet, namely, the sun, Aristotle asserts concerning it in the book De animalibus [= HA–PA–GA] that its nature is generically more like the nature of earth than like that of the other stars. And it seems that the celestial bodies differ quantitatively in respect to rarity and density, both of which are the cause of luminosity and opacity, even though opacity exists only in the moon” (trans. Hyman (1986) 93–4). Hyman admits to being unable to locate the passage (94 n. 75), and there is no obvious one. I suspect he inferred this from the GA-passage mentioned earlier in this note. (I am grateful to Stephen Menn for recommending I consult Averroes’ De substantia orbis.) 7

584

Clearchus of Soli

Perhaps Aristotle would have taken the face in the Moon as evidence of this, and/or used this scale of perfection and purity as an explanation of the face. For the sphere of the Moon borders on the sublunary realm; and it may be relevant that the side with the face is opposite to the side always facing the eternal realm. It is the side with the face that most of all, and always, borders the sublunary world.8 There is evidence in antiquity that this view was attributed to Aristotle. In Aëtius’ Placita (1st – 2nd c. AD),9 there is a chapter (2.30) “On (the Moon’s) appearance, why it appears earthy” (περὶ ἐμφάσεως αὐτῆς, διὰ τί γεώδης φαίνεται). Aëtius presents a list of nine opinions concerning its appearance, divided into the view that it is in some sense earthy (1–4), and the view that it is in some sense fiery or ethereal (5– 8).10 Aristotle (#7), we are told, holds that the Moon’s “composition is not unblemished because the aither, which he names the fifth body, is aerated close to the earth” (μὴ εἶναι … ἀκήρατον τὸ σύγκριμα διὰ τὰ πρόσγεια ἀερώματα τοῦ αἰθέρος, ὃν προσαγορεύει σῶμα πέμπτον).11 This is consistent with the speculation sketched above, and offers an explanation of the less than perfect purity of the Moon: the aither of which it is composed mixes with the air with which it is in contact. A similar view—presented with more detail, but without naming Aristotle—is found in the following interesting passage from the De somniis of Philo Judaeus (1st c. BC – 1st c. AD): 8

I am grateful to Mariska Leunissen for this suggestion. Aëtius’ Placita is not extant but must be reconstructed from earlier sources—as first attempted by Diels (1879). However critical of Diels’s work Mansfeld and Runia are, they do agree that Aëtius’ Placita can be reconstructed from ps.-Plutarch’s Placita, from Stobaeus’ Eclogae, and from Theodoret’s Graecarum affectionum curatio; also important in some cases is ps.-Galen’s Historia philosopha—in part an epitome of ps.Plutarch’s Placita—and sundry other sources. See Mansfeld and Runia (2007), and for a brief account Mansfeld (2020). Here and elsewhere in this paper, I make use of the text and (with some revisions) the translation of book 2 of Aëtius’ Placita in Mansfeld and Runia (2009), but I refer where necessary to the derivative sources. 10 View # 9 does not fit this basic division and need not concern us. 11 The account of Aristotle’s opinion comes from Stobaeus alone and is preceded by this account of the Stoics: οἱ Στωικοὶ διὰ τὸ ἀερομιγὲς τῆς οὐσίας μὴ εἶναι αὐτῆς ἀκήρατον τὸ σύγκριμα (1.26.4.20–4). I find the repetition of μὴ εἶναι αὐτῆς ἀκήρατον τὸ σύγκριμα an indication that something might be amiss—but see Mansfeld and Runia (2009) 628 (they are not bothered by it). The parallel in ps.-Plutarch Placita (2.30.3, Mor. 892B) refers to the Stoics alone: οἱ Στωικοὶ διὰ τὸ ἑτεροειδὲς τῆς οὐσίας μὴ εἶναι αὐτῆς ἀκήρατον τὸ σύγκριμα. 9

Clearchus on the Moon

585

So, it is said that the Moon is not an unmixed compression of aither (πίλημα μὲν ἄκρατον αἰθέρος οὔκ ἐστιν), as each of the other stars is, but a mixture of both aither-like and air-like substance (κρᾶμα δὲ ἔκ τε αἰθερώδους οὐσίας καὶ ἀερώδους); and the black (μέλαν) appearing in it, which some call a face (ὃ καλοῦσί τινες πρόσωπον), is nothing other than the mixed-in air (τὸν ἀναμεμιγμένον ἀέρα), which is black by nature and extends to heaven (ἄχρις οὐρανοῦ τείνεται). (1.145)

Similarly, Simplicius, writing in the 6th century, but relying on the much earlier (lost) commentary of Alexander of Aphrodisias (2nd/3rd c. AD), says the following about the face in the Moon: If the face appearing in it is a certain substantial difference of the lunar body (εἰ μὲν τὸ ἐμφαινόμενον πρόσωπον διαφορά τις οὐσιώδης ἐστὶ τοῦ σεληνιακοῦ σώματος), either paradigmatically containing the multiple differentiation of coming to be, as Iamblichus says, or, as others suppose, having one part well lighted, the other darker in substance because of being the intermediate between heavenly and sublunary things (διὰ τὸ μεσότης εἶναι τῶν οὐρανίων καὶ τῶν ὑπὸ σελήνην), what (Aristotle) says seems strong as a demonstration. (in Cael. 457.9–14)

Mueller comments: “I have not found a source for what Simplicius says about Iamblichus or the ‘others’” (2004) 154 n. 478. I do not quite know what to make of Iamblichus’ view; but I suspect the latter refers to an “orthodox” Peripatetic attempt at explaining the face in the Moon, along the lines of my speculations about what Aristotle might have said. Though Simplicius does not attribute this view to Aristotle, he does say that such a position supports Aristotle’s “demonstration”—presumably, Aristotle’s argument that because the face in the Moon is always visible, we can conclude that the Moon does not roll. This explanation of the face in the Moon may have come from Aristotle or (more likely) from some other Peripatetic. We cannot know. The only Peripatetic explicitly said to have offered an explanation of the face in the Moon is Clearchus: According to Plutarch (ca. 45 – 120 AD), in his dialogue On the Face Appearing in the Circle of the Moon,12 Clearchus provided an unorthodox Peripatetic account of this phenomenon.13 12

Περὶ τοῦ ἐμφαινομένου προσώπου τῷ κύκλῳ τῆς σελήνης (traditionally rendered De facie in orbe lunae). 13 The author of [Arist.] Pr. 15.6–12 is concerned with mathematical problems involving how the Moon appears to us, but he says nothing about the face in the Moon.

586

Clearchus of Soli

I have two goals in the remainder of this paper: (1) to examine the view concerning the nature of the Moon that Plutarch attributes to Clearchus; and (2) to ascertain how likely it is that Clearchus of Soli actually held the view attributed to him. Achieving the first goal is relatively straightforward, as it merely involves analyzing the first four chapters of Plutarch’s dialogue. That is to say, I do not believe there are insurmountable interpretive obstacles to discovering what Plutarch is attributing to Clearchus. Much more difficult is the attempt to determine whether the historical Clearchus actually held such a view.14 2. Plutarch, De facie in orbe lunae 1–415 The opening of the dialogue is missing, and how much is missing is a question of some debate. I suspect it is not much, but just how much need not concern us. The opening almost certainly contained a request to Sulla by Lamprias and the others (Apollonides, Lucius, Aristotle,16 etc.) that he report the myth about the Moon which he had heard from a stranger in Carthage. Sulla agreed to the request; but before making his report (and this brings us to the beginning of the extant text) he asks that, as a prelude to his presentation of the myth, they provide a survey of “those opinions (δόξας) concerning the face of the Moon (περὶ τοῦ 14

In assessing the accuracy of Plutarch’s account, I do not aim to show that (or even consider whether) what he presents is or includes verbatim what Clearchus actually wrote. In fact, I think that quite unlikely. See Tsitsiridis (2014) 177: Ob und inwieweit das Fragment nicht nur den Inhalt, sondern auch den Wortlaut des klearchischen Textes wiedergibt, lässt sich schwer ersehen. Plutarch verwendet zwar das Verbum λέγει vor seinem Referat, das impliziert jedoch nicht, dass er großen Wert auf die wörtliche Wiedergabe gelegt hat. In der Tat erwecken einige Wörter oder Aüsdrucke den Eindruck, dass sie eher zu dem plutarchischen Sprachgebrauch und Stil passen. Das gilt z.B. für die nicht sehr häufig vorkommenden Substantive ἀνταύγειαν (vgl. De. gen. Socr. 589A; 591C; Quaest. conv. 696A) und εὐθυωρίαν (vgl. De lib. educ. 2A; Quaest. conv. 728A) oder die Verbindung εἰκόνας καὶ εἴδωλα (vgl. De gen. Socr. 589A; Quaest. conv. 672C; Platon. quaest. 100A [dreimal]), vielleicht auch den Ausdruck μεγάλης θαλάσσης für den Ozean (Camillus 22,3; Alex. 73,1), der parallel mit dem Ausdruck ἔξω θάλασσα (vlg. z.B. Arist. Meteo. I 13.350a22; 350b13; II 1.354a2) verwendet wird. Diese Indizien weisen darauf hin, dass Plutarch sich nicht sehr streng an den Wortlaut des klearchischen Textes gehalten hat. 15 Mor. 920B–921E ؆ 116 Dorandi, 97 Wehrli, 124 Taifacos. 16 Cherniss (1957) 6: “Certainly Aristotle, who puts forward the orthodox Peripatetic theory of the heavenly bodies (928E ff.), is only a name chosen by Plutarch to signify the school that he represents (cf. 920F)”.

Clearchus on the Moon

587

προσώπου τῆς σελήνης) that are in the hands and on the lips of everyone”.17 Lamprias agrees: “What else would we intend to do…, as we were driven off by the perplexity (ἀπορίας) in these (opinions) toward those (mythological ones)? (920B).” Plutarch (or Lamprias) thinks that in the case of difficult issues, one is justified in considering mythological accounts (and expecting to find some truth in them), but only after one has exhausted philosophic-scientific investigation: “it is necessary in hard to observe and perplexing inquiries, when the common and reputable and customary arguments do not persuade, to make a trial of the stranger ones” (ἀναγκαῖον ἐν δυσθεωρήτοις καὶ ἀπόροις σκέψεσιν, ὅταν οἱ κοινοὶ καὶ ἔνδοξοι καὶ συνήθεις λόγοι μὴ πείθωσι, πειρᾶσθαι τῶν ἀτοπωτέρων) (920B–C). The bulk of this long dialogue is in fact a consideration of “the common and reputable and customary arguments” concerning the face appearing in the Moon—accompanied by numerous objections and excursions into tangential matters—with roughly the final fifth of the dialogue devoted to Sulla’s myth. The critical survey of philosophic-scientific opinions about the Moon includes brief accounts of Peripatetic views (orthodox and unorthodox), though Stoic and Academic ones receive the most attention.18 I am interested here almost exclusively in the unorthodox Peripatetic account that they briefly discuss—i.e., Clearchus’—but I begin, as Lamprias begins, with the view of an unnamed person: “the one who says the form appearing in the Moon is a condition of our vision,19 yielding to the brightness through weakness, which we call…” (ὁ λέγων τὸ φαινόμενον εἶδος ἐν τῇ σελήνῃ πάθος εἶναι τῆς ὄψεως ὑπεικούσης τῇ λαμπρότητι δι’ ἀσθένειαν, ὃ lac. 8–9 litt. καλοῦμεν) (920C). On this view, the face is not an actual quality or physical feature of the Moon 17

I have seen neither of the manuscripts of this work (E & B); but in preparing this paper, I have made use of the editions (with app. crit.) of Raingeard (1935), Pohlenz (1955), Cherniss (1957), and Donini (2011). 18 The orthodox Aristotelian position is in fact given relatively little space (see 928E–F and 932B–C). For a brief account of “Aristotelian views” in the dialogue, in contrast to Stoic and Platonic ones, see Opsomer (2017). 19 Here and throughout I translate ὄψις with the ambiguous “vision,” though it can refer to vision or sight in both the sense of the faculty of sight and of how something looks; and (in the case of certain conceptions of vision) it can mean something like “visual ray”—as it usually does in the passages describing Clearchus’ views on the face in the Moon.

588

Clearchus of Soli

itself, but a condition or affection of our vision—our faculty of sight— brought about by the light from the Moon acting on that faculty, which is much weaker. It is unfortunate that the lacuna, which appears in both manuscripts, prevents us from knowing more precisely what Plutarch is talking about. At least five editors have offered conjectures to fill the gap, most suggesting sparkling or gleaming.20 Although perceiving sparkling light (for example, where the sunlight hits a lake) could be described as the product of the brightness of the light overpowering our vision,21 the problem is that that is not a very accurate description of the face in the Moon. In any case, Lamprias claims that this is not a terribly impressive account, and that one can see “straightaway that it is strange” (εὐθὺς ὡς ἄτοπος, 920C). He levels three objections against it, the third of which is important for our purposes:22 The irregularity (of the face) as well completely refutes the argument; for it is not a vision of continuous and confused shadow.… For in reality the shadowy parts slip under and surround the bright ones and compress them, in turn being cut off by them as well, and (the shadowy and bright parts) are wholly intertwined with each other the of the shape is (like) a painting. ἡ δ’ ἀνωμαλία καὶ παντάπασιν ἐλέγχει τὸν λόγον· οὐ γὰρ ἔστι συνεχοῦς σκιᾶς καὶ συγκεχυμένης ὄψις…. ὄντως γὰρ ὑποδύεται περιιόντα τοῖς λαμπροῖς τὰ σκιερὰ καὶ πιέζει πάλιν ὑπ’ αὐτῶν καὶ ἀποκοπτόμενα, καὶ ὅλως πέπλεκται δι’ ἀλλήλων γραφικὴν τὴν δια εἶναι τοῦ σχήματος. (920D–E)

This passage makes clear that Lamprias believes that the non-fuzzy, non-shadowy, fixed, and precise nature of the face in the Moon rules out any position which claims that the face is not a real feature of the Moon itself, but a condition or affection (πάθος) of the faculty of sight

20

Wyttenbach, μαραυγεῖν (LSJ s.v. μαραυγέω, “contract the pupil when exposed to light”); Cherniss, μαραυγίαν (s.v. ἡ μαραυγία, “dazzling of the eyes”); Raingeard, μαρμαρυγάς, and Pohlenz, μαρμαρυγήν (s.v. ἡ μαρμαρυγή, “flashing, sparkling, gleaming”). Cf. Xylander, ἀμβλυώττειν (s.v. ἀμβλυώσσω, “to be short-sighted, have weak sight” … “to be dazzled” [by light]). 21 Cf. [Arist.] Pr. 31.28. 22 For the first two objections, see 920C–D.

Clearchus on the Moon

589

or of our perception. And this brings us to Clearchus, for Lamprias claims that this objection23 also applies to Clearchus’ account: , Aristotle, seemed to be said not unpersuasively against your Clearchus as well; for the man is yours, as he was an associate of the ancient Aristotle, even if he did pervert many (doctrines) of the Peripatos.24 καὶ πρὸς Κλέαρχον, ὦ Ἀριστότελες, οὐκ ἀπιθάνως ἐδόκει λέγεσθαι τὸν ὑμέτερον· ὑμέτερος γὰρ ἁνήρ, Ἀριστοτέλους τοῦ παλαιοῦ γεγονὼς συνήθης, εἰ καὶ πολλὰ τοῦ Περιπάτου παρέτρεψεν. (920F)

As we shall see, the view attributed to Clearchus does involve or require a conception of the Moon that could well be considered a perversion of the standard Aristotelian conception. Next, Apollonides interrupts the account and inquires what Clearchus’ opinion was. This seems to imply that Lamprias was not planning to elaborate on Clearchus’ conception of the face in the Moon—perhaps because the view is so well known (Lamprias expresses surprise that Apollonides, a mathematician, is ignorant of it) and/or perhaps because Plutarch wants to let us know that he does not think much of it (as Lamprias is ready to dismiss it along with the first view). In either case, Lamprias tells Apollonides that Clearchus’ account is “an argument starting, as it were, from the hearth of geometry (ἀφ’ ἑστίας τῆς γεωμετρίας),” though it is not clear how Clearchus was supposed to have utilized geometry in presenting his position (but more on this shortly). The γάρ in the next line, however, implies that Plutarch thought it could be discerned from the passage that follows, which is the core of the Clearchus-testimonium:

23

One could take the Greek to be saying that all three of the objections leveled against the first view work against Clearchus as well; but in fact, I do not think they do. 24 Tsitsiridis (2014) 178 translates παρέτρεψεν verändert, which is not quite strong enough. I prefer “perverted” or “twisted” or (with White, this volume) “distorted”. Tsitsiridis connects this to the fact that Plutarch refers to Clearchus as an associate (συνήθης) of Aristotle, and not a student (μαθητής). There may be something to this, but it is quite speculative.

590

Clearchus of Soli For the man says that the so-called face is mirrored-likenesses and25 images of the great sea appearing in the Moon. For the rim (or “vision”)26 being reflected from many places naturally reaches what cannot be seen in a straight line, and the full Moon itself is of all mirrors the most beautiful and clearest in uniformity and polish. λέγει γὰρ ἁνὴρ εἰκόνας ἐσοπτρικὰς εἶναι καὶ εἴδωλα τῆς μεγάλης θαλάσσης ἐμφαινόμενα τῇ σελήνῃ τὸ καλούμενον πρόσωπον. ἥ τε γὰρ ὄψις ἀνακλωμένη πολλαχόθεν ἅπτεσθαι τῶν οὐ κατ’ εὐθυωρίαν ὁρωμένων πέφυκεν, ἥ τε πανσέληνος αὐτὴ πάντων ἐσόπτρων ὁμαλότητι καὶ στιλπνότητι κάλλιστόν ἐστι καὶ καθαρώτατον. (920F–921A)

In essence, Clearchus’ position, as presented here, is not complicated: the Moon is like a mirror, and what is the so-called face is in fact an image of the Ocean27 reflected in the Moon. Lamprias attempts to flesh out Clearchus’ view through an analogy with the Peripatetic conception of the rainbow. So, just as you28 think the r, when the vision is reflected on to the Sun, is seen in the cloud receiving a somewhat moist smoothness and , so this person thinks the outer sea is seen in the Moon, not in the region where it is, but from where the reflection produced its contact with the vision and the illumination.

25

Cherniss (1957) 41 takes this to be an epexegetical καί (“that is” or “and so”). The mss. have ἴτυς (“rim”), which virtually all editors have rejected; but cf. Hesiod, Scutum 314 (Ἀμφὶ δ’ ἴτυν ῥέεν Ὠκεανὸς. . ./“Around the rim [of the shield] Ocean was flowing. . .”). Turnebus’ ὄψις is the most widely accepted conjecture; note also Pohlenz’s ἀκτίς (“ray”). 27 Presumably the Ocean thought to surround the inhabited world. Commentators have said little about this, but note Raingeard (1935) 56: “c’est bien la nappe d'eau qui entoure la terre habitée et qui baigne également Bretagne (921d) et Taprobane (Ceylon, cf. Plut. Alex. 83)”. 28 It is unclear to whom the plural “you” refers, though I think Lamprias is addressing the character Aristotle and so means “you Peripatetics”. On the one hand: Lamprias was talking to Aristotle before Apollonides interrupted him; this conception of the rainbow is orthodox Aristotelian (see, e.g., Mete. 3.4); and, another ambiguous plural “you” not long after this passage (see φατε at 921E) also seems to be addressed to Aristotle. On the other hand: much of what Lamprias says following Apollonides’ interruption certainly is addressed to Apollonides—and this is why Cherniss (1949) 418 and (1957) 45 takes the first ambiguous plural “you” to mean “you mathematicians,” and the second to be referring to both Apollonides and Aristotle. 26

Clearchus on the Moon

591

ὥσπερ οὖν τὴν ἶ οἴεσθ’ ὑμεῖς ἀνακλωμένης ἐπὶ τὸν ἥλιον τῆς ὄψεως ἐνορᾶσθαι τῷ νέφει λαβόντι νοτερὰν ἡσυχῇ λειότητα καὶ ξιν, οὕτως ἐκεῖνος ἐνορᾶσθαι τῇ σελήνῃ τὴν ἔξω θάλασσαν οὐκ ἐφ’ ἧς ἐστι χώρας, ἀλλ’ ὅθεν ἡ κλάσις ἐποίησε τῇ ὄψει τὴν ἐπαφὴν αὐτῆς καὶ τὴν ἀνταύγειαν. (921A–B)

The visual ray from the faculty of sight, reaching sunlight indirectly, by being reflected off of a cloud in a certain condition (moist, smooth, and solid), produces an image that we call the rainbow. The rainbow does not exist in its own right; it is an appearance.29 The same process, on this view, explains the appearance of the face in the Moon: the visual ray, reaching light indirectly, by being reflected off of the Moon, produces an image of the Ocean on the Moon. Now the explanation of the rainbow provided by Lamprias is an accurate description of Aristotle’s account of rainbows in Mete. 3.2–5 (however lacking in detail). Aristotle there employs optics and geometry—e.g., Mete. 3.5 is virtually all geometry30—and perhaps this is the “hearth of geometry” to which Lamprias referred.31 Here is a sample from Mete. 3.2: From what has been demonstrated concerning vision,32 we must accept the belief that vision is reflected from air and any object with a smooth surface just as it is from water; also that in some mirrors the shapes of things are reflected, in others—e.g. very small mirrors, like raindrops—only their colors. ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἡ ὄψις ἀνακλᾶται, ὥσπερ καὶ ἀφ’ ὕδατος, οὕτω καὶ ἀπὸ ἀέρος καὶ πάντων τῶν ἐχόντων τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν λείαν, ἐκ τῶν περὶ τὴν ὄψιν δεικνυμένων δεῖ λαμβάνειν τὴν πίστιν, καὶ διότι τῶν ἐνόπτρων ἐν ἐνίοις μὲν καὶ τὰ σχήματα ἐμφαίνεται, ἐν ἐνίοις δὲ τὰ χρώματα μόνον. (372a29–33)

29

Cf. [Arist.], Mu. 4.395a28–32: “In sum, some of the phenomena in the air exist according to appearance, while others exist according to substance—rainbows and streaks and such exist according to appearance, whereas flashes and shooting-stars and comets and such and similar exist according to substance” (συλλήβδην δὲ τῶν ἐν ἀέρι φαντασμάτων τὰ μέν ἐστι κατ’ ἔμφασιν, τὰ δὲ καθ’ ὑπόστασιν—κατ’ ἔμφασιν μὲν ἴριδες καὶ ῥάβδοι καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα, καθ’ ὑπόστασιν δὲ σέλα τε καὶ διᾴττοντες καὶ κομῆται καὶ τὰ τούτοις παραπλήσια). 30 See Tsitsiridis (2014) 181–2. 31 Or perhaps the hearth of geometry refers to Euclid’s work on optics, which may have influenced post-Aristotle Peripatetic accounts of optics. See Berryman (1998) 183–86. Euclid and Clearchus were contemporaries. 32 Lee (1952) 245 translates ἐκ τῶν περὶ τὴν ὄψιν δεικνυμένων “demonstrated by the science of optics.”

592

Clearchus of Soli

Note that Aristotle speaks here as if vision travels from the eye to the mirror, from which it is reflected to the object seen, which contradicts (or would seem to) his conception of sight as presented in the De anima (e.g. 2.7.418a31–b2, 419a9–11) and De sensu (3.440a18–20).33 In any case, since Clearchus’ view as described by Plutarch is consistent with what Aristotle says in the Meteorologica (if not in the De anima or De sensu), that aspect of it at least should perhaps not be considered a perversion of Peripatetic thought.34 To return to Plutarch: Wehrli (1949) 80 and Tsitsiridis (2014) 183 assume that Clearchus accepted this conception of the rainbow, and (at least in the case of Tsitsiridis) made use of it in his discussion of the Moon.35 But for all we know, Plutarch might be using an analogy from Aristotle to help to explain an opinion about which he has limited information, and not reporting a connection Clearchus made between the face in the Moon and our perception of the rainbow. To summarize: In normal vision, there is a direct connection between our sight (or the visual ray issuing from our faculty of sight) and the object we see, illuminated by some light source. But we are also capable of indirect vision—of seeing some object we cannot see directly—by means of reflection in a mirror or mirror-like surface. We cannot directly perceive (from somewhere in Greece, say) the Ocean; but we can,

33 See the long note in Lindberg (1976) 217–18 n. 39. I cannot here comment on (and do not have a fully worked out view of) why Aristotle presented these two different conceptions of vision. Lindberg believes it ought to be explained chronologically, the Meteorologica-conception being earlier (and closer to Plato’s). (My thanks to Stephen Menn for feedback concerning the extramission and intromission theories of vision in Aristotle and after.) 34 Cf. [Arist.] Pr. 15.6: “Is it because the emission of visions (i.e., visual rays) is a cone…?” (ἢ ὅτι ἡ τῶν ὄψεων ἔκπτωσις κῶνός ἐστιν, 911b5); “for the emission of visions has a cone shape” (ὄντος γὰρ κώνου τῆς τῶν ὄψεων ἐκπτώσεως, 911b20). See Berryman (1998) 184–5. 35 Tsitsiridis (2014) 183: Ich vermute nun aus dem Vergleich des Mondes mit dem Regenbogen und vor allem aus der ausdrücklichen Erwähnung der Bedeutung der Geometrie, dass Klearchos bei seiner Blendsdungstheorie eine ähnliche geometrische Beweisführung auf das Mondgesicht übertragen hatte, um das aus optischer Hinsicht komplizierte Phänomen zu erklären: Wie ist es nämlich möglich, dass der Ozean auf den Mond reflektiert wird und die dann in schräger Richtung einfallenden Strahlen von den Menschen der bewohnten Erde beobachtet werden können?

Clearchus on the Moon

593

on this view, perceive its reflection in the Moon.36 The so-called face then is not an actual feature of the Moon (which in fact has a uniform surface): it is the reflection, off the Moon, of the visual ray from our faculty of sight to the Ocean.37 Lamprias raises four objections to Clearchus’ account (921B–E), of which I am interested in the third alone (as the only one that might shed some light on Clearchus).38 This objection maintains that Clearchus cannot hold both his view of the Moon and the orthodox Peripatetic conception of celestial objects (at least in the case of the Moon): I think Clearchus would not be willing to assume with us that the Moon is a weighty and solid body, but an ethereal and luminous star, as you (Peripatetics) say;39 it belongs to such (a Moon) to shatter and turn back the vision, so that the reflection vanishes. οὐκ ἐθελήσει δ’ οἶμαι τὴν σελήνην ἐμβριθὲς ὑποθέσθαι σῶμα καὶ στερεὸν ἡμῖν ὁ Κλέαρχος, ἀλλ’ ἄστρον αἰθέριον καὶ φωσφόρον, ὥς φατε· τοιαύτῃ τὴν ὄψιν [ἢ] θραύειν προσήκει καὶ ἀποστρέφειν, ὥστ’ οἴχεσθαι τὴν ἀνάκλασιν. (921E)

It seems to be implied here that Plutarch did not have before him a work by Clearchus, for Lamprias is deducing (“I think”) what Clearchus would not be willing to assume about the nature of the Moon itself. So if this is a doctrine about the Moon that goes back to Clearchus, Plutarch likely became acquainted with it through some other source. 36 Even if we were gazing at the Ocean directly—from the shores of Briton, say— we could not directly perceive it all, though we can (on this view) perceive the whole thing reflected in the Moon. 37 Though I describe perceiving a reflected image as indirect, I agree with Cherniss’s comment (1949) 418, contra Wehrli (1948) 79–80: “Wehrli is mistaken in supposing that Clearchus assumed the reflection of the sea in the moon to be ‘indirect’; . . . [he] had in mind simply the phenomenon of ‘seeing around a corner’ by means of a mirror and not a reflection from sea to sun or central-fire (!) and thence to the moon.” 38 The four are, in brief: (1) the dark spots on the Moon are not continuous, but the Ocean is; (2) these dark spots appear the same in every region of the Earth, which they would not do if they were a reflection of the Ocean; (3) reflection requires solidity (in whatever is acting as a mirror), but according to the Peripatetic conception of celestial objects the Moon is ethereal; (4) if Clearchus’ account were true, the dark spots should also be seen in other celestial objects, but they are not. See Tsitsiridis (2014) 178. Later in the dialogue, Lamprias criticizes the view that the Moon is a mirror, without however mentioning Clearchus (936E–937C). 39 See above note 28.

594

Clearchus of Soli

Plutarch (or Lamprias) assumes that the Moon is either like the Earth (“a weighty and solid body”) or a celestial object (“ethereal and luminous”);40 and he reasons that because Clearchus is a Peripatetic, he must accept the orthodox Aristotelian conception of the Moon and other celestial bodies as composed of a fifth element unlike the other four, but that this contradicts his view that the Moon is like a mirror.41 Aside from being a weak objection, in that it merely points to an internal inconsistency for an orthodox Peripatetic, there is no reason to think Clearchus had to accept Aristotle’s conception of celestial objects—especially given Plutarch’s characterization of him as a perverter of Peripatetic doctrines.42 Now if this material does go back to Clearchus of Soli, then I suspect his real innovation here would be in holding that (contra Aristotle) the Moon is Earth-like in that it is “a weighty and solid body,” but that it is also “of all mirrors the most beautiful and clearest in uniformity and polish”—i.e., it is unlike the Earth (and more like a star) in lacking mountains and valleys and other such geological features (which many believe explain the face in the Moon). Peripatetic perversion perhaps, but this is arguably a viable option (and an interesting compromise) for an Aristotelian wanting to explain the face in the Moon—an option quite unlike the one I speculated could or might have been the approach of Aristotle and other Peripatetics.43 40

Or rather, he recognizes that the parties in the debate over the nature of the Moon fall into these two camps. See Aëtius Placita 2.25 (Περὶ οὐσίας σελήνης), discussed below. 41 Plutarch rejects the possibility of one holding that the Moon is both “ethereal and luminous” and mirror-like (which would require a solid, earth-like body). 42 The orthodox Aristotelian conception of celestial bodies as composed solely of a fifth element, unlike the other four, was rejected by the Peripatetic Xenarchus of Seleucia (1st c. BC), though the rejection of such a conception of celestial bodies, within the Peripatos, might go back to Strato of Lampsacus. On the life and thought of Xenarchus, with an analysis of his ideas and an account of the context in which they appeared and their impact on later thinkers, see Falcon (2012). On Strato, see Aëtius Placita 2.11.4 (= fr. 42 Sharples) and Falcon (2012) 14–15, 21–2. And see the next footnote, on Heraclides of Pontus. 43 Tsitsiridis (2014) 179 n. 21 brought to my attention Heraclides of Pontus frs. 76 A–D Schütrumpf, which doxographical passages attribute to Heraclides the view that the Moon is land surrounded by mist (e.g., 76A: γῆν ὁμίχλῃ περιεχομένην, ps.-Plutarch, Placita 2.25 [891C]). Heraclides is more Platonist than Peripatetic (see, e.g., Mejer

Clearchus on the Moon

595

3. Other Relevant Doxographical Texts Harold Cherniss, in his review of Wehrli’s volume on Clearchus, warns readers of this collection: “The fact is that the remains of Clearchus’ writings are so meagre that we are unable to determine with any assurance what his philosophical position, if he adopted any definite position, really was” (1949) 418. Is this true in the present case? The fact that Plutarch did attribute specifically to the Peripatetic Clearchus the view that “the so-called face is mirrored-likenesses and images of the great sea appearing in the Moon,” and not to some (or any) other Aristotelian, is suggestive and I believe justifies our positing the hypothesis that Clearchus of Soli did in fact hold such a view.44 Why did Plutarch attribute this view to Clearchus? One reasonable answer is: because he knew or thought that Clearchus held this view. The alternative would be that the attribution is an invention of Plutarch: He took an anonymous, unorthodox Peripatetic account—one of the “opinions concerning the face of the Moon that are in the hands and on the lips of everyone”—and had Lamprias attribute it to Clearchus.45 As part of an evaluation of this hypothesis, I next place Clearchus’ conception of the Moon (as presented by Plutarch) into the context of the ancient doxographical tradition. Specifically, I consider four texts that—like Plutarch’s De facie—survey various opinions concerning the nature of the Moon and its appearance: Cleomedes’ Caelestia II 4 (1st c. BC – 2nd c. AD), Lucian, Icaromenippus 20–21 (2nd c. AD), Simplicius’ commentary on De caelo (6th c. AD),46 and, perhaps most important, Aëtius, Placita 2.25–31 (1st–2nd c. AD)—with which I begin.47 2009). But if the mist he refers to is in some sense or in part ethereal (and frs. 75A–D give us reason to think it is), then this conception of the Moon may have been his own interesting compromise (though whether this conception of the Moon was made to explain the face in it we do not know). 44 Or something like it, leaving open the possibility that Plutarch misrepresented Clearchus or otherwise got some aspect of his views wrong. 45 I think it counts against this alternative somewhat that the view that precedes the one attributed to Clearchus is anonymous. 46 As indicated earlier, however, Simplicius was relying on the much earlier (lost) commentary of Alexander of Aphrodisias (2nd/3rd c. AD). 47 Unfortunately, little can be said about the relative dates of these works, and Plutarch’s De facie (excepting Simplicius), or about what influence, if any, one or more of these works had on any of the others. Mansfeld and Runia (2009: 630): “Plutarch is an

596

Clearchus of Soli

Aëtius Placita 2.25–31 present seven lists of opinions concerning the nature of the Moon.48 Two merit our attention: 25 and especially 30. Clearchus is never mentioned. Placita 2.25 presents a list of fifteen opinions about the material make-up of the Moon, with a basic division into two classes: fiery (1–8) and earthy (9–15). Aristotle’s opinion (#8) is included among the fiery, as he believed that the Moon is formed “from the fifth body” (ἐκ τοῦ πέμπτου σώματος).49 Pythagoras’ view (#15) is included among the earthy: according to Stobaeus (1.26.1e), he believed that the Moon is “a mirror-like body” (κατοπτροειδὲς σῶμα);50 according to Theodoret (Curatio 4.23.6), he believed it was “a rock-like body” (πετρῶδες σῶμα).51 That Pythagoras was thought to be in the class of those who held that the Moon is earthy is supported by Placita 2.30 (more on this shortly); but I think it is just possible that two views became conflated here: Pythagoras’ view that the Moon is earthy or rock-like, and the view of another or others (in the same class) that it is a mirror-like body.52 Whether this is the view of Pythagoras or someone else, Clearchus would be a good fit here. Placita 2.30 presents a list of opinions concerning the Moon’s appearance. Again, its basic division (as in 2.25) is into those who hold that the Moon is in some sense earthy (1–4), and those who hold that it intelligent and independent author, by no means easy to pin down. The reciprocal light that he sheds on the doxographical tradition and that it sheds on him deserves a separate study.” 48 25 (On the substance of the Moon); 26 (On the size of the Moon); 27 (On the shape of the Moon); 28 (On the illuminations of the Moon); 29 (On the eclipse of the Moon); 30 (On the Moon’s appearance, why it appears earthy); 31 (On the distances of the Moon). 49 Although I agree with Mansfeld and Runia’s reconstruction of the text here, I should mention that it is in no way straightforward—an indication of which is their placing the relevant Greek in pointed brackets: . See Mansfeld and Runia (2009) 572–84. 50 Mansfeld and Runia (2009) 579 accept this reading, and argue that schol. Aratus 18 (Σελήνη) provides additional support: τὴν δὲ σελήνην σύγκριμα ἐκ πυρὸς καὶ ἀέρος· διὰ τοῦτο καὶ πάντων κατωτέραν τῶν ἀστέρων. οἳ δὲ κάτοπτρόν τι. 51 Ps.-Plutarch includes Pythagoras in the “fiery” class: κατὰ τὸ πυροειδὲς σῶμα (Placita 2.25.7 [Moralia 891C]). I think this can fairly easily be rejected, as it would be out of place in the structure of this list, which presents the ‘fiery’ class first; see Mansfeld and Runia (2009) 581. Further, κατὰ τὸ πυροειδὲς could well be a corruption of κατοπτροειδὲς. 52 Perhaps a source of confusion is the fact that according to Aëtius Placita (2.20.12), Philolaus the Pythagorean considered the Sun a mirror-like body.

Clearchus on the Moon

597

is in some sense fiery or ethereal (5–8). Items 1–2 on the list are important for our purposes: 1. Some of the Pythagoreans (τῶν Πυθαγορείων τινὲς μέν), of whom Philolaus is one, declare that its earthy appearance (γεωφανές) is caused by the fact that the Moon is inhabited, just like our Earth, with animals and plants that are larger and more beautiful…. 2. But others (declare that) the appearance in the Moon is a reflection of the sea beyond the Torrid zone of our inhabited world (ἄλλοι δὲ τὴν ἐν τῇ σελήνῃ ἔμφασιν ἀνάκλασιν εἶναι τῆς πέραν τοῦ διακεκαυμένου κύκλου τῆς οἰκουμένης ὑφ’ ἡμῶν θαλάττης).

These two items are found in Stobaeus alone (1.26.4.1–10).53 The other main sources—ps.-Plutarch, Placita 30.1 (Moralia 892A) and ps.-Galen, Historia philosopha 71—include nothing corresponding to #2. They both have something roughly equivalent to #1, except that they refer to “the Pythagoreans” (οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι), not to “some of the Pythagoreans” and Philolaus. Mansfeld and Runia (2009) 627 comment: The next doxa [#2] is related to the first [#1] in a μέν … δέ construction. It raises the question of whether the anonymously designated ἄλλοι represent a second group of Pythagoreans, as in the previous chapter, or an independent group. Diels, perhaps influenced by the fact that exactly the same theory is attributed to the Peripatetic Clearchus by Plutarch at De facie 921A, thought not and omitted the doxa from the collection in VS.54

I am inclined to think that Diels is right not to limit these “others” to Pythagoreans: in large part because Plutarch (and, as we shall see, Lucian and Simplicius) do not so limit them; but also owing to the confused evidence behind Aëtius, Placita 2.25, on Pythagoras’ conception of the material make-up of the Moon. If Diels is right, then—for what it is worth—Clearchus would fit among the unnamed “others” in #2. 53

The only difference between what is presented here and Stobaeus’ text is that in #1, μείζοσι comes after, not before, ζῴοις καὶ φυτοῖς—the way it is in ps.-Plutarch and ps.-Galen. 54 That is, Diels did not include item #2 in the chapter on the Pythagoreische Schule in his Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. Regarding “exactly the same theory”: I agree there is no significant difference between “outer sea” in Plutarch’s Clearchus-passage and “sea beyond the Torrid zone” here.

598

Clearchus of Soli

The Stoic philosopher Cleomedes’ Caelestia 2.4 opens: “There have been several accounts concerning the illumination of the Moon.”55 He considers three accounts, refuting two and defending one. The first view is that the Moon provides its own illumination. He attributes this to Berossus and devotes little time to it, as he claims the view is “easily refuted” (2.4.1–17). Skipping ahead: “A third option claims that the Moon’s light is mixed both from its own and from the Sun’s light, and that such a (state) comes about through its not remaining unaffected” (2.4.21–3). Cleomedes describes this view in greater detail, and then defends it at length (2.4.79–137). But it is the second account that concerns me—that the Moon reflects the light of the Sun: But others say that while the Moon is illuminated by the Sun, it illuminates the air by reflection, as is seen happening also with mirrors, bright silver objects, and the like. οἱ δέ φασιν ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου μὲν ἐλλάμπεσθαι αὐτήν, κατ’ ἀνάκλασιν δὲ φωτίζειν τὸν ἀέρα, ὅπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἐσόπτρων ὁρᾶται γινόμενον καὶ τῶν λαμπρῶν ἀργυρωμάτων καὶ ὅσα τούτοις ἔοικε. (2.4.18–20)

The Clearchus described by Plutarch could well be one of these “others”; but this evidence is of very limited value in the present context in that although it describes the Moon as a mirror, there is no mention of the face in the Moon or the reflection of the Ocean in it.56 Nor does the view attributed to Clearchus include a reference to the illumination of the air, though that does fit the Peripatetic account of rainbows which Plutarch thinks analogous to Clearchus’ account of the Moon. In Lucian’s Icaromenippus 20–1, Menippus is on his way to visit Zeus, when the Moon (a goddess) stops him and asks him to deliver a message. First, there is the complaint: 55

Translation from Bowen and Todd (2004), slightly revised. Cleomedes devotes much more attention to refuting this view than he does the first one, leveling a number of objections. He first argues that “it is impossible for reflection to occur from rarified bodies” (2.4.34–41; cf. Lamprias’ objection to Clearchus, quoted above). Then he turns to the idea of the Moon as a solid body reflecting light in the way the mirror-view requires (4.42–78). Especially effective are those objections that rely on the nature of reflection for a sphere (which the Moon is) as opposed to a flat disk (2.4.61–6): e.g., that the whole Moon would not illuminate the Earth, only the very middle, which is clearly not the case. 56

Clearchus on the Moon

599

I’ve already given up, Menippus, listening to the many terrible (or “clever,” δεινά) things from the philosophers, for whom there is no other function than to be overly curious about what concerns me, asking what I am and how big and through what cause I become cut in half or gibbous.57 Some say that I am inhabited, some that I hang over the sea in the manner of a mirror (οἱ δὲ κατόπτρου δίκην ἐπικρέμασθαι τῇ θαλάττῃ), and some—whatever each conceives, this they attribute to me.

She goes on to say that she resents the notion that she steals her light from the Sun. And a bit later, she concludes her request: Thus, remember to report this to Zeus, and to add that it is not possible for me to remain in my place unless he crushes the natural philosophers, gags the logicians, razes the Stoa, burns down the Academy, and stops the lectures in the Peripatos (παύσῃ τὰς ἐν τοῖς περιπάτοις διατριβάς)….

Lucian’s Moon is up to date on the current questions asked about her (what is her substance, size, shape, appearance, source of illumination) and on the kinds of answers that are given in response to these and other such questions (she is inhabited, is like a mirror, gets her light from the sun). And she tells us who ask these impertinent questions and give these irreverent answers: the natural philosophers, the logicians, the Stoics, the Platonists, and the Peripatetics. As for which philosophers are responsible for which questions and answers, we are not told. Finally, I turn to Simplicius’ commentary on De caelo, and in particular to his remarks on Aristotle’s one explicit mention of the face in the Moon (at 2.8.290a24–27). As we saw earlier, Simplicius first refers to two different views according to which the face in the Moon “is a certain substantial difference of the lunar body” (διαφορά τις οὐσιώδης ἐστὶ τοῦ σεληνιακοῦ σώματος): the view of Iamblichus, and that of certain “others” (in Cael. 457.9–14). He contrasts this set of opinions with one according to which the face in the Moon is not a manifestation of such a “substantial difference”: But if, as some people say, it is a certain appearance as in a mirror of the Earth or of the sea or of the mountains (ἔμφασίς τίς ἐστιν ὡς ἐν κατόπτρῳ ἤτοι τῆς γῆς ἢ τῆς θαλάσσης ἢ τῶν ὀρῶν), it is possible, Alexander (of Aphrodisias) says, that, although it rolled, the appearance would remain the same because the things

57

Gibbous: between a half-moon and a full moon.

600

Clearchus of Soli from which the appearance (comes) remain the same, and this (i.e. the Moon) has the same suitability for receiving such an appearance in all its parts, both in accordance with the nature of its body and in accordance with the uniformity of its shape. (in Cael. 457.15–21)

According to Simplicius, there is a class of opinion according to which the Moon is a mirror and the face in it is like an image in a mirror. Clearchus’ view clearly matches one of these: “a certain appearance as in a mirror … of the sea.” It is interesting that Alexander makes clear that someone holding this view would not be committed to Aristotle’s conclusion that the Moon does not roll: A perfect sphere with a mirror surface will give the same reflection whether or not it is spinning. But we have no way of knowing whether this was part of Clearchus’ conception of the Moon—whether, if he did hold such a view, reconciling it with a spinning Moon was one of his concerns or motivations. To sum up, we can conclude the following: It counts against the case for the accuracy or authenticity of Plutarch’s Clearchus-attribution that Clearchus is not mentioned when the same view is discussed by Lucian, Cleomedes, Simplicius, and Aëtius. This is especially significant in the case of Aëtius, who mentions a lot of names and even attributes the view that the Moon is like a mirror, and the face in it an image of the Ocean, to Pythagoras and (perhaps) to other Pythagoreans. All we can say with certainty is that the view Plutarch attributes to Clearchus was not invented by Plutarch to make some point and advance his own agenda in that dialogue, but that it was a position taken seriously at the time, and that it was likely advanced by more than one person (“some,” “others”), whether contemporary or ancient. So, I find that considering Clearchus’ conception of the Moon (as presented by Plutarch) in the context of the ancient doxographical tradition neither advances nor undercuts the hypothesis that this attribution is accurate: it remains a genuine possibility, but not I think a probability. 4. Clearchus’ Arcesilaus and Other (Relevant?) Testimonia I conclude by considering other possibly relevant fragments or testimonia of Clearchus. There are two texts from Athenaeus that I believe are relevant and worth mentioning: Athenaeus 9.389F (= 36, a quote or paraphrase said to be from Clearchus’ On Panic) and 9.393A–B (= 4–5, two quotes or

Clearchus on the Moon

601

paraphrases, the first of which is said to be from Clearchus’ On the Mathematical Sections in Plato’s Republic58). A major focus of these two texts is a topic completely unconnected to the face in the Moon: the mating habits of (narcissistic) birds.59 But a general topic uniting both of these texts is vision or optics—in the sense of how things appear. In particular, Clearchus’ interest in optics includes images reflected in a mirror and, by implication, how accurate such reflections can be. The title On the Mathematical Sections in Plato’s Republic suggests that this interest in vision was connected to mathematics; further, the fact that the two long fragments come from two different works suggests— if the titles are genuine—an interest in vision across at least two of his works and so perhaps across different issues that interested him. I therefore find it entirely plausible that Clearchus could have employed or applied his interest in optics and mirrors to the problem of the face in the Moon.60 There is one other Clearchus-testimonium in the works of Plutarch, and it may be relevant in the present context: De animae procreatione 20 (Moralia 1022C–E = 121), which states that Clearchus (like two of his compatriots from Soli, Crantor and Theodorus) had an interpretation of (or at least an interest in) the discussion in Plato’s Timaeus (36a–b) of number-ratios and the nature of soul. But whereas Plutarch elaborates on the views of Crantor and Theodorus, he says nothing more about Clearchus (except that Clearchus agreed with Crantor, who was opposed by Theodorus). So in both of the Plutarch-testimonia, Clearchus is connected to an interest in mathematics (though specifically to geometry and optics in one passage, numbers and metaphysics in the other). I suppose this is something: this other Plutarch-text increases somewhat our confidence in Plutarch’s acquaintance with Clearchus and so in his reliability as a source for him.

58 Wehrli considered these one fragment (# 3). But although there is one continuous text in Athenaeus, it was prudent of Dorandi to divide them in two (cf. Taifacos frs. 2– 3) because it contains two separate quotes or paraphrases, and it is not clear that Athenaeus also attributes the second to On the Mathematical Sections in Plato’s Republic. 59 This aspect of these texts is discussed by White (in this volume) 400–8 (especially 404–5). 60 A third text from Athenaeus (2.43F = 118) is possibly relevant, but in the end of little value. Wehrli places it under the heading OPTIK? (which I find a bit of a stretch, as it simply describes the color of various liquids).

602

Clearchus of Soli

There is a final pair of “fragments” that may be relevant, in that they again reveal an interest on Clearchus’ part in Plato and mathematics (in this case, astronomy). They might also provide a clue about the provenance of Clearchus’ claims about the face in the Moon. In Plato’s Laws, the Athenian Stranger explains to his interlocutors that the next move (ἡ δὴ τὸ μετὰ τοῦτο φορά) in their discussion of the laws of Magnesia is καθάπερ πεττῶν ἀφ’ ἱεροῦ, “just like (the move) of pessoi (i.e. stone-pieces) from (the) sacred (line)” (5.739a1). A scholiast (schol. Lg. 5.739a1 = 10) explains καθάπερ πεττῶν ἀφ’ ἱεροῦ as follows: (Plato) says (this) from a saying, “I shall move the (pessos) from (the) sacred (line),”61 which is used with reference to62 those who are setting in motion the last (attempt at) help. And (this saying) was taken from those playing pessoi, for among these, a certain pebble lies as it were sacred and63 immoveable, considered (one) of (the) gods, as Clearchus says in Arcesilaus.64

Both Plato and the scholiast are referring to a game which likely (we can speculate from other sources) involved five pessoi, which gave the game its name, and five lines, of which the middle one is called the sacred line.65 Apparently a player would move one’s piece from the sacred line only as a last resort, which is why Κινήσω τὸν ἀφ’ ἱερᾶς became an expression for a last desperate action.66 The scholiast’s source was likely Suetonius’ On the Games of the Greeks (Περὶ τῶν παρ’ Ἕλλησι παιδιῶν [or Περὶ παιδιῶν]). Only fragments survive; but we know it contained a section on pessoi, which 61

That τὸν = τὸν πεττόν and ἱερᾶς = ἱερᾶς γραμμῆς, see, e.g., Photius, Lexicon s.v.v. ἀφ’ ἱερᾶς and τὸν ἀφ’ ἱερᾶς γραμμῆς. 62 On τέτακται ἐπὶ as “used with reference to,” cf. Clearchus 50b (= Zenobius 3.41): Διὸς ἐγκέφαλος: ἐπὶ τῶν ἡδυπαθούντων ἡ παροιμία τέτακται κτλ. 63 Or perhaps “that is” (if the καὶ is epexegetical). 64 παρὰ παροιμίας φησὶ τῆς «Κινήσω τὸν ἀφ’ ἱερᾶς», ἣ τέτακται ἐπὶ τῶν τὴν ἐσχάτην βοήθειαν κινούντων. μετείληπται δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν πεττευόντων· παρὰ τούτοις γὰρ κεῖταί τις ψῆφος, οἷον ἱερὰ καὶ ἀκίνητος, θεῶν νομιζομένη, ὥς φησιν Κλέαρχος ἐν Ἀρκεσίλᾳ. Παροιμία is usually translated “proverb,” but Zucker (in this volume) has argued emphatically against doing so. 65 See schol. Lg. 7.820c7 and Eustathius on Od. 1.107 (details in the next paragraph), as well as Kurke (1999). 66 The saying is attributed to Epicharmus, and some form of it appeared in a play by Clearchus’ contemporary Menander: see Photius, Lexicon s.v. τὸν ἀφ’ ἱερᾶς and Suda τ 758 s.v. τὸν ἀφ’ ἱερᾶς.

Clearchus on the Moon

603

included a discussion of the saying Κινήσω τὸν ἀφ’ ἱερᾶς.67 This work is one of the ancient sources for Eustathius’ lengthy account of Odyssey 1.107,68 which includes the discussion of pessoi containing 1169 (more on that shortly.) This saying received a fair amount of attention in antiquity, however, so there may have been some other source(s).70 I am interested solely in the second sentence of schol. Lg. 5.739a1.71 It is unclear whether Clearchus himself said that this pessos or pebble (I assume positioned on the sacred line) is as it were sacred and immoveable, or if he is reporting what someone else said. Also unclear is the context within which he is claiming what he does, as well as his reasons for making the claim. Fortunately, 11 (= Eustathius, Commentary on the Odyssey 1.107 [128.17–130.2 Cullhed]) sheds a little light (however dimly) on 10. (I return to the Arcesilaus-attribution after discussing 11.) The first book of the Odyssey contains the following description of the suitors (106–7): οἱ μὲν ἔπειτα | πεσσοῖσι προπάροιθε θυράων θυμὸν ἔτερπον (“at that time they | were amusing their spirit with pessoi in front of the door”). Eustathius’ account of Odyssey 1.107 draws on many ancient sources, including (indirectly) Diodorus Cronus and Clearchus: “Diodorus of Megara, he72 claims, presents such a stone as resembling the dancing of the stars, (and) Clearchus claims (the pessoi) are analogous to the five planets” (11).73 I think it highly probable that the analogy attributed to Clearchus has some connection to his claims in 10, so it makes sense that Dorandi (like Wehrli) put the two texts together. Little else is clear, however. As Denyer (2007) 598 puts it, “our passage is so ruthlessly summarized that this can be no more than 67

See Suetonius Περὶ παιδιῶν 1.1–68 (Taillardat 1967). See the critical edition, apparatus, and translation in Cullhed (2016) 124–32. 69 See Denyer (2002) 597. Eustathius refers to his source not by name, but as ὁ τὰ περὶ Ἑλληνικῆς παιδιᾶς γράψας and ὁ τὰ περὶ τῆς καθ’ Ἕλληνας παιδιᾶς γράψας (see Cullhead 2016, 126.13–14 and 130.9). 70 See Dorandi’s notes, ad loc., for more ancient references to the saying. 71 It is unclear whether the scholiast intended the first sentence to refer to what Clearchus said. 72 As Denyer (2002) 597 points out, the subject of the first φησι is “Eustathius’ main source of information about πεττεία…, presumably Caius Suetonius Tranquillus.”. See note 69. 73 Διοδώρου δέ, φησί, τοῦ Μεγαρικοῦ ἐνάγοντος τὸν τοιοῦτον λίθον εἰς ὁμοιότητα τῆς τῶν ἄστρων χορείας, Κλέαρχος τοῖς πέντε φησὶ πλάνησιν ἀναλογεῖν (sc. τοὺς πεσσούς vel sim). 68

604

Clearchus of Soli

speculation.” It is not clear that Clearchus is discussing the saying that was the subject of 10. It is unclear whether his comment was in some sense made with Diodorus in mind, and if it was, whether he was paraphrasing, revising, or criticizing Diodorus.74 Further, Eustathius seems to be saying that τὸν τοιοῦτον λίθον—which I assume refers to the pessos or pebble on the sacred line—is similar to the dance of the stars (according to Diodorus) and analogous to the planets (according to Clearchus). But it is hard to resist the conclusion that something has gone wrong in Eustathius’ account, and that all of the pessoi, and their movements in the game, were originally said to be similar or analogous to celestial objects—though the fixed piece on the sacred line no doubt had a special significance. So I would agree with Wehrli that we should assume that Clearchus claimed that τοὺς πεσσούς (and not simply τὸν τοιοῦτον λίθον) are analogous to the planets. If we knew more about the game—the arrangement of the five lines, the movement of the pessoi, the rules, whether there is a special pebble (ψῆφος) on the sacred line in addition to the five pessoi, etc.—we could know more about the analogy, and thus more precisely what Clearchus is saying. But we are in the dark about so much of this.75 Nevertheless, considering 10 and 11 together, I think it is not out of line to speculate as follows: According to Clearchus, the pessoi are in some way analogous to the planets (and perhaps to the other celestial objects), and the pessos or pebble on the sacred line is analogous to something immoveable in relation to the planets. Perhaps the sacred line represents the axis around which the whole cosmos turns, and perhaps the stone-piece on it represents the Earth, fixed at the center of the cosmos. (But would Clearchus claim that the Earth alone is as it were sacred and one of the gods?) Unless the scholiast was mistaken,76 10 and so too 11 come from the Arcesilaus—no doubt named after the skeptic-Platonist Arcesilaus of 74

Pace Denyer (2002) 598: “Presumably Clearchus was attempting to correct or outdo Diodorus, rather than merely expound him.” 75 On the little we can know about the game, see Kurke (1999). 76 Given the centrality of the saying Κινήσω τὸν ἀφ’ ἱερᾶς in 10, and the connection between 10 and 11, one might think the scholiast was mistaken in attributing one of Clearchus’ claims about pessoi to a work entitled Arcesilaus, and that these fragments in fact come from his On Sayings. That Clearchus discusses this saying, however, is no guarantee that the text comes from that work. Both 50b and 56 (from Zenobius 3.41

Clearchus on the Moon

605

Pitane, a younger contemporary of Clearchus who became scholarch of the Academy ca. 268. Such a work may have been a dialogue, with Arcesilaus as one character (and the object of Clearchus’ criticism).77 Perhaps the (or one) topic was Platonic astronomy and theology. There is little evidence indicating that Arcesilaus had an interest in this subject—according to Diogenes Laertius (4.3) he was early on a student of the astronomer-mathematician Autolycus—the fragmentary evidence suggesting instead a focus on epistemology, philosophical methodology, and criticism of Platonic and Stoic dogmatism.78 But Clearchus could have responded to Arcesilaus’ attempts to refute dogmatic interpretations of Plato (for whom astronomical theology or theological astronomy was an interest79), with his own (“dogmatic”) account of the nature of celestial objects.80 and 4.87 respectively) discuss sayings, though in each case Zenobius attributes the passage to Clearchus’ On Lives (in the second case specifically writing ἐν τῷ πέμπτῳ Περὶ βίων). Further, Clearchus may have discussed this saying both in his On Sayings and in the Arcesilaus—just as it seems he discussed the octopus in both On Sayings and On Aquatic Creatures. (Athenaeus 7.317a–c, part of a discussion of the octopus, cites both the second book of On Sayings [70] and On Aquatic Creatures [102] in close proximity.) On Clearchus’ On Sayings, see Zucker (in this volume). On Clearchus on the octopus, see also 107 with Hellmann (in this volume) 558. 77 See Wehrli (1948) 49. On the possibility that the Arcesilaus was a biography (and thus perhaps part of the On Lives), see Fortenbaugh (in this volume) 439–40. 78 For brief accounts of Arcesilaus, see Dorandi (1989) and Brittain and Osorio (2021). Wehrli (1969) 49 refers to Arcesilaus’ Festhalten an platonischer Theologie, but I know of no evidence for this, and in any case it would seem to contradict his skepticism (however interpreted). 79 See R. 7.528e–530d, Ti. 39e–40d, Lg. 10.891e–899d. At Lg. 10.903d, Plato compares “the one who supervises the universe” to a pessoi-player (τῷ πεττευτῇ), as he moves better souls to better places and worse ones to worse places (in the afterlife). 80 According to Numenius (Eus. PE 14.6.4–6 = Long & Sedley 68F), Arcesilaus trained with Theophrastus, Crantor, Diodorus, and Pyrrho, but “stayed faithful to Pyrrho, except for the name, by the denial of everything” (i.e., although a skeptic, Arcesilaus continued to call himself a Platonist). According to Diogenes Laertius (4.3), Theophrastus was bothered by Arcesilaus’ abandonment of him in favor of Crantor and the Academy (ἵνα καὶ τὸν Θεόφραστον κνιζόμενόν φασιν εἰπεῖν ὡς εὐφυὴς καὶ εὐεπιχείρητος ἀπεληλυθὼς τῆς διατριβῆς εἴη νεανίσκος), and this may in part have motivated Clearchus to criticize Arcesilaus. Recall that 121 states that Clearchus had an interest in the discussion in Plato’s Timaeus of number-ratios and the nature of soul, and that that text compares his views with those of Crantor and Theodorus. Wehrli tentatively assigned this text to Clearchus’ On the Mathematical Sections of Plato’s

606

Clearchus of Soli

If this line of speculation is correct, then the Arcesilaus—the only work which we have reason to believe included discussion of celestial objects—may have been the work in which Clearchus discussed (or mentioned) his account of the face appearing in the Moon.81 Works Cited Berryman, S. 1998. “Euclid and the Sceptic: A Paper on Vision, Doubt, Geometry, Light and Drunkenness” Phronesis 43.2: 176–96. Bowen, A. and R. Todd. 2004. Cleomedes’ Lectures on Astronomy: A Translation of the Heavens (Berkeley: University of California Press). Brittain, C. and P. Osorio. 2021. “Arcesilaus” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. E.N. Zalta. Cherniss, H. 1949. Review of Wehrli 1948 American Journal of Philology 70.4: 414–8. ––– 1957. Plutarch: Concerning the Face which Appears in the Orb of the Moon in H. Cherniss and W.C. Hembold, Plutarch Moralia XII (Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). Cullhed, E. 2016. Eustathios of Thessalonike. Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. 1: On Rhapsodies A–B (Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet). Denyer, N. 2002. “Neglected Evidence for Diodorus Cronus” Classical Quarterly 52.2: 597–600. Diels, H. 1879. Doxographi Graeci (Berlin: Weidmann). Donini, P. 2011. Plutarco: Il volto della luna (Naples: D’Auria). Dorandi, T. 1989. “Arcesilas de Pitane” in Dictionnaire des Philosophes Antiques I, ed. R. Goulet (Paris: CNRS). Falcon, A. 2012. Aristotelianism in the First Century BCE: Xenarchus of Seleucia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Republic (see Athenaeus 9.393a); but perhaps it too comes from the Arcesilaus—or perhaps these are two titles for the same work. 81 I am grateful to my fellow participants at the Clearchus-conference in Vancouver for their comments on the version of the paper I presented there. I would also like to thank Bill Fortenbaugh, Stephen Menn, and Gertjan Verhasselt for their feedback on various later versions of the paper, and Alan Bowen for his answers to my questions about Aristotle’s De caelo and Simplicius’ commentary on it.

Clearchus on the Moon

607

Hyman, A. 1986. Averroes’ De substantia orbis: Critical Edition of the Hebrew Text with English Translation and Commentary. (Cambridge, MA–Jerusalem: Medieval Academy Books). Kurke, L. 1999. “Ancient Greek Games and How to Play Them” Classical Philology 94.3: 247–67. Lindberg, D. 1976. Theories of Vision from Al-Kindi to Kepler (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). Mansfeld, J. 2020. “Doxography of Ancient Philosophy” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. E.N. Zalta . Mansfeld, J. and D. Runia. 2007. Aetiana: The Method and Intellectual Context of a Doxographer. Vol. 1: The Sources (Leiden: Brill). ––– 2009. Aetiana: The Method and Intellectual Context of a Doxographer. Vol. 2: The Compendium (Leiden: Brill). Mejer, J. 2009. “Heraclides’ Intellectual Context” in Heraclides of Pontus: Discussion (Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities XV), ed. W.W. Fortenbaugh and E. Pender (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers). Mueller, I. 2004. Simplicius: On Aristotle On the Heavens 2.1–9 (London: Duckworth). Nussbaum, M. 1975. Aristotle’s De Motu Animalium (Princeton: Princeton University Press). Opsomer, J. 2017. “Why Doesn’t the Moon Crash into the Earth? Platonist and Stoic Teleologies in Plutarch’s Concerning the Face which Appears in the Orb of the Moon” in Teleology in the Ancient World: Philosophical and Medical Approaches, ed. J. Rocca (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 76–91. Pohlenz, M. 1955. Plutarchi De facie in orbe lunae in Plutarchi Moralia, vol. 5, fasc. 3, eds. C. Hubert and M. Pohlenz (Leipzig: Teubner). Raingeard, P. 1935. Le ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΠΡΟΣΩΠΟΥ de Plutarque (Paris: Les Belles Lettres). Taillardat, J. 1967. Suétone. Περὶ βλασφημιῶν. Περὶ παιδιῶν (Paris: Les Belles Lettres). Tsitsiridis, S. 2014. Beiträge zu den Fragmenten des Klearchos von Soloi (Berlin: de Gruyter). Wehrli, F. 1948. Die Schule des Aristoteles. Texte und Kommentar. Heft III: Klearchus, 2nd ed. 1969 (Basel: Schwabe).

Index of Ancient Names* Adaios of Mytilene 403 Adrastus 441 Aelian 401, 469, 530, 554–5, 564, 566, 573 Aenesidemus 356 Aëtius 352, 356, 584, 595–7, 600 Alcaeus 449, 529 Alciphron 420 Alcman 418 Alexander of Aphrodisias 585, 595, 599–600 Alexander the Great 369, 441, 536, 538, 542 Alexis 403–4 Alexon of Myndus 527 Al-Kindî 344–5 Anacharsis 527 Anacreon 400, 415, 419–20 Anaxagoras 354 Anaxilides 313 Andron 524, 526–8 Anonymous Derveni Papyrus author 329–32 Orphic Gold Tablets author 331–3 Antimachus of Colophon 415–9, 422, 428 Antioch I 536, 542 Antioch III 536 Antisthenes of Athens 393, 412–3 Antisthenes of Rhodes 519, 523 Apostolius, Michael 482, 486, 495, 502 Arcesilaus 341, 439–40, 537, 602, 604–5 Archytas 439

Aristeas of Proconnesus 31, 321, 349 Aristippus 411 Aristo of Ceos 394, 406 Aristo of Chios 394 Aristobulus 369 Aristodemus of Sparta 524, 526, 528 Aristophanes 394 Aristophanes of Byzantium 484, 505, 565 Aristotle passim Aristoxenus 370, 376, 382, 384, 423, 430, 439, 518 Arius Didymus 436, 470–4 Arrian 369 Asclepiades 416 Ashoka, India emperor 538 Asopodorus of Phlius 419–20 Aspasia 409, 411–13 Athenaeus 314, 350, 364, 380–1, 384, 391–406, 409, 411–4, 416–20, 423, 425, 429–30, 436–8, 441, 450–1, 453–68, 472, 495, 497, 500, 554–63, 565–7, 569, 573–4, 600–1 Atticus 447–8 Augustine 345, 351 Autolycus 439, 605 Averroes (Ibn Rushd) 583 Bathycles 524–9 Berossus 598 Bias 492, 517, 522, 524–9 Callicrates 494 Callimachus 517, 524, 526

*This index covers chapters 2–10 only (chapter 1 has its own Index of Sources). Gods and fictional or literary characters are not included (though some people whose existence is doubted, e.g. Homer, have been). A few Byzantine and Medieval figures are included here as well.

609

610

Clearchus of Soli

Callisthenes 542 Candaules 410 Cato 414 Cebes of Cyzicus 472 Chamaeleon 418, 519, 522–3 Chilon 492–3, 517, 520–7, 539 Chrysippus 454, 460, 499 Cicero 324, 345–7, 396, 442, 447–8 Cineas 531–2, 535–6, 542 Clearchus passim Cleisophos of Selymbria 403–4 Clement of Alexandria 342, 530 Cleobulus 517 Cleomedes 595–600 Cleonymus of Athens 317, 322–8, 349–51 Colotes of Lampsacus 321, 348–51 Cornelius Labeo 351 Crantor 315, 601 Crates 537 Cratinus 382 Cratippus 357 Croesus 518, 523–4, 527–9 Ctesicles 403 Cynulcus 375, 380, 398, 403, 405, 456–7, 460, 463 Cyrus 344 Daïmachus (Elder or Younger) 524, 528–9 Damagetas, father of Chilon 492, 520 Demetrius of Byzantium 454 Demetrius of Phalerum 323, 393, 435, 494, 517–18, 521, 523 Democritus 348, 354, 369 Demosthenes 393 Dicaearchus 344, 370, 410, 436, 447–9, 470, 487, 518 Diodorus Cronus 529, 603–4 Diogenes Laertius 313–14, 318, 364–5, 368–70, 435–7, 440, 442, 447–9, 517, 524, 527–9, 605 Diogenes of Oinoanda 355 Diogenes of Sinope 458 Diogenianus 484–5, 503 Druids 366, 517

Duris of Samos 468 Eleusis, historian 524, 527 Empedocles 348, 354 Epaminondas 409, 413–15 Ephorus 529 Epicharmus 602 Epicrates 418 Epicurus 354–6, 411 Epimenides of Crete 321–2, 349, 530 Euanthes, historian 524, 527–9 Euclid 591 Euclides of Megara 393 Eudemus of Cyprus 347 Eudemus of Rhodes 314, 366, 575 Eudorus 315 Eudoxus of Cnidus 524, 527–9 Euripides 449 Eustathius 439, 566–7, 602–4 Galen 353 pseudo- 352, 355–6, 584, 597 Gergithius 441–2 Glycera 405, 428 Gnesippus 419 Gorgias 453 Gyges 409–11 Gymnosophists 365–70, 385, 517 Harpalus 410 Heraclides Lembus 519 Heraclides Ponticus 313, 316–18, 332–3, 348–9, 393, 412, 416, 435, 442–4, 454, 594–5 Heraclitus 331 Hermesianax 416–17, 423–4 Hermias of Samos 401 Hermippus of Smyrna 518–19, 523 Hermodorus 321, 401 Hermogenes 341 Hermotimus of Clazomenae 349 Herodotus 373, 376, 409, 506, 518, 529 Hesiod 590 Hesychius 364, 370, 381–2, 468, 554 Hieronymus of Rhodes 393

Index of Ancient Names

611

Hipparchus, Pisistratid 541 Hipponax 527 Homer 343, 419, 420, 439, 460, 505, 523 Horace 418, 427

Omphale 410 Onesicritus 369 Orpheus, Orphism 312–3, 317, 327–33, 366, 517 Ovid 392

Iamblichus 317, 345, 493, 585, 599

Parmenides 354 Parrhasius 462–9, 473, 539 Parthenius 423 Pelopidas 409, 414 Periander of Corinth 517, 521, 524, 527, 529 Pericles 409, 411–15 Phaenias 556 Phanodicus 525–6 Phanothea 523 Phemonoe 523 Philemon 403–4 Philo Judaeus 584–5 Philolaus 596–7 Philoponus 316, 355, 488 Philostephanus 403–4 Phlegon of Tralles 497 Photius 418, 602 Pindar 329, 418 Pittacus 517, 524, 528–31, 543 Plato 311–33, 341–5, 349–54, 364, 375–6, 383–4, 392, 394–5, 397, 411, 416–8, 435–6, 439, 443–7, 452, 454–8, 472, 490, 494, 506, 518–9, 521, 526–7, 539, 541, 543, 559, 592, 601–2, 604–5 Pliny the Elder 348, 401 Plotinus 345 Plutarch 315–9, 321, 333, 340, 369, 372–5, 394, 397, 411, 414–5, 417, 521, 528–30, 564, 586–94, 597–8, 600–1 pseudo- 352, 354–6, 450, 499, 584, 594, 596–7 Polemo of Ilium 403 Pollux 370–5 Porphyry 519, 521, 523 Posidippus 404, 416–17 Praxiteles 404 Proclus 317–27, 342–3, 346, 348–51

Jerome 313, 448–9 Josephus, Flavius 318–19, 340, 342, 346, 350–1, 435 Labys, eunuch 523 Lacon 413 Lacydes 401–2 Lamynthius of Miletus 416–9, 422, 428 Larensis 398, 438 Leandrius 524, 526–7 Lucian 493, 595, 597–600 Lycophronides 406, 425–8 Lycurgus 369 Lyde 416–8 Lynceus of Samos 405 Lysias 393–4, 407 Lysias of Syracuse 322–5, 349–50 Magi 330, 365–71, 385, 517 Manerôs 368, 370–5, 384–6 Megasthenes 539, 542 Menaechmus of Sicyon 420 Menander 385, 602 Mezentius 345 Mimnermus 416–7 Musaeus 517 Myrtilus 398, 403, 405–6, 411, 413, 416, 418, 456–8, 460 Myson 521, 525, 527–8 Naumachius of Epirus 322 Nearchus 369 Nemesius 344 Ninus 410 Numenius 402, 605 Olympiodorus 342

612

Clearchus of Soli

Ptolemy II Philadelphus 402 Pyrrho 369, 605 Pythagoras, Pythagoreans 312, 317–8, 327–9, 332–3, 370, 439, 442–3, 455, 472, 541, 596–7, 600–3 Pythionikê 410

Stoics 352–4, 392–4, 470–1, 473, 584, 587, 598–9, 605 Strabo 369, 410 Strato of Lampsacus 339–57, 435–6, 449, 470, 594 Suetonius 602

Sagaris 451 Sappho 400, 415, 418–23, 425, 428, 462–4, 485 Sardanapalus 454 Satyrus of Callatis 518, 524–6 Seleucus I 536–9, 542 Sextus Empiricus 346, 356 Sikeliotes, John 341 Simonides 504 Simplicius 582, 585, 595, 597, 599–600 Socrates 314, 325, 327, 343, 394, 407, 411, 439, 443–5, 457–8, 461–2, 314, 325–6, 343, 394, 407, 411, 439, 443–5, 457–8, 461–2 Sodamus of Tegea 523 Solon 460, 517, 522, 526–7, 529 Sophocles 411, 492 Soranus of Ephesus 354 Sosiades 532–5 Sositheus 424 Sotion of Alexandria 318, 519 Speusippus 313, 342 Sphaerus 394 Stesichorus 423 Stesimbrotus 412 Stobaeus 449, 470, 487, 519, 534, 584, 596–7

Telecleides 419 Tertullian 352, 354–5 Tespesius 349 Thales of Miletus 517, 522, 524–30 Theocritus 424, 495 Theodoret 344, 528, 584, 596 Theodorus 315, 601 Theophrastus 319, 341, 386, 392–3, 401–2, 405–6, 435–42, 447–9, 456, 469–70, 487, 492–3, 501, 505, 518–9, 522–5, 528, 537, 553–4, 556, 558–9, 566–7, 570–2, 574, 605 Timocrates 466 Trypho 485–6 Ulpian 380, 460 Virgil 345, 424 Xenarchus 594 Xenocrates 318, 327, 351, 354 Xenophon 394, 397, 413, 460–2, 523 Zenobius 436–8, 486, 493, 495–6, 499–500, 503, 505, 507, 509, 605 Zoroaster 366