writers is that the _Placita_ attributed to Plutarch, and the _Eclogae
physicae_, which was originally a part of the _Florilegium_ of Stobaeos,
are intimately related; and when the two are printed side by side, as
the reader finds them in the text of Diels, the likeness of the two is
most striking. At the same time the two books are not identical, and
each gives much material that the other omits. Stobaeos cannot have
copied from the work attributed to Plutarch, for even in passages that
occur in the _Placita_ Stobaeos not infrequently gives the fuller form;
nor can the writer of the _Placita_ have copied from Stobaeos, for
his work can be traced back nearly three centuries before the time of
Stobaeos. It was used by Athenagoras in his defence of the Christians
177 A.D. (_Dox._ p. 4); it was mentioned by Theodoret (_Dox._ p.
47); and important corrections of the text are made by Diels on the
authority of Eusebios, Cyril, and the pseudo-Galen, all of whom had
used it. Theodoret (_Therap._ IV. 31, _Dox._ 47) mentions the epitome
by Plutarch, but only after he has mentioned the _Placita_ of Aetios,
Ἀετίου τὴν περὶ ἀρεσκόντων συναγωγήν, and it is this work of Aetios which
Diels vindicates as the source both of Plutarch and of Stobaeos, while
Theodoret also quotes from it occasionally. A careful study of these
three writers and their methods enables Diels to reconstruct a large part
of the work of Aetios; and it is the sections of this work bearing on
the earlier philosophers which I have translated (see III. English Index
under ‘Aetios’). Of Aetios himself almost nothing is known; the work
assigned to him must have been written between the age of Augustus and
the age of the Antonines (_Dox._ 100). It was in four books, divided into
chapters by topics, and in each chapter the opinions of the philosophers
were given not by schools but by affinity of their opinions.
§ 16. Fortunately we are in a position to say what was the beginning of
that style of composition of which the work of Aetios is an example.
Aristotle, as we have seen, paid considerable attention to the earlier
thinkers and often stated their opinions as the introduction to his own
position. A list of the works of his pupil and successor Theophrastos
is given by Diogenes Laertios (v. 46, 48), and in the list there is
mentioned a book in eighteen chapters περὶ τῶν φυσικῶν, and a little
later another book in sixteen chapters of φυσικῶν δόξων. We have a long
fragment _de sensibus_ which Diels has edited in connection with the
later doxographists (_Dox._ pp. 499 f.), and from this we can learn
something of his method. In this fragment he discusses the opinions of
his predecessors as to sense-perception, grouping them by affinity, and
not chronologically or by schools. The work is done conscientiously,
and is based on a study of the original writings of the thinkers he
treats (_v. supra_, pp. 230 f.). Other fragments from the first book
have been pointed out by Brandis and Usener (_Analecta Theophrastea_)
in Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s _Physics_; while we have also
several pages preserved in Philo _de incorrupt. mundi_. In the first
book, to judge from the fragments in Simplicius, Theophrastos arranged
the earlier thinkers by schools and accompanied his statements with brief
biographical notices (e.g. pp. 11, 257 _supra_). Such a work was of the
greatest convenience to later writers, and especially to the compilers
who were so numerous in the age of the decadence. In fact the whole
doxographic tradition may be traced back to this work of Theophrastos.
In the last centuries of the pre-Christian era there was an unusual
interest in the biographies of famous men. Apocryphal anecdotes were
gathered from popular gossip, deduced from the works of these writers, or
made up with no foundation at all. In the second century several writers
of the peripatetic school wrote the lives of the philosophers after this
fashion. We hear of βίοι by Hermippos and by Satyros, and of the διαδοχαὶ
τῶν φιλοσόφων of Satyros; and we are told that Herakleides of Lembos
worked over what his immediate predecessors had collected. Phanias of
Eresos is one of the ‘authorities’ of this school. Much of this material
has come down to us in the work of Diogenes Laertios.
On the book of Theophrastos, and on the ‘Lives’ or the ‘Successions of
the philosophers,’ as they were often called, the later doxographic
writers based their work. Even in Diogenes Laertios there is material
from both sources, and we can define some fragments almost in
Theophrastos’ own words. In the _Philosophumena_ of Hippolytos the two
sources are pretty clearly distinguished: chapters 1-4 and 10 (on Thales,
Pythagoras, Empedokles, Herakleitos and Parmenides, see III. English
Index under ‘Hippolytos’) are made up of personal anecdotes such as
writers of the lives were eager to collect and to repeat; chapters 6-8
and 11 (on Anaximandros, Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, and Xenophanes) come
indirectly from the work of Theophrastos. The _Stromateis_ attributed by
Eusebios to Plutarch (see III. English Index under ‘Plutarch,’ and _Dox._
pp. 579 f.) are like the last-mentioned chapters of Hippolytos, though
the language is often more careless.
A comparison of Aetios with Hippolytos, the _Stromateis_, and the
doxographic material in Cicero and Censorinus (from Varro) makes it
clear that the _Placita_ of Aetios are not based directly on the work of
Theophrastos. Indeed (_Dox._ p. 100, and pp. 178 f.) it is evident from
an examination of the work of Aetios by itself that much of his material
is drawn from Stoic and Epicurean sources. As the main source for what
remains after Stoic and Epicurean passages have been cut out, Diels
postulates an earlier _Placita_ (_Vetusta placita_, pp. 215 f.). He finds
traces of this in the work of Varro as used by Censorinus, in Cicero’s
_Tusculan Disputations_, and in some later writers.
§ 17. Résumé. The doxographic tradition starts with the work of
Theophrastos on the opinions of his predecessors. On this work is based
immediately the _Vetusta placita_; on the _Vetusta placita_ is based the
_Placita_ of Aetios, and there are traces of its use by later writers;
the _Placita_ of Aetios may be partially reconstructed from Plutarch’s
Placita and Stobaeos’ _Eclogae_. Again, using Theophrastos and gathering
anecdotes from every side, writers of the second century B.C. wrote the
lives of the philosophers. A line of tradition probably independent of
the _Placita_ just considered appears in the work of Hippolytos, who used
now the work of Theophrastos, now the lives; in Diogenes Laertios, where
material from most various sources is indiscriminately mixed; and in the
_Stromateis_ attributed to Plutarch by Eusebios, which are related to the
better material of Hippolytos. Simplicius used Theophrastos directly.
Finally in the fragments of Philodemos and the related material in
Cicero’s _Lucullus_ and _De natura deorum_ we find traces of a use of
Theophrastos either by Philodemos himself, or in a common source of both
Cicero and Philodemos—probably a Stoic epitome of Theophrastos made by
the Phaedros whom Cicero mentions.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Cf. Herm. _I. G. P._ 10 (_Dox._ 653).
[2] In references to Simpl. in Arist. _de Anima_ and _Physica_, the first
numbers give folio and line, the second, page (and line) in the edition
published by the Berlin Academy.
[3] Cf. Plato, _Theaet._ 174 A; Diog. Laer. i. 34.
[4] Epiphan. iii. 1; _Dox._ 589; Herm. _I. G. P._ 10; _Dox._ 653.
[5] The fragment is discussed at length by Ziegler, _Archiv f. d. Gesch.
d. Philos._ i. (1883) p. 16 ff.
[6] Cf. Theophrastos (_Dox._ 478) under Anaxagoras, _infra_.
[7] Cf. Theophrastos, _Dox._ 494, _infra_, p. 12.
[8] _Archiv f. d. Geschichte d. Phil._ i. p. 16 sqq.
[9] Aet. iii. 16; _Dox._ 381.
[10] Aet. iii. 10; _Dox._ 376. Cf. Plut. _Strom._ 2; _Dox._ 579.
[11] κύκλος, the circle or wheel in which the stars are set, and in which
they revolve. The circle of the moon is farther from the earth, and last
comes the circle of the sun.
[12] Cf. Aet. ii. 15-25, _infra_.
[13] Aet. iii. 6; _Dox._ 374.
[14] Cf. Aet. iii. 3; _Dox._ 367.
[15] Epiphan. iii. 2; _Dox._ 589.
[16] _Rhein. Mus._ xxxi. 27.
[17] For a discussion of the above fragment, v. _Archiv f. d. Geschichte
d. Phil._ i. 315.
[18] Cf. Arist. _Phys._ i. 4; and _de Coelo_ iii. 5.
[19] V. Epiph. _adv. Haer._ iii. 3; _Dox._ 589.
[20] Aet. iii. 15; _Dox._ 380.
[21] Aet. ii. 13; 342; ii. 20; 348; ii. 25; 356.
[22] Aet. ii. 22; 352.
[23] Aet. ii. 13; 342.
[24] Aet. ii. 16; 346.
[25] Aet. iii. 4; 370.
[26] Aet. iii. 3; 368.
[27] Aet. iii. 5; 373,
[28] Cf. Aet. iii. 15; 379 _infra_ and Arist. _Meteor._ ii. 7, _supra_.
[29] Aet. i. 7; 302.
[30] I keep Bywater’s numbers, though I omit some of his fragments. Such
omissions are referred to in the critical notes.
[31] Cf. Galen. _Hist. Phil._ 64; _Dox._ 626.
[32] The text follows in the main the edition of Bergk-Hiller, _Poet.
Lyr. Graec._, Leipzig, 1890.
[33] Zeller, _Vorsokratische Philosophie_, p. 530, n. 3.
[34] Zeller, 526, n. 1. No author is given in the context; Karsten
follows Fabricius in accrediting it to Xenophanes.
[35] Zeller, 524, n. 2. Cf. Arist. _Rhet._ ii. 23; 1399 b 6.
[36] Zeller, 525, n. 2. Diog. Laer. iii. 16; Cic. _de nat. Deor._ i. 27.
[37] Zeller, 525, n. 3. Cf. Diog. Laer. ix. 18; Sext. Emp. _Pyrrh._ i.
224.
[38] Cf. Stob. _Ecl. Phys._ ii. 282, ἐκ πυρὸς γὰρ τὰ πάντα καὶ εἰς πῦρ τὰ
πάντα τελευτᾷ, which Karsten does not assign to Xenophanes.
[39] Zeller, 541, n. 1. Cf. Sext. Emp. _Pyrrh._ ii. 30.
[40] Cf. Arist. _de Coelo_ ii. 13; 294 a 21.
[41] Zeller, 549, n. 2. Burnett, ‘All are free to guess.’
[42] Bergk⁴ interprets φροντίδα by _carmen_.
[43] Hiller, _Deut. Litt. Zeitg._, 1886, Coll. 474-475, suggests ‘(Men
know the wanderings of Odysseus) from the beginning as Homer tells them,
since all have learned them.’
[44] Cf. Plutarch, _Amat._ p. 763 D; _Is. et Os._ p. 379 B.
[45] Cf. Theod. _Graec. Aff. Cur._ iii. p. 49.
[46] Two passages from the _Rhet._ ii. 23 are translated above, p. 78.
Extracts from the book ordinarily called _De Xenophane, Zenone, Gorgia_,
and ascribed to Aristotle, are in part translated below, p. 80, n. 2 ff.,
in connection with the fragment of Theophrastos which covers exactly the
same ground.
[47] V. Zeller, _Vorsokr. Phil._ i. 513, n. 1; Diels’ _Dox._ p. 110;
Teichmüller, _Studien_, p. 607.
[48] Cf. Arist. _Xen. Zen. Gorg._ 977 a 23. It is natural that god should
be one; for if there were two or more, he would not be the most powerful
and most excellent of all.... If, then, there were several beings, some
stronger, some weaker, they would not be gods; for it is not the nature
of god to be ruled. Nor would they have the nature of god if they were
equal, for god ought to be the most powerful; but that which is equal is
neither better nor worse than its equal.
[49] Cf. Arist. _X. Z. G._ 977 a 19. He adds: For even if the stronger
were to come from the weaker, the greater from the less, or the better
from the worse, or on the other hand the worse from the better,
still being could not come from not-being, since this is impossible.
Accordingly god is eternal.
[50] Cf. Arist. _X. Z. G._ 977 b 6. The second part reads: But if there
were several parts, these would limit each other. The one is not like
not-being nor like a multiplicity of parts, since the one has nothing by
which it may be limited.
[51] Arist. _X. Z. G._ 977 b 13. He adds: Nothing, however, can be moved
into not-being, for not-being does not exist anywhere. But if there is
change of place among several parts, there would be parts of the one.
Therefore the two or more parts of the one may be moved; but to remain
immovable and fixed is a characteristic of not-being. The one is neither
movable nor is it fixed; for it is neither like not-being, nor like a
multiplicity of being.
[52] Arist. _X. Z. G._ 977. Since god is a unity, he is homogeneous in
all his parts, and sees and hears and has other sensations in all his
parts. Except for this some parts of god might rule and be ruled by one
another, a thing which is impossible. Being homogeneous throughout he is
a sphere in form; for it could not be spheroidal in places but rather
throughout.
[53] Epiph. _adv. Haer._ iii. 9; _Dox._ 590.
[54] Zeller, _Vorsokr. Phil._ 543, n. 1.
[55] Zeller, _Vorsokr. Phil._ p. 526, n. 4; _Arch. f. d. Gesch. d. Phil._
ii. 1889, pp. 1-5.
[56] Epiph. _adv. Haer._ iii. 9; _Dox._ 590.
[57] _Archiv f. d. Gesch. d. Phil._ iii. p. 173.
[58] Stein, _Symbol_. p. 782; Bernays, _Rhein. Mus._ vii. 115; Zeller,
738 and n. 1.
[59] Following Karsten and Preller; Stein rejects the interpretation.
[60] Cf. _Soph._ 217 C.
[61] V. Parmenides, Frag. v. 104.
[62] Karsten understands ‘heat and cold,’ Diels ‘perceiving and thinking.’
[63] V. Herm. _Irr. Gen. Phil._ 6; _Dox._ 652.
[64] Cf. vv. 123-131.
[65] V. Simpl. _Phys._ 8: 34, 14.
[66] Cf. Arist. _Metaph._ ii. 4; 1001 b 8.
[67] Cf. Diels, _Archiv f. d. Gesch. d. Phil._ i. 245; Zeller, i.⁵ 593 n.
1.
[68] Arist. _Phys._ vii. 5, 250ᵃ, 20.
[69] Reading πρὸς ταῦτα λυθήσεται, which, as Mr. G. D. Lord suggests
to me, is probably the source of the corruption προστανλυθήσεται. The
Vatican vulgate combines both readings.
[70] The paraphrase above (Fr. 3) gives the argument in fuller form.
[71] Zeller i.⁵ 613 n. 1 suggests ὑπ’ ἰοῦ ῥέων, ‘passing away because of
rust.’
[72] Cf. Galen, 27; _Dox._ 615 sq.
[73] Cf. Epiph. _Haer._ i. 7; _Dox._ 589.
[74] Cf. 25; _Dox._ 574.
[75] Stein omits 312 from his numbering of the lines.
[76] Cf. _Dox._ p. 90, n. 3.
[77] Cf. Parmenides v. 112.
[78] In Empedokles’ verses, αἰθὴρ regularly means _air_.
[79] θνητά, ‘perishable things’ in contrast with the elements, might
almost be rendered ‘things on the earth.’
[80] φύσις here seems to mean ‘nature,’ and not ‘origin.’
[81] θάμνος, ‘bush,’ I have rendered regularly ‘plant.’
[82] Cf. Aet. v. 19; _Dox._ 430.
[83] Cf. Cicero, _Tusc._ I. 9: ‘Empedocles animum esse censet cordi
suffusum sanguinem.’
[84] Cf. p. 119, note 1.
[85] Cf. Galen, _Hist. Phil._ 118; _Dox._ 642.
[86] Reading κινούμενον with Diels.
[87] I.e. things are called after the element or elements (homoeomeries)
which predominate in their make-up.
[88] Cf. Herakleitos, Fr. 68.
[89] Cf. 265 b 22.
[90] Cf. _Met._ 989 b 15.
[91] Cf. iii. 4; 429 b 24.
[92] Cf. iv. 4; 1007 b 25.
[93] Cf. Theophr. _Phys. op._ Frag. 19; _Dox._ 493.
[94] I translate the suggestion of Diels in his notes.
[95] Cf. Aet. iv. 1, _supra_, p. 256.
[96] Cf. the consideration of this topic by Zeller in the _Archiv f. d.
Gesch. d. Philos._ Bd. V. (1892) p. 165 f.
[97] See I. Index of Sources, ‘Plato.’ Cf. _Krat._ 401 D, 402 A, 412 D,
439 B, 440 C, _Theaet._ 152 D.
[98] _Phaed._ 97 B, _Gorg._ 465 C, _Phaed._ 72 C, _Legg._ 595 A.
[99] _Parm._ 52, 53 ap. _Soph._ 237 A, 258 D; 98 ap. _Theaet._ 180 E;
103-105 ap. _Soph._ 244 E; 132 ap. _Symp._ 178 B.
[100] Cf. Simpl. _Phys._ 7 r 29, 42 and 19 87, 1.
[101] _Theaet._ 183 E, _Soph._ 237 A.
[102] _Phaedr._ 261 D.
[103] _Parm._ 128 B.
[104] _Apol._ 26 D, _Krat._ 400 A, 409 A, 413 A, _Legg._ 967 B.
[105] See _supra_, p. 133 f.; also _Phileb._ 16 C, 23 C, _Pol._ 530 D,
600 A.
[106] _Die Einheitslehre Heraklits_, p. 17 f.
[107] See I. Index of Sources, under ‘Aristotle.’
[108] Emminger, _Die vorsokratische Philosophie der Griechen nach den
Berichten des Aristoteles_. Würzburg 1878.
[109] _Meta._ 1078 b 12.
[110] _Meta._ 1036 b 18.
[111] _Meta._ 987 a 1.
[112] Herakl. 46; Parm. 146-149; Emped. 182-183, 219.
[113] Herakl. 84; Emped. 191-192, 314-315, 336-337, 423-424.
[114] See Index of Sources under ‘Kleanthes.’
[115] E.g. 78 ap. _Moral._ 106 E; 95 ap. 166 C.
[116] E.g. Emped. 272 ap. _Moral._ 917 C; 369 ap. _Moral._ 996 B.
[117] Emped. 232 ap. _Moral._ 745 C; 154-155 ap. _Moral._ 925 B; Parmen.
29-30 ap. _Moral._ 1114 D.
[118] _Transactions of American Philol. Assoc._ XXVIII. pp. 82-83.
[119] Simplicius copies the same error in line 78, probably finding it in
his copy of Empedokles.
[120] Diels, _Doxographi Graeci_, p. 112, shows that Simplicius used the
work of Alexander of Aphrodisias.
[121] Cf. the correct form Simp. _Phys._ 159, 15; it is not unlikely that
lines 52, 53 _ap._ 135, 21, and 132 _ap._ 39, 18 were also taken from
Plato.
[122] Four out of the six quotations from Herakleitos are given either in
Plato or Aristotle, or both; Frag. 20 comes directly or indirectly from a
Stoic source.
INDEXES
I. _INDEX OF SOURCES_
The references are to the critical notes. Anaximandros (Ad.), Herakleitos
(H.), Zeno (Z.), Melissos (M.), and Anaxagoras (A.), are referred to by
fragments; Parmenides (P.) and Empedokles (E.) by lines. Other references
are by pages (p.)
Achilles (commonly called Tatius) in Petavii _de doctrina
temporum_. Antwerp 1703. H. 119; Z. 12; E. 138, 154
Aelian _de natura animalium_, ed. Hercher. E. 257-260, 438-439
Aeneas Gazaeus, _Theophrastos_, ed. Wolf. Turici 1560. H. 82
Albertus Magnus _de vegetabilibus_, ed. Meyer. H. 51
Alexander of Aphrodisias, _Commentaries on Aristotle_. H. 32, 84,
121
Amelius in Eusebios, _Praeparatio evangelicae_. H. 2
Ammonius on Aristotle _de interpretatione_. P. 60; E. 347-351
_Anecdota Graeca_, ed. Bekker. Berlin 1821. E. 156
Apollonius, _Epistolae_, in Hercher, _Scriptores epistolographi_.
Paris 1873. H. 130, 133
Apuleius _de mundo_, ed. Goldbacher. Wien 1876. H. 55, 59
Aristides Quintilianus _de musica_, ed. Meibomius. Amst. 1652. H.
68, 74
Aristokles in Eusebios, _Praeparatio evangelicae_. M. 17
Aristotle (Edition of the Berlin Academy), Ad. 1; H. 2, 32, 37, 41,
43, 46, 51, 55, 57, 59, 105; Z. 12, 25; P. 52-58, 103-104, 132,
146-149; E. 36-39, 48-50, 69-73, 92, 98, 100, 104-107, 139-141,
145, 146-148, 165, 166-167, 168, 175, 182-183, 197-198, 199-201,
208, 219, 221, 236-237, 244, 270, 273-274, 279, 280, 287-311,
313b, 316-325, 326, 330-332, 333-335, 425-427
Arius Didymus in Eusebios, _Praeparatio evangelicae_. H. 42
Athenaeos, _Deipnosophistae_. H. 16, 54; Z. 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23; E.
214, 383-384, 405-411
Athenagoras, _Legatio_ in Migne, _Patrologia Graeca_, vol. vi. E.
34-35
Aulus Gellius, _Noctes Atticae_. H. 16; E. 441
Caelius Aurelianus _de moribus acutis et chronicis_, ed. Wetstein.
Amst. 1709. P. 150-155
Cedrenus, _Chronicles_ in _Scriptores historiae Byzantinae_. Bonn
1838. E. 355
Censorinus _de die natali_, ed. Hultsch. Lips. 1867. H. 87
Cicero, _opera_. H. 113, 114
Clement of Alexandria (references are to the pages of Potter’s
edition, Oxford 1715). H. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16, 17, 19, 20,
21, 23, 27, 31, 49, 54, 60, 64, 67, 68, 74, 77, 78, 79, 80, 86,
101, 102, 104, 110, 111, 116, 118, 122, 123, 124, 125, 127, 130;
Z. 1, 5, 6; P. 29-30, 40, 59-60, 90-93, 133-139; E. 26-28, 33,
55-57, 74, 78, 81, 130-133, 147-148, 165, 342-343, 344-346,
366-368, 383-384, 385, 390-391, 400-401, 404, 445-446, 447-451
Columella _de re rustica_, ed. Ernesti. 1774. H. 53
Cornutus, _Compendium graecae theologiae_. E. 397-399
Cyrillus _adversum Julianum_ in Migne, _Patrologia Graeca_. E.
412-414
Didymos, _Geoponica_ in Niclas, _Geoponicorum libri xx_. Lips.
1781. E. 441
Dio Cassius, _Historia Romana_. H. 67
Dio Chrysostom, _Orations_, ed. Reiske. H. 80
Diodorus Siculus, _Bibliotheca historica_. E. 354
Diogenes Laertios _de vitis philosophorum_. H. 4, 16, 17, 19, 22,
33, 48, 62, 69, 71, 80, 103, 112, 113, 114, 119, 131, 132; Z. 14,
18, 24; P. 28-30, 54-56; E. 1, 6, 24-32, 34-35, 67-68, 352-363,
383-384, 415, 417
Draco Stratoniceus _de metris poeticis_, ed. Hermann. Lips. 1812.
Z. 28
Elias Cretensis, p. 54
Epicharmos in Mullach, _Fragmenta Philos. Graec._ H. 81
Epictetus, _Dissertationes_. H. 85
_Etymologicum Magnum_. H. 66; Z. 18; E. 150
Eusebios, _Praeparatio evangelicae_. H. 2, 3, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25,
110, 122, 124, 125; Z. 1, 5, 6; M. 17; P. 60; E. 33-35, 377-380,
412-414, 450-451
Eustathios, _Commentaries on Homer_. H. 48, 66, 74, 119; Z. 13, 17; E.
168, 182-183, 405-407
_Florilegium Monacense_, ed. Meineke. H. 132, 134, 135
Gaisford, _Poetae minores Graeci_. P. 151-153; E. 169-185, 210-213,
240-242, 244-246
Galen, in _Scriptores medici_, ed. Kuhn. H. 58, 74, 113; Z. 14; P.
150; E. 91, 98, 100, 151, 276-278
Glykas, _Annales_, ed. Bekker, Bonn 1836, in _Corpus script.
Byzant._ H. 74
Gregory Nazianzen, _Orations_. H. 130
Hephaestion, _Enchiridion_, ed. Gaisford. Lips. 1832. E. 164
Herakleitos (pseudo-), _Epistolae_ in Bywater’s _Heraclitus_. H.
12, 39, 40, 60, 121
Herakleitos (Herakleides), _Allegoriae Homericae_. H. 22, 67, 81; E.
34-35
Hermeias _on Plato’s Phaedros_, ed. Ast. H. 74
Herodian, _Reliquiae_, ed. Lentz. Lips. 1870. Z. 28, 29, 30, 31
Hesychius, _Lexicon_. H. 80
Hierokles, _Commentary on the Carmen aureum_, in Mullach,
_Fragmenta Philos. Graec._ vol. i. E. 385-386, 389
Hippokrates, in Bywater’s _Heraclitus_. H. 39, 61, 66, 69, 70, 82
Hippolytos, _Refutatio omnium haeresium_, ed. Duncker, Schneidewin.
Göttingen 1859. H. 1, 2, 13, 21, 24, 26, 28, 29, 35, 36, 44,
45, 47, 50, 52, 57, 58, 67, 68, 69, 71, 79, 101, 123; Z. 14; E.
33-35, 110-111, 333-335, 338-341, 348-349, 369-370
Iamblichos _de mysteriis_ &c. H. 11, 12, 29, 69, 79, 82, 83, 95,
105, 114, 128, 129; E. 415-420
Iohannes Lydus _de mensibus_, ed. Bekker. Berlin 1837, in _Corpus
scriptorum historiae Byzantinae_. H. 87
Iohannes Siceliotas in Walz, _Rhetores Graeci_. Stuttgart 1836. H. 2
Julian, _Orations_, ed. Spanheim. Lips. 1696. H. 10, 16, 68, 80, 85;
E. 388
Kleanthes’ Hymn to Zeus, in Heeren’s _Stobaei Eclogae Physicae_.
1792. H. 19, 28, 91
Kleomedes περὶ μετεώρων, ed. Bakius. Lips. 1832. H. 69
Linos (pseudo-) in Mullach, _Fragmenta Philos. Graec._ vol. i. H. 19
Lucian, _Dialogues_. H. 14, 44, 67, 79, 114; E. 355
Macrobius, on _Somnium Scipionis_, and _Saturnalia_. H. 31; E. 150
Marcus Antoninus, _Commentaries_. H. 25, 34, 69, 73, 84, 90; E. 138
Maximus Confessor, _Sermones_, ed. Combefisius. Paris 1675. H. 34,
136, 137
Maximus Tyrius, _Dissertationes_. H. 25, 67, 69
Musonius in Stobaeos, _Florilegium_. H. 69, 74, 114
(Cf. H. 27, 67, 74 in Clement, _Paedagogos_)
Numenius in Chalcidius on the _Timaeos_, in Mullach, _Fragmenta
Philos. Graec._ vol. ii. H. 43
(Cf. H. 72 in Porphyry, _de antro nympharum_)
Olympiodoros (cf. p. 17), _Commentaries on Plato and Aristotle_. H.
20, 32, 68
Origen _contra Celsum_. H. 62, 85, 130; Z. 74; E. 374-375
_Orphica_, ed. G. Hermann. Lips. 1805. E. 438-439
Philo Judaeus, _Opera_, ed. Mangey. H. 1, 2, 10, 22, 24, 64, 67,
68, 69, 70, 74, 79, 82, 85, 87, 134; E. 48-49, 386-387
Philodemos _de pietate_, ed. Gomperz. H. 28
Philoponos, _Commentaries on Aristotle_. Z. 10; P. 60-61, 81; E. 98,
100, 219, 244, 270-271, 280, 284-285, 380-332, 333-335
Philostratos, _vita Apollonii_, ed. Kayser. E. 355, 383-384
Plato (Stephanus’ pages). H. 32, 41, 45, 58, 69, 79, 98, 99; P. 52-53,
98, 103-105, 132
Plotinos, _Enneades_. H. 32, 54, 69, 80, 82, 83, 85, 99; P. 40, 81; E.
381-382
Plutarch, _Moralia_ and _Lives_. H. 11, 12, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 29,
31, 34, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 47, 62, 70, 74, 78, 79, 80, 85,
87, 105, 108, 115, 116, 117, 120, 121, 122, 127, 138; Z. 14,
15; P. 60, 132, 144, 145; E. 5, 8-9, 33-35, 36-39, 40-44, 45-47,
51-54, 58-59, 60, 78, 79, 80-81, 98, 100, 135-136, 143-144, 149,
151, 153, 155, 157-159, 160, 161, 163, 165, 208, 209, 220, 221,
238-239, 243, 257-260, 261, 272, 279, 281, 282-283, 313, 373-381,
390, 393-396, 402, 403, 423-424, 430-431, 440, 444
Pollux, _Onomasticon_. H. 85
Polybios, _Historia_. H. 14-15
Porphyry, _de antro nympharum_, &c. H. 67, 70, 74; P. (1-30); Z.
10; E. 165-392, 401, 405-420, 436-437
Probus, _Comment. in Virgilii Bucol. et Geor._ E. 33, 35
Proklos, _Commentaries on Plato_. H. 16, 32, 44, 68, 79, 80, 111; P.
29-30, 33-42, 65, 81, 85, 103-105; Z. 14; E. 3, 18, 138, 162,
386-387
Satyros in Diogenes Laertios. E. 24-32
Scholia to Aristophanes. Z. 27
Scholia to Aristotle. P. 140-143; M. 17; E. 169-185, 210-213, 244,
246, 240-242, 381-382
Scholia to Euripides. H. 138; Z. 13; E. 275
Scholia to Homer. H. 39, 43, 61, 66, 85, 119; Z. 8, 11, 13; E. 168,
182-183, 405-407, 67-68
Scholia to Nicander, _Theriaca_. E. 421-422
Scholia to Plato, ed. Ast. E. 60
Seneca, _Epistolae_. H. 77, 81, 113, 120
Sextus Empiricus, _adv. Mathematicos_, ed. Bekker. H. 2, 4, 42, 52,
54, 78; Z. 2, 7, 8, 14; P. 1-30, 53-58, 132; E. 2-10, 33, 35, 77,
80, 333-335, 355, 364-365, 428-429
Simplicius _de caelo_. M. 17; Z. 28-32, 60, 62-65, 77, 110-113,
140-143, 151-153; E. 67-73, 114-115, 128, 169-185, 178, 181,
210-213, 215-218, 240-242, 244-246, 254, 256
Simplicius, _Commentary on the Physics_. H. 20, 41, 43, 56, 57, 58; X.
3, 4; Z. 1-16; M. 1-16; P. 35-40, 43b-51, 52-58, 57-70, 82-89,
94-112, 110-121, 122-125, 126-128, 132; E. 61-73, 74-95, 96, 109,
112-118, 119-129, 135, 138, 139, 141, 152, 171-185, 186-194,
195-196, 199-202, 203-207, 218, 247-253, 262-269
Stobaeos, _Florilegium_ and _Eclogae physicae_. H. 4, 11, 18, 59,
63, 67, 73, 74, 104, 106, 107, 108, 109, 134; Z. 8, 11, 16; P.
103-105, 132; E. 67-68, 71, 91, 138, 175, 237-239, 269-270, 390,
402
Suidas, _Geography_. H. 30, 85, 114; E. 326
Symmachus, _Epistolae_. H. 113
Synesius, _Epistolae_, ed. Hercher. Paris 1873. E. 386-388;
_De insomnia_, 474
Suidas, _Lexicon_. H. 9, 80; E. 24-32, 150
Tatianus, _Oratio ad Graecos_ in Otto, _Corpus apologet._ vi. Jena
1851. H. 80
Tertullian, in Migne, _Patrologia latina_ i.-iii. H. 69, 71
Themistius, _Orationes_, ed. Truncavellus. Venet. 1534. H. 10;