retained in quotations for the purpose of embellishment. I may add that Plutarch rarely neglects to give the name of the author from whom he quotes. As to the source of these poetic quotations, we cannot doubt that Plutarch sometimes quotes Empedokles from the original. A literary man could hardly fail to be acquainted with his poems, and it is by no means likely that the quotations Moral. 6076, 1111 F, 1118 are taken from an intermediate source. Five of the quotations from Par- menides, on the other hand, were not new to the readers of Plato and Aristotle, and the two remaining ones, together with some of the lines from Empedokles, as I have tried to show elsewhere,' were probably drawn from a collection of passages on the moon. There is no evidence that Plutarch knew Parmenides at first hand. Many passages of Empedo- kles also had become common property in the time of Plutarch, and in some instances Plutarch no doubt found collections of quotations suitable for his purpose, so that wecannot attribute all the single lines quoted from Empedokles to Plutarch’s own study of his poems.
§ 9. Judged by the Herakleitos fragments which they yield, the works of Clement and Hippolytos are hardly second in importance to Plutarch for the student of ¢arly Greek philo- sophy. Inthe Protreptikos of Clement there is an interesting series of passages from Herakleitos on popular worship; in the Paedagogos and the first and fourth books of the Stromata there are scattered quotations most of which bear clear marks of their secondary origin ; book II contains several quotations from the introduction to Herakleitos’ works ; while the third and fifth booksof the Stromaéa containa much larger collection of passages from Herakleitos, Xenophanes, Parmenides, and Empedokles. A casual glance at the whole series of quotations shows that Clement’s method was by no means uniform, and that he was often contented with a secondary source for his quotations, not taking the trouble to look them up in the original. In the first book of the Stromata the first quotation from Herakleitos is a proverb familiar in Greek literature, the second passage a bare allusion to a sentence quoted by Plu- tarch, and the two remaining ones refer to two quotations also
1 Transactions of American Philol. Assoc. XXVIII. pp. 82-83. T
274 the First Philosophers of Greece
given by Diogenes. That Clement used the Bio. which were the basis of the work of Diogenes Laertios is probable from his quotation of Parmenides 28-80 and Empedokles 26-28, 888-884. It is also highly probable that Clement found much of his material in Stoic sources. It is generally agreed that in Paedagogos 11. and 11. he freely used Musonius. Hera. 122 ap. Clement 188 ‘ what men do not expect at death ’ is interpreted by Clement as referring to Stoic fire, and Clement 649 (Hera. 128) also attributes to Herakleitos and the Stoics an idea be- longing to the latter only. Hera. 77 is alluded to by Seneca as familiar to his Stoic readers, and other fragments cited by Clement were apparently found by Philo in his Stoic sources. Hera. 69 ap. Clement 718 looks like another form of Hera. 19 which Plutarch quotes from a Stoic source, and perhaps we may regard 20 also as from the Stoic source from which Plutarch drew. Hera. 81 ap. Clement 87 includes an added phrase (as to the stars) which appears also in one of thé two passages in Plu- tarch where it is quoted. One of the lines of Parmenides and six of the single lines of Empedokles given by Clement are also found in Plutarch. Consequently I regard it as not-impro- bable that Clement drew quotations from Plutarch, and as all but certain that he drew from the Stoic sources of Plutarch. The wrong interpretation of Hera. 116 (ap. Clement 699), 122 (ap. 18), 67 (ap. 251), 79 (ap. 111), and perhaps 27 (ap. 229) is additional proof that Clement was entirely unfamiliar with the context in which these passages originally stood, and therefore probably did not draw from the original. While we are quite unable to trust Clement’s interpretation of his quota- tions, it should be remarked that he is exceedingly careful togive the correct form (e.g. Hera. 101 ap. Clement 586 as compared with the same fragment in Hippolytos ; in this quotation he gives the dialect forms with his usual fidelity).
It remains to consider several series of passages, and to ask whether these were quoted at firsthand. In the Protreptikos we find Herakleitos fragments 122, 124, 125 together, and a little farther on 126-127 (cf. 122 ap. Clement 680, and 128 ap. 649) on the topic of popular worship. These are clearly quoted irom a connected passage, and not phrases that have been passed on 88 proverbs. Moreover 124-127 are somewhat
Appendix 275
closely connected with each other (perhaps 122 belongs with them). It is evident that-Clement (or possibly the immediate source of Clement) drew them from a somewhat extended passage in the original. Another series of passages from Herakleitos and Empedokles (ap. Clement 516 and 520) are quoted as illustrating the misery of human life. They occur together in a long series of quotations on this topic, and at least one line, Empedokles 404, is not quite pertinent ; its lack of fitness in this connection may mean that Clement is adapting a collection of passages made (wholly or in part) by another hand for a slightly different purpose. Again, a con- — siderable number of fragments, especially in books ii. and v. of the Stromata, are pithy proverbial statements of the funda- mental attitude of Herakleitos toward other men (cf. Herakl, 5-8, 104, 2-8, 49, 111b with its addition from Demosthenes de corona p. 824). These are all marked by their proverbial form, and are many of them quoted by other writers. It is most natural to think that they were drawn from a collection of Herakleitean sayings such as is presupposed by the allusions of Marcus Aurelius and perhaps by the parody of Lucian.
As to the poetic citations in the fifth book of the Stromata it seems to me wholly likely that the verses of Xenophanes, and Parmenides 188-189, are quoted from the original poems. Empedokles lines 74 and 165 are repeated as proverbs; lines 88, 74, 104 (quoted with Herakleitos 68) are often-quoted verses on the favourite topic of the elements ; lines 842-343 are quoted with Herakleitos 49, lines 16-17 with Parmenides 28-80 and Herakleitos 111, and it is quite probable that Clement found the topical groups of quotations ready to his hand. Empedokles 26 f., 55 f., 81, 180f., are all introductory lines, and these too may have been collected by some earlier writer. We may conclude, then, that many of the citations in Clement were not taken from the original works, but that some may have been; the most important fact is that Clement tran- scribes his quotations with great faithfulness.
§ 10. The citations given in the works of Sextus Empiricus are important because they are in a measure independent of the Stoic line of tradition ; we may even say with confidence that some of them are cited from the original works. For
910 the First Philosophers of Greece
Herakleitos there is only one important series of fragments, namely that found in adv. Math.vii. §§ 126-184. Fragments 52 and 54 of Herakleitos are indeed mentioned in a series of epigrams with no name attached to them (Pyrrh.i. 55), and a little later (Pyrrh. iii. 115 and 280) there is an allusion to the well-known Fr. 42 and a statement of Herakleitos’ opinion as to life and death (cf. Fr.78). The discussion adv. Math. vii. §$ 126-184 is a statement of the doctrine of sense-perception which Sextus attributes to Herakleitos. Diels has given good reasons (Dox. 209-211) for believing that this passage is based on Aenesidemus, a skeptic philosopher with strong Herakleitean leanings of the first century B.c. In it are contained the full form of Fr. 2 (cited in part by other writers) and Fr. 4 and 92 (with comment based on a longer passage) ; there is also a phrase reminding the reader of Fr.77 in § 190. This is the fullest extant material for reconstructing the introduction to Herakleitos’ book, and was evidently based on the text of Herakleitos. While it is cited quite accurately, it is probable that Sextus took the citation from the same source as the rest of the discussion ; still, when we remember Sextus’ fondness for citing procmiums, we cannot say definitely that he did not take it himself from the work of Herakleitos. Xenophanes is cited in passages varying in length from one to four lines. Most of these passages are not known from other writers or known only from late Homeric commentators. Where the same passage is cited twice, there is no variation except in the arrangement of the lines. Fr. vii. is given in part twice—once lines 8-4, and again lines 1, 2, and 4 (see supra p. 66).—From Parmenides (in addition to the line 182 given by Plato and Aristotle) Sextus gives the procmium of his work. Although earlier editors have extensively re- arranged this passage, I believe it is substantially correct in Sextus, and I see no reason to doubt that it was taken from the work itself. The citation of other lines before 58 by Plato and by Simplicius confirms the suspicion, however, that Sextus had omitted something at this point. From Empedo- kles’ main philosophical work Sextus gives a portion of the procemium (lines 2-23), as well as four lines from the intro- duction to the καθάρµατα. It is reasonable to believe that
these lines with 428-485 were cited from the original poem ; the only errors are copyists’ blunders. Sextus also cites Empedokles 33-35 and 78-80. These are much copied lines, and the form in Sextus includes some obvious errors, e.g. ἀήρ for αἰθήρ (1. 78) and φιλία for φιλότης (1. 80), (cf. ἦπιον 1. 79)— errors which very likely were found in the source from which Sextus drew the lines! We may conclude that Sextus cited sometimes from the original, sometimes at second hand; and that his citations reproduce his source accurately except that he sometimes omits verses from their connection. |
§ 11. The quotations in the Refutatio omnium heresium, which is now attributed to Hippolytos, include some that are very accurate and others of which the text is hopeless, an anomaly that is very difficult to explain. In the fifth book one phrase reminds the reader of Herakleitos 71, while Hera- kleitos 68a is quoted with the author’s name, and 101 without it. In the sixth book there is an allusion to two forms of fire (Hera. 21), and Herakleitos 29 combined with 95 is quoted under the name of Pythagoras. Most of the quotations from Herakleitos, however, are closely grouped in ix. ch. 9-10. Some of these are phrases familiar in earlier writers (e.g. Hera. 8, 47, and 69); 2, 44, 45, and 85 are passages of some length which Hippolytos gives in accurate form; 24 is accompanied by a Stoic explanation, and probably the phraseology of 28 and 36 is Stoic ; in most of the citations in this group the text is very carefully given, even to the connecting particles, but besides the fragments in Stoic form just mentioned, the text of 123 is corrupted beyond possibility of restoration, and 58 1s almost as bad. These fragments are consistently interpreted as antici- pating the views of a Christian sect, and it is possible that the κρινέει Of 26 is due to this influence rather than to the Stoics. Bywater (p. ix) suggests that Hippolytos drew his quotations directly from the work of Herakleitos ; but it is not easy to regard the difference in accuracy as wholly a difference in the accuracy of one man’s copying.
The quotations from Empedokles, as indeed from other poets, show that Hippolytos was often very careless. The
1 Simplicius copies the same error in line 78, probably finding it in his copy of Empedokles.