Aristocles of Messene

Testimonia and Fragments

EDITED

\ ITH TR LATIO A D OMMENTARY

BY

MARIA LORENZA CHIESARA

OXFORD
VNIVER ITV PRE S
 OXFORD
VNIVBRSITY PRBS
<..reat lareodoo Street, xford, oxz 6DP
xlord L'OIH 11) Pre 1 a department of the Ol\er<ity ofO ·ford
lt furth n. the Lnl\ r ltY' ObJettiY of c lleoce 10 re. carch, s holur h1p,
and ducauoo b' publlshm~t world" 1de m
() ford e\\ York
..\then. Au ·kland Bangkok BoROta Bueno A ~res ap To" n
henno11 Oar . Salaam Delh1 Floren e HonR Kong I tanbul Kurach1 Kolkata
Kuala Lumpur !\ladnd \lelboume i\le. ICO ' 1t) lumba1 u~rob1
Pan Siio Paulo Shangha1 ~·Hnlf.lpore Tn1p 1 Tokyo Toronto \\'ar 3\\
and a souated compan1 m B rim lbudan
0 ford 1 a <CRI t red trade mark ofO. ford Lnl\er 1ty Pre'
m the I_, K and certam other countncs
Publl hed m the L n11 d. tate
b) Oxford Lnl\enuty Pres Inc., e" York
'\I ana Lorenza Ch1c ara 2001
The moral nght of the author have been as erted
Databa . e nght Q,ford lJnover oty Pre (maker)
Fir. t publl hed 200 o
All nght re,tn d o o part of th1 publl auon ma' be reprodu cd ,
tored an a r ·tne,·al ~ tern , or tran mitred, m any form or by any mean
"athout the pnor perm1 10n 10 \\ ntmg of xford Un1v r 1ty Pre ,
or a pre ly permmed by la\\, or und r term agreed "1th the appropnat
repro~raphac nght organazat10n Enqu1ne t:ont rnm.z reproduction
out 1de the cop of the .1bo' e should b ent to the R1Rht Department,
ford lJnl\er o!) Pre s, at the addr above
You mu t not Clr ulate tho book 10 any oth r bmdmg or over
and )OU mu t ampo e th ame ond1t10n on any Jcqwrer
Broto. h Lobrary ata logumg m Publl auon Data
Data avaolable
L1bran of ongre atalogmg 10 Publl auon Data
Data applied for
ISB-.: o-t9-92·PS4-6
I J 5 7 9 10 6 4 2

Type et by Regent Type ettlng, London

Pronted 10 Great Bntam by
T J International Ltd .,
Pad to\\ , orn\\ all
A Franc o
 PREFACE

Thi i the revised er ton of a D.Phil. thesi und rtak n in

xford and discu sed ther in 1997. I owe to my supervi or,
Jonathan Barne , the idea of trying to draw a firmer biographi-
al portrait of one of the main and mo t controver ial source
for ancient Pyrrhoni m, the hadowy figure of Ari tocl of
M ene, and of collecting and tudying hi te timonia and
fragm nt , ince the previou standard work of refer n e on
him are ba ed on assumption that the re earche of ub equ nt
cholar hip ha e made no longer tenable. But my debt to Pro-
fe or Barne go ery much beyond thi : I learned immen ely
from him, and I hould lik to thank him for hi encourage-
ment and patience, which he maintained e en when I tubborn-
1 re i ted hi vie\ on Ari tocle ' te timony on Pyrrhoni m.
I am al o very much indebted to Robert harple , Leofranc
Holford- tre ens, and the xford niver ity Pres for a i t-
ing m to make a book out of my the i , and to u ann
Bobzi n, Fernanda Decleva aizzi, and Michael Fr de forth ir
valuabl comment and ugge tion . Finally I wish to thank the
Italian Mini tero d Ha Pubbli a I truzione, now Mini tero
dell' niver ita e della Ricerca ientifica, th on iglio
azional delle Ricerche, my hu band Carlo, and m family,
p ially m uncle Lando for upporting me throughout my
tudent ear , and Giu pp ambiano for admitting m to th
library of the Dipartim nto di Di cipline Filo ofiche d 11'
ni er ita di Torino.
This book wa already in pre when I could read the n "
ork of Richard Bett: Pyrrho, his Antecedents, and his Legacy
xford, zooo), and I regr t I cannot di cu it with th car it
d er e . Hi ugge tion of an Eleatic and Platoni influ n e on
P rrh i xtr mely int re tin , although I am till p r uaded
that ri to I ' te timon ' in it If i rather evid n f a
D mocritean inheritance.
'1. L.
 CONTENTS

Preface VII
Abbret•iations XI
Introduction XIII

APIETOKAEOYE MEEEHNIOY
TA EQJZOMENA
Te timonia and Fragment 2

ommentary
T I-2
T 3-6
F I
Fz
F3
F4
Fs
F6
F7
F8
References
Inde'C of ources
I nde\ of ames
Inde'CofGreek Words
I nde Loco rum
 ABBREVIATIONS

Barigazzi:
(in Fa orinu ) Barigazzi ( 1966)
(in alen) Galeno: Sull'ottima maniera
d'insegnare; Esortazione alla medicina
( orpu Medicorum Graecorum,
1. 1; Berlin , 1991)

D I a atzzt:
(in Anti thene ) F. D ecle a aizzi, Antisthenis
fragmenta (Milan, 1966)
(in Pyrrho) D cleva Caizzi (1981b)
Diel:
(in doxographer ) Diel (1 979)
(in Timon) H . Die! , Poetarum philosophorum
fragmenta (Berlin, 1901)
OK

Do ring
Ed I tein-Kidd

FHG

FGrH

iannantoni iannantoni (1983-5)

igon ( 1987)
.·u Introduction
omperz T . Gomperz, Philodem : Uber
Frommigkeit (Leipzig, r886)
Heiland Heiland (1925)
Hoc he Ho he (1 64)
Indelli . Indelli, Poli trato: Sui disprezzo
irrazionale delle opinioni popolari
( aple , 1978)
Long and edley Long and edl y (19 7)
l\Iannebach 1annebach ( 1961)
Ira lra (1954)
Iullach M ullach ( 186o- r)
Obbink bbink (1996)
Puglia E. Puglia, Dernetrio Lacone : Aporie
testuali ed e egetiche in Epicuro
(PHerc.IOI2 ) (Nap )e, 1988)
RE Paulys Real-Encyclopiidie der
cla sischen Altertumswissenschaft,
ed. G . Wi owa, W. Kroll, et al.
( tuttgart, 1894-1978)
Roe . Ro e, A ristotelis qui ferebantur
librorum fragrnenta (Leipzig, 1886)
Ro W . D . Ro , Aristotelisfragrnenta
electa ( xford, 1955)
H H . Lloyd-Jon and P . ] . Par on ,
Supplementum Hellenisticum (Berlin
and ew York , 1983)
tephanu tephanu ( 1544)
SVF H. on Arnim, Stoicorurn veterum
fragmenta (Leipzig, 1903-24)
Wehrli F.\ ehrli, Die Schule des Aristoteles
(Ba le and tuttgart, 1967--78)
 INTRODUCTION

Ari tocl of Mes ene i univer ally acknowledged to be an

extremely important ource for under tanding the philo-
ophical thought of the early repre entatives of the current of
Greek ceptici m known a Pyrrhoni m . Indeed , the first four
paragraph of the chapter of hi On Philosophy which deal with
the Pyrrhonian -expounding preci ely the thought of Pyrrho
of Eli and of Timon of Phliu -ha e been deeply commented
and di cu ed by cholar . urpri ingly enough, however, or
perhap becau e of the popularising aim and the polemical
attitude toward Pyrrhoni m and all non-Ari totelian thinker
which pervade most of Ari tocles' urviving work and which
may have affected his philosophical tature and reliability in
cholar ' eye , the subs quent paragraph of hi chapter on the
Pyrrhonian -dealing with Aene idemus and late develop-
ments of Pyrrhonism-and the remaining fragment from
hi On Philosophy on Platonic, toic, Cyrenaic, Protagorean,
Eleatic, and Epicurean thinkers have been relatively eldom
tudied a a who le. The ame de tiny has o curred to hi
defence of Ari totle and the few, to be true, testimonie , so that
at pre ent the Me senian i still quite an evane cent figure.
This n g lect de erve reparation, ince on clo e examination
Ari tocle reveals him elf to be an acute and faithful represen-
tative of the Ari toteliani m of the fir t century AD, v ith a good
knowledge of book r of Ari totle' Metaphysics, of hi De
animo, and pre umably al o of hi On Philosophy and Nico-
machean Ethics, who e doctrine he retort with indubitable
philo ophical kill again t the thinker he di cu e . He mu t
have benefited by ome academic reputation, too, in e he i
cited by Ari totle' Alexandrian comm ntator A lepiu and
Philoponu . He al o app ar to be an accurate hi torian and a
trustworthy reporter of other philo ophical curr nt , for he
appear to pay much attention to th our e he u e , to rely on
XI\" Introduction
ri mal and dir t one , a far a th y w r availabl to him,
and t rep rt lit rally. Hi main addition to the hi tor of phil-
o ophy lie not only in hi paragraph on early Pyrrhoni m,
namely on Pyrrho and Tim n, but al o in hi unparall I d and
wrongly di regarded r p rt on lat r dev I pment of Pyrrhon-
i m by Aene idemu . Finally, far from affecting Ari to I '
philo ophi al tature and r liability, hi popularizing and para -
netic aim and hi polemi al verve mak hi On Philo ophy an
intere ting and amu in reading al o for non pe iali t .

I.THE I t

Ari tocle of le ene i well kno\ n to cholar of Hell ni tic

philo ophy for hi te timony on th P rrhonian , reported by
Eu ebiu in hi Praeparatio Evangelica 14. 18 . n the other
hand, the remainder of Ari tocle ' work, and hi own hi tori al
identity, philo ophical allegiance, and place in th hi tor of
philo ophy and philo ophical hi toriography, need to be care-
fully re-examined, ince, a Follet (19 90: 384) al o ob erve ,
the work of Gercke (I896), of Heiland (1925), and of
Trabucco (195 , 1959, 1960) re ton a umption which, in the
light of modern cholar hip, are no long r tenable.
The mo t eriou of th e a umption i due to Zeller'
attempt (1919-23: iii . 14 n . 1, IS n . 3) to gi e Ari tocle a
hi torical background: he emended to Ari to le (:4.pwToKAEou )
the Ari totle (:4.pwToT€Aou ) mentioned by Alexand r of Aphro-
di ia in De intellectu 1 I o . 4, " her he undertake to report
what he heard from Ari totle concerning the int 1lect from
without ( ~Kouua 1TEpt VOU TOU 8upa8ev 1Tapa :4.ptGTOT€AOU)' a
Oteuwucif.LTJV); the rea on for thi emendation were that , lat r in
thi expo ition, at I I 2. s-I I 3· I 2, Alexander report a d fence
of thi doctrine--again t the obje tion that, if int 11 et comes
from out id , it mu t move patially and therefore cannot be
immaterial-which ound panthei tic' and therefore an hard-
ly be a cribed to the tagirite. Indeed the entenc after 1 10. 4
' lt 1 questionable, a l\loraux (1942: 151-64) pointed out, whether it 1.
al o totctzmg, as Zeller affirmed, for tt doe not make ' od corporeal
( harple 1987. 1212 n . 133).
 Th Man XV
run : 'The thing that mov d Ari tot) to introduc th intel-
lect from without were said to be the following .. .', which
ugge t that on thi matter ther wa an intermediary between
ri totle and AI xander. Ze ller found upport in the frequent
confusion of the t\ o nam and in particular in the Latin
ver ion of imp. In De caelo 153. 16 by William of Moerbeke,
where the ommentator appear to refer to Ari tocle a the
teacher of Alexander.
Thu Zeller deduced that Ari tocl wa one of Alexander'
and that ther fore he lived in the econd century AD;
ha e followed him until Moraux (1942: I42-9) noticed
the Greek manu cript of impliciu m ntioning the
tea her of AI xander have the name of Aristotle. Therefore
he re to red Ari totle to the text of Alexander at I I o. 4 and
affirmed that , ince aKOUHII 7Tapa + g n. may a) 0 be read in a
broad en e, o that Alexand r' word may mean: 'I heard on
the int 11 et from without th thing derived from Ari totle,
which I have kept in mind', • the pa age could refer to the
ta irit . A for the panthei ti doctrine from I I 2. 5 to I I 3·
I 2, h po tulated a lacuna before thi pa age and a know-
ledg d that th y annat b con idered to b long to the tagmte.
Later on, Moraux ( 1967: 176-7) abandoned the hypothe i of
a lacuna and ugge ted that the Ari totl of 1 IO. 4 i Ari totl of
Mytilen , to whom he found r ference in Gal. De consuet. 1
(Scnpta minora, ii. 1 I . 4-5), who m ntion a famou Ari to-
telian of thi name (dv~p TTpwuuaac; £v Tfl IhpmaTTJnKfl 8£wp{q.),
and Elia , In Cat. I28. 1o-13, who declare that there were e -
era) name ake of Ari totle in hi day and after him. 3 Finall ,
Moraux ( 19 4 : 269) di co er d a further referenc to Ari tot)
• Indeed lexa nder oft n u e the verb akou£tv with the meanmg of ' to
under tand ' (pre ent In let . 46 . 10, 141. 14, 172. 1, aon t 100.25, 163 . 6) . o
his words may al o mean ' I und r tand nstotle's \' iew on the intelle t from
With ut , that I hav kept in mind .' Re ently, chenkeveld (1992: 129-41), has
shown that the xpression 7)Kouaa Myov'To> may mdicate either 'I heard 'or
' I read in X', and that in po t-Helleni ti authors th latter i, the ·tandard
meanmg. chenkcveld eem to cons1der the expre sion aKouHv 11apa TWO> a
imple variant of aKOUlW 'TlVO • In thl a e, however, lt i unlikely that
lexand r's words mean: 'I read in ri tot le', ~ r this onA1ct '' ith his next
senten e: 'The thing that moved nstotle to bnng m the intelle t fr m
\\'lthout were s01d to be the folio'' ing '
3
The pas age m yrian. In A/et . 100 6, \\hi h ment10n 'the younger
n stotlc, the mterpreter of Ari totle ' (o vEwupo Apta'To-r£>..'1 o f.~'IY'IT~ 'TOu
 Introdu tion
of Ivtilene in AI xanderlnMet. 166 . I9-2o, which wa ind-
pend~ntly f und b ' Ac attino {19 s: 647-74), where I xander
oppo e 'our ' {o ~ 1.dnpo ) Ari totle to Ari tot! of tagira.
The e pa ag , parti ularly the on in AI xand r, r fute one
of the obje tion put forward by Thill t ( 19 4: x ii) against th
identification f th Ari t tie m ntion d b I xande r with
Ari totle of l ytil n , namely that in AI xand r there are no
oth r referen e to thi t acher of hi . But th y do not tou h the
other objection, why at 110. 4 do AI xand r not try to avoid
the confu ion between the two ri totle ?
Thi i explained by chro der and T dd (I 990 : 22-3 I) by
the hypothe i that the ' hol text i a me hani al compilation
and that the pa age from I10 . 4-1 I2 . 5 may b an independent
work introdu ed by AI xander in order to gi e an Ari totelian
a COUnt of the intellect from V ithout, whi le at 1I2. 5-II3. 12
Alexander may have in erted a panthei ti r ply to the objec-
tion that if mind come to be in u , thi impli that it change
it place, which an immaterial thing cannot do .
\rVhether thi i true , or the author of Il2. S-I I3 . I2 i the
ame a that of I IO. 4-1 I2 . 5, and v heth r th author of 110.
4-I I2 . 5 i Ari totele of Mytilene i till debated ( harple
19 7: 1212, hroeder and Todd 1990: 22-3I, A cattino and
Donini 1996 xx ii , p omer and harple 2000) . Nor, a
now cholar gen rally agree, i there any ne d to introduce
Ari to le of Me ene into AI xander' text, al o becau e, once
the other piece of e idence attributed to ri to le of Me sene
are examined, there ill appear no doctrinal r a on to connect
either the doctrine of I Io-I I or that of I 12-13 with him.
Thi leave the qu tion of date open. M raux ( I984: 8 -9)
pia e Ari tocle at the turn of the era, mainly b au e none of
the ource or the argument u ed by Ari toe! e m to be later
than the end of the fir t centur B . Gott chalk ( I987 : I I63
n . 395) notice that the expre ion 'Plato ' peripato ' (Tou
fl)..6.Twvos 1T£p{1TaTou), v hich o ur in Ari to I ' chapter on
Ari totle (F 2. 1), i gen rally u ed by later comm ntato r .~and

</>t>.oao.f>ou >lpwro·d>.ou ), and ~~ha h loraux ( 1967) understood a referring to

An totle of :\l ytal ene, may poant figuratively to Ale. ander of phrodasia , as
Elaa ugge. ted at In at . loc at
• It occur an P rph I ag a. 14-16 , mmon . In Porph !sag. 4 · 4-21,
Phalop. In Cat 3 4--'7 , Davad , ln Porph . Jsag . 121.4-1
 Th Man XVII

therefor sugge t that Ari to le did not live before the econd
half of the fir t century AD, or the fir t half of the e ond
entur AD, although he a kn wledges that some parallel with
tatem nts usually traced back to Antiochu uggest an earlier
date.
A far a the evid nee of sp ific references i concerned, the
terminus ante quem Ari tocle lived i the beginning of the
fourth ntury (3 I 2-22), when Eu ebiu 'Praeparatio Evangelica
,. a ompo ed {Mra I954: I ), while the terminus post quem
i d fined by the mention of the Peripatetic Apellicon in
Ari tocle 'chapter on Ari tot! {F 2. I3) and of Aen idemu in
the chapter on the Pyrrhonian {F 4· I I, 29).
Apelli on took part in th war again t Mithridate in 88-84
B {Athen. 5· 214 D-2I5 A), whi le Aene idemu 'chronology i
highly di puted. The main t xt i Phot. Bibl. I69b3o-5, accord-
ing to which Aene idemu dedicated hi Pyrrhonian Logoi to L.
Aeliu Tubero, a Roman by birth, with an illu triou ance try
and a di tingui hed political career (7ToAt"Ttl((ls" apxas ou Tuxouaas
J.LEnovn). Tubero erved a a legate in Asia in 6I-58 B (Cic. Q.
fr. 1. 1. Io) and, following Glucker (I978: I I7 and n. 87),
Barne ( r 989: 93) note that Photiu ' word ugge t that the
work wa dedicated to him when he wa alread tarting on hi
career, and therefore can hardly have been written earlier than
th ventie . n the basi of D.L. 9· I I5-I6 , tating that
A n idemu wa born in Cno o , of Phot. 170"39-41, ho e
phra e oAiV7Ja{81JJ.LOS" o
€~ Aiywv uggest that Aene idemu
wrote the work in Aegae, and of the exi tence of an Aegae in
A ia, Decle a Caizzi (19920: 185) even uppo e that Aene i-
demu wrote hi Pyrrhonian Logoi not long after he met
Tubero in A ga during hi mandate in A ia. On the oth r
hand, a cording to Barne , Photiu ' ,. ord
oi 8. a1To T"? :4Ka8TJ,_.,.{a ' 1>TJa{, ,..,.&.AtaTa T"?> vuv, Kat ETWLKai<; av,..,.1>lponat
£vton 86~at , Kat £t XP~ TaATJ8€ d1T£LV, ETwi.Kot 1>atvov"TaL J.LaXOJ.L€VOt
l:"TWLKOL
, he ( ene id mu ) ay , speciall y tho e of today are
toic belief , and to t 11 the truth, look

ugg t that Aene idemu thinking only of Philo; for

ntiochu did not fight ith th toic . Thi would mean that
 XYIII Introdu tion
Aene idemu ' treati e may be dated b for or, a Man feld
(1995: 237 n. 7) ugge t , to about th am time a Antio hu '
critique of Philo, which would give 6 /7 a terminus ante quem
for Aene id mu . But Philo i never accu ed of being a rypto-
toic, a Ian f Id him elf notice , and th word ' toi s fight-
ing toic ' ould a! o be an ironi reference to Antiochu
claiming not to be a toi even though in practi hi vt w
were hard to di tingui h from their (ex ept on th ufficiency
of ,·irtue for happine ).s
The di cu ion about ene idemu ' chronology i not yet
ettled by holar , but in any ea e Ari tocl ' referen in F 4·
29 to 'a certain Aene idemu ' (Alv71a{S7!J.tO<; ne;), who re ived
Pyrrhoni m 'ye terday or the day before' (€x8€c; Ka! TTPw71v),
ugge t that he him elf did not write much later . For,
although the word €x8€c; Ka! TTpw71v were u ed to indicate a
rhetori al interYal a w 11 a a real one, 6 in thi ea e they eem
to ugge t that the pan bet\ een Timon and Aene idemu i
apprectably longer than the pan bet\ een Aene idemu and
Ari tocle .7 In fact, in connection with the depreciatory refer-
ence to Alv71a{S7!J.40 ne;, they ugge t that Ari tocle wrote at a
time when Aene idemu wa not yet well known. 8 Moreover,
that Ari tocle did not write much later than Aene idemu '
revi\'al of Pyrrhoni m i upported not only by the fact that the
chapter again t the P yrrhonian i the longe t, mo t detailed,
and mo t polemical of hi urviving refutation , but al o by the
mention of Aene idemu a the mo t re ent of the Pyrrhonians

' I owe th1 obsen·at10n to R. harple .

• From the 1nten·al of a generation to everal centune . With the meaning
of a hort penod 1t o cur m Plat. Gorg . 470 D 1, Dem . Leach . 42, I o . A reh .
27 , Antiphon fr . 57. The expre 10n refer to a much lo nger period in Hdt. 2.
53 : Ar Ra 726 , Plat . Leg. J.677D,D.H.Deant . orat . l, ng. ln]erem.4.5·
-6 , Eu . PE 2 6. 16. Ru sell' hypothe 1 ( 1990: 293-4), that m ome ea e
're ently' or the like apply to a remote penod but are deliberate untruth ,
mtroduced to add trength to disapproval , 1mplymg that old thmgs are good,
\\ hlle modern developments are bad , doe not eem to explam nstocles' case.
7
Accordmg to 0 cleva Ca1zz1 (19 1b: 211), 'L'espressione indica tempi
remot1 n petto a ch1 scrive, ma piU v1cmi a IUI rispetto agli autori precedente-
mente c1tat1 e s1 giU t1fica tenendo con to del gusto ant1quano prop no dell a e -
onda ofi t1ca. ' And m Brun eh wig' new ( 1994: 190 n . 2), the expre si on
ugge t that An tocle cannot ha\ c v. ntten mu h later than enes1dcmu .
nd not nece anly that nsto les kne\ n xt to nothing about the man,
as :\!an feld ( 1995 · 240) sugge. t~ .
 The Man XIX

he ha knowledge of. And Aristocl doe not eem to be

acquainted with any of the important later figure of Pyrrhon-
i m known to u , such a Agrippa, Theodosiu , M nodotus, or
extu .
All thi upports Moraux' hypothe is, a Aristocle '
language al o doe ; for example he till say 8L6n when he
mean on. ott chalk' doubt ari ing from the use of the
expre ion Tou IIAaTwvo) m::pL7TaTou can be countered by the
occurren e of the term 7Tf.pt7TaTos in Philodemu Acad. ind.
Here . (V I I, VI 40, VII 9 Dorandi) with the general meaning of
' chool', whi h may al o be the meaning it ha in Aristocle .
Moraux' dating, however, could be moved a littl later, if the
Ari tocle referred to in P.O y. XVIII 2I90 is the Me enian.
Thi papyru is a letter from Alexandria dating from the end of
the fir t c ntury AD, in which the writer tell hi father that he
had b en earching for Chaeremon and for Didymu ,
Ari tocle ' on, but that, ince he considered ha ing a pri ate
KaBTJYTJT~ to be a wa te of time and money, he decided to attend
Po idoniu ' lecture . Ari tocle , haeremon, Didymu , and
Po idoniu were very common nam in Alexandria, according
for example to the atalogue general des Antiquites egyptiennes
du Musee du aire; but Didymu , Chaeremon, and Po idoniu
can perhap be identified, ince tho e are the name of three
grammarian who lived in Alexandria in the fir t century AD (RE
Didymu 9, haeremon 9, Apion 3). The papyru dates from
the end of that century, therefore the e men were adult when
the letter wa written, and Didymu ' father ma ha e lived
between the twentie and the eighties of the fir t century AD. 9
All th e may be mere coincidenc , but, although there i
no rea on to doubt the Suda' specification (T I) that
ri tocle ' place of prov nance wa the icilian Me ne ( ince
the Peloponne ian Me ene wa th more famou of the two
cttte of that nam and wa u uall imply referred to a
M sene), there are other igns of Ari tocle ' relation hip with
the cultur of Alexandria. ne i th m ntion of hi IlEpi
cpLAoaocp{a b A cl piu and Philoponu in their ommentarie
on Nicomachu ' Introduction to Arithmetic fr m a cour e of
Ammoniu (T 3-6). Another i that, according toT I, Ari to-
cle wrote on arapi , a god r ated at Alexandria (Dio a ius
n Charemon e van der Hor t ( 1984) and l\1. Fredc ( 1990).
 Introduction
5 I. I 6. 3) by mbinin the Eg •ptian Api and iri ( !em.
Al. trom . 1. Io6) . Furth rmore, a man from Alexandria,
namely lement, in trom . I . 25 rep rt th a me ver ion of
Iliad 23. 712 a Ari to le in A lepiu 'and Philoponu ' piece
of e\·id n (T 3, T 5): thi ,. r wn 1 dift r nt from the
traditum (it ha aoc/>6 in pia of KAuro ), v hi h ugge ts that
Ari to le and !em nt may have relied on th am tradition
I ment i a! o th only author kno\ n to u who
refer from. 1. 61) to the oth nvi e unknov n otada
whom, ac ording to the uda (T 2) , Ari toe! named a 'a
philo opher from Byzantium' (Bu~&.vno c/>t'Aoaocf>o ). Finally,
Ari tocle ' deep knowledge of Pyrrhoni m, v hich i e idenced
in F 4 , trongly peak in favour of a ta in Alexandria, since,
according to hi own ' ord in §29, it i ther that the
P yrrhonian tradition wa r -e tabli hed by Aenesidemu . •o
The rea on for Ari tocle ' ojourn in AI xandria, be ide
library facilitie , may have b en that ince trato' time there
had been an exten ive Peripatetic acti ity there (Lynch 1972:
I36-7, I5I , 194-5 , I97, 201, 2r6); although Ari tocle wa
never a cholar h (ibid. 2 I 4), he certainly wa a Peripatetic.
Thi i explicitly affirmed by the Suda (T r) and i confirmed
not only b _ Eu ebiu 'introduction to F 1 and F 2, but a! o by
the content of the eight long fragment which have ur ived
from Ari tocle ' il£pi c/>t'Aoaoc/>{as, particularly the defence of
Ari totle again t the calumnie of hi denigrator (F 2), the
explicit referen e to hi argument again t tho e who deny the
principle of non-contradiction (F 4· 1 ), and the u of Aristo-
telian argument uch a incon i tency in theory and practice
and making life and di cour e impo ibl in hi critici m of the
Pyrrhonian , yrenaic , Protagorean , Eleatic , and Epicurean
(F 4-8) .
It i evident that, in Ari tocle ' ea e, th label ' Peripatetic'
doe not merely mean that he "''rote hi torical or biographical
treati e , a in the ea e of other Ari totelian of his time
(Pfeiffer 1968: 87-8, 137-8, 15o-r , Lynch 1972: 136-7), but

•• An tocle ' pe tficatlon of lexandna ' m Egypt' (£v l4>.£~avSpdq. Tij KaT'
AlytnTTov) m F 4 · 29 does not neces anly mean that he had ne' er been there,
a Het land eem to u peer ( 1925 : 3): the pe ificatton 'm Egypt' may be a
cholarl} add1tton, or allude to the plague of then , ''htch al o came from
gypt (I owe tht connectiOn to L . . Holford- trevens).
 The Man XXl

that h was a philo opher who ba ed hi di scussion on

Ari tot lian doctrine and principle . Indeed many of his argu-
ment and expre sion can be trac d back to Ari totle' On
Philosophy, Metaphysics, Nicomachean Ethics, and n the Soul,
and, a c rding to the Suda .v. Ari tocles (T I) , Ari tocle
wrote, among other work , 1hpi cfn>..oaocp{a~, 'HOLKa, and TlxvaL
/J"rJTOpLKa{, whi h are al o the title of some of Ari totle' book .
Although it i e ident that Ari tocle knew Ari totle' chool
tr ati e , however, the arce evid nee (out of the ten books of
hi ilf.p t c/JLAoaocp{a~ only three chapter of the s venth book and
fi e of the ighth have urvived) doe not allow to under tand
whether h reli d on Andronicu ' edition, parti ularl y on hi
arrangement of the Metaphysics . In any case, like mo t Ari to-
telian from so B to AD I so, Ari tocle doe not eem to ha e
written proper commentarie , on the lemma-and-explanation
plan, a AI xa ndrian Neoplatoni t did , nor to ha e proceeded
through Ari totle ' t xt paragraph by paragraph like, for
examp le, Alexander of Aphrodi ia ( harpies I990: 9S-?). In-
deed, the fact that one of his works ha the title, and probably,
a it will appear, al o the tructure of one of Ari tot! ' public
ork ugge t that Ari tocle wa not o much intere ted in
the interpr tation of Ari totle ' chool text a in the preading
of hi philo ophy (Donini I 982 : 2 Is) . In fact, according to the
sur iving e id nee, Ari tocle developed Ari totelian argu-
ments and doctrine again t the epi temologie of ceptic (F
4), Cyrenaic (F s), Protagorean (F 6), Epicurean (F 6, F 8),
and Eleati (F 7).
It i noticeable , however, that there i no evidence of a criti-
i m of ither Platoni m or totct m. n the contrary, in F I
Ari tocle prai es Plato a the first man v ho made a genuine
and complete (yv7Ja{w~ Kat Tf.Af.{w~) tern of philo ophy and
ummarize Platoni do trine in a wa quite imilar to Atticu
fr. I De Pla e . Moreo er, in hi critici m of the Protagorean
(F 6) he r li on th argument of Plato' Theaetetus, and two
of the tit! attributed to him by the Suda (T I), lloTEpov
arrovOaLOTf.PO~ "011-TJPO~ ~ n>..aTWV and llf.pt Eapamoo~, uggest
that he wrot on topic v hich al o oc upied th Platoni t .'' A
" Plato' cntici m of Homer an d the relatiOnships between the two had
prompted the dis ussions f ademi s and Platoni t , a c rding to Dorrie
and Baltes ( •9 7-95: ii. •zo-8 , iii . 64-5).
 XXII lntrodu tion
t riti iz toic ph i in hi hort and
r port (F ), and in hi di u ion f Plato (F I) h
u f wi do m ( aor/>{a) a kn wled of
human and divin
Finally, in F h t ic th ori of
knowledge am ng the b t do trine on th criterion.
All thi ha indu ed om eh lar t uppo e that Ari tocle
\\a a foil w r f Antiochu ' •n r ti m (Trabu o I 958) or
a ·mpathiz r with Platoni m (Donini I 9 2: 2 I 5),
p rhap th n Atticu (fr. I) had in mind hen writing
Again t those who profe s Plato's thought in Aristotle's words
(Dillon I977 : 250).
It i true that imilar prai e of Plato o ur in Antiochu in
i . Luc. I 5, A cad. 1. I 9 and in many author of th Platoni
tradition, u h a Apul. De Plot . 1. 3-4, AI in. Didasc . 3 and
particularly Atticu fr. I (Dorrie et al. 1987-95 : iii. 3 2-5) . But
thi doe not prove that Ari tocle \i a an Antiochean-if ther
were any oth r be ide Antiochu him If (J. Barn I989)-a
.:\Iiddle Platoni t, or a defender of Plato through th doctrin
of Ari totle. For Ari tocle , like Diog n Laertiu (3. 56),
prai e Plato for havin ompleted philo oph (€rJ>t>..oa6rJ>TJa£
Y"TJa{w Kat n>..dws-), not for having perf cted it, a th Middle
Platoni t uch a Atticu (iv' o>..6KA.TJpos- op8iJ ~ St' aurou
r/>tAoaor/>{a, 7TapiJK£ Tf ou8(v Kat lKaCJra ~Kp{{3wa£, fr. I) and
Apuleiu ('perfecta atque admirabile fe it' De Plat . I. 3) did
(Barne I993 : I29-30) . And he differ from Antiochu and the
Iiddle Platoni t in attributing to Plato an ordering of the
part of philo ophy which begin with phy ic . or hould the
imilaritie with Atticu be o ere timated, ince th y ar quite
general and can be explained by a common dep nden e on a
\"e ry wide pread tradition (Dorrie et al . I987-95 : ii . I2-2I, 111.
I I4-17 , iv. 2-2I), and whi h Ari tocle rea onably on idered
reliable . Finally, it i not likely that Ari tocle i the man
Att1cu ac u e of emplo ing Ari totelian doctrine to defend
Plato , ince both Alcinou and Apuleiu actuall emplo ed
Ari totelian categorie to expound Plato' philo ophy, and later
thi became a common pra tice, al o ad pted by Ammoniu
ac a , Porphyry, and Plotinu (Barne 1993: 93). 12 ot en
An tocle ' reference to Plato' Theaetetus in hi critici m of the
" :\lra (1936· 183- ) even thought of le ·and r of phrod1 1as.
 The Man XXIII

Protagorean implie that he wa a Platonist, ince Ari totl

too, in Metaphysics r, d eloped again t Protagora the argu-
ment put forward by Plato in the Theaetetus. Ari tocle
probably hared the idea of a philo ophical continuity between
Plato and Ari totle, and in his chapter on the latter ( 2) is very
k n on d fending th tagirite from the accu ation of being
ungrateful to his ma t r. Hi Peripatetic allegiance i particu-
larly e ideo ed by F 8 . 7, where he peak of the be t thinker
on the criterion in man if tly Ari totelian term . Finally, the
compari on b tween Homer and Plato wa al o dealt with by
the Stoic Telephu of Pergamon (On the Convergence between
Homer and Plato), and the work on arapi can be exp lained by
Ari tocle ' invol em nt with the cu lture of Alexandria. Rather
than ugge ting a philo ophical allegiance, the parallel with
the Middle Platoni t ugge t a chrono logica l proximity , which
upport the dating of Ari tocle u pect d abo e.
A for Ari to le ' relation hip with toici m, it cannot be
exclud d that hi neutral report on toic phy ic wa followed
by ome riti i m, whi t the definition of wisdom a ~ f.rrtaT~J.I-TJ
Twv Bdwv Kat dvBpwTTE{wv al o occur in non- toic author uch
a Alcin. Dida c. 1. 1 , Max . Tyr . 26. 28, Philo, ongr. 79 , Clem .
Al. Paed. 2. 25. 3, Orig. ontra elsum 3· 72, and Ammon . In
Porph . !sag. 3· 2, and i explained by the inftuen e of toi i m
on philo ophical terminology. Finally, Ari tocl ' di tance
from toici m i uggested by A clepiu ' and Philoponus' te ti-
monie (T 3-6), according to which only th man who tudie
o mology and theolog i really wi e (aoc/>6>), while for the
toic , in particular Po idoniu in en . Epist. 90 (F 284
Edel tein-Kidd) , expert of any kind ar wise (aoc/>o{).
In on lu ion, in non of hi fragment doe Ari tocl
accept on Platonic or toic dogma or refer anti-
Ari totelian doctrine, and none of the te timonie upport the
opinion that he combined Ari totle' with Plato' or Zeno'
principle , that he wa a 1iddl Platoni tor an Anti h an. n
the contrary, mo t of hi argum nt are ba ed on orthodox
ri totelian principl , and there eem to be no rea on for
doubting hi Peripatetici m.
Hi main valu for u , howev r, i hi contribution not to
Ari totelian philo ophy, but to th hi tor of n n- ri tot lian
philo ophy . In fa ts, Ari to le 'main valu for u i a a our
 XXI\' lntrodu tion
t of hi fragment ar harp, pol mica), m tim en
vitup rative, r futation · f other philo ophi but the e ar
alwav di · u ed on the ba i of faithful r port from original
and, .wh n availabl , dire t ource . Thi m to be the ea
with Ap lli on' book, Ari toxenu , Epi uru ' Letter on
ccupation , and perhap Ari totle' Elegy on Plato in F 2; with
the toi compendium, perhap Po id niu ', in F 3; with
Timon' Python and illoi and A n id emu ' Outlines or a
compendium by one of A ne idemu ' pupil in F 4; with
Ieli u 30 B DK in F 7; with two of Epi uru ' Letters and
probably hi n ature, together, perhap , with Philodemu '
On hoices and At•oidances in F 6 and . Th portrait of Plato in
F I may al o be a cepted a ba ed on good ourc , th ame
that hi Iiddl Platoni t epigoni reli d on, and perhap also
the Phaedru and the Laws. It eem that' hen Ari tocle relied
on indire t ource -for examp le H rmippus for the ancient
go ip concerning Ari totle in F 2; litoma hu for the
yrenai in F 5, for letrodoru in F 6, and for the Megarian
in F 7; Plato for Prota ora in F 6-it i becau original ·w rit-
ing did not exi tor wer not avai lable to him.
It i evident th n that Ari tocle had a r pe table knowledge
of the hi tory of philo oph and could rely on a large number
of ource . Moreover, where compari on i po ible, the u e
he make of hi ource appear very faithful, if not literal ,
and critical. He i ry cautiou on controver ial and unclear
matter , uch a Ari toxenu ' report on ocrat ' legendary
meeting with th Indian (F 1 . 8) and Metrodoru ' ob cure
epi temology (F 6. I). He al o ha preci e hi toriographic cri-
teria, for at F 2. 9-Io he appear to be aware of th n ce ity of
a election among ource , and affirm that friendly and earlier
ource are more tru tworthy than unfriendly and later one .

II.THEW RI

Ari tocle 'fragment wer fir t collect db Mullach (r 81: iii.

206-21), who, however, onl r parted the pa ag he found in
Eu . PE 14. A more complete edition of fragment and te ti-
 The Work XXV
monia wa edited by Heiland (1925), although hi ery aluable
work in lude a number of reference that cannot in fa t be
as igned to the Me enian, uch a the whole initial pas age
of Philoponu ' commentary on Nicoma hus' Introduction to
Arithmetic I a, Prod. In Tiln. 20. 2, and a holium on H rmo-
gen , of which the la t two may al o be r ferred to Ari tocle
of Rhod and of Pergamum re pectively ( ee the ommentary
on T 1-2). Heiland also attribute to Aristocle th el gy
r ported by lymp . In Gorg . 214. 13-215. 1 1 and the de crip-
tion of Cyrenai ethi in Eu . PE 14. 18. 31-2: it is not pos i-
bl to reach certain conclu ions on the former ( ee the
ommentary on F 2), whi le the latter doe not eem to d pend
on him ( e further on) . n th other hand, Heiland did not
in lud the a yet unpubli hed reference in A clepiu ' corn-
m ntary on Ni omachus' Introduction to Arithmetic (T 3, T 4).
The oil ction of testimonia pre ented here compri the
Suda' ref r nee . v. J4pLaToKA* and EwTCI.Oa> (T 1-2) from
Adler' canonical edition ( 1928-39), and tho e in A clepiu '
and Philoponu ' commentarie on Nicomachu ' Introduction to
Arithmetic (T 3-6) from Tanin (1969) and Hoche (1864)
re pectively. ' 3
Ari to le ' fragment (F 1-8) are all reported by Eu . PE 1 1,
14, and 15. The text i that of Mra ( 1954), and the translation
ha been h ked again t Gifford' ( 1903). ' 4 Mra ' paragraph-
number , which are due to Gai ford (1843), is al o followed,
although in a few ea e the paragraphing proper ha b en
changed. But Mra ' entire criti al apparatu i not uppli d
her :only hi conje tur and th pia e where different choice
among the M are ugge ted are indi ated.
All fragment are accompanied by the indices-i.e. th1"1r.;;'trm~...
in content -li t prefixed to the individual book
and th linking pa sage b which Eu ebiu
quotation from Ari tocle . v
De pit ifford' doubts (1903), not only the tit
th indices ar due to Eu bius him elf, and not t a~~~~~~3
(Die! 1879 : 464 n . 9, Bidez 1906: 508 and Mra 1954: iii), for
in ome a e the form r ontain pi ce f eviden that an not
be found in the latter, or in other place of Eu biu 'work (and
3
' ee belo\\, ection I I I.
•• ' I he fe\\ disag reement m ·ubstance are marked case b) a e.
.·xvt Introdu ti n
vi e \'er a). A quotation from Ari to le , the index
r ferring to hi hapt r n Plato (F 1) la k th idence put
forward m the orr p nding h ading in the te t, namely that
An to I wa a Peripat ti and that hi piece on Plato d rives
from book 7 of hi ll€pt </>LA.oao</>{a . n the oth r hand, th
remainder fEu ebiu ' indices to hi pa age from Ari tocle
are parall I to the introduction and heading in the text.
Thank to the indice and heading to F 2 and F 3 we kno,: that
Ari to le ' chapter on ri totle and on the toic al o deri e
from book 7 of ll€pt <f>L>..oao</>{a , and from the indices and head-
mg to F 4- we are informed that th piece on the P rrhon-
ian , on the yrenai , on Metrodoru and the Protagorean ,
on the El ati , and on the Epicurean b longed to book 8 of
th ame work.
In ome ea e the lemmata employed by Eu ebiu in the
indice and title echo Ari to le ' word and offer a preci e um-
mary of the content of the xtract ; in oth r ea e the pre ent
Eu ebiu ' interpretation or language and are le preci e. The
fir t i the ea e in the indice and title to F 5 and F 6, where the
word 'that only affection can be apprehended' (p.ova ra 7Tcl8TJ
€lvaL KaraA7Jrrr6.) and 'that we hould follow en e perception
only' (p.ovaL 8€LV 7TLGT€v€Lv raL~ ai.a8~a€aL) reappear in Ari tocle
F 5 and F 6 re pectively; on the ontrary, in the inde and title
to F 4 only the expre ion ol Kara llvppwva ('the follower of
Pyrrho') may be influenced by Ari toe) , ince it al o occurs in
what eem to be hi own conclu ion in F 4· 30, while Ari tocle
doe not U e term uch a GK€7TTLKO~, £<f>eKTLKO~, and aKaraATJt/J{a
(' ceptic ', 'ephectic ', and 'unapprehen ibility'), ·which appear
m Eu ebiu ' introduction to F 4· ' 5 The lemma of the inde and
•s Although all the e terms al o occur in Favonnu m ell. A 1 1. 5· 6 (fr.
z6 Bangazz1) , ho,, e,·er, 1t 1 not n ece ar) to uppo e a prec1 e ource for
them, mce by Eu ebJU ' t1me they were quite ommon, and close parallel
w1th Eu ebJU 't1tle occur among the An totel1an ommentators : mmon. In
at. z. 9 report. on o[ 'E</>EKnt<oi </>•>.oao</>o• . . . i>.Eyov yap oohot 1TOVTE>.w>
aKOTMTJI/J{av Elvat t<ai IJ.1}8£va IJ.T}f>(v ytVWUKE<V (' • phectl phllosoph rs . . . ince
the} a erted absolute inapprehens1b1hty and that nobody kne\\ anythmg'); he
1 followed b) Ph1lop . In Cat 2 4, 1mp In Cat. 4· 5, Eha , In Cat. 109. 24,
Olymp. In Proleg 3 31, In .\/eteor 1 18 23, lep . In 1\let 222 12, and
, ynan In .\let 73 16. Furthermore the expre . 10n TTJV Ka>.ov,.,.ivTJ'' Kvp7Jvatt<~v
arpEa<v ('the so-called 'y r na1c ect'), \\h1ch oc ur in the md x to F 5, v.1ll
reappear in Ammon. In at 1 13, followed by Phtlop . In Cat. 1. 19, Olymp.
In Cat 3 8 Eha, In Cat 108 19-36, 1mp. In Cat. 3· 30.
 Th Work XXVll

th titl r f rring to Ari tocl ' brief doxography on th toi

\: arn u that it (F 3) deal with ' their philo ophy and Z no'
do trin on principles ' (ll~:pt T-ry!> Twv ETwi.Kwv c/nA.oaoc{>ta!>, 07rW!>
T€ 0 Z~vwv TC)v 7r€pt apxwv a7r~:M3ou A.6yov). In fact, although the
whole of Ari tocle ' pa age d p nds on an initial 'h ay '
(cf>7Ja{) and all the doctrine reported can ultimat ly be traced
back to Z no, o that H . von Arnim printed thi piece of evi-
dence in th volum dedicated to him (SVF i. 98) , there ar
e id nee of post-Zenonian do trinal and lingui ti de elop-
ment , w hich are probabl y the rea on \: h y Eu ebiu add d the
gene ral ref rence to the toic in the title. ' 6 On the other hand ,
the lemma of the index and th title to F 8 i not very preci e,
for in hi chapter Ari tocle n er mention the word TEAO!>
(' nd'), but the Epicurean KptT~pwv ('criterion') of th thing to
be cho en and avoided.
The a e ment of the linking pa age i more problemati ,
mainly becau e the boundarie between Ari tocle ' and
Eu ebiu ' text are not clearly marked b y the M I con ulted
(Ih, B, a nd ) and there ar no other witne e to Ari tocl
with w hich Eu ebiu ' report can b compared: they indicate
wh re the quotation from Ari tocle begin through the head-
ing , but they do not tell where they end, and in mo tea e it i
not lear at all wher Eu ebiu ' linking pa age tart , and
' h ere h quote or paraphra e . Thi may be explained by the
fa t that, although Eu ebiu ' r ports from Aristocl mu t be
con idered a literal quotation , ince he explicitly affirm that
he cite word by \: ord (7rpO!> A.E~tv, KaTa A.E~tv, or '"PO!> p-ryf-La),
imperative like ' begin to r ad', 'do begin to read ', or 'read
tho e thing fir t ' (A.a{Jwv avayvw(h, Aa{Jwv au y~: avayvw8t., £K~:tva
o£ 7rpwm Ot~:A.B~:) ugge t that Eu ebiu in truct d omeone to
read the relevant pa age and th n commented on th m aloud,
with an amanuen i cop ing down both the pa age r ad and
Eu ebiu 'comment . In general, editor have taken concluding
phra e like 'Although there ar endless argum nt that one
might u e, yet the e are ufficient ' (PE 14. 19. 8 F 5· 8) a =
boundarie between Ari to I 't xt and Eu ebiu ',and attribute
them to the latter. The equence of Ari tocle ' introduction

6
' tob . 1. 18. 1d doe the same in h• report of AetiU (D•el • 79 : 317),
Z~vwv t<a! o{ t.i.r' a.n-ou while Ps.-Piut. 1 . 20. 1(•bid . ) onl y refer to 'the to• s'.
xxnu lntr du tion
and con om ,·id n from th manu-
t that thi ma not alwa b true. For
(F 6. ), \i h r imilar
word are c rtainl · ri to le ', mce they ar th premi of
what follow in para. 9; it may not be true at PE 14. 1 . 3 I (F 4·
3 I), where the ame tat ment wa air ad attributed to
Ari to le by Heiland (1925: 70 n. 5); and at PE 14. I9 . 8 it elf
(F 5· ), where I Jb )early require , and Bp rmit , the con-
clu ion to b attributed to Ari tocle .
The definiti n of th boundarie betwe n Eu ebiu ' and
Ari tocle 'word i not unimportant, b eau e oft n in Eu ebius'
introduction relevant pi ce of information ar gi en, and it
1 worth a e m wh th r they are du to Ari tocl
Eu ebiu . enerally p aking, it em that in thi a e too
ome termin logy i borrowed by Eu ebiu from Ari to le to
introduce th xtract from the latt r, a with the xpre 10n
KaTafJ6.A>..nv ('redu e') and fLOvov TcjJ A6ycp 1TLOTEunv ('to trust
rea on only') in hi introdu tion to F 7, with the \i ord fLOVa
Myovm dvat Ta 1Ta01J KaTaA1J1TTa (' a ing that only affection
can be apprehended') in hi introduction to F 5, and with the
de cription of ::Vletrodoru of hio a omeone who affirmed
that xpiJvat 1TLUT€UHV TQL~ TOU UWfLQTO ataO~aWLV ('one hould
tru t bodily perception ') and that TQUTQ t'UTLV, 0 av TL~ vo~aaL
('thing are u ha one ma think them') in hi introduction to
F 6. ' 7 n the other hand, th li ting of philo opher a carding
to their theoreti al affinity, the a-called ucce i n (8ta8oxa{),
and the doxographical and biographi al information added
before F 4- to give a ontext to Ari toe) ' argument probably
denve from other ource . Eu ebiu never mention them, and
it i difficult to reach definite re ult concerning their identifi-
cation;' in th following paragraph , therefore, I imply epar-
ate what can be attributed to Ari tocle from what i Eu ebiu ,
and li t Eu ebiu ' main parallel in th note .
A for th ucce ion , Ari tocle do not e m to be one of
7
' n tocles' inRuence on EusebiU here is rendered c pecially probable by
the fa t that :\ letrodoru \\a. not u ually con tdercd a Protagorean but a
Democntean cepuc
' Tht 1 also the opm10n of D1cls ( 1 79 : s-6), Gtfford ( 1903: xxv-xxx),
He1land (1925. 7), \lra (1954: 1, lv-lvill), v. K1enlc (1961. 12-15), lo -
hammer (1979: pas 1111}, De. Pia e (1982 and m mnelll and Des Places 198?:
s8-6o), T . D Barne ( 1970 I 3). and '\lansf Id ( '992. 32-42).
 Th Work XXIX

Eu biu ' our e , mainly for the following rea on . Ari tocl
di us ion of the different pi temologies in book 8 of n Phil-
osophy (F 4- ) are perfectly onn cted one to the other without
Eu ebiu ' bridges, and ach of them seem to tart preci ly
wher th pre iou one nd . The uccession expounded in
Eu ebius' linking pa age ometime e en di turb Ari to I
eq u n e: for exa mple, that fr m Xenophane to Epicuru ,
whi ch introduce Ari to le ' di cu ion of the Eleatic , the
'ceptic , th Protago rean , and the Epicurean (F 4, F 6-8)
doe not include the renaic , who, on the contrary, are treated
by Ari tocle together with th abov -mentioned thinker (F s);
and introdu ing the Epicurean (F 8) Eu ebiu employ two
differ nt u ces ion , on , rel ati n to epi temology, that links
Epicuru to Xenophane and the Eleatic through D mocritu
and Nausiphane , the other, r lating to ethics, that link him to
Ari tippu , while Ari tocles link Epi urean epi temology to
the Protago rea n (F 6) and treat th ir ethic a a ea e of moral
epi temology (F 8). Finally, Eusebiu ' introduction to Ari to-
cle ' treatment of the toi (F 3) pre ent a ucce ion in
thic , while Ari tocle ' chapter d al with ph y ic .
That Ari tocle has little to do -. ith the ucce ion re alled
by Eu ebi u i a! o the opinion of mo t cholar , ' 9 th ugh for
9
' Diels (1879: 169 n . 1) thought that usebius derived all the sue e s ions
he reports m PE 1o , 14, and 15 from a ingle source, au thor of a biographical
compendium; V. Kienle ( •961 : 12-1 5) ag ree with Die! • general tatement
that Eu ebius mu t have relied on external material, but suspect the pre ence
of more than n our e, smce he saw ome m ongruitie , e.g. between 1o. 14·
11-6 on the one hand and 14. 17. 10 and 10. 4· IC>-7 on the other. Indeed, for
the uc e ion between ynics and toic , Eu ebJUs eem to rely on the same
tradttion as !em. 1. lrom . 1. 62-4, Eptphan. Adt•. Haere . 3· 2. 9, P -Gal.
Htst . p/11/. 3, and D . L . 1. 15; whil e the Eleatt ucce tOn a! o occur tn ' !em.
Al. lrom. 1. 62-4, P .-Gal. Hit . phil. 3, Ps.-Plut. 1. 3, Hippo!. Ref. 1. 11-4,
Eptphan. Adt•. Ha er. 3, Theodor t. Cr. aff. mr. 4· s-•o, and . L. 1. •s and
book 9· Their report ha c been e ·ten ively stud ied (D1el 1 79 , von Kumle
1961 , lucker 1978, iannantoni 1981 b, Decleva aizzt 1984a, 1990, 1992C,
lansfeld 1990:286-3 12, 1992: 27-43, ronadto 1990, Dorandi 1992), and
acknow ledged to depend ultimately on an adem1c tradition, as i . De oral.
3· 61-2 uggcsts. l ansfeld ( 1992: 1o n . 45 , 1 1 n . 4 ) even su pc ts that they
may depend on one dire t our e, "'h1ch also included om chron logical
pieces of information from pollodorus . Th1 is supported by Eusebius' men-
tion of 'e a. m the mtroduction to F 6, for, apart from D. L . 9· 58 , who
report a Imtlar uc es ton and often make use of pollodoru., e sas i.
mentioned only by pollodoru m P rphyr) (Quae t . Hom . ad 11. Q. 378; 1
 x.·x lntrodu tion
the doxographi al and biographi al it m not all agree on
Ari to I x lu ion from Eu ebiu ' ourc s, particularly for
the intr du tion to F 5, F 6, and F . In th a e ofF 5, mo t
cholar think that Eu ebiu ' ource i ri to I , •o b eau e thi
pie e i th only \'Id nee a\·ailable t u \ hi h attribut the
theory that pi a ure i the telos to the younger Aristippu .
Althou h thi i tru , and it i al o true that Eu ebiu ' first
the Yer term u ed by Ari to I (1-1-ova. Myov-
Ta. £lvat T<i 1TCl.(}1J KO.TO.A1J1TT1l), Ioraux right! notices (I 984: I 79
n. 330) that thi pa age ha not mu h to do with that oncern
with epi temology whi h appear in all th chapter urv1 mg
from book of hi On Plzilo oplzy. In fact, Ari tocl ' di cu -
ion of Pyrrho' and Ari tippu 'th orie of know! dge (F 4-5)
are perfe tly linked on to the oth r: Aristo I concludes hi
di cu ion of the Pyrrhonian at F 4· 3 I 'I think' e hould not
call it philo oph · at all, for it de troy the principle of phil-
o ophy. o far again t tho e who are con idered to follow
Pyrrho' philo ophy', and begin that of the yrena1 ' ext
will be tho e who a_ that affection only ar apprehen ible'
(F 5· I) . 1\loreover, a already tre ed, Eu ebiu ' reference
to the ucce ion ocrate -Aristippu -Epicuru conflict with
Ari tocle ' attachment of Epicuru to Protagora and Metro-
doru in F 6. -<). Eu ebiu ' ource for thi item, then, may
be the ame ource from which other imilar report of the
Cyrenaic doctrine of plea ure deri e, uch a .E. PH I. 2I5,
..vi 7- I99, and D.L . 2. 85-9, where Panaetiu 'and Hippobotu '
work On tlze Sects are mentioned; Giu ta (I964-7: i. 418)
u pect thi ource i Ariu .
A for the introduction to F 6, Mullach argued that the
whole pa age wa part of Ari tocl ' text; but thi idea
conflict with the beginning of F 6 proper ('Th re wer ome
who thought that one hould only tru t n e perceptions and
137) and m Proclus (In llwod. Op., p . 4 ). On th e other hand Eu ebiu ' links
between ocrate and An tlppus and between n tippus and Epicurus are
doxograph1cal ommonpla e wh1ch can be traced back to the ademy, a is
attested by C1cero' numerou references (De oral. J . 61 ; De fin . 1. 23, 26, 37,
2 I , IJ,J9,114, 5 17;LIIC.IJI,Deoff.J . 116).
•• F1r t of all a1 ford ( 1 43), then Zeller ( 1919-23 : 1. 254, 1i1. 248); atorp
(1 96), Anton1ade ( 1916· JJ), H elland (1925 : 7o-2) , Gtannantont (1958: 107
n . 1 and 112; 19 3-5 t. 2 , 1n. 167), la sen (1958 : 186), Trabu co (196o:
127-<J) Contra ~lannebach (196 1· 115) and Gtusta (1964-7: i. 41 ).
 The Work XXXI

pre entation '), which would have to be a econd tart.

In the ea e of th introduction to F 8, Mra took the word
'From thi (Oton) it i now evident that those who affirm that
all per eption and pre entations are true do not speak rightly '
as Ari tocles', since Oton i one of Ari tocle • favourite word .
Then h su pects that Eu ebiu derived from Aristocle the
whole of paras. 13 and 14 of thi linking pa sage. Thi i not
suppo rted by the manu cript , however, and cannot be true , if,
a will oon appear, Ari tocle pia ed his chapter on Epicurean
moral epi t mology after hi refutation of the Eleatic .
Moreover, the relation hip between Ari tippu and Epicurus
and the xpressions Opf-1-Wf-1-f.VOL (' tarting'), T!l 7TCl8TJ p.ova KaTa-
ATj1TTCL ('only affection are apprehen ible'), and ~oov~ TIAo~ ('the
end i plea ure') have a close parallel in the introduction to F 5,
which ha been hown to b independent of Ari tocles . In addi-
tion, the wrong de cription of Epicurean epi temology (p.6va nl.
7T(5.8TJ KaTaATJ"TTTa f.tvat) cannot be attributed to Ari tocle , who
doe not mention it in hi chapter and doe not eem to u e the
term Kan5.ATJ.fit~ ('apprehen ion') except for the Cyrenaic (F s).
Finally, Ari tocles' F 7 and F 8 are adequately linked indepen-
d ntly of Eu ebiu b the fir t word ofF 8: ' ince knowledge
i of two kind ', which expre Ari tocles' judgement that hi
di cu ion of the different theorie of knowledge \i ould not be
compl te without a reference to that particular theory of
knowledge which i moral epi temology. 21
It may now be po ibl to under tand why the numbering

" It i not lear whether the doxographical items are derived from the ame
ource as the ucce ions: 1ansfeld ( 19 6 : 304 ff.) argu d again t Dtel '
harp distmctton between doxographies and biographte . lo t of the doxo-
graphi al fragments reported by Eu ebJUs are very\ ell-known plaCita philoso-
phorum, whose collection had been mitiated in the cademy. In Eu ebiu '
mtroductton t F 3, nti thene 'di ta on plea ur are also found m lement
and other author (F ro8 -F Decleva arzzi); f. hts expre ed \\t h to hoot
phrodite for the harm she caused (F 109.\-R Decleva aizzi), and the a cou nt
of Dtogene a the Dog i a commonplace which also occur in lem. I.
trom . . 12, Philo, Pia ut . 1s 1, D. L . 6. 33, 45-6, ss. 6o-1, 69, to b. 2. . 2 1, 3·
'3 · 44, lymp . in Gorg . 44· 6 , nom . Vat . 743 n. 194. That he held m ~t
bestial rdea may be onnect d to Diogenes' shamelcssne s (dval8na) and
ontempt for socral convention m favour of a natural ltfe. The term
'HpaKA£wnKo doe not occur in other source , but 1 conne ted \\ rth ll eracles,
\\ ho wa commonly considered the father of the ynrc and tot philo. ophy of
hard linng (D . L . 6. 2, 104-s . 7 · 170).
.·xxu lntr duction
fra m nt et ut here doe not
orr pond to their
"vhi h doe m to be Ari tocl
Eu . PE 14. 17-21
yrenai , Protagora and Metrodoru ,
Epicurean ) wa fir t qu tioned by Heiland ( 1925: 94), fo l-
lowed by Trabuc o (1959: 473), who hanged it to Protagoras
and I;trodoru , Eleatic , epti yr nai , Epicurean .
The rea on for thi hange i that Ari to I b gin hi discu -
ion of th (PE q .. 17. 1) by aying: 'But there came
other uttering lan uage oppo ed to the e. For the think we
ought to put down th en e and their pr entation , and tru t

In Eu ebJU · mtrodu t10n to F 6, the tatement that I trod oru wa one of

Democntu ' puptl · and de lared the fu ll and the voi d to be th fir t principle ,
con td nng the fir t a bemg and th e ond a not-b ing, ca n b traced back
to Theophra~tu , if he i the source of imp . In Phys . 2 . 27 (70 3 OK) , and
al o o curs m Iem . I Protr . 5· 66. s for I\ letrodoru ' cepti i m , th a me
fragment (70 8 I DK) , 0 cur in ic. Luc . 73 . .L . 9· s8, in Philodemus,
Rhet 11 . 169 udhau., m .E. J\1 7· 8, Luer. 4 · 469-70, Epiph . Ad1•. Ha er. 3·
2 9, although the 'er ton. clo e t to Eu ebiu ' are i ero' and Philodemu '
(8run ch\\tg 1996) On the other hand, :'lletrodoru ' relat tvt m (70 8 2 OK) i
not reported by other ources, and Eu ebiu may have referred to it in order to
explam An tocle ' pa~r~ng of htm '' ith Protagora m F 6. There are also
dtfferent ver tons of Protagora ' fragment on the god ( o 8 4 D K) in Plat.
Theaet. 162 D, Phtlodemu , De piet . 22. 9 Gomperz, D 1. 29, 63, .E.
J/ 9 ss-6 , DIOgene of enoanda 16. I I-III mtth , D . L . 9· 51' Eusebius
htm elf in PE 1 +· J . The close t to Eu ebiu ' introduction to F 6, however, 1
E . .119 ss-6. whtle IC . 'D I 29 I parallel to PE •4· 3 ( igon 1967) - lso
Protagora ' end wa told m different way : . E. NI 9· 56 report that
Protagora was condemned to death but that he e aped and di ed by hip-
wreck (on tht al o Phtlochoru , FGrH 328 F 117 = D .L . 9 · ss-6) , and it doe
not report the burnmg of Protagora ' book , w htch t found in 'ic. D 1 . 63
an d come from Ttmon (779 H) , a co rding to .E. ft/9 . 57 ( Dt 1arco 19 9:
124-s). The bant hment from th en , then, may be a later mfer nee; it al o
oc ur tn Phtlo t . r' I . 10.
In the mtroduct10n to F 8, the allegation that ptcuru r fu ed to a knowl-
edge ht debt to ht tea her wa pread around by Ttmo rate ( edley 1967),
and became part of the hosttl cademic tradition about Eptcuru attes ted by
tc SD 1 72, b y . E. All 2-3, an d by D .L. 10. 13 . That he r ad the writing
of the anctent ha no lo e parallel , apart from what ts tmplt cttl y tared by
D10cle m D L 9- 12, accordmg t whom among the ea rl y philo opher his
fa,ounte were Ana ·agora and Archelau , the teacher of o rate . That
Eptcuru heard Xcno rate 1 al o stated m tc. D 1 . 72 and Demetrius
\lagne ap D L. IO. 13 , ''h tle that he attended ' au tph anes' lecture
probably denve from pollodoru (ibtd .) and i report d m ' lem . I. trom .
I . 6-f, .E -~1 I 2-3. D L . 10. 64, 69 .
 Th Work XXX Ill

only to rea on'. And th contra t e m to be with M trodoru

and Protagora , who ar aid to follow perception and repre-
entation only (PE 14. 20. 1 ), rather than with the ceptics.
But Ari tocle ' equ nee does not eem to be H iland 's and
Trabucco' eith r. For the pa age on Metrodoru and Pro-
tagora in PE 14. 20 i divided into two part , the econd of
which i addre ed to om unnamed contemporarie , who can
be ea ily id ntified a Epicurean . n the other hand, the frag-
m nt explicitly directed again t the Epicurean by Ari tocle
in PE 14. 21 d al with a particular aspe t of the Epicurean
criterion and theory of knowledge, nam ly with moral epi te-
mology. The rea on wh thi is added to the chapter on th
riterion i xpre ed b y Ari tocle him elf in the fir t para-
graph: ' in kno ledg i of two kinds , the one of the thing
external, and the other of what we can choo e or a oid .. .'
That PE 14. 21 tands apart is ugge ted not only by thi
beginning, which look like a new tart, but al o by the conclu-
ion , 'The be t a umption of the principle of knowledge are
made b y tho e who mak u of both n e and intellect'. Thi
i the ame tatement which conclude the pa ag on the
Eleati (PE 14. 17. 9), a if both of them repre ented the ame
conclu ion oft.,; o group of ritici m : 'We may ay that tho
philo opher take the right cour who adopt both the en e
and rea on for acquiring knowledge of thing '.
Therefore it eem to me that the order of the fragment in
book 8 ma be ceptic ; yrenaic ; Protagora , M trodoru ,
and Epi urean , Eleatic ; followed b y an appendix on
Epicurean moral epi temology. In thi way the introduction
and the conclu ion of each fragment appear much more on-
i tent with each oth r. The beginning of the fragm nt about
eptici m (F 4· r) ugg t that thi wa the fir t pie e of a
more general inquiry into th principl of know) dge:

Fir t of all it i n e sa ry to mak a thorough e ami nation of our O\ n

knO\\ ledge; for if it i our nature to kno' nothing, th er i no furth r
need to inquire abo ut the oth r thing . ome then th r wcr even of
the ancient, '' ho u ed thi language, and wh hav been oppo ed by
ri. totle.

Th n th xa mination of th prin iple of the cliff r nt philo-

ophical y tern f llow (F 5· 1) : ' ext in ord r will b th
 lntr ducti n
n alone ar appr h n ibl ', namely the
yr na1 b n men wh main-
tained that w ption and pre nta-
• and th Epicurean .
oth r utt ring word ppo ed to the e.
ht to put do' n th s n e and th ir pre-
nly to rea on', nam I th El atic . The
alation (again t th hampion of no
f r a on) i i en at the
in F 7· 9: '\ may a that
tho e phil opher tak th right cour who adopt both en e
and rea on for a qui ring th knowledg of all thing . '
o far, thi i the order uppo ed by Moraux (1984: 124, 183,
I 9 n. 360), who, howev r, i uncertain wh th r to in ert PE

q . 21 after the critici m of th yrenaic or after that of Pro-

tagora - and i\Ietrodoru : in the former a e Ari tocle would
turn from tho e who identify affe tion with th criterion of
knowledge to tho who identify them with the criterion of
onduct; in th latter he \.vould turn from tho who con ider
perception and repre entation to tho e ''"ho con ider appre-
hen ion to be the criterion. The hypothe i put forward above,
that PE 14 . 21 come at th end of Ari tocl quence (F 8),
eem al o to b • upported by Eu ebiu ' introduction of hi
critici m of r ek philo ophy at 14. 2, which doe not cone-
pond to the order whi h he actually follow in 1 4· 17-21 , but i
much clo er to what eem to hav b en the equen e of
Ari tocle . There Eu ebiu affirm that he i going to take up
arm
tn oppo. nion to all the ph.Jo opher alik , I mean the Pyrrhoni ts,
who declared that tn the human world there i nothing appr hen ible;
tho e '' ho satd '' tth nsttppu that the affectiOn w r the o le object
of perception; tho. e '' ho, \\ ith .\ letrod ru and Protagora , aid that
we ought to belte,·e on I) the en ati ns of the body . 0 er a a in t these
\\C hall at the same ttme fight the ·chool of Xenophane and
Parmentdes, ~ ho arrayed thems lv n th opposite ·id and anni hi-
lated the sen es • etthcr !.hall we omit the champiOn· of pleasure, but
hall enrol thctr leader Eptcurus also ~ tth those air ady mentioned.
But agatn t all altkc w c . hall u · their O\\ n \\Cap ns to et forth their
refutation

The rea on why Eu blU doe not follow the order h he

 Th Work XXXV
will follow i probably due to the task on which h i
inc h wa not int re ted in the problem of the po ibility of
kn wl dge in it elf, but ought to show the in on i ten i
among Gre k philo opher , he tre ed th antra t between
th hampion of th and the hampion of rea on,
in t ad of developing ritici m of the different
theori of knowledge.
Although it eem r a onabl that the above wa th
equ n of the urviving fragment of the eighth book f
ri tocle 'IlEpt cfn>..oaocfn'as, whi h have a cordingly in thi edi-
tion been numbered on that ba i -the tructure of thi work a
a who! , and it relati n hip with Ari totle' horn nymou
wo rk , r main ob cure. Th main rea on for thi ob curit i th
la k of vid n e. Moreover, the Suda (T I) and the commenta-
tor on Nicomachu (T 3-6) appear to be in conflict: wherea
th Suda tate that in hi t n book IlEpt cfn>..oaocf>!as Ari tocles
'record all philo opher and their belief ' (KaTaMyn mivTa
</>t>..oa6cf>ous Kat sagas athwv), in A clepiu ' and Philoponu ' iew
in th am ten book (Ev Tots 8iKa f3tfJ>..Lots) Ari tocle dealt\ ith
the fi m aning of 'what i wi e' (To aocf>6v), \·v hich were not
one rned with philo ophy alon but r ferred to th knowledg
of how to ur ive, of art , of o ial and political law , of
ph ic , and of true wi dom (ao</>{a), namely eternal truth .
One way to re ol e thi difficulty may b to mend
A lepiu ' and Philoponu ' word Ell Tois 8iKa {Jt{J>..Lots (in the
ten book ) to Ell Tcj> 7rpwnp TWv 8iKa {Jt{J>..Lwv (in the fir t of th
ten book ). Thi i ugge ted by the fact that in the pro m and
book I of hi own On Plzilosoplzy Ari totle dealt with th
different m aning of ao</>{a (Berti I 962: 329). But if o, it i
ob cur ' hat Ari to le wrote from book 2 to books : ' e know
from the Suda (T 2) that in book 6. Ari tocle referr d to
otada , omebod who, a carding to lem . Al. Strom. 1 . 6o,
dealt with the dicta of the e en age ; then we have th
het rog n ou pieces on Plato, Ari totle, and Zeno from book 7
and th cntlCI m of P yrrhonian, yrenaic, Protagorean,
Epicur an, and Eleati epi tern logi from book 8. Finally,
according to F 4· 1 and F 7 · 2 re p ctively, w are informed
that, aft r book 8, i.e. in book 9 and 10, Ari tocle 'examin
the other thing ' (7rEpt TWV a>..>..wv GK07TEi) and 'philo ophiz '
(</>t>..oaocf>Ei). And if we do n t m nd A lepiu ' and Philo-
 xxxn Introdu tion
ponu , w may uppo that ach f th five m an-
mg of 'what i Wl e' de cribed by A I piu -who, a wi ll
appe r m th omm ntary on T 3-6, i pr babl mor faithfu l
to the ri inal our of Ammoniu than Philoponu -wa
treated in two of th t n book of Ari to I ' llEpt c/>tAoaoc/>{as:
book 1-2 may hav dealt with men' di ov rie for ur ival;
book 3-~ with th di coverie f pra ti al ·dxvat; s-6 with the
di co,·erie oncerning livin togeth r, i.e. ethi and politi s,
7- with th di O\'ery of theor ti al tudi , in particular a
un·ey of th major phi! opher , Plato, Ari tot! , and Zeno
(book 7), and a di u ion on the condition of knowledg
(book ); and finally 9-10 ' ith th di over of true phil-
o ophy, probably ph o mol gy, and th olog (meta-
phy ic )."
Th main difficultie with thi h pothe i ar that it i hard
to belie,·e that anyon could write two book on human ur ival
and another two on art and craft and that th hapter on
Ari totle from book 7 i a defence f the tagirite from the
ac u ation of hi detractor . everthel , that Ari tocle
pent time on part1 ular i upported by th mention of the
quite unknown otada in book 6, and the apologia for
Ari totle may hav been due to Ari tocl fe ling the need to
defend hi ma ter from the ma of go ip and denigration that
la ted for year aft r hi death.
n the oth r hand, the ugge ted pattern xp lain the
already mentioned r feren e to 7Tf.pt T(.OV a>.>.wv UK07Tf.LV and to
c/>tAoaoc/>Etv in the following book .•J Th econd of the e refer-
ence in parti ular ug e t that Ari tocle doe not con ider
what he ha · been doing up to book 8 a true philo ophy, and
thi i con i tent with A clepiu ' and Philoponu ' report (T
u He1land ( 192.5 . 4 . 9o-4) a! o. ugge ted that n todes followed a themati
order, but h1. de cnpt1on does not corre pond to th C\ 1den e. He supposed
that book. 1-4 ''ere ded1 ated to pars logica, 5-6 to par morali , 7-8 to par
naturails, and 9-10 to par theologtca . He then d1\1ded Phl!oponu 'te ·tJmoma
bet\,een books 1-6 and <)-10, and a ·s•gned those in Euseb1u to book 7-8 . He
a! o thought that n toclc~· On rhetorical arts belonged to the fir tor second
group, the Eth1cs and the trcau. e about otada. of ByzantiUm to the th1rd, the
pa age m Alexander of phrod1 1as to the fourth
' ' The c reference~ ar the rea on '' hy I cannot folio\\ Trabucco's v1e\\.
ac ordmg to "h1ch m the fir. t SIX books Anstocles dealt "1th h1s own phil-
o oph}. m book 7 "1th the chools he appr vc , and m books -1 o w1th the
doctnnc he reJe ted (1958 104, 12.7, 1959 473)
 TheW rk xxxvii
J-6), a cording to which in Ari tocl 'vi w, although To aocp6v
ma b aid of five differ nt kind of knowledg , true wi dom
dea) With eterna) and Unchanging thing On)y (Ta 8€ta Kat aWta
av€Spa,....ov, br' auTa Ta an Kat WCJaUTWS lxovTa).
Thi wa not only Plato' opinion (Epinomis 974),>4 but al o
ri tot) ' , a cording to M et. 980"2 1-982•2 I, where a hi tory
of human ultural de elopm nt and of the differ nt m aning
men ha gi en to aocp{a i delin ated. Thi pas age of the
lv!etaplzysics i now on idered (Gigon 19 7: 270) to be a
ve tigiurn of Ari totle' On Philosophy, a work that e m to
ha e d alt with the origin and hi tor of the word 'phil-
o oph ', 'wi dom', 'wi e', 'expert' (cptAoaocp{a, aocp{a, aocp6s,
aocptaT~s); with the wi dom of the even age ; with the
prin ipl of natural philo ophy and of ethi ; and with the
main philo ophi al figure uch a Parmenide , Anaxagora ,
ocrate (book 1); with Plato' theory of idea and principle
(book 2); with Plato' eo mology and theology; with th proof
of the eternity of the world; with the influence of th heaven
on the cele tial and ub ele tial bodie and-. ith the un' rota-
tion and re olution (book 3) (Berti 1962, nter t in r 1963,
Gigon 1987).
Thu , d pite the car e id nee from both Ari tot! ' and
ri tocl ' On Philosophy, and although in ome d tail that
pa age from the Metaphysics differ from A lepiu ' and
Philoponu ' report ( e the omm ntary on T 3-6), it i
po ibl that Aristotl ' and Ari to I ' work shared at lea t
th ame concern and aim , if not th am tructur . Thi i
upported by the fa t that the e oncern and aim m to
hav been al o har d b the oth r work On Philosophy -. e
have kno-. ledge of. For the fragment of tho e by Poly tratu
(P .Herc . I 520) and Metrodoru (Piut. M or. I 127 B) ontra t
the life of th wi e man and th philo opher with that of the
um i e, and expo e the folly (avo{as v6a1J!-La) of mo t m n. And
Po idoniu ( en. Epist. 90 =fr. 2 4 Edel tein-Kidd) faced the
ame ubject, although h thought that all human di coveri
and progre ar tru kno'¥ I dg . arro's On Philosophy too
ma be in lud d in thi group; for, according to th un' tVtn
evidenc (Aug. De civ. Dei 19), it e m to have follow cl a
""' Ithough the author of the Epiuomi. i generally ackn ''!edged to be
Phd1ppus of Opus, 1ts ont nts arc considered g nuinely Platomc
 I ntrodu tion
phyint
di\id d

COYerte , and to ign re

the di part of philo ophy
whi h, n pia m all philo-
ophical chool , •n m ri totelian! Thi al o up-
7

port the hypoth i that Ari to le ' llEpt cpt>..oaocp{a depended

on Ari totl ' work dir tly.

Ill. TEXT L HI T RY

I. Eu ebiu

The manu cnpt of Eu ebiu can b di"ided into two cla es,
whtch I call a and ~. the former con i ting of A(H)J and the
econd of B (G)VND . Book 14 and 15 of PE, containing the
5
' Tht kmd of que tJon eem to have b en cxtenstvely treated m the
:\cad my , mce On Philosophy wa the ubJCCt of Plato's Theages (D . L . 3· 59),
and we have tra e of homonymou work by tmmtas, tmon, and
Xenocrate (D L. 2 122, 124 and 4 13), peustppu (D . L . 4 · 4), eleucu
(0 L 3 109), by trato (D . L . - 59). There are al o traces of work n£pi
oot/M by .· enocrate. (D . L 4 11) and nto (D . L. 4 · 9), \\hdc Theophra tus'
n£pi T<iw oo</>w" (D L . 5 4 ) wa. probabl) a work on the e\ en age , rather
than on phtlo. oph) generall}, according to Plut olon 4 · 2-8 (Theophrastu
fr. 5 3).
"' On tht matter sec Bo) a nee ( 1971 ), Hadot ( 1979, 19 2), Gott chalk
(19 7- 1098-<)), and lerodtakonou (1993) .
" :\ndront u., accordm~ to Phtlop . In rat 5· 18ff, Eltas, In at. 117.
22ff., recommended begmnmg the tudy of ph dos phy \\tth logic, wh1 h wa.
nece ar) for the learnmg of the other branches of phdosophy; Boethus,
a cordmg to Phtlop In rat 5· 16-18, Elta , In Cat 117. 21-2, argued that it
hould begm \\lth phy tc , whtch was clo·er to e\·eryday expenence; finally
A pa tu. , In EN 2 4-6, probably mAuenced by lcin . Dtdasc 1-2, con 1dcred
ethtc more nece sary (avayKa<oTaT1)), even tf phy tcs w a more honourable
(n,.twTipa) . Indeed pa tus may be one of the nv£~ \\ ho recommended begtn-
nmg \\ tth ethtc menttoned by Phdop In at 23-4, although a ordmg to
Elta • In at . 117. 24 tho. e \\ho held tht. ne\\ were Platontsts.
 T xtual Hi tory XXXIX

nia and fragment of Ari to le , are includ d in M I

and B ( ) ND. A li t of abbr viations follow , but for a com-
plet de ription of th M I refer to Mra (I9S4). Th tem-
ma 1 mine, ince Mra (I 9S4: I) r f r to Bidez (19I 3: I s6),
who diagram place I in ~ and i not omplete.

tgla

= Pari , Bibliotheque ational de France, m . grec 4S 1,

writt n in 914, the olde t, in orthographical matter i more
pre 1 than th other M (Mra 19s4: xviii), although 'inter-
polation non ab unt' (Wolff 1886: 106); report book I-6
only and b gin at I. 3· S·
=
B Pari , Bibliotheque Nationa l de France, m . gr c 46s ( .
xiii), the !de t of the ~ la , mor than one hand, ' ith omi -
ion and error but ba ed on a er good ource: when it
differ markedl y from the reading hared by the other M of
it cla , it i often right (Mra I9S4: xx f.); book I2lacking.
D = Pari , Bibliotheque ationale de France, m . gre 467 ( .
xvi), gernellu of N, independent of B and 0, more than one
hand, the cond in book 9 depend on I or on it copy J (Mar .
ra c. 342, 1470) . With E (Pari . Graec 468, . x i, indirect
cop of I through J) i the ba e of tephanu (IS44) (Mra
19s4: xli -vi).
G = Florence , Biblioteca M die a Laurenziana, plut. I 9,
writt n in I 344, cop of Y (Mra I 9S4: xxxviii).
H = ni e, Biblioteca azional Marciana, Graec . 343 (coli.
309) ( . xi), b ok I-S, copy of A ( 1ra 19s4: xviii).
I = enice, Bibliote a azionale lar iana, Graec . 341 ( oil.
73S) ( . x ), t\ o hand : I• from the b ginning until fo . 26s ' (PE
14. 16.2,HaayH)andfromfo .29S'(PEis. 17. 1,0TIOYKA
EIH l:.QMA) until the end, Ih from fo. 266' (PE 14. I6. 2,
TTPWTov c/>aaKwv) to fo . 29S' (PE 1 S· I 6. 2, fL'YJKvvot). Forth m t
part it i a ery good M of th more preci e a la , but it
d p nd on B for th fir t two book and from PE IS. I7
onward ( 1ra 19s4: xiv).
= a pi , Biblioteca azional Vittorio Emanu I 11,
ra . 11 A 16 ( . xv), gemellus f th !at r D, indep nd nt of
 xi Introdu tion
and B, m re imilar t th former in b ok 1-<) and 14-15 and
to th latter in ID-IJ, a D i al o inftu ne d by th a cla ; it
ft n .·h1bit mendation by a e ond hand f th ame p riod
n B omit , mamtain th f it cla
again t ( lra 1954: xlii f.) .
niv r itaria 3643 ( . xiii), two hand ,
th ond ' doe not r lyon anoth r ource but improve the
fir t 0 1 (l\Ira 195-t: xxxiv). With Band a good r pre enta-
tl\'e of th p la .
Y = 1\lt Atho , \'atop di 1 o, writt n in IJJS, al o a good r p-
re entati,· of the p la ' , it often pr erve th truth, but not
alone ; in a fe" a e 1t xhibit the am error a and D
().Jra r 954: xlix n. 1 ) . l\Ira aw only photograph , and only of
book 1--6 and 1 S·

l emma

(t)

a ~ ----- ~
A
/
~B
/ -------------- y
H I~ 8/ ........_ 0
I - - ---------------- E/

J / G
D

2. A cl pm

The ).1 • f A clepiu repre nt cla Ill m Tar::in'

cla ification of manu cript contammg comm ntarie on
• · • omachu 'IntroductiOn to Arithmetic and ultimat ly d p nd
on th am our e, a :\1 which probably had abbreviation
that were ometim m1 int rpret d, a, hown b m m1 -
 Textual Hi t ry xli
take in and M (Tanln 1969: 6--'7 and 2o-4). Tanln' temma
i a follow :
•

M
/
p
/
Sigla

M = Munich, Bayeris he taat biblioth k, Cod . graec. 43 r ( .

xiv-xv), the main M , with correction by the am or a on-
temporar cond hand.
A = Milan, Biblioteca Ambro iana, B 77 up. ( . xv), a good
M , ind pend nt of M, although damaged and incompl te
om time contain b tter reading than the latter.
P = Pari , Bibliotheque National de France, ms . gr 2376 ( .
xvi), direct or indirect copy of M, with two unimportant excep-
tion r produce all the mi tak pres nt in M, \ orthle for
th e tabli hment of the t xt.
Tanin ' cla IV compri e M not of Asclepiu but of an
anonymou unpublished comm ntary on Nicomachu ' Intro-
duction to An.thmetic that incorporate the fir t part of
clepiu ' ommentary, that in hich he or hi ource refer to
ri to le . The are often mor ac urate than the M of cla
I I I and therefore are u eful for the a e ment of th text of
clepiu I a. The mo t important of them are Flor
Bibli te a Medicea Laurenziana,. plut. L Ill 29,;~........~~
Bibliote a de an Lor nzo de El E coria! Y -l-12

J. Philoponus

Th M Ho h ( 1864) ar oft' o cla e , H and

In fact H h i uncertain wh th r to attribute to Philoponu
r n of hi pupil (Ho h 1 64: ii and n. 1). In hi cla ifi a-
 xlii Introduction
t1 n of all th i\I ontaining mm ntari
Introduction to Arithmetic, Tanin
Phi! ponu him elf ( la I) and
a! o con ult d tw xford 1 11

I XXXIII, whi h e m to b
th n may be th f llowing:

•
/ •
/
G H •
/ Lincoln

1gla

Hoche ( 1 64) m it the name of the library and th helfmark,

which are upplied when known.
= Zeitz, tift biblioth k ( . xiv or x ), with corrections and
emendation (Hoche 1 64: ii)
G = Gottin n, niver itat biblioth k, Philol. 66 ( . xvi
according to Ho h , . x in the atalogue), with ome error
retained from the hypar hetype.
H = Hamburg, pr umably taat - und niv r itat bibliothek
( . xvi) from th am hyparchetype a
Lincoln = xford, Lincoln oil g , r. xxxiii ( . xi ), imilar
to , often m to attempt to improve th reading of it
ource.
avde = xford, avi le 11 ( . xiv), v ry imilar to Lincoln.
AP I ~TOKAEO Y ~
ME~~HNIOY
TA ~QJZOMENA
 TE Tll\10 lA A N D FRAGMENTS

T 1: Suda s .v. :A.pto-roKXiis, a 3916 Adler (T I Heiland)

l4ptaTOKAij , Mwaf]lltO> Tij iTaA{a , c/>tAoaocpo,; l lEpmaTTJTLKO>, auii-

ETa{f. llEpt c/>tAoaocp{a {3t{3Ma 8/Ka. l loTf.po11 a7Tov8atoTEp o "Op.TJpo,;
~ llM.Twll . KaTaMyn 8€ Ell Tothot miiiTa> c/>tAoaocpov,; Ka i 86{a>
avTCVII' typaljlf. 8€ Kat Tlxlla PTJTOptKa ' l lEpt .Ea pa 7TL8o,;, 'HBtKa
{3t{3Ata B.

T 2 : Suda s .v . I<alT<i8as, o 869 Adler (T 11 Heiland)

EwTaOa,;, Bv,aiiTLO ' c/>tAoaocpo,;· w,; Ell TCfJ )

1
l lEp t c/>t Ao a ocp{a ,
l4ptaTodij .

T 3: Asclepius , On Nicomachus ' Introduction to

Arithmetic I a Taran

I.
..J...,
OTL IJ-fll OUII,
\ ... , ,
w,;
tKop.axo> opL,f.Tat, c/>t Aoaocp{a EGTL c/> tA{a
GO't'ta 7Ta11Tt 7Tp0V7TTOV f.GTLII.
1" ~ \ I l ,/..I ,1.. \ ~ ..J...I f' f
2. apa of. n f.an ao't'ta; 't'a!J-f.ll on aa't'ta' n o vaa w>
aac/>TJIIL,ovaa Ta 7Ta11Ta. ci.pa 8€ 7To8f.ll auTo TOUTo a a c/> {a EMx BTJ;
\ I
llf.YO!J-f.V "
OTL -J. •
7Tapa' TO' 't'W 0"8 f.ll Kat' nptGTOTf.IITJ!i
OJI 1\ 1 8 lz "
7Tall -J. I
o a a 't'aiiOTaTa,
• -~. I ,
TaVTa 7Tf.'t'WTLG!J-f.lla Kat Ka apa Kallf.t. f.7Tf.t OVII TO aa't'f.!i f.tW f. Ta
o, ,. , , .. , -~. · ~ o ,
Kf.Kpvp.p.EIIa w,;
Ell GKOTCfJ Tfl ci.yvo{q. El c/>w Kat YIIWGtll E7TLc/>EpH11,
Ota TouTo EKA~B., oihw,;.
3.
l \
f.7Tf.L of. 011w
~ \ fl\ \ ..J.. I
Kat ao't'tall Kat ao't'o11 011op.a~op.E11, a p a n
\ ..J.. \ l I r 1" I )
f.GTL TO
\

..J... \ .., l I I fl C' I I ) \ ...J.. I ,1(\ \

GO't'OII TOVTO; tGTf.OII TOLIIVII OTt OJ.I-WIIVJ.I-011 f.GTL TO GO't'OII' f. tiiTJ7TTat yap
KaTa 7Tf11Tf. Tpo7Tov ou p.IAAw Myn11,J w c/>TJat ll l4. ptaTo KAii> Ell Toi,;
llEpl. c/>tAoaocp{a O(Ka {3t{3A{ot,;.
' Onl} here and m a tmtlar argument by Ph tlop. I n An P ost 332. 8 in tead
of oac/>Ho. ( CC the 'ommentary)
' trav8' Cod cor -ro. 8' \1 J oil ,..t>.Aw MyHv ;\ I, Cod . cor ., om . .
 T1-3 Tran lation
3

Tx

ri tocle of Me ene in Italy, P ripateti philo opher, ompil d a

work On Philosophy in ten books, and Whether Homer or Plato i
the Better. In th e h report xhau tively on all philo opher and
their opinion ; he al o wrot Rhetorical Arts, On Sarapi , and an
Ethics in eight books.

Tz

otada , of Byzantium, philo oph r, a ording to Ari to le m

book 6 of On Philosophy.

1. That philo ophy i lov of wi dom, a Nicomachu d fine it,

doe 'wi 'm

mou ; for it i taken in five way , ' hich I am going to r port, a
ri to le ay in the t n book of hi n Philosophy.
4 · It i nee ar to know that m n are de troyed in e'' ral
 T -s: Text
+·
XP~ fi0£1'0.1 OT! r/>8£tpOVTO.L Ot av8pwTTOL Oto.r/>6pw . KO.L yelp UTTO
• KO.t' voaw1•
AOtfLWI' ' '\
TTOLKLIIWV KO.t' u'f'
• .J. ' £T£pwv
• ' 8VTJUKouat,
' '\
fLO.IItaTO. ~ '
o£
UTTO KO.TO.KAUUfLWV WC1TT£P KO.L fTTL TWV J£uKo.A[wvo xp6vwv· TTClVTWIJ
o€ ou KO.HKpclTT}U£, aAA' Ot fLfV (v TOL opwt OtO.UcfJ~OVTO.L, T(l o€
' 'r
~' KO.TO.KIIU<,OVTO.t
TT£0!0. KO.t• O.'f'O.IIL<,OVTO.L.
•.J. 'r • '
~
£7TH Of ' 7T£pt' TO.' OpT}
" ~ '
OLO.fL£VOUC1L'
TLVE dKaTclKAuaTOL,. Oc.d. TOtiT6 £lat..v EKEL xwp{a KaL olK~OEL . Kat oi

TT£ptA£Lr/>8€vT£ Aomov ipyO.~ovTo.t, w 07JAoi Ko.i oTTOtT}T~ ·

KTIC1C1( 8£ Jap80.Vl1JV" f7T(t OlJTTW "D.ta tp~

(v TT£8tc~ TTnro.Atcrro, TToAt fLlPOTTWV O.v8pcimwv. ( Y 216-17)
o07-ot OVI' Ot TT£ptA£LTTOfL£VOL fL~ lxovT£ o8£v Tpo.r/>watv f7TLVOOUC1 l T(l
TTPO T~V XP£LO.V fTTL Tcp aA~8uv fLUAOL ULTOV .., £7Tl Tcp C17T£tp£Lv ~ TL
TOLOUTOV " KO.L My£TO.L ~ TOLO.UTT} fTTLVOLO. aor/>[o. KO.Ta TO avo.yKO.LOV
Ao.fL{30.VOfL€V7J. TTclALV o£ f7TLVOOUC1L T€xvo. , w rPTJULV 0 7TOLT}T~
(mo8T/IJ.OC1VVTJC1LV )t8~V1J (Q 412)

f7Tft crocpo ~pap€ T(KTWV " (- IJ' 7 I 2)

Tj ovv HKTOVLK~v Tj oiKoOOfLLK~v ~ nvo. T€XV7JV ET€po.v f7Ttvoouat KO.L
My£TO.L aor/>[o. TT£PL -r€xvo.s . TTclAtv aTT€{3A£cpo.v TT£PL -rcl TTOALTLKa
TTpayfLo.To. Ko.l €TTo[71 ao.v v6fLou Ko.i TTavTo. Ta acfJ~ovTo. -rcls TToAH>
\ \ I fl f ) I .,I.. I \ \ \ \ t' I \
KO.I 11£Y£TO.L O.UTT} T} f7TlVOt0. UO'f'LO. 7T£pt TO. TTOIILTLKO. £Up7JfL€VTJ. fL€TO.
,.. \ ) \ ) \ \ I ) I \ ,/... I t" I
TO.UTO. KO.L £7TL O.UTO. TO. UWfLO.TO. £XWPTJC10.V KO.l 'f'UULV £UpOV TOUTWV
fL£A£T~C10.VT£S T~V rPUULK~V 8£wp{o.v . TT{fLTTTOV fTT
1
O.UTa Ta 8£t0. KO.L
aWLO. av€0pO.fLOV, fTT' O.UTa Ta a£i KO.L WUO.UTW EXOVTO..

T 4: Asclepius, On Nicomachus' Introduction to

Arithmetic I ta Taran

~o.., Eip~KO.fL£V TOV UKOTTOV TOU {3t{3Atou TOUTOU. ErPO.fL£V o£ KO.L OTL
r/>tAoaor/>[o. iaTi r/>tA[o. aor/>[o. , ws 07JAoi TOUVOfLO., KO.i on -ro aor/>6v,
ws l4ptaToKXij (v TOt Ihpi r/nAoaor/>{o. O€Ko. {3t{3AtOLS r/>7Ja[, TT£VTO.-
xws My£TO.L.

T s:Johannes Philoponus, On Nicomachus' Introduction

to Arithmetic I a (T VII and Vest. I Heiland)

I. OT! fLfV ovv, w KO.L LKOfLO.XO opt~£TO.t, r/>tAoaor/>[o. fUTL r/>tAta

aor/>{o.s, TTO.vTi TTpouTTTov·
 T 3-5: Tran lation
5
wa : th y di from plagu , manifold di ases, and other thing ,
but mo t of all from flood u h a the one in D u alion's tim : it
did not pr vail ov r verything, but tho e on the mountains ur-
vived, while the plain w re inundated and d stroy d . And ince
on th mountain ome r mained un ubmerged, for this reason it
i th r that th r r village and hou ; and henc forward
tho who ur iv d worked, as ind ed the po t explain :
h found d ardania, in e not yet had hol llio
b en ere t d in the plain , city of mortal men.
ow, ince the urvivor had no food, they discovered what rv d
their need , to grind grain in mill , to ow, or om thing of thi
kind; and thi di covery i called wi dom acquired at th time of
nece ity. fterward th y di covered art
on th na' sugge ti n ,
a th poet ay , and again
when th wis arpenter built.
o they di o ered carp ntry, ar hitecture, or ome other art and
thi i call d wi dom in art . Th r after the turn d to political
matter and made la\ s and all that pre rve citie , and thi
di ov ry i called wi dom in politi al matters. After the , they
turned to the bodi them elv and di covered their nature tudy-
ing ph ics. Fifthly, they a cended to the divine and et rnal
entiti , and to the ev rlasting and unchangeable things .

\ have air ady poken of th aim of thi book . nd we al o aid

that philo ophy i love of wi dom, a th name how , and that
'wi ', a ri tocle ay in hi t n book On Philosophy, ha fiv
meaning

Ts
I. tear to veryone that, a i oma hu al o say , phil-
o oph i v ofwi dom .
2. Th n w mu t inv tigat what \ i dom i and whence it t ok
it name. Wi dom (sophia) wa o call d inc it i a ort of I ar-
nes ( ap/zeia) a clarif ing (saphenizousa) v rything. nd thi
 6 T s: T xt
I t' \ I ) ,J.. I \ '(} Ill \ tl ,J. I \
2. "T/T"T/TEOII OE, TL EUTI UO'I'ta Kat 7TO Ell EUXE TO OIIOJ-1-a. OO'I'ta J-1-EV
~ > \ '(} • ' 'A.. ' ,. • A.. 'Y I • ~'
OUI' EKIITJ "T/ OWl'H aa'I'Ha Tl Ouaa, W aa'I'TJIIt':,OUaa TTaiiTa' TOUTO O£
\ ..J.. \ 11 f \ ,J.. I ~ \ \ ..J.. I \ ..J.. "" t' \ \ )
TO aa'I'E HpTJTat OtOVH 'l'aE Tl 011 TTapa TO 'l'ao Kat 'I'W , Ota TO ftS'
..J.. , \ I , ' I \ ' \ (} ... ( M
'I'W ayHII Ta KEKpUJ-1-J-1-EVa. E7TH TOtVUII Ta VOTJTa Kat Ha, WS' nptUTO-
'\ ..J.. I ) \ ..J.. I I ) \ \ ( "" ) I t .,. 5:' \
TEII"T/ 'I'"T/OtV, H Kat 'l'aVOTaTa EUTL KaTa TTJV EaUTWII OVUlaV, "T/J-1-lll OtQ
\ ) I ... I ) \ \ \ ~ "" \ ) t' I \
T"T/V E'TTtKHJ-1-EV"T/11 TOU OWJ-1-aTO axi\UII OKOTHIIa OOKH Kat aJ-1-Uopa, TT/V
TaUTa ~~-~-ill El </>w ayouaav imaT~J-1-TJII ao<J>{av ElKOTW WVOJ-1-aaav.
• ~ ' OE
. E7TEWTJ ~' 01\W
"\ -1..'
UO'I'taV Kat' UO'I'OV
-1.. ' • 'r
OVOJ-1-a':JOJ-1-EV, • '
taTEOV "
OTI
OJ-1-WIIUJ-1-0V ian TO T~ ao<J>{a ovo1-1-a Kat TO Toii ao</>oii · ELATJ7TTat
yap TOi 7TaAatOi KaTa E Tp07TOU ou (J.dt\t\w MyHII, ws) 4 4>TJat Kat
J:tptaTOKA~ iv Toi flEpt </>tt\oao<J>{as- SeKa f3tf3Atot .
>~ I -1..() J ~ (} ~ A.. J
4· XPTJ' yap
' W ' '
HoEVat, on 'I' HpOIITat J-1-EV av pwTTot ota'l'opws- · Kat
yap uTTo AOLJ-1-WV Kat AtJ-1-WII Kat aHaJ-1-WV Kat TTOMJ-1-wv Kat v6awv
'\ ~'
7TOtKtiiWII Kat' U'l'
'A..' • ' > •
ETEpwv atTLWV, 1\ • ' \ •
J-1-alltUTa 0£ U7TO KaTaKIIUOJ-1-WV
O.OpowTepwv· oio E[vat MyETat o E7Tt LlwKaMw11os-, J-1-Eyas J-1-EII, ou
7TCliiTWV S€ KaTaKpaT~aas-· oi J-1-EV yap IIOJ-1-Ei Kat oaot iv Tois opwt
Ta StaTpt{Ja lxouaw ~ Tais- lmwpE!at , Staac/J(ovTaL, Ta S€ TT£8{a
Kat OL Ell TOUTOt olKOUVTE KaTaKAu(ovTat. OUTW yoiill Kat Ll apSavov
T~ KaTaKAUUJ-1-~ </>aatll fK EaJ-1-oOpiKTJS El T~ll uaupoll Tpo{av
KATJ9Eiaall StaVTJgclJ-1-EVOV awO~vat. SeH S€ TOUS' fK TOU uSaTOS' aw9€v-
Tas Tds- tiTTwpE{a olKEiv· STJt\oi Kat TTOtTJT~S, Mywv ouTws-· w o
L1ap8avov ao TTPWTOV TIK£TO V£</>£A7]y£p1Ta ZEu .
KTtOU£ 8£ L1ap8avt7]V' £7TEt ou1rw 1Aw ip~
£v 7T£8t(fl 7T£1TOAtaTo, 1r0At !.L£P01Twv avOpC.:mwv,
aAA' l0' tmwpdas ~K£ov 7TOAu1Tt8aKou 187] . ( Y 21 5-1 8)

rO yd.p lrt S7]AoL rO ~-tTJTTw atiToUs KaTa8appeLv Ev TaL 7TEStefat -rds

~ Q' ~ ~ 1' t \ I ' ~ "(}
otaTptl"a EXHV. OUTOt ouv ot TTEptiiHTTOJ-1-EVOL, /-1-TJ EXOVT£ o EV
..J.. '"' J I t J J I \ \ \ I '1\ \ J \ '(}
Tpa'l'watv, ETTEvoouv UTT avayKTJS' Ta TTpor; TTJII XPHav, TJ TO a11TJ nv
J-1-UAat aiTov ~ TO 07TELpHv ~ TL TOtOUTOV at\t\o, Kat fKclAEaall T~V
, , , ..J..' \ , \ ) ... - Q' ' \ \ \
TOtaUT"T/V E7TtVOLaV OO'I'tav, T"T/V Et Ta avayKala TOU f"WU TO 1\VOLTEIIES'
1
/: I \ ..J.. \ \ ) I I\ J I I
Er,EUplUKOUaav, KaL OO'I'OV TOV £7TtVEIIOTJKOTa. TTai\LV £7TEVOTJUaV TEXVaS",
~ A.. t' \
WS' 'I'TJOtV 0 7TOtTJT'T/

) I I "' ) \ Ql ) 1
OU J-1-EXP' J-1-0VTJ<; T"T/ Et TOV f"WV avayK'T/

• Rather than an error for ws, ous eem~ to md1cate the om1 ion of the
\\ord p.l>J.w Mynv w,
a~ . clep1u :\I and od. cor. suggest. The same
om1 1on m .-\ clep1us A w </>71uiv )lptuToKA-ij , probabh to emend the m1 -
ion, m th later, a\ 1le 11 and Lmcoln Gr , XX Ill . .
 T s: Tran lation
7
I arn s got it nam in e it is omething bright (phaes), from
light (phaos, phos), becaus it bring hidd n thing to light. nd
inc intelligibl and di in thing , a ristotle ay , e n if they
are xtr m ly clear (phanotata) by their own e en e, app ar dark
and ob cure b eau of the mi t from our body that li up n us,
th y rightly ca ll ed wi dom the kn w ledge whi h bring them to
light for us .
3· But ince we p ak in genera l of 'wi dom' and 'wi e', you
mu t kn ' that the name of wi dom and of that whi h i wi e i
homon ymou ; indeed it ha be n taken in five way by the
an ient , which (I am going to report, a ) Aristocle ay in the ten
book of his On Philosophy.
4· In fact, it is ne e ary to know that men are de troy d in
different ways; becaus of plague , famine, earthquak , war , di -
ea e of ever kind , and other eau es, but most of all because of
in e ant floods; u h a i aid to have occurred in 0 ucalion'
time , whi h wa certain ly huge, but did not de troy everything.
For heph rd and tho e who li ved on the mountain or on th
hill ur ived, whit th plain and tho e who lived ther were
ubmerged . In thi way they ay that Dardanu , driven out by th
d luge, ur ived by wimming from amothrace to the place that
' a later a li ed Troy. It i for fear that those wh e caped from th
water li n the hill ; a inde d the poet makes I ar, aying a
follow :

First Zeu loud-gath rer gave birth to Oardanu

and h found d Oardania; ince not y t had hol llio
b n erect d in th plain, city of mortal men,
but th y tillliv don th foot of many-fountatn d ld a.
' till' m an that they had not y t th ourage to li ve in the plain
ow, in the urvivor had no food, out of n c ity they di -
over d what erved th ir n ed , to grind gra in with mill , to ow,
or omething I of this kind; and th all d wi dom thi di c v-
h found what i t th nee sitie of life, and
w1 gain th ey di o r d
art

n th na' sugg . ti n ,
a th p t ay , whi h did not top at ju t what wa n ary for
life, but al o xt nd d to th b autifu l and I gant. nd this again
 T s- 1: T xt
TOU KaAoii Kat aoTf.LOU Trpoi.ouaa . Kat TOUTO 'TfClAtll aocp{av K€KA~Kaot
, ' r 1 ,1. 1 r '
Kat TOV €Up01'TQ OO'f'OI/ 1 W TO

aocpo ~pap£ TiKTWV

£~ £iow aocpcrr lnro8T/p.oalwnatv l48~•'T/ . ( 'P 712 +0 412)
~ \ \ \ r f3 \\ .,. C' I ) (} \ \ I ) I
Ota yap TT/11 UTr€p 0117111 TWII €UPT/iJ.aTWV €1 €011 Ta TOUTWV €TrtiiOtClS
dvicpEpoll . 'TfClAtv aTr€{3,.\Et/Jav Tr€pt Ta TrOAtTtKa Trpayp.aTa Kat €~Eiipo11
t •op.ous Kat TrrliiTa Ta oulltoTCvvTa Ta TrOAH . Kat TaUTT/V TrrlALII T~v
, ,L 1
,
1
\ ... ' ..l r C' \ ,J. 1
€'1Ttll0tall OO'f'Lall €Kaii€OaV" TOIOUTOt yap •tOall Ot €TrTa OO'f'OL,
TrOAIT!Ka TLIIa ap€TQ €Up011T€ . £iTa AOL'TfOII o8<!; Trpoi'OIIT€S Kat f'Tf 1
atha TQ awp.aTa Kat T~ll 8T/p.LOvpyov aUT£VII Trpoi]t\Boll cpuoLII I Kat
I '" I ,/. \ > I \ (} I \ ,/. \ \ \
TQUTT/11 10tKWT€p011 'f'UOtKT/11 £Kaii€Oall €Wptall 1 Kat OO'f'OVS Ta Tr€pt
\ J.. I \ I ,J. I I ) ) ) \ \ \ 11,1._
TT/I' 'f'UOtll TOU TOIOUTOU 'f'aiJ.€11 . Tr€iJ.TrTOII €TT aUTa IIOI'TfOII €'f'paoav

TQ (hia Kat UTr€pKoop.ta Kat ap.€Taf3AT/Ta TraiiT€AW I Kat T~ll TOUTWII

yvwotll KVptWTrlTT/11 aocptall WIIOp.aoall.

T 6: Johannes Philoponus, On Nicomachus' Introduction

to Arithmetic I te (T VIII and Vest. la Heiland)

~871 dp~Kap.£11 Toii {3t{3t\{ou

,1.\ 1 ,1. 1 • "\.
TOUTOU TOll GKOTrOII Kat
\ \ w \ ~
on cptAoaocp{a €oTt
\ ,1.1 5. \
'f'lllta OO'f'ta 1 W UT/1101 Kat TO 0110p.a· Kat OT! TO OO'f'O 1
W$' Kat
l4ptaTOKATJ €11 Toi llEpl cptt\oaocp{a 8€Ka {3t{3t\tot c/>7!ot1 TrEVTaxws
MyeTat.

F I (I Mullach, T IX, XI + F I Heiland)

Eu . ebm ·, PE 1 1. 2 . 6: nuiTa ,_..f.v o .ltTnKo · lm,_..apTup£1 [)£ TOt~ a1iToi~ Kat o

fllp<TTOTT)TIKC)" }lp<OTOKA-ijs. n•i{Jbo,_..cp ovyypO.,...,_..aTt Wv fllp i </>~Aooo</>{a ouviTa~ll'
wb£ Ai yw• 1Tp0~ P"il-'a
6
J . APIETQK, 1EOYI: flEPI THE KATA flAATQ A 111/AOI:OtiJ/AI:

md1cem ad hoc aput .ltptoToKA7j 1Tlpi T7j~ KaTa fl,\O.Tw••a <f>•Aooo</>{a .

I. 'EcptAoa6cpT/O€ 8£ ll"AaTwv, d Ka{ TLS aAAo TWII TrW7rOT€, YIITJOtW

\ \ I < \ \ I \ £\ I\ ,j. \ • " 1\ <
KClt T€11€LW . 01 iJ.€11 yap a7rO 0Cl11EW 'f'UOLOIIOYOUIIT€ OLETEIIEOClll, 01
8€ Tr€pi llu8ay6pa11 f'Tf€Kput/JavTo 'TfrliiTa· 8e11ocpa11T/S o€ Kat OL Q7r 1

' oo<f>o - GH · oo</>ov. a\lle 11, Lmcoln Gr. ' XX III

\Ira folio\\ \'•11:cr m numbcnng th1 haptcr 3, m the \I , 1t 1 b', the
proem being counted a a '
 T s-F I: Tran lati n 9
they called wi dom, and wi e th p r on who di covered th m, as
in the pa ag
a wise builder re t d
' 11 knowing th uggestions of wise Athena.
In fa t, b au of the extraordinary value of the di overie , they
attribut d th ir invention to the god . Then the turn d to politi-
al matt r and made law and all that organize 1t1
di over th y al o called wisdom; uch men were even
ag s, who di ov red c rtain political virtue . Afterward , pro-
ceeding m thodically, they rea h d th bodies them el e and th
natur that created them, and thi they more pecifically all d
phy i al knowledge, and we all p ople like the e wis con erning
phy ic . Fifthly, they th n rev aled the divine, eel tial, and
ab olut ly immutable thing and call d the knowledge of uch
thing upr me wi dom.

T6

v\ e hav air ad di cu ed the aim of thi book and aid that phi-
lo oph_ i love of wi dom, a ind d th name how : and that
also ay in hi ten book On Philosophy, i

FI
6. o tticus. nd the Peripat tic n to le al o upports the e po iti n m
the eventh book of the treati e he'' rote On Philosophy, aying verbatim :
RI T LE PL T ' PHIL PHY
lnde:>:: ristocle on Plato' philo oph) .

1. Plato, if an one ha e r d n o, pur ued a genuine and

compl te tern of philo oph . For th follower of Thai p nt
all th ir tim in the tudy of natur , whil th hool of Pythagora
one a] d v r thing; and Xenophan and hi follower , b tir-
ring cont nti u di u ion , au ed th philo opher much dizzi-
ne , but did not afford any h lp.
2. nd not I a t o rate , a th prov rb say , added fu I to th
flame, a Plato him elf affirm d. For being a man of gr at g niu ,
and I er in rai ing qu stion up n v ry matt r, h introduc d
 10 F 1: T xt
EKELvou Tou- !ptanKou Ktv~aavu ,\6you 7TOAVII ~-t€v E11i{Ja,\o11
i,\tyyo1• Toi cpt,\oa6cf>ot , ou 1-'TJV E1Toptaall yi TLIIa fJo~OELall.
2. oux ~KLGTa S€ Kat EwKpaT"f} ' QUTO s~ TO AEYO/-'EVOV, EYEIIETO
7TUp E7TL 71Upt, KQ 0a1TEp
,.. J \' ) \ E'f'TJ
auTo· 1 t~,J._ '.J..
1\QTWV. EU'f'UEGTQTO n\
yap WV KQL I I \ '1\ \

OELIIO a1TopijaaL 1TEpt 1TQIITO <houOUII l1TELG~IIEYKE Ta TE ~OLKOS Kat

1TOAtnKa aKi!f;n , ln OE T~ll 1TEpt Twv iSEwll, 1rpwTo imxnp~aas
opi{EaOat . 1TaVTQ OE iyEipwll ,\6yoll Kat 1TEpt 1Ta11TWII { TJTWII lcf>OTJ
TEAEUT~aa .
3. MAOL s' a7TOTE/-'O/-'EIIOL /-'EPTJ nva 1TEpt TaUT a OtETpt!f;all' oi /-'Ell
laTptK~II, oi OE Ta ~-taOTJ~-tanKa E7TtaT~~-ta , l11wt OE 1TEpt Tous
1TOLTJTa KQL T~V /-'OUGLK~II. oi ~-t€vTOL 1TOAA0t Ta TWV ,\6ywv Oulla/-'ELS
!Oav~-taaav, Wll oi /-'Ell MTopa , oi OE OtaAEKTLKOu 1TpoaEi1TOII iauTovs.
-l · oi ~-t€...Tot EwKpaTTJV StaOE~a!-'EIIOL Kat 1ra11u TLIIE €yi11o11To
7TQIITOLOL KQL tJ7TEIIQIITLOL Ta yvw/-ta . OL /-'Ell yap KUVta~-tOU Kat
aTuc/>{a KQl a1Ta0E{a U/-'IIOUV' aAAOL s' au 1TaALV ~Oolla . Kat oi /-'Ell
EiOEIIaL 1TaiiTQ EKO~-t7Ta{o11, Ot OE a7TAWS 1-'TJOiv .
, ~,, , ( \ , ""./. , \, \ ...
~ . ETL 0 OL /-'EV Ell /-'EG<tJ KaL EV O'f'EL 1TaiiTWII EKai\LIIOOUIITO, TOL)
. ~

7TOAAoi f~O/-'LAOUVT€ ' MAOL s'

au TOUIIaiiT{OII a1Tp0GLTOL Kat
a1Tpoaav0TJTOL OtETEAOUII OIITE .
6. fl,\aTwll /-'EIITOL KaTallo~aas ws EtTJ ~-tla ns ~ TWII 8Eiw11 Kat
a118pw1Tdwv €maT~/-'TJ, 1TpWTOS OtELAE Kat lcf>TJ T~ll ~-tb n11a 1TEpt Tijs
TOU- 1TaiiTOS
' 'f'UGEW
-1.' ELIIaL
1"
1Tpay/-taTELall,
,
TTJII
\ ~· 1TEpt' TWV
OE - '0 pw1TELWII,
a11 ,
TPLTTJII OE T~ll 1TEpt Tou ,\6yous.
7. ~~{ou OE 1-'~ Sv11aaOa, Ta a118pw1rna KanSEill ~~-tas, El!-'~ Ta 0Eia
'
1TpOTEp011 '-1.0 ELTJ"
O'f' ' Ka 0 a1TEp
' '
yap OL' LaTpOt
' ' /-'EPTJ
' TLVa' 0 Epa1TEUOIITE)
'
E7TL/-'EAOUVTaL TWV OAWII aw~-taTWII 1TPWTOII, OUTW xpijllaL Kat TOll
~-tiAAoiiTa Ta118&.SE KaToif;EaOat T~v Twll 0',\wll cf>vatll ElOE11at 1rp6upo11·
~-tipo TE ElllaL TWII OIITWII TOY a110pw1TOII Kat TayaOoll OtTTOII, TO ~-tEll
~~-tiupo11, To OE Tou 1TavT6s, Kuptwupoll OE To Tou 1ra11T6s· Sta yap
EKELIIOU Kat TOVTO y{yiiEaOat.
. cf>TJaL S' :4ptaTo~EIIOS o
~-touatKo 'l110w11 Elllat TOll ,\6yo11 TOVTOII.
:40~VTJGL yap EIITUXELII EwKpaTEL TWII a110pwv EKELIIWII Ella Ttlla
Ka1TELTa avTOU 1TUII0a11Ea0at TL 1TOLWII cptAoaocpo{TJ· TOU OE Ei7TOIITOS on
{TJTWII 7TEpt Tou a110pw1rdou {J{ou, KaTayEAaaat TOll '1110011, Myo11Ta !-'~
SvvaaOa{ Ttlla Ta a110pw1TELa KaTtOEtll dyvoOUIITa YE Ta 0Eia.
9· TOUTO /-'Ell OUII El d,\TJOE EGTLII, OVK av OvllaLTO Tt OtaTELIIO!-'EIIOS
' \ ~ ~\ I
o
Ei1TEtll . OtEiAE S' 0011 flA&.Twll T~v TE 1TEpt TWII oAwll cpt,\oaocp{av Kat
\ \ I
TTJII 1TOIILTLKTJII, ETL OE TTJII IIOYLKTJII.
 F I : Tran lation l I

moral and politi al inquiri , and al o that on ideas, ince he wa

the fir t who tried to gi definition ;a but while tirring up ev ry
kind of di cu ion and inquiring about all subject , h died too
oon.
3· thers confined th mselv to spe ifi area and pent all
their time on th m , ome on m dicin , ome on math matic ,
other on po tr and mu ic. Mo t of them, howe er, wondered
at the powers of languag , and of th e om ca lled th mselve
orator and oth r dialecti 1an .
4· The follower of o rat were of very different kind and
v ry different in their do trin . In fa t som sang th prai es of
ynici m , and of freedom from arrogan and from pa ion , but
oth r on the contrary of pi a ure . nd ome u ed to boast of
knowing all thing , other of knowing nothing at all.
5· Mor over om u ed to pend all their time in the pr sence
and ight of everybody and mingled with the common people,
while other could never be approa hed or addre ed.
6. Plato, how ver, though he knew that the science of human
and divin thing is one, wa the first who made a di tin tion and
aid that there wa one kind of tudy oncerning the nature of the
who le, another oncerning human matter , and anoth r concern-
ing di cour e .
7- But he affirm d that w cannot ha e a cl ar id a of human
affair if we do not first under tand th divin ; for ju t as phy i-
cian , when tr ating ome part of th bod , are fir t concerned
with the whole body, o h who i going to deal with the things
h re on earth mu t first know the nature of the whole; and h aid
that man i part of th " hole and that th good i of two kind , our
own and that of th who le; and that th good of th whole i more
important, forth form r om about by m ans of the latter.
8. nd ri toxenu the mu ician said that thi argument come
from th Indian . For a man of that p op le m t ocrat m then
and a ked him what hi philo ophy wa about; and wh n h aid
that he was inve tigating human life, th Indian laugh d at him ,
a ing that n on could und r tand human affair if he ignored
th divine.
9· Wh th r thi i tru , no one can ay for ure. But Plato di tin-
gui hed bet\ en th philo ophy of the whole, politic , and logi .
• Gtfford : 'he brought moral and political speculation into philosophy, and
moreo,·er wa the firs t\\ ho attempted to define the theory of the Ideas' ·
12 F z: Te.·t
F 2 (7 M ullach , T X, XVII+ F 2 Heiland)
u ·eblU • PE I I IJ ap~Of'lll 8£ cbro TUJI' i-l.ptororl>..ou . a>..Aot f<EV oJv TOV {Jlov
ral·bpo- bta{J<:fJA'Y/I<IlOl, cf>t>..ooocf>o• 8( KilL a>..Aw OVK dcf>al•£i TW£ ~Oill' KilL OVTOI. Ef'OL
c}' oU t/JD\o•• rO•· ti•·Spo. oVa' o.Urai ci.Koai' O.v£x£a8cu KO. KW, -rrpO TWv olK£lwv
ayopWOfL£1'01' 8tOrr£p rd lm(p llVTOU fLOA>..ov £K8~00fLilL drro>..oylll drro TWV .i4pwro-
KAio~ TOU n£ptrrllT'Y/TIKOU, ;; b· r,P £{J8of'tp ll<:pi cf>t>..ooocf>lll rab£ rr<:pi llvroti
ypat/>o
2 llEPI TH!.: KAT' API.ETOTE.~1H r 4>hiOE04>IAE KAI TQ llEPJ TOY
A.YJPO!.: I!.:TOPOY,'\.!ENQ!V AllO TOY llEPI 4>/AOE04>/AE EBLJOMOY
API1:TOK.1EOYE TOY llEPinATHT!KOY
'f mdlcem ad ho aput: nEpL·~ - KilT' .i4ptaror£>...,v cf>•>..ooocf>{ll KilL TWV 1TEpL roti
do·iipo> loropwof'lvwv . .lt1ro roti { llEpl cf>•Aooocf>{a .ltptoroKMou .

I. - yap
IIW ~·
' OLOV T€, Ka 8 a7T€p
' -~.. ' 'L'
'f''TJGLV D7TLK0Up0
' '
€11 T'[J~ II€pt' TWV
;_.,,uTJSwf'aTwv €maToAiJ, vlov fLEV ovTa KaTar/>ay€'iv a1hov T~v
'TTaTpcf>av ouatav, E'TTHTa S€ €1Tt TO GTpaT€uw8at auvwaat,? KaKW) S€
'
1TpaTTOVTa • TOVTOL
€11 ' \ ~
• ' TO' 'f'apf'aK01TW/\€LV
€1TL A. ''8 ~
€/1 Hll, "
€7T€tTa •
ava-
1T€1TTafLEVOU Tov II..\a7wvo> 7T€pmaTov mia< 7Tapa{JaA€'iv ath6v;
2 . ~ 7TW civ TL a7ToS€~aLTO TtfLaLOU TOU TavpOfL€VLTOU MyovTO) €v
TaL
~ 1GTOptaL
I ) ~ I/;
aoO!,OV
8upa
I ) \ ) I
aUTOV LaTp€LOU Kat Ta TUXOVGa)
\ \ I ) ,/. \
O'f'€
'"'
T'TJ)
~AtKLa KA€iaat;
3. TL s' a 'V 1T€LG8€t'TJ TOi lm' )lptaTO~EVOU TOU f'OUGLKOV A€yOfLEVOL)
(v Tcfl {Jt(tl Tcfl JlAaTWIIO>; (v yap TfJ 7TAavn Kat TfJ ci7foS'TJf'LC!- rPTJGtV
€7Tav{aTaa8at Kat avTOLKOSOfL€iv aUTcfl Ttlla) Il€pt7TaTOV ~EJIOU) OJITa).
oiovTat OOJI EJitO! TavTa 7T€pt :4ptaTOTEAOU) Alyuv auTOV, :4ptaTO~EVOV
Sta 7TaVTO €UrP'TJf'OVVTO )lptaTOTEATJV.
'\ ~I ' , ,. A, , ~ ' ' •A
4 · KaTay€/\aGTa 0 €LKOTW) €LVaL 'f'aL'TJ Tt) all Kat Ta .t"11TO-
fLIITJfLOV€Uf'aTa )l),_€~tvou Tou EptanKov . 7TOt€t yap )lM~avSpov 7Ta'iSa
StaA€yOfL€VOV (/J,),{7T1T(tl Tcfl 7TaTpt Kat Sta'TTTuovTa fLEV TOU> TOV
J1ptGTOTEAou >..6you), a1ToS€XOfL€VOV S€ LKay6pav, TOll EpfL-T,II
€mKA7J8€vm.
5. Kat Eu{JouMS'TJ S€ 1TpoS~Aw> €v Tcfl KaT' auTov {JtfJMctJ tf;€VS€m<,
1TpWTOV fLEV 7TOL~f'aTa t/Juxpa 7Tpoarf>€pOfL€VO w8 y€ypar/>OTWV aAAwll
1T€pt Tov yaf'OV Kat T-r,> 7Tpo> Epf'dav oiKHOTJTO> auTcp y€yovu{a>,

01/VWOil< \lras ( 1944 230), smce 1t 1 parallel to WPfL'Y/OE m th. 8. 354 B,

'' ho rep orts th1 letter of Ep1curu . ouvEwo81l< odd.
(.ltptoror£.\ou<;) v)u)vany ( 1926. 148); but thiS make. the Others' \Hitlng~
about the marnagt and H erm1a completely Irrelevant to Eububde , whereas
the tran mJtted text make h1m support h1s alumn1cs "1th poems al leged ly b)
other hand (wnuendo concocted by h1m elf).
 F 2: Tran lation 13
Fz
3 I shall tart w1th ri totle . Those \\ho have attacked h1s hfe mcludc some
philo ·ophers who in other re pect wer not und1stingU1 hed . But 1t j not
plea ant to m , or e en to my ear , to endure the man 's being abused by his
own peopl . Th refore I shall rather r port the defen e made of him by the
PeripatetiC ri to I s, who in book 7 On Philo ophy says the followmg things:
0
THE

Jnde..:: n ri totle's philosoph y and the storie about the man . From book 7
of ristocl e ' On Philo ophy.

1 . How i it po ible that, a Epicuru ays in hi Letter on

Occupations, he quandered hi patrimony when he was a young
man, then for ed his way into military service, and, b ing unsu -
ce ful in thi , h wa reduced to elling m dicine , and th n, after
Plato' chool 6 had been op ned to all, h attached him elf to him?
2 . Or how could any one accept what Timaeu of Taurom nium
ays in hi Histories , that when ad anced in year h hut the door
of a urgery with no reputation and oth r undi tingui hed door ?
3· Or who would believe what Aristox nu the mu icologi t ay
in hi life of Plato? H tat that during hi wandering a\ ay from
home, certain non- thenian rose up again t him and tab li hed
a Peripato < in opposition t him. ome therefore think that h
is referring to ristotl , though ri tox nu always peaks of
ri totle with re er nee .
4· One may a! o reasonabl ay that th Memoirs of xinu th
Eri tic ar ridi ulou . For h mak lexand r when a boy, in on-
ver ation with hi father Philip, pour cont mpt upon ri tot! '
do trin , while approving Nicagora , call d H rm .
5· I o Eubulide in hi book again t ri totle i manif stly
mendaciou , fir t in bringing fon: ard om illy po m allegedly
written by oth r , con erning hi marriage and hi intima _ "' ith
H rmia , and e ondly m a erting that h o~ nd d Phi lip, and

b The term 1T£p{na-ro had air ady been given th1 · m anmg by Ph1lodemu ,
Acad. lnd . Here. V 11, Vl4o, and \'ll9 Dorand1, although An to les derives
th1 . cxpre ion from hi ource for th1s paragraph (see the Commentary) .
' With capital letter m l\1 ra . Indeed in thi case the term ma) refer to
Aristotle' school This issue arise from the u ' e of 11£pt11a-ro for Plato's school
m para 1.
 F 2: Text
fTTHTO. cf>v\t7TTTCfJ cf>aaKWV O.UTOV 7TpOCJKot/Jo.t KO.t uA€UTWVTt flArJ.TWV!
1.1~ 7To.po.y€Via8o.t Ta T€ {Jt{JAio. auTou Sto.c/>8€tpat.
6. T~v p..iv yap d7Jp..oxapou Ko.TTJyoplo.v Ko.Ta Twv c/>tAoaoc/>wv T{
PTJ' 1\f.YHJ';
\ , ou• yap
' rtptaTOT€1\TjV
"1 ,, ,
p..ovov, • \ \ ' KO.t' TOU' O.I\1\0U
O.I\1\0. w\ \ •
KO.KWS
€lp7JK€1' . fTI Y€ p..~v auTa Ta Sto.{JoAas (JK07TWV av Tt) A7Jp€tV O.UTOV
cf>o.ITJ . My€t yap f7TtCJToAa..- i4ptCJTOTiAou ciAwvo.t KO.Ta Tij rroA€w<;
Tij i48TJvo.lwv Ko.l LTaynpo. T~v 7TO.Tp1So. 7TpoSouvat Mo.K€Socnv
o.uTov, €n Si Ko.TaaKo.c/>€tC17J 0Auv8ou p..TJvunv f7Tt Tou Aacf>upo-
rrwA€1ou cf>tAt7TTTCfJ Tov 7TAouatwTaTou<; TWV 0Auv81wv.
7 . ~A{8to. Si Sta{3if3ATJK€v o.uTov Ko.i K TJcf>woSwpo , 'I aoKpaTou.,-o
p..o.8TJT~ , Tpucf>€pov Ko.i Tiv8Tjv Ko.i ciAA' aTTa 9 Toto.uTo. Mywv auTov
1"
HI'QI.
. 7TavTa S • lm€p7Tatn p..wp{q. Ta u7To AuKwvo €tp7Jp..€vo., Tou
'' .
I\€YOVTO €tVO.t n U 8o.yoptKOV
' €0.UTOV
• ' . 'i"TJClt
-~. ' yap
' 8U€tV
• '" ,,
rtptCJTOT€1\TjV
8ua{av T€T£AWTTJKULf!. Tfl yuvo.tKL TOtO.UTTJV 07TOLo.v J487JvO.tOt Tll
LJ~p..TJTPI KO.t lv £Ao.lcp 8€pp..cjJ Aouop..€VOV TOUTO s~ 7Tt7TpaCJK€tV" ~VLKa
Si €t Xo.AKtSa a7Tnn, Tov Tf.Awvo. €up€tv lv TcfJ 7TAolcp Ao7TaSta
Xo.AKci 7T€JJT€ 1° KO.L ({JSop..~KOVTO. .
9 · KO.L ax(.Sov oi p..iv 7TpWTOt Sta{Jo.AovT€5) J4pwTOTEA7Jv TOCJOUTOI
I f' f \ \ \ ).J:.
\ I t ~ \ \
Y€YOVO.CJtV " wv 0! p..€V KO.TO. TOU<; O.UTOU .,ao.v xpovou ' Ot 0€ p..tKpov
fl I t'' A._ \ \ ) \ \ (I f'
UCJT€pov €Y€vovTo· 7TO.VT€ o€ ao'I"LCJTO.L KO.t €ptaTtKOt KO.t PTJTOp€ , wv
KO.t TCl ovop..aTO. KO.t Ta {Jt{JAto. TE8117JK€ TWV awp..aTWV p..ciAAov. TOU)
p..iv yap p..€Ta To.uTa y€yovoTo.s, €[To. Si Ta u7T' lK€{vwv dpTJp..€va
Alyov-ra 7TQV1&1Taat.v Eav Set xaLpELV, Kai ,..,.&.Ata'Ta -roU f.L7]8' Ev-
T€TUXTJKOTQ, • 1-'t/-'/\LOt
TOt) a Q\' O.UTWV,
' • 0.1\1\ "' , r
' ' ' • O.UTOCJX€OLO.o,OVT0.5),
• • • , ..
07TOL0t
€tCJt KO.L oi Myovu TptO.KOCJLO. €xnv Ao7TaSo.s O.UTOV. ouS€t yap av
€Up€8€{7J 7T€pt O.UTOU TOLOUTOV ou8iv dp7JKW TWV TOT£ OVTWV OTL p..~
A UKWV
, .,
. OUTO) ,
fL€VTO!, KO. 8,0.7T€p €'1"7JV,
"A. w
€tp7JK€V •
€Up7JC1
A 8Qt /\07TO.Ot0.
\ I<;' 7T€VT€
I

Kat €{3Sop..~KovTo..
I 0. ou p..ovov Si KO.L fK TWV xpovwv KO.L fK TWV Sto.{J€f3A7JKOTWV
T€Kp..~patTo ns civ on tjlwSij 7TavTD. Ta €tpTJp..€vo. laTtv, ciAAa KaK Tou
> \ <;' >\\J U ~
fLTJ\ 7TO.VTO.
I \ Ql\\ >f<;' 1 \1
TQ O.UTO. OtO.!J0./\1\HV, Q/\1\ €KO.CJTOV totO. TtVO. I\€YHV, WV
€l7T€p -r]v €v OTLOUV ciATj8€ ' lxpijv s~7TOU p..uptaKt ciAA oux cho.~ O.UTOV
J

v7To TWV TOT£ cl7ToAwMvo.t.

1 1. cf>o.v€pov oov on Ka8a7T€p 7ToAAoi" Ko.i ciAAots, ovTw Kat
J4ptCJTOTEAH auv€{3., Sta T€ Ta 7Tpos TOV) {3o.atA€t) c/>tAta KO.t Sta T~ll
lv Tot Aoyots U7T€pox~v v7To TWv TOT£ aoc/>wTwv cf>8ov€i"a8o.t. S€t S€
., ti.U' aTTa :\lra ,ilia TaB .:\ , ti.Ua Jb
1dvn I' a m para 9: TIT'Tapa 0 _ V om. 8
' ' oTToiot \ ' , tephanus : oTTooot \'"", reil.
 F 2: Tran lation
IS
did not ome to isit Plato hen dying, and that he destroyed hi
book
6. cu ation of mochar again t the philo opher
v hat ? For her iled not only ristotle, but all the re t
a we ll. M r o r, an one glancing at the ca lumni them lve
would a that th man talk nonsen e. For he ays that letter of
ri totle " r int rcepted writt n again t the thenian stat , and
that he b trayed tageira, his native city, to the !Jacedonian ; and
further that wh n I nthu wa de troyed, at the place wh r the
booty wa old h pointed out to Philip the mo t wealthy of the
Olynthian .
7· F oli h al o ar th alumnie which have be n brought
again t him by ephi odorus, th di iple of I ocrate , aying that
he wa luxuriou and a gourmand, and oth r things of that kind.
8. But they are all urpa ed in folly by the statement of Ly on,
who tyle himself a Pythagorean. For he affirm that ri tot!
offered to hi wife after her death a sa rifice uch a th Athenian
offer to D meter, and that h u ed to bath in warm oil and th n
ell it; and that when h v a lea ing for ha! i , the cu tom-hou e
offi er found in the ve se! e nty-fiv bronze dishe .'1
9· The e are mor or I all th fir t detractor of ri tot! ; of
whom som li ed at th am tim with him, and oth r a littl e
later, but all w re sophi t and eri ti and rhetori ian , whose
ery name and b ok are more dead than their bodies. to tho e
who am aft r them, and then r p at d their statements, we may
put them a ide altogeth r, and pe ially those who have not ven
read th ir bo k , but invent for th m elve , of whi h kind are
tho e who ay that he had three hundred dishe ; for nobody among
hi contemporarie , could be found to have said any u h thing
about him xc pt Lycon, but h , a I aid, a erted that th r w r
event -fiv di h found.
10. But it i not only from th dat and th per on who have
revil d him that on might inf r that all th things that hav b n
stated ar fa! e, but a! o from th fa t that th y do not all make the
am harg , but a h a thing of hi wn; and if there had
been a imp! w rd of truth in all this, h would ur ly de rve to
have b n put to death b ' hi contemporari not once only but
ten thou and tim
J The same rcfercn es to Ly on reappear m Theodoret, Graec off. wr. 8.

34 and 12 . so-• re pectl\ cl .

t6
Tov- Eu rf>po11ou11m- 1-'~ El- Tov Sta{3aAAoiiTa &:rrof3Ai7THII flOIIOII, d,\,\d
Ka! ~:i Tov- i7Tatvoui•Ta Kat ~ TJAou11m auTollo flO.Kpcj> yap 1rAdov
KO.t {3€ATLOV €vp~:9Et€11 av OUTOL y~:o
l2o Ta 1-'iv OUI' aAAa rrpoS~,\w rr€rrAO.UTal. Suo Si TO.UTO. SoK~:i
1 (} ~ J c'l ./~ I I ) I I 'E I 1
rrtaT~:vEa at ot a 'f'~:yovat n111: auTOIIO 1:11 fl€11, on TT)II
C\ ff \
PflHOv YTJ/-'HI:
rf>uan 1-'iv dS~:,\rf>~"· 9~:T~v Si 9vyaT€pa l7v9t &.Sa, KoAaKEuwv auTov o
G~:oKptTO you11 o
Xio irro{T/a€11 f.rr{ypal-'1-'a TOWUTOII O
'Epp.~:{ov' 2 ~:uvouxov u KO.t Eu{3ou'Aov To8£ 8ou'Aov
fLV~fi-0. 1 J KO'OV l(f:VOcppwv fl~K£1' J4.ptCJTOT£ATJ 0

0 Sui Tryo• aKpo.~ yo.aTpo cpuatv ~:i'A£TO VO.L£LV

civT' J.IKo.8T}p.£{o. - Bopf36pov f.v TTpoxoo.'i 0

ET€p01' S€, on ~xapLUTT)U€ lJ,\aTWIIt.

3 rr~:pt fl€11
I 0
' 1'
ovv 'EPflHOV Kat TT/S npLUTOT€1\0V
' >A I ' > '
•
rrpo avTov .J. \
'f'tlltaS
1\ ' I

lliot T€ 1TOAAOt avyy~:yparf>aat KO.L s~ KO.L )lrrEAALKWV, ou TOtS'

o
{3t{3Aiotc; fvTuxcJw rrmaua~:Tat {3,\aar/>711-'~JV auTOUS o
q .. rr~:p! Si Tou yal-'ov Tou l7v9t&.So drroxpwvTws auTos iv Tai
rrpos )1VTL1TO.Tpov f1TlUTOAais drroA~:AOYTJTO.l. T€9VH~TO yap 'Epfl~:{ov
Sui T~V rrpoc; fK€LIIOII €UIJOLO.IJ EYT)fl€11 O.UT~IJ, aAAws !-'ill awrf>pova Kat
>
aya (}'
TJV ovaa11,
1' > •
aTvxovaav flEVTOt
I ~'
ota Ta' KO.T0.11a
\ f3 ovaa
I .J. '
aul-''f'opa<;
TOll aSEAr/>ov aunj 0

I • E'{(J. E~TJ tPTJCll

i\1ooa Si T~ll l7u9t&.So T~s 'Epl-'~:{ov nAwT~v )lpwToT€ATJS EYTJI-'€11

'Eprru,\,\{Sa Emynpinll, f~ .ry vios auTcj> lKOflO.XOS f.y€11€T0o TOUTOII
S€ r/>aatll oprf>aiiOV Tparf>€11Ta rrapa Ehor/>paaT4J Kat s~ flHpaK{aKOII
OIITO. drro9all€tll Ell rroAE/-'4Jo

F 3 (deest Mullach, T XVIII+ F 3 Heiland)

Eu. ebtu , PE 15 13 7 LwKpaTou To[vw aKouaT~I' ry£vETo .i4vno81VTJ ,

1/po.KAEwnKo> n> a•"''P To tf>p6•'TJIJ.O., ;;~ ltf>TJ Tov ijllE08o.t To ,_,.a[v£o8o., KpEiTTov Elvat·
llto KO.l 1To.pn•OEL Tois yvwptiJ.OII' IJ.TJilf1TOTl xO.ptv ~llovij lltl.K-ruAov EKTfLVEillo
TovTo•o i>i aKouoT~ ylyovE LlLOylvTJs 6 Kuw••, os Kat o.thos 8TJp<wll(oTo.To.
0

t/>po•oEiv 1>6~o.> 1ro>.Aou ErrTJYayE"ro TovTov KpaTTJI' I),EU{o.To KpaTTJTO Si €y(vETo'•

z ~·ow•o 6 KLT<EUI'' 0 TTJ~ TWV LTWiKwV t/>tAoo6tf>wv o.ipla£w KO.TO.OTQI' apxTJY6So
' 'EpiJ.Etou (,tfford after :'1-lullach (so too Page at Further Greek Eptgrams,
I. 3"3 = Eptgrammata Gratca I 627), but '\lra. omment.: 'Dtc \'er chlctfung
~me Dtphthong~ am Ende cme \\'o rte~ mtt emem andcrn am Begmn des
na h tent. t tm D1 t1chon ntcht selten', c1tmg \\' ilhclm ( 193 70) 0
oTJIJ.O. D1d) mu . In Dem 6 46, D L. 5 1 1.
c o.KouoT~; . Tht ame m Eus PE 14 7 100
 F 2-3: Tran lation
17
1 1.It i vident, therefore, that it ha b n ri totle' fate, as it
ha many other ', to be envied by the sophist of hi time, both for
hi fri nd hip with king , and for hi up riority in argument.
But thos who ar right-minded mu t look not only to the d tra _
tor , but al o to those who prai and mulat him, for these will
be found to b far more numerou and virtuou .
12. ow all th other torie ar manifestly invented; but credit
eem to b given to the e two thing for whi h ome blame him;
one, that he marri d Pythia , " ho " a i ter by birth and daughter
by adoption of H rmia , in ord r to flatter him. At any rate
Theocritu of Chio wrote thi epigram:
Of H rmias, eunuch and Eubulu ' la e,
thi empty grave by empty-witted ri tot! wa rai d,
' h , by con traint of a lawles app tite, cho e to dw 11
at the mouth of the Borboru rath r than in the cademy.
Th other charge wa that Ari totle wa ungrateful to Plato.
13 . Now among the many author who have written of
Hermia and Ari totle' friend hip with him is Apellicon; any-
one who has read hi book will oon cea e to peak evil of the
two men.
14. But with regard to hi marriage to Pythia he ha
him If made ufficient defenc in his letter to Antipater. For
after the death of Hermia he married her becau e of hi
affection for him, he being al o a wi e and good woman, but in
mi fortune by rea on of the alamiti which had overtaken her
brother.
15 . Then h continues:

But after the death of Pythia , th daughter of Hermia ,

Ari totle married Herp lli of tag ira, b ' horn he had a on
icomachu . And he, it i aid, wa brought up a an orphan in
Th ophra tu ' hou ehold, and while till a very young man wa
killed in war.

7· No\\ one of ocrat ' hearers wa nu ·thene , a man of llerculcan sp1nt,

who sa1d that 1t 1 b tter to be mad than ro have pleasure, and told h1s fncnd
not to lift a finger for the ake of pleasure.
 Q. Z~•·w•·a f,( KAEai'(J'I ~~E~i~aTo, KA£&1•8'1'' ~( XptJ<mnro , TOVTov lJ( Z~vw 1,
£upo Kai o[ Ka8£~~ Myo••Ta< lJ' oaho• 1T(i.I'T£ llta</>Epo••Tw Kai {J<ou ouppou Kai
bi<U\£1<;"1'--"Ij f-ITlfl.£,\f/(J~I'QI TQ YE TOI T~ ICQT' aahov </><Aooo</>ta lJoyfi.OTQ c!JlJ( 7rW~
lo
'+ nEPl TH~ TQi\' ETQJKQ ct>J.~ IOEOC/>!AI: OnQI: TE 0 ZH Q
TON nEPI AP.'W11J AnELJJJOY ,1QFO · AnO TOY EBLlOMOY
nEPl C/>l. IOJ:OC/>JAI: APII:TOK.~JEOYI:
tndacem ad hoc aput: n£pi T~ TWV £TWIKWl' </>tAooo,P<a~. onw TE 0 Z~vwa•
TOI' 7TEpi ap Wl' Q7T£billou .\&yov .lhro TOV ~ - n£pi </>tAooo,Pta~ .ltptaTOICMou<;.

LTotx£io•• £lva! 4>TJat' 5 Twv ovTwv To TTup, Ka86..TT£P 'HpaKAHTo~,

I.
TOVTOU s' dpxa UATJV Kat 8£6v,
I .J.. I f' \ \ ,.. \ \
w
lllt6..Twv . aAA' OVTO~ a.,.,.fj>w
I ) I \ ,.
CJW/-LaTa 'I'TJGtV HVat, Kat TO 7TOWUV Kat TO TTaaxov, fKHVOU TO 7TpWTOV
TTowuv ainov daw,.,.aTov £lvat /..€yovTo .
2. f7THTa S€ Kat KaT6.. TLVa €ip.ap,.,.€vou~ xp6vou~ fK7Tupoua8at TOV
av/-LTTavTa Koa,.,.ov, £lT' aOOt TTaAtv OtaKOCJi-L£ia8at. ro !-LEVTot TTPWTOV
TTUp Elvat Ka0a1TEpE{ Tt a7TEpfLa, -rWv a1r&vrwv lxov ToU AOyouS' KaL
Ta~ atna Twv y£yov6Twv Kat Twv ytyvo,.,.€vwv Kat Twv €ao,.,.€vwv· T~v
S€ TOVTWV f7TL7TAOK~V Kat aKOAou8!av d.I-LaP!-LEVTJV Kat f7TL(JT~/-LTJV Kat
'' '8 Hav Kat' VO/-LOV
aiiTJ ' ,.
HVat • OVTWV
TWV " '"' '"' ' TtVa Kat' a'I'UKTOV.
aotaopaCJTOV ",1,

ravTTJ 8€ TTavTa SwtK£ia8at Ta KaTa Tov Koa,.,.ov lm€pw, Ka86..TT£P €v

fliVO/-LWTClrlJ TLVt 7TOAtULf!.

F 4 (3 Mullach, T XIII + F 6 Heiland)

Eu ebJU • PE '+ '7 10: TOtOi~£ fl.lV oov Ol o.,...,p; TOl' En·o<f>&Vf/v, os a~ My<TQI
OUVOICfLaOat TOi<; o.,...,p, n u8ayopav Kai .ltva~ayopav. E<vo,P&vou a; QICOUOT~<; yiyov£
nap,...o·i~.,,. TOVTOU M£Awoo~. oo Z~vwv, oo II<VK11T1TO ' 00 Ll1JfLOKptTO<;, oo
npwTayopas Kai N<ooas TOU ~( EOoci M1)Tpollwpo<;, 00 Lltoy(Vf/ • 00 .ltv&!apxos.
)t,.~&pxou ~; yt•wptfLO" yiyov• n vppwv, o.,p' 00 ~ TWV l:I(£1TTII<WV E7rti<A..,(J£vTWV a.a.
TptfJ~ avviaTrr oii5 Kai aUTo V p.:'JS£v £lvat --rO trap&TTav J.L~T' £.., aio8~an• 6 p.~T' £v
A&y'!' I<QTa).,f/1TTOl' Opi~OfLCvOU), E7TfXOVTQ a; £v nciotv 01TW a~A£yxov o[
avnllo~&~ovu fL08Eiv 1Tap<OTIV Q7TO TOV a..,Aw8evTo uuyyp&fLfLOTO<; c:,a; 1T1) 1Tp0<;
Ai~u· £xo•'Tos

nPOE TOYI: KATA nYPPQJ A I:KEnTIKOYI: HTOI EC/>EKTIKOYI:

5
' 4n/o• JhO• \ ' </>ao• BO , read b) Gd'ford, i\ 1ra , and'. rnam, pcrhap to
account for Eu. eb1u ' reference to the toac m gen ral m the title . everthe-
le </>.,a, ecm to b .. more con 1. tent'' nh the ooTo of the f llo" mg tatement,
\\ hach cannot refer to Hcracbtus \l o reo\ er, B as m general full of grammatical
error , though better as to content, and 0 doe. not correct O• from a different
ource. A yp&</><Tat va nant m the archetype may also be uggested
•• 1-'~T' b· a:o8~on B: om ce tt
 F 3-4: Tran lation 19
nd one of hi hearer · wa 010genes the Dog, \\ho per uaded man y
people to entertam the most be t1al opm10ns. Diogenes was uc ceded b y
rate , and a pupil of rate wa Zeno, who wa th e founder of the school of
toic philo ophers.
9· nd Zeno wa u ceed d b y leanthes and lea nthe b y Chrysippu , and
he by another Zcno and o on . 11 the men are aid to have devo ted th cm -
elve more than any other both to an austere life and to dialecti C. Th
prin 1pl of th eir philo oph are the follm.ving :

Index: n toic ph1lo ophy, and how Zeno poke on the first pnnciples. From
book 7 of risto le ' On Philo ophy .

1 . H e ays, lik Hera litu , that th I ment of th thing that

are i fir , and that its prin iple are matter and god, a Plato say .
But Z no ay that both prin ipl , the activ and th pa ive, ar
co rporeal, wherea Plato that the fir t acti e eau e i incorporeal.
2. Th n , moreover , he a that at rtain prede tined time the
whol world is consumed by fir , and aftenvard recon tituted
once more; and that the primar fir i like a seed, containing the
origin and the eau e of all thing pa t, pre ent, and future; and
that th ombination and equ n of thes con titute fat , knO\ 1-
edg , truth, and the law of all being , from which there i no
e ape or e a ion . nd in thi ""a all thing in the world ar
admirably arranged, a in a v ry well-ord red tate.

1 o. u h were the follower of, enop hane , who i aid to ha' c flouri hed at
the sa me ttmc as P yth agora and Anaxagora ·. , enophane taught Parmentdes,
'' ho taught Iclissu , ' ho taught Zeno, who taught Leucippu , "ho taught
Demo ntus, who taught Protagoras and e a ; and one of, 1e ·a 'pupils was
;\ letrodorus, who taught Diogen s, "ho taught naxarchu ·. nd a d1sc1ple
of naxarchus wa Pyrrho, from "horn arose the chool of tho e who arc
ca lled epttcs; thC)' tated that nothmg at all i apprehen iblc, not in sense-
perceptiOn nor in rea on, and suspe nd ed JUdge ment on e cry qu tion. Let u
learn h w tho e who had the oppo ·ite opmion so ught to refute th em from the
work before m nt10ned, which tates verbat1m

lnde\': ga in ~t the Pyr rh on1a n ccpt1 s, al o called ep hc t1cs,' ho affirm that

nothmg 1s app rehenstble. From nsto le·.
 20

EJ1IK.JH8E.VTA!: MHJE.Y KATA.~JHflTO.V El AI AflQ(f>H AME OYl:

Cf. mdtcem ad ho caput· flpo Tou KaTa flvppWJ•a oKmnKou ii Kal "f>£KnKou
£m,...\.,8£J'Ta - I-' 'Is;, "'aTttA'17TTOI' £t••at a"TTo</>'l•'af'£••ou · ;:t7To Toii ~pwToKMou~.

1. dl•ayKalw S' EXH 1rpo 1TO.JJTO Sto.oKit/Jo.oOo.t 1TEpl. T~~ ~!J.wv

~I >~ \ ~ •
O.UTWI' YVWO€W . H > yap \ 1
O.U1' J.LTJ0€11 1TE'f"UKO.J.L€11 yvwpt~Etv, OUOEJI v
En OH
,/. I 1y

7TEpt TWV aAAwv OK01T€ill.

) 1f" \ .,. 1\ \ \ ( ,J,. to \ J I I
2 . EY€VOJITO !J-Ell OUJI KO.I TWJI 1TO.I\O.t nvE 01 O.'f"€JITE~ TTJIIO€ TTJV
c/>wv~l' , o[ avT.:{pTJKEII :4.ptaTOTiATJ . tOXUO€ !J-Ell TOIO.UTO. Mywv KO.t
fluppwv 0 'HAEio . aAA' O.llTO !J-Ell ovSEv Ell ypacf>iJ KO.TO.AfAom.:v, 0 Si
y.: !J.O.OTJT~ athou Tt~-twv cf>TJoi SEiv Tov J.LiAAovTa t:VSatJ.LOv~oHv .:is
rp{a TO.UTO. f3M1THV " TTPWTOJI ~-tiv, 01TOia 1Ticj>uK€ Ta 1Tpay!J.O.TO."
S.:uupov Si, rlva XP~ Tpo1rov ~~-tO. 1rpo auT a Sta.KEioOat · TEAwTaiov
Si, T{ 1Tt:ptiorat Toi oihw~ €xouot.
.J.. ~
3. TO.\ !J-Ell
\ f"
OUJJ 1TpO.y!J.O.TO. 'f"TJOIJJ O.UTOJI 0.7TO'f"O.tJIHJI €7T IOTJ~ O.OIO.'f"opa.
I I ,/.. l \ ) I ) J W J I.J..

Kai aoT6..0~-tT}TO. KO.l av.:TT{KptTO., Sta TOUTO J.L~TE Ta aioO~oH~ ~!J.WV

!J.~TE Ta S6ga aATjOEu€111 7} 1/J.:uSwOat. Sta TOUTO OUJI J.LTJSE 1TtOTEU€tV
O.VTai- S.:iv, aAA' &.Sog6..oTOU KO.L aKAtiiEL KO.l aKpa.SavTOU~ .:[vat,
1T€pt Jvo fKaOTOU MyovTO. on ov ~-tO.AAov EOnJJ 7} OVK EOnJJ 7} KO.l
EOTL Kat ovK €onv 7} oihE €onv ouTE ovK €onv.
4· TOt ~-tivTOI y.: Sto.KH!J.fvOt OUTW 7Tt:ptioEo0o.l T{J.Lwv cf>TJol.
•
1TpWTOJI \ , ,1. ~
!J-Ell O.'f"O.OtO.JJ, €7THTO. 0 O.TO.pO.c.,tO.V,
I i: A tiiTJOIOTJ!J-0
,V ~~ ~ ' •~
0 TJOOIITJII.
' , I I

-. TO. !J.E" ouv K.:c/>6..-\a,a Twv AEyoJ.Livwv f.oTi To. uTa· oKEt/Jw~-t.:Oa. S'
) > () • \I I \ I I I V ~~ 1,1. I ,/. I f'
H op W 1\EYOUOI. €7TH TOtiiUII €7T tOT} O.OtO.'f"OpO. 1TO.IITO. 'f"O.Otll HIIO.t
Kat Sui TOVTO Kt:At:uouot J.LT}St:vt1Tpoor{Ow0al J.LTJSE Soga~Hv, t:iKOTWS
V 1' I () 1' I ~ ) t ~ ,/. I I I
0.11, Ot!J.O.t, 1TU OITO Tt O.UTWV, apa yt: OtO.!J.O.pTO.IIOUOtll Ot OtO.'f"Ep€111
A

O.VTa IIO!J.{~ovTE~ 7} ou; 1TaVTW~ yap, Ei !J.EV a'J.LapTavouotv, OVK opOw~

> \ f3 I 17 ) 11 , 'f' I \ I ) ..,. I \ \ \
U1TOI\O.j.L O.IIOIEII 0.11 . WOTE O.VO.YKTJ I\€YHV O.UTOt HVO.t TIVO.~ TOUS TO.
t/JwS~ 7T€pt TWII OVTWV Soga~OVTQ.~· O.UTOt To{vuv ElEv av oi. TaATjO~
\ I ~ " ~ >\ () \ I ,/, A~ ~) t I I
1\EYOVTE~ · OUTW O€ HT} 0.11 0.1\Tj €<; Tt KO.t 'f"€UOO~. H 0 OVX O.J.LO.pTO.IIO!J.€11
V ) )

• \\ ' ~ \,1. V IH I , I I ()I , \ I

01 1TOI\I\Ot TO. OIITO. OtO.'f"t:p€111 OIOJ.L€110t, Tt !J-0. OVT€ E1Tt1TI\T}TTOUOIII
~J.LLV; O.VTOt yap &.J.LapTavot€11 av o.giOUIITE J.L~ Stacj>ipHv O.VTa.
6 · KO.I\ !J.TJII \ €L KO.t O'tJ!J.€11
~ 19
J J " ) ~ ,l._
O.UTOt~ €7T tOT}~ O.OtO.'f"OpO. 1TO.VTO. Etl/0.1 1
\ ,.. Jf' "" ) I I

~A\ ( ) ~ ~ ,1.1 ~~~ ) \ A \\A I 1' " ) A

OTjl\011 W OUK O.V OIO.'f"€pOtEII OUO O.UTOt TWII 1TOI\I\WII. Tt~ OUII HT} O.UTWV
av ~ oocj>{a; KO.l T{ Tt~-twv TOL~ J.LEII aAAol AotSopELTO.t 1Taat,
s,a.
fluppwva S' U!J.VEi J.LDvov;

7
11aAatol f'£v Tn·£~ £l7Tov TOuTo, won B. ThL readmg ma} have been m the
'
archetype, and ma) bee\ tdence of another reference to nstotle b) n to le .
' bta4>£po•·u~ B
•• lJ<!>f''IV Eptct D1ss 2 . 23 . 1.
 F 4: Tran lation 21

1. Befor v rything it i ncce sary to inve tigate our own knowl-

edg ; for if it is our natur to know nothing, th r is no furth r
n ed to nquir about th oth r things.
2. mong the ancients too, th r w re ome who affirm d uch
thing , and w r oppos d by ri totle. Pyrrho of Eli too wa
emphati in thi opinion, but he himself has left nothing in writ-
ing, whil his pupil Timon a that th man who mean to b
happy mu t consider these three things: first, how thing are by
nature; ondly, what attitud w hould take toward th m;
finally, \.vhat advantage will come to tho e v ho ar in thi di po i-
tion.
3· Thing , he [Timon] ay he [Pyrrho] declar d, are equall
undift rentiated, un table, and indeterminate; therefore n ith r
our en -per eption nor our opinion are true or fal e. For thi
rea on, then, we mu t not tru t them, but be unopinionated,
unwa ering, and unshaken, aying about ver ingle thing that it
no more i than i not, or that it both i and i not, or that it n ith r
i nor i not.
4· To thos who are in thi di po ition, ay Timon, will corn
fir t p echle ne and then imperturbability; Aene id mu
pi a ure.
S· ow th se are the main point of their argument ; I tu on-
ider whether the are right. in then th y ay that all thing ar
equa ll y undifferentiated, and for thi rea on require u to incline
to nothing and to ha no opinion, on cou ld reasonably a k th m,
I think, wh ther tho e who think that thing dift rare in error or
not . For certainly, if they ar in error, they cannot be right. o
th y ar forced to say that there are om people who hav fal e
opinion about thing ; and th n they them elves ' ould b tho
who ay th true thing ; but th r for th re would be omething
true and something fal e. But if we, the majority, do not rr in
believing that thing differ, what do they reproach u for? Forth y
them lve wou ld be in rror affirming that the do not differ.
6. nd ven if we grant them that all thing are qually
undiff rentiat d, it i vident that th y ' ould not di agree with
ordinary peopl . \ hat th n would th ir wi dom b ? and wh doe
Timon blam all the other , and prais Pyrrho only?
7. gain, if all thing ar equally unditl rentiat d and for thi
rea on w ought not to ha e an opinion, th r would b no
dift r n e, either, betw en diff ring and not differing, ha' ing
 22
t1 \ ) J p 11 J \ J~ I ..J... I \ t' \ .. \
7. £n y£ 11-Tl" £L nr taT] £anv aota'l'opa 1TavTa Kat ota TOUTO XPTJ
IJ-T]Oll' So~a~£LVI OUK av ouo£ TaUTa OtacJ>ipot· Uyw 8£ TO Otac/>ipm ~
11-~ Stac/>ip£Lv 1 Kai To So~a(£Lv ~ 11-~ So~a(Hv. T{ yap ~J-iiAAov Totau'Ta
"
£anv T]"' ouK
, £anv;
" 7]" 1 w" 'I''Y/<11
..J.. T t1J-WV
' t' \
1 ota n
,
vat' Kat\too'
ota n I ou"' Kat\ au'To
, '

' ~ ' , ~ ' ' 10 ..J.. ' .,.

TO ota n ota n; 'l'aP£pov ouv w avatpHTat To ., 'T'JTHv- wan ' , ... ' r . . "
1rauaaa8waav €vox.\ouvT£ . E1T£L vuv y£ IJ-liJ-~vaat 1r6ppw TEXVTJ<; a11-a
IJ-ll' ~IJ-il• OtaK£A£UOIJ-lVOL 11-~ So~O.(nv 1 a11-a S£ K£Anlovu auTo TOU'TO
7TOI£U'•
Kat' I\£YOVT£
\ ' •
w· 1T£pt' OU0£110
.... ' , A.. '
a1TO'I'atV£<1 8at 0£0t,
1:'' w
Ka1T£LTa ,
a1TO-
c/>atVOIJ-lVO!" Kai a~LOUG! IJ-lV IJ-TJO£Vi auyKaTaTL8£a8atl 1Td8w8at s,
aVTOL K£A£Uouaur £iTa Uyovu IJ-'T'JOlV £L0Evat 7T(lVTa €Myxouaw we;
£o £io6u .

"' ..
21
. avayK'Y/ o£ TOU c/>aaKOVTa w
a07JAa 1TaVTa lL'T'JI Suoiv 86.upovl
8at Tt Kat l\£ynv. n IJ-lV ouv
'Y/ atw1Tav 'T"''J a1To.,..atv£a
) ..J.. I I 1' \ r\ 1
7J<7UXtav I
ayot£v,
) \ t1

oljAOI1 OTL 1Tp0 Y£ TOU TO!OllTOU ou8£i av lL'T'J .\6yoc;· £L s)

Q1TOc/>a{votVT0 1 1TaVT'T'J T£ Kat 1TaVTW<; ~ £iva{ TL c/>ai£V av ~ IJ-~ £ivat 1
'
Ka 8a1T£p , 1\ vuvt' 'l'aatv
ai-L£"£L A..
w• H'T'J
w '
1TavTa w
ayvwaTa Kat' aoptaTa
, '»

7TCl<71, (yvwa)TOV 23 0' ou8£v.

9· 'TOUTO TOLVUV 0 a~twv ~TOt 07JAoi TO 1Tpii.y~J-a Kat EV£<1TLV auTO

auv£ivat A£YOIJ-£VOV 1 ~ ouK lvwnv. d.\,\ 1 £l IJ-lV ou 07JAOt1 Ka8a1ra~
OU0£L ouS. OVTW<; 1Tp0 TOV TOtOUTOV av lL'T'J .\6yoc;. £L 8£ <17JIJ-a{votl
1TaVTW ~ a1T£Lpa Uyot av ~ 1T£7T£paai-L£va. Kai £L IJ-lV a1Tnpa, ouS)
oiiTwc; av li'T'J .\6yoc; 1Tpo aUTOVI Q1T£Lpou yap yvwatc; OUK lan·
1T£1T£paa11-£vwv 8£ ovTwv Twv OTJAOUIJ-Evwv ~ f.vo OTououv, TOUTO o
Uywv op{(£L Tl Kat Kp{v£1. 1TW<; ouv ayvwaTa Kat QV£1T{KptTa 1TQVTa
" ., , t'' ..J.. , , ' ' 1" ' ' ,. ... \ tl
HT/ av; £L 0£ 'l'at'T'J TaUTO Kat HVat Kat IJ-'T'J £tvat 1 7rpWTOV IJ-lV £<7'Tat
TauTo Kai a.\'Y/8£ Kat .jl£uoo I E1T£LTa S' ip£i n Kat ouK ip£i Kat .\6ycp
'
XPWIJ-lVOc; ,
avatp7J<7H' \ '
1\0yov w
£Tt 1:' '
o£ • \ •
OIJ-O"oywv .,..£uo£a8at 1Tt<7T£U£LV
.I. '1:'
1
'
f.aUT<jl c/>~a£L 0£tV.
I 0 . a~ LOll Ol ( 'T'JTljaat 1T08£v Kat 11-a8ovuc; a07JAa 1TaVTa c/>aatv £ivat.
O£i yap £L0Evat 1Tp6upov auTouc; T{ 0~ 1TOT) E<1Tt TO olj.\ov· OVTW youv
av lxot£V My£Lvl
' \ ..J..
w
I
OUK lL'T'J Ta 1TpayiJ-aTa TOtauTa. 1TpWTOV yap £L0E-
1" \ 1 ..J.. ) t' \ J J ,.. f ,., I
vat XP'T'J TTJV KaTa'l'aatv 1 £LTa T'T'JV a1ro'l'aatV. n o£ ayvoouatv 07TOtOJJ
E<1TL TO olj.\ovl OUK av £LO£i£v ouo£ TL TO aOTJAOV.
I I. 01T6-rav Y€ J.L~V Alv7JaLS7]J.LO~ €v -riJ Y 1TOTuTTWaEt TOU~ €vv£a
•o Sui -rl .Sw. -rl 0 c},ti -,( Jb B 1 defectn e: l),ti -,( av-ro -ro 1),0. -,{ ifford,
:\I ra
" ll£ :\lra , n codd
u VOfUOTO COdd aoptOTO :\foraux ( 1984: 160 n 266), JnCC lt I more COn j -

tent "ith the general argument and '' 1th ' E. PH r . 198; voJ.L•a-ra o cur 1b1d.
3 232 , but rn a \cry different context.
' l )'lWOTO>' • tephanu , WS ) h0 TOUTO B.
 F 4: Tran lation 23
opm1 n and not having th m. For why are they uch-and-su ha
> ay mor than not? or, a Timon a , why y and why no and
why the very why it elf? It i I r then that ther i an nd to all
inquir ; o let them top troubling u , in e now their madn i
b yond m dicin : on the on hand they exhort us to hav no
opinion, on th other at th same tim they tell u to do ju t thi ,
and aying that one hould not make stat m nt , they make a tat -
m nt ju t th n; and they laim that on hould agre with no ne,
but demand to b tru ted. Ioreo r, though they ay they know
nothing, th y oppo e \'erybody a if they kn w a lot.
8. nd tho e who affirm that e erything is ob cure mu t do one
of two thing , be mute or tate and ay omething. If th wer
I arly th re would be no arguing with uch folk; but if they
tat ment , in very way and ab olutely they would eith r
affirm that omething wa or that it wa not, a they now ay
that v r thing is unknown and ind terminate to e rybody and
nothing is known.
9· Therefore, ith r the man who maintain thi either makes
the thing lear and it can b und r tood when it i aid, or it an-
not. If he do not, there would b ab olutel no arguing with u h
a man ith r. But if he did mak hi m aning clear, h crtainly
p ak indefinitely or d finit ly; and if h peak ind finitely, in
thi a e too there wou ld be no arguing with him, for th re i no
u h thing a know) dge of th ind fin it . But if what h mean , or
one of th thing he mean , is definit , the man who ay it d fine
om thing and judg it. How th n cou ld all thing be unkno\ n
and und cidab le? But if he hould ay that th same thing i and i
not, fir t the am thing will be true and fa) e, and e ondl h will
ay and not ay omething and will u argument to de troy argu-
ment, and furth r, whil admitting that he p ak fa) ely, he will
a that we hould b liev him.
10. nd it i "orth inve tigating when e they I arnt to ay that
all thing ar ob ure. For th y mu t fir t kno\v ju t what th VI-
dent i ; in thi ' ay at lea t th y ould ay that thing are not lik
thi . For fir t on must know th affirmation, and then th n ga-
tion. But if the do not know what i the vid nt, th an not know
> hat is th
1 1. nesidemu in his Outlines goe throu h th
nin trop (in o many way he ha tri d to how that thing are
ob cur ), hall w ay that h pok of thing h knew r f "hi h
 F -t: T xt
"'~
1€~1'!]~ T0<10UTOU~
\ I \ ) ,/... I \ \
Tp01TOU ( KaTa yap arro'l'atll€111 aOT]IIa Ta
1 ) 1 ) \ ,/... '"' )~ I \ I ) \ 111
rrpayf-taTa 1T€1THpaTal , 1TOT€p011 aUTOII 'I'Wf-t€11 €100Ta IIEYHII aUTOUS TJ
d}'l•ooul'ra; cf>71a! yap on
Ta 'cpa Otac/>ipn Kat ~f-tEt auTot Kat ai
\ -;, , -1.
1TOI\€1" Kat' Ot• tJIOt
R Kat' Ta' €UT]
"ll
Kat' Ot• l'Of-tOt'
•
Kat' Ta' at• a (} TJ<1€1~
,
0€ 'f''TJOLV
~f-tWV daBo•£i Elllat KaL rroAAa Ta tgwBEII Au~-taLVOf-t£11a T~ll y11watv,
Q7TOOTT]f-taTa Kat f-tEyiBT] Kat Ktll~<1€1 ° fTI of. TO ""'~ Of-tOLW OtaKe'iaBat
\ Q I \ ) I \ I \
1'€0U" Kat 1Tp€<1tJUT€pou Kat £ypT]yOpOTa~ Kat KOtf-tWf-t€110U Kat
' -1. •
uytaii'Ol'Ta Kat' l'OOOUl'Ta
• ><;,
' OU0€110 ' ' •
T€ TJ/-ta ' \ •
a1TIIOU Kat' aKpat'f'IIOU
,

' \ R' (} ' ' "

al'TtAa~-tl"a'•ea at. 1 2. rravTa yap nvat auyKEXUf-tEIIa Kat rrpo ' ' ' n
AEyOf-t€1'a. ,,
TaUTa 8~, c/>T]~-tt, KaL TU TOtaUTa KO~-tt/JoAoyouiiTa aUTOII ~8iw av
Tl ~Pf.TO 1TOT€pov dj flow- Myot 8toTI TU rrpc5.y~-taTa TOUTOII txn TOV
Tp01TOI.J ~ &y ..-oWv· El p..Ev yd.p oVK f10Et, 1TW av ~J.LEi~ aU'Tcp
1TIC1Tf.U0tf-t€1'; f.L 8. f.ytiiWC1K€, KOf-ttOfi Tl 1]11 ~Af.Bta clf-ta f-tEII a87JAa
' , -1. ' ~ -;, ' • \ ' ><;, '
rral'Ta arro'l'atVOf-t£110 , a~-ta oe ToaauTa IIE'YWII noe11at.
IJ. Kat f-t~ll 01TOT€ y£ Ta TOtauTa Otf.gtOt€11, OUOEII dAA' ~ f.rraywy~v
\ I ~ I -J
( J1 .J.. Jl \ I \ \ ()'
TIVa A€YOUOt, OHKVUVT€ 01T0t aTTa HT] Ta 'l'at110f-t€11a Kat Ta Ka
EKaaTa' TO of. TOIOUTO Kat tan KaL My£Tat 7TLC1TI EL f-tEII OUII auTfi 0

auyKaTaTLB£11Tat, 8~Aoll OTI oogc5.,ouatll' f.t 0' ou 1TI<1T€VOU<1tll, ouo, all

~f-tE'i rrpoaixn11 auTo'i {JouAT]BE{TJf-t€11.
o
I-+· yE i-t~" T!~-twll f.v TcP IlvBw11t OtTJYELTat, w1Kp011 n11a KaTaTE{va
A6yoll, ws fVTVXOt Tcjl Ilvppwllt {Jaot,OIITI IluBoioe rrapa TO i£p011 TO
TOU }4~-tcf>tapaou Kat TLIIa OtaAExBet€11 dAA~Aot 0 O.p, ouv OVK EvA6yw> av
Tl avTcp TaUTa auyypacf>ovn rrapaaTa €t7TOt' Tf., W 1T011T]pi, f.voxt\£i!>
aeauTcp TauTa auyypacf>wv Kat Q f-t~ ot"a(}a OtT]YOVf-t€110~; T{ yap
~-t<iAAov f.viTuxe~ ~ OVK flliTUX€~ avTcp Kat OteMxBTJ ~ ov OtEMxBTJ~;
I 5° avTO Tf. fKE'LIIO 0 Bau~-ta<1TO Iluppwv O.pc5. ye flon TO Ota TL

{JaOt,ot IlvBta Beaa6~-tevo ~ KaBarr£p oi f-tE'f-tTJ"OT£ f.rrAavaTo KaTa

TT]II oo6v; ~v{Ka o' ~pgaTO KaTT]yopeiv TWII a11Bpcimwv KaL T~)
dyvo{a~•b auTwll, O.pa y£ cf>w~-t£v auTOII d,\71()~ Mynv ~ 1-t~ Kat TOll
T!~-twva rraBeiv n Kat auyKaTaBiaBat TOt~ A6yots ~ 1-t~ 7rpoaixnv; f.i
f-tEv yap OUK f1T€LOBT], 1TW) QIITt xopwTOU c/>tA6aocf>o f.yiveTO Kai TOll

... b<£~trJ .'tephanus, l),f~~H codd.

'
1
:\lra began hts ne~' para . ~' ath mivTa . A£yo1.uva agam t th e I ' ,
probabl} taking these \\ords to synthe. izc the prenous tropc ; but the com-
parison propo cd an th~ 'ommentary on para r 2 ~' tth the lists of trope in the
other ource ho'~ that tht phra e ma\ refer to the la t t\ o items tn
n toclc 'e. ·po ttaon of ene idemus' trop~s.
6
' ti.·oi'a Wrlamo\\ttZ (r88r: 64); andeed for the Pyrrhonaan men can be
blamed becau e, although they cannot knO\\ anythang, they ansanely upposc
the) an. And An tocle ' in isten e on Pyrrho beang ihut/>o~ supports the
 F 4: Tran lation 25
h wa ignor nt? for h say that animal differ, and w oursel e
d , and state and way of life and u tom and law ; nd h say
als that our nse-perception ar w ak and that many external
thing poil knowledg , di tan , iz , and motion ; and again,
people ar dill r ntly aff et d when they young and old, awak and
a I p, h althy and ick; nothing of what we appreh nd i impl
and pur . 12. For everything i confus d and said relativ Jy.
It v ould be a plea ure, I tell you, to a k the fellov who was
making u h fin peeche wh ther he ' a peaking in full kno\ -
ledg that things were in thi way or in ignorance of it; for if h did
not know, how ould we beli ve him? but if he knew, h wa an
utt r idiot, declaring that all thing ar ob cure, and aying at th
am tim that h knew o mu h .
IJ. And wh n they xpound uch thing , th y mak nothing else
than an indu tion, howing what i the natur of the phenom na
and of the particulars. And thi i , and i called, a b lief. Now, if
th y giv th ir a ent to it, it i clear that they have an opinion; but
if they do not belie e it, v e hould ha e no de ire to heed them
ither.
14. And in the Python Timon t lis a long tor about how he
m t Pyrrho walking toward the t mple of mphiarau in D lphi,
and v hat they talked about. ow, if one were tanding be id him
while he wa writing the e thing , cou ld on not rea onabl ask
him : 'You poor chap, why do you trouble to write th e thing and
tell what you do not know? In what way did you meet him more
than you did not and talked with him more than you did not?'?
15. And did that wonderful Pyrrho know why h v as on th
road in order to e th Pythian gam , or " a he ju t wand ring
along like a madman? And wh n h tart d to denoun e men and
th ir ignorance, hall w ay that h told the truth orJ.AI&~~.-.a.L!'
Timon " a affected in ome way and ga e hi a
ment or did not pay attention? For if h wa no
did h chang d from a dancer to a philo opher a
all hi life? But if he agr ed v ith what he aid,
ab urd f llow to philo ophiz himself, but forbid u

onjccturc. 1everthele s it is n tocle \~ho is peaking here, and ayvo&a ma)

be the word he choo es to tre the m onsi. tenq of Pyrrho and Timon m
claimmg to speak truth and s•multaneou. ly denymg that anythmg is more tru
than not true. Hence there eems to be m uffi 1ent reason for emendmg the
transmitted reading; ee al oDe leva "a•zz1 ( 1981b: 217-1 ).
Jluppwva OtEdAEaE 8aUftcl~wv; El o( auyKa-rE8ETO TOL AEYOfi-EVOL),
cl7'07TO Ql' Et'Tj Tt- aun>s· fi-W </>tAoao</>wv, ~lka o( KwAuwv.
!6. a1TAW o( 8auftclUat 7'l av, oi Tlfi-WVO 1;{,\,\ot Kat ai Ka-ra
1TclVTwv ch•8pclmwv {3,\aarf>'Tifi-Lat Kat ai ftaKpat a-rotXEtwan
Ait'1)Ut0~f1-0U Kat 7Tii 0 TOLOUTO oxAo TWV ,\6ywv TL 0~7T07'E {3ouAET
1

auTOt · Ei ftfV yap oiOfi-EVOt KpEtTTOU ~fka a1TEpyaaw8at 27 TaUTa

yEypa</>aat Kal Ota TovTo 1TavTa oi'ov-rat OEi'v €Myxnv, o1Tw)
1TavaWf1-E8a rf>,\uapouvTE , {3ouAov-rat o71Aov6n -r~v d,\~8nav ~fi-OS
ELOEVat Kat rmoAa{3Eiv, 07'1 TOLaUTa EL'Tj -ra 1Tpclyfl-aTa Ka8a1TEp dgLOL
•
ITuppwv , WUTE , 8 ' , • •
Et 7TEIO H'Tjfi-EV aUTO! , EK XHPOVWV
' {3'' •
EI\TLOV) av
' 8a, KptvavTE
yEVOlfi-E ' Ta' UUfi-'f'Opw-rEpa
A. ' Kat' TOU)
' w
afi-EtVOV \ '
1\EYOVTa
a7T00Egclfi-EVOL
17. 1TW... OUV ,
... E7T ' lU'Tj ) ',/.. \ ')~
aota'f'opa Ta 1Tpayfl-aTa Kat aVE1TtKptTa
, \ )

ovvatT av nvat; Kat 1TW aavyKaTa'8 ETOL Kat' aoo!.aa-roL

.., ' • • 1' ' • .., 't
• , ' 8' av;
YEVOLfi-E •
Ei 0. ouo(v o</>EAo €an TWV ,\6ywv, Tt ~fi-LV 2 EvoxAouatv; iJ Ota TL
Ttfi-WV rf>'Tia{v·

ou yap fi-0.,\,\ov Iluppwva 8aUftclUat 7'1 av iJ TOV K6pot{3ov EKELVOV iJ

TOV iHEATjTL07jV, OL 0~ OOKOUUL fi-Wptg. OtEVEYKELV.
I . €v8Uf1-Eia8at fi-EVTOL XP~ Kat TavTa' 7TOLO) yap av YEVOLTO
7TOAtTTj iJ OLKaaT~ iJ Uuftf3ovAo) iJ </>{,\o iJ a1r,\w Ei7TELV av8pw1TO) 0
YE TOLOUTO ; iJ Tt TWV KaKWV ou TO,\fi-~OHEV av 0 fi-TjOfV W) d,\Tj8W)
oiOfi-EVO Etvat KaAov 29 iJ aiaxpov iJ OtKaLOv iJ aOLKOv; ouo( yap EKELVO
,L , , , \ , , \ \ ~, ~ f ...
'f'aL'Tj 7'L av, 07'1 TOV VOfi-OV OEOOLKaat Kat Ta) Tlfi-Wpta OL TOLOVTOL'
1TW) yap oi YE a7Ta8Ei' Kat d-rapaxot, Ka8a7TEp aUTOt </>aatv, OVTE ;
o
19. yE -rot T{lkwv TavTa Kat Myn 7TEpt -rou Iluppwvo)·
aAA' olov T<)V aTu</>ov EYW iOov ~/)' a/lap.CWTOV
1T(lUIV OUOI t/lap.vaVTQI {3poTWV a</>aTo{ T£ </>aTOt ut, JO
Aawv l8v£a Kov</>a, {3apuvop.£v' lv8a Kai lv8a
EK 7Ta8£wv ll&g1J n Kal £tKat1) vop.o8~K1) .
zo. o7ToTav fi-EVTOt </>wat To aorf>ov o~ -rov-ro, Oton OEot KaTaKoAou-
8ovv-ra -rfl </>uan ~.ryv Kat -roi:) t8wt, ft'T/OEvt fi-EVTOt auyKa-ra-r{8w8at,
'
7
a7TlpytlOl08t:u ~Jra . a7Tlpyaoao8at codd.
• T]p.iv. tephanu p.~v codd
9
' KaAov Ferran ( 196 ): KaKov codd.
JO btlp.a~aVTat {JpO'TWv 0.4»aTo{ T£ <PaTol T£ ~ 1 , Sal-'-vciTat Op.w ciK0'7TOt T£ K07rOl Tf
[ ic] Jb: B i defective bap.vavTat op.w; 0.</>aTOl Tl <f>a·ro! Tl Wa h muth (I Ss.
141 ff .), followed by Long and edley (1987 : 11 . 9) : llap.vO.o8£ Wilamowitz
(I I : 272), adopted b} :\ fra , \\ ho in 3 footnote COnjecture /lap.vaTat op.w;
4Kon0~ T( KOTT£{~ T£
 F 4: Tran lation 27
16. nd on mu t imply wonder what Timon's Silloi and his
in ult again t all men and th long elementary xpo ition of
ne idemu and all th ir imilar multitude of word mean. For
if they have written th m in th b li f that they will make u bett r
and that i why th y think it nece sary to refute verybody, o that
we top talking non n e, it i evident that th y want u to know
th truth and a ume that thing are such a Pyrrho think , o that
if e were to b lieve th m, we hould hange from wor to bett r,
judging th mor advantag u thing and following tho e who ay
the bett r thing .
17. How th n ould thing b equally undifferentiated and in-
d t rminat ? and how could " e b without a ent and opinion?
and if there i n u e in word , wh do th y both r u ? or why do
Timon ay:
o other mortal could ri al Pyrrho?

For one could admir Pyrrho no mor than th notoriou

oroebu or Meletid , who ar con id red to have tood out for
tupidity.
18. One should consid r also the following thing : what sort of
citiz n, or judge, or coun ellor, or friend, or imp! human being
would uch a man mak ? or on what atrocity would th man not
enture who thought that nothing wa r all honourabl or
ham ful, or just or unju t? for one ould not ev n ay that u h
men are afraid of the law and their penalti ; for ho could they,
who are fre from motion and troubl , a they say?
19. nd Timon al o ay thi of Pyrrho:
uch was the man I aw, unconc itcd and unbroken
b all th pre sure that ha e subdued th famed and unfamed
of m rtals,
unstable band of p ople, w igh d down n this ide and on that
' ith pa ion , opinion, and futile legi lation .'
20 . Wh n, howe r, th y utter thi pi c of wi dom, that on
ought to live in accordance with nature and cu tom, and t to
a ent to nothing, th y ar na"i in th extreme. For one must

' Thi i Long and edley's translation of thctr zB, apart from the r ferencc
to 'the mortals', f3poTt;,,, ~ hi h they emend to Of'W>, following \\'a hsmuth ,
\ ho, however, mixed the text of with that of Jb (seen . 30) .
2

;;ai'U TII'C dall' £lJrJ8H -. d yap J..I.7J80•t aAAcp, TOUT4J youv aunv 8£i
avyKaTa8£a8at Kat lnroAa{J£tl' ouTw- lxnv auTo. Tt 8€ J..LUAAov Tfl
rf>uaH Kat Toi~ l8~:at 8~:! KaTaKOAou8~:tv ~ ou 8~:t, J..L~ £i86Ta y~: 8~
J..L7J8fl' J..LTJ8' EXOVTil n tJTcp KptVOUJ..LfV;
) ,.. \ \ )\/8
\ ) \1 I I ) ~\
21 . £KHVO J..Lfl' yap Kat 1Tai•Ta1TaULV €UTLV TJIIL LOV, €1T£LOaV 11£YWULV 1
•OTt Ka 8a1T€p , \ 8 \ -l., ,
Ta Ka apnKa 'l'apJ..LaKa UUVfKKpLVH J..L€Ta TWV 1T£ptT- \ -
, \ r 1 \ ) t. .. \ 'f' \ I \ f I ) I
TWJ..LaTWI' Kat €aUTa, TOV aUTOV Tp01TOV Kat 0 1TaVTa astWV HVaL IIOYO~
a87JAa J..l.fTa T<VV aAAWV &.vatp~:i Kat iauTOV. d yap auTO~ aLJTOV
,\ \ - • • , , Q ,, 1" • , "
£11£YXOL , 111JpOt€V a1• ot XPWJ..L€VOL TOUT4J. fJI':IITLOv ouv 7JGUXtav ay£tv
aliTou Kat J..LTJ8€ TO aTOJ..La 8tatpHv .
•,,, \ ·~·., • \ 8 \ -l.'
22. a1111a J..LTJV OUO OJ..LOLOV £XHV TL TO Ka apTLKOV 'l'apJ..LaKOV Kat 0
TovTwv ,\6yo . To J..Liv yap rf>&.pJ..LaKov iKKp{v~:Tat Kav Tot awJ..Laatv oux
u1TOJ..LfVH, Tov J..LfVTot ,\6yov iv Tat~ 1/Juxai u1rapxnv 8~:t Tov auTov
OVTa Kat 7TLUT£UOJ..L€VOV ai~:t- J..LOVO~ yap OOTO fLTJ av 0 1TOLWV &.auy-
KaTa8iTOU .
" 8 '"' 't
23 . OTt
.,
0~. OUX ,
OLOV
?'
T€ TOV
\
av pW1TOV aoOsaUTOV HVat,
1"
Kat\ WOL
• "''

KaTaJ..L&.8oL T( av· &.8uvaTOV yap TOV aia8aVOJ..LfVOV J..L~ aia8avw8at. TO

8' aia8avw8at yvwp{~nv n -,jv. 8t6n 8€ Kat manuH Tfl aia8~aH,
1T(iat r/>av~:p6v· aKpt{Jiaupov yap 81Awv i8£iv a7Tfi/J7Jaf T<jJ orf>8aAJ..L<jJ
Kat 1TpoaiJ,\8~:v €yyuupov Kat f1TTJAuyaaaTo.
24. Kat J..L~V ~86J..L€VOt y£ Kat 1rovouvu iaJ..L£v· ov yap ol6v u TOv
KaLOJ..L€VOV ~ T€J..LVOJ..L€VOV ayvo€tV. Ta~ 8( 8~ J..LV~J..La~ Kat TaS ava-
,
J..LVTJUHS" , • • -l. ,
TL~ OUK av 'l'aLTJ J..L€
8' U1TOIITJ'I'fW~
• \ '· 1• ,
ytyv£a 8at; 1T€pt\ J..LfV \ yap \
TWV KOLVWV fVVOLWV, OTL TO TOLOUTOV av8pw1TOS €anv, ETL 8€ 7T€pt
"' ) ,.. \ tl ) \
,., \ _$. I \ I ~ I )
TWV €1TLUTTJJ..LWV Kat T€XVWV, TL 11£YOL TLS" av; OUOfV yap 'IV TOVTWV, H
J..L~ 1T£r/>uKaJ..L€V U1TOAaJ..LfJavHV. aAA' lywy£ EW TaAAa· TOt~ J..LfVTOL
A£yoJ..Livot~ u1ro TOVTwv €av u mauuwJ..L€V €6.v T£ &.maTWJ..LfV,
&vayKa{wS' lx£t 8og&.~etv 7T6.V'TTJ 'T£ Kat 1T&v-rwS'.
2 5. on J..LfV ovv &.J..L~xav6v €an r/>tAoaor/>£tv Tov Tp01TOV TOVTOV,
.J.. I • ~ \ \ \ ..J. I \ \ \ I ( ~\ lt'
'l'aV€pov· OTL O€ Kat 1Tapa 'I'UULV Kat 1Tapa TOUS" VOJ..LOV , WOL KaTWOLJ..LfV
r# 1 \ 9 "' t1 tl I\ \ \ 1 \ \ 1 "'
I ,.
av· H yap aU T4J OVTL Ta 1TpayJ..LaTa TOLaUTa HTJ, TL I\OL1TOV a1111 TJ
Ka8a1T£P €v UnV4J ~iiv ~J..LU dKfl Kat EJ..L1TA~KTW~; WUT£ r/>Avapot€V av
OL• VOJ..LO 8'€TaL Kat\ UTpaTTJYOL\ Kat\ OL• 1TaLO€UOVT£S'.
"' , .,,,.
a1111 "'
fJ..LOLY€ OOKOUULV •
OL J..LfV aAAOL 1TaVT£S' av8pw1TOL ~i'Jv KaTa rf>uatv, J..LOVOL J..LfVTOL T£Tvr/>wa-
8at, J..LUAAov 8€ J..L€J..L7JVfvaL J..Lav{av €ppwJ..LfVTJV oi TaiiTa ATJpoiivT£5'.
26. oux ~KLUTa J..LfVTOL TOVTO KaTaJ..La8ot TLS' av KaK£t8€V' .:4vTtyovos
. 0• K apuanos KaTa TOUS' aVTOUS' Y£VOJ..L€VOS' xpovous Kat
yovv I ' ' ) \ I I \

'~1.
'avaypa'l'aS' ' ... TOV
aVTWV ' fJLOV
Q ..J..
'I'TJUL ' JI'
' TOV t' 1
uppwva OLWKOJ..L€VOV r
U1TO '
KUVOS' ' 1

&.var/>vy£[v €1r{ n Sivbpov, aKw1TTOJ..L£vov 8' u1ro Twv 1TapovTwv ~:i1T£iv

WS' xaA€1TOV €LTJ TOV av8pw1TOV EKbuvat. <l>tAtaTaS' 8€ Ti'JS ab£Ar/>TJS'
 F 4: Tran lation 29

a ent to that, en if to n thing I e, and a ·sum that it is o. And

why hould "e f llow natur and us tom more than n t, if \\
known thing and ha nothing by v hich to judg ?
21. For it i ab olut ly illy wh n the say that just as cathartic
drug bring about th ir own ex r tion togeth r with th
up rftuitie , in the am way th argum nt that maintain that all
thing ar ob ur al o nullifi it If tog th r with everything
el . For if it r fute it If, tho e v ho u it" ould talk non en . It
would b bett r forth m to k ep quiet and not op n th ir mouth
at alL
22. But inde d there i no imilarity at all between th athartic
drug and their argum nt. For the drug i x reted and do not
remain in th bod , whil th argum nt mu t tay in the mind,
where it r main th ame and i alway b li v d; for thi i th
only thing that' ould keep people from gi' ing their a ent.
23 . But h r i anoth r proof that a man cannot be without an
opinion: it i impo ibl that he" ho perceive hould not perceive .
But perc iving i knowing something. And that h al o beli
th en -p re ption i cl ar to everybody; for wh n he " ant to
ee better he wipes hi nearer and hade them.
24. Ioreover we know that v e fe I plea ur and pain, for it 1
not po ibl that th p rson who i ut or burnt hould not know
nd who do not agree that m mory and r coli tion come
nd what i th r to ay about common notions, that
uch-and- u h a thing i a man, and again about the cien e and
art ? for there would be none of the e if it w r not our nature to
have belief . till, for my part I pa ov r the other argum nt ; but
wheth r' e believe what they ay or not, it i ab olutely n e ary
to have an opinion.
25. That it i impo ibl to philo ophize in this wa i ident.
But that it i al o again t nature and again t th law we can e
from what f llow . If thing were in reality lik thi , what i I ft
but living a if a le p, at random and madly? and o legi lator ,
gen ral , and edu ator would talk non en . But to m all oth r
m n e m to live according to nature, and those who talk thi non-
nse are on it d, or rath r afflict d by a pow rful madne .
ot lea t i it vident from th foliO\\ ing fa t: ntigonu of
ary tu , ·w ho liv d at about the am time and wrote about their
lif , ay that Pyrrho, b ing pur ued by a dog, caped up a tr
and, when laughed at by tho who tood by, aid that it wa
 0 F +: T xt

auTou BuouaT} €rrEtTa Twv </>{t\wv nvo lmoaxol-'lvou Ta rrpoc; TTJV

Buata1· Kat 1-'-TJ rrapaa ol-'b•ou, Tou 1-'-fVTOt lluppwvo rrpta!-'lvou Ko.i
) " ) ~ < _L 1\< ) \ ~\ I )
aya•·aKTouvTo·, ETTEtoT}rrEp o 'l't11o EIIEyEv w ou 1-'-TJV rrotT}aat '
av!-'</>wva TOi<; t\6yot ouD. Mla T~ cirraBEta<;' Ei1TELV auTO V 'Ev youv
yuvatKL (TI)l• DEi T~V aTTODH~tV auT~ 1TOtEiaBat; KaLTOt 8tKatw av
,._ ( ,J._ 1\ fl 1Y"') I \ ) t' \ \ \ \ ... ) I
f.I1Tf.l' o '1'1110· on· ~.: 1-'-aTatE, Kat EV yuvatKt Kat KUVt Kat rraatv, H OTJ
I •\1 I > \~_L\
Tl OOl TWI' IIOYWI' TOUTWV EOTll' O'I'EIIO".

27. 'OpBw· 8' EXH 1-'-aBEiv Kat TLVE oi ~ 7JAwaavu auTov EyEvovTo
Kat\ Tn•a· ' ,y 1\
E':,T}IIWOEV )
aUTO . 0 /-'EV OUV ll uppwv
I C' ' 'A \ i:
r:sva.,apxou "'"
TtVO I \

EYEI'ETO 1-'-aBT}T~ ' 0 TO 1-'-fv rrpwTOV ~V ~wypa<f>o ' ou8' OUTW<;

)
€UTUXTJ ~
' €1T€lTa TOt" J T}/-'OKptTOU ,.-t,.-lllOl<;
Q Q\
I I ·~
EVTUXWV XPTJOTOV /-'Ell OU0€11 ) \ \ \ \

t# f' 11 11 ,/, .,. 1' ~ \

\ () \ I \
OUT€ Evpn• OVTE Eypa'f'EV, KaKW 0€ rrav-ra f.l1TE Kat EOU<; Kat
civBpwrrou . auTO 8' ua-rEpov TOUTOV TOV -ru<J>ov 1TEpt{3aAAO/-'EVO Kat
KaAWI' 0.-rv</>ov iauTOII ou8€v EV ypa<f>iJ KaTfAl1TEV.
2 . eylvE-ro 8€ 1-'-aBTJ-r~ auTou Ttl-'wv cf>t\taaw -ro 1-'-ev 1rpw-rov o
ex6pw~:v EV TOL BEa-rpot ' E7Tf.lTa 8. EVTVXWV au-rcp auvlypacp~:v
dpyaMa TTapcpD{a Kat f3w!-'ot\6xov , ev a[ {3E{3Aaa</>~!-'TJKE m1v-ra
-rov 1TW1TOTE </>tt\oao<J>~aavm . oo-ro yap ~v 6 -rovc; £[t\t\ovc; ypacpa
Kat Mywv·
CJXETALOL av8pw1Tot, KclK' £)..£yxm, yaCJTEp€ olov,
To[wv £K T' €p{Swv £K n aTovaxwv 1TE1TAaa8~:B

av8pw1TOL K€V€ij ol~<HOS" £fL7TA€0L aaKo{.

29. 1-'-TJOEVO 8' E1TlaTpa<f>&To au-rwv, w ~::{ !-'-7J0E EYEVOVTO TO

1Tapa1TaV' exB€ Kat TTPWTJV EV l4AE~av0pEI.q. TiJ KaT' Atyu1TTOV
AlVT}a{OTJ/-'OS' Tl dva~W1TVpELV ~p~aTO TOV uBt\ov TOUTOV . Kat axE8ov oi
1-'-fv KpanaTOl OOKOUVTE Elvat TWV T~V oDov f3~:f3a0tKOTWV TaUTTJII
, \ ?
€lOlV OUTOl.
30. Oton 1-'-fv ovv -r~v TOtaUTTJV EtTE aipwtv EtTE dywy~v t\6ywv €LT€
• , ~ \ .. .L • ' () \ .,.
07TTJ Kat\ 07TW
" '() 1\ \ • , \ •
E Ell€1 TlS' Kallf.lV aVTT}V OV0€1 av EU 'I'POVWV op TJV HVat
</>a[T}, O~Aov. eyw /-'EV yap ouo€ </>tAoao<f>l.av OLO!-'at OELV OVO/-'a~HV
au-r~v. civatpouaav Y€ 0~ TaS' TOU </>tAoao<f>~:i"v dpxa .
3 1. Tau-ra 1-'-ev ovv 1rpoc; -rov Ka-ra lluppwva <f>tt\oao<f>Eiv vo!-'t~o-
1-'-lvov .H
P."'lv 1TO<~aa< :\lras. 1TO<"'/aa{p."'lv [ b. 7TO<w B t defective: 1TOt"'/aa<TO
, tephanu , 1Totoi \\ tlamO\\Itz ( 1SS1 . 39) 1• dd . \\'tlamowttz ( 18 1: 39).
Toiwv. 1TE1T>.aa8t al o m Theodoret, Cr. aff cur 2 20 from Eu ebius.
J• Although \lra attnbutc the words TatiTa vop.t~op.lo•ov to Eusebiu ·,
Hctland had alrtadv a igned tht. onclu 10n to n~tocle , tht. t. supported
by the. L , \\htch I con tder to be clo er to usebiu ' ongmallayout.
 F 4: Tran lation 31
diffi ult to put off human natur . nd wh n his i ter Philista
wa to offer a a rifice, and on of th ir fri nd promis d what wa
nee ary for th sa rifice but did n t provid it, Pyrrho bought it
and h w d hi annoyance; and when the fri nd aid that hi act
, re not in a cord with hi word nor worthy of hi fre dom from
pa ion , h r pli d: 'In th a e fa woman, at any rat , what
n d i ther to produc any proof of it?' But hi friend might fair-
ly have an ' red: 'Fool, in th a e of a woman, a dog, and cry-
thing, if there i any good in th argum nt of your .'
27 . nd it i worth knowing both how r tho e who admir d
him and who v ere tho e whom he admired. Pyrrho wa a pupil of
one naxar hu ; fir t he wa a painter, and an unsucce ful one,
th n on n ountering D mo ritus' work he neither found an -
thing u ful there nor wrote it him elf, but spoke evil of v ry-
body, god and m n. fterward , wrapping him If up in thi on-
ceit and ailing him elf fr e from on it, h left nothing written.
28 . Timon of Phliu \ a hi pupil, who fir t wa a clan r in the
theatre , and after oming acros him wrote offensive and vulgar
parodic , in whi h he re il d all the philo opher who r liv d .
nd thi wa th man who rote th illoi and aid:
Poor m n, fou l wretche , born but to eat,
of what quabbl and igh are you made up!
and
m n, wine-skins full of ain opinion.
29. nd wh n nobody v as pa ing attention to th m any mor ,
a if th y had n r exi t d, ne n idemu began to r vi thi
non en y t rday or th day b for at lexandria in Egypt. nd
the are pr tty we ll th b t thought-of among t tho e \Yho fol-
lowed thi path.
30 . It i vident that no on in hi right mind vvould approve
u h a e tor hool or ho' ev rand whatev r one ar to ca ll it.
For I think w hould not all it philo op hy at all , for it tak a' ay
the ba i of philo ophy. 31. o far again t tho e ' ho ar n-
id r d to folio' P rrho' philo ophy.
 2 F s: T xt

F 5 (4 Mullach, T XIV, Vest. Ill+ F 7 Heiland)

. u~ebiU . PF q I J I : uvyyo'>ill' athoi ftT} av

Kai .,.o. dvnAfYO!'O'a rrpo TOU
"o-r' ..!1pion7T7TOI ;Oa· KupfJJ•aio••, p.oa•a AEyoJ'Ta £lt'Ot TQ rrO.B.,., Ka'Ta1\1]rrT<l.
o o
~w~o:paTorx ll' haipo· A.pionrrrro >}t•, .,.~,, KaAoui'£''TJ'' KupT)>•a tK~v ouOTTJOcl~L£vo~
aip£011', a<b. T}'i: TCI-- O.,Pop/'0. 'ErriKoupo rrpo~ T~l· TOU -r£..\ou<; EK(hotV £iATJrP£l•. >}v ll' 0
.".J.piuTm-:ro· lrypo 1Tcll'U TOI' fJ•o•· Kai <f>v\T,Ilot•o 0...\,\' oull£v !'£,' oJ-ros- fv -r<fi r/lav£p<jJ
;,£pi u ',\o,. llt£.\i~aTo, ()u>·a!'n ll£ nj £ullat!'O>•ta -r~v urrooTautv EA£y£v £v ~Sovais­
·£io8at. Qtfi yap .\oyou. rr£pi ~ll01'>7' TTOIOU!L£1'0> (l urro,Piav >}y£ TOU rrpOOIOl"TOS'
a.l-r<fi TOV ,\£-ym Ti..\o · dt•at TO ~ll£w~ ~Tit•
J 2. roU-rou y£yot·o· aKouonjs- UUI' a,\,\ot Kai ~ 8uy6.-r7Jp aUTOU l4p£Tf,' ~TI
yn'l.,.;aaaa 11ail>a cl.wOp.aan• .itplaTt1ftro••, 0 lnrax8£L lnT aUT~S' £l A6you r/nAooo4>{a
/'TJTpol>illaKTO' £~o:..\f,8T}· ;; Kai oar/Jw> wpiua-ro -r£..\o £lvat TO f,ll£w ~r;v, f,llov~··
E•·TtiT-rw•· ~~· KOTc:i Kl,''l7an·. Tpf.i' yO.p ;,.,., KO'TOOT(ioH £lt•at 1T£pi 7"r}v ~iJ.f.Tlpa••
airyKpaau·· p.ia•· pb• KaB' ~·· dAyoUJ.J-O', Eo&.Kuiaa• TcjJ KaTd B&Aaoaa.v XHp.Wvt· ETipav
Of Ka8' ~· ~S0p.£8a, -rcjJ A£{~ KUIJ.OTI. d.r/>op.otoup..(vTJV, £lt•at yd.p A£{av K{VTJOW T~v
~Sot~l', oUp{~ 7TOpafJa.AAop.ll'1']1' a•. £,..,.cp n}v Sf Tp{TYJV p..£OYJ& Elvat KQTdOTQOtl', Ka8' ~~~
1

ovn d..\you!'n oiin ~llo!'£8a, ya..\.Y,vnrraparrATJoiav ouu01•. -rou-rw•• /h) Kai l<f>aoK£ -rwv
rra8wt• ~l'Wl' T,!'ci nj·· aio8T}UIV lxw·. npo ~ OUS' at•nMA£KTal TaUTQ '

1 9. nPOE TOYl: KAT ' API.ETinnO (/>f.10.EQ(/>QYE MO A AEFO TAl:

TA nAeH EI.\'AI KATA.JHnTA TA JE ;JQinA AKATA;JHnTA

Cf mdi em ad ho aput· npo TOU~ KOT. l4pt0TI1T1TOV r/Jt..\ooor/Jou /'OVa Myovra~

- a -r0.8YJ ElJ.·at Ka.Ta.A1]17Ta, ni Sf AonrQ dKaTcl,\1J7TTa )17T0 ToU atiToV.

I. 'EfiJc; 0' av EtfV oi Myovu f-tOVa Ta 7TCl8'YJ KaTaA'YJTTTCl ' TOUTO 0'
..
fL1TOV
"'
fVLOL
.. ,
TWV EK T'YJ
,. K Up'YJV'YJ
, . OUTOL
" ~' ,t,
0
, ( '
'YJ~LOUV, WU1TEp U1TO Kapou
,

1TLE~Of-1.EVOL nvoc;, ouoiv ELOEVaL TO 1Tapa1Tav, el !-'~ TL 1TapaaTrJS

aUTOV<; 1TaLOL Kat KfVTcP'YJ' KaLOf-tEVOL yap {_\fyov ~ TEf-tVOf-tEVOL
yvwp{~nv OTL 1TclUXOLEV TL . 1TOTEpov oi TO Kaiov fL'YJ 1TUp ~ TO TEf-tVOV
a{oTJpo , ouK lxnv et1Tftv .
2 . Tou o~ TauTa MyovTac; £u8v lpotTo n O.v, ei o~ -rouTo youv
iaaatv avTOL,OLOTL 1Taaxoua{ TL Kat aia80.vovTaL. !-'~ eloouc; f-tEV yap
ouo' fL1TELV OUVTJ8EtEV av OTL f-I.OVOV iaaat TO 1Ta8oc;· fL 0' ao
yvwp{~ouatv, OUK av EL'YJ f-tOVa Ta 1Tcl8TJ KaTaA'YJ1TTcl. TO yap "f.yw
,
KatOf-taL " 1\0yoc;
\ , •1v Kat' ou, 1ra'8 o
.l

3. d-Ud 1-'fl, avayKT} Y€ Tp{a TaUT a auvuc/>{a-raa8at, TO TE 7Ta8oc;

auTO Kat TO 7TOtOUV Kat TO TTaaxov. 0 TOLVUV avn>..a!-'f3avof-t€VO<; TOU
7Ta
'8 , ,8, , ~ Kat\ TOU,. 1TaUXOVTO<;
OU 1TaVTW<; at avOtT av
, , \ ~\ ~, ,
. OU yap O'YJ OtOTL f-tEV,
> 8' ' . . ~ I J
n TUXOt, Epf-taLVf.TaL yvwptn, 1TOTEpov o auTo 'YJ o yHTWV, ayvo'Y]Uf.t' ) ' "' ( I , I

' .. ~ , , ,. . 8, • , A, , ,r "' 8 , w
KaL VUV TJ 7TEpUat Kat N TJV'Y]UtV 'YJ f. V tyU1TT~ KaL c,WV 'YJ TE V€W<;, f.TL
Si av8pw1ro wv 1j >..L8oc;.
4 · OUKOUV fLUf.Tat Kat uc/>' OTOU TTaaxot. Kat yap a.U~>..ouc;
 F s: Tran lation 33
Fs
3 1. ne '' uld reply m a s1milar vein to those '' ho follow n t1ppu. of
·) rcne, '' ho say that only affection arc apprehensib le. n t1ppus \HS a
fnend of ocrate. , and was th founder of the so- alled yrenai sect, from
''hi h picurus took the ·tarting-points for hi expo ition on the summum
bonum . ristippu was extremely lu xuriou in his hfe and fond of plea ure; he
d1d not clearly speak about the ummum bonum, ho~ ever, but 1mplicitly
affirmed that thee ence of happmess lay m plea ure . For, by alway speak-
mg on plea ure, he made h1s followers think that he affirmed that the ummum
bonum was the life of pleasure.
32 . Among h1s hearer there wa at o his daughter rete, who bore a son
and called him ri tippu . H aving been introduced to philo ophy by her, he
was called h1s mother' pupd; and he !early defined the ummum bonum to be a
hfe of pleasure, enjoming kinematic plea ure. For, he said, there are three
tate of our temperament: one, in which we feel pain, 1S li ke a storm at sea;
another, in wh1ch we fee l pleasure, may be compared to a gent le wave, for
plea ure 1s a gentle movement, imilar to a fair wmd ; and the th1rd 1 an mter-
mediate tate, in wh 1 h ~ e fee l neither pam nor plea ure, which i hke a calm
He aid we have perception f these affecuon nly. 1 ow agamst th1 sect th
following bject10n ha e been urged :

lnde,·: gam t the ri tippean philo opher who ·ay that only affe tJOn arc
apprehen ible, "hde other thmg are not. From the ame author.

1 . Next will b tho who ay that th aff ction only ar appr -

hensibl ; ome of tho e from ren affirm thi . if oppr d
by a kind of torpor, they in i ted that th y kn w nothing at all ,
unle omeon tanding b y truck and pricked them; they aid
that, wh n burnt or cut , th y kn w that the " r aff cted by
som thing, but w heth r what burnt th m wa fir , or what cut
th m iron, th y cou ld not t 11.
2. On ould imm diately a k tho
wh th r the know that th e
For if th y d not know, n ith r could a. that th y know
on! th aff ction ; if on th oth r hand they know, affection would
n t b th only thing appr h n ibl For ' I am burnt ' i' a tat -
m nt, and not an affection.
J . Th thr e thing mu t n c aril eo xi t, th affe tion
it If, what au es it, and what undergo it. H who appreh nds
an affecti n must ne e aril p re iv als ' hat underg it. F r
 F s: T xt
, r~ ' \ '\ \ \ ~ 1 tt , 1" ... ,
y•·wpt ouat Kat ooou- KaL 1TOI\EL KaL TTJV TPO'I'TJV' OL T au TEXVLTat TCl
€pya.Aeia Ta aunii•• oiOaaL Kat o[ iaTpot Kat vaunKot UTJj.LELOuVTat Ta
'\ \
j.LEIIIIOI'TCl KaL' TWJl
- (} TJpLWV
, Ol• KUJJE
, • ,
EUpLaKOUaL TOU' an',8 OU').
5· €n ye 1-L~" o1TCiaxwv n 1TC1.axwv 1TClVTW ~ w oiKe[ou nvo ~ w
aAAOTpLOU 1TC1.(}ous civnAaj.L,BavETat. 1Toeev ovv lgEL AEyELv on TOUTO
j.l.EI' €am• ~Oov~, TOUTO o€ 1TOJIO ' ~ on YWOj.LEVO TJ opwv TJ aKOUWJl
1TaaxoL n, Kat TfJ j.l.fJl yt\waan YWOj.LEVO ' TOt 0' Oj.tj.taatv opwv, TOL')
0' walv aKouwv; ~ 1TW taaatv on TOOt j.LfV aipeiaeaL XP~. TOOt o€
.J.
'I'EuyELv; ~ ' j.l.TJOEI'
EL' OE ~' TOUTWJl' "
YVOLEV,-1S '
· OUX "t
EsOUatv '
Opj.LTJV '~' OpEsLJJ'
' OUO " t
ouTw 0' ouO' civ ~cjJa e[o•.
yet\oiot yap eiatv, o1roTE AiyotEV on TauTa j.l.fl' auToi aui-Lf3€f3TJKEII,
ou 1-L~" taaa[ YE 1TW Kat TLVa TP01TOV. OUTW yap ouo' ei avepw1TOL
.J.. I ) ~t ) r"" Ill '1\ ) ) - )~1 ) \I I
1TE'f'UKaaLV OUO EL o,WaLV EXOLEV av EL1TELJJ' OUKOUJJ OUO EL IIEYOUaL Tl
' '
Kat a1TO'I'aLVOVTat. .J. , Jb 6. 1Tp0' OTJ'
~ '
TOU') ,
TOLOUTOU TL' ~
av • 110yo
ELTJ \, ;
eaui-LaaaL j.LEJJTOL n Yii'> Eiatv ~ fJl
av, EL ayvoouat 1TOTEpov E1TL Tii
TcjJ oupavcjJ · 1TOAAcjJ o€ eauj.taatwTEpov ei OUK oiOaat, Kat TaUTCl
.J..
I .J.. - "f'
.../... \ I \ I \ I I ) 1\ \ I
'l'aaKOl'TES 'I'L11oao'I'ELv, apa ye Ta TETTapa 1TIIELova eanv TJ Ta Tpta
Kat TO €v Kat Ta Suo 1TOaa €aTLV . ouo€ yap 01TOaou €xouatv E1TL TWJl
XELpwv DaKTUAOU OOTOL YE OuvavTaL ei1TELV ouo€ 1TOTEpov EKaaTO<;
auTwv e[ €anv ~ 1TAE[ou .
7. ouo€ TOUJJOj.La TO LOLOV eiOELEV civ ouo€ T~V 1TaTp[oa Kat TOJJ
wan
>A '
.1'1pcan1T1TOV ' "
. OUKOUV '~' TLVa
OUOE ' .J. \ "
'I'LI\OUaLV TJ~ j.LLaouaLV
" '~' TLJlWJl
OUOE '
'E1TL (} Uj.LOUaLV'
" '~' \ ' ~ ~
OUO , EL YEIIaaatEV TJ oaKpuaaLEV, E!,OUaLV EL1TELJl On TO'
' ' "t. ' " "
j.LfV EiTJ yet\oiov, TO o€ AU1TTJPOJJ . Si;t\ov ovv w ouo€ Tl JlUVt Myoj.L€Jl
~j.LEL'), auvL<iatvY ouoiv ovv oi ye TOLOiiTot OtarJ>IpotEV civ fj.L1T{Owv ~
'Y ..J.. I
Ta' KaTa\ 'I'Uatv
1
.../...I
...
j.LULWV' ' ""
KaLTOL KaKELJJa yvwpto,EL Kat\ 1rapa\ 'I'UaLV .
. 1rpos 0~ Tou ovTw OtaKELj.LEVous ei Kat j.tup{a AiyELv €v£anv,
cit\A' apKEL ye Kat TaUT a.]

" yvoi£v tephanus, Ktvoi£v odd, defended by l\lra from, .E. 17. 6 and
Plat. Leg 908 I> But yvoi£v seem to be more cons• tent wtth the context.
y£Aoiot aTTor/>a{vonat tn preVIOUS para . I ras, but thl seem to be a ne\\
argument.
17 awia.at" odd , corr \I ra, .

!though :\lras attnbute. tht la t tatement to Eu cb1u , according to [ b

and B tt ma} be cons1dcrcd part of n . to lcs' quotatiOn ( cc the
Introduction) .
 F 5: Tran lati n 35
h ' ill not knov that something, for example, i w rm, without
knowing whether it i him elf or an ighbour, now or la t y ar, in
th n or in Egypt, someon alive or d ad, a man or a tone.
4· H will therefore also knov v hat it i affected by, for men
know on another and road and citie and their food; raft men
know their own tool , phy icians and ailor progno ti ate what
will ha pp n and dog discover th track of wild b a t .
5· Mor o er, the man who ha an a~ ction certainly appr h nd
whether he i affected by an affecti n of omething familiar or
unfamiliar/ Then how will he b able to a that thi i pi a ur
and that pain? r that he had an affection by ta ting, by eing, or
by h aring? nd by ta ting with hi tongue, eeing with hi ey ,
and hearing \ ith his ear ? r how do the knov that w ught to
choo e thi and avoid that? [f th y do not know any of th thing
th y will not have impul or de ir and would not be li ing
being .
Th y ar ridiculou when th y a that the e thing ha e hap-
pen cl to them but they do not know ho and in ' hi h way. That
way th y could not a whether they were human being or ,. n
alive; nor therefore whether th y aid or affirmed anything.
6. What di u ion can there b with uch men? ne might be ur-
pri d at their not knowing whether they are on earth or in the k ;
but it is ev n more a toni hing that they hould not know-while
claiming to be philo opher , at that-wh th r four are mor than
three and how many one and two mak . For th y cannot a ho"v
many finger they have on their hand , nor ' hether individuall
they are on or more.
7. nd they ' ould not ven knov their own nam , nor th ir
ountr nor ven ri tippu , nor whom they lov or hate, nor
what they d tre . or, if they laugh or ry, will they be abl to a
that thi i funny and that painful. It i id nt that th y do not
under tand ' hat ' e ar now aying. uch folk will ther for b no
di~ rent from gnat or flie , though even the e animal kno' what
i natural and what i not.
8. !though it i po ibl to ay thou and of thing again t
tho e who ar in thi tat of mind, th are suffici nt.

I tfford: ' ht wn or another' '. But this has already been dealt '' tth by
risto les at para . J. n the other hand, the con epts 'm accordan e "tth/
contraq to nature' are expres ed b) ristoclc · by Ko.-ra/tro.pa r/>uon• m para. 7.
 6 F 6: T .· t
F 6 (5 Mullach, T XV + F 4 Heiland)

Eu~ebtu~. PF. t..~. , IQ . (rr£TO.t TOUTOt oua·£~£Tcioo.t Kat ToU T~v lvo.vT{av
t1a8toat.·ra- ~o.:al 1TciJ.•ra xpij~.·at 1TtOT£UEU' ral ToU aWp.o:ro aio8~a£ar.v Optaa~J.b•ou ,
.:,, da·o.a Mrrrpollwpoa• rch· Xio1• KO.t llpwrayopaa• Tell' }l{Jll.,plr.,v.
9· Tell' JJ.Ea' OUI' :u .,rpollwpoa• J "'/J.LOKplrou lcf>aaaa• clK"'/KOfVO.I, apxa~ ll£ cl1TO</>~vaa8aa
TO 71 ,\T,pE- Kai TO KO'OI' tL•· n) p.f•· Ov, rO SE p.~ 0•• E(vat. yp&.c/Jwv yl TOt ll£pi c/ula£wr;
£la{Jo'Afl lxp~aaro rocatirn ·
0U6£i ~J.LUII' oub£1• oll>n·, otill' avrel rovro, 1TOT£poa• oillaJJ.H' ~ ovK oillaJ.L£V. (70
B I OK)
~TI £la{Jo'A~ KO.KQ' lllwK£V a</>opJ.La rep JJ.ETQ TaVTa YEI'OJJ.fi'CfJ nuppwvt. 1Tpo{Jas ll£
tP"'/Oll c).,-,

10. Tell' [l( npwrayopal• 'Aoyos EX£< K£K'A~a8at a8£ov . yp&.</>wv y£ TOI Kat O.UTel)
ll£pi 8Ewa· Ela{Jo'AiJ rocq.bE lxpiJaaro
fl£pl p.fl• oJa• 8£Wv oUK olSa oUB' W Elolt.• oUB' OTTolo{ TtV£ l51av· 11oAAd. yelp £ort
m Kw'Auo1·rci JJ.E EKaarov rourwv Elll£1•ac. ( o B 4 0 I )

TOUTOI' }18.,1 aioa </>uyiJ (T/JJ.UdOO.VTE TQ {JI{J'Aou O.UTOV [l"'/J.LOOl~ EV p.£an riJ ayopa
KaTiKauoaa.· .. fnEl oUa o~E ILOvat 5£iJ.• lt/Jaoaa.• ra lr; alo8~o£at 1TtOT£U£u.', ·T(lS' 11pOs
aU.,.otis a1·npp~a£15 8EaawJ.L£8a

zo . nPOE TOY!: llEPI MHTPOjQPO KAJ nPQTAFOPA MO AlE

J E/.V niETEYEI TAlE AIEBHEEEI AEFO TAE

Cf. mdJcem ad hoc ca put· npel'i TOU) 1TEpt M.,rpollwpov KO.l npwrayopaa•, J.LOVO.<
1TtOTEVEn· Tai aia8~a£at Afyot.'TQ) . )11T0 TO U aVroU.
8£iJ.•

I . TeyovaaL S€ TLVE' oi a~LOUVTE' -riJ alaB~aE'L Kat 'TQL cpav-raa{aL

1
fLOVQL
~-
OE'LV I
1TWTE'UE'LV. ~ I _J_ \ \ ' "0 fLTJpOV QLVL'T'TE'O
E'VLOL fLE'V'TOL 'f'QOL KQL 'TOV
> I 8QL
'TO TOLOUTO 1TClVTWV Q1Tocpa{vovra 'TOV QKE'avov apx~v, ws iv puaE'L 'TWV
1Tpayp.a-rwv ov-rwv· wv S' iap.Ev EOLKE' p.!v Kat MTJ-rp6Swpos o XZos
'TO QU'TO 'TOU'TO AEyHv, ou fL~V aAA' clVTLKpus YE llpw-rayopas 0
:4fJOTJpLTTJ E't1TE'V.
2. 007'0 yap f.c/>7] fLETpov E'tVQL 1TaV'TWV XPTJfLa'TWV 'TOV av8pw1TOV,
rwv p.!v ovrwv ws f. an, rwv S' ouK ov-rwv ws ouK f.arw o1Toi'a yap
< I _J_ I \ I • \ T \ ~ \ • ~\ \
f.KQO'T4J 'f'QLVf.'TQL 'TQ 1Tpayp.a-ra, 'TOLQU'TQ KQL E'LVQL • 1TE'pL Of. 'TWV Q/\1\WV
fLTJOEv ~p.a S6vaa8a, Suaxup{aaaBaL.
3· 1Tp0 Of 'TOUTOU E'l7TOL TL av a Kat flAa-rwv EV fhaL'T~'T4J'
1TpW'TOV fLEV, 'Tt 0~1TO'TE'. 'TOLOU'TWV yf. s~ 'TWV 1Tpayp.a-rwv OVTWV.
~~{waav EtvaL p./rpov -r~ aATJ8da -rov av8pw1Tov, aAA' ou auv ~
I _J_ \ ~ ~ 1 • ~\ T _J_ \ < 1 > ~ \ •
KUVOKE''f'QI\OV; E'7TE'L'TQ Of., 1TWS E'I\E'YOV E'LVQL OO'f'OU E'QU'TOU , H O'TJ 1TQS
TL (lU'TO €aurcjl fLE'Tpov EO'Tt T~ aATJ8f.{a ; ~ 1TW iMyxouOL 'TOU
 F 6: Tran lation 37
F6

8. The next thmg IS to examme also those who took the oppos1 te path and
affirmed that v\e ought to trust phy ical perceptions on e\ cryt hmg, among
''horn \\Cr 1 trodorus of ' h ios and Protagoras of bdera .
9· letrodoru was sa1d to hav • been a hea r r of emocntus, and to have
de Jar d that the ba ic prin •pie are the full and the \O ld , of" h1ch the former
1s bemg, the latter not-being. tan rate, m wntmg On 1 ature he tarted on
these Ime ·:
' one of u know anything, not e n thi , w hether we knov. o r do not
know.
Thi begmning gave a bad start to Pyrrho, " ho cam later. Later on he sa ys
that
Everythmg 1 \\hat anyone ma) think 1t.
1 o. Protagora i aid to h ave been a lied an athe1 t. For w ntin g On Gods h
b gan o n the Im e :
o n ernmg the god I kno'' neither wh ther they ex1st nor what the1r
nature 1 ; for there are many thmg th at hmder me from knO\\ ing each of
the e point .
Th thenian pun• hed him by bani hm ent and burnt hi book publi ly in
the middl of th e squ are. ow, m e th ey aid that onl y sen e-per eptlon
mu t be trusted, let u look at the argum nt w hi h ha,·e been urged again t
them:
I T IETR 0 R T
WE H LD TR
Index: ga in t letrodo rus and Protagoras, who say that o nl y en e-
per eptio n re trust\ orth y. From the am e autho r.

1 . There have b n m n v ho maintain that we mu t tru t nly

en e-percepti nand pre entation . om ay that Homer hint at
thi wh n he declare that ean i th fir t principl , imply ing
that all thing are in flux . But of tho e known to u I trodoru of
hio m to a th am , while Protagora of bd ra tat it
xplicitly.
2. For he aid that Man i the mea ur of all thing
that are that th y ar , of thing that ar not that th ar
thing app ar to ach p r on, uch th .
w an affirm nothing.
3· gain t the e one ma y ay v hat Plato ay in the Theaetetus:
in th fir t pia , wh on earth, if thi is th natur f things, dtd
th y a rt that man i th m a ur f truth, and not ptg r a
bab on? nd n xt, how ould they ay that th y th m lve w r
3 F 6: Text
tl \ w t 1 \ J,._ I )\ (}' l ) ,.. I I
a-\,\ou·, H7T€p f:KQOTW TO 'I'QLVOfUVOV aii'T/ C f:OTLV, ayvOOU!J-f:V Tf: TtVa,
KaiTOI rroA..\aKI ato8ai'O!J-f:VOL, Ka8arr€p f1TH8av TWV {Jap{Japwv
clKOUW!J-f:l';
4-· o
yf: !J-~1' 8maa!J-f:VO onouv, f:ha !J-f:!J-IIT/!J-EVO , olD€ !J-Ell,
ato• (} avf:Tal
• 0~ ' OUKf:TI.
• • Kat' €1' (} aT€pctJ
• ' 0'1'
!J-f:V '..I.(} aii!J-'tJ
\ • !J-UGaL,
• 8aTEPctJ S'
(" 1 ~ .. , (f ) \ \ tl \ ) tl
opWT/, OT}t\01' OTI TaUTO Kat f:LOf:TaL Kat OUK f:LOf:Tal.
\ \~ 1 ) \ J,._ I f I \ ) \ (}. )
- . rrpo· O€ TOUTOL , H TO 'l'atVO!J-€11011 f:KaGT'tJ Kat aii'T/ €) f:OTLV,
~1-Li• 8i ou t/Ja{••f:Tat Ta lm' fKf:Lvwv Af:YO!J-f:va cit\T/8~. Kat To 1-L~ f:tvat
rrai'TWI' rrpay!J-UTWV !J-ETpov TOV av8pwrrov clA7)8€ av (LT/.
6. Kai 1-L~·· oi yf: HXI'iTat Twv aT€xvwv 8tat/J€pouat Kat o( E!J-7THpot
TWI' arrHpwv Kat 8tcl TOUTO !J-aAAOV rrpoopij. TO !J-EAAOV Eo€o8at
Q I \ \ I
KUtJf:PI'T/TTJ Kat taTpO Kat GTpaTT/YOS '
7 . a1rt\w u dvatpouatv ovTo{ yf: To 1-Lat\t\ov Kat To T/1-Tov Kai To(~
\ \ ) t' ,J._ I A._ \ \ \ I \ \ \ I
avayKT} Kat TO f:VO€XO!J-f:I'0V Kat TO KaTa 'I'UOLV Kat TO rrapa 'I'UOLV.
oihw 8 av f:LTJ TaUTO Kat ov Kat OUK ov- ou8iv yap KWAV€1 TaUTO Tois
I

\ 1' ..J... I t' \ \ (}f' \ ) \ "

,.. tl (} ' tl
!J-f:V HVaL 'l'aLV€0 at, TOt O€ !J-T/ HVaL. KQL TaUTO av HT) av pW1TO) Kat
~vt\ov· la(}' OT€ yap t/JaLVf:TaL TaUTO Tcj>8€ !J-fV av8pwrros, Tci;8€ S€
~vt\ov·
. arra T€ Aoyo clATJ8~ av (LT/, 8tcl TOUTO 8i Kat t/;w8~s· Kat Ol
{JouAWO!J-f:VOL Kat 8tKa,ovus OUK av EXOL€11 ouS(v 1TOL€LV. KaL TO
SnvoTaTOV, laovTaL yelp Ol auTOL orrouSaiot Kat !J-OX87Jp0t Kat TQUTO
KaKta Kat dp€T~. rrot\Acl S€ Kat dt\Acl TOtauTa Tt av lxoL MyHv· cit\Acl
yap ouS(v 8f:i 1TA€LOVWV t\6ywv rrpos TOU OUK oiO!J-EVOU EXHV vouv Kat
t\6yov .

'Errd s' ETI vuv f:ia{ Ttllf:S oi rraaav aia8T/OLV Kat rraaav t/JavTaatav
cit\71(}~ Myovu f:lvat, !J-tKpa Kal. rr€pt TOVTwv f:t1TW!J-f:V. (o{Kaot yelp
• • ~ ~ , , ( ')39 'l'f:uon
OUTOL yf: of:oOLKf:vat !J-TJ1TOTf:, € t
,/, ~ W ) (} I .,.
H1TOLf:V ato T/OHS Hvat
, A

) 1'1. ,.. \ I \ \ I Q IQ lt'1

nvas, ouK av axotf:v TO KptTTJptov Kat TOV Kavova tJf:tJatov ouo
l I ) t' \ C' J..(} 1f .. t' It. l " t1 \ \
€Xf:yyuov· OUX OpWoL Of: W OUK QV 'I' QIIOLf:V OUTW yf: KQL TQ oo~a)
, , ' ' ( } " • ..1.' \ \ ' '~' ' , ..1.'
Q7TQOa) a11T/ H) arrO'I'QIIIOVT€)' 1TOIII\a yap OTJ KQL TQUTQt) 1T€'1'UKQ!J-€V
Kp{vuv- Kat ouS(v T/1-Tov cl~LOUOLV QUTWV Ta !J-fV clA7)8€iS f:lvat, Ta) S€
t/;wS€i.
~' ~ ~ ·~'
€7THTQ
"
[0, 0€ •
OK01TWV tOOL Tl) QV OUO€ TWV a1111WV KpLTT/PLWV QtH
• W\ \ I ) '

KQL' SLa' 1TQVTO' Q'I'€UO€

'.1. ~ ' OU0€11,
'~ ' •
OLOV ' '
llf:YW r ' TJ~ TOpvOV
<,uyOv ' TJ" Tt TWV •
1
t • ) \ \ t' \ \ t1 1 t t'' t' \
l .., f 1 l
TOLOUTWV' Qlll\ f:KaGTOV aUTWV WOL !J-f:V €XOV uyt€) f:GTLV, WOL Of:
8 I \ \ \ I \ I ) \ (} I
!J-OX T/POV, KQL TOUTOVL !J-f:V XPW!J-€11011 TOV Tp01TOV QIITJ f:U€1, TOUTOVL O€
\ t' \

t/;€uS€TQI. Kai !J-~11 f:t Y€ rraoa aia87JGLS clA7)8~s 'ljv, OUK lSH TOOOUTO
' I.L~7ToT' E(l) :\lra (/.L~7TOT£ El tephanu ). ,..Tj7TOTE odd.
 F 6: Tran lation 39
w1 , if v ryon i th measure of truth to him If? r how do
th y refute thcr m n, if whatev r appear to anyon is tru nd
how an web ignorant f omc thing , though w oft n p r 1ve
th m , a ' h n we hear foreign · r p aking?
Ior over, a man who ha een something, and th n r mem-
b r it, know it, though h i no long r p rceiving it. nd if h
hould hut on ye and ' e with the oth r, it i clear that he will
know and not know the am thing .
S· nd in addition to thi , if what app ars to ea h individual is
a tually tru , but what the ay doe not app ar true to u , it mu t
a! o be tru that man i not th mea ur of all thing .
6. Ioreove r kill d p ople ar superi r to un killed, and exp rt
to th in xp rt, and for thi r a on a pilot or a ph 1 1an or a
general fore better' hat i going to happ n.
7· Th s m n imply nullify th more and the le , th n e ary
and the contingent, th natural and the unnatural. nd th n th
ame thing would both be and not b ; for nothing prev nt th
ame thing from app aring to om to be and to oth r not to be;
and th am thing' ould b both a man and a pi ce of wood,Kfor
ometime the ame thing appear to on a man and to anoth r a
pi ce of wood.
8. nd v ry di cour e would b tru and for thi r a on also
llor and judge would have nothing to do. nd
what i ' or t, th ame p opl \J ill b both good and bad, and vi
and virtu the same thing . n may m ntion man oth r thing of
thi ort; but there i no n ed for mor r a ons again t tho e who
think that th ha e no mind nor rea on.
9· Then he conti nu e :

But sine ther are v n now om who ay that

eption and every pre ntation i tru , I t u talk about
them. Th p opl m to b afraid that, if th y w r to ay that
om n ation are fa! , their riterion and canon would not b
teady and r liable. They do not e that that way th y mu t al o
ay that all opinion are tru ; for ther ar many thing that it i m
our natur to judge in ac ordance with th m too; and n v rth I
th y maintain that om opinion ar tru and om fa!
10 . Ioreover, if om on ' ere to xamine th matt r, he would
that non of the other crit ria eith r ar ah ay and th roughly
• leaning the v ooden image of a human being.
 F 6-7: Text
ta4>€PW' auT<l'o aAAat yap €taw €yyu0€1J Kat 7T0ppw0€v Kal
voaOUI''TWV Kat EppWiJ-fVWI' Kat T€XVI'TWV Kat !lTfXVWV Kat 4>POVLiJ-WV
Kat a4>pa1'WVo Ta f 0~ 'TWV iJ-€iJ-7JVO'TWV Kat 7TaVTa7Taatv tl'T07TOV av
€i71 A€yw• d,\ 71 0€i €[,•at Kai ra Twv 7TapopwvTwv Kat 7TapaKou6vTwvo
• 0 \ J: \ \ 1\ I '11
t'
W'T/ € yap a1• 'I" TO 11€YOiJ-€VOV, W 0 7Tapopwv 'T/'TOt opq. 'T/ OVX opq.o
C' 'f\ ' ...

4>ai'T/ yap av 'Tt O'Tt opq.. iJ-fll, dU' OUI( opOw 0

t' 1 ..J.. ,.. 1 w 0 t t T "'\

\ lt' \
I I oTToTav iJ-€VTOt 'l'watv,
0 w 71 iJ-€V ata 71at ouaa a11oyos ovo€V
7TpoariO'T/au• ouO' a4>atp€i, 4>a{vovTat TQiJ-7TOOwv oux opwvuso f7Tt yap
'TOU Ep€TiJ-OU 'TOU Ell T<jl uoan KQ7Tt 'TWV ypa4>wv Kat iJ-Up{wv aAAwv ~
ata• 071a1,• €anv
) 71' a7TaTwaao
) - ~ \
ow Kat' iJ-€iJ-'I'OiJ-€
..J..' 0a TTaVT€
, , \ Twv
€7Tt ..
rowuTwl' ou Tov vou1• ~1-Lwv, d,\,\a T~v 4>av'TQa{avo €MyxH yap o ,\6yo
. , ., - ~ A.
auro - €auTov a.,tWI' aTTaaav a1171 71 'l'avTaatav Hvato TTJV yap
, ,, o·.. , ,

~iJ-€rfpav, Ot' ~v ouK otOiJ-€0a 7Tiiaav €[vat TOtaVT7Jv, t{lwoij TTavrws

a7To4>alv€1. GUiJ-~a{v€1 TO{vuv auToi' aTTaaav 4>avTaa{av aA7J0ij Kat
t{lwoij Mynv €[vat.
I2o Ka00AOU Of aP,apTaVOUGtV Q~tOUV'T€S' 07TOia av ~iJ-tV 4>a{VTJ'Tat Ta
I 'f' .. \I.J... J "" I I t ""'
7TpayiJ-aTa, 'TOIClVTa KaL HVat. 'TOVVaV'TLOV yap, 07TOta 7T€'1'VK€, 'TOtaura
..J.. I t " ) \ \ ,.. ) W '11 ) \ \ ) ( ) ) 1
'l'atV€Tat Kat OVX 'TJiJ-H aura 7TOt0ViJ-€V OU'TW €XHV, alii\ V7T €K€1VWIJ
auTOt OtanOiiJ-€0a 7TW f7T€t Kat Y€AOtOV €t7J av, €t OtaV07J0€{TJiJ-€V ~iJ-€tS'
0

waTT€p oi. ~wypa4>ot Kat TTAaaTat EKuUa 40 7) XtiJ-a{pas, d~wuv €U0us

€[vat Tau'TQ Kat ota TouTo 4>avTa~€a0at Ka0aTT€P €uTp€TTij TTap€aTwTao

F 7 (2 Mullach, T XII + F 5 Heiland)

Eu ebtus, PE I+ 160 13 : E7Toli~ nZw </>uutK,;JV </>tAou6<f>wv oi p.£v 1TclVTa Ka·d{Ja),),ov

f.rrt Tcis ala8~afl , oi S· aO ncl.Au, TOUTots- &v8£iAKov, W oi TT£pl E£Voq,O.vTJ T0v
KoAo</>wvtOl' Kai napp.HtO"!•' TOV 'EAEaT.,v, or li~ TQ atu8~uEL avnpouv, !L"18£v Elvat
c/xiaKOJ'T£~ KaTa.A7]7TT0v T<iw fl, ala8~an, Su) JJ.Ovcp 8£iv 1TLO'T£Unv -r<jJ AOytp, Td 11pO
aoiTo lis- QVTELP"!JLOoa litOC1KEI/Jwp.E8a

17 nPOE TOYE nEPI EENOC/>A H KA! nAPME !~H TAE

AIEBHEE/1: ANAIPOY 'TAEOATIO TOY OF~OOY TQ flEPI
C/>IAOEOC/>IAE APIETOKAEOYE
er mdicem ad ho caput. npo> EEVo</>&...,v Kai flapp.Ev:s.,v TQ atu8~C1(L)
avatpOWra ). )t1TO TOU ., ·TWL' flEpi </>tAouo<f>la> )tptC!TOKMou 0

I
o
:4,\A01 0~' €Y€VOV'TO
, , ,
'TOV'TOIS' ' €Vavnav
TTJV ' , 'f'WVTJV
..J.. \ '..J.. I
a'l't€V'T€S' w
OIOV'Tat 0

yap O€iv TaS' iJ-fV ataO~aHs Kat Ta 4>avTaa{a KaTa~aAAHv, auT<jJ 8€

iJ-Ovov T<jl ,\6ycp mauuHv o TotauTa yap nva 7Tp6upov iJ-fV E€vo4>av7JS'
... EKu),),a hte ara uKuAaKa codd EKu),),a and Xlp.a<pa arc common!}
paired a e, ample of object of <f>avTaulat and produ uon of an tent tales and
1T>..auTat (Plat Rep s88 )
 F 6-7: Tran lation 41

fr from error, I mean for example a balance or ompa es or any-

thing like that; but ea h of them in one ondition is ound and in
anoth r bad, and wh n they are u ed in on way th y ar truthful,
but in another th y are untruthful. And if all perception were
tru , th you ht not to differ o much. For they are differ nt h n
n ar and far off, in the i k and th h althy, in th p iali t and
non- p iali t, in th wi and in th fooli h. Indeed, it would b
altogether ab urd to ay that the perception of the madmen and of
tho who eye or ear d ceiv them ar true; it would b naYve to
ay that the p r on who deceiv him ither ee or doe not
e , for one ould an \ er that he doe ee, but not properly.
11 . \ hen th y a that en e-per eption, b ing irrational,
n ith r add anything nor take anything away, it i clear that th y
do not what i in front of their no e; for in the cas of th oar in
water, and in pi ture , and numberl other thing , it i en e-
p r eption that dec iv . In uch a e we all lay th blame not on
our intell t, but on the pr ntation The argument refut s it elf
' hen it maintain that v ry pre entation i true, be au it nece -
aril a ert our , according to which " e think that not every
pre entation is o, to be fa) e. Thu they om to ay that v ry
pre entation i both true and fal e.
12. Ther for they are wrong in maintaining that thing are ju t
uch a th y may eem to u . For on th ontrary they app ar u h
a they are by nature, and we do not make them to be so, but are
our elv aff cted in a certain \ ay by th m. m it would be
ridiculou , if we wer to imagine ylla and hima ra a
painter and culptor do, to as ert traight away that th y exi ted,
and that therefor " e had pr entation of them ju t a if they were
tanding clo eat hand .

F7
IJ . ince am ngst natural phtlo opher " me reduced everythmg to en ' e-
perception , \\hi le other pulled in the oppo ite dtrection, uch as. nophane
of olophon and Parmemd th Eleatic, ~' ho denied value to sen e-
perceptions, and affirmed that of sensible things n thing i apprehensible, and
that therefore we mu t trust only reason, let u examine the objc tion ~\hi eh
have been put f rward again t them :
G
V L OK

lude-:: gainst • nophanc and Parmenides, who deny value to sense-

per eptions . From book 8 of nstocles' Ou Philo ophy.
 ..p F 7: Text
Kal ·n
apfLO'L Kal rr
T}~'Wl' KaL 1£1\ICJCJO
'\ ·z·
~\
fii£YOV "
1 UC1T£p0V 0
·
~· 01• 1T£p1•
!'nA1Tw~·a Kat TOU l'rl£yapLKOU . o8£v ~~{ouv OVTOL Y£ TO ov €v £lvat
Kat TO lHpo~~· fL~ £lvat 1 fLTJS£ y£vvaa8a{ n fLTiS€ if>8dpm8at fLTJOE
Kn•£ia8at To rrapa1rav .
' ' ~ I \
\ I I
) I (} .J. \
' .J. •
2. TOl' fL£V OUV 1TII£1W 1rp0
TOUTOU IIOYOV fLUOfL£ a 'I'LI\OCJO'I'OUIJT£) 1

~·u~·t fLfl'TOI TOC10UT0~ A£KTiov- £L1T01fL£V yap av

2
0 fLEV ,\6yo ~fLWV w
£LT} TO 8£L6TaTov· ou fL~" d,\,\a S£i Y£ Kat TTJ ala8~a£w 1
WC11T£p y£ 0~
Kat CJWfLaTO . OTI S€ Kat ~ araO.,at dA.,8£u£LV 1T€rpvK£ SiJAov- ou yap
ol6~· Tf TOV ala8avOfL£VO~· fL~ ouxt 1TclCJX£LV Tl" 1TclCJXWV S€ TO mi8o av
£iS£tT}" yvwa1 ouv TL €an Kat ~ ata811at .
. d,\,\a fL ~v £i To aia8av£a8at 1raax£Lv TL ianv 1 chav S€ To 1raaxov
ti-rr6 TOU 1TclC1X£LI 1TclVTW fT£pov av £L1! TO 1TOtOUV Kat TO 1Taaxov. wan
7ipWTOV fLE~· £LT} av TO A£yOfL£VOV lHpovl o[ov TO XPWfLa Kat 0 ifi6r/>os·
f7r£1Ta S€ €v TO ov OUK f(]TQL. Kat fL~V ouS€ aKLV1/TOV" ~ yap arao.,at
fCJTI KLV1/C11 .
,
4 · TQUT'/7 ~'Q'\ - ' A.. ' , ''(}I "
Of tJOUI\£TQI 7rQ Tl KQTQ 'I'UCJLV £X£LV TQ) ata 1/UHS", QT£

s~ 1TLCJT£UWVI olfLall Tai uytatvouaat fLaAAov ~ TQt voaouaats.

fiKOTW apa Kat 0£LVO TL lpw athwv TJfLLV fVT€T1/KfV. ov8£LS y£ TOL
fL~ fL£fL1/VW fA.DIT av TrOT£ fLLQV ataO.,atv aTro{3aAA£Lvl OTrWS au;cp
1

1TClVTa Ta illa aya(}a y{vOITO.

' ~' ~ Q 1\\ ) ' > • I ~ I I
- . TOUS" o11 oLafJai\/\OVTa auTaS" £XP1/V Tr£7r£LC1fL£vou y£ oLOTL fLaT1/V 1

lxoL£V avTa I £l7rOVTa a1T£p 0 llavSapo My£L 1Tapa TcfJ 'OfL~P4J 1T£pt
TWV €auTou TO~WV 1

avTLK' trmT' U7T' '~-'-£io Kap'T/ Ta/-LOL aAAoTpLO c/>w '

£ll-'-~ cyw
Ta8£ ~6~a cpanvcjJ £v 7Tupl 8£{Ti"•
X£pal 8taKAaaaa , av£1-LwALa yap 1-'-o' o7T'T!8£i, (E 214-2r6)
To fL£Ta TouTo SwAufL~vaa8at Traaa Ta ala8~a£Ls €auTwv·~ 3 oihw
yap av Tl f7rLCJT£U£V avToi lpy(fJ StSaaKOUCJLV w £is ovS€v QUTWV
0£oLVTO .
6. vuvL OE TOiiTo KaL -rO d.To1TW-rar6v lortv· cixp~arouS' ydp
a1Torpa[vovT£ au;a TcfJ ,\6y4J TOLS lpyots Ta fLclALaTa XPWfL£VOL Sta-
T£AOUC1LV avTai .
7. o y€ TOt MIAtaao £8€,\wv imO£LKvuvat 1 Ston Twv rpatvofLivwv
\ l "',/, I l~ \ "' ,.. "' ~ \ .,. ...J.. I l
KQL £V 0'1'£1 TOUTWV OUO£V fL1/ T(fJ OVTL, OtQ TWV 'I'QLVOfL£VWV Q1T0-
0£tKVUCJLV QUTWV' r/>1/at youv·
El yap £an yij Kat v8wp Kat a~p Kat mip Kat a{8'T/p0 Kat XPVCJO'; Kal TO
i-'-£11 ~Will TO Si Td)v'T/KO Kat 1-LfAav Kat AWKOV Kat ni. aAAa TravTal oaa cpaatll
41
TO . lT£poa. \'tger, TO lT£pov lT£pov 1 'T; TO J.LTJ Ov l 7 £pov fb: B is defective.
" Toooirro \Jra Tooo.n-w•· 0 · -rrpo Toirro [ b. ToooiiTov Gat ford .
"l a.iToi5 £i ~t£Auf'ala.·ovTo tr&.aa Tci ala8~ao aUTWv· ;fYY~ B: om. cett.
 F 7: Tran lation 43
1. nd ther were oth r uttering word oppo ed to th se. For
th think we ught to ov rthrow en and representations, and
tru t on) to r a on its If. u h thing were fir t aid by Xcno-
phan and Parmenide and Zeno and I lis u , and then by tilpo
and the M garian . Hence th people maintain that Being i one
and that th ther do s not exist, and that nothing i generated ,
nothing peri he , nothing i mo d at all.
2. v hall I arn further argum nt again t th m in th philo-
ophi al tudie , but for now thi mu h mu t be aid: w hould
argu that rea on i the mo t divin of our (facultie ), but that w
n d al o our sen es ju t a we al o n d the body. nd it i clear
that en -perception too i di po d by nature to be truthful ; f r
it i impo ible that he who p r ive hould not b aff et d by
an thing; but, being affected, he knows th aff tion; th n n -
p r eption too i a kind of knowledg .
3· But if to have en -p r eption i to have an aff ction, and
an ything that ha an affection i affected by omething, -. hat pro-
du e th aff ction mu t c rtainly be different from what i
aff cted b it; o that fir t there " ould be the o-called th r, lik
th colour and the ound, and then Being will not be one, nor
immobil , inc ens -per eption i mo ement.
4 · nd therefore e eryonc naturally' i he to ha e hi n s in
he pre umabl trusts healthy ense rath r than
With good reason th r fore a trong lo e for our
en es i infused into us . No on , unl s mad, would hoos to gi e
up on ingle n e, ven if in thi way h could get all oth r good .
5· Tho who di parage th m, per uaded that they have th m in
vain, hould aid what Pandaru in Horn r about hi
own bow:

lay a trang r' • rd ma cut ff m h ad

if I don tea t thi bow int shining fir ,
after br aking it with my hand m u ele si ,

and imm diat ly aft r den alu to all their ens -organ . For in
thi wa one would believe th m sine th would d mon trate by
d d that th y did not n d th m for anything.
6. But, a it i , thi is th ab urd t thing about them; though b
' ord th y affirm that their n es ar u le , by deed th 'go on
making th full t u of th m .
7. And Me lis u , wi hing to ho' " hy non of th thing that
 tl..at 0..-fJpwTTOl ci.Al'}O~ ..... KClL ~~u:i- op8w opWJ-LHI KClL QI(OUOJ-L€11, dllat lxp~P
Kai To o,.~s TOtOVTOI', olo11 TTPWTov loo~tll ~J-Lill tillat, Kai J-L~ J-LtTaTT{TTTttv J-Ll'}Of.
yit·ta8at lnpo1•,~• d>..>..' tlvat OJ-LOtov, oi6v 1rlp lan11, lKaaTOII. 11vv 81 c/JaJ-LtP
op8w- opat• KClt dKouw• Kat UUI'"II(lt' 8oK£t 8£ ~J-Ltll TO OtpJ-LOII KClL t/luxpoP
y{J·ta8at Kai To 1/Juxpov BtpJ-Lo'' Kat To aKATJpov J-L<lAaKoll Kat To J-LaAaKov
UKAl'}p6t•.

. TaUTCl OE KClL a..\..\a TTo..\..\a TOLC1UTC1 MyovTo ClUTOU l((lL J-LClAa

tiKOTw- E1T1J8£TO Tt- all' i1p' 0011 OTt Btpf~-011 f. an Ka7T£LTC1 TOUTO
YLII£TC1L t/Juxp611, ouK alaB6tt£Vo €y11w ; Of~-OLW o€ Kat 7T£pL TWv
a..\..\wl'. 07T£p yap EtPTJII, £VptBdTJ all OUOEII a..\A' ~ Ta alaB~a£t<;
a1•atpw1 Kat f.Myxw11 OL<i To fl-clAtaTa manuttv auTai' .
9· a..\..\a yap oi J-LEII TOLOUTOL ..\6yot UX£0011 iKalla ~OTJ 0£0WKC1ULII
£uBu11a · f.~{TTJAo{ y/. Tot yty611aat11, w<; tl fl-TJOE f.MxBTJaav To
7Tapa7Tall. ~OTJ fi-EIITOL BappoUIIT£ AfYOJ-L£11 opBw t/>t..\oaotj>£LII TOU<; KC1L
Ta alaB~an Kat TOll ..\6yo11 E7TL T~ll YIIW ULII T~ll TWII 1rpayJ-LaTwv
7Tapa..\aJ-LfJallo11Ta .

F 8 (6 Mullach, T XVI + F 8 Heiland)

Eu ebm . PE I .f. 20. IJ .OtOTI ,UP oov OUK op8w Myovcnv oi </>auKOVT£5 tlvcu miuav
a.iu81Jun· Ka.l 1rciuav </>a.<·Ta.u{a.v O.>.TJOiJ, lliJ>.ov iK TOuTwv . O.>.>.a yap Ka.i TOuTwv ouTws
fXOI'TW1 a.Jihs oi 7Ttpl Tch· 'E17LKOvpov iK TTJ l4.ptUTL7T170V Ota.ywyiJs" opp.WfLEVOt
17a1'TO. ~lloviJ E~TJTTTOI' Ka.i aiu8~U€W<;. p.ova. Tcl TTa8TJ KO.T0.>.1)1TTcl Ka.i .,.£>.o O.ya.Owv
TTJv ~So1n}v £ll'O.L Opt~Op..o'Ot.
I.J.. AEytmt Ot o 'E17LKovpo u11o p.£v Ttvwv p.T)Otvo aKT}Ko£va.<, ivTVXtiv ll£ Tois TWV
iTaAau~v auyypcip.p..aotv- .J.n.O rtvWv S' O·n YjKoua£ E£voKpr:lrou~ Ua-r£pov 8( Kal
~Vauau/>&vou~ TOti nUppwvo Y£1101-LO·ou yllwp{p.ou. ;{va s~ oVv Tcl KaL 7rp0~ aUTOI!
a<Tt<p1Jp.£va. TvyxavH, 8muwp.t8a.

21. flPOJ: TOY£ KAT' EniKOYPON HLJO H TEAOJ: OP!ZOMENOYE

Cf. md1cem ad hoc caput· llpos Tou KO.T' 'ETT{Kovpov ~llov>)v .,.£>.o op<to,...tvou
).1'"0 ToV o.U;oU
-. d>.TJ8iJ BO .• ' 1mp In De caelo 558. 19, '"ho a cord m g to Rea le ( 1970: 22)
h· taken the fragment dtrectly from :\.lehs. u ' On ature and Being (30 B 8
DK): O.>.TJ8w, I•
., tlva.t £xpiJv Kai TCi ov codd.: xp>) EKO.UTOV dva.t tmp . loc. cit. ri tocles'
reading 1 1gnorcd m 0 K and reJected by Rea le ( 1970: 400) as a mi take, but
accepted b: :\ lra and defended b} V1tah (1968: 55)
.~ lupov Jl uuupov BO.
Ota.ywyiJ BO•D Ota.lioxiJ· [ bQ D~"(lloxiJ \HJttcn ab \C ywyiJs): lltlla.xiJs • ·
41

1 he d1 pant) may be due to a ypa</>tTa.t vanant m the ar hetyp . i\ lra just1fies

h1 cho1c thu der Ep1kure1 mu gmg nt cht au d cm I re1 s der achfolger
de An tipp hcn·or'
 F 7-8: Tran lation 45
app ar and can be e n reall y xi t , demon trat it through the
phenom na th m lve , for h ay :

If earth exi ts, and water and air and fire and iron and gold and the li v-
ing and th e dead and black and white and all the other things that m n
say arc tru e, and if w e and hea r rightl y, then what is should be
uch a fir tit eemed to u to b , and not hange or become other, but
each thing be u h as it is. But a it i \ e ay that we e and h ar and
understand rightly; nev rth el it ·e m to u that th hot becomes
cold and th old hot and the hard oft and the . oft hard .
8. n might rea onably a k him , when he ay all thi and
mu h more: 'wa it th n not b y n e that yo u I arnt that ome-
thing i hot and afterward be ome cold?' And imilarl y for
the other thing . For, a I aid, we hould find that he d m
valu to and refute th en e by fully tru ting them .
9· But arguments of thi kind ha already been ubj
an ad quat crutiny; for th y hav be ome ob ol t , a
we r n r aid at alL ow ind d we may confid ntl
the rig ht philo oph that whi h mploy both
rea on to obtain know led of thing .

F8

13. From thi tt is ev ident that those who affirm that all per eptio ns and pre-
sentatio n are tru e do n ot pea k rightly . But although thi i o, the Eptcur an
again , start ing from the chool of ri ttppu , affirmed that all thing depend
on pi asu rc and ense-perccpttOn , and th at onl) affe tions arc app rehcn stble,
and that plea ure i the hi ghc t of all good s.
14- om ay that Epi uru was nobod y's puptl, but that he read the trcatts-
e of the an ient , other th at he wa a tudent of Xeno rate. and then of
laustp hanc , who wa one of Pyrrho' dt ctpl es . Let u s see "hat argument ·
have been brought aga mst him too:

T PLE RE I

Index: ga m st th e Epicureans,\\ ho affi rm th at pleas ure i th e srmwumt bonum.

From the sa m e author.

1. in e knowledge i of two kind , th on f xt rnal thing ,

and the other of ' hat to choo e or avoid, ome a_ that a th
prin cipl and criterion of hoi and avoidan we hav pi a ure
 F : T xt
1. 'E1ruS~ €an Y1 1Wat- StTT~ 1 ~ 1-1-b• TWV €~w 1TPO.YfttiTwvl ~ S€ TWV
~fti1• a.tplTWI' 1\0.t 4>wKTWI11 fVtOL 4>a.at Tij a.ipEa£w KO.L 4>vyij apx~v
1\0.t KptTTJpta•• € w· ~wi T~v ~So~v KO.t Tov 1rovov· €n y€ Tot Ka.ivuv
TOtaUTtl Ttl'O. Aiyouaw Ol 7Tlpt TOI' 'E1TtKOupow ava.yKO.LW oov txu KO.L
7T£pt TOuTou aKil/la.a8a.t.
2. ToaouTou To{vuv €ywy£ Siw Myuv O..px~v £tva.t Kat Ka.vova. TWV
aya8wll KO.L TWI' KO.KWV TO m5.8o I wan lftOty£ SoK£L TOUTO O.lho
KptTTJplou S£ia8a.~. Ston 1-1-€v yap €anvl €auTo O£tKvvatv 1 o1roi"ov o'
€aTLV €dpou 0£i TOU KptVOUVTO . £t fl-fll yap OtKlLOV ~ aAAoTptovl ~
"8 TJat~ 11£YH
a.ta ,, , ~·.,
1 7TOT£pov o a.tp£Tov TJ 'I'£UKTOV 1 o 11oyo .
·-~. I .,1
3. O.lJTOL y€ TOL 4>a.atv ou miaa.v ~Sov~v aam5.,£a8a.t KO.t 7TcliiTO.
7TOVOV £KTpl7T£a 80.1. TOUTO
) 1 • 0£ ~' Q IQ
aVftfJlfJTJKl KO.!' fl-0.110.
I\ > I
HKOTWS. TO.' fl-€11
'

yap KptT~pta. Ka.i €a.uTa S£tKvuat Ka.i Ta Kptvoft£va.l To ftEVTot 1ra8o

€auTo ftovov . on
S' oihw €xn~ ftO.pTupouatv auTo{. KO.t1T£P yap
a~tOUVT£ a1Ta.aa.v ~So~v aya.8ov £tva.t KO.L miaa.v aAyTJOOVO. KO.KOI/1
OftW OUK a£{ 4>a.at S£iv T~V ftfV a.tp£ia8a.tl 48 T~V o€ 4>wy£i"v·
ft£Tp£ia8a.t yap a.uTa Ttjl 1roatjl 1 d Kat ou Ttjl 7Tottjl.
+· SijAov oov w- TO y£ 1TOaov ouS€v aAA I ~ 0 Aoyo Kptm. TO yap
"a1-1-nv6v €anv u7TOft£iva.t TouaS£ nva Tou 1rovov I o1rws ~a8£tTJftlv
~Oova ~-~-d~ou " KO.L TO .. avfl-4>Epn TwvSE TIVWV a1TEX£a8a.t TWV
~SovWv, iva 1-L~ &AyW~Jo€V dAy7]S6va xaAerrWT€pa n Kat 7TclvTa 'Ta
Tota.uTa. Aoyo o
Kplvwv €aT{v .
5. To o 011011 I at ftlV a.ta 8TJaHs Kat a.t 'l'a.vTa.ata.t
~'' •\ f ' .J.
) I
KO. 80.1T£pn'
' f I

KctT01TTpa. KO.L £tKOV£ €o{Ka.at TWV 1TpO.yftaTwv £[vat· Ta fl-EVTOt 7Tct8TJ

KO.L a.[ ~Sova.i KO.L o[ 1TOVOI TP07TO.L KO.L aAAotwaH ~ftWV O.UTWV. TO.UTT/
o€ a.la8a.vOft£VOI ftfV KO.L 4>avTa.atOUft£VOI 1Tp0S Ta f~W ~AE1TOftl111
f~ I 5::::\ \ ) \ "' 1 I~ 1 \ I t I \ \
TJOOftlVOI 0£ KO.t O.IIYOUVT£ £1TtaTpl'I'OftlV £7Tt ftOVOUS £0.UTOUS. TO.S fl-€11
yap a.la8~au ~fl-WV Ta f~W 1TOI£LI KO.L 07TOLO. av fKlLVO.I TOIO.UTO.) ii
a1T£pya~£Ta.t Ka.i Ta 4>a.vTaa{a.s I Ta S€ 1ra8TJ 1rota a TT a. y{v£Ta.t St'
~1-1-ii KO.t w
av ~ftlL fXWft£11.
6. Sto Ta.1iTa 7ToT€ 1-1-€v ~Sia.l 7ToT€ SI aTJSii 4>a.lv£Ta.t Ka.i €a8 on
\ -\\
ftlV fl-0.11110111 la
8' OT£ 0£fl~\ ~ fl 1"
IJTTOV. WV OUTW lXOVTWV lVpTJaOft£111 H
fl 1 I ( 1 )

£8iAotftlV aK07T£LV 1 aptaTO. Ta) Tij) yvwa£wS apxa !Jrron8£ftEVOU)

f I \ \8 1 I \
01TOaOt KO. I TO. O.ta TJall KO.! TOV VOUV 1TO.p0.110.ftfJO.VOVaLV.
Q \ ,.. \ I

7. fOLK£ sI ~ ftfV a'La87Jats TO.L apKuat KO.L TOL OtKTUOLS KO.L TOL)
aAAots TOtS TOtOUTOtS 87JpaTpOL I 0 o€ vou KO.L 0 Aoyos TOtS KUaL TOL

aipcioOa, 0 . civ aip€io8a, Jb. ava•pcioOa, dub. lras .

 F 8: Tran lation 47
and pain . t lea t th Epi ur ans even n "" sti ll a om thing of
thi kind; it i n c ary th r for to con ider thi too.
2. For my part then I am o far from aying that aff tion is th
principle and anon of thing good and vi I, that I think a rit rion
IS n eded for aft' cti nit If. To b ure it prove it own xi tenc ,
but om thing I e is wanted to judge of it nature. For per eption
11 ""h ther th affection i familiar or not.'' but it i r a n that
ll wh ther it i to b ho en or avoided.
3· They ay indeed that th y do not th m lv w lcom ery
plea ure and hun every pain. nd thi is only to be expected . F r
the cri t ria reveal both them e) and th thing they judge; but
affection re eal it elf only. nd that thi i o they b ar " itn
. For although they maintain that ev r pi a ur i a
good and e ry pain an evi l, n verth le th do not ay that we
ought alway to choo e th former and avoid th latter, forth y are
m a ur d by quantity if not by qualit .
4· It i ident therefore that nothing I than reason judg th
quantity; for it i rea on that giv th judg m nt 'it i bett r to
endur thi r that pain that o we may enjoy greater plea ure '
and ' it i advantageou to ab tain from thi or that plea ure , m
ord r that \ e ma not uffer mor gri vou pain ' and all th
of thi kind .
5· In general, perc ption and pr ntation are like mirror and
1mage of thing ; but affection and plea ur and pam are
chang and alteration in our I nd thu in p r
in forming pr ntati n we look to th xterna l obj
experi n ing pi a ur and pain \ turn our attention to our lv
alon . For ur perception ar au ed by th xt rnal object , and
a th ir haract r may b , u h a) o are the pre entation that they
produce; but our affection take thi or that charact r b au e of
and the tat that w are in .
6. Th refore the am thing app ar om tim
om tim unplea ant, and om tim more and om t1me le .
nd thi being o, w shall find, if we hould choo ·amme
th matter, that the b t a umptions of th principl f knowl-
edg ar mad by tho of both en and int 11 t.
7 . Whil th n e ar lik trap and n t and ther huntmg
implem nt of this kind, int llect and rea on ar like the hound
that tra k and pur u th pr y. Iu h bett r than su h philo o-
h • cc n. f.
 F : T .·t
anj3£uouat Kat /-'-fTa8£ouau•. aunZII' f.LEV ( niw) TOLOIJTWV~'I cl/-'-HJJOJJ

rpt>.oaoc/>£tl' Ot£a8at p~ TOU wriT€ aia8~awtv

Tai· ETVX£ w
pw!-1-H'Ou- 1-1- f/T£ Ta rra8T/ rrapa>.ap.{Javoi'Ta £7Tt T~v To.AT/Oou
~ 1
otayi'WOII'. T/~ I
£1VOI' y
o ~ •
al' H1J 7T£'t'UKOTa
.J.. I > e I
av pw7TOU<; f/OOVat
·~ •
Kat
I ) \ ) 1
7TOI'OI' a1\0YOL' €7TtTp£7T£1V £aVTOU ,
f I ),I.. I
a't'£VTa<; TOV
\ eflOTaTOV
I
KptT~fJ

I'OUI'.

•• ,..£,. rocovTwc· Jb ((Tun) add Holford-.'trenms)· ~dvToc TOuTwv B , '. ( b's

rcadmg better c plams the foliO\\ m~ Ime , forth romparandum can hard I) be
the thinker JUst alluded to 'ce mmentar~
 F 8: Tran lation 49
pher w hould onsid r those who n ither mak us of thctr
' en c at random, nor a ociat their affections with th di cern-
ment of truth. Els it would be a mon trou thmg for b ing
ndowed with man' natur to ntru t themselves to irrational
pi a ur and pain and for ake the mo t divine judge, Mind.
 COMMENTARY

T 1-2

only pi ce of e idenc which pe ifi that th

en Ari to le came from wa the Italian Me n .
De pit Follet' doubt (I9 9: 384), there i no rea on to doubt
thi , ince the Peloponn ian Me en wa more famou than
th Italian and wa u uall imp) referred to a Me ene
(Thill t 1984: ix n. I) .'
T I al o tate that Ari to le wa a P ripatetic; thi i not
on) upport d by the fra m nt from ri to le ' n Phil-
osophy, but confirmed by Eu . PE I 5. 1. I 3 in hi introdu tion
to Ari to le ' chapter on Ari totle (F 2). Furthermore Ari to-
cle ' relation hip with the Peripateti i adumbrated by T 2,
ac ording to which in th ixth book of hi On Philosophy
ri tocle wrote that otada \ a a Byzantine philo oph r . A
far a w know, thi man i known only from I m . I. Strorn.
I . 6o-I ,• ho tate that otada of B zantium (oi TTEpt .Ew-r&.oav
' In npt10n ho~' that the name n tocle ~'as quite common m both the
Peloponne mn and the icilian le ·sene, although none of them help. to td n-
tify the phtlosopher, not even IC ''/ I. 1432, adduced by Follet ( 1989a) , datable
bet~ een the tst c. BC and the t st . u, wht h mentton an risto lesson of
allt rate , ypa.p.p.a.T£V Twv uuvifipwv, who admmi tered the mone) of the tty
o honestly and wisely that hi fellow cttizens dedtcated a statue to him and
two Roman magistrate gave htm the right of wearing the gold ring. For there
IS nothmg in this de cription which suggests that the man may be the phtl-
osopher. n the other hand, the 1 titan m criptions only show that risto les
wa qu1te a ommon name in that region of Italy.
' It 1 tmposs1ble that the uda confused otada of Byzantium wtth the
Cynt 'otade of laronea, who was mentiOned more than once by a mu lcol-
ogi, t a lied nstocle (\\' ntzel 1896. 935) m a work ll£pi xop<iw ( th . 14. (no
D-1· ), becau e th confu ton would have to be both of n tocles and of
otada. / otade . 'hronology also ·peaks agam t this 1d nttticatwn . Sotadcs of
:Vlar nea ltved around 270 a ( uda s ' l:wTafiT} , u 71) and, although Foil et
 omm ntary on T 1-2
TOl' Bvt,aJ•noJ•) ·a~ ' that the aymg· 'all m n ar bad' and 'mo t
m n ar bad' \\ere utter d by Bia , whil 'practi e achie\'e
n·rnhmg' ts du toP nander and 'kn \\ your·elf to Pittacu .
m - tt ''a the, nstot lian chool (Di a ar hus, Demetriu of
Phal ron, H rmtppu ) that plac d Periand r among the even,
otada ma~ ha\' had an Ari totelian our e or hav been a
P npateti htm elf. Ind d the di u ion on th tatement of
the 'e,·en a e go ba k to him elf in hi On
Philosophy (frr. 1-7 R
acquamted \\ ith a !at and probably quit unimportant repre-
·entatt\' r follow r of th P ripato , which ugge t that he
,,·a omehow tn\' Oh- d with thi hooi.J
T 1 onclude · wtth th lt t of Ari to le ' work . The Suda
mentiOn hi On Philo ophy, in ten book , a tr ati e dealing
wtth the que tion TloTEpov a"TTov8a,6TEpos "01-1-T/PO ~ TI>..aTwv,
Tlxvat PT/ToptKa{, a book TlEpi .Eapamoo , and 'H8tKa in eight
book . But we ha\'e \'iden e only of the fir t (T 3-6, F r-8).
In fa t ther ar no trace of the compari on of Homer and
Plato. Ger ke (1 96) and Heiland (1925: 89 n . 113) thought
that An tocle of i\le ene wa the obje t of Proclu ' reference
at In Tim. 20.2 to an An tocle who maintained that Theaetetu
wa the ab ent fourth friend of ocrate in Plat. Tim . 17 A (ovTw
yap i1ptaTOKAij I(QTQUKf.Va~f.L Bm{TT/TOV f.!vat TOll a1TOVTa), though
Heiland attnbuted thi quotation ( e tigium Heiland) to
An tocle ' On Philosophy, rather than to hi compari on of
Homer and Plato. Of a different opinion wer Usener (1873:
433) and \Yentzel (1896: 935), v.ho had noticed that at In Tim.
5· 2 Proclu explicitly refer to Ari tocle of Rhode :

( 19 90 : 3 3), foliO\\ mg Bapp (I 5= 155). suppo~ed that the author of n.pi

xopwv wa_ th~ dm:ct ource of D10ny iu of Hahcarnassus ( 1 t half of the 1st c.
Bt'), ' cc qu1 le rap pro hera1t chronolog1quement du phllosophe', th1s cannot be
Ari tock of :\lessene, for, accordmg to Ath. 14. 636 ~. the author of flcpi
xopwv \\a kno\\n to pollodorus of Athen (end of the znd . B ).
J It i, a mere conJecture, but qu1te probable, to thmk that Clement derived

th1 Item from the :\le sen1an, although n stocle wa not unknown in
Alexandna, ince Asdcp1u and Ph1loponu c1te h 1m (T 3-6); he dealt with the
'e\'cn age (T 5); he report (T 3 and 5) a concept of oo,Pia and aver ion of Il.
ZJ. 712 whtch ''ill reappear m Clem. AI Strom. 1. 2.5 (see the 'ommentary on
T 3-6). If tt \\ere true, hO\\e\'er, lement' pa age could be considered a
f'estigzum of the L th b k of An tocle ' On Plulosophy, and the termmus ante
quem of Ari toclc could be moved from the begmnmg of the 4th c., when
 omm ntary on T 1-2 53
The commentators (oi VTTOf.LV1'Jf.La-rta-ra{) . a} that the Panathenaea
folio\\ the fe. tival of Bend1. , and n to le of Rhoue · ia-ropEi that th •
festival of Benui i held at th Piraeus on the twentieth of Thargelion,
and that the fea ts of then follow .
In th auctorum inde · of hi edition of Pro lu ' commentary In
Timaeu Di hi too attribut both r fer nces to Ari t cle of
Rhode . And it i lik ly that at 20 . 2 Pro lu would ha e aid if
h r f rr d to anoth r Ari to I e rthele one ma object
that, in e Proclu ref r to Ari tocle tout court before Ari to-
cl of Rhodes, the former might have b en a differ nt and
mor famou ristocl . To ay thi i to a urn that ri to le
f I famou , at lea t in Proclu ' eye . Indeed, both
cl piu and Philoponu (T 3-6) refer to ri tocle of
n by hi fir t nam only. nd A lepiu and Philoponu
were of th am chool a Pro lu , through mmoniu . In
addition, imp . In Phys . 615. 15 m ntion a I tt r by Pro lu to
an ri tocle tout court , in which the former tell th latt r that
even immaterial firmament ar material in a c rtain way,
becau they change their place (Kav yap Ka-ra nva -rp61rov !vvAa
Kat EKftva c/>TJOLV au-rov Ev Tfi TTPO l4ptOTOKAfa E1TLOT0Afi). Plainly
thi , even more than the one Proclu report at 20. 2, i a kind
of di cu ion which could ari th int re t of a P ripatetic lik
ri tocle of Me ene rather than of a grammarian and rhetor-
ician like Ari tocle of Rhod .4 Heiland's hypoth may
be true, although it cannot b proved.
Following Gercke (1896), H iland (1925 : 5,
a trac of Ari toe! ' T/xvat p7J-rOptKa{ in a variant
in chapt r 17 of a commentary on Hermog n llfpt a-raafwv,
ction n aToxaa!J-6 ( tigium I H iland) :
The follower of ri tocle the Peripatetic rightly affirmed that
division (lita{pwtv) i the di tinction (-ro,..~v) or re olut10n (liuiKptau•)
Euscb1u ·' Praeparatio Rt•angelica wa compo~ed, to the begmnmg of the thtrd ,
when ' lemcnt wr te.
n stocle of Rhodes (\Ventzel 1896 and Goulet 1989b) was a rhctor, ac ord-
mg to 0.11. Din . 8. 3 and Phot. Btbl. 115' 27, and liYed in the t1me of Strabo (14-
2 IJ) , bel"-\ cen the 1 t c. BC and the 1 t c. \I) . He ts not mentioned by the rula,
but an n . tocle~ of Rhode IS sa1d to haYe been a grammamm ''ho \HOtc lltpi
TTOtTJ'I'•K"ii ( mmon. De dtf/. t•erb S.\ brtl<'l)8w•·) and ma) al ·o be th author of a
lltpt 8taMK'TWV a ordmg to Herod. llEpt Ka8oAtK"ii 1Tpouwt8ta · 20 (t. 526 1-2
Lentz} and lltpi 8•xp6vw•• (u . 18. 15-16 Lenz), and of a Le\tCOII to fltpporralt'
(Erottanu~ . Voc flipp 32 11). lie 1s also quoted by Varro, Dt lt11g . fat 10. 75
 ommentary n T 1-2

of a ub.Jl'Ct (lmo8£a£w-) mto the posstbl question, of inqutry (El> ra

;1'01'-Q \, 'T/T'T/f!O TQ).

Tht ptece of e' td n e, h " \' r, may a l o be r f rred to

.-\n ~toc le .-
of P rgamum, who wa a P ripateti , and, according
to the udo (.. ' . ;.J.pwroKAij , a 9 r ). \\'rOt a T€xv7J p7JroptK~ in
fi,·e b k, .>
n th other hand, n to f Lamp, a u , who, a cording
udo ( ·' . AptaroKAij , a 3917) , wrot an 'Eg~y7Jat rwv
Xpuam11ou 11£pt rou 1TW lKaara MyoJ.k€11 Kat OtavoOUJ.k£8a {Jt{JA{a S
~ hould n t be addu d in thi context: h wa ith r the pupil
of hry tppu - mentioned in th lndev toic. Here. XL II 7
0 rand t, and th dedicatee of hry ippu ' Ta 11£pt rwv OJ.ko{wv
11po- JlpwroKMa y li ted by D.L. 7 . 199, 6 or a toi of the
econd century AD . 7 Ther i nor n to doubt the uda's di -
ttnctton b tween him and the le
f the la t work attributed to ri t by the Suda, 'HOtKa,
Hed and uppo d that it con titut d a part of Ari tocle ' On
Plulo ophy. But tf thi were true , it would not b cl ar why the
uda dtd n tal o mention the oth r part of that work.
' An tocle of Pergamum ( chm1d 1 96 : 937- , Follet 1989: 384-5) lived at
the t1mc of H adnan and TraJan ( uda s.'. i'l.ptoroKA..j>, a 391 and a! o ·'.
J.lp•o~£[b1j , a 3902) H e '' ent to Rom e and became a soph1 ·t after heanng
He rode .\tt1cu , but th en '' ent back to Pergamum and became the tea her of
ArL ude~ . Athcnodorus, Eud1anu , Rufu , and H eraclide (Phi lostratu , V
s67- ' 594 ff' 6 1- ' .'ynes Dto I ' 35 C-J6 ,\ Peta\ ius) li e also wrote 'ETTLOTOAa{,
.~!£),£Tat, flpos To·· {JaotMa lTTi T..jS' lltav£,...-.]O£WS' TOU xpuo{ou. He wa probably the
addre ee o f some of Phryn1 hus' book · m Phot. Btbl . 158, where he i sa1d to
ha\ e become a member of the ' enate for a "h1le under :\1. ur It us (A otin
197 ). H e cem. to han been gymna tarch m Pergamum (Hepding 1907:
324-5 , no -2), the autho r of the eh. non . fl£pi onio£wv (\\'alz 1832-6: VII.
246) , and the K>.aubw• ftptoToKMa p..]Topa vTTanKo•• honoured at Olympia
(Dtttcnbe rg and Purgold t 96 col . 5-3-4, no. 462),
Th1 idcnt1hca uon \\as sugge. ted by Criinert (1906: 7g-8o) .
- A ' Arnim(t 96 93S).uggeted,follo\\edbyPohlenz(t948--<):li. t48).
f- ollct (19 9 384) nghtly \\Onder. ''hether the :\lesscn1an may be consid-
ered the author of some geographical, mytholog1cal, and paradoxical works
attnbuted to ome n toclc or to some n totle and collected by li.iller
(rHG n . 329-32), u~cm1hl ( 1 91-2· 1. 526-31 , 11 . 676), and J a oby on FGrH
-u6 ( 11 I B, eo mm , pp 284-5) But , although col le tion of geograph1cal
de cripuon , m~ th , mtrabtlta, and TTap6.i>o~a had been qUJte commo n in the
Penpatctic chool cv r mce An totle, 1t IS unltkely that the e ~\ork ~\ere
"ntten b) a mglc author, and there:: 1 no endence that the :\le eman ha
an)thmg to do \\lth them, lt hould perhap be recalled that' ri to les' was
qu1te a com mon name m all ant1qu1t).
 Commentary on T 3-6 55
TJ-6

Both A clepiu 'and Philoponus' commentaries on Nicomachu '

Introduction to Arithmetic have all the characteri tic of being
cour e-note , a i sugg sted by the presence of the u ual clivi-
ion into I mmata and explanation . Although the comm nta-
tor ' u ual expre ion a1ro c/>wv~> .:4/-L/-LWIILOU ('from the oice of
Ammoniu ') i lacking in the manu cript , neverthele it eem
very likely that both commentarie go back to a cour e on
Ni omachu ' Introduction to Arithmetic given by Ammonius :'
th y ar imilar in language and content, and both refer to
Ammoniu as o~/-L€u.po> StSdaKaAo> (our ma ter) .
Philoponu ' er ion i longer, much more elegant in tyle
and preci e in content, while Asclepiu exhibit frequ nt mi -
take and inaccuracie . It i difficult to ay whether the former
i a re i ed and corrected edition of the latter, or A cl piu wa
merely a wor e pupil and writer, who e note were not meant
for publication, and Philoponu had hi own et of note of
Ammoniu ' cour e on icoma hu , or had acce to a ver ion
of it different from that of A clepiu . In Philoponu there i
nothing that can be proved to come from Asclepiu and not
from Ammoniu , not lea t becau e mo t of Asclepiu ' com-
mentaries depend on Ammoniu ; ne erthele s, a regard th
manner in which the developm nt of human culture i
d cribed, cl pius ' report ha it lo e t parallel in another of
hi commentarie , that on Ari totle' Metaphysics (In Met. Io.
28-1 I . 36). There A clepiu referr d the de cription of human
cultural development to Ari totle' Meteorology,' her , ind ed,
imilar id a are xpo ed (35 I b i 3 ff.) . But the imilaritie
betw en th two text ar num rou and clo e nough f r
Philoponu ' grammati al orr ction and mathematical r ctifi-
expan ions and uppr ion , to ugg t that if h
A lepiu ' omm ntary a the ha i of hi t xt, h
' Thi was first suggested by Westerink ( 1964: 527- ). \\ ho reJected
Tannery's hypothesi ( 1888: 433-5) that sclepiu ' and Philoponu ,• common
ource was like-t1tled commentary by Pr Ius. Th1 is als refuted by Taran
(1969: 7-8), follo\\ed by G. 1ardina, Gtot•anni Filopono matemat1ro tra neo-
Pttagori mo e neoplatonismo ommentario alla lntrodu:::tone Antmettut di
1comaco di Gerasa, ( atan~a, 1999). I regret I cannot refer more extensn·el}
to th1s book, mce I was able to read 1t onl} \\hen mm was air ady m pre ·s.
s6 ommentary on T 3-6
u·ed anoth r' r.10n \ery lo et him(\ e terink 1964: 53o-2,
Tanm 1969: 1o-13) . Th1 ' i confirmed by the reference to
Amm mu. air ady mentioned, wh1 h occur pr i ely at the
-ame pomt f th text in the tv o comme ntarie (labelled S' in
A clep•u - and ~ m Phdoponu ), and b the wo rd ws c/>TJau' o
(hlo StoaaKaAo' in A clepiu ~. which, at TJ, in the Chri tian
Ph1loponu b c me w lc/>TJ o atho ~p.wv OtSciaKaAo .
In Tanin' new (1969: 13), the fact that Philoponu re i ed
either .\ clepiu -' c mmentary or anoth r ver ion clo e to it
doe not ent1tle u to the conclu ion that in a ll in tance hi
own commentary 1 the more faithful to Ammoniu . ome-
t•me Phdoponu - in ert hi own view: for in tance, he not only
reproduce Ammoniu ' critici m of icomachu , but al o
rephe to Ammoniu on the latter' behalf. In ome other
place he uppre e portion of text, uch a the interpretation
of Plato' Timaeus m which Ammoniu argue for the eternity
of the world. Therefore, a Tanin ugge ted, we hould not
alway a ume that the quotation or the paraphra e given by
Phiioponu 1 better than that given by A clepiu . Although
Philoponu con 1dered him elf the official editor of Ammoniu '
work (\\'e tennk 1964: 533), for hi actual opinion A clepiu
remam our mam ource; where Philoponu agree with him
we have a confirmation, when he deviate we mu t a ume that
thi i not Ammoniu . According to T an1 n thi hold good for
the account of Ari tocle : it i the ver ion given by Asclepius
that hould be con 1dered nearer to the original lecture of
Ammomu . Th1 \Va al oWe terink' view (1964: 527).
In T 3 A cleplU begin (i) by expounding Nicomachu '
definition of ph do ophy a c/>tA{a aoc/>{as (love of wi dom) and by
giving (i1) an etymology of aoc/>{a (wi dom) a clearnes (aac/>{a);
he goe on to ay (ui) that ince we peak in gene ral of aoc/>{a
(wi dom) and aoc/>6v (wi e), it i nece ary to under tand what i
TO aoc/>6v (what"'' e' mean ). Thi i a homon ym , si nce (iv) it
can be taken m five way , a Ari tocle too ay in the ten book
of h1 On Phzlo oplzy' (£iATJ7TTat yap KaTa 1r€vn Tpo1rous oiJs p.€AAw
Myuv, ws c/>T}atv :4ptaTOKA~s iv Tois ll£pt <PtAoaoc/>{as o€Ka
fJtfJAlots) Then he expound (v) the belief in the occurrence of
recurrent natural di a ter and in the Deucahon m yth , and pre-
ent (vi) a hi tor} of human cultural development in five tage
to hov. the different meanmg men gi e TO aoc/>6v.
 ommentar on T 3-6 57
Philoponu ' report is lightly different.The main di crepancy
con ern th homonymy of aocpta.. A clepius only affirms that
TO aocpo11 i o,_..C.:wul-'oll, meaning that it can be given different
meaning , according to Ari totle' definition of ol-'wllu,_..a. a
tho e thing which have the ame name but not the ame .\6yos-
T.ry> ouata.s- ( at. I. I). n the ame ba i Philoponu ay that
aocpta. too i ol-'wllul-'oll, since the ancients ga e it five meanings
(EtA7J7TTO.t yap Tois- 1Ta.Aa.wis-). Moreover h makes cl ar r refer-
ence to Homer, m ntion the ven age v hen peaking of
ethical knowledge, and, when de cribing the fifth tage of
development, employ a more Platonic terminology.
The main problems are: (a) hov much of thi text i to be
attributed to Aristocle ' On Philosophy; and (b): ha the portion
of text which can be o attributed anything to do with
Ari totle' work of the ame name?
A to (a), (i), (ii), (iii) , and (vi) al o appear in Ammon. In
Porph . ]sag . 9· 7-23,' where the ame Homeric ver e reported
by Asclepiu and Philoponu occur. One of the e, Horn. ll. 23 .
712 , al o appear in Clem. Al. Strom. 1. 25 , where (i) and (iii)
are al o found . In all these author the attribute aocf>6s- take the
pia e of Homer' KAUTO> (expert) and it i evident that all of
them relied on the ame tradition. 3
Additionally, (ii), (v), and (vi) app ar in another work which
ultimately goe back to Ammoniu , namely A clep . In Met . 3·
30and 10.28-12. 33·
Point (ii) also occur in Philop. In An. Post . 332. 9, where h
u the ame form aa.cpta. a A clepiu in T 3 and In Met . 3· 30,
in tead of aac/>Ha.. The two terms, which seem to ha e been
interchangeable, and for which there i no oth r evid n , were
invented for the purpo e of thi tymolog , the normal Gr ek
being aa.cp~11Ha. .
either Ammoniu in hi commentary on Porphyr ' , nor
Clement in the Stromata, nor yet A lepiu in the commentary
on the Metaphysics, nor Philoponu on th Po terior Analytics,
mention Ari tocles . In Tanin' view (1969 : 73) thi mak it
unwi to attribute to th latt r ever thing contain d in the tv o

• Including the variant gi en after p . 9· 17-1 tn od . Pan mu · Rr. 1973,

fo . 14' in' upplcmcntum Pracfationis, Ill' , p . xl Bu. se.
J It is noticeable that Eustathms doe not qu te thi variant m hts note on
11 . 2J . 712, but on 11 15 . 412.
5 ommentary on T 3-6
on ricomachu . Tan1n i rtainly right a
rtt n f text precedin th mention of Ari tocle
(t-iti) . ~ A f r (t\·-vi), h think that po ibl ' only the id a of
the five cliff r nt m aning of aoc/>6v b long to Ari tocle , and
that the onne tion of th with th different p riod of the
hi t ry of human civilization belong to Ammonius, >.: ho
deYeloped ertain pa age of Plato and Ari totle; but even if
(Y) and (,·i) were ultimately ba ed on Ari to I , certainly the
pa age 1- not a verbatim quotation.
In fact, th reference to Ari to I in (iv) an be explained
only tf he ha omething to do with what folio>.: . Although the
account of the theory of recurrent di a ter (v) i introduced in
a ,·ery abrupt and unexpe ted manner by A clepiu (le o by
Philoponu , who onnect it to what pre ed ' ith yap), that
the five meaning of To aoc/>6v corre pond to the fi ve tages of
human cultural de,·elopment de cribed in (v i) i ugge ted b
A clepiu ' relative phra e oiJs J.tEAAw MyELv (' that I am going
• That wa aL o the outcome of a long cholarl} debate. At first , most
·cholar thought that Phlloponu ' a ount wa e\ idence for ri totle ' On
Ph1losophy (fr. Ro ) by way of Ari tocle ' work of that name (Bywater t 77 :
64ff., Fe tugsere 1949 11 s 7--<)1, affre) 19ss: ff.; \\'sip rt 1957, Trabucco
19" 97-116, Berts 1962. 326-34, nter temer 1963 : 12 1 ff., Pepin 1964:
445- ). The only ds entsent \\ere Jaeger (1923 : 71 ff.), who thought that the
\\hole pa age wa toscszmg, specsficall y Po idonsan , and Bsgnone ( 1936: ii .
Sl9-25). who refuted J aeger and , on the ba i of fr. SS Ro , ugge ted that the
fir t part of Phsloponu 'te timony (ii) depended on the Protrepticus . The main
argument m upport of Phsloponu ' dependence on ri totle ' On Philo ophy
wa. that A clep. In A/et . 3· 3o-3 refers (ii) to An totle ' argument on phil-
o. oph y (o roi<; rrEpl t/><Aooao</>{as Aoyo<<;) . affrey and Trabucco al o took
A clepsu '\\Ord. at 19 33 £rrl r~<; </>tAoao</>{a<; a a reference to ri totle ' On
Plu/osophJ, ths · bemg the . ource of the . tatement (IL 33-4) that 'the phil-
o opher IO\t! that \\hsch 1 clear, which 1 \\hat \\s ·dom ss' (</>•Aoao</>o> yap (anv
o o
.p,A,.;,.. r o aar/>i<;, (an rT,v ao</>iav). But then hernsss ( 1959: 38) found a refe r-
ence to dant} m Anst A/et. 993 b11 : 'as bats' ye are affe ted by the light of
noon , o 1 the mtellect m our oul by thmg that by n ature th cleare t of all '
o
(-nj ~p.Er£pa<; Y,uxiJs voti 1rpos ra rfl </>uao </>avEpwrara 1ravrwv) . nd according
to \\'allse , the edstor of Phsloponus' commentary on n sto tle' Posterior
ilna/ytus, Phsloponu refer to the ame pa sage of n stotle at 332. 9- 10. This
make the mtermedsauon of n to le ' On Philosophy unneces ary. Indeed ,
m e A clcpsu ' and Phsloponus' ommentanes on 1 omachus paraphra e
ths etymolo~ey agam at I y 3S and I y 33 re pc tively, and attnbute it to rist.
llet a, H aa c ( 196s 323-S4) concluded that mmonsu probably m erted
mto a Pythagorean dehnstson of </>tA.oao</>{a as .p,A.:a ao</>ia<; an n totelsan
Cl) mology of ao</>ia a aa</>Eta read m to ,1/et 993 b11
 ommentary on T 3-6 59
to report'), of which ther are trac in the odd oils </>'T}at Kat
:4ptaTOKA.rys tran mitted in Philoponus. And, a air ady aid, the
difference b tween the two commentators' report do not
aa t this uppo ition, ince they can be explained a learn d
addition made by Philoponu to impro e Ammonius' or
A clepiu ' rsion.
It ma therefore be up posed that (iv)-( i) goe back to
Ari tocle . A alread aid, A clepiu peak of the different
meanings of To ao<J>6v, rather than of ao<j>{a or ao</>6s a Philo-
ponu doe . That expre ion, which oc urs twice, in T 3 and in
T 5, ha a parallel in Eur. Bacch . 395: To ao<f>ov S' ot.i ao<j>ta, Ton
1.4~ Ov'TJTa <f>povf.'iv ('what is wi e i not wi dom , and neither i
thinking thought not those of mortal '), and in other place of
the same play (I 79 , I 86), where TO ao<f>6v i oppo ed to true
ao<j>ta. If thi parallel i pertinent, by To ao<J>6v Ari tocle wi hed
to refer to all the kind of knowledge for which men are called
ao<j>ot, but which are not true ao<j>ta. Thi i al o what Philo-
ponu mean aying that ao<j>{a i Of4WVUf40V according to the
ancients' usage, and that men give ao<J>6s different meaning
although the KuptwTCh'Y) ao<j>ta deal with Ta 8f.'ia Kat imf.pK6af4La .
The oppo ition between what men call ao<J>6v or ao<f>6s and
true ao<j>ta, and the de cription of human cultural development
aiming to how the different meaning men have given the con-
cept of 'wi e', i.e. (v) and ( i), go back to Plat. Epin. 974, but
al o a pp ar in Ari t . Met. 980"2 I-982"2 I, particularly at
98Ibi3-29, where he draw a progre ion from the di covery of
the art (n 'xvat) nece ary to urvi e (7Tpos TavayKa'ia) and to liv
plea antly (7rpos l]Sov~v), to the di covery of cience (€maT.ryf4at),
the mo t important of which i wi dom (ao<j>ta), the cience of
fir t principl and cause (7Tf.pt Ta 7TpWTa aLTLa Kat TaS apxas).
A clepiu ' and Philoponu ' report how om differenc
from thi pa age (Giannantoni I9 6: 275-8). ne ha b en
particularly di cu ed b cholar u h a Wilp rt (I957),
namel y the definition of ao<j>ta a th olog , a kno,. I dge of
rla ting and unchang abl obj t , rath r than a kno\ ledge
of fir t eau e and principl . B rti (I962: 327-8), ho\! ev r, ha
hown that thi i not a ubstantial cliff renc , in in both
ea e ao<j>ta i the know! dg of what come fir t, in th former
a ording to the mat rial obj t, in th latter a cording to th
formal on . And in Metaphysics 11 and M ao<j>{a app ar to be
6o ommentary on T 3-6
pr 1 I~ the ience of everla ting and un hang able ub-
'tan e. It may al o be, a nter tein r (1963: 13o-1) sugge t,
that the f urth and fifth tage of Ari to le ' r port oppo e
pre-Piat ni to Platoni philo ophy, for th phra e f.7T' auTa Ta
awf-LaTa mu t r f r to th pre-Piatoni philo opher of nature
Ari totle deal with in fet. 9 3b6ff.
:\lore relevant i th ab en e, in the Metaphysic , of
Ari tocle ' referen e to the theory of recurrent natural disa ter
(\·), wh1ch appear in a text of lamblichu (De cornm. math. sci-
entia 26, p. 3· 6-22 Fe ta) a igned to Ari totle' Protrepticus
by Ro e (fr. 52) and Ro (fr. s) but to On Philosophy by
During ( 1961: 227- ),5 together with a de cription of the history
of human cultural development (vi): 'Becau e of de tructions
and catacly m men had to think about urvi al (cpt>..oaocf>fiv
7Tfpt T~v Tpocf>~v Kai To '~v), they turned to fine arts (1rpo
~8ov1]v), uch a mu ic, and finally men began to philo ophize
(f.1TfXftp7Jaav cptAoaoc/>fiv). ' 6 For thi rea on it i po ible that for
the hi tory of human cultural development Ari tocle relied not
o much on the fir t book of the Metaphysics a on the earlier
work of Ari totle from which the fir t book of the Metaphysics
al o derive , namely On Philosophy. Thi h pothe i i up-
ported not only by the fact that Ari tocle ' own work has the
ame title, but al o by the oth r trace of Ari totle' On
Plzilo ophy that appear in Ari tocle F . 7, a hown in the
Commentary on that pa age.
The po ible parallel between Ari totle' and Aristocle '
homonymou work have already been di cu ed in the
IntroductiOn; on the ba i of the e and of the analy i of
A clepiu ' and Philoponu ' report it eem po ible to an wer
the que tion po ed at the beginning of thi ection by tating
that what follow the mention of Ari tocle ma be attributed
to him, although not verbatim (que tion a), and that he ma
have dem·ed it from Ari totle' On Philo ophy (que tion b).

• It i ommed b) hrou t (1964), but re tored a a fragment of Ari totle's

Prolrt!ptuus b} (Jtgon ( •9 7 313-1 4)
6
The ame idea a! o oc ur tn 1Heteorology 351 b 13, where too the myth of
Deucalton • mentioned (352'32). That human cultural devel pment began
after a atacly m had already been et out by Plat. Leg. 677-8, and parttall)
Epm . 974, Tlm 22 Lff, rnt 109 Dff The dtffcrent de nptions of human
cultural development have been ext n ively tudted by Cole ( 1967).
 Commentary on F I

FI

Ari tocl s' chapter on Plato is a ynoptic introdu tion to the

latter' thought; he mu t have said omething more about him
el ewhere in On Philosophy.
A m ntioned in the Introduction, the main idea of thi pa -
age, nam ly that Plato wa the fir t who made a genuine and
complete y tern of philosophy out of the previou speculation ,
goe back to Antiochus and the Middle Platonists. But it i
de eloped by Ari tocle through a brief, critical review of pre-
Platonic philo ophy which in many re pect depends on
Ari totle' Metaphysics (para . I-5), and through a de cription of
how Plato onnected the three parts of philosophy in an unique
ystem which, according to .E. M 7· zo-1, may have been put
forward by ome Ari totelian (para. 6). Ari tocle al o eem
to quote directly from Plato 's Phaedrus and Laws (para 7).

1. The idea that it wa Plato who fir t made a genuine and

complete y tern of philo ophy out of previou peculation
goe back to Antiochus in Cic. Luc. I 5 ('reliquit perfecti imam
di ciplinam'). It i al o shared by th Middle Platoni t Atticu
(fr. I De Place ) in Eu . PE I I. 2 (7rpwTo> KO.L iJ-clALaTa auv-
a.yEtpa.>) and Apul. De Plat. r. 3 ('perfecta atque etiam admira-
bil fecit'), and later echoed by D.L. 3· 56 (~TEAmwupy7JaE T~v
cfn>.oaoc/>ta.v) and Aug. De civ. Dei 8. 4 ('philo ophiam perfeci e
laudatur'). However, it i developed in different way by the e
author , who do not eem to rely directly on Antiochu (Dillon
1977 : 338), nor on one ingle common ource (Goran on I995:
chs. 6-8). In particular, Apuleiu and Augu tine r f r to Plato'
own philo ophical formation, a doe Ari totle in Met. 986"29-
987b5, and picture hi doctrine a the outcom either of
Pythagora ' phy ic , ocrates' ethic , and Parmenide ' dialectic
(Apuleiu ),' or of Socrate ' practical and of Pythagora ' theo-
reti al philo ophies (Augustine). n the other hand, Atticu
and Ari tocl refer to th general development of philo ophy,
a doe Ari totle throughout Metaphysics A, and on ider Plato
to be the man who unified it three branche ! The also differ
' Thtl:i i al o m nonymu Pyth . m Phot. Bib/. 439•.
• Tht · 1 also m Htppol. Rej 1 . 19. 23
 omm ntar: on F 1
one fr m the other, how ver; fir t, be au Ari to le , like Dio-
gene La rttu , prai · e Plato for havin ompleted philo ophy
(YJ'TJ<Itw· Kat u.A£tw €cptAoa6cp'T}a£), not for having p rfe ted
tt and ex ttat d all the an w r , a th abo e-mentioned
:\Iiddle Plat nit did (J. Barne 1993 : 129-30); econdly,
becau he name different r pre ntative of pr -Platoni
philo ophy and add ome cnttct m of it that depend on
Ari to tie' }\[etaplzy ic .
Fir t he refer to the three hool of philo oph -Ionian,
Italian, and Eleati -whi h were dealt with by Ari totle in Met.
9 3b6--<J 7b4 . Then he briefly expound and nttctze pre-
ocratic peculation for being confined to one or another part
of phtlo ophy in word that echo the Metaplzy ics. Ari tocle
tate that Thale and the Iile ian (oi J.'EII a7To BaA£w) de oted
their philo ophi al activity to the tudy of nature (cpuaw-
AoyouiiT£ Ot£TEA£aa11); at 983b2o Ari totle ay that Thale wa
the founder (dpxTJY6 ) of the tudy of the material eau e. The
Pythagorean are aid by Ari to le to have concealed every-
thin (€7T£Kpvi/Ja11To 7Tct11Ta), a remark' hich may refer not only to
Pythagora ' impo ition of ilence on hi follower , but to what
Ari totle ay at 9 6bs, namely that the Pythagorean were not
clear (aacpw ou St~pBpwTaL 7Tap ' €Kd11w11) on the relation between
entitte and their principle . Ari tocle ' reference to Xeno-
phane and hi follower (5£Vocpa11TJ Kat oi a7T' EK£tllou) implie
the idea that Xenophane wa the founder of the Eleatic school,
'' htch he hare " ith Ari to tie at 986b2 I (2 I A 30 D K):
' Parmenide 1 aid to be hi [Xenophane ') pupil (!-'a8TJT~<;)' .3
Ari tocle ' crittci m of Xenophane and the Eleatic , namely
that they en aged 10 contentiou di cu ion , eau ed confu ion
10 philo ophy, and ga,·e no help (€ptaTtKou<; Ktll~<1a11u.<; A6you<;
\ ' J.'£11
1TOI\UII ' £11£
• ',8 al\011
\ •\ • 'f'LI\0<10'/'0L
LI\LYYOII TOL<; A. \ 'A. , OU, J.'TJII
' £1T0pt<1all
, ' ' y£' TLIIa

f3o~Bua11) may echo Ari totle' remark at 9 6h23 ff. that

Xenophane dtd not make clear the different nature of the
formal and the mat rial eau e (ouS€11 St£aacp~11t<I£11). In Phys.
I 6•6 ff. Ari totle a) o criticize Parm nide and Meli u
for argu10g ophi ttcally (€pt<ITLKW<; auAAoy{'oiiTaL, Kat 1/JwS~

' Th1 vi~\~ ongmatc m Plat. oph 242 C-D and \ as preserved through
Theophra tu (frr 224 227 D) for the author of the d1adocha• and most dox-
ographcr It \~Ill be exammcd m the Commcntaq. on F 7·
 ommentary on F 1

Aa!-Lf3avovaL Kat aavAA6yta-ro{ f:LOLV oi A6yot).4 It i a) 0 worth

recalling a pas age r parted by .E . M 10 . 45 and attributed to
Ari totle' On Philosophy (fr. 9 Ro s), a erting that the latter
alled Parmenides' and Meli su ' follower 'rebel f r re t and
antinaturalists' (a-raOLW7"a!; 5 Kat a4>va{KOV>); rebel for re t
b eau e they denied the exi tence of movement, antinaturali ts
becau e, nature being the fir t principl of motion , they aboli h
it by declaring that nothing move .

2. Trace of the Metaphysics are particularly ident m

Aristocle ' report on ocrates, which echoes 987b1-4:
On the other hand ocrates dea lt with thic (-rd ~6tKa), and not with
the whole of nature (7rEp1 8£ rfis o>..71s cpvaEws o~6£v), but in this fi eld he
looked for univ rsal {ro Ka66>..ou ~71-rouvro ), being the first ho turned
his attention tO definition (7rEpt opLOJ-LWII £mar~aavro 7TpWTOU T~ll
8tavotav).

Other imilar de cription of Socrate ' activity are given at

Met. I078h17-33 , 1086"3 7-b7. Like Aristotle, Ari tocles does
not ay that the theor of ideas i Socrate ', but only that the
latter gave a tart to it through his ear h for definition .6
Ari tocle ' remark, that ocrate 'added fuel to the flame '
(£ylv£-ro 7Tup f7Tt 7Tvpt), is only apparently a critici m , for it im-
ply means that in hi iew ocrate enriched philosophy with
new ubject of discus ion. And it is softened by the conclusion
that Socrate died while inquiring about all ubject , which
ugge t that in Ari tocle ' view ocrate might ha e perfected
philo ophy, but was kill d while he wa till doing the prepara-
tory work. The word 'a Plato ay ' (au-ro> €4>TJ flAa-rwv) may
merely refer to the pro rb 'to add fu I to th flame', which
appear , for example, in Leg. 666 ; but the ma al o refer to
the aporetic onclu ion of Plato' ocratic dialogue . The
mention of Plato al o explain Ari to le ' tatement that
• imilar charges again t the Eleatics are put forward b y Timon fr. 819 H,
Plut. Pericl. 4, Ps. -Piut. in Eu . PE 1. 8. 6, en. Epist . 88. 44·
' By thi expre s ion ristotl may refer to Plat. Theat!t. 181 , where, by a
play on the meanings of oTao< ('rest' and 'sedition '), the Elcatic, are alled .,.oti
o-\ou O'TaOLCU'TaL ('partisanS Of the \ hole') .
6
o too lex. In Met. 49 · 23-50. 16, 740. 2<)-JJ, 786. 15-33, followed by
lep . Inl'vlet . 45 · 16-46. 8, ynan. In Met . 104. 15-105 . 12; contra, Olymp .
In Phaed. 29. 7-9· On this question sec csp. Robin ( 1916: 149 ff.} , Deman
(1942 : 7o- 2), lastos (1991: 47-9, 91-8}, arcy (1997: 83-95) .
 omm ntary on F 1

rate dealt with poltttc , be id thi , whi h i not in

Ari totle; for tn many of Plato' dialogu the ood enquir d
after by o rat t th good of the ity (1r6,\, ). It i noticeable
that both the picture of an aporeti o rat and the attribution
to htm of poltti al enquire al o o cur in Antio hu according
to ic . •-lead. 1. r 5-16, \ h re the a ertion that ' aerate wa
the fir t who ummon d philo oph away from the my terie
Yeil d tn on ealment by nature h r elf, upon which all
pht!o oph r b for him had been engaged' i made to appear
un ontroYer, tal, tther becau eat that date it wa , or by )eight
of hand .;

3· An tocle ' referen e to the pre-Platoni peciali t i ery

general. . TeYerthele he i pre umabl thinking of Hippocrate
for medi ine; of Th odoru for geometr and arithmetic;
perhap of :\Ieton for a tronomy; of Protagora for the tudy
of poetry (according to Plat. Prot . 338 E-342 ); of Damon,
Agatho le , Lamprocle , and Dracon for mu icology; of
Gor ia and the ophi t for rhetoric and dialectic.
n the other hand, the ubdivi ion of the ience which
tudie 'the power of language' (nov ,\6ywv Suvaftt:.t!>) into the
two ategorie of rhetoric and diale tic i Ari totelian (Rhet.
1356•25 and I359hii-r2), although it v a al o adopted by the
toic (SVF i. 75, ii . 48, 294).

4-5. Quite general too are the reference to the followers of

ocrate . The contra t between them i a doxographical com-
monplace (Giannantoni 1983-5 : i. 4-14), and o too i the
oppo it10n of ymc freedom from arrogance (aTucjJ{a) and pas-
IOn (a1ra8na) on the one hand to, pre umabl , yrenaic hedo-
m m (~Sova ) on the other. ince the urly (a1rpoatTot Kat
a1TpoaauS'T/TOt) and the jovial (€v fi.EG4J Kat EV oym 1TclVTWV
EKMtvSouvTo Kat Toi 7ToUoi's €~ofttAouvus) men of par. 5 are al o
the Cynic and the yrenaic re pectively, the I common
contra t betwe n tho e who boa t of knowing all things (oi fLEV
dSivat 11avTa EKOf1.1Ta~ov) and tho e who boa t of knowing noth -
tng at all (o[ S€ adw 1-1.718€v) may be explained a a reference to
the yrenat dt dam of knowledge al o mentioned by Ari totle
nttochu d1fferent VJC\\ of ocrates are no~ explained by Glucker
( •997) .
 ommentary on F I 6s
at Met. 996"32 and Io78"3 1, to which Ari tocle again allude m
Fs. 6, and to Anti thene 'confiden e that the wi man 1 elf-
ufficient (D.L. 6. 11 = F7o Decle a aizzi) .8

6. After criticizing pre-Piatonic philo ophers for dealing with

ingle parts of philo phy only, Ari tocles explain how Plato
connected phy ical, thical , and logical inquirie in one sing)
ystem . The toic definition of uo4>{a ('wi dom ') a 8Etwv u Kat
dv8pwTTtvwv €muT~J.I-TJ ('knowledge of thing divine and human ')9
wa al o hared by non- toic author uch a Alcin. Didasc. I,
Max. Tyr. 26. 28, Philo, ongr. 79, lem . Al. Paed. 2. 25. 3,
rig. Contra Celsum 3· 72, Ammon. In Porph . 3· 2. In fact, a
good deal of toic terminology had be ome part of common
philo ophicallanguage (Whittaker 1987: 8I-I23), and doe not
nece sarily uggest a toic allegiance, uch a Trabu eo ( I95 :
13 I) uspect .
The attribution to Plato of the tripartition of philo ophy can
al o be traced ba k to Antiochus, according to Cic. Acad. I. I9 :
There h a b een inherited from Plato a tripartite schem e of phil-
o oph ; one part dealing with onduct and moral , anoth r with
nature and hidd n thing , and the third with argum nt and judg -
ments on what is tru , " hat i fal e, what i correct in peech , what
i con i t nt and what i not.

In thi ea e too Antiochu i follow d by the Middle Platoni t

Alcin. Didasc. 3, Apul. De Plat. I . 3, and Atti u fr. I De
Place ,' 0 although according to .E. M 7 · 16 Plato i onl virtu-
ally (SuvaJJ-Et) the founder (dpxTJy6s-) of thi tripartition, which,
e ·pressis verbis, come from Xenocrate .
However, the order of the di cipline assigned to Plato b
Antio hu , AI inou , and Atti u began with ethic , whil
Ari tocle put phy ic first. At M 7 · 2o-I extu contra t ,
without naming them, tho e who recomm nd tarting from
8
It is unlikely that b these words Aristocles refers to Plato and nstotle
on the one hand and to the c demi son the other, like Cic. De orat. 3· 61-2,
for the folio\ mg words ugge t that the whole pas age deal x lustvel \\tth
the contrast between yrenatc and Cynic .
• Posidonius in en. Epist. 104 (T 8t Edelstem-1 tdd) , etiu tn Ps .- Piut.
1 . pr. 2 (Otel 1 79 : 273), ' t . De off. 2. 2. 5,, en. Ep. 89 .E. !9 . 13 .
nd by ug. De cit•. Dei 8. 4, D .L . 3· 56, Hippol. Ref. 1. t8 . s. 1. 19. 23
lar o i h .
 66 ommentary on F 1
tht , a th ' ho opt for
ph) 1 tudy the " hole
before the part . carding to Boyance ( 1971 : 127), the former
refer to AntJO hu 'ord r , the latter to Phi! ' . At M 7. 16, how-
ever, extu introdu th toic and the Aristot lian view on
th que tion, and at§§ 17-19 report the toic di u si on on the
order of the part f philo ophy; it i therefor plau ible that at
§§ 2o-1 he doe the ame for the Ari tot lian . Thi i up-
parted by the di u ion that took pia e among the Ari to-
telian Androni u , Boethu , and A pa iu on th ordering of
the part of philo ophy. And it i notic able that the argument
11

Ari tocle adduce in th next paragraph in upport of a tart

from phy ic , name! · that it i better to tudy TCt (lf:ia ('divine
thing ') before TCt d.v8pclnma (human thing ), echoe that
reported by extu preci el in §2o, although he employs Stoic-
influenced term and replace TCl (lf:ia with TCt o-\a ('all things').

1· Thi ar ument come from Leg. 63 1 B: 'There are two kind

of good (Sl7TAa d.ya8a), human and divine, and the former
depend on the latter';" it i al o quoted by Ariu in tob. 2. 7.
4• (ii . 12) and by Alcin. Didasc . 17 . 3 The compari on with
1

medicine i very ommon in Plato, and occur in Phaedr. 270

B-e, where aerate al o a k : 'Do you think that it i pos ib le
to know the nature of the oul without knowing that of the
whole (T17> TOU oAou c/>uaew>)?'
Both the Laws and the Phaedrus " ere well known in
Ari tocle ' time (Trapp 1990), and he may have quoted from
them directly. Thi i upported b the fact that none of the
• liddle Platoni t quote that pa age from the Phaedrus.
Ari toe le ' identification of divine thing (Ta 8eia) with
phy ic , and of human thing (Ta d.v8pC:nma) with ethics, which
ugge ted by the juxtapo ition of the two Platonic quota-
ee lntroductaon, n. 27 .
,. Trabu o eem to be nght de pate Boyancc ( 1963) when she say that
the compan on wath Alctb I 133 i not pertm nt, although in Clement's
vaew the dactum yvw8t U£aVTov, dascussed an the daalogue, means that 'it is not
po 1ble to kno\1. the part wathout knowmg the whole and therefore it is
nece aT) to invc tagate the ongm of un1ver~e, after wha h at wall be po ible to
kno" the natur of men' (Strom. 1 6o).
On the relation hap between nu and lean u ee Don m a ( 1988) and
oran on(1995:ch 9).
 ommentary on F I
tion , ha b en con idered a toicizing identification of phy ic
with theology (Trabu eo I 958 :I 3 I); but Plato and Ari totle too
identified eo mology and theology, and the Peripatetic
A pa ius, who is quite careful in keeping hi di tance from
toici m (Donini I974: 98-I25, Gott chalk I987: II56ff.,
B cchi I994: 536sff.), al o define physics as knowledge of Ta
(hta (In NE I. I) .
Not even references to knowledge of ' the nature of all thing '
(~ cJ>uatc; T(.OII oAwv) and ' the good of the whole' (TCl ayaOov TOU
7TavToc;), nor the tatement that 'man i part of being' (1-dpoc; n
t:Tvat TCov ovTwv Tov O.v8pw7Tov), indicate a toic allegiance:
although they occur in M. Ant. Med . 2. 4, 9, they can be con-
idered part of the common philo ophical language of
Aristocle ' time. In fact the former already appeared in
Phaedrus loc. cit., and al o occurs in Philo, De opif. 8, Clem.
Alex. Strom. 2. 2I, and .E . M 7· 93, while the latter i echoed
by Alcin. Didasc. 27, Apul. De Plat . 2. I, and Anonymu
Pythagoricu in Phot. 440•3 3. Moreover, Ari tocle doe not
distinguish between Ta o,\a ('all things') and TO miv ('the whole')
a the Stoic did (SVF ii. 522, 524), but uses the two expre -
ion indifferently.

8. ocrate ' meeting with the Magi (Ari toxenu fr. 53 Wehrli)
i al o mentioned by P .-Piat. Axiochus 37I A and by P .-Ari t.
in D .L. 2. 45 (fr. 32 Rose), but does not eem to be hi torically
true. The word 'whether thi is true, no one can ay for ure'
(TOUTO fL€11 £i d,\T)(Nc; €anv, OUK av OuvatTO nc; OtaTHIIOfL€110) fi7Tt:iv)
prove that Ari tocle wa aware of thi , and that he v a a good
hi torian, for he does not he itate to admit that he i uncertain
of the reliability of the tory.

9· Ari tocl ' concluding reference to Plato' tripartition of

philo ophy i con i tent with para . 6. The ub umption of
ethic under politic depend on tho e dialogu in which the
good i the good of th city (7TOAtc;) . n the other hand, although
the term ,\oytK~ (logic) doe not occur in Plato, it pre ence can
be explained by the fact that in Ari tocle ' time thi had
become the tandard t rm for the ci nee of language (Dorrie et
a[ . I987-<)5: i . 206-7 n. 5).
 6 mmentary on F 2

Fz

Like Ari ' t urnnng hapt r on Plato, thi hapter on

An totle mu t hav b en an introdu tion, in it doe not deal
With An totle' phdo ophi al tenet , but aim at d ef nding him
from the a u atJ n lev ll d again t him. Ari to le di id
them into m re alumni (para . I - ) and more plau ible
Imputation (para. I 2) . Th former he di mi e a not worth
eriou reply bee u e it i manife t that the ca nnot be given
any credit (para . 9-11), and indeed modern cholar have
hown thetr hi torical untruthfu lne (Mu lvan 1926; Wormell
1935; Di.inng 1957; igon 195 ); whi le to the latte r , namely
mgratitude to Plato and flattery of H e rmia through the mar-
nage with Pythia , which, apparent) , are more plau ible, and
ha,·e la ted longer, h replie carefu ll and through direct evi-
dence, u h a Apellicon' book (para . I 3- 14). P a rt of hi
defence, pre umably Ari totle' Elegy on Plato, ha been
dropped by Eu ebiu , however.
Although all the calumnie reported by Ari to le were actu-
ally put forward again t Ari totle (During I 957: 384-<;3, Plezia
I962: 74-5), mo t cholar doubt,. hether he produced primary
material or con ulted all the author he quote (Ja oby at FGrH
32 F 223 omm. n. I = IIIB upp ., ote , p. 482; Trabu eo
I95 : 140, igon 195 : 193, Moraux 1984: 146-7) . It is well
known that Hermippu , Philochorus, a nd Apollodorus dealt
With a great part of the unfavourable tradition on Ari to tie , and
Ari tocle eem to have followed Hermippu a a g uide; never-
thele he doe not eem to depend totally upon one ingle
ource, but to have con ulted the original author when he
thought th1 wa worth doing, for examp l in the ea e of
An toxenu at para. 3 and of Epicuru ' lette r at para . I .
Ari tocle tne to be a good hi torian even w hen he report
mdirectly, alway mentioning the author of the ca lumnie and
the title of the book wher the denigration we re put forward,
a If he WI hed to prove that he i n ot d ea ling with fanta ie .

I. The fir t denigration of Ari totle reported by Ari tocle i

from Epicuru ' Letter on Occupations, and al o app ar in Ath.
· 354 B (fr. I7I en r) :
 Commentary on F 2

I kn0\'1< that Epicurus, the ardent lover f truth, m his Letter on

Occupations (£v Tfl ll£pi £mrfJOwp.aTwv £maToAfl) ha said of him that
aft r h had quandered hi inheritance he en li ted a a (m rcenary)
soJdi r (KO.To.tjlo.ywv 'T(l 7TO.'Tpcjlo. £7TL aTpo.Tdo.v wpp.TJa£), but, being un U -
e ful in thi , he was r duced to selling medicine {£v 'TO.U'TT/ KO.KW>
7rpaTTWV £7Ti To tjlo.pp.o.Ko7TwA£fv 1)>.8£v). Then, after Pl ato' s hool wa
opened t all (civo.TT£7TTo.p.lvou Toii ll>.aTwvo<; 7T£pt7TaTou miat), he attend-
ed the lectur , being not without talent (€o.uTov 7rpoa£Ka8ta£ Tof<; >.6yo•
ovK wv citj,u~>), and gradua lly ass umed th e contemplati habit {Ko.'T(i
p.tKpov £L<; T~v 8£wpoup.IV7Jv ~~'" 1)>.8£v). I kn ow that Epi urus i the only
one that ha aid the e thing agai n t him, and n ither Eubu lid s nor
ephi odoru dared ay anything like thi against the tagirit ,
although both have written again t the man.

imilar report al o occur in Ael. Var. Hist. 5· 9

Having di ipated his father' sub tanc , ristotle enli ted a a sold i r
("Apta'TO'TIATJ &.awnuaap.£110 'Tcl £K 'TOV 7TO.'Tpo<; XP~fLO.'TO. wpp.TJUCV £7Ti
aTpo.n[o.v), but b ing unsucc ful in thi , h merged a a pharmaci t
(a7To.AAa'T'TWV KO.KW) £v 'TOU'TC!J tjlo.pp.O.K07TWATJ av£tjlav7J). Then he in inu-
ated him elf into choo l (llo.pHapv£i o£ £t<; Tov 7r£p[7To.Tov) and attended
the lecture , b ing m or tal nt d than many (Ko.i 7TO.po.Kovwv Twv >.6ywv,
ap.£[vwv 7T£tPUKW<; 7ToAAwv); th en he acquired th habit which he later
di played (£[To. ~~tv 7T€pt£{3aA£'TO ~~~ fL£'Tcl 'TO.V'TO. £KT~ao.To) .

And in D .L. 10 . 8:
[Epicurus ca ll ] ri tot! a pro fligate, (who), afte r di sipating h i
father's patrimony, entered the arm and began to ell m di ine
( KO.'TO.tjlayov'TO. 'T~V 7TO.'Tpcf>o.v ova[o.v a'TpO.T£U£a8o.t KO.L tjlo.pp.O.K07TWA£fv) .

In comp ari on with Ath naeus' report, tho e of Ari tocl

Aelian, and Diogene ar much horter; neve rtheles th
terminological parallel bet\ een Athenaeu and Ari to le
ge t that the e two author may ultimate! dep nd on the am
ource. That thi wa Epicuru i a umed by edl (1976:
I 19-59), who ha hown that originally Epi uru ' lett r On
Occupations wa not d nigratory at all, but" as per i d a su h
thank to th malevolent interpretation of Timocrate . Thi is
upported by Athena u ' and A lian' report that Epi uru
acknowled ed Ari totle's talent for philo oph , althou h th y d
not e m to have relied on the ame sourc :A lian' te timony i
not o lit ral and compreh n i ea Athenaeu 'and diffi r
ing that Ari tot! wa not entitled to li ten to Plato' I ture ;
 ommentary on F 2

that i the tmph atton of rrapnapud and rrapaKouwv. Ari tocle

and Diog n d not reprodu Epicuru ' appreciation of
An totle' philo ophi al kill : eith r the ' r alized the incon i -
t ncy, or they relied on a later ource. Th latter hypothe i
eem to b b tter grounded in the a of Diogene , who e
report i not much more than a hort reference in a broader dis-
cu ion about Epicuru ' ho tility toward all philo opher , while
the former eem to be the right one in the a of Ari tocle ,
tn e for the remamder hi text i very clo e to Athenaeus' .
Thi i al o u e ted by the fact that a imilar li t of detrac-
tor i gtven by Themi tiu , who in Orat . 23. 285 refer to
epht odoru , Eubulide , Timaeu , and Demochares a
the 'army fi hting again t Ari totle' (KTJr/>taoowpouc; o€ Kat
Eu{JouAtoa Kat TtfLaLOU (Kat) LlTJfLOXclPH I Kat G7pa-rov oAov TWJJ
im8€fL/vwv :4pta-ro-r/An -rep ETaynpt-rn), but doe not mention
Epicuru . And it i ,. orth noticing that Philodemu , Rhet. ii. 57
udhau (liii 7-7 I) , \Vho tran cri be an Epicurean source
(During 1957: 3 s), refer to Ari totle' philo ophical genius,
although he lament that he abandoned hi proper ubject (rrwc;
~I > > 8 > > I.J. I - ~ I >(. f" ) I~
o ouxt au!J.aG!J.OII fVf'f'Uaf !J.fyav TTJ<; ouva!J.fW<;, fs ou Tf arrf7TTJoa
T~<; oiKfLa rrpayfLau{ac;;).
In Gott chalk' opinion (1987: 1163 n. 395), the expression
Tou flAaTwvoc; rrfpma-rou tell again t Moraux' dating of
Ari tocle early in the fir t century AD. To be ure it was used to
refer to eoplatonic commentators (Porph. !sag. I. I4-16,
Ammon.ln Porph . lsag. 46.4-21 Philop. In Cat. 3·4-'7, David,
In Porplz. lsag. 121.4-18); but the occurren e of the term
rrfplrra-roc; with the general meaning of ' chool' in Athenaeu ,
Aelian, and Ari tocle ugge t that it wa already in their
ource, and thi i upported by it occurrence, with the ame
meaning of' chool', in Philodemu, Acad.lnd. Here . V 1 I, I
40, VII 9 Dorandi, which, according to During (I9ST 404)
denve 'from old Epicurean ource '.

2. The econd of the detractor of Ari totle mentioned by

Ari tocle , namely Ttmaeu , is al o referred to by Athenaeus at
. 342 . According to Athenaeu , Timaeu aid that Ari totle
''a a gourmand (ot/Jor/>ayoc;), while, according to Ari tocle , he
Ll,Ka~<ipxol/5 odd ., em. Luzac (18o9 · 123 n 25) . In Durmg's ~iew (1957:
3 o) the error may be due to Themtsttus htm. elf
 ommentary on F 2

aid that Ari totle op ned a surg ry of no reputation (Bupas

ia-rp€{ou Kat -ras -ruxouaas ot/J€ 'T~S ~AtK{as KA€i'aat). Both calum-
nies are attributed to Timaeu (FGrH 566 F 156) by Pol ybiu
I 2. 8 and may have an Epicurean origin (Walbank I 957-79 : ii.
343); in any ea e Aristocle and Athenaeus may have ho en
from the ame source two different items of go sip.
Whether thi ource i Timaeu i difficult to ay. He i al o
mentioned a one of Aristotle's detractor by Th mistiu , loc .
cit., together with Eubulide , Cephi odoru , and Demochare ,
all of whom appear in this chapter; Ari tocles and Themi tius
may therefore have relied on the same source. ince the same
author , apart from Demochare , are al o listed by Athenaeu
at 8. 354 B, and Athenaeu often mention Hermippu ' work
On Aristotle (During 1957: 276), it eems reasonable to uppo e
that thi was the three author ' common source.

3· The accu ation that Aristotle e tabli hed hi Peripato 2

against Plato was al o dealt with by Hermippu , according to
D .L. 5· 2, who, however, makes him tate that Ari totle opened
hi own chool when he came back from his emba y at the
court of Philip and found that Xenocrates had become head of
the Academy. Ari tocle ' way of dealing ith the a u ation of
ingratitude (dxapw-r{a) toward Plato i different:3 he doe not
adduce a defence of Ari totle, but a ert that Ari toxenus told
this tory not of him, but of some tranger . Although it i not
clear who the e stranger are, 4 Ari tocle ' defence eem to be
well grounded, for Aeliu Aristide , who report the ame tor
in Orat . 46 (249. 15 ]ebb = 324 D) , did not blam Ari tot!
ither.
Whether Ari tocle and Aristide relied on Ari toxenu
directly i diffi ult to ay, a it i difficult to ay who are the €11wt
who tran ferred Ari toxenu ' tor to Ari totl . A for Ari t-
ide , he d rived his ver ion of Plato' di omfitur at yracu e
from Fa orinu ' IlaJJ-ro8a7Tat [a-rop{a, (fr. 33 M n hing = 65
Barigazzi), for which rea on Behr ( 1968: 1 95) u p t that thi
• In this ea e the term ll£ptrro.To> ha it technt al meaning.
lso from Phtlo horus' and pollodorus' defences , wht h are based on
chronologi al arguments (During 1957: 256-7).
• During (1957: 3 7) and tgon (1958 : 152), follo~ing Zeller and
Wilamowitz, conJC tured of 1-leraclides of Pontu ·, who, during Plato's third
journey to i ily, wa head of the eadem).
72 mmentary on F 2
may be the e of hi r port f ri toxenu too. If o, Behr
ontmue , may al o ha,·e mentioned or criticized
tho'e wh m1 under tood Ari toxenu ' t ry, who '> ere early
A adem1 in rote' ,·iew (I 3: 29-3 I), and Eumelus accord-
mg to Behr (I96 : 195). A for Aristocle , it i unlikely that he
relied on Fav rinu , who, a ording to Barigazzi (I 966: I o-12) ,
wa born about o and di d about I 6o, but li ed into the mid
160 according t Holford- trev n (1997: I91). But the t\ o
author may ha,·e har d the ame our e , and, ind ed, Aristo-
le ' cla1m that he know the real meaning of Ari toxenu ' tory
u ge t that he, or hi ource, could con ult the original.

4-'7· The lander that Ari to le attribute to Eubulides,

Alexinu , Demochare , and ephi odoru are not attributed to
the e auth r by other ource . However, thank to Didymu '
ommentary on Demo thenes \\'e know that Hermippu i to be
con 1dered the chief ource for the epi ode dealing with
Herm1a , with Ari totle' relation hip ' ith the Ma edonian ,
and w1th the charge that he wa ungrateful to hi ma ter
(During 1 95T 272 ff.).
Eubulide ' and Alexinu ' polemic again t Ari totle mu t
ha,·e been treated by Hermippu , who i the ource of Diogene
Laertiu 'de cription of their polemical attitude at 2. I09-IO:
Eubultde argued again t ri totle and aid many thing to di credit
h1m ... Alexinu of Eli , a man very fond of controver y . .. argued
agam t Zeno. Herm1ppu ay that he left Eli and mov d to lympia,
"'her he tud1ed ph!lo ophy.s
Th1 1 upported by Themi tiu , loc. cit., ' ho seem to
depend on Hermippu .
In the ame pa age of Themi tiu mention i al o made of
Demochare ' and ephi odoru ' attack . Demochare i well
known from Athenaeu (I I. 508 B, 13. 6Io F) for having poken
evli of \'anou philo opher , and ephi odoru 1 included
among t An totle' detractor at 8. 354 B. Thi upport the
hypothe i that the ource of Ari to le for thi referen e wa
Herm1ppu , mce it ha already been argued that thenaeu
kne" Hermippu ' work On Aristotle. From Ath. 8. 342 · we
al o learn that Herm1ppu wrote On the Disciples of I socrates.6
s AI o m the uda ~ pop.{JooTwp.v)..TJ()pa
• cph1 odoru ""'a md ed one of I ocratc ' pup1l , and h1 more senou
 ommentary on F 2 73
8. Ly on's a u ation,7 that Ari totle sacrificed to his wife as to
Dem ter, i a! o reported by P .-Ari tippus' On the Lu ury of
the Ancients (D.L. 5· 4) , although, as Moraux (I955: I39)
ob er es, the two report differ: according to Lycon in
Ari tocle the ritual occurred when Ari totle' wife died, while
for P .-Ari tippus it o curred when Ari totle and hi wife got
married. n the other hand, the other two pi ce of informa-
tion from L con reported by Ari tocle , namely the tory of
Ari totle' bathing in a bath of warm oil and elling it, and
the go sip concerning the di hes, are attributed to the ame
per on by D . L . 5· I6. During (I95T 464) ugge ts that, in e
Hermippu i probably Diogenes' ource at 5. I 6, Hermippus
may a! o be Ari tocles' source for the whole report from Lycon.

9-11. So far, a Jacoby put it (FGrH 328 F 223 Comm. n . I),

Ari tocl s ha 'tried to di credit the lander by howing up the
natur of it author in tead of a tually di proving it'. But in
doing thi he implicitly how what are hi criteria of hi torio-
graphical truth, namely the reliability of the ources and their
mutual accordance, the opportunity of checking unfriendly
reports again t friendly one , and the belief that fa! ehood do
not ur ive for a long time.

12-14. However, the more seriou accusation , that Ari totle

married Pythia to flatter Hermias and that he wa ungrateful
to Plato, are treated more carefully by Ari tocle . Both issu
wer a! o dealt with by Hermippu (During I957: 466); in
particular, Theocritus' epigram ' a quoted b Didymu , In
Demosth . omm. 6. 43-9 and by D.L. 5· I I, and in horten d
form it a! o occurs in Plut. De exilio 603 , from Bry on' On
Theocritus, by way of H rmippus (During I957: 275).
n the other hand, for Apellicon' books we have no other
vid ne , and the word 'any one aft r r ading hi book v ill
atta k agamst ristotle are re orded b umenius in Eus. PE 14- 6, th . 2.
6o 1>-1·. , D. H . De I orr. 18, De lsaeo 19, Epi t. Pomp. 1 (p . 226 .-R.), a cord-
ing to whom ephisodoru wrote a b ok against nstotle in order to defend
hts master and his edu attonal phi! sophy; belie,•ing him to be a devout
Platonist, he attacked ristotle although his real target was Plato
7 Obvtou ly this Lycon is not the Peripatetic (RE 15), but the Pythagorean,
although there ar problems about ho\\ many dtffcrcnt Pythagorean Lycons
there were (RE 14).
74 mmentary on F 2

oon a e t p ak enl of th tw m n' (oo Toi {3t{3>..tot 0

n·Tv wv 1Tmaua£Tat {3>.aacpTJfLWV a1hou ) ugge t that Ari tocle
could read them. A ording to igon (195 ), it i from there
that An tocl ( 1) acquired knowledge of Ari totle' letter to
Ant1pater ( 195 : 174) and (2) derived the whole defence of
Ari totle' relation hip with Hermia (195 : 155). Gigon al o
think (3) that thi letter wa a forgery (195 : 174, 193). A
re ard ( 1 ). An totle' letter to Anti pater i al o mentioned by a
number of auth r (D .L . 5· 27, Demetr. De eloc. 225, Plut. De
tranq . an . 472 E, De prof. in ·virt. 7 D, Aelian, Var. hist . 14. 1,
Vita .·hi toteli 1\Jarciana 41-2 (During I957: to6), Elia , In
ateg. 123 . 26) who do not refer to Apellicon. Moreover
Ari tocle introduce it by a SE, and doe not eem to link it to
Apellicon . A regard (2), the yap ugge t that Aristocle
deriYed the en uing argument from the letter, although (3)
may be true, for all collection and edition of Ari totle'
corre pondence contained ome forged letter .
Even if the letter wa a forgery, however, Ari tocle ma
have been genuinely convinced that it' a not, and, although in
Plezia' ,·iew (I 962: 9) it wa not a defence of Ari to tie'
marriage, During (I 957: 392) may be right to deny that, a for
the content , there i any rea on to reject Ari tocle ' extract
from Ari totle' corre pondence with Antipater a long a it i
con i tent with other kno n facts and with Ari totle's will.
Indeed in hi will Ari totle did not explicitly affirm that
Herpylli wa hi wife, nor that Nicomachu wa Herpylli '
on, but neither did he ay anything that ran counter to tho e
uppo iuon . It i true that according to Ath. 13. 589
Herm1ppu call Herpylli a hetaera (iTa{pa), but in the ame
pa age he al o ay that Ari totle fathered icomachus on her
and behaved tO\..,ard her like a hu band. Even the hostile
ource T1maeu , who define Herpylli a a handmaid
((hpa1Tatva) (Proclu on He . Op. 403) and a concubine (1Ta>.-
AaK~) (D.L. 5· 1), affirm that Ari totle lived with her (avv£ivat)
and had a on by her called icoma hu . Thi al o occur in
the Vita Hesyclui 4 (During 1957 : 82), which further report
that An totle got her after Pythia from Hermia the eunuch
( £lx£v S€ Ka! viov NtKOfLaxov !{ 'Ep1Tv>.>.tSoc; 1Ta>.>.aK1jc;, ~v fL£Ta
llv8taOa 1rapd. 'EpfL{ov Tou £uvouxov ... €>.a{3£v ), and uggested to
Perhap nu8.0.lios (Dunng 1957; 269-7o).
 ommentary on F 2
75
Mul any (1926) that she wa Pythias' handmaid. In conclu-
ion, although it is not evident that Herpyllis wa Aristotle'
wedded wife (During I957: 270), it i cl ar that he regarded and
tr ated her a uch. Gigon himself (I958: 155) remark that th
will does not treat Pythias' daughter and Herpylli ' on differ-
ently and that the information on Theophra tu ' adoption of
icomachus is consistent with the final part of Ari totle ' will.
Aristocle ' defence again t the second charge, namely that
Ari totle was ungrateful to Plato, is omitted by Eusebiu .
Immi eh (1906: I-23) conjectured that Ari tocle ' defence wa
the elegy which, according to Olymp. In Gorgiam 215. 5-1 I (fr.
673 Rose , 708 Gigon), Ari totle compo ed to show hi affection
for Plato :9
'E'A8wv o' £s KAHJJOJJ Kf.KpO'TT{TJS oa'TTf.OOJJ
£ua£{3£ws a£1-Lv~ t/>tMYJs iop~aa-ro {3w,.,.ov
&.vopo OJJ ouo' alvf.tiJ 'TOtat KaKoiat B£,.,.ts•
os ,.,_6vos 7i TTpw-ros 8vYJ-rwv Ka-r£ong£v ivapyw ,
olKf.{ctJ T£ f3{ct~ Kat !-Lf.8oootat 'Aoywv,
ws &.ya86s 'Tf. Kai f.vOa{,.,_wv O.,.,_a y{v£-rat &.v~p ·
ou IJUJJ o' lan 'Aa{3£iv OUOf.JJL IO -rau-rci 'TTO'Tf..
oming to the famou plain of ecropia
he piou ly et up an altar of hol friendship
for th man horn it i not lawful for bad men e en to praise;
who alone or fir t of mortal clearl revealed,
by his own life and by the methods of his v ords,
that a man becomes good and happy at the ame time.
It i not now that anyone can get the e things .
It i very difficult to decide whether lmmi eh i right." ince
reference to this elegy also occur in Philop. In Porph . quinque
voces I I b29-3 1, David, In Porph . !sag. 121. I 8-20, V ita A risto-
telis Marciana 26 (During I957: IOI), Vita Aristotelis vulgata
I 1 (During I 957: I 33), it eem reasonabl to uppo that it
9
lmmi h thought that this I gy des ribed Plato's love for ocrates rather
than Ari totle's lo e for Plato and concluded that ristotle praised Plato for
his love of o rate ; Bernay ( 1878) and omperz ( 1912) ' ere of the am
opmion, whi h ha been doubted by Gaiser ( 1966).
•• >.alhiv oullt"va Ro e.
" lmmi eh is followed by Jacger ( 1923: 106), Heiland ( 1925 :44), and aiser
(1966: 99); jacob (FGrH 328 F 223 omm. n . 1), Trabucco (1958 :145-7),
B hr (1968: 194), uring (1957 : 316-17 and 470), and loraux (1984: 146,
19 6: 128) are cptical.
 ommentary on F 2-3
ulum t ly d nve from Ptolemy (During I 957: 3 I 7) through
Ammomu (Behr I96 ). The an wer to wh ther Ptolemy
den,·ed it from Ari to le , and Porphyr from Ptolemy, a
ai er (I966) ug ted, can only be pe ulati e. n the one
hand T 3-6 how that Ammoniu kne' Ari to le ' On Phil-
osophy, on the oth r there are other prai e of Plato by Ari totle
whi h An to I could have referr d to, u h a EN I096"I2-
I7 and I I64b 2.

It ha already been noticed that Ari to le ' passage on the

toic deal with doctrine ' hich can be ultimately traced back
to Zeno, but that it al o include traces of po t-Zenonian
doctrinal and lingui tic development . A Long noticed (I975:
I 33), endence which enable one to di tinguish Zeno' idea
from tho e of later toic i regrettabl light. The rea on for
th1 i that there are no urviving work of Zeno, and that to a
reat extent leanthe and Chr ippu de eloped Zeno's doc-
trine . Thi i why the doxographer tended, a eneca already
lamented in Epist . 33· 4, to cite ol ETwi.Ko{ rather than a particu-
lar toic a the ource of an opinion, or to group under Zeno's
name doctrine which were common to all the toics . The
former i generally the ea e with Cicero and Aetiu , according
toP .-Piutarch' and tobaeu ' report ; the latter, for example,
with tob. I. I 2 . 3, where the di crepancy between the ingular
reference to Zeno in the lemma (Z~vwvos-) and the plural of the
verb 'they ay' In the QUOtatiOn (Ta fWO~/-LaTCl cf>aat /-L~T€ "TLIIa
Elvat 1-L~Tf 7TOL(l) mduced Die) and Wach muth to emend the
lemma to' f Zeno and tho e who came after him' (Z~vwvos- (Kat
TC.OII a7T' avTou)) and Man feld and Runia (I997: 263) to u pect
that in th1 particular ea e tobaeu attached a more pecific
name-label than wa directly warranted by hi ource Ariu
Dtdymu . ' Perhap be au e of the bre ity of hi account,
In a fe\\ ea c • tobaeu seem to have done the ame "ith etius, e.g. at
J. I • ' d (O,el 1879 3 16) A for nu , recently Goran son (1995) ha~ called
m to qu tion not onl} the Jdent1fi atlon of the Anu the doxographer with the
to1c court philo opher of Augu tu ( h. 10), but al o 0 1el 's attnbution to
 ommentary on F 3 77
Aristocle is not o a curate in cliff rentiating among the ontri-
bution of individual toi ; but neither doe he urn up all
toic author under a g neri reference, nor pro eed by 86~at
like Aetiu . Indeed his hapter i more imilar to a fl£pl.
alpia£wv than to a doxography (Mej r 1978: 89),> and ha ome
point of contact with a number of tho e fragment of Ariu
which are pre erved by tobaeus and Eu ebius. For thi rea on
it em likely that he depended on the ame ource a Ariu ,
probably Posidoniu .

1. Apart from the reference to fire, the fir t paragraph ha a

parallel in D .L . 7· 134 (SVF i. 85, 493, ii. 299, iii. 12), who
attribute imilar view on the principles to Zeno, leanthe ,
Chrysippu , Archedemus, and Posidoniu :
They hold that there are two principles (apxas) in the uni er e, th
active and the pas ive (To 1rowvv Kal To 1raoxov) The pa ive i a ub-
tance Without quality (T~II a1TOtOV ovo{av), i.e. matter (T~V u.\-T}v), while
the acti e i the reason in id it (£v avTfl ,\6yov), i.e. od (TOV 8£6v) . For
he i e rlasting, and through matter is th artifi er of everything
(STJ/-'-tOvpy£iv lKaoTa) . Thi doctrine i laid down by Zeno of 1t1um in
his On Substance, by leanthes in hi On Atoms, by hry · ippu at th
end of the fir t book of hi Physics , and by Po idoniu in th econd
book of his Di course on Physics. But they a that there i a difference
between principle (apxas) and element (oTolx£ia): the former ar n t
g nerat d and cannot be d troyed, whi le th latter ar destroy d
when all thing ar re ol ed into fire (KaTa T~v £Km1pwolv tjJ8£{p£o8at).
nd the prin iple are bodie (ow,.,.aTa}l and without form (a,.,.6p</>ou ),
whit the I ment ar endow d with form (!-'-E/-'-op</>wo8al).

nu of all the 36 anonymou · excerpts in tobaeus, book 1 (eh. 1 1). In his

view, only frr . 29, 36, 37, 39 can afe ly be attributed to rius, becau e of
Eu ebiu ' parallel attribution . s forth other , he puts them off t a further
xamination. Thi has been earned out by lansfeld and Runia (1997: 25off.),
and in particular by Runia ( 1996: 38o-1 ), who transfers ten fragment from
Die) ·' · re on truction of etiu to rius, ubtra ts fr. 30 fr m the latter, and
di tnbutes part of frr. 33-4 between the tv o d xographer .
I Jer' conviction ( 1978: 77 ff.) that the works ll£p1 aip£o£wv dealt exclu-
tvcly with post- ocrati phtlo ophy and mainly \\ ith ethtcs i. r Jected by
Man feld ( 1986: 313- 16); )esse ( 1997: 272-6) takes the m term dtate po ttton
that the ll£p1 aiplo£wv literature origtnated m the 'arneadean dn'ISIO, \\ htch
la tfied th different doctnne · on the end (·..E-\o ) and on happtn ss
(E~Oal/-'Ov{a), but also d alt with oth r toptc .
' O.owl-'&rou~ Suda s.v. O.px~ - In favour of Dtogcnc 'ver ion, l'tdd (19
 7 ommentar ' on F 3
Althou h the qu tion of the dir t ource or source of
D10 ne venth book ha b n given different an wer (v.
Arntm, r·p
i, pp. ·xx-xliii, I jer I97 : s-7, Man feld I986:
329fT.), thi pa age eem ultimate! to derive from
Po idoniu 'Di course on Physics (Fs Edel tein-Kidd). 4
The theory that there ar two prin iple , one active and the
other pa t\'e, t al o reported by imp. In Plzys. 25. IS (SVFii.
3 I 2) :
It 1, e' tdent that the totc did not all od an lement (arotx£iov), but
od and matter (8dw Ka! uA71v) a what a t and what i acted upon (ro
jifl' 1TOLOVV TO o£ 1Tliaxov).

And it i attributed to Zeno by Aetiu m P .-Plut . I. 4 and

to b. I. I 0 . 14 (Die! I 79: 289):
Zeno con tdered od and matter (-rov 8£ov Ka! -r~v uA71v) as principle
(O.pxat}, of which the former i the active au (<Lv o JiEV £an rov 1TOL£iv
aino-), and the latter the pa ive (~ o£
TOV 1TCtaxuv), while the elements
are four (arotx£ia o£
TEaaapa). 5

That Ari tocle refer to only one element, fire, while toic
co mogony employ the tandard four, can be explained a a
reference to the rrup UXJ'LKOV ('creati e fire'). Although Lapidge
(1973: 271 ff.) ha objected that, according to the definition
m D.L. 7· 134, the rrup uxvLKov hould not be considered an
element {a-rotx€iov), but a principle (c:ipx~). ince it doe not end
with the conflagration, at 7. I36 (SVF i. 102) Diogenes al o
report that 'the element {a-rotxfiov) i that from hich each
thing fir t come to be and into which it i finally re olved'.
105) adduce VF 11 305, 310, 312, 325, 326, V\ here ii>..-, ts aid to be uwiJ-a, and
r'F 11 3 I 0 , 313, 323, \\here 8£os/ro 1TOIOVv/>..oyo are C1WiJ-QTQ, Ioreover,
accordmg to the tote only bodte can act or be acted upon ( VF i. 90, 146, ii.
q.o, 363, 3 7), and tf the pnnctple are seen as au es, cause al o i a uwp.a
( I 'F • 9). Followmg rae er (1975: IOJff.), Kidd also explain the uda's
error a a reference to Po tdontu ' attempt to meet genera l ritici m of the
tOJ po ltton that the &.pxa< are C1WiJ-QTa Kat aiJ-op<f>a, aying that the principles
are onl} logtcal con ept wtth no separate ext tence.

• Tht 1 . ugge ted not onl) by the mentton of Postdontu as an authority

for the whole e tton (Ktdd 1988: 104), but also by F 92 and 101
Edel tem-Ktdd , Y.htch re pecttvely define ii>..-, and 8£6 a &.iJ-op<f>ous.
J chtll . /sag 3, pp 31-3 \Jaas ( VF • 8s) and Theodoret. Gr. aff. cur.
4· 12, \\hO report the ame, probably depend on cttu (D1el 1879: 22ff.,
.\!an feld and Runia 1997 281 n 26, 28<)-i)o, 299-306) .
 Commentary on F 3 79
And, according to tob . 1 . 10.16 (Ariu fr. 21 Die) , 47 Runia =
VF ii. 413), hry ippu , following Zeno (Tcj) T'?s a.ip€a€ws
~y€p.ovt Z~vwvt KO.TO.KoAouOwv) referred to fire a the I ment par
excellence (Ka.T' €~ox~v aTotx€iov), and gave th word aTotxfiov
three meaning :

Fir t, it mean fire, be au e out of it the remaining element are com-

po ed by alteration and int it they are re ol ed. e ondl , it mean
the four lement , fir , air, water, earth, ince all oth r thing are
ompo d b y m an of a particular one of the e or more than one of
these or all of the e [ ... ) Third, 'element' i aid to be that which i
primaril o compo ed that it eau e generation from it If m thodi-
call up to at rminal point and from that receive r olution into it elf
by the lik m thod.

In Lapidg ' view the are non- toic definition of aTotxfiov,

which derive from Ari t . Met . 983b8 : ' aTotx€ia. are that of which
everything con i ts and from which e erything i fir t g nerated
and into whi h it is finally re olv cl (€~ oo yap €anv a1ra.vTa. Ta
•
OVTO. KO.t, €\,
't OU~ ')'t')'V€TO.t
, ,
7TpWTOU KO.t' H) -LO Hp€TO.t
, 0 '+'
fl , ' • ). , H e
T€1\€UTO.tOV
therefore u p et that Chry ippu abandoned Z no's di tinc-
tion between ci.px~ and aTotx€iov in fa our of Ari totle ' . But
the definition in Met. 983b8 i attributed by Ari totle to th
materiali m of the Pre ocratic , and refer to their inability to
di tingui h between ci.pxa.{ and aTotx€ia.; 6 Chry ippu would
thu have abandoned Zeno' iew, not for Ari totle' , but for
the Pre ocratic ' .Moreover, D . L . 7· 134 refer to the toic in
general, including Chry ippu (4>a.a{), and tobaeu expli itl _
tate that on thi matter hrysippu followed Zeno (Z~vwvt
Ka.Ta.KoAouOwv). Indeed, Zeno nev r affirmed that th er ative
fire i an d.px~· And leanth s (SVF i. 497), according to Ariu
in tob . I. •7· 3 (fr. 38 Di I s8 Runia) pre ent fir a both the
I

material tarting-point of o mogony and the organizing agent

of the uni er

h n the onftagration of the umver e has tarted, first its ntral

part collap s, then the remainder i progre iYel) extinguish d .
When e er thing ha turned to wat r, the last part of the fire trike it
6
Thi is supported by ctius in Ps.-Plut. 1. 2 and tob. 1. 10. 16 (01els
1879: 275), and in Ps.-Gal. flist . phi/ . 21 (Dteb 1879: 612), who report that
for Plato and ristotle &.pxa{ and oTotx£ia arc c.ltffcrcnt thmgs, whtlc for the
Prcso ratics they arc tdenti al.
 0 ommentary on F 3
at the centre and 1.- turn d back m the ppos1te direction and then,
bem > turned back, 'lean the a) , 1t gro\\ upward and tart
(O.pxw8at) to rearrange (otaKOafL£iv) the univer ·e.

o Awtocle · may b not only philo ophically ound, a Long

and ~edley put 1t (19 7: i. 271), but al o hi tori ally correct, in
refernn to Zen the treatment of fir , th foundational tuff, a
·omething wh• h had God and matter a it apxat; for the toic
re ularly ·pok of od a fire when referring to God' activity
m the world, but never did o in the text that pecify him a
one of the two dpxa{.
The compan.on With Heraclitu ' a a commonplace of
anc1ent phdo oph1cal commentator , epitomator , and dox-
o rapher , wh1ch wa not only in pi red by Clean the ' interpret-
atiOn of the Eph wn (D.L. 7. 174= SVF i. 6o1), but, according
to Anu ' m Eu . PE 15. 20 {fr. 39 Diel and Runia), wa al o
e.·plic1tl) ackno\\ !edged by Clean the :
leanthe_, companng Zeno' doctrine w1th tho e of other phil-
o_ opher, of nature, affirms that Zeno, I.ke Heraclitu (Ka8&.1T£p 1/pa-
KAnTo>), call- the -oul a entlent exhalation (ala81)nK~v civa8ufL{a.atv).

The que t10n of Herachtu ' influence on toici m ha been

carefully examined by Long, who conclude that Cleanthe '
well-atte ted u e of Heraclitu mu t have been timulated by
Zeno, who probably had acce to hi book (Long 1975: 136-7,
152). K1rk (1954: 327-9) had already een a connection between
Anu ' ummary of Zeno' co mogony in tob. I. 17. 3 (SVF
1. 102, fr. 3 D1el , 57 Runia):

o 1t w1ll be when the t1me come round the reorganization of the uni-
\-er e from ub~tance. \\'hen hre change- to water by way of air (ora.v
;K 7TUpo- rpo1T~ £l uowp Ot. cilpo> yiVT)TO.t), a certain part of it (TO fL'" n)
ub 1de and i con_ t1tuted a- earth; of the remamder (£K Tou Aot1Tou),
one part remain water, another evaporate and be omes air, and from
a part of the air fire i kmdled,

and Herachtu m Clem. Al. Strom. 5· 105 and 2. 396. 13 (22 B

3 I DK)· 'fire'- change (Tpo7rat}: fir t ea, and of ea a half (To
!J.fV ~!J.Lau) earth, the other half (To S€ iJfLtau) a fiery tornado'.
Long ( 1975. 139) al o noticed that the recurrence of Heraclitu '
Tpo1T~ and the echo of hi TO !J.fV iJ~J.tau . . TO S€ iJ~J.tau in Ariu '
u e of TO !J.fV and TO Aom6v are mdtcatwn that Zeno, or
 ommentary on F 3
whomever Arius cite , had a text of Heraclitu fr. 3 I DK avail-
able to him. 7
The compari on with Plato wa al o one of the dox-
ographer ' ommonpla e , but it wa u ually r f rred to
hrysippu and the toic in general (SVF ii. I028-48). Plato
never poke of matter a VAT) or affirmed that xwpa (the name he
give to the material ub trate of thing ) is an &.px~ (Tim. 4
-0, 53 o), and indeed Ari tocles doe not ay that Zeno took
over thi opinion from Plato, but merely compare their doc-
trine . Ne ertheles , a reading of the Tirnaeus a making matter
and God the two &.pxat had been started by Xenocrate , accord-
ing to whom the principles are the ne, which he a! o called
Zeu and Mind, and the Ever-Changing or ndetermined.
!though, de pite Numenius in Eu . PE 14. S· I 1 (SVF i. I I),
it i not certain whether Zeno wa one of Xenocrate ' hearers, 8
thi interpretation of the Timaeus wa certainly urrent by
Zeno' day, for, although Theophra tu in imp. In Phys.
26 . I I-I 3 (fr. 230 Fortenbaugh) did not a that Plato identified
the active principle in co mology with God or the Good, h
neverthele a erted:
(Plato) h Id that there are two principl (apxat} in nature, and con-
iders the ub trate to b matt r (uA1)v}, calling it that which receive
all, the other to be eau e and mov r, attaching it to th pov r of od
and of the ood .

Antiochu too in Cic. Luc. I I8 affirmed that Plato held the

world to have been made b God out of all-containing matter
('ex materia in e omnia recipiente') to la t for ever (' empit r-
num '). Therefore it cannot be excluded that the reading of th
Timaeu whi h wa curr nt in Zeno's day influ n d hi choic
of&.pxat( andbach 1975:74-5, Long and edle I987: ii. 271). 9
Zeno, however, rejected Plato's and Ari totle's principle that

7 Ho\ ever, Long reject I trk's view that the toi u e of this fragment
is mediat d by The phrastus' mt interpretation (fr. 225 Fortenbaugh) of
Hcra lttus ( imp . In Phy . 23. 33-2+. 6 = 22 5 DJ }, whtch, on the other
hand , ecm t be the our e of O.L. 9· 8 (Oiels 1879: +75-6).
N ' enocrates, ho\ ever, was not gt,·ing an account stmpl) of phy ical. but
also, and pnmarily, f mathematical generation, even tf his One ''a, not
transcend nt. This tssue i dt·cu sed at length tn Dillon (•977' 2+-8)
9 , edle) ( 1998: 76-7) e,·en sugge ·ts that this view goe back t Polemo. and

that Theophrastus, Zeno, and ntio hu ''ere influenced by htm.

 2 ommentary on F 3
m orp r al ma · hav u al ffi i n '(L ng and dley 1987:
273). a
1. i . Ac. 1. 39 ( VFi. 90) te tifi :
He (Zen ) also d1ffered fr m th ame think r (th ad mic and
the Penpat tics) for the new that in any way an inc rporeal ub tance
can act or be a ted up n.

Th1 i al o report d by P .-Gal. Hi l. phi/. 16, dependent on

Aetiu ac ording to Di I (1 79: 69 VF i. 153) and to
:\lan f Id and Runia (I 977: I 44):
Plat and Zeno the to1 , di cu ing thee nee f God, did not have
the am opmion about 1t, but Plato affirmed that od i incorporeal,
"htle Zeno that he 1 orporeal; a for th form the did not ay any-
thmg.

It i noticeable that, according toP .- Plut. 1. 3 and tob. 1. 10.

16 (Diel 1 79: 2 ), Aetiu credited Plato ,. ith three, not two,
apxa{: 8£6 ' UATJ Kat lUa. The Iiddle Platoni t Alcinou
(Dida c. -10) and Apuleiu (De Plat. 1. 5, 7) did the ame.' 0
Thi not only h w that Ari tocle ' fragment on the toic does
not depend on Aetiu , but al o confirm that he ,. as not a
:\Itddle Platoni t ( ee the Introduction).

2.Ari tocle ' report on toic eo mogon choe Zeno' On the

Whole, \\'here, according to D.L. 7. 142 ( VF ii. s8r), Zeno
dealt with the generation and de truction of the univer e.
Indeed, \'. Arnim attribute to him a pa age which i quite
1milar to An tocle ', namely Ariu fr. 36 Di I (= Runia) in
tob . 1.20. r" andEu .PErs.18(SVFi. 107):
Zeno, leanthe. , and 'hry 1ppu hold that ub tance i tran formed
mto hre a a eed, and that from thi the ame arrangem nt of the uni-
' er e emerge , . uch a tt wa befor (Z~vwvt Kal K>.£av8£t Kai Xpva{7T7TlfJ
apiCJK£1 T~V oua{av fi.£Ta{j&.A>.nv oiov £l> CJ7TfpJ.J.a TO 7TUp, Kat 7TQAIV lK TOIJTOV
TOtQVTl'/V a7TOT£A£ia8at T~V 8taK6C1f1.7JC1tV oia 7rp6npov 1}v).

:\loreover, all the term u ed by Ari tocle to de cri be Stoic

eo mogony, u h a £ip.apJ.A-EVTJ (fat ), fK1Tvpoua8aL ( uffer con-
flagratiOn), tJLaKOUJ.~-£ia8aL (world reorganization), 1rpwTov 1rvp
(fir t fire), aTTipJ.A-a Twv a1T(ivTwv lxov Tou> ).6yov> Kat alT{a ( eed

nd o dtd lexandcr of A.phrod1 1a m 1mp In Phy · 26. 13-15 and the

Chn tlan \Hitcr 'lcm I Strom 5 9-<)o, Eptphan Adt•. /were , proem
( D1cl 1879. -117 , 591) H1ppol Rtf 1 19 1, and Hcrmtas (D1els 1879: 653).
 ommentary on F 3
containing the r ason and the eau e of all thing ), aKoAouBta
( equenc ), Sw{K"T/<H> (arrangement), are attributed once at lea t
to Zeno ." Th r fer nee to a natural law (v6J.Lo>) wa al o put
forward by Zeno, according to i . De nat . deor. I. 36 (SVF i.
I62) : 'Zeno thought that the law of nature is di ine, and that it
duty i to ommand what i right and to forbid what i not
right', and to D .L. 7· 88 (SVF i. 162): 'The end ('dAo>) i a lif
in whi h e refrain from very action forbidden by the law
common to all thing (o v6J.Lo> o Kotv6>).'
imilarly, the metaphor of the world a a well-order d tat
(Ka8a7T£p €v ftJVOJ.LWTaT?7 nvi 7ToAtutq.) may be traced back to
Zeno . It probably come from Ari t . On Philosophy (fr . I3
Ro ), according to Ci . De nat. deor. 2. 9S, Philo, Leg. alleg . 3·
32. 97-9, and particularly De proe·m. ad Poen. 7· 41-3: 'The uni-
ver e i a a we ll-governed city (wa7T£p yap fi> f:VVOJ.LOV 7ToAtv
TovS£ Tov KOUJ.Lov)'; but Zeno wa rtainly acquainted with the
exoteric work of Ari totle ( andbach I98s: I7).
Howe er, thi metaphor wa al o developed b hry ippu
in hi fl£pt 7Tpovota>, where, according to Cic. De nat. deor . 2 .
IS4 (SVF ii. 1 I 3 I), after peaking of the uni er al king hip f
Logo , he affirmed: 'The world i a it were the ommon
dwelling pia e of gods and men, or the cit that b long to
both ' (est enirn mundus quasi communi deorum atque hominum
domus aut urbs utrorurnque). ' 2

ince, according to Ariu in tob . 1. 2I (SVF ii . S27, fr. 3I

Die! , 67 Runia), ' h ippu declar d that the uni r e i an
organized community (auaT"T/J.La) of h aven, earth, and th
natur that live there, or an organiz d community of god and
men and the thing creat d by them', it i like! ( hofi Id
I99 I: 83) that Chry ippu i al o the ultimate ourc of th
eo mo-theology reported v ithout attribution by Ariu in Eu .
PE IS . IS . I-6 (fr. 29 Die! 30 Runia = VFii. S28), whi hi
I

cc the Index verborum m I' F iv . Furthermore the cxpres wn T<i TTpw-ro••

mip, wh1 ha pp ars only in hr sippus, ' I 'F i1 . 413 ( to b. 1. 129. t, riu fr .
21 Diets), can be tra ed ba k to Z no, for m that passage hry 1ppu · IS a1c.l to
have 'followed the lead r of h1 hoot, Zeno', "ho almost certainl y mtroc.lucec.l
the term
,. The same is att1butcd to th ' to1cs m general by Dw 'hrys stom, Oral
36. 20 T~v 1rOAU' 4>aoLv £lvat 1rA~8o~ 0.JJ8pWTTwa' E~· TaUT<jJ KaToucoUa..,.w•~ U1TO •'01-'ou
cStotKOUfL£vov, §29 EtrrOvTa~ Ela,at T0v K6a,.,.ov 'cjJo•' lrrnTa 4>0.aKov W lan 7TOA,,. TO
yap au-ro TTOAtv T"E Kal ~<jlov (SVF 11. IIJO, Ill. 329)
 4 omm ntary on F 3
al o very 1mJiar t Ari to le ' de cription of umv r al law
(:\leJer 197 : 7):
The~ al o all ' , mos' th habitation (olKT)rT,pwv) of god and men
and the thmg, created by them. For, a "e say 'ci ty' (7roAt>) in two
"ay::-, a the hab1tatton (otKT)r.,pwv) and the organized community
(uu<JTT)fLa) of the mhabitants and the citizen, , in the ame way the co -
mo, 1 the , am a, a c1ty of god and men, wher god reign and men
are re1gned O\'er. But th re i ommunity (Kolvwv{a) b t'l' een them,
, mce the~ shar rea, on, which 1s th natural law . nd all other thing
''ere enerated for the1r ak . on equ ntly it i to be believed that
od, '' ho rul over the untvcr , who i good, who I ve th m [the
thmg created], '' ho i, JU t and ha all virtue , al o take care of men .
Therefore the co mos i also called Zeu,, for h is the au of our Iif .
.-\nd, a · to od, ma mu ha, h admmi ter all things from eternity
accordmg to the innolable la\\, h e i call d Fate. H i al o called
Adra, te1a, · m e m nothing i it po ibl to e cape him , and Provi-
dence, ' ince he run e\ erything for the be t (Ka8' oaov Si clpOJ-LfVt.p ,\6ycp
7T(ll'TQ StOIK£i a7Tapa{J6.rw £g o.,S{ou, 7Tp0<10VOJ-Lcl~E<J8al £ifLapJ-LfV1)V'
.itSpaarnav S£, OTL ouS& lanv QUTOV a7TOStSpaaK£1V' 7TpovOLQV Si, OTL 7TpO>
ro XP.,<11fLOV olKOVOfL£i lKaara).

In particular the ad,·erb a7Tap6.{3a-rw> may explain Ari tocles'

atjJUK7"0) 1 and it i WOrth noticing that in thi pa age the ame
reference to .itSpaan:LU, which i otherwi e found only in Plut.
De Stoic . rep. 1os6 c ( VF ii. 997), occur .
That Zeno i not Ari tocle ' direct ource for thi paragraph
1 al o ugge ted by the want of evidence that the former u ed
the term f7TL7TAOK~, which i attributed to Chry ippu by Aetiu
m tob. 1. S· IS (Die! 1879: 322 = SVF ii. 917): 'Chry ippu
u ed to ay that \\'hat i e tabli hed by nece ity i not different
from what 1 e tabli hed by fate ( ... ) according to the clo e
concatenatton of the part (Ka-r' f7TL7TAOK~v JJ-f.pwv auJrf!p-rTJJJ-fVTJV)';
E7TL7TAOK~ 1 al o referred to Chry ippu by Gel!. NA 7· 2. 3
( VF 11. tooo) and by Plot. Enn. Ill 1. 2 (SVF ii. 946).
Agam, the definttion of fate (f.iJJ-apJJ-IvTJ) a the ucce ion of
thmg pa t, pre ent, and future (-rd. yf.yov6-ra, -ra Y'YVOJJ-f.Va, -ra
EGOJJ-f.va) accordmg to their rea on and eau (>..6yo1 Kat al-r{a,)
derive from Chry 1ppu ' flf.pi 7Tpovo{a>, a report d by Aetiu
in P .-Piut. 1. 2 and m tob. 1. s. IS (Die! 1879: 323 SVF =
ii. 913):
Fate i the rationale of the \\Orld, or the la\\ of pro\ idencc's act of
 ommentary on F 3 8s
governm nt in the world, or the rationale in a cordance with which
past event ha e happen cl, pre ent events are happening, and futur
event will happ n (£ip.app.£vTJ £oTtV 0 TOU KOOp.ov Aoyos, ~ vop.o TWV
ovTwv & T<jJ KoOp.ctJ TTpovo{q. 15tatKovp.£vwv, ~ Aoyos, Ka8' 8v Ta p.£v y£vovoTa
y£yov€ Ta 15£ ytvop.€va y{vf:TQI Ta /5£ Y*'VTJOOp.€va Y*'V~Of:Tat). 'l

In con lu ion, although e erything that we read in Ari tocle

can be ultimately traced back to Zeno, and the fir t paragraph
may ultimately depend on hi On Substance, trace of
Chrysippu ' On Providence are al o identifiable, particularly in
the econd paragraph. Whether the e are Ari tocles' direct
ources 1 hard to ay, ince the hortne s of hi ummary
makes thi identification very difficult. The parallel with
Arius, howe er, ugge t that the two author may ha e relied
on the ame intermediate toic ource. According to Gott-
chalk (I 987: I I 25) and Todd (I 989: I 136-78), Ariu relied on
Po idoniu ,' 4 and, indeed, Posidoniu ' Discourse on Physics has
been already indicated a the ource of para. I . A for para. 2,
the ame de cription of the cosmo a Chrysippu ' aua-rrn.~.a iK
8~:wv Kai dv8pcimwv i attributed to Po idoniu ' Meteorology by
D . L. 7· I38 (F I4 Edel tein-Kidd = SVF ii. 634). Thi attribu-
tion i supported by the fact that Epict. Diss . 3· 24 and M. Ant.
Med. 4· 4, who probably depend on Po idoniu ( chofield
1991), employ the ame metaphor a Ari tocles .

3
' Long and cdley' tran latton (1 987: 1. 337) Echoes of thi~ m i . De dit •
I. 125 ( VF ii . 921): ' fatum autem id appello, quod Graect E{!J.ap!J.E'"YJ''• id et
ordmem sen emque eau a rum, cum ausa eau, acne. a rem ex se gtgnat. Ea est
ex om nt aetcrnitatc ftuen s verita sempitcrna; quod cum ita , 1!, nihil est
factum quod non futurum fuerit, codcmquc modo nthtl e t futurum, cum non
au a , id ip urn effictcntes natura contmcat cau~a aeterna rerum, cur et ea
quae praetenerunt fa ta mt, et quae in tant fiant, et quae sequcntur futurn
smt.'
'• Thts may be so e en if the doxographcr nus is not the Stmc philosopher
of ugustu ' time (see n. 1 ).
 6 ommentary on F 4

Ltke D10 ene Laertiu , Ari to le d al with P rrhonian

eptict, m only, and particularly with Pyrrho' , Timon' , and
...\.ene td mu ' prmcipl nlike Diogene Laertiu , ho\J ever,
he ' eem to wnte at a time when the Pyrrhonian and the
A ademtc tradtt10n had not yet flowed one into the other, for
he ne\·er refer tO OnCept like aKUTU'A.TJI/JLa ('inapprehen ibili-
ty') or lrrox~ (' , u pen 10n of judgement'), "vhi h an be traced
ba k to Ar e tlau ' and arneade ' polemic again t the toic
( oui m 1929, Ioppolo I 98o). The la k of any Academic
element m Ari to le ' chapter ugge t that he ' rote before
Fa,·ormu and extu , in who e work the confluence of
:\cademi and Pyrrhonian element i quite evident, and al o
that Aene tdemu ' Outlines of Pyrrhonism, \J hich eem to be
An tocle ' ource (directly or through an epitomator clo e in
both time and fideltty), were free from any A ademic influence.
A for An tocle ' critici m of Pyrrhoni m, the charge of elf-
contradtction and of making life and di cour e impo ible can
be traced back to Ari totle' Metaphy ic , but there are al o
echoe of Ari totle' p ychology from De anima.
The crittci m of the Pyrrhonian i the longe t and mo t
detailed of Eu ebtu ' extract from Ari tocle ; it can be divided
mto the following ection

Para . I : IntroductiOn.
Para . 2-4: Pyrrho' and Timon' K£c/>a'Aata (principle )
Para . 5-10: The K£c/>a'Aata are incon i tent (5-7) and unten-
able (8-Io).
Para. 1 1: Aene tdemu ' trope .
Para . 12-13: The trope onflict' ith the K£c/>a'Aata.
Para . 14-15: Pyrrho' behaviour onflict with the K£cpa'Aata.
Para . 16-17: Timon' and Aene idemu ' deci ion to write
confltct \\ tth the K£c/>a'Aata.
Para . 18-22: ther principle of P rrhoni m (i.e. life
accordmg to pnmar}' affection , to natur , u tom , and law
and the imtle of the purge ) al con fit t \\ ith Pyrrho' and
Timon' K£c/>aA.ata.
Para . 23-4· . -ot only life but al o philo phy i incon i tent
 omm ntary on F 4
\ ith P rrho' and Timon ' K£r/>aAa.ta., for it i tmpo ible with-
out belief and opinion .
Para . zs-6: E en a life ba ed on mere accordan e to nature
and law i inconsi tent with Pyrrho' and Timon 's K£r/>0.)..a.,a., for
it i impos ibl without belief and opinion .
Para . 27-9: Pyrrho , Timon, and Aene idemu are worthle
men.
Para. 30: Conclusion .

1-4. in e the fir t four paragraph of thi chapter (T 53

Oecleva aizzi) are very clo ely link d one to the other, befor
entering into detail it i worth di cu ing them briefly together.
The main problem oncern their reliability. It i true that
they hav a ague parallel in D .L. 9· 61 (T 1A De leva aizzi):
(Pyr rh ) d ni ed th at the honourabl (KaA6v) and the sh am efu l
(alaxp6v), the ju t (otKatov) and the unju t (aOtKov) exi t; and eq uall y,
that in genera l nothing exi t in truth (J.L7JO~v dvat -riJ &.\11 8£ttf), but m n
act accordi ng t law and h abi t (v6fLcp Kat l8£t); for ea h thing i no
more thi than that (ou J.LaAAov -r6o£ ~ -r6o£).

And a clo er one in Timon in .E. M 11. 140 (T 64 De le a

aizz i) :
There i nothing r ally (c/>uan) good (O.ya86v) or bad (KaK6v), but
' mong m n these things ar judg d ac ording to mind (v6cp)',' a
Timon ays (fr. 70 Diel =
SH 844). nd thi i the teaching of the
c p is: it i it aim to ecure a happ y life, inc happ y (£uoa{fLwv) i th e
man who li ve \vithout p rturbations (0.-rapaxw>), and, as Timon a1d ,
remaining in p eace and ca lm (Ev ~avx{lf Kat yaA7Jv6-r7JTL Ka8w-rw ).

But it i a! o true that the are a fourth-hand report: Eu biu

reporting Ari tocle reporting Tim n reporting Pyrrho. Th re
eem to be no doubt about Eu biu , who claim to r port
literall y (1rpo M~tv); but the reliabilit of th tep Ari to I -
Timon and Timon-Pyrrho annot be o I arly as ed.
Th pa age from Pyrrho' spe eh to Timon's writin and

' ••oi·".P• a cordmg to lllrzel 's emendation (1 83: s6 n. 1), on the bas1s of
D L. 9. 61. I I1rzcl is followed by Bro hard ( 1887 : 62 n. 1), atorp ( 1884· 289),
Long ( 1978b: 84 n. 11), but res1stcd by Declc\ a Ca1zz1 ( 19 1b: 264) and Bctt
( 1997 159). Diogenes' report may refer to a later de..-elopment of P) rrhoni ·m
10 V. hi h the antithesiS ayo.86 ....... KaKOV was upplanted b) KO.AOI-o.ioxpo•• On this
ec the 'ommcntar) on para. 18.
 ommentary on F 4
from Pyrrh uru' attitud to Timon' mor ocial p r onal-
tt) ha tradtttOnally be n on tdered b yond any po ibility of
,·enfi atton (Dal Pra 1975: i. 10<)-10, I. Fr d 1973: 8o6, Long
197 , Decle\'a aizzi 19 ra: 109-15): according to Timon'
picture m the lndalmoz, Pyrrho wa far removed from human
and phdo ophtcal di pute , while Timon engaged in several
phdo ophical debate , not only in the form of lampoon in the
11/oi, but al o on a more philo ophical ba i in hi Against the
Phy zci t (Decle\'a aizzi 19 4b). Thi i ue ha been recently
taken up by Brun chwig (1994: 19o-211), who made a re olu-
tJOnary new u ge tion about Pyrrho' paternity of part of
An tocle ' para . 1-4. Thi will be di cu d further on.
The tep Ari to le - Timon i al o difficult to a e . The
KEc/Ja.Aaw are generally con idered to come from Timon' Python
(Long 197 b: 3 n. 6, Decleva Caizzi 1981b: 220). The main
rea on for thi attribution i that thi text is in pro e. Moreo er
D .L. 9. 67 (T 51 Decle\'a Caizzi) declares: 'Timon al o por-
tray hi (Pyrrho' ) di po ition in the accounts which he gi es
of him to Python', and thi recall Ari tocle , para. 14 (T 52
Decleva Caizzi): 'In the Python Timon tell a long tory about
how he met P) rrho walking toward the temple of Amphiarau
in Delpht, and what they talked about.' everthele , in para .
1-4Ari tocle doe not mention the Python, and the unexpected
reference to Aene idemu at para. 4 ugge t rather dependence
on an mtermediate ource ( chmekel 1938: i. 299, Dumont
1972: 42, Burkhard 1973: 1Sff., Decleva Caizzi I981b: 219ff.):
he could perfectly well have added on hi own initiati e a gen-
eral reference to Aene idemu , but not the pecific reference to
plea ure, ''htch look ltke Aene idemu 'own reply to Timon.'
He mu t therefore have denved thi compari on from Aene i-
demu htm elf or from a text written oon after hi death,
perhap one of the ummarie (auvn1gHS") alluded to by D .L . 9·
102 (T 44 Decle'a Caizzi); but not from later Pyrrhoni t uch
a :\lenodotu , Agnppa, or Theodo iu , for in para. 30 he
refer to Aene tdemu a the la t Pyrrhonian of whom he ha
knowledge, and he doe not eem to be acquainted with any of
the po t-Aene tdemean development· of Pyrrhoni m, appear-
' 1 he t:onclu ton \\Ould b · dtffcrent tf ~llov~ (pleasure) were emended to
brox.~ ( u pen ton) . But it '' tll become dear m the "ommentar} ad loc that
tht cmcndatwn 1 not ne cs ar).
 omm ntary on F 4 9
ing not to know Agrippa' modes, Theodosiu ' di u ion f
the label of ' P yrrhoni m', Menodotu ' hi tory of Pyrrhoni m,
and extu ' r vi ion . Howe er, the tight threefold tructure of
th report (F rrari I 968), the occurrence of ome adjective ,
uch a aa-raBI.t/1'/Ta and aKALIIftS, that a we hall ee go back a
far as Plato , and th fr quent reference to Timon ugge t that
Ari tocle and hi sourc quoted him almo t verbatim.
Becau of the probl m that the paragraph rai and the
detailed di cu sions that they have provoked among cholar , it
i nece ar to proceed line by line .

:.\vayKaLws 8' EXEL -rrpo -rravTos 8laaKeiJ!aa9al -rrEpi T~S TJ~wv

, .... , ''I 'Cl:':' ,
auTwv yvwaEws. El, yap
\
au"' ~T)oEV
fl:':\ -'..'
-rrE..,uKa~EV yvwpl!>Elv, ouoEv En

8Ei 1TEpi TWV ciXXwv aKo-rrEiv. The fir t words eem to be the
introduction (7rpo TTav-r6s) to the whole group of Ari tocle ' crit-
ici m of the different theorie of knowledge that v e find in
Eu . PE 14. 17-21.
Goedeckemeyer (1905: 10 and n . 5) thought that the who)
entence hould be attributed to Pyrrho him elf, while
Dumont (1972: 141-2) thought that it came from Timon,
because the verb 8taaKE7TTOf..LaL ('inve tigate ') had in ufficient
currency in the econd and third centurie D to be Aristocle '.
But thi may be due to the fact that the pre ent tern aKmT-
i alien to Attic; indeed, wherea pre ent- tern forms of
(8ta)aKE7TTOf..LaL occur in Lucian, Icaromen . 25, Vit. auct. 27
(T 77-8 Decle a Caizzi)-but in imilar context , a if b way
of quotation-and al o in .E. M 7· 10, 24, Ari tocl u d the
aori t StaaK€1/JaaBat, found in Plato (Prot . 333 B, Rep . 35 I
Tim . 5 I B, Leg. 859 B), but in the pre ent prefer the true Atti
aK07Tftv. Mor over, Pyrrh i introdu d later in the text, and
that thi introduction i Ari tocle ' is al o ugge t d by th
occurrenc of the expre ion 7T£c/J(JI<af..Lt"V yvwp[~nv ('it i our
nature to know'), for TTEc/JuKE al o occur in F 5· 5, F 6. 9, 12,
F 7· 2, and F 8. 7, and by 7T!pt TWII aAAWII UK07Tftll (' xamine the
other thing '), whi h i parall I to ri tocle ' r f r ne of the
treatment of th unity of being to a further c/JtAoaoc/J£i'v ('philo-
ophical in tigation') in F 7· 2.
Th id a that it i fir t n c ary to inve tigat our pi temo-
logical fa ulti befor tud ing the do trin of b ing and
ub tan e h e Metaphy ics. D I va arzzt
 ommentary on F 4
e·p tall) r all the fir t w rd of book A: 'All men d tre
knowledge by nature (t/>vaH)'.
£yevovTo ~Ev oov Kat TWv ml.AnL nves oi <i~EvTES Tljv8e T~v
~wvt]v , ots <ivTEtpTJt<EV :A.punoTEATJS . Th Kat in thi po ition
• u ge t that th main intere t of Ari to I ' On Philosophy i
not only ht ton al, and that he p ak mainly f and to hi on-
temporane . 1
In .E . PH 1. 1 7-205 aKmnK~ t/>wv~ ha a technical mean-
m (' eptt a] expre wn'), a it al o eem to have in D.L. 9.
102; cf. Poly tratu , De contemptu, col. xvii 26. Be au e of thi
:\Ioraux (19 4: 153 n. 250) ugge t that Ari tocle relied on a
ceptic ource. Thi i probably true, a lthough in Ari tocle
the term t/>wv~ do not eem to ha\'e th am t chnical mean-
m tt ha in extu , for he al o u the ame word of the
Eleati at F 7 .I.
Ari tocle leave nuv 1T(tAat nv€> (' ome of the ancient ')
undetermm d: Burkhard (1973: 12) thought he meant the
precur or of ceptici m mentioned by D.L. 9. 70 (Homer, the
e\·en age , Archilochu , Euripide , X nophane , Zeno of
Elea, Democntu , Plato, Empedocle , Heraclitu , Hippocrate ),
and therefore u pected that Ari tocle ' ource wa Theodo iu ,
\\horn Dwgene mentwn ju t before giving hi li t. But it ha
been convincmgly argued that it \ a not Theodo iu who re-
ported on the antecedent of ceptici m (D cleva Caizzi I 98ob:
406-7,]. Barne 1986: 421 n . 58); and Ari tocle ' reference to
An totl ugge t that he ha in mind hi anti- ceptical argu-
ment . :\lo t cholar agree that Ari tocl implicitly refer to
.'Het. r -+-5. where Ari totl deal With tho who deny the
pnnctple of non-contradiction and of the unity of ub tance. 4
An tocle ' r ference 1 not anachroni tic, in e a good deal of
the matenal u ed by th Pyrrhoni t , for example in their et of
ten mode , goe ba k beyond Ari tot I (Long 1981 : 91 ).
Alexander of Aphrodi ia too ha th c ptic in mind when h
omment on Nlet. IOo7~>7-12 at 305. 26-32 (Man feld 1987a:
205-'7). ~
A 1 ugge tcd b~ F 6 1, 9 ·
• Protagora (llciland 1925 : s6), the :\lcganans (\later 19oo: 4-10, Bcrtt
•9 •); or no mglc targtt td nttfiable (Occl \a Catzzt 19816: 219; topper
1983: 26fr. ).
' n ha\c. clep In Het 222. 12, Olymp In ~leteor 118. 23, ynan /11
 ommentary on F 4 91
taxuaE flEv TO~QlJTQ 'A..eywv KQl nuppwv 0 'H'Ae'ios. The argument
Aristocl r f r to Pyrrho are that 'our nature i to know
nothing' (!-L7JS£v 7Tf.c/>uKafLf.V yvwpt{m), although immediately
after he acknowledge that Pyrrho' hought i known only
through Timon .
QUTOS flEv ouSEv £v ypact>fl KQTQAEAOL'TTEV, 0 Se ye llaeTJTTJS QUTOU
Tl11wv. Thi ontra t ha been interpreted by Brun hwig a a
devaluation f Timon (1994: 193). It doe not em uch to
Decleva aizzi, however, who ob erve 6 that Yf. ha er often
(particu larly in Aristocle ) an emphati force,? whi h wou ld
ugge t that Timon is introduced a a good ourc , ven if
Ari tocl do not ay anything expli it about hi pri ileged
tatu as a witne . Thi interpretation, which mu t be true
(Denni ton I9S2 : I ss). do not exclud Brun chwig' argu-
ment that Ari tocle would have b en happier, in order to
polemize again t the Pyrrhonian cepti , to have omething to
quote from Pyrrho him elf. Ne erthele Ari tocle ' remark
eem quite neutral, like Diogene ' imilar one at 9· 102 (T 44
Decle a Caizzi): 'Pyrrho himself I ft no writing , but hi
follower Timon, Aene idemus, umeniu , and au iphan
did' . And the fLEV ... SE oppo ition may imp) indicate that
Ari tocle wa aware of the difficulty of reporting about one
per on through the words of another .
TlflWV 4>TJal Se'iv TOV flEAAOVTQ euSa~flOvfJOE~V ELS Tpla TQUTQ
~AETTE~v . Thi , a D cleva aizzi (1981b: 222) ob erv , echoe
Democritu in Plut. De tranq. an. 46s · (68 B 3 DK): 'th man
who want to li e cheerfully hould not are about many thing
( -rov dJf}vfLf.iaBat fLEAAov-ra XP~ fL~ 7TOAAcl 7Tp~aaf.Lv )'; D mo ri tu '
influence on Pyrrho ha b n-. 11 hown by von Fritz (1963).
Illet . 73 · 16, and Ps .-Herenntus' commentar' on the J\Ietaphy 1c ( la1 1 3T
513~3) at 518. 8 .• imilarl , mmon. In Cat. 2. 9 sugge t that the Ephect1c
had already been oppo ed by Plato in the Theaetl'fus; he i followed h} Phi! p .
In Cat. 2. 4, 01 mp. Proleg. 3· 31 and Eltas, In Cat. 109.24, ''ho also added
nstotle's riti 1sms to Plato's. ugustine too uses nstotelian arguments
agam t the cademi s ( ontra cad. 3· 13).
~ Her ObJeCtiOn 1 r ported b} Brunschwig h1m elf ( 1994: 193 n 7).
7
I Ieiland ( 1925 · 20) and i\lra · ad loc. al. o remark that y£ IS one of
nstocles' favourite particle .
K On the hronolog1cal inaccuracy of this list see Oecl Ya '<nzzi ( 1981 b:
206).
 92 ommentary on F 4
The qu t for E:uOatf-Lovla ('happine ') i attribut d to Timon
by .E. J/ 11. 1.p (T 59 De I va aizzi): 'Happ i the man
who live free from p rturbation (E:uOa{f-Lwv f.Lfv lanv o
chapaxw- OtE:gaywv), a Timon a. , in pea an d aim.'
Ac ordtng to Antigonu in D .L. 9· 64 (T 10 D cleva aizzi),
P~ rrho' nd (T£..\o ) wa \'irtue (cipE:T~): ' n e \ hen he\ a di -
CO\'ered talkmg to him If, and h wa a ked the rea on for thi ,
he an wered that h wa training to b good (xpTJaTo E:tvat).' It
1 unlike!), howe\'er, that Timon \-\'Ou ld have taken it upon
htm elf to change th O\'erall m aning and intention of P yrrho '
philo ophy (Brun chwig 1994: 203). And Pyrrho, who e debt
to yni 1 m have been tre ed by Bran a i ( I 98 I) , might
ha,·e al o hared with the yni the id a that apE:T~ and E:uOat-
f-LOVta ar the ame thing (Diogene B 264, H I7 , B 542, B s6o, B
s6-+. Giannantoni) . But certainly Pyrrho did not dictate any-
thing to Timon, and E:uOatf-Lov{a wa one of the main i sue , if
not the main i ue, for all Helleni tic philo op her . Moreover,
the three que t10n by which Timon introduce Pyrrho '
thought (\\hat 1 the nature of thing , what hould be our di -
po 1t10n toward them, what i the con quence of uch an atti-
tude) may be een in connection with Xeno rate ' tripartition
of philo ophy in phy ic , epi temology, and ethi c , which wa
followed by mo t Helleni tic philo opher . o it i po ible that
thi mtroduction wa written by Timon on the g rounds of ome
of Pyrrho' a) mg in order to take ide in th debate of hi
time .9
~ I )~I ""
l<7TJ~ QOlQ't"Opa
• \ • I I J.._ J \ 1 1 JW
TQ j-LEV OUV trpayj-LOTQ 't"'JO'lV OUTOV QlfO't"QlVElV Elf
Kai. cuJTa91-LTJTa Kai. civetr(KplTa. Thi i the only tatement which
1 explicit!} attnbuted to Pyrrho. It eem to be quite a po itive
tatement, and doe not ound very ' ceptica l' in the en e thi
term 1 gt\'en by Aene idemu and extu . Indeed the ve rb
cirrocf>alvHv ('to d clar ') implie quit a trong a ertion and,
accordmg to Ferran ( 1981: 359), it i an exa mple of Timon'
in i tence on P} rrho' hierati al per onality. everthele
Decle" a Catzzt ( 1981 b: 222-3) r mark that the a me ve rb is
u ed for Aene tdemu by Ari tocle him elf in para. I 1, and
may be trontc.. topper (1983: 29I n. 39) too affirm that the
verb cirrocf>a{vHv doe not need to be attnb uted to Timon. A
That T1mon \\1 htd to mtroduc~ Pyrrho m to the debate~ of H ellemsttc
9

ttme \\a al o remarked b\ Dcdcva 'aizz1 ( 1986 163)

 Commentary on F 4 93
ertain amount of dogmati m, however, al o occurs in the
I ndalmoi fragment , ' 0 and one may al o recall the tatement
attributed to P rrho by D.L. 9· 6r (T rA Decleva Caizzi) :
'There i nothing honourable nor shameful, neither just or
unju t', or Timon in .E. M r I. 140 (T 64 Decleva Caizzi) :
'There i nothing really (cf>uaEt) good or bad'.
The three adjective too, &.SuJ.cf>opa, averr{KptTa Kat aan18f.l.7]Ta
('undifferentiated, un table, and indeterminate'), ha e been
hotly debated, ince in the Convegno ullo scetticismo antico held
in Rome in 1980 Berti (r98r), Ferrari (r98r), and Reale (1981)
referred them to the objective propertie of thing , independent
of any epistemological or ethical relationship with human
knowledge, and ugge ted that Aristocle ' report on Pyrrho and
Timon is , so to speak, the photographic negative of Arist. Met.
roo8"3 o-4:
(r) It i obviou that it i not po sible to discu anything
with him; for he say nothing (cif.l.a S€ cf>avEpov OTt 7TEpt ou8EVOS
. 7rpOS
EaTt , TOUTOV
• 7J• aKE<ftS'
'·'· OU'8,EV yap
, 1\Eyf.t
\ , )·
(2) (a) For he says neither yes nor no (oihE yap ouTws ouT '
oux OUTWS AEyH),
(b) but ye and no(&.,\,\' ouTws TE Kat oux ouTws);
(c) and again he denie both of the e and ay neither
\ 1 \.J..
ye nor no Kat 7Tal\tV YE TaUTa a7T0'+'7Jatv
(
,.. "'8 )
) 1
af.l.'+'W, OTL OU OVTWS OVTE
J1 .../... fl ~ W

oux ouTws);
(3) for otherwi e there would eo ipso be ome definite state-
ment (El yap fA.~, ~ST) av n Et7J wptaf.l.€vov).
Reale read Ari tocle a making Pyrrho oppo e (iii) to ( r), (ii)
to (2) and (i) to (3):
(i) He ay that he declares that thing are equally un-
differentiated, un table, and ind terminate, ther fore neither
our sen e-perception nor our opinion are true or fa! e (Ta fA.EV
f' I 1 .J.. ) \ ) ..J.. I ) ' Jl J~ I,/.._ \
ovv 7rpayfA.aTa '+'7Jatv auTov aTTo'+'atVEtV E7T taT) aota'+'opa Kat
I '8 \ ) I ~ \ "'
aaTa f.l.T)TQ Kat aVE7TtKptTa, ota TOVTO f.l.T)TE TaS ata 7JaEtS TJfA.WV f.l.T)TE
I \ J 8 I f "' I

Tas S6~as aA7]8EUf.tV TJ .f;EuSw8at).

(ii) For thi rea on, then, we mu t not tru t them, but b
unopinion ted, unwav ring, and un haking, aying about e\'ery
ingle thing that it no more is than is not, or that it both i and
•• E'en m Burnycat's interprctatton ( 198oa) of E. Jll 1 1. 20 (T 62 De leva
atzzt, 842 SH), on which cc now Bctt (1994b) .
 94 mm ntary on F 4
1 not, r that 1t neither i nor 1 not (ota rouro oov !J.7JOE mauvnv
avrai- O£iv, a,\,\' ciootciarou Kat aKAtV£is- Kat aKpaocivrous- £lvat,
rr£pt €vo iKaarou Alyovras- on ou !J.UAAov €anv ~ ouK €anv ~ Kat
lan Kat ouK €aru• ~ ouu €anv ouu OUK lanv).
(111) T tho e who are in thi di po iti n, a Timon, wi ll
come fir t -pe hie ne and th n imp rturbabilit (rois- !J.Evrot
y£ OtaKH!J.ivot ourw 1T£ptla£a8at Ttl-'wv c/>7Jat TTpwrov !J.EV cicpaa{av,
ETTHTa o' chapattav) .
The relatiOn h1p with Ari totle will be better explained when
dealin with th ou !J.aAAov ('no more') formula reported by
Ari tocle further on . A for the interpretation of the three
adJeCti\'e , R ale' reading i trongly upported by the fact
that they are meant to an wer the fir t of the three que tion
laid down by Timon, which refer to how thing are in them-
elve (TTic/>uK£), independent of our attitude toward them.
Thi vie'\\ ha been philologi ally upported by Decleva
Caizzi (19 1b), and adopted by Long and edley (1987) and
Bett (1994a). Decleva aizzi (19 1b: 223-5) ha hown that
ciotac/>opo ('undifferentiated') already had the meaning of
ci6pwro ('undefined') at Ari t. An. Post. 97b7, De caelo 310b5,
Rhet. 1373"33." Furthermore, in PH 1. 19 -9 extus refer to
the Pyrrhonian aymg TTavra ci6pwra {'everything i undefined').
The expre ion (TT' ia71 ('equally') in it elf doe not seem to
ay anythmg pro or contra thi interpretation. It often occur a
a ynonym of ciotac/>opo , both with an obj ctive (Aiex. Aphr. In
oph . El. 161. 22-3) and an epi temological meaning (Aiex.
Aphr. De animo libri mantissa 16 .4-6 and Ari to in D. L. 7.
16o); and when the two expre ion occur together, (TT' ia7J<;
function merely to add empha i , a in M. Ant. Med. 8. s6. 1
(' to my cho1ce , the choice of mo t people are ETTLGTJ>
dluacf>opov'), and mean ' qually indiff rent'. D cleva Caizzi al o
notice that the e pre ion ETT' ia71 alway refer to th notion
of equiiibnum, and rej et Ferrari' Interpretation of ETT' iaTJ>
ciotcicpopa a 'w1thout an mternal differ nee from one part to
another' (Ferran 19 1: 363), in favour of the r ading 'without
" The ame m .Ht>t . 103 ' 16, 1081 h1J, ,A, Po 1 97bJI, 1oo'16, Top. 103' 11,
121 b15,121 b22,Phys 2622,H11 amm . 497h11,Ge, amm.746'31,7481 The
obJectJtm of u land ( 1989 377-434), that m n totle the term has this mean-
m~ on I~ "hen 1t 1 u ed ~\lth term such a ouota or £1ao 5 , seems qu1te lrrele-
\ant, and not ah\a\ true, ee g . Hut amm 497h11
 ommentary on F 4 95
any difference betwe n thing ' . It i true that the adjectiv
aSL(J.q,opo~ wa also u ed to de cribe Anaxagoras' homoeomeries
(for example b y Demetriu Lacon , P .H erc. JOI2 col. 6), but
thi i not it us ual meaning. And Decleva Caizzi ' interpreta-
tion is not only more consistent with the en uing adjective
aaTa0p:YJTO~ ('un table ') and aV€7rLKpLTO~ ('indeterminate'), but
al o better if €rr' LCJTJ~ goe with all three adjective , whi h seem
to be undec idable but unimportant (Brunschwig I994: I9I n .
4). Finall y, since the term iao~ ('equal') is al o u ed by Timon
to describe Pyrrho' way of life in .E . M r I . 20 (Pyrrho T 62
Decleva Caizzi, Timon fr. 68 Die! = SH 842), Decleva Caizzi'
ugge tion that Sextus' technical notion of i.aoaO!vna ('equi-
pollence') can be traced back to P yrrho also seems plau ible.
:4.aTa0fLTJTO~ (unstable), the second of Pyrrho ' adjective
defining 01TOia 1TE4>UK£ Ta 1TpclyfLaTa ('how thingS are'), haS been
hown by Decleva Caizzi to be linked to the idea of mea ure-
ment in Lucian , Vit. auct. 27, .E. M 7 · 37, but to ha e origin-
all y had the objective meaning of ' un table ' in fourth-century
author u ch as Plat. L ys. 2 I 4 D. In thi ense it al o urvive ,
among other place , in Philo , M os. I . 32 . 2, I. 42 . I , Plut. Them .
2. 7 , Syrian. In Met. 45 · I2, I63 . 33, Themi tiu 24. 308 1,
and Eu . omm. in Psalmos, PG 23 . I284. 23. It i al o notic -
able that in late author this term i often referred to TvxTJ
(Fortune), of whom Pyrrho might have been a prie t (Decle a
Caizzi I981b: I6I-2) .
As to d.vm{KpLTa ('indeterminate'), it i quite a late term , and
Janacek ugge ted that it derive from Aene idemu (I985 : 83) .
It i true that it often occurs in extus, but Ari totle had
already referred to Anaxagoras' world as indi tinct in Met .
989b6-20 (ou0f.v TJ'V arrOK!KpLfLEVov), SO that thi adje ti ma b
one of Timon ' 'neologi m '. It definitely has an epi temologi-
cal meaning, even when it en e is that thing ar u h that
they do admit no determination not only for u but even in
them el (e .g. in Phot. Bibl. 462bi7) . For, a Decl va aizzi
put it (1981b: 225), thi adjecti e mark the shift from th
de cription of how thing are in them Ives to th con equ nee
for human being . In other word , from th fir t to th econd
of Timon' que tions.
Thi int rpretation of th adjecti e qualifying Ta rrp&.yfLaTa
i rejected by topp r (19 3), who, fo ll owing Z 11 r (1919-23 :
 ommentary on F 4
111 1. 01 n . 4), ref r them to our cognitive facultie , and ug-
e::t that we emend th following Sta TOuTo ('th refor ') to Sui
ro ('·m e'). H1 Yiew will b bett r explained in the di cu ion
of th1 mference.
n th other hand, R al and Decle a aizzi are re i ted
by Au -land (19 9) and Brun chwig (1994), ~ ho go ba k to
Bro hard' reading ( 1 7), alread . folio~ ed by Robin ( 1944),
and tr the ethi al ide of the epi temological interpretation.
In part! ular, Au land ba e hi approach on the repeated indi-
cation m icero (T 69A-H Decleva Caizzi) that P rrho, along
with Herillu and Ari to, declined to draw di tinction within
the category of moral indifferent , in oppo ition to the toic
orthodox view that ome of th m are preferable and other are
not. But the fact that icero alway refer to Pyrrho in conn c-
twn With Ari to and Herillu ugge t , according to Decleva
a1zzi (19 1b: 26 -'71), that he relied on a ource, probably
litomachu ' expo ition of Carneade ' divisio, in which Ari to,
Henllu , and Pyrrho were een together a oppo ing the prin-
ciple that the end (TrAos) i in accordance with nature ('aptum et
accomodatum naturae', De fin. S· 1 7) . Thi , he argue , ulti-
mately derive from Chry ippu ,•• who probably referred to a
different pomt, i.e. P rrho ' indifference and freedom from
pa IOn (dSta<f>op[a and a7T(18na; ee Antigonu in D .L. 9· 66 =
T I sA Decleva aizzi, Era to the ne in D . L. 9· 66 = T 14
Decleva Caizzt), \\ hich can be explained by the influence of
ynici m on Pyrrho (Ioppolo 1980: 166, Brancac i 1981).
However, Brun chwig (1994: 207) in i t that
the que. t10n about 'the nature of thing ' hould not b con id red a a
properly ontolo 1cal que t10n, I t alone a phy i al que tion , but rather
a a question about 'thing ' a related to our activity (1rpc:hrHv), i.. a
goal or nds for our a t f hoice and avoidanc .
He find upport in D. L. 9· 61 (T 1A Decleva Caizzi):
(P) rrho) a1d that there 1s nothmg honourabl nor hameful, neither
"Declcva alZZI refer. to Glucker (1978 · 6~1) and loppolo (1980: 166ff.).
Le\ ( 19 o: 247) pomted out that "•cero's ource 1. hry 1ppus ~hen he
peak of Hcnllu , P} rrho, and Ansto m po 1t1ve term , Carneade -
Clltomachu ''hen h p1 tu re them m negat1ve term triker ( 1986) argues
that the dn tslfJ ( am~ad~a found m 'IC Dt fin 5- 16 ff confuses two different
pol ·m1c : one dealmg ~ 1th the art of II\ mg, and the other dealmg '' 1th th
cla •ficat10n of the end tnctl} peakmg.
 ommentary on F 4 97
ju. t or unjust; in general, he qually affirm d that nothmg exists in
truth (f.L7JOEv £lvat -rfl di..7J8£{g.}, and that m n act in onformity to law
and habits, for each thing i no more thi than that.

He argue ( 1994: 2o8) that f.L7JO€v £lvat -rfJ &.>..7]8£{(}- ha nothing to

do with 'real exi tence', but is crypto-copulative, imply mean-
ing 'nothing i really F', in which the range of the variable F i
re tricted to ethical and practical predicate of the type ju t
exemplified b KaKOV, alaxp6v, OLKaLOv, and aOLKOV. The expres-
ion, however, may al o be explain din th context of Timon '
que tion in Ari toe! of how thing are (o1Toi'a 1T€cf>uK£ Ta
1Tpayf-LaTa), w hich i concerned with the is ue of how thing
are cf>ua£L, in them el e , rather than for u . Thi eem to be
upported by the fact that a reference to the obje tive nature
of thing urvi e in Aene idemu ' expre ion €v Toi'c; ovatv
&.>..~8£Lav ('the truth in things'), reported by Phot. 16gb I 8). •J
Therefore it eem , a Brancacci put it (19 1: 234), that
Pyrrho denied the exi tence of any objective reality in logical,
ontological, and ethical term .
Su1 TOuTo ~TJTE TclS aLa9T)aElS T)~wv ~TJTE TclS 80~as ciXTJ9EuElv l\
q,eu8ea9aL. 8Lc1 TOuTo ouv ~TJSE maTeuew a•ha'ls Se'lv. This infer-
ence i al o re pon ible for much discu ion. It wa tarted by
Zeller (1919-23: iiijx. SOI n . 4),' 4 who noted that there i an
a yndeto n in the fir t Ot<l. TOVTO tatement, and that the argu-
ment hould go the other way about; he therefor em nded th
ota TovTo ('therefore') into Ot<l. TO (' ince'), and ga e the three
preceding adjectives the meaning of aKaTclA7J1TTa ('inapprehen-
ibJe'). Hi i w ha been trongly reaffirmed by topper (1983:
27 I-S) , mainly becau e the report of Ari tocl , a it tand ,
look like a 'zany inference', which confli t with th Pyrrhon-
i m of A ne idemu and xtu . o there eem to be three
problem in thi sentence: the meaning of the implication, the
a yndeton, and the relation hip with A ne idemu ' and extu '
Pyrrhoni m .
The probl m of the m aning of the implication originate in
th tatement that our per eption and our belief ar neither
truthful nor liar ; for, a ha b en w 11 explain d by topp r

•J Janacek (1980) has proved thi e pre sion t b original! cnestdcmean.

•• FoiiO\\ed b} eberweg-Prae hter (1960: 1. 463), 'tough (1969: 17ff.),
Dumont ( 1972: IJI-201 ), Dal Pra ( 1975 : 1. 62), Long (1974· 8off ).
9 omm ntar · on F 4
(19 3: 292 n . 5 ), 'if t 11 u that thi
urely th y mu t be either truthful or mendaciou '.
thmk~ that Timon doe not mean that 'our
truth and ne\'er lie ', but rather that 'our en
on tant trutht ller nor con tant liar ', and that, a in later
Pyrrh ni m, o in Timon too, it i the fact that our en e have
no pi temi on tan y that make them unreliable. It eems
that m topper' opinion thi an hardly have been d duced
from the aSta4>op{a ('non-differentiation') Of thing and that,
therefore, a 1t tand the Sui TOUTO i a 'zany' inference.
topper' lution i Zeller' em ndation . This, howe er, does
not eem con i tent with the equen e of Timon's que tion ,
and 1t 1 po ible that T1mon thought that, preci ely becau e of
their non-differentiation and indet rminac , thing cannot be
qualified a true or fal , and that thi i wh our perceptions
and our b lief are not true or fal e. A different olution is that
of Brun chwig (1994: 199), v ho ugge t that the ala8~anc;
(' en e-perception ') and the So~a' ('opinion ') Timon peak
of are the 1rpayfLaTa {'thing ')of the previou sentence. In sup-
port, he adduce a parallel text from Plat. harmides 169
A for the a yndeton, Decleva Caizzi (in Brun chwig 1994:
201 n . 19) and Bett {1994: 142) remark that Sui TOuTo may not
need any particle at all, e pecially when followed by fL~Tf. ...
fL~T£. Decleva Caizzi refer to Plut . Anim. procr. 1018b6,
Philop . De aeternit. mundi 278. 2 , 439, imp. In De caelo 563 .
7, Plot. Enn . V I. 7, I 7· 16; it i true that the e are not clas i-
cal author , but Ari tocle wrote at about the ame time as
Plutarch , and the a yndeton may be attributed to him. ' 5
But it may al o be evidence of an external intervention, as
Brun chv.·ig (1994: 194ff.) ugge t . Thi i upported by the
fa t that the an -; er to the econd que tion laid down by Timon
on the nght path to reach fuSa,,_,.ov{a i much longer than the
•s To the argument pnvately ugge ted by D . Furley, a ordtng to\ hich
the ne~~:atl\·e 1-'fr£ 1-'~n are mcorrect Gr ek w1th litci TOuTo, but orrect w1th
llta To, mce in the latter ea e we hould have mtimtive w1th the arucle, wh1ch
u e 1-'~ and compound , while m the former we hould have mtin1t1Ve tn tndi-
rect d1 cour e, \\h1ch u e ou and ompounds, Bett (19940) oppose examples
Y.hich ho" that the rule that mfin1tlve m tnd1rect d 1 cour e use ou i ubjeCt
to ex eptlon even m the cla 1cal penod, and later appear to be more or le s
abandoned . In any ea e Furl y' obJection is refuted b} the ve ry next cntcnce,
ll•a Toirro ow 1-'fJil( mo'Tfvuv aU..ais liHv KTA
 ommentary on F 4 99
an wer to the first and third question . lnd ed Brun chwig
reads Timon ' word not a
Timon ay that Pyr rho
(a) d lar thing to be indifferent, et
(b) (and de lares) that for this rea on our en ation , etc.

but as:
Timon a s
(a) that Pyrrho de lares thing to be india r nt, tc.
(b) (and) that for this rea on our sen ation , etc.

Brun ch wig attributes the Sul. rouro inferen ce (b) to Timon ,

who wou ld thu be re pon ible for what might be called an
epi temologica l turn within the whole tory. De leva Caizzi
objects that it would need very clum y Greek entence , with
three infiniti e , to expres each time explicitly that Timon
ays that P yrrho sa id etc ., a nd that thi " as unnece ary, ince
the maste r-pupil relation between P y rrho and Timon had been
lai d dow n from the out et. Brunschwig replies that the fact is,
precisely, that such a clum y phra e i u ed once and only once,
and not at the beginning of the report . He al o sugge ts ( 1994:
194 n . 9) that there would have been a ery imp le and economi-
ca l Way of expanding the COpe Of c/rfJGLV auT!)v rhrorpa{VHV ('say
that he de lared') to the other senten e by writing:
Timon ay that Pyrrho declared that thing are equal! undiffer-
en tiated, un tab! , and indeterminate and that therefo re neither our
en e-perception nor our opinion ar true or fa! e (rei p.ev oov
1Tpayp.ar6. cf>TJGLII aurov a7Toc/>a{v£tll !TT' LGTJ 0.8t6.popa Kai O.ar&.Bp.TJTC Kai
aJJ£7T{Kptra (£tvat), 8ta TOUTO fL~T£ ras alaB~aH ~fLWII fL~T£ ra> 86~a>
O.ATJBn.lm ~ .jl£u8m8at).

Brun chwig' hypothe i very attractive although pecula-

tive, a he him elf arn , e pecially for the rea on h attribute
to Timon for de eloping the epistemologi al id of P rrho'
thought . H argues that, in Timon ' e , the faire t way of
deba ing the originalit of Arcesilau ' ognitive eptici m " a
to inj et retroa ti el , into Pyrrho him elf, th appropriate
doe of cognitive one rn and doubt .' 6 He recall (1994: zo6)
6
' The refercn e to lloea• 1 th mam reas n \ hy tt annot b upposed that
the llui -rou-ro in~ rence i n . toclc '. For although Bctt (19940) obscnc that
 100 ommentary on F 4
that T1mon 's ho t1lity t ward Ar ilau i a) evidenced b •
D . L . 9· 1 15, and that hi epi t m lo i a ) on ern are fairly
well atte t d by h1 writing On ensations (D.L. 9. 105) and
Again t the Plry tcists ( .E. 1 J . 2) .
• • neofth1 run ounterto Bach li ' onj cture(1990:72-9)
that thi text i eviden e of Timon' reply to the Epicurean on
th n ht path t follow m order to r a h nj8at,..,.ov[a. Gigante
( 19 1) had air ady noticed that for both the ceptic and the
Epicurean f:u8at,..,.ov[a i aTapa~[a, but that thi i reached in
different way a cording to the two ect . For the ceptic
&.mpa~[a denve from iving up any kind f belief, while on the
contrary for the Epi ur an (Epic. Epi t. H er. 8o-3, KLJ 24,
Demetnu La on in P .Herc. 831 col . iv f., Poly tratu in De
contemptu, col . xxix f. = eh. 8 Indelli) aTapa~[a i the out ome
of the tudy of nature (r/Juaw>..oy[a), which i ba ed preci ely on
the en e- riteria which the ceptic r ject, name) aia8~aHc;,
and, when onfirm d by the e, on 86~at.
Pyrrho' and Timon' pre ervation of rational facultie (vouc;
and >..6yo ) from their critici m of human kno\J ledge i also evi-
denced by Timon in .E. M 1 I. 140-I (T 64 Decle a Caizzi):
It'' Ill be po 1ble toe cape thi annoyance only if v e how to the man
who 1 up et b) the earch for good and th avoidance of the bad that
nothing reall) (t/>van) good or bad e i t , but ' mong men the e
thmg are judged by mind (v6CtJ)' ,' 7 a Timon ay (fr . 70 Diets= SH
44) .

Thi i a Democritean inheritance, a Decleva Caizzi (1981b:

227) had already ob erved, and it i a) o atte ted for Pyrrho by
Ant1gonu in D.L. 9· 66 (T 15A Decle a aizzi): 'It i nece-
ary to fight again t thing fir t by deed , then by rea on, >..6ycp';
Plut. Prof. virt. 2 F (T 17B Decleva Caizzi): 'a7TCi8Ha ha to be
gamed through rea on (>..6you) and philo ophy (r/Jt>..oaorjl[ac;)';
and .E . 1 I 1. 20 (T 62 Decleva aizzi, Timon fr. 68 Die! =
SH 42): 'I am gomg to ay how it appear to me a word of
truth, ,..,_u8ov a>..TJ(}f:{TJc;, having a tru tworthy riterion, op8ov
the u e of monuuv ('to tru t') and nA1j6£unv ('to be true') in conn ection with
aio6~on~ recall n to I ' own cho1ce of words m F 6 and F 7, m both of
the e An tocle pa1r a:aO~an, w1th t/>av-rao{a, ('pre entat10n '), not w1th ll&ta<.
And \\hen he \\ant to contra~ts per eptlon \\lth rational faculties, he never
refer to So~a<, but u c A6yo ('rea on') (f-7) or voti\ ('mtellect') (F8).
17
ce n . 1
 omm ntary on F 4 101
Kav6va'. Timon' fidelity to Democritus may be the rea on for
Timon' rep! to the Epi ureans, ' 8 who e attack again t the
Democritean ' ceptical' principles 'no more thi than that' (ov
f'aAAov) and of qualitie ' being con entional ar reported by
Plut. Adv. ol. I Io8 F, 1 I IO E (I nardi Parente I984) .
The main problem, however, i how all thi con istent
with the Pyrrhoni m of Aenesidemu and extu . ertainly it
i nece ary to re i t th temptation of reading Pyrrho in term
of his later follower ; for, a topper himself a knowledge ,
Aenesidemu may have invented a Pyrrhonian Pyrrho (I983:
293 n .s8). And Decleva aizzi (I981b: 225) had air ady noticed
trace of an initial reference to the obje tive natur of thing in
.E. PH I. 8: 'Becau e of the equipollence in th objects and
rea ons (1rpayf'aat Kat Aoyots-) opposed, w are brought fir tly to
u pension and then to imperturbability', and in PH I. I 90:
'Becau e of the equipollence of thing (TTpayl-'6.-rwv) oppo ed ' e
end in a tate of equilibrium.' extu ' warning at PH 1. 198--9
that the tatement 'all thing are undetermined' (1ravTa ci6ptaTa)
i an affection (TTaOos-) may al o be a trace of Pyrrho' tat ment
that 'all things are undifferentiated' (1ravTa cif>Lacpopa). And
imilar trace can be detected in Aene idemu ' xpre ion 'the
truth in thing ' (!v Tois- ovatv aA~Ona) in Phot. 169b22, although
Decle a Caizzi think that the word
Th re i n firm ba i for appr hen ion (ov81.v {3i{3awv £ls Ka·n5.>. 7Jt/Jtv),
eith r through n e-perception (8ui ala8~a£w ) or thr ugh thought
(8td vo~a£w ), th r fore n ith r th Pyrrhonian nor the other know
the truth in thing (T~v l.v Tots oJatv c.L\~8£tav)

are a corr ction of Pyrrho' initial ref ren e to

nature of thing . ' 9
The conn tion b tw en Timon in Ari tocl
d mu in Photiu is al o ugge ted b the latt
•H ee n . 9·
•• For the e. pre sion Ev Toi oJatv 0.1\~llw:,t ee n . '3 ·
 102 mmentary on F 4

o) atfLOvta at 169b27-9 and 170b3 1, and by a imilar account of

the ou fLaAAov pnn iple, a we hall b tter in th
tar) ad lo . It i - true that Aen idemu in Photiu p ak of
thou ht (vo~un ) and Timon in Ari to le of opinion (oo~at),
but th1 an be explained by the fa t that en idemu in-
luded vou and ..\oyo in hi di tru t of human facultie of
knowledge .
In conclu ion, Aene idemu eem to have known Pyrrho'
pnn iple through Timon' Python, but, after the Dogmati ts'
critic1 m , to have abandoned P rrho' initial reference to the
objecti,·e nature of thing and hi tru t in vous- and Aoyos-. He
maintamed the re t of hi principle , howe er, which he
probably con idered to be enough for him to claim ( o Phot.
169b1 ) to philo ophize 'according to Pyrrho' (KaTCi lluppwva).
A for extu , he refer to Pyrrho very rare) and never quote
him e plicitly (Oecleva aizzi 19926 and Hankin on 1995: 68);
he doe not eem to have been directly acquainted with
Timon' Python, but eem to have con idered Pyrrho a philo-
ophical ideal enabling one to counter any dogmati m. Further
re earch on thi need to be done, however.
QAA ci8o~ciaTOUS Kal. QKAlVElS Kal. aKpa8civTous. The e adjec-
1

ti,·e are put forward to an wer the econd of Timon's que -

tion , the epi temological question, and may refer to our moral
a well a cognitive attitude toward thing .
In Brun chwig' view ( 1994: 202 ff.) the e three adjective
hould be regarded a Pyrrho' , for they are linked to the previ-
ou tatement that 'things are undifferentiated, un table, and
mdetermmate', whi h i urely Pyrrho' . And indeed all three
adjeCtiVe are o)d enough tO have been U ed by him: aKAIV~S" and
aS6~aUTOS" 20 already 0 cur in Plat. Phaed. 109 and 94 re pec-
tJvely, and although aKpaOavTOS" i quite rare and )ate in phiJo-
ophlcaJ context ," 1t derive from the erb KpaOaw, -a{vw,
.. ilbo~aoT05 often occurs m ItS adverb1al form to des1gnate the Pyrrhonian
\\a} of hfe m 'extu ' Outltnes of Pyrrhom m, but never m his Agaznst the
DogmatiSts (janacek 1972. 61) . The rea on for th1 ma be the Dogmau ts'
cnt1c1 m that 1t 1 1mpo 1ble to hve With no opm1on . nstocles too will ins1st
on th1 pomt , \\hi h 1 till debated by modern cholar (Burnyeat 198ob;
tnker 198o; ]. Barn • 19 2, 1990a, 199ob; nna 1986; u baum 1986,
1991 ; L l ' rede 19 7b, 1987c, Bailey 1990)
I ·m . .\1 PatdafiOfi . 2 22. 4, Phllo, Post 25 6, 122. , Plant. 153· 2,
( onf. 7· 5, '.Jut 135 J , Abr 269 7, ,'Hos 2 14
 omm ntary on F 4 I03
which i air ady in Xenophane 8 25 DK (Decl a aizzi
I98Ib: 228), and ha a emanti parallel in Timon' de cription
of the ceptic in . E. M 1 1 . I (Pyrrho T 6 I C Decle a Caizzi,
fr. 67 Di Is= SH 841) : 'Ev r with no ar nor movement in th
) \ ) ;/.._ I \ ) I \ ,.. )'
ame State llt€t a't'p011TtaTWS Kilt tlKtiiT)TWS KtlTa TtlVTtl •
(

If thi i Pyrrho' an wer to the econd of Timon' que -

tion , one may now doubt whether the following report on
Pyrrho ' ov ~J-aAAov principle i Timon' , although the first of
the three di junction wa certainly on of Pyrrho' r current
aying (D .L. 9· 6I = T 1A Decleva aizzi).
'ITEpl. EvOS EKQ<7TOU XeyovTQS on ou •.uiXXov eanv Tl OUK eanv Tl KQl
E<7Tl KQl OUK E<7TlV Tl OlJTE E<7TlV OUTE OUK eanv. Thi formulation
of the 'no more' principle may be read in two different way , for
the econd and third ~ may be ubordinate either to on to ov
~J-aAAov . Either (A) we hould ay about each single thing that it

(i) no more i than i not, or

(ii) both is and is not, or
(iii) neither i nor is not.
Or else (B) we should say about ea h ingle thing that it no more
(i) than
(ii) i not, or
(iii) i and is not, or
(iv) neither is nor i not.
) wa the interpretation common! accepted until De Lac
(I958 : 59-7I) argued in fa our of (B) in order to ave the
Pyrrhonian from the harge of in on i tency and of dogma-
ti m . In upport he adduced Favorinu in Gel!. NA I I . 5· 4 (fr.
26 Barigazzi, T 56 Decl a aizzi) : 'No more in thi wa than
in that way or (than) in neither of th two' (ov 1-'at\t\ov ouTws lxn
T08E 1j fKE{vw 1j ov8ETEpws). n the oth r hand, following
onche' ugge tion (I973: 30ff.), Reale and Decl a aizzi
in thi formulation a r j tion of Ari t. Met. r IOO "3o-4,
dire ted against the man who says neither es nor no (ouTE yelp
" • , , " ,, ) b Ut yes an d nO ("
OVTWS OUT OVX OVTWS 1\EYEL , OVTW TE Kilt' OVX
,
ouTws), and again denie b th of th and ay neith r ye nor
no (ov8' ouTws ovTE oux ouTws). 22 The. ther for r rt to (A), in
" Decleva 'aizz1 (1981b· 152) al o str cs that the behaviour attributed to
Pyrrho by ntigonu in D .L . 9· 62 IS \Cry much like that which ristotle
attribute to the person who d n1c the princ1ple of non-contradiction in ll't .
 10{ mmentary on F 4
'' h1 h the -e ond and third ~ are orr lated to the entire fir t
phra e and not only to 1t econd part.
ompared With ( ), (B) ha the advantage of pre erving the
ov fLaAAov expre ion in all three ea e ; but from a lingui tic
pomt of new 1t i not po ible to olve the ambiguit . Never-
thele (A) 1 upported by Aene id mu in Phot. 170" 1-3:
(The) .a) that) thtng are no more of thi kind than of that, or that
they are :ometrme · of thrs kmd, ometime not, or that for one per on
the) are of thr kmd, for another per on not of thi kind, and for
another per. n n t even . 1 tent (ovSE-v fLciAAov TotaSc Tj TOtaSc, Tj TC)u
f.LO TOia TOT£ S£ ov Toia, Tj <{I f.LCv TOtQUTQ <{I S£ ov TOtQUTa, <{I S' ovS' oAws
O~.· ra) .

Thi pa age too i ambiguou from a lingui tic point of iew,

but the period eem to come to a natural end after the econd
Tota~)£, the ucceeding clau e being tacked on, o that Photius'
anti the e introduce ne"'' notion , of variation over time or be-
tween ob en·er , and e\·en make a mild chang in the predicate.
Rea le' mterpretation ha been re i ted b topper ( 1 983),
becau e (a) Pyrrho could not make a ertion , if he wi hed to be
con I tent\\ ith hi profe ion of ac/Jaa{a; (b) in e era! pa age
extu produce argument in the form of a 'tetralemma': P, or
not-P, or both P and not-P, or neither P nor not-P; but not P,
and not not-P (e.g. PH 2. 86--?), and topper conclude that
extu may have inherited the formula from the early Pyrrhon-
i t ;' 3 (c) even if the right reading were (A), neverthele (A)(ii)

roo b12-14, but a kno\\ledge that it 1 nttgonu , rather than Pyrrho , who
may have been mfluenced by An totle. The e tones do not need to be consid-
ered literally true
topper al o thmk that the clatm of some author (Frenkian 195 ,
Ptantelii 197 . Flmtoff 19 o) that the tetralemma \\a an Indtan style of argu-
ment, and that P) rrho dt co\·ered 1t m ht com er atJon with the Gymno-
opht t , t not enttrely groundles . n the other hand, nnas and Barne
( 19 s: 12) a ert that 'tt 1 by no mean 1mpos. tble that Pyrrhonism ha an
Indian godfather But tt natural parent were urely Greek.' Thi is also the
conclu ron of tht mo t recent arttcle pecdically devoted to this much-debated
que tron (\IcE\ 1llty 1982), Y.h1ch not on I) how that Pyrrhoni m could have
derl\ed perfectly \\ell from the Greek tradttJon, but also that tt could not have
deri\ed from any Indian tradttJon likely to have be n m ext. ten e in 326 B ,
the year of Pyrrho' , naxarchu ' and Ones1cntu ' \tStt to India w1th
Alexander \le£~\ tile) al o argu s that the mdub1tabl parallel are more
probably e piicable by th entl] into lndta of ~re k phtlo ophy, through th
 ommentary on F 4 105
and (A)(iii) hould be con idered mer variant of (A)(i), which
doe not deny Ari totle' principle of non-contradiction but i
mere! a double assertion; (d) it may have been Ari tocl who,
with th Metaphysics in mind, ga e 'the Ari totelian twi t'
to Timon' exposition, for (ii) and (iii) are not found in any
oth r epti al writing, and it is they that give the pas age it
ri tot lian connection.
A for (a), topper him elf acknowledges that Aene idemu
in Phot. 170"1-3 offer a tacit m ndation of Timon, attempt-
ing to eliminate the dogmati m of the econd and third di junc-
tion . Moreover, although both Timon and Aen idemu
affirmed that the meaning of th ou f.LaAAov principle i 'to affirm
nothing' (ro f.L'Y)OEV op{~m) (D.L. 9· 61 = T IA Decleva aizzi
and Phot. 1703 23),' 4 .E. PH 1. 187-93 define the ou f.LUAAov
formula and the condition of speechles ne (d.c/>a.a{a) a
affections (rr&.O'Y)). In that ea e the ou f.LUAAov attitude e m to be
the mere report of the peaker' failure to as ent to on alterna-
ti e rather than the other, and spee hie ne doe not em to
be omething that mu t be 'achieved ' ( topper 1983: 274), but
the ondition re ulting from the maintenance of an ou f.LUAAov
attitude. Thi is why it can be under tood a ' ilence' rather
than a 'non-a sertion' ,' 5 a ex tu too ugge t (PH 1. 1 92)
when he ay that d.c/>aa{a i neither affirmation (Kar&.c/>aat ) nor
Hellenized area of north-west India and neighbouring Bactria, and through
th raeco-Roman trading entr of the south-ea t.
The tradition of an Indian infiuen e on Pyrrho i better grounded for
another feature of Pyrrhoni m . For, a De leva aizz1 ( 1981 b: 143) observed
in reply to Zeller (191o-23 : iii/1. 498), although freedom from pas ion and
mdifferen e (a1rali£,a and &FJ,a<f>op{a) are also shared by tilpo and the ynics,
the degree to which Pyrrho took these in his actual behaviour i not attnbuted
even to Diogenes. n the other hand, it ha a precedent in India, and Pyrrho
ould ha e learnt it there, if he d1d really ob erve alanus' death.
' • D . L . 9· 75 reports on the three meanmgs-po itive, negative, compara-
tive--of the expre sion ou 1-'a.Uov. But, as Decleva aizzi ( 19 tb: 230) ha
pomted out, here Diogene discu se the attribution of the ame pred1cate to
two subje ts, whi le in ri tocl s the ou 1-'aAAov con erns the attribution to the
same ubJeCt of two different predicates. s Ferrari ( 1968) showed , iogene '
ver ion is more rigid and is affected by lat polemics .
'' Contra tough (1984). Bett (1994a: 164-5) al o comments that ristocles'
report eems to ay that 'the effe t of adopting the unwa ering attitude is that
one IS reduced to a tunned and troubl d ilen e'. True, although m a tutorial
Barne nghtly obje ted the last thing any c ptlc will sugge t 1 that h1s mves-
tlgatJOns end in troubl .
 ro6 mmentary n F 4
ne at! n (chr6</Jo.ad. Th1 view i n i tent ·with the fact that
An to I ' r p rt on th ou p.a.A>.ov i the an wer to the third of
T1mon' qu t1 n : what i th benefit of thi attitude toward
thm ? (r[ 1T£pdaro.t roi ourw lxovat;).
A f r (b), topper i right; it i triking that in om xtian
text w t th t tralemma, including the t o ' impo ible
po ibi!Jtie ' (A)(ii) and (A)(iii). But thi do not nece aril
requ1re that'' e read Timon' report a a t tralemma, peciall
a the pa age of idemu in Phot. 170"1-3 doe not how
an) tra of on .
A for (c), it i noteworthy that Alexander of Aphrodi ias too
characterized Ari totle' opponent 'a ' anting to say of all
thing no more the affi rmation (Ko.ra</Jo.at ) than the negation
(chr6</Jo.at )'(In Met . 294. 1-2).
A for {d), in none of the urvivi ng fragment doe Ari tocle
eem to have added an ything to the quotation from other
author .26 n the other hand , topper mu t be right when he
ay that not every part of the ou p.ii>.>.ov formulation reported
by Ari tocle need ha e originated from P y rrho , who probably
followed the imple Democritean formula 'it no more i than i
not' (ou p.a.A>.ov lanv 7j ouK lanv). For although Pyrrho may
have come to know Ari totle through Calli thene during hi
trip to lnd1a, it wa not in hi tyle to argue polemically with
philo opher . Th1 wa Timon ' t le, on the contrary, and
(A)(1i) and (A)(iii) may repre ent Timon ' polemical de elop-
ment of one of Pyr rho ' impler tatement in direct oppo ition
to Ari t. Met. r.• 7 nee agai n Timon may have done o in
order to reaffirm the Democritean po ition, thi time agai nst
An totle' cnt1ci m , but perhap a part of hi polemic with
the Epicurean , for in tance olote , who re i ed Ari totle'
argument agam t Democritu .2
To"ls ~EvTOl YE SLO.I<El~EvOLS T(~wv cf!TJal. trpWTOV
OUTW trEplEaEa8o.L
' O.'t'O.OlO.V
JLEV ' """' ' , ElTElTQ
• oc:•' A 'lVT)OloT)~OS
t' 1•c:
0.TO.pO.l>lQV oc: • T)OOVT)V.
•c: ' M0 t
cholar uppo e that in thi entence Ari tocle or hi ource
dropped a th1rd Timonian term, and replaced it -v ith the refer-
The claim that n tocle may ha\e added omethmg here i 'undul y u -
plC IOU a Lonj;( and edle} ( 19 7· 1 f>--7) remark.
'
7
o a I read} Lon~ ( 1981) on tnker' ugge uon
A. regard nugonu ' repor , 1t can not be excluded that nugonu , and
not P}rrho, wa m pared by n t. i'vltt Ioo8h 12-1 4 .
 ommentary on F 4 107

ence to Aene id mu . Th y find upport in the ery clo e

threefold tructure of Timon' pa ag (Ferrari 1968), and u -
pect that Timon mentioned 'freedom from pas ion ' (a1T<llhta)
a the third outcome of Scepti ism.' 9 That Pyrrho prof d
a1TClfhta i hown by Timon in a fragment of the Silloi, reported
by Ari to le him elf at para. 19 . And tra e of Pyrrho' ci.1T<l.8ua
also urvi e in S .E. PH 1. 25, where extus affirm that th
cepti ' goal i freedom from di turbance (d:rapagta) in re pect
of matter of opinion, and ' moderation' (f.'lTpta7T<l.8ua) in
re pect of thing that are una oidable. For f'lrpwTTa8ua may be
extu ' revi ion of Pyrrho's ci.TTa8ua caused by critici m and
ridicule uch a that of Antigonu in Aristocle himself at para.
26 (T 15B Decleva Caizzi). According to .E. M 11. 141 (T 59
Oecleva Caizzi): ' He is happy who lives free from perturbation
(ci.rapaxws'), and, as Timon said, in calm and peace (€v ~aux{q. Kat
yaATjVOTT)n)'. Then it is pos ible that Timon had already
replaced ch6.8ua with this referen e to alm and peace in order
to avoid the charge of unreali m and extremism. In thi ea e
too , Timon may have had Democritu in mind, particularly the
pa age reported by D .L. 9· 45:
The goal of life ( r€Aos-) i to ha a che rful pirit (t:J8up.{a), which is
not the am as pleasure (~Sov~), as om falsely take it, but a tate in
whi ch th oul i aim (yaA 11 vws-) and tranquil (EJara8ws-), undisturbed
by an fear , super tition , or any other motion (tim) P."'SEvos- rapa-rro-
p.E'vTJ tj>6{3ou ~ SEtatSatp.ov{as- ~ aAAou nvos- 1TC1.8ous-).
In any case, a stronger attempt to avoid the Dogmati ts'
nttct m may explain Aene idemu ' referen e to pi a ure
(~oov~). For it i true that Aene idemu declar d that 'neither
happine s, nor pleasure, nor prud nee' (f.'~Tf r~v EvDatf'ov{av
IJ.~H r~v ~Sov~v f'~H r~ cJ>p6v1jatv) are the goal of life (re'Ao )
(Phot. 170b3I ), Jo but it i po sib! that, in hi opinion, although
'9The only exception i Brun chwig ( 1994: 204), who sugge t that £v8ac-
wa the third term : ' It would be trang indeed to promise us happme '
,_.ov{a
at the b gi nning, and not to say at the end that if we follow the re ipe we hall
e entuall get it.'
10 Be ause of this, om holars ( ouissm 1929: 3 7 n. 1, chm kel 193 :
309 n . 1) . ugge ted that we mend ~8ov~v t (nox~v, in accordance with .E.
PH I . 29 (Kat oi OK£1fT<KOt oJv ..j.\nc~ov p.(v T~V thapa~{av dva.\~o/J£o8ac 8ca TOU T~V
dvwJ.LaAtav ,-Wv f/>ac.vop..Evwv .,.~ Kal vooup.ivwv JTTc.Kpf•Jat , p.~ SuVTIOivTE 8f TTonjaac.
'TOUTO (nloxov · (moxouoc 8( auTOl) oTov TUXIKW) ~ thapa~{a nap1JKOAou8T}00' W)
OKIU ow,..an) and D . L . 9· I 07 (n'Ao5 8( oi OK£1f'TIKOL cf>aoc 'T~V (nox~v' {J OKUi>
tO ommentary n F 4

n tth r EvSo.tiLo••{o. nor ~So•·~ i th TfAo , n rthel EVOO.tjLov{a

I aTo.po.~[o. and tht ' i a kind of ~Oov~ (Dal Pra I97s : i. 314).
Tht , may be a tgn eith r of a n Epi ur an influence on
Aene-tdemu ( atorp 1 4 , igante 198 I) , or of Aen idemu '
e I ttct m (Hirz I I 3, Brochard I 7, Burkhard I973) ,l' but
certainly en td mu ' r feren e to ~Sov~ repre ent an
attempt to make the eptic c n cept of aTo.po.~{o. more accept-
ab le and realt tic (Trabuc o I 95 : I 23) , e pecially if the third
term of Ttmon' equ n ee afte r &.cf>o.a{o. and aTo.po.~{o. wa
arra0€!o.; for we know from D .L . 9· 62 (T 7 Decl a aizzi) that
Aene id mu wa on rned with Antigonu ' ridicule of P rrho'
am5.0Ho.: 'A ne tdemu ay that he profe ed the u pen ion of
JUdgement (€rrox~) in philo ophy, but that in life he did not lack
precautton ILTJ jL€VTOt y o.rrpoopo.Tw EKO.CJTO. rrpo.TTHv .
' ( \ ' , ) I '#I I )'

If all thi i true, Aene idemu ' reference to ~Oov~ i another

example of thi revi ion of P yrrho ' and Timon' principle ; in
thi ea e to defend them not o much from the charge of in-
con 1 tency, a in Ph tiu ' report , a from that of making life
tmpo ible . And it o currence in Ari tocle can only be
explained by uppo ing that he relied , directl or through a
fatthful epitom e, on a book of Aene idemu dealing with thi .
The e four paragraph of Ari tocle which have been o
much di cu ed, then, revea l them elve to b ba ed on a good,
although late, genuine P y rrhonian ource , and for thi rea on to
be a reltable r port concerning P y rrho. A cording to them
Pyrrho eem to h ave initiall y referred to the objecti e nature
of thing , and , from thi , to have drawn ontologica l, logical ,
moral, and cogniti\·e on equence . e erthe le Pyrrho ma
-rpoTTov f.na.KoAou8£i ~ ciTapa~{a, Ws- t/>aow oiT£ 1T£pi -rOv T lp.wJJa Kal. AlvEalS.,p.ov).

But extu and Dtagene do not repo rt any divergence betwee n Timon and
Aene tdemu on tht pomt. nd , a out s m nott e , tt would also be nece •
al') to uppo e a dt placement of the addttt on , for the orig mal text hould
ha\ e atd Ttp.wv t/>T)a{, TTPWTOV at/>o.a{o.v (AtVTjOL8TJI.LOS 8( inox~v), lnnro.
aTapo.~io.• \loreo' er, Htrzel ( t 83 · 111 24 n 1) pomt out that th ere t no men-
twn of a T£>.os m n to le ' text. nd enestdem us' tatement may be
explamed a a reply to the 'yrenat and ptcurean debate on whether Eu8o.•·
1-1ovio. or ~bov~ i the T(>.os ( D L . 2. 9)
l' The) u pect that thi i the rea on \\hy ext u felt th ne e 1ty of dt -
ttn~J htn~ bet\\een th 'yrenatc and the ceptt m PH 1. 215 and M 7·
190. But. extu i concerned \\tth thctr theone of knowledge, not \\tth thetr
etht And the ltnk bet\\cen ) renatc and c ptt pt temology ongmates tn
th nEp< O.LpEOEWV (\Jan fe)d 1986 378)
 Commentary on F 4 I09
ha e not aid everything that Ari to les report . It i unlik ly
either that h dictated or that Timon knowingly put in hi
ma ter' mouth anything he would ha e di owned; rather, he
may ha mixed Pyrrho' more fr quent aying with hi own
omment . Indeed, Pyrrho do not eem to have been primar-
ily oncerned with epi temological que tion , whi h, on th
contrary, were probably faced by Timon in reply to Ari tot!
and Epicuru . Later, probably becau e of the Oogmati t 'crit-
tct m , it eem that A ne id mu and extu progre i ly
eliminated Pyrrho' initial ref rence to how thing are in th m-
e) e and concentrated on it epi temological and moral con-
equen e .

S-7· After reporting on the principle of early Pyrrhoni m (Td.

Ji-fV ovv K£c/>a/..a,a nuv A£yol-'lvwv €aTt TaiiTa) Aristocles turn
to criticism (aK£tPWJi-l8a o' £i op8ws >..fyoua,). With Klc/>a/..a,a we
may compare the expre ion aKmnKa K£c/>a/..a,a (' cepti al
principle ') in Theodo iu in D .L. 9· 70, where Diogen r fer
to Theodo iu ' work and argument again t the label of
'Pyrrhoni m ':

Theodo iu in hi Sceptical Principles d nie that ceptici m hould

b call d Pyrrhoni m; for if the mov ment of the mind in eith r dir -
tion i not apprehensible by u , w hall n v r know Pyrrho ' di po ·i-
tion , and without knowing it we cannot be called Pyrrhonian . B ides
thi , (he ay ), Pyrrho i not th founder of c pti i m, nor did h
hold any doctrine; but a person i called P rrhonian who behave lik
Pyrrho .

Thi i why ome cholar , uch a Burkhard ( I973: IS ff.),

thought that Theodo iu wa Ari tocle ' ource. But even if w
h Id that Ari tocle li d in th cond century o, '> hi h i
Th odo ius ' time (Decl a aizzi I9 Ib: 20I, J. Barn 19 6:
42o-4), it eem unlikely that the latt r wa hi ourc , for
Ari tocle doe not m to know Th odo iu ' argum nt
again t th label of 'Pyrrhoni m' quoted above, whi h offer an
opportunity that Ari tocle would n t hav I t lip, had h
known them. Theoda of Laodi a al o wrot a Principle
(Kn/>6./..a,a), a cording to al. De libr. propr. 9 ( cripta minora,
ii. 1 IS), and it i probably to hi work that Th od iu repli s
( uda .. B£o86aws). Ho e r, K£c/>a/..a,a and its d rivative
 I IO ommentary on F 4
K€cpaAatw8w- and €~· K€cpaJ..a{cp were commonly u ed {D .L. 7. 38,
4 ), and al appear in Photiu ' report of Aene idemu at
I70h2, 4 ·
:\. ~7Juiv ('inquire') in para . 7 and Io,
\'erb aKoTTw/faK€1/Jap..TJv (' xamine') here
doe not eem to be technical, inc he n er peak of
eptic ' (aKmTtKot') . The ame verb i often u ed by Ari totle,
for example at E, I 103b2 : 'Let u examine \ hat i virtue'
(aK€7TTOp..d}a TL fUTIV ap€T~), and it i noticeable that neither the
verb, nor the noun, nor the adjectiv occur in Aene idemu in
Photiu .
Generally peaking, the ritici m advanced in para . s-7 aim
to how that the principle ofPyrrhonism are elf-contradictory.
The argument in para . 5, that tho e who ay that things are
undifferentiated mu t be right or wrong, echoe Met . IOI2biS-
I , where An totle argue again t tho e who ay that every-
thing i ~ true or that e erything i fa) e:

The man '' ho ay that everything 1 tru , al o make true the oppo-
lte tatement true, and hence hi own not tru , inc the opponent
affirm that 1t 1. not true . nd the man who ay that erything i
fal e, Will al o ay that hi own tatement i fal

The argument of para. 6, that if all thing were un-

differentiated, there would be no rea on to prefer Pyrrho to
anyone el e, had already been made by ocrate again t
Protagora in Plato ' Theaetetus (Decleva aizzi 198rb: 208).
The argument of para. 7 a pp lie to the ov p..aAAov formula the
Ari totelian Crtttct m put forward in para . 5 again t the a8ta-
c/>op{a of thm : both the ov p..aAAov formula and the tatement

1m1lar argument · \\ re turned agam t the cadem1 con ept of inappre-

hen 1b1ltty (aKa.,.a>.f/1/J{a) by Anttpater and nt10chu m ic. Luc. 20, 28--9,
43 , 109, by Aene. 1demu m Phot. 17o•2s-J8, by al. De opt . doct . 2. 1-3 . 3
{pp 94-101 B.mgazz1), and by lem . I. tram . 8. 5· The ademic target of
nt1o hu and Clement and the termmology they employ are m conAict with
\\' ttt' hypothe 1 {19JT 32) that n stocle 1s the mtermed1ate so urce between
them. I o Ammon In Cat 2 9, Phtlop In Cat . 2. 4, Eltas, In at . 109. 24,
Olymp . Proltg. J . 31 , In Altttor 1 18 . 23, clep In Jl,fet . 222.12, ynan. In
'1-ftt 73 . 16, "ho turn agam. t the Ephect1 the argument deployed by Plato
and An totle agam. t the Protagorean., are oncerned not w1th the statement
1Tt.li"TQ ab&tit/>opa ('a)) thmg arc Undifferentiated') but With 1T(lVTQ tli(QTCl).lpTTQ
{'nothmg can be apprehended')
 omm ntary on F 4 III
that thing are d.Sui<f>opa must nece arily be true or fa! e, oth r-
wi e inquir would not be po ible.
Th r ferenc to Timon' word 'why ye and \ hy no and
why th v ry why itself wa onvincingly con idered a quota-
tion by Ferrari (1968 : 205) , who thought that oth rwi e the
polemic would make no en e.
~"'TEi:v ('inquire') al o occur in para . 10 with a non-techni al
meaning. It i u ed in th same way by Ari totle in Met .
Ioo6"II-I5, \here we also find the argument put forward by
Ari tocles :
If the adver ary doe not ay anything, it is ridiculou to look for
al'}T£iv) an argument to put again t omeone who ays nothin ; for he
, ay nothing.

Therefore it doe not eem that Ari tocles refer to the fact that
th ceptic call them elve ~TJTTJTLKo{ or 'inve tigator ' ( .E.
PH 1. 2), and it i noticeable that thi term doe not ven occur
in Photius ' report from Aene idemus' Pyrrhonian Logoi.
On the other hand, th erb auyKaTaTIB£J.A-aL ('to a sent')
occur only once in Ari t . Top.II6 3 II, but app ar in
ene idemu ap. Phot. 169h30, and i frequently applied to the
Pyrrhonian by extu and Diogene . Indeed , it i a word
air ady found in Plato (Gorgias 501 ·) and Epi uru (KLl 29),
but it became a tandard t rm in Stoi i m (it i entral to the
toic theory of action, for example), and con equently also in
Helleni ti and later inter- chool debat , particularly in th
debate between the toic and the A ademic : Plut. De Stoic .
rep . 1057 ( VF iii . 177), .E. IVI7. 416 (SVF ii. 276), 8. 396
(SVF ii. 91) , D.L. 7 · 46 ( VF ii. 130).
In Ari to le ' vie\ Pyrrhonian ar mad (J.A-€J.A-~vaat). A simi-
lar aCCU ation Of in anity (a1TOK€KW</>WJ.A-fVOL Kat a1TOT€Tu</>AWJ.A-fVOt)
occur in Epict. Diss. 2. 20. 37; it is worth noting that th argu-
ment that th eptic d mand to be trusted whil affirming
that on ought not to believe an thing al o oc ur in Epictetu
2. 20 . 5. 33

11
c ording!), m Galen's , ·te\\, the cepttcs do not be hen~ thetr O\\ n argu-
ment and mdulge m en tic (in llipp . De t•tct. awt . comm. 1 . t6 =' IG \' 9·
t , p . tJZ) . On Gal non the. ceptt s see j . Barnes (1991 : 78-<)) and De La
( 1991 ).
 1I2 mmentary on F 4
8-i). In th ·e paragraph An tocl in i t on the idea that
Pyrrho's and Timon' · Kf.</>aAata are untenable. It i difficult to
·av wh ther he al o allude to the Pyrrhonian principle J.LTiO£v ro
op; f.a8at ('to affirm nothing'). Thi xpre ion, ' hich may be a
po t-Pyrrhoman de,·elopment of d<f>aa{a, i not in Ari tocle '
report on Pyrrho and Timon in para . 1-4, but occurred in
Ttmon', Python, a cording to D.L. 9· 76 (T 54 Decleva Caizzi,
Ttmon fr. o Diel = H 54), and in Aene idemu 'Pyrrhonian
Lo 01, a cord in to Phot. I 70• I 2. \ hich of them Ari tocle
follow t dtfficult to ay. A already aid, it i uncertain whether
he read the Python directly, and he doe not eem to have any
kno\\ led e of Aene idemu ' Pyrrhonian Logoi. On the other
hand, uch a fundamental principle mu t have been reaffirmed
in all Aene idemu ' work , and ri to le or hi ource may
ha,·e al o found it in the Outlines, which are quoted at para. 11.
Another trace of Aene idemu in the e paragraph i the
tructure of the argument , namely the dilemma into which
An tocle · force the adver ary. For, a ob erved by Janacek
(I975: .;.7- ), followed by Long and edley (198T i. 488), thi i
a parody of Aene idemu , who, according to extu ' and
PhotlU ' report , eem to have made great u e of dilemmatic
argument .H
HoweYer, not all the term Ari tocle u e to de cribe
Pyrrhontan philo ophy in the e paragraph eem to have been
Pyrrhonian . A already tre ed, in para. 1 Ari tocle him elf
pomt out that he t acquainted with the argument by which
An totle oppo e ceptically inclined relativi t ; thi i particu-
larly clear m para . 8-9 , which echo Ari totle' oppo ition in
r
J.fet. to tho e \\ ho deny the principle of non-contradiction:
The mam pomt, m all the e ea e , 1 · not that one claim to ay that
omethmg 1 or L not . but that one a} . omcthmg with a meanmg
(aru.~-a{~uv yi n)H for one elf and for omeonc cl ·e. nd thi i nece -
ary, 1f one '' i hes to a} omethmg. Othen\1 c, such a per on could
not converse, either with oneself or w1th an} one cl ·c; if, on the other

:14 There 1 al o a dilemma m Ari tocles F 5· 2, but 1ts frequency in the chap-
t ron the P}rrhon1an (para. 5, 10, 12, 13 , 15) supports Janacek's hypothesiS
1
Becau e of thi parallel :\lorau. (191!4 161 n 267) ugge t emendmg
An tocle ' av>£iva, to UT]p.af.v£w, \\hich indeed occur m Ansto les two lmcs
below But th1 emendation doe not eem nece ar}, smce n:tocle ·' argu-
ment 1 \ahd, and the parallel With n totk· 1 mamtamcd, even w1th uuv£i>•a•
 ommentary on F 4 113
hand, he allov thi , then proof will xi t, for omething will hav
been determined (wptap.£vov} ( 1oo6• ,8-zs).
They e m to peak of th indefinite (ci6ptaTov}, but, whil th y think
they peak of what i· , they speak of what i not (Ioo7b26-8).
It is clear that there can b di cus ion (aK£rf~t<;) about n thing with
. uch a per on, for he doe not say anything (ov8£v yap MyH} (1oo8•3o).
Then , wh doe he go to 1 gara and not remain in quiet (~auxa~H)?
(Ioo8b14) .

on equently, not only some of th argument , but al o

term uch a 'qui t' (~avxta), 'ob cure' (a87JAos), 'indefinite'
(a6pw-ros), and 'unknown' (ayvwa-ros) probably deri e from
Ari totle , rath r than from Ari tocle ' Pyrrhonian ource.
A for ~aux{a, there are no trace of thi term in
Aene idemu , while Timon mention it in the Indalrnoi (S.E.
M 11. I, I4I, D .L . 9 · 65 = Pyrrho T 61, 59 Decleva Caizzi,
Timon frr. 67 Diels =SH 841). Ari tocles doe not eem to
know thi ' ork of Timon's, and although the term ma have
al o occurred in the Python, and Ari tocle may have taken it
from there, if he knew it, it occurrence in para. 8 doe not
require a t chnical meaning, but ha the ame common-
language meaning a in Ari t . Met. 10o8h14, and indeed .E.
PH z. 240.
imilarly, it eem that the adj cti e a87JAos cannot be
a cribed to eith r Timon or Aenesidemu : there i no e id ne
in upport of Timon' u e of thi t rm, and Aenesid mu eem
to ha e u ed d</Jav~s (Phot. I 70b3-35 and .E. PH I. I 8o-s) . It
i true that a87JAO> often appear in xtu , but extu annat be
ri tocles ' ource, not only on chronologi al ground , but al o
becau e in PH 1. 198 the former pre i ely r je ts th latter'
a cu ation :
\ hen a ceptic say ' verything i indefinite' (7TavTa laT1v ci6ptaTa}, he
takes lan in the cnse of 'appears to him ' (civTt Tov t/Ja{vm8at avTCjl}; by
7TclVTa h m an n t exi ting thing but thos ob. ure (ci8~1\wv} matter
inv stigated by the Oogmati. ts which he has con idcrcd; and b)
ci6ptaTa he means 'not superior in credibility or incr dibility to\\ hat is
oppo. cd to or conflict \ ith th m' .
Ind ed, ri tocle e m to gi to Pyrrho' and Timon'
a8ta</Jopo , aa-ra8p.1JTO , and QJJE7T{KptTO th pist moJogi al
m aning f ind finite aoptaTO , a87JAO , and ayvwaTOS', and the
 I I{ omm ntary on F 4
rea ·on for thts may be pre i ly that h ha ri tot le in mind.
In fa t, O.op1aro may be traced back to \!let. Ioo6"I -25 and
1077bz6-Q quoted abov . And D cleva aizzi (r981b: 223) ha
-hown that Ari totl iv O.ouJ.popo the meaning of 0.6pw-ros
in An. Pot . 97b7, De caelo 310°5, Rhet. 1373"33Y' .ftyvwaros
certamly corre p nd to O.vm{Kpt-ro , and probably depend on
.llet. 100 30. A for aOTJAO , in ri totle it ha the meaning of
'ob, ure', ' undt O\' rable', and i often pr dicated of obje t of
re earch and of di u ion in hi work n natural cience.J7
The An toteltan origin of Ari tocle ' u of aOTJAO i al o up-
parted by it o urren e in Alex. Aphr. In Met. 305. 26-32,
'' h re he comment on Ari totle' oppo 1t10n to cepticall
m lined relativi t and, if ~lan feld (1988: 205--6) i right, ha
the fir t trope of Aene idemu in mind:
To ome peopl -om thing eem to b we t and atable, to other
p opl bttter and uneatable; for xample, the young hoot of the
olne-tree e m S\\ t to animal and bitter to u human . nd not
e\·en to our ·eh e do thing. alway a pp ar th am according to our
en e-percepuon , m e it i nor clear '' htch ar the tru one (wv
aSTJAOV 1Toia S£i Mynv aAT]lJ~). For nothmg i mor thi than that, but
_imtlarl~ (opmw>) .J

10. The argument a carding to which th Pyrrhonian hould

know the evtdent before peaking of the non-evident ignore
extu ' defence at PH I. 198, according to which it i one thing
to peak of \\hat appear (-ro cpatv6,.uvov) and another to peak of
what i hidden (ro aOTJAov). Thi ugge t that there wa no u h
argument in An tocle ' ource.
In tht ea e too hi critici m reli on the Ari totelian
pnnctple that it 1 nece ary to proceed from the clearer
(aacplaupov) to th unclear (Phys. 1 4"17-22)3 9 and that
affirmatiOn (KanJ.cpaat ) i prior to n gation (0.TT6cpaatr;) (De int.
•7 9, An. Po t 6b35).
ex tu doe the same m PH 1 198-<}, already qu ted.
); Hi I a mm . 51 1b14 and 62ob31, De gen am m 787b34, Phys 339b 13 , E
1112 9, Part . amm 639'22, .Heteor . 373h19
An todc 'e\ 1d ·nt dependence on An tot! ._ paralleled b) ntiochus m
C1c ro Luc. 29 109 and b) 'lem AI 'tram 8 s. both argumg agamst the
.\cadt.ml~ do trme of aKa-roJ."/1/J{a, and b) Gal en agamst the • cept1c m general
m De tJpt dt)(f 2
.\I o m (,aJ De puc. dJI(II ' . 44-5 Kuhn .
 ommentary on F 4 115
11. H r Ari tocle turn t what in para. 29 he will all
Aen id mu ' re ival of Pyrrhoni m (dva{w1TupEtv ~pgaTo iJB>.ov
TOuTov) . The mode of Aene idemu are introduced a xample
of th P rrhonian claim that things are obscure . Th qu tion
of wh ther tho e who expound them have any know! dg of th
thing which they talk about i put forward twice , both befor
and after the report of the mode . Ther fore, a Moraux ( 1984:
163) remarked, Ari tocle do not e m o much inter t d in
the de ription of each ingle trop , a in the general problem
that their formulation rai e , namely that they are a rtion .
Other on ideration , uch a the different ord r and the
number attributed to th trop by Philo of Alexandria,
Empiri us, and Diogene Laertiu ,40 ha e induced mo t
ar to di regard Ari tocle ' viden e a a ea alier ummar 4 '
everthele there are rea on that ugge t that it d er e
recon ideration.
Fir t of all, it ha emerged from the Commentary on para . 4
that Ari tocle probably reli d on one of Aene id mu ' v ork ,
although it i not po ible to a e whether directly or through
a close epitomator. That thi v a the Outlines i upport d b
it mention here . For in all the ea e where Ari tocl xplicitly
cite hi ultimate ource (Plato ' Theaetetus in F 6 . 3 and
Timon ' Silloi in para . 16 and 28 of thi chapter), 42 he alwa
report them quite literally, if not dire tly . econdly, it em
ve ry unlik ly that in the long t, mo t detail d, and mo t
polemi a! of hi pa age Ari to I hould record an ina curate
r ion of u h an important ptical doctrin a that of the
mode .4 J
•• Tra e o f the trop e also appear m the anonymou commentary fn
Theaetetum ol. 63, Gell . 11. s. and Ps. -HerenniU at lat (1837): s•8-25 .
The fir t two pie es of e,•idence ar con is tent '' tth ri to le ' rep rt, a "e
hall se , '' htl the third i so tmilar t Phtlo' te:\.t that tt cannot be onstd-
ered as a sep arate ac ount. Indeed tt ha been sugge. t d that Phtlo copted from
the tex t prese rved b Ps.- Herenniu · ( nnas and Barne 1985 : 27) . for
Favormus m 010gene Laertius, he i only mentioned for treatmg the trope
of rartt) and relati\ tty in the oppo ite order to enesidemus and ex tu ..
•• Thu tt t only briefly reported "tth no comments by nnas and Barnes
<•9Bs : 27)
•• nd perhaps al o in F 2 wtth omc of rtstotle ' detractors. The ea-. ot
Timon' Pythou m para . 14 is <.ltfferent, be ause there nstodes onl) men-
tiOns tt and does not quote anything.
" The obJectiOn that the Out/111e arc not mentwned at pants . 1- 4 can be
 116 ommentary on F 4
~lore ,·er lo e t to A ne i-
demu ~ fr m a hronologi al, and perhap al o geographical,
pomt f ,·ie" ( e the Introdu tion). Th ir account are not
parallel, h w ,·er, and Philo' ver ton e m to be permeated
with Academi influ n e .+4 for extu , he doe not mention
Aene tdemu when h r port on the trop ; moreo er, at PH
1. 36- he affirm that their number i 'traditionally' ten
(1Tapao[oovTat Totvuv auvfJ8w 1rapa Toi dpxawTepots aKE1TnKois
Tp01TOL OEKa TOV apL8!J-OV) and that the order he report i ' on-
wntiOnal' (xpwfl.E8a S€ Tfl n5.~H TavTn 8EnKw ).H All thi
e t that extu did not derive hi report of the trope
Aene idemu dire tly. In fact, extu n ver mention Aene i-
demu ' Outline , which, according to Diogene Laertiu 9· 78
and to An tocle , i the book in' hich he di ed the trope .46
A for Dio ene , hi ver ion of the mod i generally con-
idered to depend on a po t- ne idemean Pyrrhoni tY
Inde d hi report 1 often parallel to Ari tocle ',and,' ith the
~le eman, Diogene the only ource who mentions the
Outlines.
It true that Ari tocle ' li t quite different in number
d1 m1 . ed by observmg that there the) are u ed a an indirect ource for
P~ rrho and T1mon and that for th1 rea on Ari tocles doe not feel the need of
referrmg to them e. phc1tly .
... ' Arn1m ( 1 71-2) con 1der Ph do to be the main ource for
Aene 1demu.' trope . Burkhard ( 1973: 182-<)4) declares that Philo had a cess
to ene idemus, but a knO\\ ledges that he ha both ademic and Pyrrhonian
matenal: o too Anna and Barne ( 1985 . 26, 48). Following Burkhard,
Janacek ( 19 1: 3-<)7) ugge ted that Ph do kne\\ ene 1demu ' original ver-
ion. But he al. o argued that not e\·erythmg we find m Philo was already in
Acne ·idemu .. bccau e h1 a• m wa not to make a report, and be au e he made
a per onal u e of the trope Janacek therefore argu s that Ph1lo 1 of no u em
gue mg which \\ere ene 1demu 'ongmal number and order. Contra Ph1lo'
dep ndence on Acne 1demu recently Oumont ( 1994: 4756).
•• Even the1r nam i not fixed, for e tus al. o ca ll. them ox~IJ.am.
Indeed , .1ll . e. tu rcferen e to Aenes1demu ·eem to depend on hi
Pyrrhoman LOf?lll It 1 o for PH 1 180 on the e•ght modes of au ation, for
PH 3 138 on t1me, for PH 1 222 on the relat1on h1p between Plato and
• cepttc1 m , for A/ll 40 on truth, for /v18 215,235 on 1gn, for Jl,/9. 218 on
bccommg, for ,\./1o 38 on mot1on, for /11.42 on good .• ot e\en PH 1. 210
and ll 7 349, A/ 8, ,l/ 9 · 37, ,\1 10 216 on Aenes1demus' relatton h1p w1th
Herad1tu can b( a •gncd to the Out/mu, a Pohto ( 1994) sho,,ed .
•, Th1 ourcc 1 probabh Theodo •u , ac ordmg to J Barne. (1986),
( 1992).
 Commentary on F 4 I I 7
and order from tho e Philo, extu , and Diogene But the e
too dia r on from the other, not only in number and order,
but al o in th xample th y adduce. And cholars agr e that
the e differences are due to Philo' , extus', and Diogene '
dependence on different intermediate ources (Schmekel I938,
Burkhard 1973: 190, Anna and Barne I98s : 40) . A for the
number, moreover, not even Philo in De ebrietate di plays ten
proof of the relativity of knowledge. Hi li t apparently refer
to eight mode , and he seem to leave out the third and the
ninth (in Diogene 'order). A for the ninth , Jam1cek (r98I: 86)
howed that Philo refers to the rarity of event in a different
work (Mos. 1. 213). However, ince thi i the mode which i
al o mi sing in Aristocle , it is plau ible that thi argument wa
not in Aene id emu . As for the third, Man feld (I 988: I 90)~8
found traces of it at the beginning of Philo's fourth trope in De
ebr. 178, which link up with the argument of the third trope of
extu and Diogene . Indeed , in the er ion of the third trope
pre erved by extus and Diogene , the way on individual
differ from him elf i only illu trated by the contradiction
between the report of thi one per on' en es, and th rei no
reference to what we may call hi change of mood. uch a
change, howe er, eem to be preci el one of the i ue at De
ebr. 178. o in Philo too the mode might have be n nine, and
the hypothe i , sugge ted by Pappenheim (188s), followed by
v. Arnim (1888) and Chatzilysandro (I970), that they were
nine al o in Aene idemu cannot b a ily di mi ed. 4 '1
Therefore, although other cla ification are certainly po -
ible, and although Ari tocle ' omi ion of th example that
Aene idemu certainly adduced pre ent a detailed ompari on
with Philo, Diogenes, and extu , it eem ' orth trying to
how that Ari tocle ' a count of Aene id mu ' trop a
reliable piec of evid nee, and that the ver ion pre rved by
him i th mo t faithful to Aene idemu ' original equence.
The trope hich can be di tingui hed in Ari tocle ' list
depend on th differen es ( 1) amon animal , (2) among
• He rejects Burkhard'- hyp thes1s that the third mode IS not rep rted by
Phtlo be ause it deal w1th a stricti) eptical problem.
•• On the other hand some scholars (I I irzel 1883 : 1 12 n. 1. Brochard 1887.
225 n. 4, \loraux 1984: 168, nnas and Barnes 1985: 27) suppose that the
cv1dcncc m Anstodcs is a m1stakc of Euscb1us or of the scribes" ho cop1cd h1s
text.
 I I mmentary n F 4
human , (3) among human u tom and tradition ; (4) on the
"eakne f en e-p r eption , (5) on xternal ircum tance
-u ha d1 tan e , 1ze , and motion , (6) on p r onal condition
a , ond1tion, and health; and, finall , on the (7) mix-
) onfu 10n, (9) and relati\'ity of thing .
ould obje t that the yap introdu ing the trop lab lied
'confu ion' and 'r latiYity' u ge t that the latter are not new
item but pecify tho e preceding. But thi parti le i often
u ed b) Ari tocle a a pure connective introducing new argu-
ment , a at F 2. 1, 6, +· 24, 6. 8; and ,. n if thi were not the
a e, yap might Imply mean that the trope dealing v ith con-
fu ion i lmked to the one preceding, a it will be hown .
The varying order of mode in our chief authoritie i et out
m Table 1 .

T BLE 1. Order of mode u1 mazn ources

Ph1lo

2 human. human
3 cu tom~ ·en e ? en e sen e
4 sen e mternal tate mt mal tat internal tat
external . tate. external tate external tate u tom
6 internal state. quantity m1xture mixture
7 mixture relatlvlt} quantlt) ext rnal states
confusion m1xture relanvit} quantity
9 relati\·ity u.tom ranty rarity
10
cu tom relativity

The fir t t\\ o mode (dealing v.·ith th difference among

animal and human ·) are the ame in all r port and can be con-
idered ongmally Aene 1demean. Thi i al o upported b the
Anonymou In Tlzeaet . ol. 63, which ha been ho\ n to
depend on Aene 1demu (Ba tianini and edle 1995 : 545 ff.).
An tocle ' th1rd mod (d aling v.ith the differ nee among
human u tom ) 1 the la t m Philo' and , extu ' account , and
the fifth in 10gene '. The e d1 crepanc1e and th fa t that,
apart from th1 mode and that of rant)-, all th account proceed
in parallel, uggcst that Jt wa moved b} Phd , xtu , and
 ommentary on F 4 I I 9
Diogene a ording to the different logic und rlying their
report . lnde d, in dealing with Ari tocles' fourth, fifth, and
ixth mod it will appear that Philo, extu , and Diog ne , by
analogy with th theme of the differences among animal and
among human , may ha e transformed Aene idemu ' trope of
the weakn of the en e into a trope of their difference , and
pia ed it immediate! after the fir t tv o, together with that of
the difference among our internal tates. However, th vie
that in Aenesidemus the trope of the difference among human
cu tom had the place as igned it by Ari tocle i upported by
Diogene ' equence, in which it i not at the end of the li t a it
i in Philo and extu . Their rea on for moving it to the end,
and on id ring it the mo t important, eem to b that they
ga e thi trope the meaning of relativity to the one judging,
ince the trope of relati ity originally dealt with the r lati ity of
one thing to another (rrpo> EKaaTov): left and right (rrpo> €vavT{ov)
or that which judges (rrpo TO Kptvov) .so Thi will become clearer
in the Commentary on the ninth trope of Ari to le ' li t .
A for Ari tocles' fourth trope, he refer to the weakn ss of
en e-perceptions, whil Philo,s• extu , and Diogene peak
of their difference . Thi can be explained by .E. M 7. I 7 I,
where Carneade mention the eakne (da0€vna) of sight
together with the small ne of the object viewed and the xtent
of the inter al a eau of the ob curity of perception
nd of the apparently tru kind of pre ntation, one i · ob ure--the
kind, for in tanc , that i found in the ea e of tho e who hav a percep-
tion that i confu d and not distinct owing to the mallne of the
obje t iew d or owing to the ext nt of the interval or even O\\ ing to
the weakne (ci.a6€v£tav) of the s n e of sight.

The relation hip between thi pa age and

A ne idemu ' trope , particularly th trop \ ith
xternal circum tance , i quite vid nt. Thi that
Aene id mu , ' ho kn w Carn ad
·pok n of th " eakn f th
been ugg ted, Philo, extu , and Diog ne
th ir cliff r n e following on from th pr viou

•• Th1 IS well explamed b} J. Barnes (1988-<]o: 1o-12)

1' If, as has already been ~uggcstcd, '\lansfeld ( 1988· 190) IS nght m secmg
traces of the th1rd mode m De ebr 178
 120 ommentary n F 4
h't , wh1 h d al w1th th differen among animal and
amon human . If thi i true, th fourth mod f Ari tocle
may b the third of Phil , extu , a nd Diog ne .
The fifth mod f Ari tocle (on exte rna l circumstance )
'eem t rre pond to th fifth in Philo and xtu , and to the
'e\·enth in D10 en . All of them mention the example of di -
tance and ize, 52 whil motion o cur in Philo and extu only.
:\lotion 1 al o mentiOned by Philo and ex tu in their trope on
mternal c1r urn tan e . Thi repetition \ ill be ac ounted for in
the ommentary n the following trope of Ari tocle ' li t.
The 1xth mode of Ari tocle (dea ling with internal con-
ditiOn ) eem to be fourth in Philo , extu , and Diogene , and
the ea e adduc d by Ari tocle (age, tate, and health) occur in
all three author . Apparently, Ari to le inverted th order of
mternal and external condition , but hi equen e can be
explained by a pa age of AI xand er' D e fato, which, accord-
mg to ;\lan feld (19 8: 1 <)-91), i ba ed on Aene idemu '
trope ..-\lexander point out that e rtai n individual modify
their' 1ew of fate 'acco rding to the time and the circum tance
of their fortune or m1 fortune (1rpos To us Katpous n Kat nl.s 7T€pt-
f.aTwaa Tuxas)' ( 165. 27-166. 1). In hi i w, changing external
Circum tance determme the ch a nge that people' opm10n
undergo. Accordmg to Philo , extu , and Diogene , however,
It 1 a modificatiOn of people' internal ci rcum tance or con-
ditiOn that make them change their view or perception of
external thmg . Therefore ::Vl an feld think that Alexander i
\\ rong, and that he inherited hi mi take from the erroneou
tradition repre, ented by Ari tocle . l\1an f Id al o ugge t that
the latter mterpolated the externa l fa tor that impede judge-
ment into Trope 3 from ome of the later trope dea ling with
external thing , becau e he believed that the ' ord 7Tf.ptanl.aHs,
which occur m extu ' trope of internal circum tance , had it
u ual en e of external circum tance . It may a l be , however,
that the word 7T€ptaTCiaHs oc ur in xtu ' trope of internal
circum tance pre L el) becau e Aene idemu originally placed
the impediment due to xterna l cond ition b efo re tho e due to
mternal conditions and that omeone e l e, not realizing that the
example of 7T€ptaTaaH were out of pia e in th trope of internal

• nd al o non In Tht>aet col 63.

 Commentary on F 4 121
ir urn tan es, inverted th order. Thi change may ha
b come generally accepted, a Philo, extu , and Diog ne
atte t, be au e more uitable to th logical sequence a a whole,
in which th previou three mod of their list all d al with
internal cliff r nee (among animal , among human , and
among sen ).
Th e enth mode of Ari tocle (mixture) eem to b
relat d to the eighth of Philo and to the ixth of xtu and
Diogene . All of them affirm that nothing appear pur and by
it e)f (Ka8' aura), but miX d With air, Jight, moi ture ... (auv
l I \ ..J... I \ t - )
a€pt, auv "''wn, auv uyplfJ . . . .
A for Ari tocles' eighth mode (confu ion), it ha alread
been noti ed that the initial yap ma be taken a p cifying th
trop on mixtur rather than introducing a nev one. Indeed the
term auyK€XUf-t€vos, which u ually m an 'confu ed' in the en e
of 'i ndi tingui hable ' for u (e.g. Plat. Rep . 524 .E . M 7·
171), in ome ea e ha the meaning of 'mixed with'. o, for
example, in Plat. Leg. 678 o:
Iron , bronze, and all metal were fused tog ther out of all recognition
(ovyK£XVfL£va ~cf>avwro}, o that ther v as no way to purify them out
eparat ly (wor£ a7Top{a mioa 1}v TOU d.vaKa8a{p£o8at rei TO!aura) .

And in Ari t. Phys. 184"22 it is confu d thing (auyK£XUf-t€va)

that at the outset are plain and I ar to u , i.e. omp und .
hry ippu in Alex. Aphr. De mi t. 216ff. (SVF ii. 473) di tin-
gui hes three kind of mixing: f-tL~L 7Tapa8€aH, in \ hi h thing
are only juxtapo ed, like th e d of grain, f-tL~LS auyxuan, a
proper fu ion of thing which loo their own qualiti , uch a
that which occurs in drug , and ~ Kpiiats lS{ws, a mixture of
thing v hich maintain their prop rtie . Alexand r (22 1. 7-1 ),
commenting on th econd of th , p ak of auyK£XUf.L€va.
ev rthel th mixture to v hich thi trope ref r i om -
thing cliff r nt from th mixture of the previou trop , ·which
d a!t with the evid nee that rything alway app ar accom-
pani d b y it external environm nt, not ith th int rnal om-
po ·itionofthing a theoutcom ofafu ion of lem nts . lnthi
n , on the other hand, th notion of 'b ing mix d' al
occur in Philo' and extu ' mode on quantity, wh r
clo ly linked to that of compo·ition:
\ h t of the quantitie. in preparations (al f.v roiS" oKwa~ofL£votS'
 122 omme ntary n F 4
-::oaor"ln ) ) \\'hether th compound · harm or h lp d p nd on
"h ther ther 1 mor r le (De ebr . t 4-5).
The eHnth mode, ''e :ay, i the one dep nd ing o n th quantitie and
preparatt ns (1rapa rd- 1TOOOT"7Ta Kal aKwaa{a ) f x i ting object -
\\ h re b~ 'preparatton ' (aK£uaa{a ) we m an ompo iti n (auvBiao~)
m gen ral ( . E. PH 1. 129) .

o tt eem rea onable to compare Ari to le ' tatement that

everythtng t confu ed (auyK£XVfL€va) with Philo ' , extus', and
Diogene 'trope on quantity. Ind eed Anna and Barne (1985:
121-7) remark that in thi mode extu peak of two different
thin , quantity ('to drink wine in moderation fortifies u , but
to take it in great quantitie weaken u ') and preparation ('the
effect of a medi me depend on how drug are mixed together'),
and that there are two different line of thought pre ent in hi
,·er ion of thi trope, one linked to the notion of quantity, the
other to the way in which compound are prepared , and in
parttcular to the different proportion in whi ch their ingredi-
ent are mixed . According to the e cho lar , thi i clear! evi-
dent in extu ' conclu ion at PH 1. 134:
In tht. \\ay the argument from quantitie and preparation confound
(auyx£i) the real nature (r~v v'1Tap~tv) of externa l exi ting object (rwv
£KTO lmOK£Lp.£vwv) .

The o currence of the \'erb auyxlw in thi pa age i parallel to

An tocle ' auyK£XVfL€vov, and ugge t that the concept of
confu ton may have been in Aene idemu . In fact Anna and
Barne (19 s: 125) a ert that extu ' econd line of thought
connect clo ely with the mode on admixtu re and i e idence
of omethmg ''hich lie beneath the urface of ex tu ' text
and \\htch may have been in hi ource. It ou ld be uppo ed,
then, that thi trope dtd not onginall y deal w ith the notion of
quantity exclu tvely, but more genera ll y with the confu ion of
the ub tan e of obJect produced by the co mpo ition and
mixture of thetr component . Thi may be what Ari tocle
refer to, and it would al o exp lai n Philo' and Diogene ' other-
\\ i e inexplicabl (Anna and Barne 198 5: 122-3) reference to
qualitie in tht trope on quantit}, in e compo ition chang
not on I) in virtue of the quanttty of the component , but al o of
their quality :
The quanttt~ m compound 1 measured b} formulae and rules whtch
 ommentary on F 4 123
tt 1 • un afe to fall hort of or to ex ed ... and it vividly indicate how
tot t for its helpfuln s or harmfuln s by it qualitie of moothn s
or roughn and of d nsit and compr ssion or on th other hand of
rar faction and dilation (De ebr. 184-s).n
Eighth i the m de depending on their quantitie and qualitie , their
being hot or old, quick or low, pal or coloured (D.L. 9· 86) .

If o, one may a k what wa the differ nee between Aen i-

demu 'trope on mixtur and hi trope on confu ion. A already
noticed, the trope on mixture referred only to th fact that
thing alway appear togeth r with their external en ironment,
while the trope on confu ion referred to their internal compo i-
tion.
The ninth mode report d by Ari tocle (relati ity) i the
eventh in Philo, th eighth in extu , and the t nth in Dio-
gene . The context in whi h thi trope i placed by Ari tocle
ugge t that the generic expres ion 'relatively poken' (1rpo<; n
AEYO~A-Eva) refer to both relati ity of each thing to anoth r (1rpo<;
€vavTtov), and relati ity to that which judge (1rpo<; TO Kpivov).
Traces of the former are also found in Philo (~ 1rpo<; JvavT{ov
Trapa8wt<;), in extu PH I 135 (1rpo<; Ta avv8t:wpou~A-Eva), m
Diogene (~ 1rpo> aAAa auiLf1,\TJat>), in the Anonymou In
Theaelelunz (1rpo<; illa 1ravTa Col. 63); while the latter i e iden ed
by extu again (loc. cit.),s 4 by Diogen (1rpo<; T~v Stavotav), and
by the Anonymou In Theaetetum (€1rt Tov Aoyov). 55 Relativity to
the differ nee among th judger i not included in thi trop ;
thi may be why Philo and extu , or their our e, made th
trop of cu tom a trope of r lati ity t the judger, and, becau e
of it broad inclu ivity, pia d it at the nd of their li t .

'3 moothne s-roughness, den ity-compre sion, and rarefa t10n-dilatatton

were the therapeutic principle of the Iethodi al school of medicme, accord-
ing to alen'~ De sectLs (Edel tetn 1967, 1. Frede 19 7d, 1987e). If the ource
of thts piece is enesidemus, the o urren e of the e con epts would · upport
the h ypothesis that he wa a quamted with th Iethodt al and Emptrical
s hools of medt ine (Decle a 'atzzt 19920: 178).
s• nnas and Barnes (1985: IJOff.) rightly nott c that extus was \Cry mu h
concerned with Agrippa's relatlvtt} argument, for tt oc urs tn ht. etghth and
tenth tropes and a. one of the general ategones of the trope.
ss f. , 11 . 11 5 ~. who translates Favortnu.' 1rpo> .,., (fr 2.6 Bangazzt)
m to Latm as 'omnta ad altqutd refern', and c. platn tt as 'taliaquc omnta
vtden, qualis stt corum spc ics dum \'tdcntur, qualmque apud sensu~ nostros
quo pcncnerunt crcantur, non apud sese uncle profe ta. unt'
 ommentary on F 4
The trop f ranty i · the one whi h and Philo do
n t r port. Th nly evidence a cribin ene idemu i
D.L. 9· 7, '' ho a · ert that thi tr p wa put ighth by
Favormu , and tenth by Aene id mu and extus. Thi con-
flict b th w1th Dio ene ' own r p rt of A n idemu and with
extu ' exposit1 n in the Outlines of Pyrrhoni m, but it can be
explamed by uppo in that Diogen folio> ed a late edition of
Aene 1d mu ' trope ( hatzily andro 1970: 219) and that
xtu av a different,. r ion of the tr p in a lo t part of hi
Again t the J.fathematician (Anna and Barn 1985: 29). Thi
1 reJected by i\Ian feld (19 7a: 23 ), who a k :

equence accordmg to 'ariou

of companng ene, 1d mu, Favonnu
fact that ex tu h1m If pro,·id d two different v r ion ?s 6

Diogene , however, may have not known that there were two
ext1an ver 10n of the mode , and may have been only
acquamted \nth the one pre ented in M. Indeed there are no
proof that he knew PH directly, and certainly he did not derive
the ten trope from the a me our ea extu (J. Barne 1992).
That the equence of the mode pre er ed by Ari tocle may
be clo er to Aene idemu ' original than the account given b
Phdo, extu , and Diogene i al o ugge ted by the logic
underlymg it. For, according to ri tocle ' li t, the fir t four
mode are ba ed on the judging ubject; the fifth and ixth on
both the ubject and the object of judgement, the eventh,
6
' He uppo e that 9 87 1 one of 010gencs' crappy note (Zettel) and that
11 dealt" 1th a d1fferent order of the trope. , m'' h1ch the e1ghrh was per ua 10n,
the nmrh ranty. and the tenth relatn 1ty Then, accordmg to i\ lan feld, the
ourc of D L 9 · 7 probably sa1d 8 C/>o.f3 '), '' h1ch m1ght be read e1ther
' Favonnu put no . 9 a no 8' or as 'Fa,·onnus puts no 8 as no. 9.' o ''e
could read m tcad 'l•a\'orinu put no. 8 a no 9 but cxtus and ene 1demus
pur 1t a no 10' , \\here 1t IS not no. 9 but no. 8 i\ lansf Id ( 19 70: 240)
ug~~:e t that th1. econd order IS due to a follower of
probabl) later than Phdo and certamly earlier than
pre umably a follo\Hr of gnppa, remo,ed cncsu.lcmus' trope dealing \\lth
per ua 10n • dol{ma etc from it tinal po. ltlon and put the relatJ\'It}' trope m
1t place . ex tu on h1 part may have rem en ed the relatiVIty trope from the
final po 1t10n and re to red Acne id emu ' trope con erned "1th per ua ion ,
do~tma et t<J 1t onl{mal po 1t1on, viz at the end of the account of the ten
trope .'
 ommentary on F 4 125
eighth, and ninth on the obje t judged; thi order corre pond
to th gen raJ categorie of the mod mentioned by extu in
PH 1 . 38-9 more clo ely than Philo' , extu ', and Diog ne '
order , which al o a ign th fir t four mode to the ategory
ba ed on the ubject, but th n mix those in the category ba ed
on the object with tho in the category based on both ubject
and obje t.

12-13. Ari tocles turn again t the trope the accu ation of
conflicting with the principle (K£c/>aAata) expo ed in para . 1-4.
Hi argument that the tropes are a form of induction occur in
no other author, and i grounded on the Aristotelian notion
that €1raywy~ ('induction') proce d to the general from the
particular, that €1raywy~ gi e birth to belief (7TLCJTns), and that
1TLCJT£L> produce opinion (o6ga,). 5' Moreover, again t tho
who deny the principle of non-contradiction in Met. 1009"23
ri totle declare : 'They deri ed thi opinion (o6ga) from th
ob ervation of phenomena (€K TWV aia81JTWv).'
The kind of argument put forward by Ari tocles (what kind
of belief and a ent, if an , the Pyrrhoni t allow him elf)
how that the Pyrrhoni m he i dealing with belong to a
pre- extian tage, for it eem to be preci ely what extu will
an wer in PH 1. 13 ff., 229-30, d n ing that the cepti '
belief require a ent. To u Galen' word , the P rrhoni m
di cu d by ri tocle i of a ' ru tic' kind, whil extu r pre-
ent a more ' urbane ' form of Pyrrhoni m. 58 Thi i
by the folio' ing paragraph of Ari tocle , which fa
tion whether a lif with nob lief i po ible .

14-15. That Pyrrho' life contradi t hi principle (K£c/>aAata)

and that Pyrrhoni m make life impo ibl were quit ommon
17 Induction pro eeds from particular to general: Au. Post . 8tbl, 92'35,
Phys . 252'24, A/et. 992b33, 1025b15, 1048'36, 1054b33, 1055'6, 105 '9·
Induces belief: Rhet . 1356b1-10, JHeteor. 378b14, Phy. 224b30, let . 1o6i' 1+
Beliefs generate opimons: De anima 428'20, 428b3, E 1142b13 , Rhet .
IJ77 bt8, 14Ji b9·
• Th distmct10n bet\\ een a ru ttc and an urbane d nve from Gal DI/J.
put \'Ill. 71 1 Kiihn, and oppose· rad1cal scept1c1sm (includmg beliefs m ordi-
nary hfe) to moderate cept1c1sm (hm1ted to sc1enttfic and ph1losophical
behef·) The\· have become \\ell known smce J Barne · ( 19 2) started a discus-
IOn, m\\ h1ch several mod rn scholars ha' e tuken part(. ee n 20), on whether
a true 'ccpt1calltf 1s po sib le and on\\ hether Se pt1c1sm 1 self-consistent
 mmentar · n F 4
anti- ceptt al argument , a D.L. 9· 104-5 r port ;59 but once
a am Ari to le ' obj ction e ho th ar urn nt Ari totle ad-
van e a atn't th denier of the principle f non-contradiction
at ,lfet . too h i -6: ' \\'hy doe h go to I ga ra and not ta in
quiet' ?00
Then An le trie to produce m eviden c in upport of
hi argument. ne i the report of the me tin bet-. een Pyrrho
and Timon (T 52 De leva Caizzi), w ho detail occur in no
other ource. Thi , and the ·word 'tel ling a lo ng tor ' (fLaKpov
nva KaTaTftva .Aoyov), have made mo t chol ar think that
An tocl had dire t knowledge of the Python. 6 ' A ha already
been ob erved ( e the ommentary on para . 1-4), thi
hypothe i annot be excluded, alth ough Ari to le might also
ha,·e been informed of the length of the Python from an inter-
mediate ource.
It i very diffi ult to a e , on the ba i of the a ailable evi-
dence, whether the Python wa written in the form of a dialogue
(Hirzel I 3: i. 394), or wa imply the accou nt of the dialogue
which occurred between Pyrrho and Timon (Decleva Caizzi
I9 rb: 2I6). n the other hand, it i now quite widely
6
accepted ' that the placing of thi dialo ue near the temple of
Amphiarau ha a ymbolic and litera ry meaning. Thi wa fir t
ugge ted by Die) (I 901 : zos). fo llowed by ntersteiner
(I9S4), who connected the temple of Amphiarau with the
:4.fLtf>tel.p€w i~€.Aaa!a (Thebais fr . 4· I-2 Bernab e), to which the
ver e quoted by learchu in Athen . 7. 3 I7 (fr.75 W .) have
been a cnbed:
\\'1th the wnnmg of the polyp, my on, m1ghty mphilochus,
adapt your elf to the people in \\hat oc er ountry ou ome to .

In nter temer' view the e word recall P yrrho ' and

Ttmon' exhortatton to follow To t/>atVOfL€vov in D. L. 9· I os

so Colote and ntlochu had already turned them agamst the cademic
(Plut. Ad7 (' o/ 11oX 1>, 1120 L-1>, 1 124 1>, ' ic. Luc 23).
"" A •milar ri. totellan que t10n oc urs al o m Plut. Adt• rol. 1122 1·.:
' Ho" come 1t that the man \\hO u pend Judgement doe not go da shmg off
to a mountain m tcad of to the bath, or'' h} doe he not get up and walk to the
''all m tead ol the door?'
m cc \\'1lamo'' 1tz' the i that all the btographtcal matenal about T1mon
d n e from ,\nttl(onu ha been refuted b.., r·crran (1968) and b y L ng
(1!J7l!b). " rontra on ly R ale 1981 291.
 ommentary on F 4 I27
(Pyrrho T 63A Decle a aizzi, Timon fr. 69 Die! = SH 843).
Oecle a aizzi (198Ib: 2I6-I7) agre with nter teiner's
mbolic interpretation of the meeting, and with hi linking of
Amphiarau ' temple to the r e quoted by Clearchu , hown
by Gentili ( 1984: 175) to be quite a traditional metaphor.
evertheles he think that Timon intends the allu ion to be
taken not o much as an exhortation to follow the phenomena-
" hich is not the meaning of Diogene ' report but a later devel-
opment of P rrhonism (Decleva aizzi I 981 b: 262-4)-but a
the acknow ledgement that 'nothing i in truth, but according to
cu tom and law' (~-t"7S€v £tvat KaT' dA~8nav, dAA' €8n Kat VOfLctJ),
a Pyrrho declare in D .L . 9· 6I (T IA Decleva Caizzi). he
al o find tra s of a Cynic influence (Decleva aizzi 198oa:
57 ff.), and recalls Antisthenes' Amphiaraus (fr. 1. 65 Decleva
Caizzi).
A different interpretation ha been gi en by Long (1978b:
73-4), according to whom Timon' connecting Pyrrho with
Delphi may have been a remini cen e of the P thian re ponse
to Chaerephon' que tion about ocrates, e pecially if Wilamo-
witz (I 88 I: 38) i right in locating th Amphiareion at ropu
in Boeotia .63 Long stres e that in the Python (D.L. 9· 76, IOS =
T 54, 55, 63A Decleva Caizzi) Timon de crib d P rrho'
di po ition and )if tyle a TO li"T/S£v op{,nv ('determining
nothing'), which re emb le ocrate ' profession of ignorance.
Probably th notice about Timon' acti ity (avTt xopwTou)
d pend ultimately on Antigonu (Di Marco I989: 1); it al o
occur m D .L. 9. 109, appar ntl through Apoll nides of
icaea.64

16-17. Ari argu that Timon' and Aene idemu '

deci ion to write al o contradict their principle (K£1/>aAata).
The term 'outlin ' (lnroTu1Twan ) and 'fundam ntal el ment '
(aTotxnwans) ar near! nonymou , th r fore the ox moron
al fLaKpat aTotxnwans may ironi ally ref r to A n idemus'
Outlines of P) rrhonism, whi h Ari to I ha ju t m ntion d in
61
n the other hand, according to\ achsmuth ( 188s: • 1 n . s). the temple of
mphiarau in n. to les' report i th Mavw(o olKo ' at Phhus (Pausama 2 .
13 ?).
•• The asses mcnt of 01og ne ' sour c or s urc f r hts hapter on the
Pyrrhontans is highly problematic; see esp. \Vilamo~' ttz 1 1: 27-44, J. Barne
1986, 1992, ronadto 1990.
 12 ommentary on F 4
para. 11 .hs If the fir t tat m nt f thi par graph inform
u that the utltnes w re a long work, although not ven thi
ne e anly ho'\V that Ari to I had a dir et acquaintance
with them.
In thi para raph ri tocle al o charge the Pyrrhonian
with the atm of 'making u b tter' (KpdTTovs 711-Las
a1T£py6.{£a8at). Tht may be explained by the analogy between
medt ine and Pyrrhoni m in .E. PH 3· 28o-1:
mce he 1. ph!lanthroptc, the ptic wt h to ure by argum nt, a
far a he an, the con elt and ra hn of th Dogmati t . o, ju t a
doctor haH remedte for bodily affliction which differ in potency,
and apply e\ er remedte to patient who are everely affli ted and
mtlder remedtes to tho e mildly afflicted, o the eptic propound
argument "' htch differ m trength, and mplo " eighty argument ,
capable of rebuttmg Yigorou ly the dogmatic affliction of conceit, in
the ea e of tho e \\ ho uffer from a v re ra hn , and they employ
milder argument, m th ea e of tho e who are afflicted by a uperficial
and ea tl) cured concett.

A we have already een, extu cannot be Ari tocle ' ource;

neverthele Ari tocle may ha e derived the metaphor of
medicme from the ame ource a extu . Thi common ource
may be Aene idemu , who peak of the cea ele torment
(avv£X£l av{at) of the Dogmati t (Phot. I69b24). 66
The ver e quoted m para. 17 come from Timon' Silloi
(Pyrrho T 57 Decleva aizzi, Timon fr. 8 Die! =
SH 782) and
recall I/. 3· 223 (ouK av f1THT '08vaa~t y' €p{aan£ {3poTOS aAAos),
1

where Homer ay that dy eu looked like a fool when he

rood tlent, but once he began to peak 'no mortal with
1
ly e could compare'. ince Wach muth, mo t cholar have
interpreted it a hov.ing the uperiority of P rrho in argu-
ment. Decleva atzzi (19816: 242-3), however, agree with
Corta a' interpretatiOn, according to whi h nobody could
nval P) rrho not becau he " a the b t in di puting, but
becau e he dtd not engage in di cu ion at all. According to
Decleva atzzi tht mterpretation i mor con i tent with the

rontra c 11.· Burkhard (1973 · 164). \\hO thmk that nstocles refer to
another v.ork of Acne 1dcmu .
66
lndepcndcntl) from the d1fferent 1 ue of the actual relatiOn h1ps
betv.een P)rrhon1 m and med1cme, on ''h1ch ee partJcularl) 1 Frede
(19~7d 27!!)
 ommentary on F 4
alue of Eris in the Silloi (frr. 10, 21, 28, 47, so, 66
Die! = H 784,795, 8o2, 821,824, 84o), and with Timon
him elf in .E. M 11. 141 (Pyrrho T 59 Decleva aizzi, Timon
frr . 63-4 Die! = SH 837-8) : 'H i happy who live in calm
and qui tu de ... '. On the other hand, Di Marco (x 989: 132), on
the ba i of Ari tocles' compari on of Pyrrho with oroebus
and Mel tide , convincingly argued that Timon did not refer to
Pyrrho' dial ctical kill, nor to hi refusal of di cu ion , but
to hi wi dom . For Timon eem to contra t the folly (p.wp{a) of
the t\ o fool (Radermacher 1908) to Pyrrho' wi dom, a
Homer ontra t Ody eu ' fooli h appearance wh n he wa
ilent with hi unmatchable peech. Thi interpretation, that
wi dom i the superiority by irtue of which no one could
compare with Pyrrho, i also more con i tent with the Homeric
context of Timon' allu ion.

18-22. Her Ari tocles di cu other principles of Pyrrhon-

i m, and how that they are incon i tent with Pyrrho' and
Timon' KEc/>el>.aLa. They are the four condition of the epti '
unopinionated life (cio6~aaTos {Jtos) de cribed by extu in PH
1. 21-4 (guidance of nature, con traint of affection , re pect for
law and cu tom , in truction in the art ), and the metaphor of
medi ine abo e mentioned, and can probably be traced back to
Aene idemu .
In para . 18, by the argument that the Pyrrhoni t " ill not be
mo ed by fear to re pect the law becau e they are free from
emotion (ci7Ta(hi's), Ari tocl eem to refer to the e ond of
tho ondition and the fir t part of the third (th con traint of
affection and the re pect for la\i ), and in inuate that th y ar
incon i tent with another Pyrrhonian principle, a7TC£8ELa, f r
which he produce evidence at para. 19 through Timon' illoi
(Pyrrh T 5 Decle a Caizzi, fr. 9 Die! = H 783) and at para.
26 through Antigonu 'Live (T 15B De I va aizzi). Th n d
Ari to le felt of introdu ing a referenc to Pyrrho' a7Ta8ELa i
anoth r argum nt in fa our of an int rm diate sour e b tw en
Timon and Ari tocle 'para . 1-4, for, if thi wa th third t rm
u d by Timon in para. 4, it mu t hav already b n dr pp d
by ri tocle ' ource. 67
07
nothcr c.·planatton may b that the thtrd of Timon's terms, dropped b)
nstocles, was (uSc111-'ovt'a, as :ugge tcd b) Bruns h\\tg (1994: 204). 'cc n 29
 I 0 omrnentary on F 4
In the 11 ht of D.L. 9· 61 (T 1A De I va aizzi), '(Pyrrho)
u ed to ay that n thm i honourable nor harneful (ouS€v yap
€cf>aaK€1J ouu KaAov ouu alaxpov), nor ju tor unju t (ouu StKawv
oin-. aOtKov)'. I(QKOV i to be emended to KQAOV. w
may u pect
that the ant1the 1 KaAov-alaxpov wa a po t- Tirnonian develop-
ment of the KaKov-dyaOov referred b .E. PH 1. 27- , M 11.
69, D . L. 9· 101 to th Pyrrhonian in gen raJ, but b .E. M
11. qo (Pyrrho T 64 Decleva aizzi, Tirnon fr. 70 Die) = SH
44) to Tirnon, and re ulted from the fact that P yrrho, accord-
m to Tirnon' lndalmoi in .E. M 1 1. 20 (Pyrrho T 62 Decleva
a1zz1, Tirnon fr. 6 Diel = H 42), Antigonu ' report in
D.L. 9- 64 (T 10 Decleva Caizzi), and everal place in Cic. De
fin. (T 69B-F Decleva aizzi), had a vie\ on TO ciyaOov which
later ceptic could no longer defend (D cleva Caizzi 1981b:
145)-h
The example of the citizen, the coun ellor, and the judge
derive from Plato' and Ari totle' argument again t Protagoras
in Tlzeaet. 169 E, 170 A-B, 178 B, 179 , and Met. IOIObll-
q, I011 •5 re pectively. To a irnilar objection, that cep i
make any human activity impo ible, Favorinu , according to
Philo tratu Vit. oplz . 1. 8 (fr. 27 Barigazzi) , will reply: 'The
Pyrrhoman do not de troy life and are able to judge, OtKa~~:tv'),
and .E. PH 1. 21-4 will re pond with the de cription of the
four conditiOn of the Pyrrhonian unopinionated life.
In para. 19, a already aid, the quotation from Timon i I
apart from Antigonu at para. 26 (T rsB Decle a aizzi), the
only explic1t ev1dence for Pyrrho' profe ion of a7Ta0Ha.
That in para . 1 Ari tocle might ha e had extu 1 condi-
tion of the ciS&gaaTo {3to in mind i upported by the argu-
ment of para . 20, \ here he ironically refer to the Pyrrhonian
'w1 dorn' (To aoc/>ov), a cording to which S€ot KaTaKoAouOovvTa Tfl
c/>uaH ~ijv Kai. Toi<; €0wt ('one ought in accordance ith nature
and cu torn '). For thi corre pond to th fir t and to the
econd part of the third of extu ' condition of the ciS&gaaTo<;
{3to<; (guidance by nature and re pect for cu torn ), and
An tocle put. them again t other Pyrrhonian principle : TO
J.LTJO£vt auyKaTaT£0£a0at, ov J.LaAAov €anv ~ ouK €anv, and J.L~T£ Ta
D L 9· 61, \\h1ch attnbute ~<aAo~ioxpov to Pyrrho, probably depends
on a late, urel~ po t-1 •mon1an our e, al. 1 al o u~~csted by the u c of vop.<!J
m tcad of v6'!' On thi c n 1
 ommentary on F 4 I 3I
aia8~an~ ~J.Lwv, J.L~TE Ta~ S6~a~ &.A7]8£um 7j t/J£uSw8at, Sta TouTo
J.L1]SE 7TLGT£UHV auTai'~ S£tV .
If o, the ondition of the ciS6~aaTo fl[o~ and the principle TO
J.L1]So,( auyKaTaTt8w8at must have been in Aristocle ' ource.
That thi may have been Aenesidemu is sugge ted by the
occurrence of the erb auyKaTaTt8£J.LaL, which we have already
traced back to Aenesidemu ( ee the ommentary on para. 7),
and aKoAou8£tV, which i not rare, but i u ed by A ne idemus in
D .L. 9· Io6 (T 8 Decleva aizzi) to expres the ame idea :
(Pyrrho) TOt~ r/>atVOJ.LfVOL~ aKoAou8£t.
The expre sion Tfj r/>uan aKoAou8£tV too can perhap be traced
back to Aene idemu : it echoe TO J.LfV TL €xnv Ell vr/>1]y~an
rf>ua£w~ ('that it is partly under in the guidance of nature') at
.E . PH I . 23, and pre ents a 'weak' view of rf>uat~ that often
Pyrrho' ' tronger' one in D.L. 9· IOI, 'There is nothing good
or bad by nature (r/>ucm)', and probably derive from the
Methodical and Empiricist chools of medicine (Decle a Caizzi
I99S), Aene idemus' po ible knowledge of whi h has already
been mentioned in the Commentary on the trope .
Because of thi , the analogy of Pyrrhoni m with the purge ,
which Ari tocle in para . 2 I-2 con id er either u ele or self-
refuting and conflicting with the principle To J.L1]S£vt auyKaTa-
Tt8£a8at, m a also depend on Aene idemu , and Ferrari (I 968:
207) had already sugge ted that it originated among the phy i-
cian . It i reaffirmed by S.E. PH I. 206, 2. 188, 3· 280, who
may also depend on Aen idemus.

23-4. In con equence of what ha been ugge ted above, it i

al o po ible that th argument that art are impos ibl with
no opinion and belief refer to the fourth of extu ' condi-
tion for th &.S6~aaTo~ {l[o~: 'in truction of the art ' (Hxvwv
StSaaKaALa).
In the e paragraph Ari to les argue that not only lif but
al o philo ophy is incon i tent with P rrho' K£r/>aAata, for it i
impos ibl without belief and opinion . H refer to th am
prin ipl of Ari tot lian epi temology hi h h will reaffirm
in F s-8. Th y ha e be n recently lab 11 d a unorthodox and
inad quate b orabji (1993: 47) on th gr und that th y argu
that human p r ption (aia81]at ) invol b lief (S6~a) and that
perceiving (To ala8av£a8at) involv gnizing (yvwp[,nv} om -
 IJ2 mm ntary on F 4
thm lnde d m para. 23 Ari to l affirm that (I) aiaB~cJf.t)
produ e oofa becau (2) they are a f rm of yvwat and (3) they
produ e TT tan-. If part of thi may b on idered inadequate,
h wever, n thmg e m to be ub tantiall unorthodox.
A for (I), 1t i true that ri totle affirm the difference
betwe n ro aia80.vw8at and ro oo[a,Etv (De anima 413b2o), but
heal 0 ay that o6{a derive from TT{an (De aninw 428 8 20) and
that TTtan- may derive from aiaBT)at (De caelo 2 70b 13, Phys.
262•I , An . Pot. 9obq.).
:\ for (2), although ri totle affirm th difference between
aiaOT)at) on the one hand and ETTtar~J-1-..,, c/>povT)at , and aoc/>{a on
the other (De anima 427" I 7-b8, Top. I I 4,2 I-S) , he a! o a
PerceptiOn 1, a kmd f knO\\ ledg (~ aia871at yvwa{c; n)) (De gen. anim.
73 , . 33).
c1ence (lmar~J.LT/v) and perception (aia871atv) ar aid to be th mea-
ur of thmg for the ame rea on, namel y that we knO\\ through them
(yvwpt~OJ.Liv TL aurai) (A/et . 1053°31);
Repre entauon (c/>avraa{a) and perception (aia871at ) have the ame
po 1t10n (r~v aur~v xwpav lxovatv) a thought (rcjJ vcjJ) (Part .
amm .7oobzo);
Percel\mg (ro ala8av£a8at) 1 Judging (Kptvnv) (Top. ,,, •19);
Percen mg (ro ala8avw8at) 1 the ame a thinking (oJ.Lotov rcjJ vo£iv) (De
anima 43 I• ).

A for (3), TT{an may deri e from aiaB..,at), according to De

caelo 270b13, Phy . 262"I8, and An. Post . 90bi4 .
• 'ot even para. 24 look unorthodox, for Ari totle affirmed
that 'We perceive that we ee and hear' (aia8avo11-£8a on opwp.£v
Kat aKOUOJ-1-€V) (De amma 425bi 3), and, although he doe not ay
that memor) (J-1-vTJJ-1-.., and dvap.v..,at)), mental concept (lvvotat),
cience (ETTtar~J-1-..,), and art (rlxvTJ) depend on lnro>.TJt/Jtc; (a ump-
tion), m th fir t chapter of the Metaphy ic he ay that they
derive from aiaOT)at ; and lnroATJt/Jt , being a form of TT{an), m a
deri\·e from aiaOT)atc; too .~><1

25-6. Here Ari tocl how that th fir t re i ion of Pyrrhon-

• m are mcon 1 tent \\lth Pyrrho' and Timon' K£c/>a>.ata, for
• 1mllar c?nc.:cpt , e peCJally the connection bet\\een 1'-"~1'-TJ• ivvoto<,
6>o :
and HXVYJ, \\Cre al o put fon\ard by ntlochu . agamst the Cyrena1cs,
<morTJp.TJ,
accordml( to ·, . Luc. 22
 ommentary on F 4 133
even living according to nature and law i impo ibl without
opinion and b lief .70 H ground hi argument on example
taken from Antigonu ' Lives of Pyrrho and of Timon.
Antigonu 'anecdote are al o reported by D.L. 9· 66 (T 15A
Decleva aizzi). Wilamowitz ha hown that both Ari tocle
and Diogene d pend on Antigonu , although th differences
between Ari tocle ' and Diogene ' report of the tory of
Phili ta have been recently exp lained by Brun chwig (1992) a
being due to two differ nt reading of Antigonu , which
re pectively picture a ' rusti ' and an 'urbane' cepti .7' Thi i
hown in particularly by the fact that Aristocle peak of
chr6.8na., while Diogene peak of aTa.pa.~{a.. According to Brun-
ch wig, Ari tocle i more faithful than Diogene to Antigonu '
original. Thi may be explained by Aronadio' hypothe i
(1990: 228-33), according to which Diogenes did not quote
directly from Antigonu , but from a ceptical compendium.
Thi ource may have been more careful in u ing a problematic
concept uch as a??Ci8na.. imilarly, in recounting the a ne dote
of the pig, probably from Antigonu again, Po idoniu in
D.L. 9· 68 (T 17A Decl va Caizzi) p ak of aTa.pa.~{a., Plut.
Prof. virt. 82 E-F (T 17 B Decleva aizzi) of a'TT6.8na..
Po idoniu ' er ion i al o le detailed than Plutarch' , and
may not depend directly on Antigonu .71 In any ea e, it eem
that Diogene ' and Po idoniu ' ource or our e deliberate!
avoided the t rm a'TT6.8na..

27-8. Ari to le a1m at hawing that P rrho, Timon, and

A ne idemu are worth ! peopl . A carding to De leva
aizzi, part f para. 27 (T 23 Decle a aizzi) i als probabl
ba ed on Antigonu . For th relation hip bet\ e n Pyrrho and
Anaxarchu put forv ard in para. 27 \ a tre ed b '
a carding to D.L. 9 · 62-4 (T roDe I a aizzi); th in i ten
on the on er ion to philo oph i al o str ntigonu
in the am pa age ; and the expre ion ouo' OUTW<; !UTVX~ i
the ho til v r ion of Antigonu ' word ' t first h wa a poor
7
° For mod rn dis u s10n on this s en. 20.
7
' ce n . s8.
7
' cordmg to D •clcva a1zz1 ( 19 1b: 16Q-70) 1t 1s d1fficult to say '' ho was
Po 1domu~· source, ,~hile Plutar h may d pcnd on Pos1don1Us. he also
not1 es, however, that in the report of th latt ·r 'c forsc Slgndkatlnl l'asscnza
de) tcrmine a1T(l6Ha.'.
I 4 ommentary on F 4
and unknown pamter, and in the gymna ium at Eli there are
ttll ome mode t tor h ra er of hi . ' Ioreover, Ari tocles
doe not mention the trip to India , nor the link\ ith tilpo or
Bry on, wh1ch ar n tin Dio ene ' quotation from Antigonu .
n the other hand, the ref rence to Democritu eem to be a
di tort10n f Philo in D.L. 9· 67 (T 20 De leva aizzi): 'Philo
of Athen , one of hi friend u ed to ay that he mo t of all
1

referred to Democritu and then to Homer'; and the tatement

I

that Pyrrho ' pok evil of everybod ·, god and men' (KaKws-
7Tav-ra £l1T£ Kat 8£ou Kat civOpclmou ) ma be the unfair ver ion of
what Timon ay of Pyrrho in D.L. 9· 69 (T 37 Decle a
aizzi): 'He wa mo t ho tile (1ToA£fLtel.JTaTo ) to ophi t ', or
el e an inference from Timon ' own conduct: like pupil, like
ma ter.
It i al o likely that the reference to P yrrho' freedom from
conceit (aTut/>la) come from the fragment of Timon' Silloi
" d at para. IQ : aiV\
Cite '\\1~ '"
OIOV TOV -1..
aTU'f'OV ' ' " "toOV
£YW ' ,..,,,..,,
'T/0 •
aoafLaOTOV 1TaCJt
KTA., ince the ver e quoted in para . 28 (T 48A Decle a Caizzi,
frr. 1o-1 1 Diel = H 7 4-5) al o derive from Timon's Silloi.
n the other hand, the ource of the information on Timon'
profe ion and on the nature of the Silloi i Antigonu again,
according to Diogene 9· 109, 1 1 1.

2<rJO. The reference to a 'certain Aene idemu who revi ed

Pyrrhoni m after a long ilence' eem to conflict with
:\.Ienodotu in D.L. 9· 115, according to whom Ptolemy of
yrene re-e tabli hed the ceptical chool after the ilence fol-
lowmg T1mon, and ugge t that, pace chmekel (1938: 300
n . I ), :\Ienodotu cannot be con idered Ari tocle ' ource for
th1 chapter. n the other hand, thi notice i not incon i t nt
with DIOgene ' report from otion and Hippobotu (9. I Is),
accordmg to \'.h1ch Timon had pupil . For it i one thing to
have pupll and another to run a chool (Glucker 1978: 352),
and otion and H1ppobotu ' li t doe not furnish any proof of
the ex1 tence of a proper and g nuine Pyrrh nian ect in the
time b tween T1mon and Aene idemu , but only reveal the
pre ence of a later tradit1on whi h percei ed a clo e connection
between Pyrrho and medical Emp1ri i m (Decle a aizzi
19920 176)
In the lntrodu t10n it ha already be n n ti ed that th
 omm ntary on F 4 I35
expr ion £x8Es KaL 7TpW71v in itself does not ay much on
Ari tocle ' chronology, but that in connection with the depre-
catory word Alv7Ja{87JJ..LOS ns it may be taken quite literall y, for
it ugg t that Aristocle wrot at a time when Aene id mu
wa not yet we ll known-in fact, i ero (De fin. 2. I 30, De orat.
3· 62 = T 69M Decleva aizzi) peak as if ther were
no Pyrrhonians at hi time. That Aenesidemus' revival of
Pyrrhoni m wa not too long before Aristocle ' r ply i
upported not only by the fa t that the chapter again t the
Pyrrhonian i the longe t, mo t d tailed, and most polemical
of hi ur iving refutation , but al o by the mention of
Aene idemu a the most recent of the Pyrrhonian he ha
knowledge of.
Thi , in it turn, suggests that Aristocle did not know, and
therefore did not rely on, any of the late r important figur of
Pyrrhonism known to u , such as Agrippa, Th odo iu , Meno-
dotu , and extu . Indeed, Ari tocle eem not to have known
Agrippa' modes, Theodo ius' argument again t the label of
Pyrrhoni m, Menodotu ' hi tory of the ect and extu ' replie
to the dogmati ts' objections. A for Agrippa, it i true that h
is mentioned only by Diogene , but he i not a econdary figure
of Pyrrhoni m, for hi trope eem to ha e had a great influ nee
on extus, and Ari tocl wou ld urel ha e aid omething,
had he known him.
Ari tocle ' reference to Alexandria a the plac here
Aene idemu re i ed Pyrrhoni m upports the hypothe i that
it i there that the Pyrrhonian tradition continued among
medical Empiricist (Decle a aizzi I 992a: I 7 , I ). A ha
already been remarked m the Introduction , Ari tocle '
pecifi ation 'in Egypt' do not n ce arily mean that h had
never been there, a Heiland (I 925: 3) u pect d.
A for the expre ion ciywy~ ..\oywv, Goedeckem er (I9os:
2 I 3) thought that it could be attributed to A n idemu , ' ho
ho e to use it in tead of aipEats in rep) to the Dogmati t ' riti-
ci m;n to b ure it i only found at Gal. De loc. ajj. 3· 3 (viii.
I43· I I Kiihn), D .H . De compos. verb. 23. 15 , rig. ontra
elsum 6. 74· 23, and it oc ur in Photiu ' r p rt of
" Indeed ciywy~ .\oywv may be encsidemus' repla ment for arpEa<~ even tf
ciywY') was an early on tender for the sense later occupied b:r arpEa< ·as Glu k r
(1978 352)sugge ted
 mmentar ·on F 4-5
.-\ene tdemu ' Pyrrhonian Logoi ( 170h2); Aen id emu may
have b rro\\ d it from the Empirical hool of medi ine, which
called tt elf an dywy~ ( al. De comp. med. sec. locos 6. 9 = xii.
9 9 Kiihn ), or from th yrenaic (D.L. 2. 6), who happened
to be lik n d to the eptic ( .E. PH I. 2 Is).
ri to le ' la t word , that the Pyrrhonian de tro the
'princtple of phtlo ophy' (Tou qn>..oaoc/>f.iv dpxa{), are con i tent
wtth the referen to Ari totle in para. 1, for in all probability
the dpxal he mentiOn her are th Ari totelian principles of
non- ontradiction and of ub tan e.
In conclu 10n, although Ari tocle xplicitly refer to
Timon' Python and Silloi, to Aene id emu ' Outlines of
Pyrrhoni m, and to Antigonu ' Live , and although it cannot be
excluded that he had direct kno\ ledge of ea h of them, the
reference to Aene idemu at the end of para. 4, at para. I I, and
at para. 29, and the occurrence of everal argument which can
be traced ba k to Aene idemu in para . 8-<), I3, 16, 18-24,
trongly upport the hypothe i that A ne idemu , or a
Pyrrhontan epitomator very clo e to him, wa Ari tocle '
ource for mo t of hi chapter on the Pyrrhonian . This appear
of unique importance for the evidence from Timon' Python on
Pyrrho' and Timon' Kf.c/>a>..ata (para . 1-4); for the detail of
Timon' meeting with P _ rrho (para. 14); and for the te timony,
probably from Aene idemu ' Outlines, on the latter' agree-
ment with Ttmon in rejecting the Epicurean criteria of knowl-
edge, but a reement ith the Epicurean iew that f.vSatfLovla i
aTapa~[a and aTapa~[a i a kind of ~Sov~ (para. 4); and for the
report, from the ame book, on Aene idemu 'trope (para. 11)
and fir t ren ton of Pyrrhoni m (para . 13, 16, 18-24).

FS

Thi chapter of An to le i concern d with r natc ept te-

mology (211 B 1\lannebach, I A 217 iannantoni), a it wa
tran mitted by A ademtc doxography, probably litomachu
(para 1 ). Agam t It An tocle. oppo a 1 gi al refutation
(para. 2), ome p } hologtcal and pt t mologi al notion ba d
 ommentary on 5 I37
on Ari totle' Metaphysics and De anima (para 3-5), and the
charge of elf-contradi tion (para. 6) and of making life and
di cour e impos ible (para. 7). Hi conclu ion, that a life ba d
on affe tions would b a eg tab) life, since it do s not all w
any judgement on what i to b cho en or avoided, al o d pends
on De anima.

1. Ari tocle ' expre ion ' ome of tho from Cyrene' (€vw' -rwv
(K -r'?> Kup~VTJ>) ha no parallel. ually Ari tippu th Id r i
referred to a 'the Cyrenaic' (o Kup71vato>), hi follower a 'the
yrenaic ) (ot KupT/vai'Ko{ or Ot a7TO -r'?> Kup~VT/>) ( la en I 958:
I85 and Giannantoni I983-5: iii. I 57-()). The latter, hich may
be the equi alent of Ari tocle ' expre ion, i gen rally taken
(Go de kern yer 1905: I7, Antoniadi I9I6: 24, Heiland I925:
73 n. 88, Giannantoni I958: I 12 n. 2, Moraux I984: I8o n.
332), a distingui hing Ari tippu and hi follower from other
yrenaeans su ha Theodoru the mathematician. The rea on
why Ari tocles, like all other ource for the C renai th ory
of kno\ ledge,' doe not imply refer to Ari tippu or to o
Kup71vato> may be that, a olote ugge ts referring to hi
contemporaries, and a mo t twentieth-centur scholar have
argued,> the theory cannot be attributed to the elder Ari t-
ippu , but to the younger Ari tippu and hi follower .
Be ide Ari tocles, the yrenai theory of knowledg is
reported in the tandard formula 'only affection an b appre-
hended' (f.l.6va -ra 7T(l8T/ Ka-raAT/7TT6.) by mo t of our ource ,
namely the Anonymou In Theaet., Sextu , Diogene , and
Eu ebiu . T ouna McKirahan (I 992) ha argued that th u e of
th rb 'apprehend' (Ka-raAaf.l.fJ6.vHv) and it derivati in th
text betray toic influenc , and that neith r th Id r nor the
ounger Ari tippu u ed thi t rminology. Thi ma b tru
(although Do ring I 9 8: 29 found a parallel u e of Ka-raAaf.l.fJ6.v£Lv
in Plat. Phaedr . 250 D I), for th absence of thi term from
1c. Lur . 76 =I 209 Giannant n1; Plut. Adt•. of . 1120 Bff. =IV
211 iannantoni; . • . PH 1. 215 =IV 212 iannantoni; /6 . 53= I\'
219 Giannantoni; I 7 · 192 = IV 213 iannantont; the n n mou '
ommentator on Plato' Tluat'fl'tlls, col. 65 =IV 214 G1annantont; D.L. 2.
92 = I\' 172 G1annantont .
nton1ad1s (1916), tannantont (195 ), lannebach (1961 · 114-17),
Gmnnantont (1983-s: iu . 161-70; 1997), Ts una lcK1rahan (1992). )n the
other s1de During ( 1988: -20) .
 omm ntar ' on F 5
olot 'dr cu i n in Plut. Adt• . Col. 1120 Bff. ugge t that it
attnbutron to the yrenaic m ay be due to r formulation for
the purpo e of the toi -Academic d bate .
In turn, thr ugge t that all text dealing with the yrenaic
theory of knowledge d p nd on an Academic our e; Manne-
ba h ( 1961) onYin cingly ugge t litomachu ' fl€pt aipla€wv.l
A for An to le , thi i upported b hi addu ing the ame
example, 'fi re and iron' (m)p Kal. a{OTJpo<;), as the Anonymou In
Tlzeaetetum, who report the renaic argument according to
which 'that I am burnt, the ay, I gra p (KaraAa,....{36.vw), but
that fire burn i unclear (ao'YJAov).' It i true that cutti ng and
burnmg (ro Kalnv and ro rl,....vnv) are quite common example
(O.L. 9· 104), taken from the medical treatment , and that they
al o appear in Ari tocle , F 4 · 24. But their occurrence in this
ea e doe not eem to be mere coincidence, and they are the
rea on why Doring ( 198 : 22 ff.) condemn Ari tocles', the
Anonymou ', and olote ' te timonie as wrong and careles ,
mce they refer to object (fire and iron in Ari tocle and the
Anonymou ; men, hor e and wall in Colote ), while Plut.
1120 · and .E. M 7 . 190 a ert that the Cyrenaic only poke
of the qualitie of object ( weet and bitter, chilled and hot,
lummou and dark). Ho\>vever , at M 6. 53 extu use the
example of the voice, which i not a quality, and Plutarch does
not ay that Colote ' example are wrong, but only that they are
not the one u ed by the c_
renaic ; in fact , further on, compar-
Ing the yrenaic and the Epicurean theorie of knowledge, he
hrm elf refer to olote ' example a if the were legitimate:
and a the former [the yrenaic ] mu t peak of 'b ei ng hor ed' and
'walled', but not of a hor e or wa ll , o the latter [the Epicur an ] need
to a) that the eye 1 rounded or bent, and not that the oar is bent or
the tO\\Cr round

In defence of Ari tocle again t Doring' accu ation, we may

cite T ouna :\1cKirahan' defence of olote (1992: 178-9),
namely that he put hi finger on the probl m of how the
Cyrenaic vocabulary wa to account for a multitude of imul-
taneou affectron : 'Their doctrin may " ell uffi e to tran -
, Clitomachu may al o be the ourcc of Ctc Luc 76: ' 'y rcnat 1 negant e se
qut quam quod perctpt po, tt extrmsecu, ea e sola pen.tpere qua tactu
mtumo entlant, ut dolorcm, ut voluptatem, ncque se quo qUJd colore aut quo
ono lt et re cd tantum enttre ad het se quod am modo. •
 ommentary on F 5 139
form descriptions uch a "this object is white" into xpre -
ton uch a "I am whitened". But objects usually hav more
than one quality or property;' and, de pite Plat. Theaet. 157
B-e, 'the imultaneous perception of all the e qualiti
entail d in perceiving' the object.

:z. The fir t of Ari tocles' argument again t the Cyrenaic i a

logical dilemma. Either the statement that 'only affection can
be apprehended' i ba ed on ome form of knowledg or it i
not. If it is, it is self-refuting ince it is not an affection; if it i
not it i non ense.

3-5. In the e paragraphs Ari tocles attacks the Cyrenaic theory

of knowledge at what he takes to be it root, namely the theory
according to which perception i the outcome of om thing that
act (rrotEi) and something that is acted upon (7TCiaxEL). In fact
thi idea wa attributed to the 'more ingenious' (Ko!Jot/J6npot) fol-
lower of Protagoras by Plato (Theaet . 156, 182), who thought
that everything is in motion and that ubject and object of
perception (TO 7TOLEiv KaL TO rraaxELv) do not exi t independ ntly
one from the other. But it is also what, according to the
Anonymou In Theaetetus in col. 65, induced the yrenaic to
argue that the two pole cannot be perceived separately: 'From
thi (o(hv) the Cyrenaic a serted that only affections are appr -
hensible, while external things are not.' Ari tocle might well
have b en acquainted with the link established in the Academy
between the follower of Protagora mentioned in the
Theaetetus and the yrenai .~ for it ur i ed until extu (M
6. 53). Fir t, he knew the Theaetetus ( ee the commentar on F
6); e ondly, he adduce again t th Cyrenai th ame
argument of elf-con ciou ne of per ption that v a r tort d
by ocrat again t the follower of Protagora in Theaet. 184 B
4-186 I.
How r, in Met . 10I0h33-9 Ari tot! too oppo d to th fol-
lower of Protagora th ame argument of If-con iou n
of any p r ption a Ari to le , a ing that ' en e-per ption i
the p re iv r' aff ction. (~ ata07JUL!; TOU aiaOaVO!JofVOU rraOo EaT{)
and that th el m nt of p rcepti n ar thr , s n e-p r ption
• On the cadcmtc origin of this h ·pothe 1 c Giannantoni ( 195 91,
IJI-45 ; 1997: 186-7).
qo ommentary on F 5
tt·elf, "hat percetv and what i p r i'·ed (~ ai:a871a' , Ta
aia871-a Kat Ta aia(}~,_,.aTa):
And m gen ral, 1f nl) the , en ible XI t ', th r would be nothing if
ammate thmg \\ere not; forth r would be no fa ulty of ne. Th
, 1e'' that netther the obJect: of en ·ation n r the n at ion would xist
1. doubtl , true (for the) are affe tion of the perceiver), but that the
ub:trate "h1ch eau th en at ion (1TO<£i T~v aia8'1aLv) hould not
e.· 1. t e'en apart from en ·ation i 1mpo ible. For n ation i ur ly
not the ensau n of 1t elf, but there i. omething be. ond the en ation
\\h1ch mu·t b pnor to th en ation . For that whi h move i prior in
nature to that "h1ch 1 moved, and if th y ar correlative term (1rpo
ill71.\a TaliTa), th1 1 no le · the a (tr. Ro 19 4 : 1596).

Ari to le examine the three element of perception -what

eau e the affection, who uffer it, and of what kind it i -in
para . 3, 4, and 5 re pectively. That he alway ha Ari totle in
mmd 1 ug e ted by hi example in para . 3-4, which echo
.lfet. IOIObi<ri4:

. ·obod) ''ho dream that he i in Ath n , \ hile he i in Libya, goe to

the Ode10n. :\loreover, a Plato ay , about future thing th opinion
of the doctor and of the i norant hav not the ame reliability .

The reference to dog too can be explained through Ari totle,

who provide a parallel in Met. rorob3o, 'In general, if only
\\hat can be perce1 ed exi t , nothing would exi t if there were
no an1mate being (,.,.~ ovTwv Twv ~1-u/JI)xwv)', and in De anima
42 •22 ay that not only men but a! o animal are animate
being (lf4uxa), mce they can have pre entation .
Ari totle' mfluence i particularly evidenced by para. 5,
where An tocle con lude the argument that he who ha an
affectiOn 1 aware not only of him elf and of what eau e the
affect1on, but al o of what kind of affection he experience . In
fact the .:\le eman argue that it i not affection that tell
whether 1t 1 familtar or not, whether it i plea ant or not, which
of the fiH en e and en e organ· it i due to, what i to be
cho en and what to be avoided, and that m n who rely on
affection only are not ltving being , in e th y cannot have
impul nor de ir . The point of d partur of all thi , that it
i not affection that Judge what 1 famtliar or not, i al o
affirmed by Ari to le m F . 2 and will b ommented on
there But that it i not affectiOn (7Tli8o ), but a more complex
 Commentary on F 5
and active fa ulty, namely perception (ata81Jat>), whi h judg
plea ure and pain , echoe De anima 43 I 0 8-Io:
Perceiving ('TO aia8av£a8at) i. th e a me a mere saying ('Tc;i cpavat) and
thinking (vo£i'v); and wh n it i pleasant the soul a nt (Ka'TacpO.aa)
and pur ue it, when it is painful th soul reject (a7rocpO.aa) and avoid
it .

nd that it i not affection that tell which kind of en e i

in olv d in perception can be explained by De anima 426b 12,
" here Ari totle peak of the 'common en e' that per ei e the
differ n e among perception , and i not an affection:
inc we judge what i white and what i weet and ach en ible
agai n t th other, b y what do we perceive th ir difference? eces arily
by a en e (ala8~cm), ince both ar ensibles ... and it i n
that they app ar to one ingl nse .. .

The argument that it is impo ible to live according to th

Cyrenaic , in e they make any choice impo sible, al o re t on
Ari totle, particularly on the idea that choice depend on de ir
(opE~t>), which in it turn d pend on the oul' judgem nt on
pi a ure and pain (De anima 431-3). It i noteworthy that
whil ' impul e' (opE~t>) is a trictly Ari totelian term, and
define the principle of movem nt and of choice and avoidan e,
d ire (&p,..,.~) i originally a t i word (D.L. 7· 85 = SVF iii
178, i . Luc. 24). It often occur in non-Stoic author , howe -
er, uch a Alexander of Aphrodi ia in De anima 73 · 16.

fr.;;. After howing that life a ording to the yr nai

impo ible , Ari tocle charge their pi temological ubjec-
tivi m with contradicting their !aim to philo oph . Inde d,
the r nai de pi ed theoreti a! knowledge, nam ly math -
matic , phy ic , and dialecti ;s Ari tocle may allud to thi
with hi arithm tical xampl . It may be for thi rea on that,
imm diat ly afterward , he how that a! o rdinary !if
made impo ibl by the yr nai
Hi onclu ion, that a yrenai i not cliff r nt fr m an
animal, or, wor , i I than an animal, for h do n t even
know 'what i in hi natur and " h t is not' ('To Ka'Ta cpuatv Kat
n t. let 996•32, 1078•3 1 (I 17<r1 tannantoni), 'litomachu~ m
D.L. 2 92 (IV 172 iannanton1), echoed by S.E. !7. 11, 'en . Ep1 t 14,
Ps.-Piut. m Eu PE 1. 8, Eus PE 15 . 62 {I\' 166-9 znmn<tntont).
 q.2 ommentary n F 5-6
1rapa t/>uatv), r t on De anima 3. I I-I 2, wh re Ari tot le di tin-
Ul he human b ing from animal a being entailed with
rat1onal facultie (e . . 414h5), and animal from plant a being
able to JUd e, through perception , their affe tion of plea ure
and pain , and therefore to pur ue or avoid what produ es
them. It i true that the expre ion KaT<1 t/>uatv Kal 1rapa tf>uatv i
al o u ed by the toic (D .L. 7. 5 = VF iii. I78), but it
o urrence here may be explained b Ari totle' definition of
nature a 'the principle of motion' (t/>uat KLv~aEws dpx~) (Met.
IOL~b i9, IOI5 " q. , and I025b20), whi h depend on impul e
(opEg, ) (De anima 433"2I-6), which, in it turn, depends on
JUd ement on erning plea ure and pam (De anima
43 I • -Io, quoted above) .

F6

Thi chapter of Ari tocle i directed again t the representa-

t!Ye of phenomenali t epi temology, and i di ided into two
part . The fir t (para . I-8) deal \ ith Metrodoru ' and
Protagora 'epi temology (70 A 24 DK), the econd (para . 9-
I 2) with unlabelled doctrine which can b identified as Epi-
curean (ad fr. 247 U ener). While the r ference to Metrodoru
i probably influenced by the Academic claim to Democritus a
a predece or, Protagora 'doxography and the criticism which
can be put forward again t him, namely that hi doctrine i self-
contradictory (para . 3-5) and that it make life and di cour e
impo 1ble (para . 6-8), depend on Plato' Theaetetus and
An totle' A1etaphysics. As for the Epi ur an , mo t of the doc-
tnne An tocle report appear to be ba ed on Epicuru ' Letter
to Herodotu , although there are detail v hi h can be traced
back to hi On Nature. A for the riti i m Ari to le ba ed
h1 obJeCt! n not only on Ari totelian anti-ph nomenalistic
argument d nved from the Metaphysics and De anima, but
al o on anti-Ep1 ur an Academ1c argum nt , har d by icero
and Plutarch and later e hoed by ex tu (para . I e>-I 2).

I. mong 'tho e who think that on hould tru t only n -

 ommentary on F 6 143
perception and impres ion ' (oi a~LOUV'Tt"S riJ ala8~a£t Kat rais
4>avraatat fJ-Ovats 8fiv 1Ttart"u£tv) Ari tocles include Homer,
Metrodoru of hio , and Protagora . The link between
Homer and Protagora ha a prec dent in Plat. Tlzeaet. 160 o,
while Ari tocl ' inclu ion of Metrodorus among the phenome-
nali t i more difficult to explain, sin e Metrodoru i mainly
known for hi scepticism (70 A 23, 25, 70 B 1 OK) and for
having rejected any crit rion of truth ( .E. M 7 · 49) . Aetiu in
tob. I. so. 17 (Die! 1879: 396 = 70 A 22 OK) en include
Metrodoru among tho e who think that all en e-perception
are fal e. Indeed, Ari to les i ery cautiou on thi point: 'it
eem (€otK€) that Metrodoru of Chio too affirmed the ame.'
Thi uncertainty ugge t he i referring to omething of which
he has no direct proof. In fact hi reference can be explained by
the tradition which con idered Metrodoru a one of Oemo-
ritu ' followers and Democritu a a ceptical en ualist; thi
tradition originated in the Academi ' claim to predeces or ,
and wa popularized by the diadochical literature ( orta a
1973, Giannantoni 1981b, Decleva Caizzi 1976, 1990, Tarrant
1985: 79-83, Man feld 1992: 27-43), although Theophra tu in
imp. In Phys. 28 . 27 (70 A 3 OK) pointed out that Metro-
doru followed Oemocritu ' phy ic , but not th remainder of
hi doctrine. Ari tocl ' linking letrodoru to Protagora ,
th n, i mediated by Demo ritus, and may a) o b upported by
ri totle' placing of both Oemocritu and Protagora among
the ph nomenali t , for example at Met . 1009b7 and De anima
404"27. Thi i a) o ugge ted b the fa t that, although
Ari tocle ' expli it, and probably direct, our for the fir t
part of thi chapter i Plato' Theaetetus, it i cl ar that h a)
ha paraphra from Metaphysics r. I

2. Protagora ' tat m nt that 'man i the m a ure of all thing ,

of thing that are that the ar , of thing that ar not that th y
I 1'
ar not f-'t"Tpov Hvat
( 1ravrwv XP'T/1-'arwv rov av 8pw1rwv, rwv
I I \ tl - fJ-t"V\
ovrwv ws lan, rwv 8' ouK ovrwv w ouK lanv)' i rep rted with
th am word by Plat. Tlzeaet. 152 ( oB 1 K).
ccordmg to lan feld (19876· 301 n. 47), m book 7 of Ou Plufosophy
n~to les dealt'' tth the Eleatt su ce ston. 11 ,,e,cr, although most of the
thmker ri. toties dt cusses belong to tt, he doe~ not folio" a dtado htcal
sequence (sec the I ntrodu twn), and he also speaks of the ') rcmucs, "ho ar
not mdudcd m the El attc succc. ston b · other sources.
 ommentar) n F 6
Prota ora ' development of thi do trin o cur in it objec-
tl\'e form (what appear to each p r on i tru ab olutely) in
para . 2, , and s. and in it ubj tive formulation (what
appear to ea h per on i tru for that p r on only) in para. 3
only. Th1 may be a ign of Ari to le ' Peripateti allegiance.
For, although Plato report the obje ti,·e v r ion of Protagora '
do tnne at I 6 I , he ·eem to have attributed to the ophi t
onl~ a ubje tl\'e \'er ion of it, ·which Ari totle onverted into
It' obJeCtl\'e form (Burnyeat I976b).' Ind ed at I$2 E, I6I D,
I 7 I E, and I 72 A Plato ay that Protagora ' theor mean 'a
thing appear to me, uch they are to me, and a they appear to
you, u h they are for you'.

3-6 .. · e\'erthele the fir t group of argument Ari tocles put

forward agam t Protagora literally depend on the Theaetetus:
D1d not he a) that th mea ure of all thmg i a pig or a baboon (Js ~
KVIIOKfl/>aAO •) (I 6 I ()?
If each per on' truth 1 to be the opmion derived from hi en ·
perceptiOn (£i yap 8~ fKaUT<fl aATJ8£s fUTQt 0 QV 8t' aia8~a£W) 8oga~)1) · · ·
(161 D).
Before learning the language poken b) fore1gner (-rwv {3ap{3apwv}
hall we. a) that we do not hear, ''hen they ·peak, or that we hear and
knO\\ "hat the) say? ( 163 B);
But 'he doe· not ec' ts the ame a 'he doe not know', if it is true that
to ee 1. to knO\\ Then it ma) happ n that on doe not know what
one actuall) knO\\., tf one doe not ec it; and thi , w a1d, would be a
mon trou thmg, 1f tt happened (I 64 B);
Ho'' ''ill you ans\\cr to the man ''ho a, k you, whit cov ring one of
your C) es '' ith hts hand, \\hether you . ee ht robe with that eye? ( 165
B-e)
n the other hand, the argum nt of If-refutation reported
by An to le in para. 5 1 lightly cliff r nt from the corre ·
pondmg argument put forward by Plato at Theaet. I7I
according to \\hich ' Protagora \\ill admit that tho e who have
the oppo Jte opin1on ar nght (T~v T~JV dvnSota~ovTwv Ot1)atv)':
• 1 ht 1 al o upportcd h} E ..\./ 7 6o-4, PH 1 . 216, who does not dtsttn·
gut h b·tween th two ver ton, and b} 't(; Luc. 142 , \\ho only reports the
ubJCCU\ ' r tOn. The dtffercnt rcadmg of tht fragment ha\e been al o
e ammed b Kerfcrd (1949/50), \'lasto (1956), \'er cny 1 (1962), Burnveat
19700), Declc\a 'atzzt (1971!), \\'aterlO\\ (1977), and 'happlll (1995).
 ommentary on F 6 145
Plato' argument is a rr£ptTporr~ and refers to opinion , (S6gcu), J
' hile Ari to le refer to appearance (4>atVOf!£va) and i lo er
to Ari t. Met. 1009"6: 'If all opinion and all app arance are
tru (£tT£ yap Ta SoKouvTa 1TC£v-ra €aTiv d>.TJO-q Kai Ta 4>atvof!£va),
n ce arily all of them will be true and false at the am tim
(dvayK'T} £tvat rravTa elf-la d>.TJO-q Kat tf;wS-q)'. A imilar argum nt i
al o advanced by S.E. M 7 . 394, who, however, refer to pre-
entation (4>avTaa{at).
Th xample adduced at para . 6 in upport of the argument
that Protagorean epi t mology doe not account for human
acti iti , ince it doe not xplain the uperiority of kill d
peopl in ea e of tempe t, di ea e, and war, are al o tak n from
Theaet. 169 E-170 B, and 178 B-179 , where o rat i refut-
ing th o call d ' defence of Protagora '; the exampl of th
doctoral o o cur at Met. 1010b11-14, where Plato i quot d,
and at Met. 101 1"5. The ame argument i al o u ed again t
Protagora b .E. M 7· 395·

7-8. H a ing hown, after Plato' Theaetetus, that the Protagor-

ean theory implie the impo ibility of d ciding in matter
truth and of conduct, Ari tocle manife tly turn to Ari tot! '
Metaphysics in order to hO\ that Protagora ' do trine al o
de troy th principl of ub tance and of non-contradiction,
and the po ibility of moral judg ment .
Th following li t of parallel with Metaphysics r r veal that,
a a!ready ugge ted in the commentarie on F 4 and F 5, ri to-
de kn "" thi book. Like Ari totle in {et. 10o8b30, I007"2o-
30, and 1010b26 re pecti ely, Ari to le a cu e th Protagor-
ean of de troying 'the mor and th le ' (To 1-10.>.>.ov Kat To
T]hov) and 'the nece ary and the ontingent' (To €g dvayK'T} Kat
To €v8£XOf!£Vov). Th n h add the con ept of 'natural and
unnatural' (To KaTa 4>uaw Kat rrapd. 4>vatv), whi h oft n app ar
in Ari tot! ' phy i al (Physic , De gen. et corr., Meteor.) and
p y hologi al work (De anima 406"22, 407b1). Th y ar al o
emplo d again t Ari to and Pyrrho by icero in De fin. 3· 12 .
th r parallel with Ari tot! ar Met. 1008b2o ('from
Protagora ' point of i w tt " ill b impo ible to di tingui h a
man from a non-man'); 1007h1 and 1oo8"24 ('a ording to
Protag ra ' rea oning a trir m , a wall, and a man will b th
n thts sec lassc n (1989)
q6 ommen tary on F 6
ame and ntrane will be identi al'); 1062"29 ('from
Prota ora ' d trine 1t will follow that the a m per on i a man
and a hor e') . The xamp le of the pie f wood (tuAov) often
app ar m th 111etaphysics (for examp l at 1079b2) and i very
ommon m th whole Platonic and Ari totelian tradition.~
That e,· ry tatement wi ll be true and th r fore al o fa! e i
al o ob erved by Ari t. let . 1009"9, w hil the exampl of the
oun ellor and judge oe back to Plato aga in (Theaet.
177-9), becau eat let. IOIObi3 Ari totle quote Plato but on!
report the example of th ph · i ian.
Ari tocle ' lo mg word find their clo e t para llel in Met. K
I062 b l3 ( 0 A 17b OK):

(Protagora.') affirmed that man i the mea ure of all thing , not mean-
m anythmg else than thi : what appear to ach per on also i
ab olutely (1Tay{w - ) ; but if so, it wi ll follo\ that th am thin i and
1. not, 1 good and bad, and all th other pair of ontrari .
They are implied by both Plato' Theaetetus and Ari totle '
."Het.r. howe,·er, o they do not definitely prove that Aristocle
wrote at a time when book K had already been added to the
J.Jetaplz_v ic . 5 A imilar conclu ion about the doctrine that all
pre entat10n (c/>avTaa{at) are true i al o put fon a rd by S.E. M
7· 394-6.
In con lu ion, Ari tocle eem to have taken from Plato the
argument dtrected again t tho e w ho con id r judgement
rounded on perception to be the mean of knowledge, and
from Ari totle the argument developing th metaphy ical
1mph at10n of thi doctrine, namely the de truction of the
pnnciple of ub tance and of non-contradiction and the
1mpo ibility of any moral judgement.

9 · It i not clear whether the word 'And then h e ai d .. .' are

m erted by Eu ebiU at the end of para. in ord r to how that
the ubJect i changmg, or are evidence that Eu biu omitted a
portion f n to le ' text. In either ea e, from para. 9 onward
Eu ebiU report An tocle ' turning to ome contemporar
rep re entatn e of the doctrine according to hich all percep-
tiOn and impre 10n are true.
Their identit) 1 not pecified, but the omi ion of adver-
t:<. e . ~ . le In Het 648 7-1!
On tht problem of 1t punou ne~ ubcnquc ( 1983)
 ommentary on F 6 I47
ari ' name when they are contemporarie eem to have been
quite a common usage, followed by Poly tratus, De contemptu,
ol. vii 27, by Plut. Adv . of. I I20 , and by A pa iu , In NE
42. 28 . And, although it i difficult to under tand whom pr -
ci ely Ari tocles ha in mind, all th doctrine reported can be
ea ily identified as Epicurean (ad fr. 247 ener). 6
Like the connection between Metrodoru and Protagora , o
that between Protagora and Epi uru ongmate in th
Academy (Trabucco 1959: 480, Cortassa I 973, De leva Caizzi
1978, I990), and wa popularized by the author of the
diadochai. It i al o well ummarized by .E. M 7· 369 (ad fr .
247 ener): 'The Epicureans and the Protagorean po it d all
phenomena (1T!ivm £8mo.v [ c. T<i </>o.tv6,..uvo.])' . The A ademy,
however, i not the ource on which Ari tocle ba e hi report
on the Epicurean , mo t of whi h can be traced back to
Epicuru 'Letter to Herodotus.
This i immediately hown by the way in which the ref r-
ence to th Epicurean theory of th criterion echo Epist.
Herod. 38 :
\i must by all mean tick to our en -perception (ala8~an<;), that
imp) to th pr ent focu ing 7 wheth r of the mind or of any
cri terion whatev r (a7rAw<; ni<; TTapouaa £mf3o.\as E"in O<avo[a E"i8' oTov
O~TTon Twv Kp<TTJp{wv), and imilarl to our actual atfe tion , o that \ e
may have the mean of d tcrmining that which n d onfirmation
and that which is ob cur .8

In thi pa age, howe er, pre ntation (</>o.vTo.ato.t) are not

mentioned. triker (1977: 127) ugg ted that Epi uru and hi
own pupil u ed o.ta8T)CJL , but in a wa which indi at that they
meant what came later, under th influen e of the toi , t b
called </>o.vTo.ato., and that th refor later Epicur an add d
</>o.vTo.a{o.L, or n ub tituted them for o.laB~aH . Thi
ported b D .L. 10.31 :
Ep1curus affirm that en c-pcr ption , prcc nception , and a~ -
ccordtng to loraux ( 1984: 195) Eusebtus dtd not under ·tand tht • s ince
he does not refer to the Epicureans tn the tltl .
7
'Focusmg' t. Long and edle}' translatton ( 19 7: t. 87) of t1TlfJoA~.
H De \Vttt ( 1954), Long ( •97• ), and Rt t ( 1972) under tand 'all sen. e-p r-

ccptions are true' to mean 'a ll ense-perccpttons are real', Stnker ( 1977),
Taylor ( 1980), and Ever on ( 1990b) dtsagrcc. On Eptcuru ' pistcmolog) sec
also smts ( 1984) and l tdd ( 1989)
 ommentary on F 6
uon ( ni - a.toO.,.,o£t - KO.t rrpo>.~t/m> KO.t ni miB.,.,) ar th riteria of truth ;
the Eptcurean:; al. o focu . ing of thought m to a pr entati n (Ta
tf>a.,·Ta.onKa - (m{3o>.a - T~- 8ta.vo{a. ).

Indeed Phdodemu , De piet. 673-4 bbink, report an explicit

affirmation that t/JavTaotat are true (TO. t/JavTao[ta dA.,.,]B£is dvat);
the clau e 1 in oratio obliqua, but it su bj ect eem to b th
Ep1curean KaB'T}y£p.ov£ ( bbink 1996: 373-5). Furthermore,
t/>ai'Taolat are expli itly mentioned by o lote (Piut. Adv. ol.
1109 . = fr . 250 ener). 9 everthe le in Epist. H erod . so-r
Ep1curu mclud d focu in of thought (~ E7TI{3oA~ TTj Stavolas)
among the critena of truth, and in KLJ 24 he ca ll ed it t/JavTaonK~
€7Tif3oA~ T~ Stavola ('pre entative focu ing of thought'); more-
O\'er, he \\TOt a work On Impres ion (ll£pt tJ>avTaalas) (D.L. 10.
2 ), and, a igante ob erve ( 1983 : 123-4) , dealt with
t/Javraalat more than once in hi On ature (book 1 I fr . 9 vi,
book q fr. q i,·, P.Herc. 362, 1413 ). ne of the e may have
been known to Ari tocle . It cannot be excl uded either, ince
An tocle al o pair aiaB~au with t/JavTaa{at in F 7 and F 8, that
'They ay that all en e-perception (miaav ato87]otv) and all
1mpre 10n (miaav t/JavTaalav) are true' i hi own introduction
to the Epicurean do trine of the criterion rath r than a literal
quotatiOn from an Epicurean ource.
H1 report on the Epicurean argument m fa our of the truth
of all en e-percept10n (araB.,.,at ) ca n a l o be traced back to
Ep1 t . Herod. 52:
To th1 · \ ' IC\\ (that all ense-perceptiOn · are tru ) " e mu t clo ely
adhere, 1f '' c are not to de troy the cntena founded on the cl ar evi-
dence nor to thro\\ e' erythtng m to confusiOn by n idcring faL e-
hood a equall) certatn .

And the ame oncept occur in KLJ 23-4, a lthough it i al o

reaffirmed b) Demetriu Lacon, P.Herc . 1012 (col. L Ill
Puglia) ·
If all en e-pcrccpt10ns arc fa) c, they arc not a ll true, ''hile if some
arc true and omc are not, not all of them arc true, and you \\ill wreck
(Ta.pa~£1~) an) criterion.
• The arc mcludcd among the Epicurean cntena by the do ographer P .-
Piut . f.pll . of. and tob . 1. so. 1 ( ctiu m D1cl 1879 396), and b} .E. 1
7· 203 , I'>J. On tht other hand, Ciccro ptaks of cnse. ('\cracts . uo c ·e
en u dJctt' ) '"tthout further pcciti at10n (Luc. 79, and al oDe fin 1 64, D
I. 70)
 ommentary on F 6 149
Trabuc o ( 19s9: 486) tre ed that Ari tocl argument i
mo tly paralleled b ic. ND 1. 70 (ad fr. 2SI U ener):
'Epi uru fear d (timuit) that if a ingle ense-perception were
a cepted a fa! e, none would be true; he therefore tated that
all en e told the truth'. he therefore ugge ted that both
icero and Aristocle d ri d it from an A ademi source. Thi
may be tru , although th Epicurean pa age ited above eem
to account ufficiently for Ari tocl s' and icero' report .
Even the reference to Epicurus' a knowledgement that not
all o6ga, are true can be accounted for by Epicuru ' own word
in Epist. Herod. so: 'Fa! ehood alwa depend on the intru ion
of an opinion' (n) I/J€uoos Kat To OLT)fLapTT)fLlVov €v Tcp 1Tpoooga,o-
fLl"<tJ a€£ €anv), a! o noted by Aetiu in P .-Plut. 4 · 8 and Stob.
I. so. I (Di I 1879: 394 and 396 = frr. 249 and 248 ener),
.E. M 7 · 21o-11 (fr. 247 U ener), D . L. ro. 34, and Tert. De
animo 17 (ad fr. 247 ener).
On the other hand, a far a our kno ledge goe , Ari tocle '
argument, 'if the criterion i what \ e judge by and i true by
definition, o6ga, too hould alway be true, ince we judge by
them', ha no parallel. The tatement that the criterion i what
we judge by and i true by definition an be con idered truly
Epicurean and common to all H lleni tic chool ;' 0 but that v e
hould judge b o6ga, Epicuru ne er aid. o Ari tocle ' argu-
ment i not a charge of incon i tency, but a factual tatem nt
al o mad by Ari t . De animo 404 b26 (KpLv€Tat TU 1rpayfLaTa TU
fLEIJ vcp, TU o' f7TtUT~fLTI· TU OE cSOgn). In thi ea e too, a in F 4 and
F s, Ari to le oppose Ari totelian doctrine to the thinker
again t' horn he i directing hi criti i m .

10. The id a that the valid it of a judging fa ulty is ba don it

proper functioning also choe Ari totl , pecifically hi tat -
m nt that n e-organ are truthful if th y are in their natural
tate (KaTu rJ>uatv txovT€ ) (De animo 418"1r-r2, 424"2 -30,
42 h18-23) ; cf. Antio hu in Ci . Luc . 19, al. PHP 9· 1
( M 4· 1. 2, p. S42), and De opt. doct . 4-s (pp . 102-
cholar, (, triker 1974, 1990; Long 1978a, 1989, Brun~ h\\ tl:( 1988; Huby
and ea I 1989; llankinson 1997) have ex ten t\'cly debated the con cpt of a n-
tenon, m partt ular omparing tts Eptcurean conceptton as u canon ~uarantcc­
mg the truth of ev tdent thmgs '' tth tts tote conceptiOn a a mean~> h) whtch tt
•~ pos ·tbl e to JUdl:(c htdden truths The ha\'e also dis usscd ho'' Sex tu , in hts
nttci m, mixed the two.
 ommentary on 6
Ban azz1). It 1, likely that thi vi ' wa al o th reason \l h
,e.·tu (PH 2. 14-17, AI 7· 27-37) and Ptol m ( n the criterion
1) later added the 'a ording to' (KaO' 0) rit rion to Potamo'
d1 tm t1 n between th 'by which' (u!/J' oJ) and the 'through
\\ hich' (St' ov) riterion (D.L. I. 21). For the KaO' 0 criterion
e tabli he the correct mode of appli ation of the in trument
(St' ov) b~ the agent (u!/J oJ).
I

An tocle ' d1 tinction benve n natural and te hnical criteria

( T(;)~• aAAWV KptTTjptwv) al 0 appear in the pa age Of eX tU1

Ptolemy, and alen ited above. The la t-named ground the

tru tworthne of the technical criteria preci ely on the tru t-
worthne of the natural, and, like xtu and Ptolemy, u e
the term ~uyo (De opt. doct. 4· 1, p. 102 Barigazzi).
The next argument, that if n e-perception were alway
true they ou ht not to differ by so much, i reported a a tan-
dard anti-Epicurean attack by .E. M 7· 206: 'Some are
deceived by the different per eption deriving from the ame
thin . ' :\Io t of the example adduced by Ari tocle had already
been deployed again t phenomenali t epi temologie by Plato
and An totle: at .i\t!et. I010b5ff., for example, Ari totle men-
tion prec1 ely tho e difference which appear to the far (Tots
cirrw0£v) and the near (Tots Eyyu0£v) and to the healthy (Tots
rytalvovatv) and th ick (Tots KclfLvovatv), but in tead of men-
tionmg expert (T£Xvtn;Jv) and wi e men (!/Jpov{ILwv) he contra t
the weak (Toi cia0£vouatv) with the trong (Tot laxuovatv). But
other echo ome Academic argument : Ari tocles u e the
ame word a extu in PH 1. 10 , 1 1 -19 to indicate the
dtfferen e due to d1 tance, although in PH 1. 102, 112, M 7·
·P3. extu , like alen in De opt. doct. 2. 2 (p. 94 Barigazzi),
contra t the healthy with the unhealth u ing the pair
voaos--tiytna, and nev r employ EppWfLfVO). Thi I however,
occur in Plut Ad'l. . Col. 1 121 D, and it i noti eabl that
Plutar h 1 the only author apart from Ari tocle who doe not
mention the tat of dream .
The idea that the' 1 10n of madne ar tru do not appear
in Epicuru ' Letter to Herodotu , m which h imply account
for the formatiOn of the !/JavTaatat r 1v d m picture or in
dream (0 L 10. 51) .. 'everthele · It t attnbut d to Epi uru
by D.L 10 32 and b} . E 1.W . 63 (fr. 253 n r), and to the
Epicurean by Luc -<)and b} Plut. Adv. Col. 1123 B-<-
 ommentary on F 6
(fr. 254 U ener), who also employs the verbs TTapopiiv ('mi e')
and TTapaKovnv ('mi hear')." triker (1977: 138-4I) and E erson
(199ob: I77) onsider it to be con istent with Epist. Herod.
so-1, where Epicuru affirm that fa! e perception are not
alaB~ans, but So~a,, made up by the mind by adding or ub-
tracting from the original ense-perception ('Fa! ehood and
error alway depend upon the intru ion of an opinion'). Thi
pre ely what Ari tocle report in para. I I.

I 1. ju t noticed, the doctrine according to which en e

never err, while opinion can be fa! e becau e it add omething,
depend on Epist. Herod. so-t. The explanation that thi i
becau e alaB~ans are irrational and do not add or ubtract any-
thing i giv n in Epicurus' Letter to Herodotus and Kvptat S6~a'
(D.L. 10. 31), by Lucretiu 4· 386 and 464, and by .E. M 7·
2IQ-II,8. 12
On the other hand, in Epist. Herod . 5 I Epicuru ref r topic-
ture ('For the presentation, r/JavnJ.afLaTa, which are recei ed in
picture or ari e in dream ... '), but not the illu ion of the oar.
Thi i u ed by Lucretiu 4· 436, and may ha e had an
Academic origin, for it occur in Plut. Adv. ol. 1121 -c, ic.
Luc . 19, 79-82, en. Nat. quaest. 1. 3, .E. PH 1. 119, 210, M
7· 244, 414, Aug. ontra Acad. 3· 11. 26.
But Ari tocle ' argument are not only ba ed on these anti-
Epicurean Academic tool ; for the objection that in th ea of
the oar and th pictures it is ense-perception that deceive may
be explained by Ari totle' doctrine already mentioned, a cord-
ing to which en e are tru tworth only if they are in th ir
prop r tate (KaTa ,Pvatv). And the Stagirite a! o warn that
mov ment and dimen ion (KLV'YJats Kat fLEy£8'YJ) can und rmin
the tru t\ orthine of en e-p r eption (De anima 42 b23).
Th n xt argument too d p nd on Ari totle. In fact, aft r
r futing th notion that the criterion of truth con i t in ens -
per ption from the point of th perc iving ubj et (differ nt
per ption ) and from the point of the perceiv d obj et of
" 1 hese words also occur in Plat. Theaet . 157 D, where madmen's \'1 ion
are u ed to refute phenomenali m, and Epi uru or his follower ma) han~
replied prec1 ely to Plato or to hi follower .
" That ense-perception · ar alway true while opimon ma be true or
fal se IS at o reported by Olymp . I 11 Photd. So. 1, Tert. De animo 17, ug. De
cit• De1 8. 7·
 ommentary on F 6
e.·plam th pt fa yclop and, a ording to Lucretiu 4·
722-44, of ntaur and cylla .
Ho\\eYer, it doe n t appear from ro that Epi urus
di cu ed th ongin of the notion mon trou being
al o m ntioned by Ari tocle . Indeed refer it to the
Epicurean in neral, replying to th riti i m that if god
aro e from the tmpre ion of human- haped image the
hould be merely con idered out ized men rather than ever-
la tm , tmpen habl , and perfect in happin . But Philipp on
(I 939: 19) thought that Lucretiu could con ult Epi urus, and
edley (I 99 ) ha com·incingly argued in favour of Lucretiu '
clo e dependence on Epicuru ' On Nature; it i po sible that
Ari tocle ' reference to cylla and himaera and, more
generally, to the Epi urean doctrine of on ept-formation, also
depend on that work of Epicuru .
The Eptcurean account for the formation of the image of
mon trou creature wa criticized b the Academy, a IS
hown by ic. ND 1. 108:
What of the fact that dtfferent tmage of the ame p r on enter my
mmd and your ? or that tmage come to u of thmg that never exi ted
at all and can ne,·er hav ·i ted, like cylla and th Chimaera?

And argumg again t Epicurean anthropomorphi m in ND I .

77, icero had already referred, a Ari tocle will do, to poet ',
painter ', and arti an ' work :
The e notwn hav b en fo tered by poet , painter , and artisans, who
found 1t dtfficult to repre ent hving and a tive d itie in the imilarity
of any other hape than that of a man.

The charge that the Epicurean repre ent their concept a

tanding ready at hand (Ka8a1T£p £1rrp€1TTJ 1Tap£aT~rra) upport
the hypothe 1 that Ari tocle relied on the ame ource as
Lucret1u . For ht argument refer to the Epicurean idea that
image are ready whenever we choo e to think of omething,
which ma} be alluded to by Cic. ND I . 49 {fr. 352 U ener):
'Epicuru not only ee hidden and profoundly ob cure thing
·with hi mmd but even handle them a if they were at his
fingertip ( zc tract et ut manu)', and by Plut. I I 23 : 'Thing
that no artt t (aKW01TOLos-), culptor (1T..\aa 711 s-), or painter
(ypat/>£vs-) e er entured to ombine for our entertainment into a
 ommentary on F 6-7 155
likene to d ceive the eye, the e th y eriou ly uppose to
exi t .' But it i better explained by Lucretiu 4· 796-8, who
declare that images can run to our mind at any time and in any
place:
propt rea fit uti quo i in tempore quaeque
praesto int imulacra loci in quisqu parata.
Everywh r ate er time e ery image is ready on the
pot (tran . Long and Sedley 198T i. 75).

Ari tocle jointly discu e Eleatic and Megarian epi temolo-

gie (21 A 49 DK, 27 Doring, 11 26 Giannantoni), which h
deri ed partially from original (Meli sus) and partially from
indirect (Academic) our e . Most of hi criticism rei on th
Ari totelian doctrine of perception (para . 2-4) and the Ari to-
telian argument according to which the rejection of sense-
perception is elf-contradi tory, ince it i grounded on the
unreliability of the sen e , and i incompatible with ever day
life (para . S-<)).

1. Among those who di mis s n e-perception and impre -

ions, Ari toe! li t a fir t group compo ed of Xenophan ,
Parmenide , Zeno, and Melis u , and a later one including
tilpo and the Megarian . That Xenophane was Parmenide '
t a eh er wa a pre-Platoni tradition (Man feld I 9 7b), ac pt d
by Plat. Soph. 242 -0 (21 A 29 OK), and folio\: ed by Arist.
Met . 986b18 (21 A 30 DK), by Th ophra tus in imp. In Ph)s.
22. 22 (21 A 31 DK), by the A ademy, a cording to ic. Luc.
129, by mo t doxographer and b the authors of the u ce -
ions exc pt, apparently, otion in D. L. 9· 2 x. It a upported
by the parall l that Plato and Ari tot! dre\: bet e n Eleati
moni tic ontology and Xenophan ' moni ti th olog ; thi
parallel ems to be the rea on wh ri to I s al o attribute to
Xenophan an Eleatic pi t molog , for he a s rt that a mon-
i ti ontology is implied b the r j tion of n
'H ne th maintain ... (o8£v ~~touv ooToL ... )'.
IS6 mm ntary on F 7
The nly other our e for thi attribution i offered by A""tiu
m P: -Plut. { . 9 and to b. 1. so. I 7 (Di I I 79 : 396 = 2 I B 49
OK}, wh pia e X nophane m the u ion which link
Pythagora ', Emp d I Parm nid ,
Demo ntu , :\1 trod ru , and Protag ra ,
them hold that 'a ll per ption are fa) e'. e , Ari to-
cle ' new may b a ounted for by the fragm nt reported by
lem. Al. trom . s. I IO, 7· 22 (2I B IS-J6 OK), where
Xenophane, r Je t the anthropomorphi m ba ed on en e-
perceptlon , and by hi doctrine that od i pure intellect
(T1mon m .UXG 3, 977•37-8 = 21 A 28 OK; 1c. D 1. 2 ;
.E. PH 1. 225 = 21 A 35 DK ; .E. 19. I44 = 2r B 24 OK;
and D L. 9· I 9 = 21 A I OK) . n the other hand Ari tocle '
new ontra t w1th otion' in O .L . 9· 20 (2 I A I OK), accord-
mg to ,., horn Xenophane wa one of th eptic ' predece -
or , hann affi rmed that all thing are inapprehen ible (dKaT<1-
Xrpr;a). But th1 i r jected by Timon in .E. PH 1. 225 (2I A
r DK): 'Xenophan dogmatically a ert d (€8oyfJ-6.n~E) that
all i one.'
A for the referen e to the Iegarian , their dependence on
the Eleattc eem to ha,·e been explicitly affirmed, be ide
An tocle, by 1c. Luc. I29 (II A 31 iannantoni):
A famou chool "a. that of the :\I garian , "ho e founder, a I e it
recorded, \\as Xenophanes, whom I mentioned just now; ne the was
followed by Parmen1des and Zeno (and o th chool of thought
dcri,ed from them took the name of leatic) and aften ard by
Euclide , the pup1l of ocrate , a :\leganan {from whom the ame
chool obtamed the title of :\leganan); the1r doctrine wa that the ole
good i that which 1 ah\a] one, ahke and the .am

and by 0 L 2. Io6 (I I A 30 Giannantoni):

Euclide. from \kgara . . . applied h1mself to the writing of
Parmenide , and, after h1m, h1s folio\\ er were all d l\ I garian , then
Eri. tic , and at a later date D1alecttc1an .

In Oonng' n \\, although Ari tocle refer to tilpo and to

bemg (;o ov), Ctcero to Euc!tde and to th good (;o dya86v),
Ari tocle and tcero depend on the ame ource, probably
'litomachu ' llEpt aiplaEwv (Doring I 972: 2-4);' Ari tocle
' Ht:lland (1925 . 102-4) C\cn uppo ed that n. tocles depended dire tl) on
Anuochu .
 ommentary on F 7 157
may hav relied on a chapt r dealing with epi temology, Ci ero
on a chapter dealing ith ethics.
Doring di mi sed th tradition linking El ati and
Megarian a a doxographical invention, based on the identifi-
ation of the 'friends of th form ' (flowv cf>t>..o,) of Plat. Soph .
248 with the Megarian . Thi remain controver ial (Giann-
antoni 1983-5 : iii. 49-57); however, a Moraux pointed out
(1984: 206), Ari tocle did not ay that the Eleatic influen ed
the Megarian , but that they hared th ame epi temological
view. Indeed Aristocl ' ta k i not to write a hi tory of phil-
o ophy, but to attack tho e author who held that 'one hould
put down en e and impre sion and tru t on! to rea on'.
loreo er, it is noticeable that he mention tilpo , and not,
for example, Euclide or Eubulid , a champion of the
Megarian , for , if ambiano ( 1 977) i right, it i not po ible to
peak of a Megarian chool before him .•
If Clitomachu may be Ari tocle ' ource for the link
between Eleatic and Megarian , he do not eem to b hi
only ource. In fact, Ari to les' account of the ontological doc-
trine of X nophane , the Eleatic , and the Megarian can be
traced back to Ari totle' de cription of moni tic philo oph r
in the Metaphysics (28 A 24 DK):
ow tho who at th ry beginning et them lve to thi kind of
inquiry, and aid the ub tratum i one, w re not at all di sati fied
with them lve ; but ome at lea t of th who maintain it to be
one--a though defeated by this ear h for the e ond eau e--say the
one and nature a a whole i unchangeable (aK{v7]Tov) not only in
respect of generation and de tru tion (KaTd. yivm111 Kai ,P8opa11) (for thi
is an anci nt belief, and all agreed in it) but al o of all other chang
(!J-£Tafh.\~); and thi 1e i peculiar t them (984"27-34; tran,. Ross
1 984: 1557)- 3

But th e thinker ay th uni er e is unchangeable (aK{v1JT011) (986h17;

tran . Ros 1984: 156o).
!aiming that, besides the existent, nothing non-e 1stcnt xist , he
thinks that the e ·i tent is of ne sity one and that nothing el e exi, ts
(1Tapd. TO 011 TO IL~ 011 o~8£11 &.gtwv £lllat, £g al1ayK1)> £v oi'£Tat £lvat, TO ov)
(986h27; tran . Ro 1984: 1560).

Th r f ren to Eleatic ontolog is appar ntl) out of

' For the dis ussion on th1s s e al o Gtannantom (t983-s: 111. 39ff.).
imtlarly m Phys. 191 •24 and De cat'fo 298b14.
 ommentary on F 7
onte.·t m An to le ' ntici m of th different theori s of the
ntenon, a he htm If tre e r ferrin it to a further inquiry
(c/>~Aoaoc/J€(~·).4 But, a already ob erved, it er e to explain that
the reJe twn f en e-perception implie ('H n e the e main-
tain . . .') a moni ti ontology. Thi wa al o a erted b
Phtlodemu , Rhet . ii. 169 udhau (2 A 49 DK):
Parmemde: and :\I lt u affirmed that being i on , and thi
becau e (Sui To) perception, are fal e. 5

But m De gen. et corr. 25 "13, Ari totl had already spoken of

Eleattc ept temolo y in very imilar term (28 A 25 DK) :
On the ground f thts (£K Tothwv), i.e. the d va luation of en e-
perceptton and the 1dea that one ou ht to foliO\\ rea on only (T~v
w
aiaB.,atv KQL 7TaptS6vn at.i-r~v TcfJ Aoy<p S£ov aKoAou8£iv), they ay that
ever~ thing 1 one (/v} and unmov d (aKtv.,Tov}, and ome f them al o
mfimte. The e se m to be the onclu ion reached according to
rea on, but ace rdmg to fact it i crazy to think in thi way (£11i !J.EV
Twv Aoywv SoK£i TauTa au~J.f3a{vuv, c11i Si Twv 11pay!J.aTwv 1-Lav{f!- TTapa-
rrA~awv £ivat TO Sog&.~uv OUTW ).

That An to le may have thi pa age in mind i al o uggested

by the parallel argument and the reference to crazines (J-L~
J-L€J-LTJVw>) whtch occur in para. 4·

2-3. The notion that rea on (Aoyo>) i the mo t divine of our

facultie , but that we a) o need our en e (-rTj> aiaB~a€w>) ju t
a we al o need the body (awJ-La-ro>), can al o be traced back to
Ari totle; howev r, ince Ari tocle wilJ de elop this concept
more fulJy at the end of F 8, it wilJ be di cus ed in the
Commentary there.
imilarly, the argument in defence of n e-perception and
con equently agam t ontological moni m can be traced back to
An totle' De amma:
Percel\tng (To ala8avm8at) 1 being affect d (1raaxuv n} and mo ed
' Tht uggest that n . todc con. ider what he 1s domg here something
different from true ~.>.oao~la (.cc the IntroductiOn and the "ommcntary on T
3-6). The furth r ~.>.oa~f'iv may be uppo cd to re ton ri totle' criticisms
of Parmenide ' do trme of the unity of bcmg (Phys 2 and 3), and of the
:\lcganan , \~ho thmk that oTav lvfpyfl J-IOvov buvaa8at ( let 1046b29).
5
In th1 amc pa ag Phllodemu also refers to \lctrodorus' scepticism; 1f
n todes knew 1t, thi may be the ource of n toclc 'caut1on m a. 1gnmg to
the latter the ame doctrine a Protagora ( F 6. r)
 omm ntary on F 7 159
Kw£1a8at) .. . th ame i thinking and knowing (voEiv Kal ytVC.oaKHv)
(41o•zs-6).
Perception (aia87Jats) onsi t in being mo cd (Ktv£ia8at) and affected
(7T<l<fXHV) (416b33).
P rception (aia87Jats) i n t originated by th en e them el e (T<vv
aia87Jats auTwv ou y{vETat aia87Jats), and without external object (Kal
avw 'TWV ~~W OU 7TOLOVOLV aia87Jatv) th y [the ense ) do not produc any
perception (aia87Jatv) (417"1).
Thinking (voijaat) is dependent on hi [man' ] will, wherea perc i -
ing (ala8av£a8at) i not, for the presen of the sen ible i nee ary
(avayKalov lmapxEtv To ala87JT6v) (417b23-5) .

Moreover, in De gen. anim. 73 I•33 and in Top. III"I9 respec-

ti ely Ari totle assert that perception i kno I dge (yvwats)
and judgement (Kp{vnv), in Met. 1053"3 I that 'science and per-
ception (£maT~!J-TJ Kat ataOTJats) are the measure of things for
the ame rea on, namely that through th m we know
(yvwp{~O!J-Ev) things'.

4· This paragraph too has parallel in De anima 4I8"1 I-12,

424"28-30, 428b18-23, where Ari totle affirm that en e-
organ are tru tworthy if they are in their natural tate (KaTa
c/>vatv lxovns). Aristocle al o allude to thi in F 6. 1o-1 I ( ee
the Commentary), and the ame oncept is al o echoed by
Antiochus in Cic. Luc. 19.

s-8. Here Aristocle fo u e on d mon trating the theoretical

and factual in on i tency of any epi temology that doe not
take sen e-perc ptions into account.
In para. 5 he refer to Homer, 11. 5· 214-16, in para. 7 he
quotes a fragment of Melissus al o quoted by imp. In De caelo
558. 19 (30 B 8 DK). The two text are identical in ub tan e,
except for the ariant Elvat £xpiJv Kat TO ov TOLOvTov (Ari tocl )
in tead of XP~ lKaaTov TotovTov ( impliciu ). 6 Die! d not
e en report Aristo le ' ersion; Real ( 1970: 22) tak
impliciu to have relied on a copy of Meli su ' On Nature and
Being and considers Ari to le ' r ion a man if t rror ( 1970:
400), ince 'il di cor o con erne appunto le uppo t ingol
b Ther also are a couple of tyli tic ariatlons: rf>o.alv oi O.v8pw1rOI aATJ8W
mstead of ~lvo.t &.>.."18-? and a>.A. ~lvo.t OfLOIOV, ot6v '"'P EU'Tlll, EKO.OTOV m tead of
Q,UQ QEi Elvat lKaOTOV, oTOv TTip faTUI
160 ommentary n F 7
o'e ost1tu nt1 la molt plicita'. But li u ' oncern wa
bem , and An·to I -· reading had appeared plau ible to itali
(196 :ss).
The ar ument of para. an b tra d ba k to Democritu 68
B I2S DK, whi hi- r ported by al. De medic. emp. (Walzer
19-H: I q):
Al:o Democntu . "hen he reject phenomena, .. aying 'colours ar b
com entton, .. \\ ectnes · 1::. by conventiOn, b1tterne · i by convention,
\\ h1le atom and vo1d are real', 1magine that n rep) to mind with
the · e \\Ord .. · 'poor rea .. on, you get from u all your belief , and if ou
·ucceed m reJectmg u th1 1 your end' .

But An t . Phy . 2S4"24 a! o argue again t 1eli u 30 B 8 in

1milar term : 'Even if it were true, a om [Meli u ] ay, that
being i unlimited and unmoved, yet it i not o according to
our en e , [which prove) that many thing are moved.'

9· The ob ole cence of the e idea i a! o tre ed b Cicero in

De orat. 3· 62: 'Eretrian , Erillean , legarian , Pyrrhonian ...
have for a long time been fini hed and dead'.
An tocle ' clo ing word , 'The right philo ophy i that
wh1ch adopt both en e and rea on to obtain knowledge of
thing ', eem to repre ent the conclu ion of hi ritici m of all
theone of the cnterion that take en e-perception and rea on
eparately. It 1 true that the a me conclu ion occur in F 8,1
but tn the Introduction it ha been hown that F 8 i a piece of
moral ep1 temolo y, which may have been added by Ari tocles
to the group of critici m of the different theorie of the
cntenon of knowledge, including the Epicurean in F 6, becau e
'knowledge t of two kind , one about external thing , the other
about v.hat to choo e or avoid'. Therefore the o currence of the
ame conclu ton i not urpri ing. inc 1t 1 more exten i el
de\eloped tn F , hO\: ever, it will be di cu ed in the
ommentar} on that chapter.

1
The <>ccurr me hert: of the term AO,o 5 10 tead of voti 5 a 10 F8 1 urely to
b explaiOcd b~ n tocles' dealmg '"'ith the cleattc '
 ommentary on F 8
F8

In thi hapter Ari tocle di cu se Epicuru ' moral pi temol-

og (ad frr. 260, 289 ener), which h seem to d rive from
the Letter to Menoeceus, although there are al o trace of
Philodemu ' On hoices and Avoidances. He d nie the riterial
role of affection of plea ure and pain (para . 1-2) for th ame
rea on a in F 5, nam ly that they allow only ubjecti ve tate-
ment . He a! o how that not e en Epicuru ' h doni m i
po ible on the ground of affection only (para . 3-4), ince the
Epicurean them elve have recourse to rea on to mea ure
pre ent plea ure again t future pain . H next put forward hi
own Ari totelian theory of perception and pre entation (para.
s), an d con lude by prai ing a kind of epi temology which can
be identified a Ari totelian (para . 6-7).

1. The ref reo e to t\' o kind of kno ledge ('one of external

thing and one of choice and a oidance ') and th word ' now
it i a) o n ce ary to in e tigate thi ', meaning th latter,
uggest that this pa age wa added at the end of a previou
equence. Indeed thi may b con idered a piece of moral epi -
t molog , according to the Aristot lian di tin tion ben een
theoretical and pra tical cience in Met. 982•1, 1025b2 5; it
look like a ort of app ndix to book 8 ( ee the Introdu tion).
Although in the fir t tatement Ari tocle refer to the
h doni ts of any time (' ome ay'), and he will m ntion the
Epicurean on) afterward ('al o the Epicurean ay the am
thing '), it i clear that he ha them in mind from the out t.
Thi i upported by th fa t that Ari to le ' ntir r port of
Epicurean h doni m in para . 1-4 m to deriv from Epi .
Epist. Men. 129:
Plea ure i th principle (apx~) and th goal (·rl>.o ) of a happy life.
Th1 i our first and congenital good (aya8ov 11pw-rov Kal ouyy£vtKov),
and th starting-point of any choice and avoidan e (m101J aiplo£w> Kai
cpuy~>) and to it we ome ba k ince we judge e cry good through the
Canon f affection (w KaVOVl TcfJ 1Til8£1 miv aya8ov Kp{vovu ). nd since
pl easu re i our first and nativ good, for this rea on we do not choose
ev r plea ure 'vvhat oever, but ft n pa s over man · plea urcs "'hen a
greater anno ancc ensues from them . nd we onsider many pams
superior to pleasures when submi sion t them brings us as a
 ommentary on F
con ·equence a greater and I ng-la, tmg plea ure (ou 1raoav ~Solll)v
aipovp.~:Ba, ill. lon~· on 1TOAAa ~Sova lm~:p{3alvop.~:v, o-rav 1TA£iov ~p.iv TO
Svox~:p€ - EK Tov-rw•• l1TT!-rat· Kat' 1ro"-\a d..\y7186va ~Sovwv Kpdnovs
··op.t{op.n•, E7TH0al• p.d{wv ~p.iv ~Sov~ 1TapaKOAov8fi 1TOAUV xp6vov lmop.dvaot
ni <L\YT/So•·a ). E' r) plea ur , then, be au e fits natural affinity (oui
TO cf>vou· l ~:n• oiK£1av) i ' good, yet not ev r y plea ure 1 choic worthy .
And 1m1larly, nery pam i bad, but not ev ry pain i b y nature to be
ah\ay: a\'Oid d . In fa t we ha\'e to JUd e all thi b _ a calcu lation (ovp.-
f.L*'TPT/OH) of the ad,·anta e and the disad,·antage ; for at certain time
we treat the g od a bad and, onv r e ly, th bad a g od.

Whether Epicuru ' letter i Ari tocle ' direct ource i difficult
to ay, howe,·er, for the e are well-known Epi urean dogmas,
and the title of one of Philodemu ' work wa preci el On
hoices and A•voidances (llEpt aip€a£wv Kat cpuywv). Moreover,
Philodemu i probably the ource of icero' parallel report in
De .fin. I . 29ff.:
Th1 [final g od) Epicuru ituate in plea ure, which he want to be
the reate t good w1th pain a the greate t bad . Hi doctrine begins in
thi way: a oon a very animal i born, it eek after plea ure and
reJOice in tt a the greate t good, while it reject pain a the greate t
bad and, a far a po ible, avo1d it; and it doe thi when it i not et
corrupted, on the mnocent and ound judgem nt of nature it elf (ipsa
natura mcorrupte atque integre iudicante) . . . o one r ject or di likes
or avo1d pie ure 1t · If b eau e it i plea ure, but becaus great pains
re ult for tho e who do not know how to pur u plea ure rationally .
. ' or agam i there an one who love , go after, or wants to get pain
1t elf becau e it 1 pam, but becau circum tance om time occur
wh1ch enable h1m to gain ome great plea ure b y toil and pain .

2. An tocle reject the Epicurean dogma that affection are the

cntenon of chotce and a oidance through the Aristotelian
categone of exi tence (To f.lvat) and quality (To 1Tot6v), and
through the pnnciple that the criterion mu t prove both it elf
and the thmg to be judged. Thi wa a wide pread principle
(Ptolem y, On the riterion 12. 1, Gal. PHP 9· I), which
probabl y denv d from Antiochu ( .E . M 7- 441-3),' and
whtch wa u uall y ref rred to the toic criterion of knowledge,
accordmg to Aettu m P .-Piut. Epit . 4 · 12 (Diel I879 : 402)
and m P .- al. Hz t . piu/. 93 (Dtel I 79 : 636).'
extu u e the ame argument agam t the Cyrenatcs at f7 194·
• Indeed An to le , like man) anctent author , m s to attnbute to th
 ommentary on F 8
The argument that it is sen e-perception (a'La87Jat<;) and not
affection (7TCl.8o<;) that tells us whether affection are plea ant or
painful counter the above-quoted para . I 29 of Epicuru '
Letter to Menoeceus, where plea ure i aid to b 'naturall
familiar' (St<i To t/>uatv €x€w oiK€tav) . That this wa Epicuru '
idea is also evidenced by D . L . 10. 34: 'They ay that there are
t o kind of affection , pleasure and pains, and that the fir t
are familiar (oiK€tov), the other unfamiliar (d,\,\6Tptov); and
through them choice and avoidances can be judged'; that it
wa al o maintained by later Epicureans is proved by Poly-
stratu , De contemptu, col. xix 8-1 I T~[v] €v muT[TJ]t (se. TTJt
tJ>ua€L) ouva[tt]tv TWV 0LI(€LWV T€ Ka[L] 0...\..\[oTp]{wv 1Tapa[K]o..\ov87]-
aavTwv, and by Clem. Al. Strom. 2. 21: ' For the Epi urean
and the Cyrenaic plea ure is what is most familiar (1rpwTov
OLK€LOV
• - ) . 'J

Aristocle ' criticism may depend on Arist. De anima 43 I"8-

IO:

Percei ing (ala86.vm8at) i the ame as m r saying (t/>avat) and think-

ing (vo!iv); and when it i plea ant (~8u) the soul a s nt (Kamt/>ii.aa)
and pur ues (8twKu) it, wh n it is painful (Av1T1)p6v) (th soul) reject
(a1rot/>iiaa) and avoid (t/>dryu) it.

It i true that these concept and terminology wer ommon-

place, al o hared, for example, by Plut. Gryll. 990 , Galen,
Subst . nat . fac. iv. 759, 764 Kiihn, and Alcin. Didasc . 4· But
Ari tocle ' dependence on Ari totle i upported by the termi-
nology used by the commentators on the ame pa sage of De
anima, which i similar to Aristocle ': Philoponu (In De anima
478. I9) tate that a'La87Jat<; will kno what i appropriate or
alien (€ta€Tat TO oiK€iov Kat d,\,\6Tptov), and Simpliciu (In De
anima 266. I4) that through the en e-organ (awfLaTLKcp Opyclv<p)
the percei ing en e (To aia87JnKov) know that the appropriate
thing must be pur ued and the alien mu t be a oided (w<;
• -
OLK€La 7J• •a11110Tpta
\\1
Ta'fL€V
',
aya1rq.- Ta'~'J.')
o€ .,.,€uy€L .

Epi urean to1 notion of riterion, and to have mi d the tru meanmg of
the1r canon1c. On the differ n c between the pi urean canon and the to1
nterion see the ommentary on F 6.

.-
J ee Capas o (1982: 89-113) for more deta1ls n the ·pi urean do trine of
04K£tOV.
 omm ntary on F
e Epi uru with m on i ' tency for a ing
are to be cho en and not all pain are to be
reJe ted onft1 t "1th · ayin that pi a ur and pain are th
cntenon ho1c and avoidance. 4 Ari tocle ' in i tence that
only rea · n an evaluate plea ure goe ba k to Ari t. De anima
~3~· Io : 'De iding to do thi or that i r a on' work (,\oytaf.Lou
(pyo,•), and 1t 1 ne e ary to mea ure (f.Lerp€tv) t aim at ome-
thin better (To fL€i~ov ycip SuvKH)'.

5· Here An, to I expound hi own epi temology, di cu e

the role of affection , perception , and pre entation (TTC5.8'YJ,
aia8~aH , rf>a,•Tao!at), explain why the former can account for
mternal tate only and mu t be excluded from the proce of
knowledge, and conclude that kno'.vledge i achiev d through
both the en e and the rea on. All thi can b traced back to
Ari totle. In particular, although the term 'picture '(€LKOV€<;) i
rather Platoni (Rep. 5 ID-I I), in De anima 427b25 Ari totle
affirm that \Vhen we imagine omething (KaTci T~v rf>avTaa!av
£xofL€v) th1 1 the ame a to ee it in a picture {Ev yparf>fl); \ hile
the tatement that our affection take thi or that character
becau e of our elve , and according to our tate, choe the
beginning of Rhet. 2: 'Thing do not appear the ame to tho e
"' ho are well and ill di po ed (ou ycip TauTci r/>atv€Tat r/>tAouat Kat
fLtOOUOt .. .)' .

fr--.7.
The vague ref rence (o1r6aot) to the be t thinker on the
cnterion may refer to any of the Platoni t , the Ari totelian , or
the t01c , who had all ince Helleni tic time employed both
the en e and the rat1onal facultie in th acqui ition of know-
ledge.5 The} d1d o m different wa , but the metaphor of
hunting, b} ''h1ch An tocle de crib the ideal epi temology, 6

o too tnkcr ( 1993 ro).

5
The rehabrlttatton of th en _e by the Platontst of the 1 t and 2nd c. has
been de nbed by Whtttaker ( 1987 1 o8), '' ho note that at Dzda c. 17
Alcinou pt!ak of the en. es a urroundmg the W£/Lovucov like a bodyguard
(worr£p Oopvt/>Opouowv), an tmage al o found m Phtlo, De optf 139, Conf 19,
l\lax . T} r. 10 8, and D10nysius of lt!xandna m Eu PE '4· 26 .
6
1 hr m ·taphor m connection '' 1th the earch for the objects of knowl-
ed~e. \\a ' r common m Plato (GorJl soo 1, Phaed 66 2, Thtaet. r98 ,
Parm . 12 \,Rep . 432 H, Lt!l( 894 ll), echoed b; .'peu 1ppu (m Pro I. in EUt:l.
 ommentary on F 8 r6s
doe not say " heth r th nets and the hound function togeth r
or independ ntly; 7 that is to ay, whether ome item are learnt
by perception and other by rea on a in Plato' and Ari totle'
doctrin or all thing are learnt by a joint operation of per ep-
tion and rea on as in the Stoic theory. Ari tocle only r fer to
the re pecti way in which the net ( en e ) and the hound
(intellect) op rate: the former pa si ely, th latter acti ely, 8 and
thi can be r ferred to all thr e chool .9
everthele at the end of para. 7 Ari to le compare what
he consider to be the be t epi temological po itions with th
Epicurean view' 0 in term that are Ari totelian rath r than
Platonic or toi :
i\luch better than uch philosophers we hould con ider those who
neither make use of their s n es at random, nor as ociat th ir
affection with the di ernment of truth . El e it would be a monstrou
thing for bein endowed with man' nature to entru t them cl e to
irrational pl a ures and pain and for ak the most divine judge, i\Iind.

The occurren e of the term voiis- for 'intellect' ugge t that

Ari tocles i not thinking of the toi , who u uall peak of
p. 179. 8, fr. 30 Lang) , and in ri totle (An . Pr . 46' 11, 79' 25, 88' 3, 96' 22, Met .
1063' 14, 1o84 b24) . But none of them refers to the different ta ks of human
facultie .
7 Xenophon (KuvrrrEnKa 6. s-10) des ribes a proce "hi h make u e of
nets and hounds together for the capture of hares, fawns, d er, and wild boars .
But Plato in Leg. 823 E-824 make a sharp distin tion between two parate
kind of hunting: by nets and by hound (similarly, in oph . 220 I ff. he di tin-
gui he fi hing' 1th net from fi hing with bait) . c ordingly, .E. /9. 3 d1 -
tmgu1shes hunting on foot from hunting With net . or doe the terminology
help : both apKUE and Uwrua may be emplo ed alone r tog ther \\ lth the
hounds (RE .v . jagd).
K risto le may al o have m mind the toi example of a hunting dog whi h
perform the analogue of a yllogi m at the crossroads '~here it quarry might
have gone in an of three dire t10ns. The dog sniff the first two, perceive no
scent, and takes the third Without niffing (PH 1. 69). This IS dis us ed by
orabJi (1993 : 21 ff.) .
nd to most non- eptic and non-Ep1 urean authors from the 1st c. B
onward , su h as nt10 hus, Galen, and Ptolemy (Long 1989, harpies 1989).
•• Th philosopher who make u e of their enses at random, and a o iate
the1r affections in th di cernment of truth are the p1 urean , for the · cannot
be elth r the Platom ts or the to1c .. This is the reason why I hose the r ad-
mg of l\ 1 Ib ,_.(v Totoohwv agamst that of B ,_.lvTol Tothwv, preferred b)
lras, whi h ould refer risto les' ' ords to the philosophers h ha just
alluded to.
 t66 ommentary on F
.\oyo-. And the ab Ye-mentioned parall I ' ith Ari totle' De
animo ug e t that by 'neither mak u of th ir en at
random (w lTux~)' ri tocle may ref r to the pa age of th
work wh re the truth- ondition for en e-per eption are
e tabh hed, namely that the en e ar percei ing their proper
obJect (..p • IJ-I , 426biO, 42 b3, 429b1 -20), and that they
are m the1r natural tate (KaTci f/>uatv) (4I • I I-I 2, 424"2 -30,
42 bi -21). l\Ioreover, by the word 'nor a ociate their affec-
tion With the d1 ernment of truth' Ari tocle ma refer to the
pa age where Ari totle pecifically excluded affection from
the knowledge of truth (4 I 3b25, 429• I 5-30, b23).
Indeed, th idea that the vous- i the mo t di ine faculty and
that It cannot be affected by anything (8whaTo and drra8~s-)
already o cur in Plat. Phi/. 33 -B; it a inherited by
Ari totle, who mention it in De animo 408b18-29 and in EN
I 177•I I, 30, but particularly developed it in hi On Philosophy,
accordmg to 1c. ND 1. 33 (fr. 26 Ro ) and Tusc. 1. 6s-6 (fr.
27 Ro ). icero report that Ari totle con idered human mind
('humana men ') to ha\'e a divine nature ('caele te et di inum'),
and that th1 mean it i free and eparate from any human
charateri tic (' oluta et libera, egregata ab omni concretione
mortali').
The behef in the uperiority of intellectual over hedoni tic
hfe i equally hared by Plato (Phi/. s8-<J, 65 ff.) and Ari totle
(E. 1095b15-1096•Io), but the argument that a hedoni tic life
i not adequate to human being i particularly tre ed by
An totle in EN 1095b2o, followed by e era) author of the
Platomc and Academic tradition (Piut. ontra Epic. beat. 1091
A, 1094; 1c. De fin . 1. 23, Luc. 6, Tu c. 5· 73; Max. Tyr. Diss .
J, 32; Clem. Al. Strom . 1. I; Aug. ontra Acad. 3· 16)." Thi
doe not mean that Ari tocle produced a Platonic-Ari totelian
ynthe 1 , for ht terminology and language are alway Ari to-
tehan: it imply happened that he hared with the Platoni t
tho e Idea which Plato and Ari totle already shared.
An to le ' conclu ion i quite imilar to ic. De fin. 2. 1 I 4:
The \\1 e t of the anctent (doctzssimi zllz veteres) thought that in our
mind there i omethmg dt\tne and c le ttal ... who, that de crvc

" That a IJfe of plea ure go against men' d•vm nature i a ommonplace
of th hri tian father too
 Commentary on F 8
being called a man, would like to p nd on ingle da y in pi a ur of
this kind?

Parall I with Cicero' argument ha e already appear d in

F 6, and ugge t that Ari tocl wa acquainted with many
Academic anti-Epicurean argument . This doe not undermine
hi Ari totelian allegiance, however, since none of them con-
fti t with any of Ari totle' doctrines . Once again, it doe not
mean that he wa a yncreti t; but for chronological rea on he
could not rely on Aristotle exclu ively while writing again t the
Epicurean . ••
" The parallel with icero in F r can be ex plained by ristocl s' relying
on an Antiochean ummary of Plato's philosophy, in his eye probabl y an
original and reliable Platonic source. The anti- ceptic, anti-subje tivi ti , and
anti-Protagorean argument shared by ristocles and icero in F 4-6 an be
explained by ristocle ' and Antio hu ' independently rel ying on some
Aristotelian argument . The parallel doxographi te timonie of F 5 and
F 7 can be xplained by Cicero' and Aristocl ' common dependen e on
litomachus' doxographical work.
 R fer nee

.\ .HT!. . , p ( 19 5), ' les andro d1 frodis1a e ri tote le di

\l1ttlene', Elencho, 6: 647-'7-+·
--and Do. · 1. 1, P . L. (1996), Alessandro di Afrodi ia: L'anima
(Rome and Ban).
ALE E, F. ( 1977), Panezw di Rodi: testimonianze ( aple ).
ALGRA, K. A., HORST, P. \\'. \ .A DER, and R IA, D. T. (ed .)
(1996), Po/ylmtor: tudies in the History and Historiography of
Ancit'nt Phzlo ophy (Leiden, 1 ew York, and ologne) .
.\. ·. · , J. ( 19 6), 'Domg \\'ithout ObJe tive Value ', in chofield-
triker(I9 6), 3-29.
--and BAR E. , J. (19 5). The Modes of Scepticism ( ambridge).
A. ·To. · IADI , C. (1916), Aristipp und die Kyrenaiker (Di
Gottmgen) .
AR. ·n1, H \ ·o . ( 1 ), Quellenstudien zu Philo ·von Alexandria (Philo-
lo 1 che ·nter uchungen, 11; B rlin).
- - ( 1 96),' n tokles ( 16)', RE ii. 935·
ARo. ·AoJO, . ( 1990), 'Due fonti la rziane : oz1on e emetrio di
\lagne 1a', Elencho , 1 1: 203-55.
~u , E. (19 4), Epzcurus' cientific Method (lthaca, N w York, and
London) .
' BE. "QUE, P. (1983), • ur l'mauth nticite du It re K d la Ieta-
phy. 1que', m P. \loraux and J. \Vi n r, Zwetfelhaftes im orpus
Anstoteltwm (Berlin), 311-44.
L LA: D, H \\' (19 9), 'On the :\!oral Ongm of the Pyrrhonian
Phdo ophy', Elenchos, 10: 359-434·
von. , I ( 1978), 'The oph1 t n stocle and the Grammarian
Phr)mchu ',PP33·•8•-91.
YRE . L (ed.) (1995), The Passwnate Intellect : E says on the Trans-
formatwn of 'lasszcal Traditions Presented to Profe sor f . G . Kidd
(. 'e\\ Brun \\Jck, , )).
B.~CHLI, (1990), ntersuchungen zur Pyrrhom chen Skepsis (Berne).
B DALO. ·1, • (ed ) ( 1984), La stona del/a filo ofia come sapere critzco:
tudi offertl a M Da/ Pra (\l!lan).
B JLE\', . (1990), 'P}rrhoncan ccpt!CL m and the , elf-Refutation
r~ument', PJu/osQ 40· 27-44.
 169
B PP, . ( 1885), 'D fontibu quibus thenaeu in rebu mu i
1 rici qu enarrandi u u it', Leipziger Studien, 8: 89-160.
8 RIG ZZ I , .( 1966),Fa'l.> orinodiArelate:Opere(Flor n ).
B R ' E , J. ( 1982} , 'The B li f of a Pyrrhoni t ', P PS, s 28 : 1-28 .
--(1986), ' Diogene La rzio il pirroni mo', Elenchos, 7: 383-427 .
--(1988-90) , ' cepticism and Relativity', Philosophical tudies
(Dub lin}, 32 : 1-31.
--(1989), ' Antiochus of scalon ', in I. riffin and j . Barne
( d .}, Philosophia Togata ( xford}, 51-96 .
--(199oa), ' ceptici m and Naturali m', AUB {phil ), 22-3 : 5-19.
--(19906) , 'Pyrrhoni m, Beli fand ausation: b rvation on the
cepti i m of extu Empiricu ',A RW ll 36 .4 : 26o8-95 .
--(1991), ' alen on Logic and Therapy', in F . I udlr n and
Ri hard J. Durling ( d .}, Calen 's Method of Healing (Leid n} , 5o-
102 .
--(1992} , 'Diogene Laertius IX 61-116 : Th Philo ophy of
P rrhoni m', A RW ll 36.6: 4242-301.
--(1993), ' Imperia l Plato',Apeiron, 26:129-51.
--and GRIFFI , I. (ed .) (1997}, Philosophia Togata 11 ( xford}.
BARNE , T. D . (1970), ' hronology of Iontani m', JT , 21 :
403-8 .
B Tl 1 1, G ., and S · DL Y, . (1995),' ommentarium in Platonis
"Th aetetum"', Corpus dei papirifilosofici (Florence), iii. 227-562.
BE HI, F. (1994),' pa io, commentator di ri totele', A RW 11
36.7 : 5365-96 .
BEHR, . ( 1968}, ' itation of Porphyry's " gain t ri tid "',
AJP 89 : 186-99.
BER v , ] . (1878), ' ri tot le' El gie an Eudemos', RhM, F 33:
2]2-7 .
BERTI, . (1962), Lafilosofia del primo Ari totele (Padua).
--(1981), 'La riti a allo scettici mo ne! I libro d lla I tafi i a',
in iannantoni (1981a}, i. 61-79.
BETT, R. (1994a},' risto les n Timon on Pyrrho', OSAP 12: 137- t.
--(19946), 'What did Pyrrho Think ab ut "Th ature of the
Divin and the ood"?', Phrone is, 39: 303-37.
--(1997), Se't.·tus Empiricus against the Ethicists (Oxford}.
Bmez, j. (1906), 'Eusebii Pamphilii Evangelicae Praeparationis libri
X ''Revue critique, J s 61: 506-<) .
- - ( 191 3), Vie de Porplzyre ( hcnt} .
81 o , E. ( 1936}, L 'A ristotele perduto e la formazione filo ofica di
Epicuro (Florence).
B v £, P. (1963),' iceron t le pr mi r lcibiacl s', REL 41 : 21o-
29.
170 R fer n e
BY. CE,P (1Q71),' 1 eronetl part1 delaphiloophie',REL4Q:
127-54·
BRA: TA 1, • . (IQ 1), 'La fil ofia di P1rrone c le ue r lazioni con il
cm1. mo', m iannant n1 (IQ 1a), 1. 211-42 .
BR H. RD, \' (1 7), Le ceptique grecs (Pari ).
BRL'. ·~ H\\ IG, J. ( 19 ), ' extu Empiricu on th kriterion: Th
kept1c a. a one ptual Legatee', m I. Dill on and . Long,
The Quest1on of 'Eclecticism': tudies in Later Greek Philosophy
( Berkele) and Lo ngele ), 145-7 5.
--(IQQ2), ' P)rrhon et Phih ta', m id., J;Q(/>JHE MAIHTOPEE:
hercheurs de ages e (Pari ), 133-46.
- - ( IQQ4). 'Once agam on Eu biu on ri toe! on Timon on
Pyrrho', m 1d ., Papers in Hellenistic Philosophy ( ambridge), 19c:r
211.
--(IQQ6) , ' Le fragment OK 70 B 1 de :\l ' trodore de hio ', in
AI ra-van der Hor t-Ruma (1996), 21-38.
Bt:RKHARD, ( 1973), Die angebliche Heraklit- achfolge des
kept1ker Aenes1dem (Bonn).
BuR. "YEAT, :\I. ( 1976a), 'Protagora and elf-Refutation in Lat r
Greek Philo ophy', PhR 85 : 44-69.
--(1976b) , 'Protagora and elf-Refutation in Plato' Theaetetus',
!bid 172-<}5 -
--(19 oa), 'Tranquillity without a top: Timon fr. 68', Q, 30:
6---93.
- ( 19 ob), ' an the cept1c Liv h1 cepticism?', in chofield-
=
Burn)eat-Barne ( 198o), 2c:r-53 Burnyeat ( 1983), 1 17-48.
- - (ed .) ( 19 3), The keptical Tradition (Berkeley and Lo ngele ).
BYWATER, I. ( 1 77), ' nstotle' Dialogue " n Philo ophy'", Journal
of Phzlology, T 64-87 .
.-\.\lBIA. ·o, G . (1977), '11 problema dell'e i tenza di una cuola
meganca', m G . G1annantoni (ed.), Scuole socratiche minori e
filosofia ellemst1ca (Bologna), 25-53 .
--(ed) (19 6), tonografia e dossografia nella filosofia antica
(Tunn) .
C PA o, :\1. ( 19 2), Tratrato etico epicures (PH ere. 346) (Naples).
HAPPELL, T D. (1995), 'Doe Protagora Refute Him elf?', Q,
45· 333-
H TZILY A. DRO , E. (1Q7o), Geschichte der skeptischen Tropen
(:\lunich)
CHER." I , H . (1959), re\IC\\ of affrey (1955), Gnomon, 31:36-51.
'HRO T, A.-H ( 1964), Aristotle's Protrept1cu : A Reconstruction
(. otre Dame, I.·)
LAS E. , J. (1958),' n t1ppo. ', Hermes, 86: 182-<}2.
 References 171
--(1989}, 'Protago ra 'Aletheia', in Huby-Neal (1989}, 13-3
'oLE, T. ( 1967), Democritus and the Sources of Greek Anthropology
(The m rican Philologi al o iety, Philological Monograph , 25;
I veland).
o HE, M . ( 1973), Pyrrhon ou l'apparence (V iller -sur- ler} .
ORTA A, G. (1973}, ' La problematica dell'uomo misura in sto
Empirico', AAT 107: 783-816 .
. (1929), ' L 'origine et !'evolution de 1'£7Tox~·. REG 42 :
373-<)7.
RO ERT, W. ( 1906), Kolotes und Menedernos (Leipzig).
D L PRA, I. ( 1975) , Lo scetticisrno greco, 2nd edn. (Rome and Bari).
De LEVA AIZZI, F. (1966), Antisthenisfragrnenta (Milan).
--(1976). ' La tradizion protagor a e un frammento di Diogene di
Oenoanda', RFIC 104: 435-42 .
--(1978), '11 frammento 1 OK di Protagora', Acme, 31: 11-35 .
- - ( 198oa) , ' Tu<f>os : contribute alia storia di un concetto', Sandalion,
3: 53-66 .
--(198ob), 'Democrito in e to Empirico', in F . Romano ( d .),
=
Democrito e l 'atomismo antico Siculorum Gymnasium, 32: 393-410.
- - ( 1981 a), ' Prolegomeni ad una ra colta d 11 fonti', in lann-
antoni (1981a), i. 93-128 .
--(1981b), Pirrone : Testimonianze (Naple ).
--(1984a}, ' Pirrone e Democrito', Elenchos, 5: 5-23 .
--(1984b), 'Timon di Fliunte: i frammenti 74, 75, 76 i I ', in
Badaloni (1984), 92-105 .
--(1986) , 'Pirroniani e ademici nel Ill ec. a . .',in H . Flashar
and . Gigon (eds .), Aspects de la philosophie hellbzistiqtte (Fondation
Hardt, Entreti ns sur I' ntiquit ' las ique, 32; Gene a), 147-83 .
--(1990), 'Timone e i filo ofi', in .-]. o lke (ed.), Le Scepticisme
antique (Lau anne), 41-53 .
--(1992a),' nesid mu and the Academ ', Q, 42 : 176-89.
--(1992b),' e toe gli s ettici', Elenchos, 13: 227-328 .
--(1992c), 'IIlibro IX delle" ite dei filo ofi" di Diog ne Lacrzio',
A RW 11 36 .6: 421 -4o.
--(1995), 'Aenesidemus er u P rrho: il fuoco scalda "per natura"
( extu M. Ill 215 XI 69}', in yre (1995), 145-59.
E L Y, P. (1958), 'Ov 1-'ci.Uov and th nt ced nt of nc1 nt
eptici m', Phronesz·, 3: 59-71.
--(1991},' alcn's R pons to keptici m', I 16: 2 3-306.
EMA , T . (1942), Le Temoignage d'Aristote sztr aerate (Pari ).
De 1 TO , J. D. (1952), Greek Pro e Style, Oxford.
D PLA E ' E. (1982), Eusebe de e aree commentateur; platom m et
Ecriture sainte (Pari ).
 Referen e
DETEL, W . (1975), '.rl.iaB.,cw und AoyiCJJ.L<l>: ZW't Probleme der ept-
kuretschen \lcthod logte', .-l.GPh 57 : 21-35.
E \\ 1TT,, · \\' (1954), Ep1c11rns and hi Plzilo ophy (i\linn apoli ).
I 1EU, H ( 1 79), DoYograplu Graeci (Berltn).
01 ~ IAR · , ~I. ( 19 9), Twzone d1 Fliunte: illt (Rome).
JLLO. ·, J. ( 1977), The :~fiddle Platoni t (London).
0JTTE "BERGER, \Y ., and PlJRGOLO, K. (1 96), In chriften von
01_\ mpta (Bcrlm) .
Do:-.:1. · 1, P L. ( 1974), Tre tud1 ull'anstoteltsmo ne/ ll sec. d . .
(Tunn) .
--(19 2), Le cuole, /'amma, l'impero (Turin).
--(19 ), 'La conna1 ance de icu et la hi ' rarchte hez lbino ',
m R ,·an den Broek, T . Baarda, and J. :\!an f Id ( d .), Knowledge
of God 111 the Graeco-Roman World (Leiden), 1 1 -31.
DoRA. ·o1, T. (1992), 'Con tderazioni uJJ'Inde Locupletior di Dio ene
La rz10', Prometlzeu, 1 : 121-6.
06RJ'\G, K ( 1972), Dze Iegariker : Kommentierte Sammlung der
Testmzomen ( m terdam) .
- - ( 19 ), Der okratesschiiler A nstipp und die Kyrenaiker
(\\'1e baden and tuttgart) .
DORRJE, H, BALTE ' , ~1.. :\lA. \ ·, F., and DORRJ , . (1987-95), Der
Platoni mus 111 der Antzke ( tuttgart and Bad 'on tatt).
Ot.::\JO. ·T, J P (1972), Le ceptictsme et le phenomene: Essai sur la
stgmficatzon et Les ongrne du pyrrhomsme (Pari ).
- - ( 1994), ' en at10n and per eption dan la philo ophie d' · poqu
hellem tique et 1mpenale', A RW li 36.7:471 -64.
Di.:Rl. ·c, I. (1957), Aristotle in the Ancient Biographical Tradition
(Goteborg)
--(1961), An totle's Pr tr pticu : An Attempt at Reconstruction
(Goteborg).
EoE TEL, L (1967),Ancient ledicine(Balt1mor ).
EVERSO ·, (ed.) ( 199oa), Epistemology ( 'ambndge).
--(1990b), '.p1curus on the Truth of th en tn id. (1990a),
161-83.
FERRARJ, '.A (1968), 'Due font1 ullo tt1c1 mo ant1co', IF 40:
20o-24
--(1981), 'L'immagme dell'equtl1brio', in Gtannantom (19810), i.
337-?0.
FESTl JJ RE, A. J ( 1949), La Rh·elatzon d'Hermes Tri megzste (Pari ).
Fu "TOFF, F. ( 198o), 'Pyrrho and lnd1a', Phronesz , 25: 8-108.
'OLLE!T, . ( 19890), ' n tocles de .:\1 .. me', m Goul t ( 1989a), 382-4.
--(1989b),' n to I· de Pergame', 1bid. 384-5.
f RE!D ' r (19CJ2), 'The 'ognttiVC Role of Plzantasia tn Ari ·to tie'' tn
 R ference 173
I. u baum and 0. Rorty ( d .), E says on Aristotle' D
anima ( xford), 279-95.
FREDE, 1. ( 1973), revi w of tou h ( 1969), Journal of Philosophy, 70:
05-10.
- - ( 1987a), Essays in Ancient Philosophy (Oxford).
--(1987b) , 'The kepti ' Beli fs' , in id . (1987a), 17Q-2oo; orig.
publ. a ' Des keptiker Meinungen ', eue Hefte fur Philo ophie,
15/ 16 ( 1979), 102-29.
- - ( 1987c), 'The keptic' T~ o Kind of ent and the Que tion of
the Po ibility of Knowl dge ', in id . (1987a), 201-22; orig. publ. in
R. Rort y, J. chneev ind, and Q . kinner ( d .) , Philosophy m
History ( ambridge, 1984), 255--78.
- - ( 1987d) , 'The lethod of th o- a lied 1 thodical hoot
of l\tledi ine', in id . (1987a), 261--78; orig. publ. in j . Barne ,
j . Brun chwig, M. Burnyeat, and 1. chofield (ed .), cience and
Speculation: Studies in Hellenistic Theory and Practice ( ambridg
and Pari , 1983), 1-23 .
- - ( 1987e), 'The ncient Empirici t ', in id . ( 1987a), 243-60.
--(1990),' haeremon d r toiker' , A RW 11 36+ 2067-103.
FRE KIA , 1. ( 1958), ' er riechi h keptizi mu und die
indi he Philo ophie', B 0 4 : 21<r50.
FRITZ, I . o (1963), 'P rrhon (1)', RE xxiv. 89-106.
1 ER, K. (1966), ' Die El gie de ri totel an Eudemus', 1H 23:
84-106.
GAJ FORD, T . (1843) , Eusebii Pamphili Praeparationi evangelicae libri
XV (Oxford).
E TILl, B. (1984), Poesia e pubblico ne/la Grecia antica : da Omero a/
V secolo (Rom and Bari) .
GER KE, . ( 1896), ' ristokle ( 15)', RE ii . 934-5.
1 , TO 1, . ( 1958), I cirenaici (Florence).
--(ed.) (19810), Lo scetticismo antico, 2 vols. (Rom and aple ).
- - ( 1981b), 'Pirrone, la scuola scettica e it i t ma delle . uccc ioni',
in id. ( 19 10), i. 1 1-34.
- - ( 19 3-5), ocraticorum reliquiae (Rome and aple ).
--(1986), 'Tra Platone ri totelc', in ambiano (19 6), 267-80.
--(1997), 'It con etto di AIJ:8HJ:JJ; nella filosofia cirenai a', in
Giannatoni-Narcy (1997), 17(}-203 .
--and R ·y, 1. (ed .) (1997), Lezioni ocratiche (Rome).
IFF RD, E . H. ( 1903), Eusebii Praeparalio evangelica ( • ford).
GJCA TE, I. ( 19 1 ), Scetticismo ed epicurezsmo: per I 'm•t•iamento di un
discorso stonografico ( aple ).
1 o , . ( 1958), ' I ntcrpr •tatiOn n zu den anti ken ristotcles-
ttcn', JH 15: 147-93.
 Ref ren e
IG • 0. (1967). 'Protagora uber die ott r', Herme' 95: 14o-
59·
- - ( 19 7) , •...J nstoteh deperdttorum librorum reliquiae (Berlin).
IL' H, :\I. ( 1964-'7). I do sografi di etica (Turin) .
Gu.JCKER, J . ( 197 ), rlntiochus and the Late Academy (Gottingen).
--(1997), ' ocratc in the ad mi B k and oth r iceronian
\\'orks', m Jm,o d-:\lan feld (1997), 58-88.
GOEDECKE:\IEYER, .. ( 1905), Die Ge chichte des griechischen Skeptizis-
mus ( Le1pz1g)
GmiPERZ, T . (1912), 'Knti che Beitrage', Hellenika, 2:239-41.
OR. · o. ·, T . ( 1995), Albnllls, Alcinous , A rius Didymus ( oteborg).
OTT HALK , H . B. (19 7), 'Ari totelian Philo ophy in the Roman
\\'orld from the T1me of icero to the End of the cond entury
A.D.', rl.XRW ll J6 .2: 107<)-174·
OULET, R. ( 19 9a), Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, i (Pari ).
--(19 9b),' ri tocle de Rhode ',in oulet (1989a), 382-4.
GRAESER, A . ( 1975), Zenon t•on Kition (Berlin).
ROTE, G . (1 3), Aristotle (London).
HAA E, \\' . (1965), 'Ein vermeintli che ri totele -Fragment bei
Johanne Philoponu ',m H . Fla har and K . Gai er (ed .), Synusia :
Festgabe fiir Wolfgang Schadewaldt zum I 5 . Miirz I965 (Pfullingen),
323-54·
HADOT, P . ( 1979), 'Le d1vi 10n de partie d la philo ophie clans
I'anttqUJte', AIH 36: 201-23 .
--(19 2) , ' 1e Einte1lung der Philo ophie in ltertum ', ZPhF 36:
422-44 .
H .~ ' KJ. • o:-: , R. J . ( 1995), The Sceptics (London and ew York) .
--(1997), '. 'atural ritena and the Tran parency of Judgement:
nt10chu , Ph1lo and alen on Epi temological Ju tifi ation', in
lm,ood-:\lan feld (1997), 161-216.
HElL~ o, H (1925), Aristoclis Messenii reliquiae ( is. en).
HEPDJ. ·c, H, ' 1e Arbenen zu Pergamon 1904-1905, I!. Die ln-
chnften', MDAI ( A ) 32 (1907), 241-377.
HIRZEL, R . ( 18 3), ntersuchungen zu icero 's philosophischen
chnften, iu (Le1pz•g) .
Ho HE, R ( 1864),. 'lwavvov ypa,.,.p.a.nKov l4A£~av8plw 'TOV <l>tAo7Tovov
£~~7Jot> £i> 'To 7Tpw'Tov Tijs- N,Ko,.,.&xov O.pt8,.,.11 nK7j> Haaywyijs-, ad
ausp1canda Gymnam Vesalzensis examina sollemnia (Wesel).
HOLFORD- TREVE · , L . A. (1997), 'Fa orinus; The Man of Para-
do e ',m Barne- nffin (1997), 1 <)-217.
HoR T, P W \ DFR (1984), haeremon (Le1den).
H BY, P, and (ed .) (1989), The riterion of Truth
( Liverp ol).
 References 175

IERODIAKO 0 , K . ( 1993), 'The toi Divi ion of Philosophy',

Phronesis, 38 : 57--?4·
IMMI H, . (1906), 'Ein Gedicht des ri totele ', Philologus, 65 : 1-
23 .
wooo , B. 1. , and M SFELD, j . (eds .) (1997), Assent and
Arguments: Studies in Cicero's Academic Books (Leiden, w York,
and Cologne) .
IOPPOLO , . I. ( 198o), Aristone di hio e lo stoici mo antico (Naples) .
ARDI P RE TE, M . (1984) , ' [ democritei e !'anti cetticismo di
Epicuro ("Rata sententiae" XXIII-XX I )', in Badaloni ( 1984),
106-2! .
]A OBY , F. (1923-58), Die Fragmenle der griechischen Historiker
(B rlin and Leiden) .
]AEGER, W . ( 1923), A ristoteles : Grundlegung einer Geschichte seiner
Entwicklung (Berlin).
]A A~EK, K . (1972), Se. tusEmpiricus'ScepticalMethod(Prague).
--(1975), 'Zu d n kepti chen Widerlegungsform n ', in j . Burian
( d .), lassica atque mediaev alia Jaroslao Ludvikov k)~ octogenario
oblata (Brno), 45-54.
--(1976), ' Zur lnterpr tation des Photius- bschnittes ub rAin i-
d mos', Eirene, 14:93-100.
--(I98o),' in sidemo und xto Empeiriko ', Eirene, 18: 5-16.
--(1981), ' Philon on lexandria und die keptischen Tropen',
Eirene, 19: 83-97.
--(1985) , ' Randbem rkungen zum neucn Pyrrhonbuch', Eirene,
23 : n-85 .
I ERFERD, . B. ( 1949/50), 'Plato ' count of the Relativi m of
Protag ra ',Durham University Journal, 1 1: 2o-6.
Kmo, I. . ( 198 ), Posidoniu : The ommentary ( ambridg ).
KIE LE, \ . vo ( 1961 ), Die Berichte iiber die ukzessionen der
Philosophen in der hellenistischen und spi.itantiken Literatur (Di
Berlin).
KIRK, . (1954), Heraclitus: The osmic Fragments ( ambridg ).
LAPIDGE, I. ( 1973), 'dpxa{ and urotxEia: Problem in toi o mo-
logy', Plzrone i , 18: 240--'7 .
LEVY' . ( I98o), ' n probl me dox graphique chez i eron: le
indiff' rentist s'' REL 58: 23 -5 I .
LL YD-jo E , H ., and PAR o , P . ] . (1983), Supplementum Hellen-
isticum (Berlin and ew York).
Lo G, . ( 1971 ), 'Aisthesis, Pr lcpsis and Lingui. ti Theory in
Ep1curu ', Bl 18: 114-33 ·
--(1974), Hellenistic Philo ophy (London) .
--(1975-6), ' H ra litus and toi i m', Philo ophia, 5-6: 133-53 ·
 Referen

Lo. ·c. A ( 197 a), ' xtu mpmcu · on the 'ntcrion of Truth',
BI 25 . 35-+9·
--(IQ7 'b), 'Tim n of Phltu : Pyrrhon1:t and atiri t', P PS,
2+. 0< -91 .
- - (IQ 1), 'An totle and th H1 tory of reek epti i m', in D.
0'\leara, tlldte 111 rlri·totle (\\'a hington, D ), 79-106.
- - (IQ 9), 'Ptolemy on th nten n: n Ep1 t mology for the
Pract1. mg ~ c1entt t ', in Huby-. eal (19 9), 151-78.
--and EOLEY, D . (19 7), The Helleni tic Philosophers ( ambridge).
L ZAl, J. ( t OQ), Lect10nes A tt1cae, ed . J. 0 . IUJt r (L id en).
LY.· H,j P (1972),.-ln totle's choo/(Berkeleyand Lo ngele ).
\1.-\I, A . (t 37), lasstconan auctomm e Vaticani codicibus editorum
tomu IX (Rome)
\1 £\'ILLEY T (tQ 2), ' Pyrrhom m and :\ladhyamika', Philo ophy
East and Wet, 32: 3-35 .
\I..\ I ER, H . ( 1900), D1e yllogistik des Aristotele (Ti.ibingen) .
\1.-\.: ·. ' EBA H, E . ( 1961 ), Aristzppi et yrenaicontm Fragmenta
(Le1den).
\1.-\.: · FELD, j . (1986), 'D10gene La rttu on toic Philo ophy',
Elencho , 7: 295-3 3·
--(19 7a), ·.'umber. 1me (D10g. La rt. IX 7)', RPhA 5: 235-48.
- - ( 19 7b), 'Theophra tu and the Xenophan Do ography',
1\.lnemo_\ne.+th er ., 40:2 6-312.
- - (IQ a), ' 1aphoma: The rgum nt f lexand r' De Fa to
h . 1-2', Phrone 1 , 33: 181-207 .
- - ( IQQO) , tudze "' the Historiography of Greek Philosophy ( s en
and \la a tncht) .
--(19Q2), Heres1ography m ontext: Hippolytus' 'Elenchos' as a
ource for Greek Phtlosophy (Leidcn).
- - ( 1995), ' ene 1demus and the adem1 ', in yre (1995),
235-4
--and Rt.: IA, D . T (1997), Aetzana: The Method and Intellectual
onte'\t of a Doxographer (Le1den,. C\\. York, and 'ologne).
• lEJER , J ( 1978), D10gene Laertws and hzs Helleni tic Background
(\Vie baden)
IORA ·x. p (1942), Alexandre d'Aphrodz za • exegete de La noetique
d'Amtote (L•ege and Pan.).
--(1955), ' La compo 1t10n de la " 1e d' ri tote" chez Diogene
Lacrcc , REG 68 124-f>3
--(1967), ' n totelc, der Lehrcr I xander von Aphrodi ias',
.AGPh 49 169-82.
--(1984) Der Aristotehsmus bez den Jrlechen, 11 (Berlin and , ev.
York).
 Referen e 177
--(1986), 'Le debut de la philologi ari totelic1enne', m
'ambiano (1986), 127-47.
lo HAM !ER, . ( 1979), The lzronicle of Eusebius (London) .
IR , K. ( 1936) , 'Zu ttiko , Porphyria und Eu ebius', Gloua,
25:183-8.
--(1944), ' Ein on ort zur neuen Eu biu au gabe (mit u -
blicken auf die paten ra citat)', Rh M, F 92: 217-36.
- - ( 1954), Eusebius : Praeparatio evangelica (Berlin) .
i\ 1 LLA H, G . . (r86o-81), Fragmenta Philosoplzornm Graecorum
(Pans).
I LVA v, C. I. (1926), 'Not on the Leg nd of ristotl ', Q 20:
155-67.
R Y, 1. (1997). 'R ndre a 0 rate ... ou a Democrite? ( ri tote,
l\!Ietaphysique, M 4 · 1078 B 17-3 1)', in Giannantoni- arc ( 1997),
81-95·
1 ATORP, P . ( 1884), Forschungen zur Geschiclzte des Erkenntnisproblems
im Alterturn (Berlin) .
- - ( 1896), ' ri tippo (8)', RE ii . 902-6.
u BA M, I. (r986), 'Th rapeutic rgument ', in chofield-
triker ( 1986), 31-74.
--(1991), ' ceptic Purgative : Therapeutic rgument tn n ient
ceptici m' , JHPh 29: 521-57.
BBI. K, D. ( 1996), Plzilodemus On Piety : Part I (Oxford).
P OMER, j ., and H RPLE , R. \ . (2ooo), ' lexander of phrodt ta ,
De intellectu 1 10-4: " I H ard This from ristotle." lod t
Proposal', Q, s so: 252-6.
PAPPE HElM, E. ( 188s), Die Tropen der griechischen Skeptiker (B rim) .
PEPI , j . (1964), 'L'i nt rpretation du "de Philo ophia" d' ri tote
d'aprc quelques tra aux rccents', REG 77: 445- .
PHILIPP 0 ' R. ( 1939). 'Die Quelle der pikureischen otterlehre in
' icero erstem Buche de atura D orum', SO 19: 15-40.
PI TELL!, I. ( 1978), 'Possibi li clementi indiani nella formazion del
pen iero di Pirrone di Eltde', Filoso.fia, 29: 135-64.
PLEZI , I. ( 1962), A ristotelis epistularumfragmenta (\\'arsa\\ ).
POHLE z, I. (1948-<)), Die toa ( i:ittingen).
PouT , R. ( 1994), 'I quattro ltbri sull'anima di orano c lo · ntto
De animo di Tertulliano', Rit•ista di toria del/a .filoso.fia, 3: 423-
68.
RADERM ' HER, L . (1908), 'I loti\ und p rsonlichkeit', Rh I, ' F 63:
445-64.
REA LE, G. ( 1970), Melissa: Te tunonianze e frammentt (I• lorcncc).
-(1981), 'lp tc i p r una nlettura della filosofia dt Ptrr ne di
Eltde', in G1annantom ( 19810), 1 243-336.
 17 Refer n e
RI ' T, ] . :\1 (1972), Ep1curu : An Introduction ( ambndge).
Rost. ,L . (t t6),' urunehypothe recenterelatt\'ea ocrate',REG
29: t2cr{>- .
- - ( 1944), Pyrrhon et le cepticisme grec (Pan ).
Ro - , \\' . D. ( 19 4}, tran lation of letaphysics, in The omplete
Work of .-1" tot le: The Ret•i ed Oxford Translation, ed. Jonathan
Barn , 2 \Ol . (Pnnceton, 19 4), ii. 1552-1728.
Rt:. "lA, D . T . (1996), ' riu Didymu ' Phy ical Fragment ', in
lgra-van der Hor t-Runia (1996}, 363- 1.
Rt: ' ELL, . ( 1990), "' nly the ther Day'", in E. I. Craik (ed.),
'Otds to Athen ': E says on /as ical ubject Presented to Sir
Kenneth Dot•er (Oxford), 293-4.
AFFREY, H . D . (195-), Le pen· philosophias d'Ari tote et la theorie pla-
toniC/enne de tdee nombre (L iden) .
.-\: "DBA H, F. H . (1975), The toics (London) .
- - 19 5), An totle and the Stoic {Proc edi ng of the ambridge
Philological octety, uppl. vol. to.; ambridg ).
CHE. "KE\'ELD, D. :\1. (1992), 'Pro e age of aKOVHV, " To Read'",
Q, . 42: 12()-41.
H:\tEKEL, A . ( 193 ), Die positit•e Philosophie in ihrer geschichtlichen
Entu:icklung, (Berlm), 1: Forschungen zur Philosophie des Hellenis-
mus, ed. J . eh m kel.
H:\.tiD, \\'. ( 1 96}, 'An tokle ( 19)', RE ii. 937-8.
HOFIELD, :\1. ( 1991 ), The Stoic Idea of the ity ( am bridge}.
- - and TRIKER, . (ed .) (1986), The orms of ature (Cam-
bndge) .
--Bv~ ·YEAT, :\1., and BAR, E, ] . {ed .) (1980), Doubt and Dogma-
tiSm : tudies m Hellenistic Epistemology (Oxford) .
HROEDER, F :\.1., and Tooo, R. B. (1990}, Two Greek ommentators
on Amtotle: Ale ·ander of Aphrodisias' fantis a' and Themistius 'De
Animo' (Toronto)
EDLEY, . (1976}, ' Eptcuru and hi Profe ional Rival ', Cahiers de
phzlologre, 1 tt9-59·
- - ( 199 ), Lucretzus and the Transformatzon of Greek Wisdom
( ambndge)
HARPL , R. W (1987), 'Alexander of Aphrodtsias: chola ticism
and lnno,atton', A. RW ll 36.2: 1176-243 ·
--(1989), 'The 'ntenon of Truth m Philo judaeus, lcinous and
Alexander of phrodt. ta ', m Huby- eal ( 1989), 231-56.
--(1990), 'The chool of lexander?', m R . rabJi, Aristotle
Transformed (London), 83-1 t 1
!RI 'ELL!, 0 . and DE PLA E • E. ( 19 7). Eusebe de esaree: La
Preparatwn et-angelzque (Pan ).
 References 179
ORABJI, R. ( 1993), Animal Minds and Human Moral (London) .
TEPHAN , R. ( 1544), Eusebii Praeparatio evangelica (Pari ).
TOPPER, 1. R. ( 1983), ' hizzi pirroniani', Phrone i , 2 : 265-<17 .
TO GH, . ( 1969), Greek Skepticism (Berkeley and Lo ng le ).
--(1984), ' extus Empiri us on Non-As ertion', Phronesis, 29 :
137-64.
TRIKER, G. ( 1974), "Kpt-rf,ptov -rijS' aATJ8£{a ", A WG 2: 47-1 10.
--(1977), ' Epicuru on the Truth of nse lmpres ion ' , AGPh 59:
125-42.
--(198o), ' ceptical trat gie ', in chofield-Burnyeat-Barnes
(1980), 54-83 .
--(1983), 'The Ten Mode of Aen sid mu ', in Burnyeat (19 3),
93-116 .
--(1986), ' ntipater, or the rt of Li ing', in chofield- triker
(1986) , 185-204.
--(1990), 'The Probl m ofth riterion', in Ever on (199oa), 143-
6o.
--(1993), ' Epicurean Hedoni m', in j . Brun chwig and l\1. us-
baum (ed .), Passions and Perceptions ( ambridge), 3-17 .
EMIHL, F . ( 1891-2), Geschichte der griechischen Literatur in der
Alexandrinerzeit (Leipzig).
TA ERY, P. (1888), ' Rapport ur une mi sion en ltali ',Archives et
missions scienti.fiques et litteraires, 13: 433--<) ·
TARA, , L. ( 1969), Asclepius of Tralles : In icomachi Isagogen Arithm .
Scholia I (Tran action of the merican Philo ophi al o iety, N
59.4; Philad lphia) .
TARRANT, H . (1985), Scepticism or Platorzism? The Philosophy of the
Fourth Academy ( ambridge).
T RVER, T . (1997),' arro and Philo ophy', in Barn - riffin (1997),
IJo-64.
TAYLOR, . \ . (198o), '" 11 Perceptions re True"', in chofield-
Burnyeat-Barn (198o), 103-24.
THILLET, P. (1984), Ale ·ander d'Aphrodise: Traite du destin (Paris).
Tooo, R. B. ( 1989), 'Th toics and their o molog in th Fir t and
econd Centurie . .',A RW 11 36.3: 1365-7 .
TRAB o, F. (1958), '11 problema del "De Philosophia" di ristocl
di Ies ne e la ua dottrina', Acme, 1 1: 97-1 so .
- - ( 1959), 'La polemica d1 ri tocle di I s ne contra Protagora ed
Epi uro', AAT93: 473-515.
--(196o), 'La polemi a d1 ri toclc di 1 .ene ontro I tu i.-
mo c nstippo e i ir nai i', Rit•ista critlca di tona del/a filosojia,
Is: 115-40.
TRAPP, I. B. (1990), 'P lato's Phaedru in ccond- 'entury 'reek
I 0 R efer n e
Ltterature', in D . Ru:~ell (ed.), Antonine Literature (0 ford), !.p-
73
T. A :\1 · KJRAH ·, \ '. (1992), 'Th 'yrcnaic The r y of I nowl-
ed e', 0 .-l.P to: t6t-<)2.
C EBERWE , F ., r ' . PR E HTER, l . ( 1960), Grundrij3 der Geschichte
der Plulo oplue (Basle).
L 'TER TEl. ER, :\1. (1954), 'L'mcontro fra Ttmone e Ptrron ', Riv ista
cntua d1 ton a del/a filo ofia, 9: 2 5-? .
- - (t963), An totele : Dellafilosofia (R ome).
C -E. 'ER, H . (t 73), ' \ 'e rge .ene ',Rh 1, F 2 : 433-5 .
- - ( 1 7), EpiCiaea (L tpztg) .
\ '.\: · DE.· BRL'>\AE. 'E, :\1. ( 1970), iceron: D e atura Deorum
(Bru . el ).
\'ER E. 'YI, L . (1962), ' Protagora ' :\lan-:\lea ure Fra m ent', AJP 83 :
17 +
\'tGER, F . ( 162 ), Eusebzi Praeparatio l"l•angelica (Pari ).
\ ' tT LJ, R . (196 ), ' P r una lettura d 1 framm nti di I li o di amo',
J ·,cJuana, s : 45-5 .
\'u TO , G. (t956), Plato 's Protagora ( ew York).
- - (199 1), aerates: from t and Moral Philosopher ( ambridge) .
WA H \I TH, . (1 5). orpusculum Poe is Epicae Ludibundae ll : De
Tmwne Phlia 10 etemque Sillographi ommentatio (Leipzig) .
\\'ALB. K, F . ( •957-?9), A HIStorical ommentary on Polybius
(Oxford).
WALZ, • (1 32-6), Rhetores Graeci (Pari ).
\\' LZER, R ( 1944), Galen on Medical Experience (London) .
WATERLO\\, . (1977), ' Protagora and ln con it n ), Th eaet . I7ta6-
q', AGPh 59 t<r-J6 .
WE. 'TZEL, G ( • 96), ' ri. tokle ( 1 )',RE n . 935-6.
\\' E TERI ' K, L. G . (1964), 'Oeu · ommenta trc s ur icomaque:
A lcpiu. et jean Phtlopon ', REG 7T 526-35.
\\'HtTT.>.KER, J ( 1987), 'Piatontc Philo ·oph)- in the Early 'enturies of
Empire', AXRW 11 36.1. t-I2J .
\\'1Lnt \\ tTZ- \loELLE. ·ooRFF, . \'0. ( 1881 ), Antzgonus t•on Karysto
( Berlm).
\\'tLHEL\1, ., 'Da Ep1thalamion m Luktano 'LUIJ-7TOULOV 1j Aa7T{8at',
WSs6(t93 ),54-89.
W!LPERT P. ( 1957), ' Dtc tellung dcr eh rift " .. ber die Philo ophi "
m der Gcdankcncnt\\ tcklung de Anstotcle '' JH 7T I ss-62 .
\\'trr, R. I~ . ( 1937), Albinus and the H1 sto ry of Middle Platom m
(London)
WOLFF G ( t886 ), Porph} r De plulosoplua ex ora cutis haurienda
(Bcrlm).
 Referen e I I

\ ORMELL, .E. (1935), ' The Literary Trad1tion concerning Hermia

of tarn u ', YCS 5: 57-<)2.
ZELLER, E. ( 1919-23), Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschicht-
licheu Entwicklung, 5th/6th dn . (L ipzig).
 INDEX F OURCE

s lepius
In icomachu ' Introdu ction to Arithmetic
la Taran T3
/,aTaran T4

Eu bius
Praeparatio Evangelica
11 . 2. 6 ad F1
11. 3· I-9 FI
14. 16 . 13 ad F7
•4· J7 . I-<) F7
14. 17 . 10 ad F4
•4· 18 . J-31 F4
•4· I . 31-2 ad F5
•4· •9· •-8 F5
14. •9 · 8-10 ad F6
•4· 20 . I-12 F6
14. 20 . 13-14 ad F8
•4· 21. •-7 F8
15 . 1.13 adF2
15· 2. 1-15 F2
•5 · 13 . 7-8 ad F3
•5 · •4· I-2 F3

Philoponus
In tcomachus ' Introduction to Arithmetic
l a H ochc T5
I LE Hoch T6

Suda
S. \ . l4.ptaToKil.~, a 3916 dlcr T1
S. \ '. EwTaOa>, a 869 dlcr 1'2
 I DEX OF NAMES
Academ1c: . \11, :\XI n ., . XIX n .,
XX. n . 19, :\:\:\1 n., XXXII n .,
x. X\111 n. 25, 17, 6s n . • 72 ,
6, 101 n . 19, 111, 126 n . 59,
13 , 139, 139 n ., 147, 150,
1-4. 155
.-\c attmo . '1
Achtlle. 7 n . 5
Adler XX\
A gae X\ 11
Aeltan 69-70
Aeltu. An . t1des 71
Aene 1demu. XIII, XI\ , xn1-xviii,
XX, XXI\", I -31 , 6, 7 ,
91, 92, 95 . 97. 101 ,
101 n 19, 102 , 104-6,
106--<}, 110, 11on., JII , JJ2 ,
1f4, 115-125 , 127 , 128,
12 n.65,131,133,134-6
Aet1u xx\ 11 n ., 6 s n . 9, 76 ,
76 n. , 77, 78, 78 n . s. 79 n .,
2,84, 143 , 148n ., 149,156,
162
Agathoclcs 64
Agnppa . i ·, 81H}, 135
lctnOU . XII, XIII, XX\'Ijj
n. 27, 6s. 66,66 n . 13 , 67,
82 n., 163, 164 n . 5
Ale 77 n. 2
lcxandcr of phrod1s1a
XIV- X\"i, XXI x.·11 n ,
x:n n . 22, 63 n o, 2, 90,
94. 106, 114, 120, 121, 141,
146 n. 4,
andcr the (, n:at 13,
104 n . 23
lexandria xix-xx, xxiii, 31,
52n . 3,135
lexandrian commentator x111,
XXI
Alexinu 13 , 72
Ammoniu xvi n., xix, xxvi n .,
xxxvi, ss-6o , 6s . 70, 76,
91 n . 5, 110n .
mm n1u a ea xx u
mph1arau 25 , 88, 126-7 ,
127 n . 63
naxagora xxxii n ., xxxvii , 19,
95
Anaxarchu 19, 31, 104 n. 23
ndr m u xxi, xxxvii i n. 27, 66
nna 102 n . 20, 104 n . 23,
115-125
nonymou In Hermogenes xxv,
53-4, 54 n . 5
non ymou In Theaeteturn 115
n . 40, 118 , 123, 137 ,
137n . 1, 13 , 139
non ymou Pyth . 61 n . 1, 67
ntigonu of arystu 29, 92,
96, 100, 103 n., 104 n. 22,
106 n. 28, 107, 108,
126 n . 61, 127, 12<)-34. 136
nt10chu xvi 1, x 111, xxii-xx1i1,
61, 64, 64 n., 65-66, 81,
81 n . 9,82, tton.,t14n.38,
126 n 59, 132 n., 149,
156 n. 159. 162, 165 n . 9.
167 n
Ant1pater 17, 74, 110 n.
nt1phon X\ 111 n. 6
 Ind x of Names
nti thene xxx1 n ., 17, 65, 127
ntoniadi. xx n . 20, 137,
137 n . 2
llicon
pis XX
p llod ru xxix n ., xxxii n .,
52 n . 2, 68, 71 n . 3
pollonide of Nicaea 127
puleiu xxii, 61, 6s, 67,82
rce ilau 86, 99-100
rched mu 77
90
ri tippus ' daughter 33
54 n . 5
tippu XXX, XXX n . 19, XXXi,
xxxi , 33-35, 44 n . 47, 45,
136-142
n tippu the Metrodidacto 3,
137
n to 94, 96, 96 n ., 145
n tocle of Lamp a u : 54
n tocl of le ene
and ri totle' On Philosophy
xxxv-xxxviii, 52, 6o
10 lepiu and Philoponu
x111, xix, xx, xxiii, xx ,
x x -xxxvii, xl- xlii , 2-9, 52,
52 n. 3. 53. ss-6o, 76
in Eus biu x111, x1v, xv11 , 1. ,
xx, xxi, xxi -xx i ,
XXX iii-xl, 8-49, 52
10 uda xiii, xix, xx, xxi, xx ,
XXV, 2-3. SI-4
on ri tot! x1 11 , xvii, xx,
xxiii, xxi , xx , x i,
xx -xxxvi, 12-17, 68-76
otadas of Byza ntium x,
·xvi, 2-3
on th 'yr naics xiii, x c, x. 1,
XXI\ 1 XXV, XVi, XXi, X. X\'
32-5, 136-142
185
on the Eleatic and th
Megarian x111 , xx, xxi,
XXi 1 XXV, XX i, XXXi, XXX 1
4o-5, 155-I6o
on the • pi urean 111, xx, xxi,
xxiv, xv, xxvi, xxxi, xxx ,
38-41,44-9, 146-1ss.
161-7
On Plato XIII, XXI, XXII, XXIII,
xxi , xx , xxvi, xxx , 8-11,
6t-?
on Protagora and l\tl trodoru
XIII, xx, xxi, xxiii, xxi , xx ,
XX i, XXXV, 36-9, 142-155
on the Pyrrhonian x111-x1 ,
xvii, xviii, xix, xx, xxi, xxiv,
XXV 1 XXVi, XXX, XXX , 18-3 1,
86-tJ6
On the tOiCS Xlll, XXII, XXIII,
xxi , XX 1 XX Vi, XX ii, XX V,
16-19,76- 5
the hi torian of philo ophy
xiii-xiv, xxiii- xiv, 61, 6
73,77, s,86, 115 , 136-7,
138 ,142, 14 ' 149. ISO, 151,
•ss. •s9 . 161
the life xiii-xx, xx1ii, 51, 70
the o rd r of the fr gm nts
xxxi-v
the part of phi! ophy xx11,
x. xviii, 6s-6, 67
the Pe ripateti xii 1-xiv,
xx-xxiii, xxvi, 3, 9, 13, 51-2,
54 n . 8, 59-60, 62-64, 66,
82, 6, 9, 90, 11o-14,
12 5-6, IJO, 132, 136, 136-7,
139-42, 142 , 143. 144 •
• 45 -6 , 14 9,150, 151 , •ss .
157 . 158-9, 160, t6t , t63-?
the philosophi al , kdls XIII,
X. I\
th pol m1cist XIII, . i', xi'
the s hools of phtlosophy 62
 I 6 Index of am
.-\n tocle of:\ lcs, ne (coni .) 2-S. 52, 52 n . 3. 53. ss-6o,
the teacher of. lcxand r of 63 n . 6, 76, 90 n . 5, 110 n.,
Aphr dt 1a:? XI\'-X \"1 IS n . 4
the thcor) of the en tenon 1a XVII
X. Ill, XX\ 11, XXXIII, XXXI\' . mt 147 n . 8
work other than On pa, IUS x xviii n . 27, 66, 67,
PJu/o ophy XIX, XXI, XXIii, 147
XX\, XXX\ In . 22,52-4 thena s. 7, 9
.-\nstocle of Pcrgamum xxv, 54, thenacu 12 n . 7, 51 n. 2,
-+ n 6 -'71, 72,73 n . 6, 126
.-\n tocle, of Rhode XX\, 52, thcnodoru 54 n . 5
-3 n then x n ., xxxii n ., 1 1, 1s,
An tocles the mu 1cologt t
51 n. 2
.-\n tophane X\ 111 n. 6
An toteltan xut, xx- xu, x vi n., 84, 103,
XXX\111, SI-2, 61, 66-?, 70, 123 n . 55, 130
164 ugu tine . xxvii, 61,65 n. 10,
An totle of :\lyttlene xv- ·vi 91 n . 5, 151, 151 n. 12, 166
An totle of tagtra XIII, xiv-xv1, ugu tu 76 n., 8s n. 14
X\'11, XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXI\' 1 u land 94 n ., 96
XXVi, 'XX\, XX \I, XXX\'11,
XXX\'111, 3, 7, 12-16,21,52,
54n . • ss.s -6o,s n.,61,
62, 63, 64, 6s n. , 67, Bachli 1oo
68--?6, 79,79 n., 81, 3, 86, Bactria 1os n . 23
9, 90, 9• n. s. 94, 94 n ., 95, Batl y 102 n . zo
103, 103 n., 104 n. 22, Bait xxt n .
105-6,110, I IOn ., III-14, Bapp 52 n.
I12n.35.114n.3, 125-6, Bangazzi 72
130, 132, 136, 137, 13<)-42, Barne J. xvii, xii, 62, 90,
142, 143. 144. 145-6, 149. 102 n . zo, 104 n. 23,
ISO, 151,155. 157. 15 ' 158 105 n . 25, 109, 111 n.,
n. 4, 159, 100, 101, 164- IIS-125, 125 n . s8, 127 n. 64
Ari toxcnu XI\, 11 , 13, 67,6 Barnc T . . XX\tun. 18
71-2 Bastianm• 1 18
riu D1d}mu 66,66 n 13 , Bee hi 67
76-?7.79,8cr-s Behr 71-2,76
von -\rntm xvu, d~ n 15, 54 n. Bendi 53
7,78,82, 116n 44,117 Bcrnay 75 n. 9
Aronadto xxi. n., 127 n. 64, 133 Bcrtt XX\, xxxvti, s8 n., 59,
A clcptu . 111, XL , ·x, xxtu, x. ', 90 n . 4, 93
. xvi n.,. XX\-\iii, 1-xlt, Bett 87 n., 93 n., 98, 98 n., 99 n.,
 Index of ame
105 n . 25 icero vii, xxii, xxix n .,
Bias 52 xx n. 19, xxx ii n ., 61, 64,
Bidez xx , xxxix 6s, 6s n . 8, 9, 76 , 81, 82, 83,
Sign ne 58 n. 85 n . 13 , 96,96 n ., 110 n .,
Boeothia 127 114 n. 38, 126 n. 59, 130,
Boethu xxx iii n. 27, 66 132 n ., 135 , 137 n. 1, 138 n .,
Boyan ' xxx iii n . 26, 66, 141 , 142, 144 n ., 145 , 148 n .
66 n . 12 9, 149, ISO, 151 , 152, 153 ,
Brancacci 92, 96, 97 154, 155 , 156, 157, 159, 160,
Bro hard 87 n., 96, 1o8 , 162 , 166, 167, 167 n .
117 n . 49 la en xxx n . 20, 137 , 145 n .
Brun chwig xviii n .7, xxxii n., laudiu Ptol em 150, 162,
88, 91,91 n . 6, 92, 95, 96, 165 n . 9
98-<), 102 , 107 n . 29, 133 , leanthe 19, 76-85
149 n . learchus 126--'7
Bry on 73, 134 ]em nt xx, xxiii, xxix n ., xx,
Burkhard 88, 90, 1o8 , I 09 , xxxi n ., xxxii n ., 51,53 n. 3,
116n.44, 117, 117n. 48 , 57, 65, 66 n. 12 , 67, 8o,
128 n . 6s 82 n ., 102 n. 21, 110 n .,
Burn yeat 93 n ., 102 n . 20, 144, 114 n . 38, 156, 163 , 166
144 n . litomachu xx iv, 96, 96 n .,
Bywater 58 n . 138, 141 n ., 156, 157, 167 n .

alanu 105 n . 23
allicrate 51 n . I olotes 106 , 137-8 , 148
alii th n 106 onch 103
am biano 157 oroebu 27, 129
apasso 163 n . ortassa 128, 143 , 147
arn ad e 77 n . 2, 86, 96, 96 n ., otta 153
119 oui in 107-8 n . 30,
enta ur 154 rates 19
'ephi odoru 15 , 69, 7o-I, 72 , rito xxxviii n . 25
72 n . 6, 73 n . 6 ronert 54 n . 6
haeremon xix, xix n . cl ps 154
haerephon 127 ynic xxix n ., xxxi n ., 64,
' halcis 15 65 n. 8, 92, 96, 105 n . 23, 127
happell 144 n . •rcnatc xiii, xx, xxi, xxiv, .. v,
hatzi ly and ro t 17, 124 xx i, xx , ·xx i, xxxii, ·. ·iit,
' hernis s8 n . xx iv,xx v, 32-35,64,
himacra. 40 n ., 41 65 n . 8, 108 n . 31, 132 n .,
' hroust 6o n . 5 136, 136-142, 143 n .,
hrysippus 19, 54, 76-85, 96, 162n. I, 163
96 n . yrenc 33, 137
 Index of am
al Pra . , 97 n . 14, to 61-2,6s, 69-70,71,72,73.
Damon 64 74. 77, 77 n. 3, 7 , 79. o,
Dardanu : 7 1 n .7, 2, 3, s.86 , 7.
a\td X\ In . 4, 70,75 7 n ., , 90, 91, 92, 93, 94.
De Lacy 10 96, 100, 103 , 105, 105 n . 24,
De leva atZZI X\"11, xv1ii n.7, 107, 10 , 10 n . 30, 109,
X .IX 0 ., 25 0 ., 7-1 14, 110, I l l , 112,113,11$-125,
123 n ·3, 126-7, 12 , 130, 126,127, 1270 ., 130,1300.,
133,1330. 72, IJ4, 143, 131 , 133, 134, 135,136, 137,
144 n , 147 137 n ., 13 , 141, 141 n., 142,
Delpht , 127 147 . '4 • 149. ISO, 151, 153.
Deman 63 n. 6 155 , 156 , 163
emeter 15 , 73 Diogen f p llonia 19
Demetnus Lacon 95, too, 14 Diogene f Oenoanda xxxii n.
Demetnu :\lagne xxx11 n ., 74 Diony 1u of I xandria
Demetnu of Phaleron 52 164 n. 5
Demochare 15 , 7o-1, 72 Diony iu f Hali arna u
Democritu xxx1i n., 19, 31, 37, xviii n . 6, 52 n ., 53 n .,
90, 91, IOo-tOI, 106-7, 134, 73 n . 6, 135
142-3 , 156, t6o Dittenberg 54 n . 5
Demo thene ·v111 n . 6 Donini xvi, xi, xxii, 66 n . 13,
Denm ton 91 67
De Place XX\' 111 n . Dorandi ·xix n.
etelt53n Donng 137, 137 n ., 138, 156,
Deucalton : s. 7, 56, 6o n . 6 157
De \\'itt 147 n . Dorn xi n., xii, 67
D1caearchu. 52 racon 64
1dymu. 16n. 13 ,72,73 Dumont 88, 89, 97 n . 14,
D1dymu m P xy 21 90 XIX 1 t6 n . 44
Dtehl 53 Dunng 6o, 6 , 70,70 n., 71,
je[ X\", X. vii , X. \Ill n. I ,
71 n . 3, n. 4, 72, 73, 74,
X. I 0., XXXI 0., 76, 76 0., 74 n ., 75 , 75 n. 1 1, 76
78 n 5, 126, 159
tllon X11,6t,8tnR Egypt xx n ., 31, 35, 135
D1 :\Iarco xxxii n., 129 Empedo I 90, 156
DJO Eleattc xiii, xx, xx1, xxiv, xxvi,
XXIX, XXIX n ., XXXi, XXXIi,
.. XII n . xxx11i, xxxiv, x , 4o-5, 62,
·1 n., 19, 92, 63 n . 4, n . 5, 90, 143 n .,
155-16o
La •rtiu ., ii, ·x1x n., Elia xv, xv1 n . 3, XX\ In ., 74, 91
x. , xxxi n., x. xii n , n 5, 110 n .
,jjj n. 25, t6 n. 13, 54, Elt. 21. 72, 134
 lnd x of
Empirici ts 131, 134, 135, 136
Ephc ti s xxvi, xx in . 15,
Ql n . 5,110n . 32
Epict tus 20 n. IQ, Ss, 111
Epicureans xiii, xx, xxi, xxvi,
.. .
XXXII, XXXIII, XXXI , XXX 1 Fred
3S-1, 44-Q, IOo-IOI, 106,
136, I 3S, 142, 146-155 1
161-7
Epi urus xxiv, xxx, xxx n. IQ,
. .. .
XX , 1, XXXII n ., XXXIV, 13,
44-9, 6S-70, I 00, I 09 , I I I,
142, 147, 147 n. S, 14S, I4Q,
150, 151, 151 n. 11, 152
153 . '54. t61-'7
Epiphaniu xxix n ., xxxii n .,
S2 n.
Erato thene 96
Eretrian 160
Erillean 16o
Eri 129
Erotianu 53 n .
Eubulide 12 n . S, 13, 69, 70, 71,
72, 157
Eubulus 17
Euclide of 1 gara 156, 157
Eum Ius 72
Eudianu 54 n. 5
Euripid 59, 90
Eu cbiu xiv, xvii, xviii n. 6, x,
xxiv-xxxiv, xxx iii-xl, S-49,
SI, 53 n . 3, 6I, 63 n . 4. 75,
77, So, 1, 2, 3, S7, 95,
117 n. 49, 137, 141 n., 146,
147 n. 6, 164 n. 5
Eu thatiu, 57 n . 3
E crson 147 n. S, 151
Favorinus xxvi n., 71-2, S6, 103,
115 n . 40, 123 n. 55, 124,
124 n ., 130
Fcrran 26 n . 29, 89, 92, 93, 94,
105 n . 24, 107, lit,
ames
126 n. 61, 131
Fe tugiere sS n .
Flintoff 104 n . 23
Follet xiv, 51, 51 n. 1, 2, 54 n. 8
Frede D . 152 n . 14
I. xix n ., SS, 101 n. 19,
102 n. 20, 12S n. 66
Fr nkian 104 n. 23
von Fritz: QI
Furley 9S n .
aiser 75 n . Q, 11, 76
Gai ford xx , xxx n . 20, 42 n. 42
al n xv, 109, 110 n ., 111 n .,
114 n. 3S, n . 3Q, Q, 123 n. 53,
125, 125, n. 5S, 135, 136,
14Q, 150, 16o, 162, 163,
165 n. Q
ntili 127
rke xiv, 52, 53
iannantoni xxix n ., xxx n. 20,
59, 64, 137, 137 n . 2, 13Q,
13Q n., 143, 157, 157 n. 2
iardina 55 n.
ifford xv, xxviii n . 1S, 11 n.,
tS n. 15,22 n. 20,35 n.
Gigante 100, 10 , 14S
igon xx. ii n., xvii, 6o n. s.
6 , 71 n. 4, 74, 75
iu ta X. X, XXX 0 . 20
luck r xvii, xxixn., 64 n.,
Q6 n ., 134, 135 n.
nom. at. xxxi n.
Gocdc kemey r 89, 135, 137
omperz 75 n. Q
Gi:iran son 61,66 n. 13,76 n .
Gorgias 64
Gottschalk xvi, xi. ,
'XX \ iii n. 26, 67, 70, 85
Goulet 53 n.
Gracse: 78 n. 3
Grotc 72
Gymno'ophists: 104 n . 23
190 Index of ame
Haa: 5 n . lda 7
Hadot :>.X\ 111 n. 26 lerod1akonou xx ' \' iii n. 26
Hadnan 54- n. 5 llio.: 5, 7
Hankm.on 102, 14-9 n. lmmi eh 75, 75 n . 9
H J!and 'XI\, xx n., XX\, India 104-5 n . 23, 106, 134
XX\ Ill n. I , XXX n . 20, In cription Gr. 51 n . 1
. ·xxu-xx. 1ii, XXX\ i n. 22, I ppolo 6, 96 n .
JO n . )4, 52-3, 54, 75 n. I l, l snard1 Parcnte 101
90n . .f,91 n.7, 135 , 137, I ocrate xviii n . 6, 15, 72,
1 ~6 n. 72 n . 6
Hepdmg -4- n. 5 !tal) 3, 51
Heracles xxx1 n
Hera hde f Pontu 54 n. 5, Ja oby 54n. ,6 ,73,75n. 11
71 n . 4- jae er 5 n ., 75 n . 11
Hera htu 1 n. 15, 19, o-1 , Janacek 97 n . 13, 101 n. 19,
In . 7,90 102 n. 20, 112, 112 n . 34,
Herillu 96, 96 n . 116n. 44, 117
Herme. 13
Kerferd 144 n .
Herm1a 12 n. , 13, 16 n . 12,
Kidd 77 n . 3, 7 n . 3, 4, 147 n. S
17,6 ,72,73.74
vo n I i nle xxviii n . 1S , xxi n .
Herm1ppu · ·1\, -2 , 6 , 71, 72,
Kirk o , 1 n . 7
73.74
Hermogene X. ' \, 53 Lapidge 7 , 79
Herode tucus 54 n . 5 Lampr cle 64
Herod1anu 53 n. Leucippus 19
Herodotu X\iu n . 6 Levy 96 n .
Herpylh. 17, 74-5 Libya 140
He ychiU 74
Long 26 n . 30, 27 n . , 76, So,
H1ppobotu~ x, 134
8r, S1 n . 7, S2, Ss n . 13,
H1ppocrate 64, 90
7 n ., S8, 90, 94, 97 n . 14,
H1ppolytus XIX n , 61 n. 2,
106 n . 26, n . 27, 112,
6sn ro, 2n.
126n.61, 127, 147n. 7,n . S,
H1rzel : 7 n , 108, 108 n 30,
149 n ., 152, 165 n. 9
117n·49. 126
Luc1an 89, 95
Hochc \, xli-. lii
LuciUs liu Tubero xv1i
Holford- trc\·cn xx n , 48 n ,
Lu rct1u xxxi1 n ., 151, 154-5
72
Luzac: 70 n.
Homer x 1,. in, x. iii, 3, 37,
Ly on 15, 73 , 73 n . 7
43. 52, 52 n. 3, 57, 90, Lynch xx
12~, '34. '43. '59
Hub) 14-9 n . \lacedomans 72
\lag1 67
lambhchu 6o \la1 r 90 n 4
 Index of ames
1anneba h xxx n. 20, 137 n . 2, 22 n . 21, 24 n. 25, 26 n. 27,
138 n. 30,30 n. 31, n. 34,34 n .,
Man feld x iii , x iii n. 8, 35 n., 36, n. 37, n . 38, 3 n.,
xx iii n ., xxix n ., xxxi n., 76, 42 n. 42, 44 n. 45, n . 47,
77 n. 1, 2, 78,78 n . 5, 46 n., QI n . 7, 165 n . to
108 n . 31, 114, 117, Mullach xxiv, xxx, t6 n . 12
119n. 51,120,124, 124n., Mull r 54 n. 8
143 , 143 n ., 155 Mulvany 12 n . 8, 68,75
Marcu Antoninu 67, 94
larcu Aureliu 54 n. 5 Narcy 63 n . 6
Maxymu T r. xxiii, 65, 164, atorp xxx n . 20, 7 n., 108
t66 Nau iphanes xxxii n ., 45, QI
McE illey 104 n . 23 eal 149 n .
Megarians xxiv, 4<>-5, QO n. 4, Neop latonists (see Alexandrian
155-60 commentators)
Mejer 77, 77 n., 78, 84 N ssa xxix n., 19
leletide 27, t2Q Nicagora 13
M lis us xxi , IQ, 4<>-5, 62-3, Nicomachu of Megara x1x, xx ,
155-8, •5Q-6o XXX ,2-8, 55-60
lenodotu xix, 88-Q, 134-5 Ni oma hus on of ristotl 17,
Me ene xix, 3, 51,51 n . 1 74-5
Methodi ts 123 n. 53, 13 1 Numenius Ap. 73 n . 6, 81
Meton 64 umemu cept. 91
Metrodorus of hios xxiv, xx , us baum 102 n . 20
xxvi, xx iii, xx iii n. 17, bbink 148
XXX, XXXii, XXXii n., XXX III, Odeion 140
xxxiv, IQ, 36--Q, 142-3, 147, dysseu 128-9
156, 15 n . 5 I mpia 54 n . 5, 72
letrodoru of Lamp acu Olympiodoru xx , xxvi n .,
XXX ii xxxi n ., 63 n . 6, 75,
Middle Platoni t xxu, xxu1, Q<>-t n . 5, 110 n., 151 n . 12
xxiv, 61-2,65,66,82 nthu 15
lithridates xvii 104 n. 23
loraux xiv n ., x , x in., xi psomer xv1
XXX, 22 n. 22, 68, 70, 73, rigenes viii n. 6, . xiii, 65, 135
75n. tt,Qo, tt2n .J5, 115, Oropu 127
117 n. 49, 137, 147 n . 6, Iri S XX
152 n . 13, 157
lo shammer x iii n . t8 Pag t6 n . 12
Mra, xvii, x ii n .,. v, Pana tiu xx ·
x. viii n. 1 , x . . i, xxxix, xl, Panathenac 53
8 n.6, 12 n. 7, 13 n. c, Pandaru 43
140.9, 16n.12, t8n . 15, Papp ·nh im 117
 Index of
Parmenrd xxxn, xxxvi1, 19,
4cr-5 , 6r, 62-3, 155-
Pau an1a 127 n . 63
P pm 5 n .
Pergamum 54 n . 5
Penand r 52
Penpatet1 , (see An totelian )
Pfeiffer xx
Phaedru 152
Phit.p, kmg of th :\la donian
13 , 71
Phit.pp on r • 4
Phlitppu of pu xxxv11 n .
Phtli ta 3 r
Philo of Alexandria xxiii,
xx, in ., 6s, 3, 95, ro2 n . 21,
115-125 , 164 n . 5,
Ph.to of then 134
Ph.to of Lan a xvii-xviii, 66
Phtlochoru xxxii n ., 68 , 71 n . 3
Philodemu XIX, XXI\, xxxii n .,
13 n . b , 54, 70, 14 , 153 ,
15 , 15 n . 5, r6r , r62
Phlioponu XIII, xv1 n . 4, xix, xx,
XXIII, XX\', xxvi n., xxxv-vii,
XXXVIII n . 27 , xiJ-xlii , 2 n . I ,
4--<). 52 n . 3. ss-6o, 70, 75 .
91 n . 5, 98, rro n ., 163
Ph.to tratus xxx1i, 54 n . 5, 130
Pht.u. 127 n 63
Phouu X\lt, 53 n ., 54 n . 5, 6r n .
r , 67, 95, 97, 101 , ror n . 19,
102, 104-6, 107 , 10 ' 110,
110 n , 11 r , 112, 113, 128,
'35. 136
Phryn1cu · 54 n . 5
Piantelt. r 04 n 23
Piraeu 53
Pittacu 52
Plato rn , X\ 1ii n. 6, xxi, xxii,
XXIII, .· ·j\, XV, XXVi,
·xxii n ., XXX\', XXX\i l,
. XX\'ii1,. XX\ jjj n . 25, 3,
ame
8-11, 13 , 15, 17, 19,
34 n . 35. 37.40 n ., 52, s6,
5 --<), 6o n . 6, 61--;, 6 , 69,
71 , 71 n . 4, 73,73 n . 6, 75,
75 n . 9 , 76,79 n ., 81, 2, 89,
90,91 n ., 95 , 102, 110,
110 n., I l l , 115, 121 , 130,
•37. •39. 14o, 142-6, •so,
151 n . 11 , •ss. 157. 164,
164 n . 6 , 165-6, 167 n .
Platoni ts (see al o fiddl e
Platoni t and
eoplatoni t ) xxi, xxi n .,
xxviii n . 27, 164-6
Plezia 6 , 74
Plotinu xxii, 84, 98
Plutarch xxx ii, xxx iii n . 25,
73 , 74, 84, 95 , 98 , lOO , 101 ,
133, 126 n . 59, 6o, 63 n. 4,
74, 91, lOO , 107, Ill, 133 ,
133 n. 72, 137 n . 1, 138, 142,
•47 , 148, •so, •s•. 154, 163,
166
Pohlenz 54 n . 7
Polemo 81 n . 9
Polito 116 n . 46
Polybiu 71
Pol y tratu xxx ii, 100, 147, 163
Porphy ry xvi n . 4 , xxii, 57, 70,
76
Po idoniu xxiii, xxiv, xxxvii,
65 n . 9, 77, 7 , 78 n. 3, n . 4,
8s, 133 . 133 n. 72
Po 1don1U in P .O y 2190 xix
Potamo 150
Pre o rati : 61-3, 79
Proclu xxx n . 19, 52-3, 55 n .,
74
Protagora xxiii, xxi , xxx,
xxx1i, xxxi1 n., xxx1ii, xxxiv,
19, 36-9, 64, 90 n. 4, rro ,
130, 139, 142-6, 147, 152,
156, rs8 n . 5
 Index of Name
Protago r an XIII, xx, xxi, xxiii,
XX i, XXX , 36-41, 110 n .,
147
P - ri tippu 73
Ps. - ristotl e 67
Ps. - alen xxix n ., 79 n. , 82, 162
P .-H r nnius 9 1 n. 5,115 n. 40
P .-Plato 67
P .Plutarch xxvii n. , xxix n. ,
6s n . 9, 78, 79 n ., 82 , 84,
141 n ., 148 n ., 149, 156
Ptol m y of I xandria 76
Ptolem of yrene 134, 150
Purg Id 54 n . 5
Pyrrho of Eli x111, xi , xxx,
18-31,37.45.86-114, 126,
127, 128, 129, 130, 130 n .,
131, 132, 133, 134, 136, 145
Pyrrhonians xiii, xiv, x ii, xviii,
xix, xx, xxi, xx i, xxx, xxxii,
XXXiii, XXXV, 18-31, 86-136,
160
Pythagoras 9, 19, 61, 62, 156
Pythag r an 62
Pythia 25
P thia , ri totl ' wif 17, 68 ,
73-s
Radermach r 129
Realc 44 n. 44, n. 45, 93, 94, 96,
103, 104, 126 n. 62, 159
Ri t 147 n .
Robin 63 n . 6, 96
Rome 93
Rufu 54 n. 5
Runia 76, 77 n. 1, 78 n. 5
Russell xviii n .6
affrey s8 n.
amothra e: 7
andba h : 83
arapis xix, xxi,. xiii, 3, 52
, cpucs ( ee Pyrrhonian )
193
veld x n.2
chmek I 88, 107 n . 30, 117, 134
chofield 8s
hr der x
cy lla 40 n ., 41, 154
ed ley 26 n. 30, 27 n. e, 69, 8o,
81,81 n. 9, 82, 85 n . 13, 94,
106 n . 26, 112, 118, 147 n . 7,
152
eleucu xxxviii n . 25
a xxiii, xxxvii, 63 n . 4,
65 n. 9, 76, 141 n ., 151
even age xxx , xxx 11,
xxxviii n . 25, 52, 52 n . 3, 57,
90
xtus Empiricus xix, xxx,
xxxii n ., 22 n . 22, 34 n . 35,
6J,6s-6,67,86 , 87,89,90,
92, 93 , 93 n ., 94, 95, 97, IOI,
102, 102 n . 20, 103, 104,
105, 107, 107 n . 30, 10 n .
30, n . 31, 109, I l l , 112, 113 ,
114, 114 n . 36, IIS-125,
128, 129, 130, 131, 135, 136,
137, 137 n . 1, 138, 139,
141 n. , 142, 143, 144 n ., 145,
146, 147, 148 n ., 149, 149 n.,
ISO, 151 ,153. 154. 156. 162,
162 n . 1, 165 n .
harpl s xiv n. , xvi, xviii n .s.
165 n . 9
i ily xix, 71 n . 4
imon xxxviii n. 25
implicius xv, xxvi n., XXII n.,
xxxviii n. 25, 44 n. 44, 45,
53,78, 1,81 n.7,82n.,98,
'43 . 155. 159. 163
irinclli xxviii n.
ocratcs xxx, xxx n. 19, xx. ii n.,
·xvii, 11 , 17, 33, 52, 61,
63-4. 64 n., 66, 67, 75 n 9,
110, 127, 139. 145. 156
 194 Inde of
orabJI •3•. 165 n .
otada of ByzantiUm x ·, xxxv,
x. X\ 1, xxxv1 n . 21 , 3, 51-2,
51 n . 2
otade of ;\ laron a 51 n . 2
otion •34. •Ss . •s6
peu ippu xx1.iii n . 25 ,
164-sn. 6
tageira 15
~ tephanu XXXI , 14 n . I I,
22 n . 23 , n . 25 , 24 n . 24,
26 n . 2 , 30 n . 32, 34 n . 35,
3 n.
tilpo 42 , 105 n . 2J , 134. •ss .
•s6, •s7
tobaeu xxvii n ., xxxi n ., 66 ,
76 , 76 n ., 77 , 77 n . 1, 78, 79,
o , 2, 3, Jn. 11 , 4, 143,
14 n ., 149, 156, 162
toic xiii , xvii-xviit, x i-xxiii ,
x tv, xxvi , xxvii , xxix n .,
x xi n ., xxxvtii, 16-19, 66 ,
67 , 76- 5 , 6 , Ill , 13 , 142,
147. 164, •6s n . 9
topper 90 n . 4, 92 , 95 , 97-8,
101 , 104-6, 104 n . 23
tough 97 n . 14, 1os n . 25
trato xx , xxxvui n . 25
tnker 96 n ., 102 n 20,
106 n . 27 , 147 , 147 n .
149" ·· 151 , 164"· 4
uda XiX , X , XXI, X 1. , XXXV,
XXXVI , 2-J , 51-4, 72 ,
77~ n 3, 109
u em1hl 54 n . 8
54 n 5
racu e 71
}nanu x1. n . 3, xxvt n.,
63 n . 6, 90 n 5, 95, 110 n .
Tann ry 55 n
Taran xx v, xli , xlii, ss n ., s6 , 57,
58
ame
Tarrant 143
Taylor 147 n .
Tertullianu 149, 151 n. 12
Thale 9, 62
Thargelion 53
Theaetetu 52
The) phu of Pergamon x 111
Themi tiu 70, 70 n ., 71, 72, 95
Theo ritu of hio 17, 73
Theoda of Laodicea 109
Theodoretu 15 n.,
30 n . 34, 7 n . 5
Theodoru of rene 64, 137
Theodo iu xix, 88-9, 90, 109,
JJ60 . 47. 135
Theophra tus xxxii n.,
XXX jjj n . 25, 17, 62 n., 75,
I, In . 7, n . 9, 143, 155
Thillet x i, s 1
Timaeu of Tauromenium 13,
7o-1 , 74
Timocrate xxxii n ., 69
Timon of Phliu xm, xt , x 111,
xxiv, xxxii n ., 1 -31,
63 n . 4, 86-114, 115, 126,
126 n . 61, 127, 128, 129,
IJO, 132, IJJ, 134, 136, 156
Todd xvi, 8s
Trabucco xi , xxii, xxx n. 20,
xxxii-xxxiii, xxx in . 23,
s8 n ., 65,66 n . 12, 67, 68,
75 0 . 11, IO , 147, 149,
152 n . 13
Trapp : 66
TraJan 54 n . 5
T ouna McKirahan 137, 137 n.,
•38
berwcg-Praecht r 97 n . 14
XXXVII, 58 n .,
cncr 52
 Index of ame 195
and n Bruwa n 152 Wilhelm 16 n .12
an der Horst xix n . William of Moerbeke x
arro xxxvii-xxxviii, 53 n . Wilpert 58 n., 59
ersen i 144 n . Witt 110 n .
iger 8 n.6, 42 n . 41 Wolffs xxxix
itali 44 n . 45, 160 Worm 11 68
la tos 63 n . 6, 144 n .
Xeno rate xxxii n .,
Wachsmuth 26 n . 30, 27 n., 76, XXX iii n . 25, 45, 65, 71, 81,

127 n. 63, 12 81n . 8,92

Walbank 71
Wallies 58 n .
Walz 54 n . 5
Waterloo 144 n .
Wentzel 51 n . 2, 52, 53 n . 4
West rink 55 n ., 56
Whittaker 65, 164 n. 5
Wilamowitz 24 n . 26, 26 n . 30,
30 n. 3 1, n . 32, 71 n . 4,
126 n. 61, 127, 127 n. 64, 133
Xenophanes xxxi , 9, 19, 41, 62,
90, 103, 155-6
Xenophon 165 n. 7
Zell r xiv, xiv n., x , xxx n . 20,
71 n. 4, 95,97-8, 105 n . 23
Zeno of itium xxiii, xxvii,
xxvii n ., xxx , 16-19,76-85
Z no of El ea 19, 4o-5, 90,
'55-6
 I DEX F GREEK WORDS

U)'l·oia T 3 · 2, F 4 15 a-rv<f>{a F I . 4
ay•·wu-rov F 4 · a-rv<f>o> F 4 · 19, 27
aywYTI F 4· 30 a</>au{a F 4 · 4
O:S7JAO F 4· • 10, 12,21
aSui</>opov F 4 · 3, 5-'7. 17 yvwpt~Hv F 4 · I, 23, F 5· 1-4, 7
a:s,Ko F 4· 1 yvwut> T 3· 1 , T 5· 4 , F 4 · 1 , 9,
aSo~Q(1TOS' F 4· 3. 17, 23 11 , F 7· 2, 9, F 8. 1, 6
aiP£ut F 4 · 30 Staywyl) ad F
alu8a•·fu8at F 4 · 23, F 5· 2-3, StaA€KnK1) ad F 3
6 3-4, F 7 2-3, .5 StaA€KTIKOS F I . 3
aiu87J<1t ad F 4, F 4 · 3, 1 1, 23, StauKit/Jau8at F 4· 1 , ad F 7
ad F 5, ad F 6, F 6. 1, 9, 1 1, StKQIOS' F 4· I
ad F 7, F 7· 2, 4-5, , ad F 8, So~a T 1, ad F 3, F 4 · 3, 19,
F 2, S-'7
F6. 9
aluxpos F 4 · I
So~a~Hv 4· 5, 7, 13 , 24
al-ria F 3 2
aKAwl) F 4 3 dfLapfL£v7J F 3. 2
aKpaSav-ros F 4 · 3 flvat Kat fL~ £lvat F 4· 9, F 6. 7
aAYTISwv ad F 5, F . 3 £K7TUpW<11<; F 3. 2
&A1)8Ha F 3 2 , F 4· 16, F 6. 3 lvvota F 4· 24
nA7J8€uHv F 4· 3, F 6. 10, 7- 2 £v puu€t F 6. 1
llio-rptov F 5 5, F 7 5. F . 2 £TTaywyl) F 4· 13
UllclfLV7J<1tS F 4· 24 £m7T AoKl) F 3. 2
avuriKpt-ros F 4 3. 8--<}, 17 £7TtVOIQ T 3· 4. T 5· 4
aoptu-rov 4 8 £mu-r1)fL7J T 5· 2, 1. 3, 6, F 3· 2,
a7Ta8Ha F 1 4, F 4 26 F 4· 24
aTTa8£s F 4· 18 £pt<1TIKO<; F I . I' F 2. 4. 9
a7THpov F 4 · 9 £vSatfLov£w F 4 · 2
U7T00Et~IV F 4 26 EliSatfLov{a ad F 5
aTT#aut F 4 I 0 £</>EKnKo ad F 4
ap€-rl] F o.
8
&pxl) F 3· 1. F 4 30, r· 8. 1-2, 6 ~7Jniv F 1. 8, F 4 · 7, 10

Q<1TcliJfL 1JTO f• 4 · 3 ~Sovl) f 1 4, ad F 3, F 4· 24,

ti-rapa{tfl. I· 4· 4 ad J· 5, F 5· 5, ad F 8, F 8. 1,
tirt.ipfl.XW> f' 4 . d!
3-5.7
 Index of Gr ek Words 197
~avx{a F 4 · 8, 21 1T£1T£paa1-1-£vov F 4· 9
TJ8LKcl T I 1T£pmaTTJTLKOS" T 1 , ad F 2
1T£p{1TaTOS"(with the meaning of
s hool) F 2 . 1
1TLOT£U£LV F 4· 3, 9, 12, 13, 24,
KaAos F 4 · 18 ad F 6, F 6. 1, ad F 7, F 7. 1,
Kavwv F 6. 9, F 8. 2 4-s,8
KaTaKoAov8£iv F 4 · 20 1T{OTLS" F 4 · 13
KaTaATJ1TTOV ad F. 4, ad F s, 1TOALT£{a F 3. 2
F S· 1-2, ad F 7 , ad F 8 1TOALTLK~ T 3· 4, T S· 4 , I . 2, 9
KaTapnKov cpapl-f-aKov F 4· 21-22 1rovos F 4· 24, F s. s. F 8 . 1, 3-s
KaTacpaat> F 4· 10 1TpOS" TL F 4· 12
KaTa cpuatv F 4· 2s, F S· 7, F 6. 7, 1TVP F 3· I
F7 . 4
K{vTJOLS" ad F s, F 7· 3 MTop£S" F 1 . 3, F 2. 9
KOOI-f-OS" F3 . 2 PTJTOpLK~ T I
KpLT~pLOv F 6. 9-10, F 8. 1-3
KVVLO~-f-OS" F I . 4 OTJI-f-a{v£Lv F 4· 9
aK£1TnKo> ad F 4,
AoytK~ F 1. 3, 9 OKir/JLS" F I . 2,
Aoyos (a m ntal faculty) ad F 4, aocp{a T 3 · 1-4, T 4, T S· 1-4,
F s . 2, F 6. , ad F 7, F 7 · 1-2,
T 6, F 4 · 6,
9, F 8. 2, 4, 7 OOcpLOT~S" 2. 9, I I
Aoyos a1T£p1-f-anKo> F 3. 2 aocpos T 3· 3-4, T S· 3-4, F 6. 3
OTOLX£iov F 3. 1

OV1-f-{J€{37JKOS" F s. s' F 8. 3
vo~aaL ad F 6 avyKaTaT{8£a8aL F 4· 7, 13 , IS,
20,22
VOI-f-OS" T 3 · 4, T S· 4, F 3· 2,
F4.11,18,2S
VOU<" F 6. 8, I I' F 8. 6-7 Ta aip£Ta F 8. 1-2
.,a. d.v8pw£1T£La F 6-7 1.

OLK£iov F S· S, F 8. 2 .,a. 8£ia T 3· 4, T S· 2 , 4,

op£~' F s. s F 6-7, 8
1.

op{~£LV ad F 4, F 4 · 9, ad F .,a. ~e,Ka T 1 , F 2 1.

opl-f-~ F S· s .,a. t/JwKTa F 8. 1-2

ou 1-1-a.\Aov £lvaL Ka( 1-1-~ £lvaL .,£.\os ad F S, ad F 8
F4. 3,7,2o .,£xVTJ T 3· 4, T S· 4, F 4· 24
n\ d.ya86v F 1 . 7
1ra8os I· 4 · 19, ad F s, F S· 1-2, TO d.ATJ8£ F 4· s. IS, F 7 · 7. F 8. 7
s, f· 7 · 2, ad F. 8, F 8. 2-3, s, 7 To 1raaxov F 3. 1, F s. 3. F 7 . 3
1rapa cpuaw F 4- 2S, F S· 7, F 6. 7 TO 7TOLOV F 3 . I • ' s . 3. F 7. 3'
1TtlOX£LV F 4 · 24, F S· I-S. F 8. 3
F 7· 2-3 TO 1TOOOV F 8. 3-4
 19 Index of Gr k Word
nl aotf>ov T 3 . 3-4, T 4, T 6 F 4· 15 , 25, 2 , Jo-t, F 5· 6,
Tp61TOI T 3 · 3. T 5· 3. F 4· 11 , 21 F 7- 2, 9, F . 7
Tix/>os F 4· 27 t/)(Aoao<f>{a T I, T 2, T 3. 1-4,
T 4, T 5 · 1-4, T 6, ad F 1,
v>..., F 3· 1
F t. 9, ad F 2, ad F 3, F 4· 30,
lnr&>..,.p,s F 4· 24 ad F 5, ad F 7
<f>,>..oao<f>os T 1, F 1. 1, F 2 . 6,
</>a1vo,_,.£vov F 4 · 13 , F 6. 3-4, ad F 3, ad F 5, ad F 7
F7. 7 </>ua1K'"IJ T 3 · 4, T 5· 4
</>al1Tat£U8a, F 6. 12 , F . 5 </>ua1s T 3· 4, T 5 · 4, F t. 6, 7,
</>aVTaa{a F 6. 1, 9, 1 1 , F 7· 1 , F 4· 20 , ad F 6, ad F 7
ad F , F . s ifl£u8£a8a, F 4 · 3, 9, F 6. to
</>1Aoaot/>£iv F I . I , , F 5. 6, iflux~ F 4 · 22
 INDEX LOCORUM
Achilles
I sag.
3· pp . 31-3 Maas : 78 n . s
Aelianus
Var. Hist .
S· 9= 69
'4· 1: 74
Aelius Aristides
Orat .
46: 71
Aenesidemus
in D. L . 9· 61 : IOS
in D . L. 9· 102: 91
in Photius 169b 18: 97, 102
in Photiu 169b22: 101
in Photiu 169b24: 128
in Photiu 169b27-<): 102
in Photiu 169b3o-s : xvii, 111
in Photiu 170"1-3 : 104-6
in Photius 170"12: 1 12
in Photius 170•23 : lOS
inPhotiu 17o•2s-38: 110n.
in Photiu 1708 3<)-41 : xvii
in Photius 170b2: 110, 136
in Photius 170b3-3s: 113
in Photius 170b4: 110
in Photiu 170b3 1: 102, 107
A et ius
inPs.- al.Hist . phil. 21 : 79n.
in Ps.- al. Hit . phi/. 16: 2
in Ps.- ' al. Hit . phi/ . 93: 162
m P .-Plut. 1. pr. 2: 6s n. 9
in Ps.-Plut. 1. 2: 79 n .
in Ps.-Plut. 1. 3: 82
in Ps.-Plut. 1. 4: 78
in Ps.-Plut. 1. 20: xx 11 n .
in Ps.-Plut. 1. 28: 84
in Ps.-Plut. 4· 8: 148 n ., 149
in Ps.-Plut. 4· 9: see
Xenophane 2 1 B 49 K
in Ps.-Plut. 4· 12: 162
m tob . 1. S· IS : 84
m tob. 1. 10. 14: 78
m tob . 1. 10. 16: 79 n ., 82
m tob . 1. 18. 1: x vii n .
m tob . 1. so. 1: 14 n ., 149
in to b . 1. so. 17: see
Metrodoru 70 A 22 K,
Xenophanes 2 1 B 49 K
lcinous
Didasc .
1: xxiii, xxx iii n . 27 , 6s
3: xxii, 6s
4: 163
8-10: 2
17: 66, 164 n. S
27= 67
lexander of Aphrodi tas
De anima 73· 16: 141
De anima Libri mantis a
168. 4-6: 94
Defato
I6S. 27-166. 1: 120
De inte/Lectu
110. 4: 1 - ·vt
112. 5-113 . 12: -X
 200 Index Locorum
Ale.·and r f . phrodt ta (cont.) see Pyrrho T 15 D de a
De nu.\ I . atZZI
216: 121
221. -1 : 121 ntiphon
ln.\Jet . fr . 57= vi ii n .6
49· 23-50. I 6: 63 n. 6
I66. I<)-20: X\t nti thene
294. I-2 : 106 fr . 1. 6 5 De le a atzzt: 127
JOS .26--J2: 90, I I4 fr. 70 Decleva aizzi: 65
64 . 7- : I 46 n. 4 fr . IO -F Decl va atzzt:
740. 29-33 : 63 n. 6 x in .
7 6. 15-33 : 63 n . 6 fr. 109 -BD cl a atzzt :
In soph. el. xxxi n .
I6I. 22-J: 94
poll d ru
Ammontu gramm .
in Porp h yry Quest. Hom . ad fl .
De diff. f.'erb.
9· 378: xxix n .
. V. £mK~01011 : 53 n .
in P rph r Quest . Hom . ad Il .
1. IJT xi n .
mmomu
In Cat in Proclu In H esiod . Op .
I. IJ : XXVln. p . 4 : XXX n . I9
2. 9: . n n ., 91 n . 5, 1 1on .
In Porph . !sag pollonide of i aea
3· 2 . xx1u, 6 5 in D. L. 9· 109: 127
46. 4-2 I: XVI n-4, 70
Apuleiu
9· 7-2J : 57
De Plat.
non}mou In Theaet . r. 3-4: x ii, 61,6 5
col 63 . 1I5n. 4o, II ,r2on., I . 5: 2

I2J 1. 7 : 82

col 65 . see n t1ppu IV 2 . I : 67

214 1annanton1
ri tippus
Anon}mou Pyth . I 166 iannantoni: 141 n .
10 Photiu 439•· 61 n. I I iannantoni: 14I n .
10 Phottu 440"33 . 67 I iannantom: I4I n .
m Phottu 462hi7 95 I I69 Gtannantoni: 141 n .
I I 70 iannantoni: 14I n.
Antigonu of ·ary tu. I
su Pyrrho T 6 ctlc\a 'atzzt,
I7I Giannantoni: '4'n.
I I72 Gtannantoni:
u Pyrrho T roD· le\ a 'atzzt IJ7 n. r , I4I n .
see Pyrrho T I 5 B Dctlc\ a 209 ;iannantom:
Caiui IJ70 . I ,IJ O.J
 Index Lo orum 201

211 Giannantoni: De anima

1370 . 1,138 404"27 : 143
212 iannantoni : 404b26: 149
137 n . 1 406 3 22: 145
213 iannantoni : 407br : 145
137 n . 1 408b I 8-29: I 66
214 iannantoni : 41o"zs-6: 159
1370 . 11 139 413b20: 132
217 Giannantoni : 413bzs : 166
136-142 414bs : 142
219 Giannantoni : 416b33 : 159
137 n . 11 138, 139 417"1: 159
417b23: 159
ri to of hio
418 8 11-12: 149. 159. 166
in D. L. 7 · 16o: 94
418"13-18: 166
Ari tophanes 424"28-30: 149, 159, 166
Ra 425b13: 132
726: xviii n .6 426b10: 166
426bl2: 141
ri totle 427"17-b18: 132
frr . l-'7 Ro s: 52, 6o 427bzs : 164
fr . 8 Ro : s8 n. 428°11: 152
fr . 9 Ro : 63 428"20: 125 n. 57, 132
fr . 13 Ros : 83 428°22 : 140
fr . 26 Ro : 166 428b3 : 125 n . 57, 166
fr . 27 Ro s: 166 428bl8-23 : 149. 1$1 , 159. 166
fr . 52 Rose : 6o 429"15-30: 166
fr. ss Ro e: s8 n . 429b r 8-zo: 166
fr . 673 Ro e: 75 429b23 : 166
An . Post .
81 b1: 125 n . 57
86b3s : 11 4
90b14: 132
92"3s : 125 n . 57
97h7: 94. 114
97h31 : 94 n .
100"16: 94 n .
An. Pr .
46"11 : 165 n . 6
79"25 : 165 n . 6
88"3: 16sn.6
96"22 : 16sn.6
202 Index Lo or urn
An totle, De gen. anim (cont.) 1007b18: 145
7 7b34: 114 n . 37 1007b26-8: 113
De gen. et corr 1008"24 : 145
25"13 : ee Parmenide 2 A 1008"3 o-4: 93, 103 , 106,
25 K 113-4
De int. 1008b12-14: 103-4 n . 22, 106
17•9: 114 n . 28, 113
EX 10o8b15-6: 126
IOQ5bi5-IOQ6°10: 166 1oo8b2o : 145
IOQ6• 12-17: 76 100 b3 0 : 145
1103b2 : 110 1009"6 : '45
1112b9: 1 q n . 37 1009"9 : 146
1142bl3 : 1250·57 1009"23 : 125
1164b2: 76 1009b7= 143
I 177•1 I : I 66 1010b5: 150
1177•30: 166 1010b1o-14: 130, 140, 145 , 146
Hist . anim . 1010b26 : 145
497b11: 94 n . 1010b30: 140
511bl4: 1140·37 1010b33-<) : 139
62ob31 : 114 n. 37 1011 °5: 130, 145
Met . 1012bls : 110
9 o•21-<) 2°21: XXX\'ii, 59 1014bl9 : 142
982•1: 161 1015"14: 142
9 3b6: 6o 1025b15 : 125 n . 57
9 3b8: 79 1025b20: 142
Q83b6-<>87b 4: 61. 62, 63 1025b25 : 161
984"27-34: see Parmenide 28 1038"16: 94 n .
A240K 1046b29: 158 n . 4
986b17= see Parmenide 28 A 1048"36: 125 n . 57
24 OK 1053"31 : IJ2 , 159
986b 18: see Xenophane 21 A 1054b33 : 125 n . 57
30 OK 1055"6 : 125 n . 57
9 6b27: see Parmenide 28 A I 058"9: 125 n. 57
240K 1062"29 : 146
Q8Qb6-zo: 95 Io62 b13 : see Protagora B 17b
992b33: 125 n . 57 OK
993bll: s8 n . to63"14: 165 n. 6
996•32: see Ari ttppu A 1067bi4: 125 n . 57
170 G1annanton1 1077b26-<): 114
too6• 11-tS • I l l 1078"31 : see Ari tippus I A
1oo6• 18-zs · 113-4 171 Giannantoni
1007•2o-30 145 1078b17-33 : 63
1007b7-12: 90 1079b2: 146
 Index Locorum
108Ib13 : 94 n .
1084b24: 165 n. 6
1o86"37-b7 : 63
M eteor.
351 b13 : 6o n . 6
352"32: 6o n . 6
373b19: 114 n . 37
378b14: 125 n . 57
Part . anim .
639"22: 114 n . 37
700b20: 132
Phys.
1848 17-22: 114
184"22 : 121
186"6: 62
19 1"24: see Parmenides 28 A
24DK
224b3o: 125 n . 57
252"24: 125 n. 57
2548 24: !60
262"2: 94 n.
262"18: 132
339b13 : 114 n . 37
Rhet .
1356"2s : 64
1356bl-10: 125 n . 57
1359b11-12: 64
1373"33 = 94, 114
1377b18: 125 n . 57
1431b9: 125 n . 57
Top .
103°11 : 94n .
111 8 19: 132, 159
11 4 "21- 5 : 13 2
I 16 1 I : I I I
8
203
Arius
in Eus . PE IS . IS . I-6 (fr. 29
Diels) : 83
in Eu. PE 15 . 18 (fr . 36
Diels) : 82
in Eus. PE 15 . 20 (fr. 39
Diels): 8o
in Stob. 2. 7, 4a (ii . 12): 66
in tob . 1. 10. 16 (fr. 21
Diel ): 79, 83 n . 1 1
in Stob. 1. 17. 3 (fr. 38 Diels) :
79 , 80
in Stob. 1. 20 (fr. 36 Diel ): 82
in Stob. 1. 21 (fr. 31 Diel ): 83
in Stob. 1. 129. 1 (fr. 21
Diel ): 83 n . 1 1
Asclepius
In Met .
3· 3Q-3 : 57, s8 n .
10. 28-12.33 : 55, 57
19. 33 = s8 n .
45 · 16-46. 8: 63 n. 6
222. 12: xxvi n ., 90 n . 5, 1 1on.
In Nic .
la Taran (T3) : xiii, xix, xx,
xxiii, xxv, xxxv-vii, xl-xli,
2-5, 52, 52 n . 3, 53, ss-6o,
76, 158n. 4
I 'a Taran (T 4) : 4-5, 52, 52 n .
3, 53. ss-6o, 76, 158 n . 4
A pasius
In NE
I. 1 : 67

119.19: 159 2. 4-6 : XXXVlll n . 27

I 2 I b I 5: 94 n . 42 . 28 : 147
121b22: 94 n .
Athena u
Aristoxenus 2. 6o -E: 73 n . 6
fr . 53 Wehrli: 67 7· 317 A: see lear hu fr . 75

. 342 70, 72
 Index Lo orum
Athenaeu (cont.) 2. 114: , XX n . 19, 166-7
. 354 8 : 12 n . 7 , 6 -70,72 2. 130: 135
11. so 8 : 72 3· t 1: ee Pyrrho T 69
13 61o F : 72 De I va aJZZI
q . 6zo D-F: s 1 3· 12: 145
q .. 636 F · 52 n 2 4· 6o: see Py rrho T 69F
eel a aizzi
Am u
4· 43: ee Pyrrh T 69
fr. 1 e. Pia e : xx1, x:--ii, 61, e leva aJZZI
6s 4· 49 : see Pyrrh T69 E
Au u tine De le a a1zz•
ontra A cad. 5· t6 : 96 n.
3· 11 : 151 5· 17: x n. 19
De not . d .
3· 13 : 9' n . 5
1. z8: 156
3· 16: 166
I. 29: X XII n .
De cit•. Det
. 4: 61,6sn . 10 t . 33: see ri totle fr. 26 Ro s
I. 36 : 83
. 7: 151 n . 12
1. 43-5 : 153
Aulu elhu 1. 49= 152, '54
. 'A I. 63: XXXII n .

7· 2 . 3· 4 I . 70: 14 n . 9, 149
1 1 S· 6: see Favonnu fr . 26 I. 72: XXXII n .
8angazzi I . 77: '54
I. 10 : 154
1cero I. 109: 153
A cad.
2. 95 = 83
I JS-16: 64 2 . '54: 83
I. 19: XXli,6s De off.
1 39: 2
1. 6: see Pyrrho T 69H
Ded1'V ecleva a•zz•
1 125 5 2. 2. 5= 65 n. 9
De fin 3· 116: xxx n . 19
I 23 : XX n. 19, 166 De oral.
I. 26: XXX n. 19
3 61-2: xxixn.,xxxn. 19,65
I. 29: 162
n. 8, t6o (see also Pyrrho T
I. 37 X. X n . 19
69 1 I a aizzi)
1. 64. 148n 9 Luc.
2. 13 . xxxn.19 6. 166
2 . 18: x n. 19 15: XXII, 61
2 . 39· XXX n . 19
'9· 149. 151, '59
2. 43 · seeP}rrhoT69B zo. tto n.
D I \a 'aJZZI 22 132 n .
 Index Locorum 205
23 : 126n. s9 1. 62-64: xxix n .,
24: '4' t. 64: xxxii n.
28-9: tto n ., 114 n . 38 I . 106: XX
73 : xxxii n. 2. 21 : 67, t63
76: see n ttppu 209 2. 396. 13: 8o
Giannant ni 5· 89-90: 82 n.
79 : 14 n . 9 5· 105 : 8o
79-82 : 151 5· 110: see X nophancs 21 B
88-9: ISO '5 K
109: 114n. 38 7. 22: see Xenophan 21 B 16
tt8 : 8t OK
129: 155, see also Euclides 11 8. s: 110 n ., 114 n. 38
3 t iannantoni 8. 12: XXXI n.
130: see Pyrrho 69A 0 cle a
atZZI avid
13 I : XXX n. 19 In Porph . !sag.
142: '44 n . 121.4-18: xvin .4,70
Q . fr . 121 . t8-zo: 75
I.I . IO : Xll
Tusc . disp . emetriu La on
t . 6s-6: see ri totle fr . 27 P.Herc. 831 col. iv: 100
Ros P.Herc. 1012 col. 6: 95
2. 15 : see Pyrrho T 69 P .Herc. 1012, cols : 148
Dccl va atzzt
5· 73 = t66 metriu Ma ne
De eloc .
laudiu Ptol m
225: xxxii n ., 74
On the criterion
I: ISO
0 mocritu
12 . I: 162
6 B 3 K : 9'
I ar hu 68 B 12 5 0 I : t6o
fr . 75 W. : 126
m th ne
lcm nt Leoch .
Paed. 42 : viii n.6
2. 22 . 4 : 102 n . 21
2. 25 . 3: xxiii, 6s Did mus
Protr . In Dem.
5· 66: xxxii n . 6. 43-9= 73
Strom. 6. 46: 16n. 13
I . 1: 166

I . 25: XX, 52 n. 3, 57 Dio 'assius

t . 6o-6t : x, 51,66 n. 12 51.16.3: xi ·
206 Index Locorum

D10 hn o tom 6. 33 : XX I 0.
Orat . 6. 45-6: XX I 0 .
36. 20: 3 n . 12 6. 55 : XI 0 .
6 . 6cr-1 : XXXI 0 .
Diode 6. 69: xxxi n.
in D . L. 9 · 12: x ' 11 n . 6 . 104-5: xxxi n.
7 - 38 : 110
Diogene yn . 7 · 46: see F ii . 130
B 264 Gtannantoni : 92 7· 48: 110
B 542 iannantont: 92 7 · s : see F iii . 178
B s6o Gtannantoni: 92 7 · 88 : see F i. 162
B 564 iannantoni : 92 7 · 134: 77-9 see also S F i. 8s,
H 17 Giannantont: 92 493. 11. 299, Ill. 12
7-136: see VFi . 102
D10gene Laertiu 7 · 138: see F ii . 634
t. 15: x ix n . 7 - 142: 82 see F ii. 581
I. 21 : ISO 7 · 170: XXXI 0 ,
2. 85-9: X , 10 0 . 30,136 7 - 174: 8o see F i . 601
2. 92: see Ari tippu I A 172 7 · 199: 54
Giannantoni 9· 8 : 81 n . 7
2 . 1 o6: see Eucltde 11 A 30 9· 12: xxxii n.
G1annantoni 9 · 1 9-20: see Xenophanes 21
2 . IOC}-1-: 72 A1DK
2. 122: x xvtii n . 25 9· 21: 155
2. 124: XXX iii 0 . 25 9· 45: 107
3· 19: see avorinu fr. 65 9 · 51 : XXXII 0 .
Bangazz1 9 · 56: XXXII 0.
3. 56: 61 , 6sn. 10 9· s8: xxix n ., xxxii n .
3· 59· XXX Ill 0 . 25 9 · 61: see Pyrrho T 1A
3· 109: xxxv1i1 n . 25 ecle a Caizzi
4 · 4 .: XXX\'IJJ 0. 25 9 · 62 : see Pyrrho T 6, T 7
4 · 9 : XXXVIII 0 . 25 Decleva Caizzi
4 · I I ' XXXVIII 0 . 25 9 · 64: see Pyrrho T 1o Decle a
4· 13 : xxxvi11 n 25 31ZZI
5· 1 : 74 9 · 6s : see Pyrrho T 61 B
5· 2 ' 71 ecle a Caizzi, Timon 41
5· 11 73 H
5· 27 ' 74 9· 66: see Pyrrho T 14, 15A
5 48: XXXVIII 0 . 25 eel a aizzi
5 59: XXX\ Ill 0 . 25 9 · 67: see Pyrrho T 51 Decle a
6 2 xxxi n . Caizz1
6 1 1. see nt1 thene fr 70 9 · 68: see Pyrrho T 17A
cleva 'a1zzi eel va a1zz1
 Index Locorum 207

9· 69: see P yrrho T 37 D ecl a De compos . v erb .

a tZZ I 2J . IS8: 135
9 · 70: 90, 109 De lsaeo
9 · 75 : 105 n . 24 19: 73 n . 6
9 · 76 : see P y rrho T 54 Decleva De lsocr .
Caizzi, Timon 854 SH 18: 73 n. 6
9- 78 : JI6 Din .
9 · 86 : 123 8. 3: 53 n .
9· 87= 124, 124 n .
9 · IOI : IJO, IJI Elias
9 · 102: 90 (see also Pyrrho In Cat.
T 44 D ecle a aizzi) 108. 1()-J6: XX V I 0 .
9 · 104-s : 126, • 3 8 109. 24: xxvi n ., 91 n . 5, 1100.
9 · 105 : too (see also Py rrho 117 . 21-2 : xxxviii n . 27
T 63A D ecleva Caizzi, 123. 26: 74
Timon 843 SH) 128. IQ-IJ : XV
9 · 106: see Pyrrho T 8 Decleva
atZZI Epi uru
9 · 107: 107 ad fr . 247 Usen r: I47, 149 see
9 · 109: 134 also F 6. ()-I2
9· 111 : IJ4 ad fr . 260 ener: 161 see also
9 · ••s-•6 : xvii , too, 134 F8
10. 8: 69 ad fr . 289 sener: 16 I see also
10. 13 : XX XII 0 . F8
10. 28: I48 fr . I 71 sener: 68 see also
10. Jl : I47 . ISI F 2. I
IO . J2 : •so, •53 Epist . Her .
10. 34= 149. t63 38: 147
10. 5 I: ISO so-I : 148, 149. 151
10. 64: XXXII 0 . 52: 148
10. 69: XX XII 0 . 8o-J : 100
Epist . M en .
Diogenes of enoanda 129: I61-2
16 11-1 il : XXXII 0 . KLJ
23 : I4
Dionys ius Alex . 24: 100, 14
in Eus. PE 14. 26 : 164 n . 5 29: Ill
On Nature
Dionysius H . I I : I48

Epist . Pomp . 12: 153

1: 73n . 6 14: I48
De ant . orat .
1: x iii n .6
 20 Index Lo orum
p1 tetu 14. 17 . I-<)(F7): III,XX,xxi ,
Dis. . . . .
X ' 1\', ' V, XXVI, XXIX, XXXI,
2. 20. 5: I 11 xx i1- xi , x, iii-xl,
2. 20. J7 · Ill 4<>-5, 52, 89, 100 n . 16, 131,
2. 23 . 1: 20 n . 19, 14,155-60, 167n.
3· 24: 5 14. 17 . 1 (F7 . 1): xxxii, 90
'4· 17. 2 <F7 .2): 89
Ep1phanJU
14. 17. 10 (ad F4): ·x i,
Adt· Haere .
x iii-xxix, xxix n ., 1 -<)
proem.: 2 n .
14. 1,1-31 (F4) : xiii-xiv,xx,
J . 2. 9: XXIX n ., XXXli n.
xxi, xxiv, xx , xxvi, xxix,
Erato tene xxxii-xxxiv, xxx iii-xl,
m D .L. 9 · 66: see Pyrrho 14
1 -31,52, 6-136, 145 ,
167 n .
Eucbde of :\Iegara 14. 18. I (F4.1): X
I I A JO Jannantoni: I 56 '4· 18. 11 (F4. 11): X 11 ,
I I 31 1annantoni: 156 115-125 ,128
'4· 18. 14(F4.14): 1150.42
Eunp1de 14. I. 16(F4. 16): 115
Bacch . '4· 18. 24 <F4- 24): 118, 138
395 : ~9 14. 18 . 26 (4.26): ee Pyrrho
T 15 B ecleva aizzi
Erot1anu 14. 18. 27 (F4.27): see Pyrrho
Voc. Hipp . T 23 0 cleva aizzi
J2 . I I: 53 n. 14. r8 . 28 (4 . 28): see Pyrrho
T 48 ecleva aizzi,
Eu ebJU
Timon 7 4-5 H
omm . m Psalmos 14. 18. 29 (4.29): xvii
p 2J . 12 4· 2J : 95 14. ' . 31-2 (ad F5): xxv,
Praeparatro Et•angelica xxvi, xxviii-xxix, xxx, xxxi,
1. . 6: 63 n . 4 32-3
2 6 . I 6· X\ Ill n 6
'4· 19. 1-8 (F5): xiii, xx, xxi,
10. 14 11-16: xix n .
XXIV, XXV, XXVi, XXiX, XXX,
11. 2. 6 (ad F1) xx, xxvi,
xx i, xxxi1-xxxi'' • xxviii-xl,
11 . 3· 1-<) (F1) : XIII, XXI, XXII,
32-5,52,89, 131, 136-142,
Xi\, XX\', XXX\, 8-1 I, 52, 145, 161 , 167 n .
61-7
14. 19. I ( 6. 1): XXX
14 4· J<>-17" xxix n. 14. 19.2(F 5 .2): 112
146·73n6
14. 19. 5 (F5.5): 89
I 4 7 I O: I 6 n I 4
14. 19 6 (F 5· 6): 65
14. 16 2 : XXXIX
14. 19. 8-1o (ad F6): xx 1,
14. 16. rJ(adF7): X\1,
XXVII, XXVIII-XXIX, XXX-XXXI,
x. 'iii-xxix, 4<>-1
xxxi1 n., 36-7
 Index Locorum 209

14 . 20. 1-12 (F6) : xi!i, xx , xxi , 15 . 412 : 57 n . 3

XXi , XX V, XX I, XXIX,
xxxii-xxxiv, xxxviii-xl , Fa orinu
ad fr . 26 Barigazzi : 124-5
36-41, 52, 89, 100 n . 16,
I 3 I , I 42-1 55 , I 67 n · fr . 26 Barigazzi : xx in ., 103,
14. 20. 1 (F6 . t) : 90 n . 3 123 n . SS
14. 2o. 3(F6 .3) : 115 fr . 27 Barigazzi : 130
14 . 20. 8 (F6.8) : xxviii, 118 fr. 65 Barigazzi : 71-2
14. 20. 9 (F6 .9): 89, 90 n . 3 alen
14. 20. IQ-11 (6 . 1o-11): 159
De comp . med. sec . Locos
'4· 20. 12 (F6 . 12): 89
6. 9 (xii. 989 K) : 136
14 . 20. 13-14 (ad F8): ~xvi, De consuet.
XX iii-xxix , XXX , XXXI,
I: X
xxxii n ., 44-5 De Libr . propr.
14. 21 . 1-'7 (F8): xiii , xx, xxi, 9 (Scripta minora ii . 115): 109
xxiv , xxv , xxvi, xxix, xxxi, De Loc. aff.
xxxii-xxxiv, xxxi ,
3· 3 (viii . '43 · 11 K) : 135
XXX jjj-x), 44-<) , 52, 89,
De medic . emp .
100 n . 16, 131 , I48, I61-'7
114 Walzer: see Demo ritu
14. I8 . 2 (F8 .2) : 140 68 B 125 OK
14 . 2 1. 7 (F8.7) : xxiii, 6o, 89, De pecc . dign.
IS8 , t6o, I6on . . 44-5 K : 114 n . 39 ·
I 5 . 1. 1 3 (ad F2): xx, xxvi, De opt . doct .
12-13, SI 2. 1-3 . 3: 110 n ., 114 n . 38,
15 . 2 . 1- 15 (F2) : xiii, xx, xxiii, ISO
XXi , XXV , XXXV, XXXVi ,
4· I: ISO
12-17,52, 68-76, 115 n . 42
4-s : 149
15 . 2. 1(F2. 1): xvi, 118 Diff. puis .
15 . 2. 6(F2.6) : 118 iii. 711 K : 125 n . 5
IS. 2. 13 (F2 . 13): X ii In Hipp . De vict . acut . comm .
15 . 13 . 7- (ad F3): xxvi, l. 16 ( I 9· I, p . 132):
xxxi n ., 16-17 Ill n .
15 . 14 . 1- 2 (F3): xiii, xx, xxii , PHP
xxiii, xxi , xx , xxvii , xxx ,
9· t : 149. !62
18-19, 52,76-8s ub t. nat . fac .
15 . 16. z : xxxix iv 759,764 K : t63
15 . 17. 1: xxxix
1S· 62: ee Ari tippus I nom. at .
169 ,.iannantoni 743 n. 194: xxxi n .

Eu. t thius Hcra litus

In ll . 22 5 OK: 1 n. 7
23 . 712 : 57 n . 3 22 B 31 DI : 8o-l
 210 I nde, Loco rum
Her dianu 4 · 722-44: 154
1 526. 1-2 Lenz: 53 n .
4 · 796- : 155
u. 1 • 15-16 Lenz: 53 n .
Marcu Ant.
Herodotu Med .
2. 53 : X\"iii n .6 4 · 4 : 8s
Htppobotu 8. s6: 94
mD . L .9. 115 : 134 laximu T r.
Htppolytu 3· 32 : r66
Ref. z6.z8 : xiii, 6s
I . I 1-4: XXIX n . 10. : 164 n .
I. I • 5: 65 n . 10
Ieli us
1. 19. 1 : 2 n.
fr. 30 B 8 OK: 42-4, 44 n . 44,
1. 19. 23 : 61 n . 2, 6s n . ro
I 5<)-60
Homer
Iliad Menodotu
3· 223 : 12 in D . L. 9 · 115 : 134
5· 214-16: 42 , 159 Metrodoru
15 . 412: 4,6,s7n. 70 A 3 OK: xxxii n ., 143
20. 216-16: 4. 6 70 A 22 OK: 143
23 . 712: xx, 4, 6, 52 n . 3, 57, 70 A 23 OK: 143
57 n. 70 A 24 OK : 142
larnbltchu 70 A 25 OK: 143
De comm . math . screntia 70 B I OK : 36, 143
26 , p . 83 Fe ta: 6o 70 B 2 OK: xxxii n ., 36
/G v/1.1432: 51n . 1 umenius
I ocrate in Eu . PE 14. s : 81
Arch . in Eus. PE 14. 6 : 73 n . 6
27: xviu n .6 lympiodorus
Luc1an In at .
lcaromen 3 · 8: XX In .
25 : see Pyrrho T 77 ecleva
In Phaed.
81ZZI 29 . 7--<}: 63 n . 6
Vtt. auct. o . 1: 151 n . 12
27 : 95 (see also Pyrrho T 78
Proleg.
ecleva Ca1zzi) 3- JI: XX in ., 91 n . 4, liOn .
In Gorg.
Lucret1u 44. 6 : xxxi n .
De rerum naturae 214. 13-215 . 11: XXV, 75
4 436 151 In Meteor .
4 · 469-70 xxxii n . 11 . 23 : xxvi n ., 90 n . s, 110 n .
 Index Locorum 211

Origene Post.
ontra els . 25 . 6: 102 n . 21
3· 72 : xxiii, 65 122. 8: 102 n. 21
6. 7= 135
Philo of Athen
InJerem .
in D . L. 9· 67 : see Pyrrho T
4· 5· 56 : xviii n .6
20 Decleva a1zz1
P.Oxy XVIII 2190: XIX
Philochoru
Parmenides in D . L . 9· 55-6: XXXII n.
28 A 24 OK: 157, 157 n . 3
Philodemus
28A25 : 158
Acad. Ind . Here .
28A49: 158
I 1 1: xix, 13 n . b, 70
Pausania VI 40: xix, 13 n . b, 70
2. IJ . T 127n. 6J VII 9: xix, 13 n . b , 70
De piet .
Philo of Alexandria
22 . 89: xxxii n .
Abr.
6 3 9-56: 153
269 . 7: 102 n . 21
673 ·4 = 148
onf .
17J6: 153
87 . 5: 102 n. 21
Rhet .
19: 164 n . 5
ii 57 Sudhau : 70
ongr .
ii 169Sudhaus: xxxiin., 158
79: xxiii, 65
Stoic . Ind. Here .
De ebr.
XL I I 7 Dorandi : 54
178: 117,119n.51
184-5 : 122-3 Philoponus
De opif. De aetemit . mundi
8: 67 278. 28: 98
138: 164 n . 5 278. 439 = 98
De proem . ad Poen . In An . Post.
7- 41-J : 83 332. -10: 2n. 1,57,58n.
Leg. alleg. In at .
3· J2, 97--9 = 3 I. 19: XXVI n .
M os . 2. 4: xxvi n ., 91 n . 5, 110 n .
I. J2 . 2: 95 J . 4-7: X i n .4, 70
I. 42 . I : 95 5· 16-24: xxxviii n . 27
1.21J : 117 In De anima
2. 14: 102 n. 21 478. 19: 163
Mut . In Nic .
153 . 3: 102 n . 21 la Hoche (T5) : ·111, , xx,
Plant . XXIII, XXV, X, v-vii, xli- liii,

151: xxxi n. 4--9. 52, 52 n . J, 53. 55-60,

153. 2: 102 n. 21 76, 158n. 4
 212 Index Locorum
Phll ponu In Xtc. (co nt .) Gorg.
I,£ Ho h (T6): -<), 52, 52 n . 470 0 1 : xviii n.6
J, SJ, 55-60, 76, 15 n. 4 500 164n. 6
In Porph . qwnque t•oce SOl Ill
llb29-JI: 75 Leg.
6JI B: 66
Phllo tratu
\' 666 63
677 0 : xviii n.6
1. : u Fa\onnu fr. 27
677-8: 6o n . 6
Ban azz1
67 0: 121
I . 10: XXXII n .
2 . s67- : 54 n. 5
823 E- 24 : 165 n. 7
2. 594: 54 n . 5 59 B: 9
2 . 61s : 54 n . s
894 164 n . 6
90 D: 34 n. 35
Phouu Lys .
Bib!. 214 D: 95
115"27: 53 n. Parm .
15 : 540·5 128 164 n . 6
l69bl : 97. 102 Phaed.
169b22: 101 66 : 164 n. 6
169b24: l 2 94 A: 102
169b27-<): I 02 109 102
169b3o-5 . \'11-X\'111, I I I Phaedr.
170.1-J: 104-6 250 137
170°12: I 12 270 B- : 66, 67
170•23: 105 Phi!.
170"25-3: lion . 33 -B: 166
170"39-41' X\'11 58-Q : 166
170b2 110, 136 65: 166
170bJ-J5' 113 Prot .
170b4: 110 333 B: 89
170bJI ' 102, 107 338 E-342 A: 64
439• 61 n . 1 Rep .
440"33' 67 432 B: 164 n . 6
462"17' 95 121
Plato 89
40 n.
AICib I
133 66n. 12
220 E: 165 n. 7
nt
242 -0: see X nophanes 21
109 0 : 6o n. 6
A29 DK
Epmomis
248 . 157
974: xxvii, 59, 6o n . 6 Theaet
 Index Locorum 213

152 ee Protagora 8o B 1 0 K 1120 -0: 126 n . 59, 147

152 E: 144 1120 E: 138
156: 139 1121 - : 151
IS7B- : 139 1121 0: ISO
157 0 : I 5 I n . I I 1123 B-e: ISO, '54
160 0: 143 1122 E: 126 n . 6o
161 144 1124 0 : 126 n . 59
1610: '44 Anim. procr.
162 0 : X XX II n . 1018b6: 98
163 B: '44 ontra Epic . beat .
164 B: 144 1091 A: 166
165 B- : '44 1094: t66
169 E: IJO, 145 De e ilio
170 A-B : IJO, 145 6o3 : 73
171 144 De prof. virt .
171 E: 144 78 0 : 74
172 144 82 E-F see Pyrrho T 178
178 B: 130, 145 Oecle a aizzi
179 IJO, 145 De Stoic. rep .
181 63 n .s 1056 : 84 see F ii . 997
182: 139 1057 A: see F iii . 177
184 B-186 A : 139 De tranq . an .
198A: 164n. 6 465 see 0 mocritus 68 B 3
Tim . K
'7 : 52 472 E: 74
22 E: 6o n . 6 Gryll .
48 -0 : 8t 990 : t63
51 B: 89 M or.
53 0 : 8t 1 127 B: xxxvii
Pericl
Plotinu
4 : 63 n . 4
Enn .
olon
Ill 1. 2 : 84
4.2- xxviii n . 25
1. 7: 9
Them .
J7 . 16: 98
2 . 7: 95
Plutar h
P lybius
Adv. ol .
12 . 8: 7'
11o8 126n. 59
tto8 F: 101 Pol stratu
1109 148 De contemptu
111o E: 101 col. "ii . 27 : 147
1 12o- B: see ristippus I ol. ni• 26: 90
211 ' iannantoni ). Xi ' -11: 103
 214 Index Lo orum
Poly tratu De contnnptu (cont .} P .-Piut.
col. x.·1x: 100 1. 3: xxix n .
De philosoplua in Eus . PE 1. : see Ari tippus
P .Her 1520: xxxvu I A 168 iannantoni
Porphyr)
/sag . Pyrrho
(. 14-16: X\· j 0 .4, 70 T 1A D cle a aizzi: 87, 93,
96, IOJ , 105, 127, IJO, IJO
Po 1doniu n.
F 5 Edel tein-Kidd : 7 T 6 Decle a IOJ n .
F 14 Edel tein-Kidd : 5 T 7 Decle a 108
F 2 4 Edel tein-Kidd : xm, T 8 Decle a IJI
·xxvi1 T 10 Decleva aizzi : 92 , 130,
F 2 7 Edel tein-Kidd : see IJJ
Pyrrho T 17A Decleva T 14 Decleva aizi: 96
aJZZI T 15A Decleva Caizzi: 96,
T 1: 65 n . 9 lOO, IJJ
Proclu T 158 Decleva aJZZI: 107,
In Ttm . 129, IJO,
20. 2: 52-J T 17A Decle a aJZZJ: 133
5· 2 : 52 T 178 Decle a aiZZJ: lOO,
IJJ
Protagora T 20 Decle a Caizzi: 134
o A 17b OK : 146 T 23 Decle a a•zz1: 133
0 8 I OK : 143-6 T 37 Decle a a•zz1: 134
o 8 4 OK : xxxii n ., 36 T 44 Decl a aizzi: 88, 91
P -Ari t1ppu T 48A Decleva Caizzi: 134
m D. L. 5 - 4: 73
T 51 Decleva aJZZJ: 88
T 52 Decleva aJZZJ: 88, 126
P .-An totle T 53 Decle a a•zz1 : 87-109
fr. 32 Ro e: 67 T 54 Decl va aJZZJ : 112, 127
P .- alen T 55 ecle a a•zz1: 127
Htst . phrl T 56 Decl va 31ZZI: I OJ
J: XXIX n . T 57 De le a aJZZJ: 128
93 = 162
T 58 Decleva aJZZJ: 129
T 59 Decleva aJZZJ : 92, 100,
P .-Herenn1u 107, IIJ, 129
In Met T 61 8 Decleva aJZZJ: 1 13
51 . : 91n.5,115n . 4o T 61 ' 3JZZI: 103,
P .-Piat IIJ
A rochus T 62 e leva aizz1: 93 n .,
95, lOO, IJO
7 31 A· 67
T 63A ecleva aizz1 : 127
 Index Locorum 215
T 64 Decl a atzzt: 87, 93, 1. 187-205: 90, 105
100, IJO I . I90: 101
T 69A-H ecleva aizzi: 96 , I. 192: 105
IJO 1. 198--9: 22 o . 22, 94, IOI,
T 69M Decleva aizzi: 135 IIJ , II4, II40. 36
T 77 Decle a Caizzi: 89 1. 206: 131
T 78 Decle a atzzt: 89 1.210: II6o . 46,151
1. 215: xxx, Io8 o . JI, 136 (see
cholium Anonym.
also Aristippu I 212
in Hermogencs ll£pt c1'raa£wv
iaooaotooi)
17= xv, 53-4, 54 n . 5
1. 222: 116 o . 46
en ea I . 225: see Xeoopphaoe 2 I A
Epist. 35 K
14: see ri tippu A 167 1. 216: 144 o .

Giannaotooi I. 229-30: 125

33· 4 : 76 2. 14-17: ISO

88. 44: 63 o . 9 2. 8&-,: 104
89: 6s o . 7 2. I 8: IJI
90: see Po idooius fr. 284 2. 240: IIJ
104: see Po idooiu T 81 3· 138 : 116 n . 46
at. quaest. 3· 28o-1: 128, 131
I. J .: 151 M
1. 2-3 : xxxii o.
extu Empiricus 3· 2: 100
PH 6. 53 : see ri tippu 219
I. 2: Ill iaonaotooi
I. 8: 101
7· 6 : 34 o. 35
I . IJ : 125 7· 10: 89
1.21-4: 129,IJO,IJI 7· 11 : see ri tippus I 166
I. 25: 107 iaonaotoni
I . 27-8: IJO 7 · 16: 6s-6
1. 29: 107 o . 30 7 · I7-I9 : 66
I. 36-8 : 116 7· 2o-1: 61, 6s-6
I. 38--9: 125 7· 24: 9
1.69: 16so. 7 · 27-37: ISO
I. 102 : ISO
7· 37: 95
I. 108: ISO 7· 49: see 1etrodoru 70 25
I. I 12: 150 I
1.118--9: ISO,ISI 7· ss: 150
I . 129: 122 7· 6o-4: I44 n.
I . 134: I22 7.88: X. 110 .
I . IJS : 123 7· 93 : 67
1. I 8o-s: I IJ, I t6 o . 46 7 · 171 : 119, 121
216 lnde · Lo orum
xtu 11 . 140: ee Pyrrho T 64
ecle a aizzi, Timon 844
1· 192. I\' H
21 tannantoni 11. 141 : see Pyrrho T 59, 6t
7· 194: 162 n . t Decleva aizzi, Timon
7· 199: XXX 38, 41 H
7. 203 : 14 n . 9
7 · 206: 150 impliciu
1· 244: 151 In at.
7· 2to-tt : 149. 191 3.30: X In .
7 · 349: tt6 n. 46 4 · s: xxvi n .
7 · 369: 147 In De anima
7· 394-s : 145, 146 266 . 14: 163
1· 413: ISO In De caelo
7· 414 : 151 153 . t6 : XV
7· 416 : see \'F ti . 276 ss8 . 19: ee Melis u 30 B 8
7 · 441-3 : 162 OK
. : 166n . 46 s63. 1= 98
. 40: tt6n . 46 In Phys .
. 63 : 14 n . 9, 150 22. 22: see Xenophane 21
. 195 . ISO 31 OK
. 215 . tt6n . 46 23 . 33-24. 6 : see Heraclitus 22
235 : 116 n . 46 sDK
. 396: see V 11 . 91 25 . 17=see Fii.312
9· 13 . 65 n 9 26. Jt-13 : seeTheophra tu
9· 43-7: I 53 p. 230
9· 55-6: X XII n . 26.13-15 : 82n .
9· 57 . ·xx u n . 28. 27: see letrodoru 70 3
9· 144: see Xenophane 21 B OK
24 K 6ts . 1 5= 53
9 21 · 116 n 46
otion .
9 337: t t6 n 46
m . L. 9· 2o: 156
10. 38 tt6n . 46
10 D . L. 9 · 21: 155
10 45 63
to 216 . tt6n . 46 10 D . L. 9. 115 : 134
11 t · reePyrrhoT6t peu tppu
ccle\a 'aizzi, Timon 841 m Proclus In Eucl (fr. 30
H Lang) : 164-5 n . 6
1 t 20 ste P} rrho T 62
'tt lpo
Dtclc\ a ' aizzi, Ttmon R38
H 11 0 26 Gtannantoni: 155
I I 42 I I 6 n . 46 • tobaeu
11 . 6(} : J 30
I 12 .3: 76
 Index Lo orum 217

1. t8 . td : 76n. 11. 140: 78 n. 3

2. 8. 21 : xxxi n. i1. 276: III
J . !J . 44: XXXI n . ii . 294: 64
trabo ii . 299 : 77
14. 2. 13 : 53 n . ii . 305: 78 n . 3
ii . JIO : 78 n. 3
uda ii . 3 12: 78, 78 n. 3
. . l4ptau{07J>, a. 3902 dl r : ii . 313 : 78 n . 3
54 n. 5 ii . 323 : 78 n . 3
.. l4ptaToKA~s, a. 3916 dl r ii . 325: 78 n . 3
(T1) : xix , XX , X i, XX , ii . 326 : 78 n . 3
XXXV,2-3, 51-4 ii. 363 : 7 n. 3
.v. J4ptaToKA7js, a. 3917 d) r : ii . 387 : 78 n . 3
54 ii . 413 : 79, 83 n. 11
.v. l4ptaToKA7js, a. 3918 dler: ii . 473 : 121
54, 54 n . 5 ii . 522 : 67
.V. dpx~. a. 4092 Adler: 77-8 ii. 524: 67
n. 3 ii . 527 : 83
.. e£o86aws, 8 142 dl r : ii . 528: 83
109 ii . 581 : 82
p
.v. poiJ-{JoaTWiJ-VAT/Opa., 224 ii . 634: 85
dler: 72 n. 5 ii . 913 : 84
. . .Ew'TCJ.8a.s, a 869 dl r ii . 917= 84
(T2) : XX , XXX i, 2-3 , 51-4 ii . 921 : 85 n. 13
.. EwT6.8T/s, a 871 dler: ii. 946 : 4
51 n . 2 ii. 948 : XXVII
F ii . 997: 84
I. I I: 8I ii. 1000: 84
i. 75 : 64 ii . 1028-4 : I
i. 85 : 77,7 n . 5 ii . 1130: 83 n . 12
i . 89 : 7 n . 3 jj , 1131 : 83
i . 90: 78 n . J, 82 iii . 12 : 77
i. 98: XX 11 jjj , 177: i l l
i. 102 : 78, So iii . t78: 141, 142
i. 107: 2 iii . 329: 83 n . 12
i. 146: 78 n . 3
yn . ius
i. 162 : 83
Dio
i. 493: 77 P etavius:
1, 35 - 36
i. 497 : 79
54 n. 5
i. 6ot : 8o
ti . 48 : 64 yrianus
i1. 91 : 11 I In I et
i1. 130: I I I 45 · 12: 95
21 Index Locorum
~ ynanu In ,\let . {cont .) F 795 H: 129
73 · 16: . xn n ., 90 n . 5, 110 n . F H: 129
too . 6: X\ n .3 F H: 63 n . 5
104. ts-tos . t 12: 63 n . 6 F H: 129
t63 . 33 = 95 F 24 H: 129
Tertulltanu F 35 H: IIJ
De animo F 837 H: IIJ, 129
17: 149, 1~1 n . 12 F 3 H: 92,95.129
F84o H : 129
Them• uu F 41 H : IOJ, IIJ
Drat . F 42 H: 93 n ., 100, IJO
23 . 2 s : 7o-t' 72 F 843 H : 127
24. 30 : 95 F 844 H: 7, lOO, IJO
Theocritu of h10 F 8s4 H: 112
m idymu In Dem . 6. 43: 16
n . 13 , 73 arro
m O .L . 5· 11 : 16 n . 13 ,73 De Ling. Lat .
Theodor tu to. 75: 53 n .
Cr . aff. cur . De philosophia
2. 20: 30 n . 33 m ug. De ci'!.'. Dei 19: xxx 11

4· 5-10: X IX n . V ita Aristotelis Marciana

4. 12: 7 n.s 26: 75
· 34: 15 n. 41-2 : 74
12 . so-t : 15 n.
V ita A ristoteli Vulgata
Theophra tu
11 : 75
fr . 224: see enophane 21 A
3' OK Vita Hesychii
fr . 225 : see Hera lttu 22 A 5 4 = 74
OK
Xenophan
fr. 227 : 62 n .
21 A I K : 156
fr 229· see :\Ietrodoru 70 A 3
21 28 K : 156
OK
21 29 OK : 62, 155
fr . 230·
21 30 OK: 62,62 n ., 155
fr 583 · XXX\jjj n 25
21 310K: 155
Timaeu f Taur. 21 A 35 OK: 156
m PolybJU 12 8 71 21 A 49 : 155
m Proclu In Hwod 403 : 74 21 B •s OK : •s6
T1mon 21 B t6 K: 156
F 779. H XII n. 21 B24 K : 156
F 782 H 128 21 B 25 OK: IOJ
F 783 . H 26, 129 2tB 4 DK:•s6
F 784 .H JO, 129, IJ4 Xenophon Kun . 6 s-to: 165 n . 7