APPENDIXTHE SOURCES
Plato.
1. It is not very often that Plato allows himself to dwell upon the history of philosophy as it was before the rise of ethical and epistemological inquiry; but when he does, his guidance is simply invaluable. His artistic gift and his power of entering into the thoughts of other men enabled him to describe the views of early philosophers in a thoroughly objective manner, and he never, except in a playful and ironical way, sought to read unthought-of meanings into the words of his predecessors. Of special value for our purpose are his contrast between Empedokles and Herakleitos (Soph.242 d), and his account of the relation between Zeno and Parmenides (Parm.128 a).
See Zeller,“Plato’s Mittheilungen über frühere und gleichzeitige Philosophen”(Arch.v. pp. 165 sqq.); and Index,s.v.Plato.
Aristotle.
2. As a rule, Aristotle’s statements about early philosophers are less historical than Plato’s. Not that he failed to understand the facts, but he nearly always discusses them from the point of view of his own system. He is convinced that his own philosophy accomplishes what all previous philosophers had aimed at, and their systems are therefore regarded as “lisping” attempts to formulate it (Met.Α, 10. 993 a 15). It is also to be noted that Aristotle regards some systems in amuch more sympathetic way than others. He is distinctly unfair to the Eleatics, for instance.
It is often forgotten that Aristotle derived much of his information from Plato, and we must specially observe that he more than once takes Plato’s irony too literally.
See Emminger,Die Vorsokratischen Philosophen nach den Berichten des Aristoteles, 1878. Index,s.v.Aristotle.
Stoics.
3. The Stoics, and especially Chrysippos, paid great attention to early philosophy, but their way of regarding it was simply an exaggeration of Aristotle’s. They did not content themselves with criticising their predecessors from their own point of view; they seem really to have believed that the early poets and thinkers held views hardly distinguishable from theirs. The word συνοικειοῦν, which Cicero renders byaccommodare, was used by Philodemos to denote this method of interpretation,[1030]which has had serious results upon our tradition, especially in the case of Herakleitos (p. 157).
Skeptics.
4. The same remarks applymutatis mutandisto the Skeptics. The interest of such a writer as Sextus Empiricus in early philosophy is to show that skepticism went back to an early date—as far as Xenophanes, in fact. But what he tells us is often of value; for he frequently quotes early views as to knowledge and sensation in support of his thesis.
Neoplatonists.
5. Under this head we have chiefly to consider the commentators on Aristotle in so far as they are independent of the Theophrastean tradition. Their chief characteristic is what Simplicius calls εὐγνωμοσύνη, that is, a liberal spirit of interpretation, which makes all early philosophers agree with one another in upholding the doctrine of a Sensible and anIntelligible World. It is, however, to Simplicius more than any one else that we owe the preservation of the fragments. He had, of course, the library of the Academy at his disposal.
TheDoxographi graeci.
6. TheDoxographi graeciof Professor Hermann Diels (1879) threw an entirely new light upon the filiation of the later sources; and we can only estimate justly the value of statements derived from these if we bear constantly in mind the results of his investigation. Here it will only be possible to give an outline which may help the reader to find his way in theDoxographi graeciitself.
The “Opinions” of Theophrastos
7. By the termdoxographerswe understand all those writers who relate the opinions of the Greek philosophers, and who derive their material, directly or indirectly, from the great work of Theophrastos, Φυσικῶν δοξῶν ιηʹ (Diog. v. 46). Of this work, one considerable chapter, that entitled Περὶ αἰσθήσεων, has been preserved (Dox.pp. 499-527). And Usener, following Brandis, further showed that there were important fragments of it contained in the commentary of Simplicius (sixth cent.A.D.) on the First Book of Aristotle’s Φυσικὴ ἀκρόασις (Usener,Analecta Theophrastea, pp. 25 sqq.). These extracts Simplicius seems to have borrowed in turn from Alexander of Aphrodisias (c.200A.D.); cf.Dox.p. 112 sqq. We thus possess a very considerable portion of the First Book, which dealt with the ἀρχαί as well as practically the whole of the last Book.
From these remains it clearly appears that the method of Theophrastos was to discuss in separate books the leading topics which had engaged the attention of philosophers from Thales to Plato. The chronological order was not observed; the philosophers were grouped according to the affinity of their doctrine, the differences between those who appeared to agree most closely being carefully noted. The First Book, however, was in some degree exceptional; for in it the order was that of the successive schools, and short historical and chronological notices were inserted.
Doxographers.
8. A work of this kind was, of course, a godsend to the epitomators and compilers of handbooks, who flourished more and more as the Greek genius declined. These either followed Theophrastos in arranging the subject-matter under heads, or else they broke up his work, and rearranged his statements under the names of the various philosophers to whom they applied. This latter class form the natural transition between the doxographers proper and the biographers, so I have ventured to distinguish them by the name ofbiographical doxographers.
ThePlacitaand Stobaios.
9. These are now represented by two works, viz. thePlacita Philosophorum, included among the writings ascribed to Plutarch, and theEclogae Physicaeof John Stobaios (c.470A.D.). The latter originally formed one work with theFlorilegiumof the same author, and includes a transcript of some epitome substantially identical with the pseudo-PlutarcheanPlacita. It is, however, demonstrable that neither thePlacitanor the doxography of theEclogaeis the original of the other. The latter is usually the fuller of the two, and yet the former must be earlier; for it was used by Athenagoras for his defence of the Christians in 177A.D.(Dox.p. 4). It was also the source of the notices in Eusebios and Cyril, and of theHistory of Philosophyascribed to Galen. From these writers many important corrections of the text have been derived (Dox.pp. 5 sqq.).
Another writer who made use of thePlacitais Achilles (notAchilles Tatius). Extracts from his Εἰσαγωγή to thePhaenomenaof Aratos are included in theUranologionof Petavius, pp. 121-164. His date is uncertain, but probably he belongs to the third centuryA.D.(Dox.p. 18).
Aetios.
10. What, then, was the common source of thePlacitaand theEclogae? Diels has shown that Theodoret (c.445A.D.) had access to it; for in some cases he gives a fuller form of statements made in these two works. Not only so, but he also names that source; for he refers us (Gr. aff. cur.iv. 31)to Ἀετίου τὴν περὶ ἀρεσκόντων συναγωγήν. Diels has accordingly printed thePlacitain parallel columns with the relevant parts of theEclogae, under the title ofAetii Placita. The quotations from “Plutarch” by later writers, and the extracts of Theodoret from Aetios, are also given at the foot of each page.
TheVetusta Placita.
11. Diels has shown further, however, that Aetios did not draw directly from Theophrastos, but from an intermediate epitome which he calls theVetusta Placita, traces of which may be found in Cicero (infra, § 12), and in Censorinus (De die natali), who follows Varro. TheVetusta Placitawere composed in the school of Poseidonios, and Diels now calls them the Poseidonian Ἀρέσκοντα (Über das phys. System des Straton, p. 2). There are also traces of them in the “Homeric Allegorists.”
It is quite possible, by discounting the somewhat unintelligent additions which Aetios made from Epicurean and other sources, to form a pretty accurate table of the contents of theVetusta Placita(Dox.pp. 181 sqq.), and this gives us a fair idea of the arrangement of the original work by Theophrastos.
Cicero.
12. So far as what he tells us of the earliest Greek philosophy goes, Cicero must be classed with the doxographers, and not with the philosophers; for he gives us nothing but extracts at second or third hand from the work of Theophrastos. Two passages in his writings fall to be considered under this head, namely, “Lucullus” (Acad.ii.), 118, andDe natura Deorum, i. 25-41.
(a)Doxography of the “Lucullus.”—This contains a meagre and inaccurately-rendered summary of the various opinions held by philosophers with regard to the ἀρχή (Dox.pp. 119 sqq.), and would be quite useless if it did not in one case enable us to verify the exact words of Theophrastos (Chap. I. p. 52,n.2). The doxography has come through the hands of Kleitomachos, who succeeded Karneades in the headship of the Academy (129B.C.).
(b)Doxography of the“De natura Deorum.”—A fresh light was thrown upon this important passage by the discovery atHerculaneum of a roll containing fragments of an Epicurean treatise, so like it as to be at once regarded as its original. This treatise was at first ascribed to Phaidros, on the ground of the reference inEpp. ad Att.xiii. 39. 2; but the real title, Φιλοδήμου περὶ εὐσεβείας, was afterwards restored (Dox.p. 530). Diels, however, has shown (Dox.pp. 122 sqq.) that there is much to be said for the view that Cicero did not copy Philodemos, but that both drew from a common source (no doubt Phaidros, Περὶ θεῶν) which itself went back to a Stoic epitome of Theophrastos. The passage of Cicero and the relevant fragments of Philodemos are edited in parallel columns by Diels (Dox.pp. 531 sqq.).
Hippolytos.
13. Of the “biographical doxographies,” the most important is Book I. of theRefutation of all Heresiesby Hippolytos. This had long been known as thePhilosophoumenaof Origen; but the discovery of the remaining books, which were first published at Oxford in 1854, showed finally that it could not belong to him. It is drawn mainly from some good epitome of Theophrastos, in which the matter was already rearranged under the names of the various philosophers. We must note, however, that the sections dealing with Thales, Pythagoras, Herakleitos, and Empedokles come from an inferior source, some merely biographical compendium full of apocryphal anecdotes and doubtful statements.
TheStromateis.
14. The fragments of the pseudo-PlutarcheanStromateis, quoted by Eusebios in hisPraeparatio Evangelica, come from a source similar to that of the best portions of thePhilosophoumena. So far as we can judge, they differ chiefly in two points. In the first place, they are mostly taken from the earliest sections of the work, and therefore most of them deal with the primary substance, the heavenly bodies and the earth. In the second place, the language is a much less faithful transcript of the original.
“Diogenes Laertios.”
15. The scrap-book which goes by the name of Diogenes Laertios, or Laertios Diogenes (cf. Usener,Epicurea, pp. 1 sqq.),contains large fragments of two distinct doxographies. One is of the merely biographical, anecdotic, and apophthegmatic kind used by Hippolytos in his first four chapters; the other is of a better class, more like the source of Hippolytos’ remaining chapters. An attempt is made to disguise this “contamination” by referring to the first doxography as a “summary” (κεφαλαιωδής) account, while the second is called “particular” (ἐπὶ μέρους).
Patristic doxographies.
16. Short doxographical summaries are to be found in Eusebios (P. E.x., xiv., xv.), Theodoret (Gr. aff. cur.ii. 9-11), Irenæus (C. haer.ii. 14), Arnobius (Adv. nat.ii. 9), Augustine (Civ. Dei, viii. 2). These depend mainly upon the writers of “Successions,” whom we shall have to consider in the next section.
Successions.
17. The first to write a work entitledSuccessions of the Philosopherswas Sotion (Diog. ii. 12; R. P. 4 a), about 200B.C.The arrangement of his work is explained inDox.p. 147. It was epitomised by Herakleides Lembos. Other writers of Διαδοχαί were Antisthenes, Sosikrates, and Alexander. All these compositions were accompanied by a very meagre doxography, and made interesting by the addition of unauthentic apophthegms and apocryphal anecdotes.
Hermippos.
18. The peripatetic Hermippos of Smyrna, known as Καλλιμάχειος (c.200B.C.), wrote several biographical works which are frequently quoted. The biographical details are very untrustworthy indeed; but sometimes bibliographical information is added, which doubtless rests upon the Πίνακες of Kallimachos.
Satyros.
19. Another peripatetic, Satyros, the pupil of Aristarchos, wrote (c.160B.C.)Lives of Famous Men. The same remarks apply to him as to Hermippos. His work was epitomised by Herakleides Lembos.
“Diogenes Laertios.”
20. The work which goes by the name of Laertios Diogenes is, in its biographical parts, a mere patchwork of allearlier learning. It has not been digested or composed by any single mind at all. It is little more than a collection of extracts made at haphazard, possibly by more than one successive possessor of the MS. But, of course, it contains much that is of the greatest value.
Eratosthenes and Apollodoros.
21. The founder of ancient chronology was Eratosthenes of Kyrene (275-194B.C.); but his work was soon supplanted by the metrical version of Apollodoros (c.140B.C.), from which most of our information as to the dates of early philosophers is derived. See Diels’ paper on the Χρονικά of Apollodoros inRhein. Mus.xxxi.; and Jacoby,Apollodors Chronik(1902).
The method adopted is as follows:—If the date of some striking event in a philosopher’s life is known, that is taken as hisfloruit(ἀκμή), and he is assumed to have been forty years old at that date. In default of this, some historical era is taken as thefloruit. Of these the chief are the eclipse of Thales 586/5B.C., the taking of Sardeis in 546/5B.C., the accession of Polykrates in 532/1B.C., and the foundation of Thourioi in 444/3B.C.Further details will easily be found by reference to the Index,s.v.Apollodoros.
1030. Cf. Cic.De nat. D.i. 15, 41:“Et haec quidem (Chrysippus) in primo libro de natura deorum, in secundo autem vult Orphei, Musaei, Hesiodi Homerique fabellas accommodare ad ea quae ipse primo libro de deis immortalibus dixerat, ut etiam veterrimi poetae, qui haec ne suspicati quidem sunt, Stoici fuisse videantur.”Cf. Philod.de piet. fr.c. 13, ἐν δὲ τῷ δευτέρῳ τά τε εἰς Ὀρφέα καὶ Μουσαῖον ἀναφερόμενα καὶ τὰ παρ’ Ὁμήρῳ καὶ Ἡσιόδῳ καὶ Εὐριπίδῃ καὶ ποιηταῖς ἄλλοις, ὡς καὶ Κλεάνθης, πειρᾶται συνοικειοῦν ταῖς δόξαις αὐτῶν.
1030. Cf. Cic.De nat. D.i. 15, 41:“Et haec quidem (Chrysippus) in primo libro de natura deorum, in secundo autem vult Orphei, Musaei, Hesiodi Homerique fabellas accommodare ad ea quae ipse primo libro de deis immortalibus dixerat, ut etiam veterrimi poetae, qui haec ne suspicati quidem sunt, Stoici fuisse videantur.”Cf. Philod.de piet. fr.c. 13, ἐν δὲ τῷ δευτέρῳ τά τε εἰς Ὀρφέα καὶ Μουσαῖον ἀναφερόμενα καὶ τὰ παρ’ Ὁμήρῳ καὶ Ἡσιόδῳ καὶ Εὐριπίδῃ καὶ ποιηταῖς ἄλλοις, ὡς καὶ Κλεάνθης, πειρᾶται συνοικειοῦν ταῖς δόξαις αὐτῶν.