notion of certitude. This casts a new Jight on the whole problem.

Not only do philosophy and mathematics use the same method, but
this is the only possible method for establishing certitude in any of the
areas of demonstrative knowledge. This one universal method is
called, of course, the scientific method. The persistent desire of the
seventeenth-century rationalists to have one ubiquitous method for the
discovery of all certitude continues unabated in the mind of Christian
Wolff ..

218
 Anton-Hermann Chroust

CHARGES OF PHILOSOPHICAL
PLAGIARISM IN GREEK ANTIQUITY . \ ,'.
A,\'TON-HEnlIIANN CUflOUST is Professor of Law
and University Graduate Research Professor
at the University of Notre Dame. -.
He received his J.U.D. from the University of Erlangen
and his Ph.D. from. the University of Munich.
He holds all S.J.D. from Harvard Law School.
He is the outnor of the book Socrates: Man and Myth
and has published many articles both here and abroad
in the fields of history, philosophy, and law.

In Greek antiquity, plagiarism-that is, the stealing, borrowing,

purloining, copying, using, or passing off as one's own the ideas,
doctrines, intellectual achievements, or literary productions of others
without giving due credit-was commonly referred to as x),O'lt~. or plain
theft. '
1.

Early Greek authors, especially the poets or "minstrels" of the heroic

and postheroic ages, did not recognize and probably did not even
suspect the existence of "intellectual property." Hence, as a rule, they
completely failed to acknowledge tbeir source or sources of informa-
tion. At the same time, they did not hesitate in the least to use freely
the literary, artistic, or "scientific" achievements of others, Down to
the fifth century before Christ, the major literary works of the past
were still considered to be the "common possession" of all. "Aeschylus
was one of the great philosophers . . . who maintained that his
tragedies were large cuts taken from Homer's opulent dinners.?"
Essentially. the same general attitude towards "sources" may be
observed among- early "scientists," historians (or chroniclers), and
philosophers. Apparently the first author who in a way acknowledged
his indebtedness 1.0 others seems to have been the Sophist Hippias of
Ehs,

The Modern StllOolman, XHVJ1I, Mare/I, 1961 219

."
 Of what I have to say, some has perhaps already heen said hy
Orpheus, some by Musaeus ... some by Homer, some by Hesiod,
some again by other poels, and some in the prose writings of the
Greeks or the Barbarians. I have extracted from them and put
together what was most important for, and in harmony with, m)'
particular plan in order to compose my novel and many-sided
work."

Chrysippus, too, is credited with having cited "most of his au-

'Dtogenes Lceruus (8.54) once uses the

(ibid., 6.2.26), fJ.E'l:IIAriTIW (ibid.), fJ.lflE'a9a!
term "oro:d.o1tlCl. But Porphyry (in Euse-
(ibid" 6.2.8 and 6.3.28), ltClPCl'fpr.t(EtY (ibid.,
hl ns, Praeparatio Evangelica 10.3.1.-26)
5.11.132 and 6.2.11), and ltl1:ptaeia!ll:tt(ibid.,
and Element. of Alexandria (Stromateis
6.2.12) are employed to denote
5.14.89-139; 6. chaps. 1-6), our two main plagiarizing.
aulhorities on this subject, as a rule
~Athenaells, Deipnosophislac 8.347E.
employ the expression x)Qrrij or X"ilt"':EIV.
3Die!s-Kranz, Die Fraglllc/lte tler
See also Atbonaeus, Deipnosophislae
Jlorsoli:ratikcr (Slh edit.}: Hippias. [rag. 6
15.673E; Arislides, Oratio 3.1; Dlogenes
(Vol. 2, p. 331). Clement of Alexandria,
Lner-Li us 5.92, et passim. The verb
from whom the fragment is taken, uses
/HfCllpE'<19Clt' was sometimes used as a
lhis frank admission of Hippias to charge
synonym for x).!'II:"':uv (Dlogcnes Laer-ti us
him with plagiarism: to show lhe
2.57; 9134; Clement of Alexandria, Stro-
propensity of the Greeks for plagiarism
mateis 5.14.91; 6.2.4, et passim). Other
in expressions and doctrines, permit us
synonyms were cllWa'J"cllIl (Eusehius , Prce-
to adduce the express testimony of
paratio Evangelica 10.1.7), !maUJ or a'/tOl71law
Hippias .. " (Stromateis 6.2.15).
(Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis
"Diogenes Lcerttus 7.180. (See also
5.14.130 and 6.2.27; Themistius, Ora-
nn. 78 and 79, and the text thereto.)
tio 21), <nttuwpEia9al (Diogenes Lcertlus
51bid., 9.42. ,
2.61; Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis
"Herodotus 2.143 and 6.137. Herod-
6.2.27), w';'E).Ela9ClI (Ilermogenes, nEpl11lEwv
2.423), a'f'E"l"piCEa9111 (Diodorus Siculus
otus, as a matter of fact, argues here
ngetnst Hecataeus of Milelus and his
4.66.6; Alhenaeus, Deipnosoplli.~lae
reports. But in many other instances
15.673 IT.; Clement of Alexandria, Stro-
where he dellnitely derives his informa-
m.ateis 6.2.27; 6.2.4; 6.4.35), llhOltOlEla9Cll
lion from other authorities, including
or s.~d:hQltQlii:a9ClI (Al.honaeus, Deipnoso-
f'rom Hecalneus , he refuses 10 give due
phislae 15.673), ,l1wf'ipm (ibid., 3.84B),
credit lo his sources.
ix,ipEIV (Clement of Alexandria, Stroma.
7This policy subsequently exposed
teis 6.2.25; 6.2.26); iJlto~aAha9ClI (Slraho
Herodolus to much criticism and even
17.790; Diogenes Laerlius 2.60; Aristo-
to lhe charge of plagiarism.
phanes, Birds (50), ).ClP.I~dvE\Vltapa or
SIlence these standards did nol really
a'/tci mOl;" (very frequent in Clement
apply to primarily artistic, poetic, or
of Alexandria, Stromateis), ilt1af-l~dvEtV.
philo~phical produclions.
ltClpCl),ap.~avetv (Clement of Alexandria, Stro.
9Pliny the Elder, Naluralis /listoria,
maleis 5.14.91), aVClAClf.lSanl'i, f-lnCllPatpEIV
prooemium 21-23.
(ibid., 6.2.5), and av'nypa'l'EIV (Diogenes
lUFrom the remarks of Pliny it would
Laorliu5 10.7). Frequently such es.
follow that this duty or standard did
senlilllly harmless sounding l.erms as
not apply to essenlially literary works.
fLE'tClltQIEIV (Clemen/. of Alexandria, Stro-
Philosophy apparenlly could be classified
matcis 6.2.6), /U'ta'f'pa~m (ibid.), f-lE'ta~a)J.Elv
both as a Iiter<lry or scientific endeavor.
220

thorities"; 4 and of Democritus it was said that he admitted quoting
from Parmenides, Zeno (the Eleatic), and ProLagoras of Abdera."
The first of the Greek historians to refer La at least some of his
sources was probably Herodotus, who twice cites Hecataeus of Miletus,"
although he repeatedly concedes, without going into details, however,
that he relies on, and makes use of, the traditions or the reports of
Greeks and barbarians."
,'.
Only during late antiquity, it appears, some general but still rather
vague standards were established concerning the author's obligation
"
to give proper recognition to his authorities or sources of information.
These standards, which might possibly have been motivated by
Aristotelian scientism g were stated by Pliny as follows:

You will deem it a proof of my pride that I have prefaced these

volumes with the names of my authorities [and sources]. I have
done so because it is, in my opinion, a pleasant thing, and one "

that shows an honorable modesty, to give due credit to those who

were the means of one's accomplishments, and not to do as most
of the authors to whom I have referred have done. For you must
know that when collating my authorities I have found that the
most professedly reliable and modern writers have copied the old
authors word for word without proper acknowledgment, not in
that valorous spirit of Virgil, for the purpose of rivalry, nor with
the candor of Cicero who in his Republic declares himself a
companion of Plato, and who in his Consolation to his Daughter
stated, "I follow Crantor," and similarly as to Panaetius in his
work De Officiis-works that you know to be worth having in
one's hands every day and even learning by heart. Surely it is
the mark of a mean spirit and an unfortunate disposition to
prefer being detected as a thief rather than [acknowledging and]
repaying a loan. . especially as interest creates capital."

In brief, the duty to cite sources and authorities apparently exists c-.

only in the case of a scientific treatise or perhaps an encyclopedic work

intended to collate and transmit scientific information." Failure to
comply with this duty, in particular the practice of reciting verbatim
the doctrines 01' statements of the ancients without referring 10 them

Charges of Philosophical Plagiarism in Greek Antiquity ...

Anlon-Hermann Chrousl
,.
221
 ..
directly, is simply theft (furtum)" But it is
auth hi not required that tha ~.ken all his ideas from Pythagoras [or the Pythagoreans]""" Hera- " .
o~' q~ote IS source or sources in the case of minutiae clitus of Ephesus 13 and Pythagoras 14 were pointedly accused of having
Beginning with the fifth and" " plagiarized Orpheus; and 'I'imaeus insisted that Empedocles "was a
Christ, the cha rue of "ph"' elspeClIally the fourth century hefore '"
e I asap uca plagiarism" pupil of Pythagoras, adding that, having been convicted at that time
increasing frequency and . t h dO. was made with
I may e a ded, with mounti tr
I kl of stealing his discourses [from Pythagoras] he was, like Plato,
ness.e Democritus, according to til t es tirmony of Favonn. TIt> ll'recs ess- . excluded from Laking part in the discussions of the school [of '.\ J'.

to h ave insisted concern in An .. US, IS said

pythagoras]." 15 Theophrastus, according to Diogenes Laertius,
A ' ] g axagoras, Ius alleged teacher that "hi
[ naxagoras s views on the sun and th ,IS asserted that Empedocles "imitated Parmenides in his verses, for
b t f e moon were not 0 " I
U 0 great antiquity; and that he had sim rtgtna J
Parmenides, too, had published his treatise On Nature in verse"; IG "
others]." Thras 1I " ply stolen them [from
y us, III turn, denounced Democritus for "I raving " Hermippus, in the words of Diogenes Laertius, insisted that Empedocles
imitated the writings of Xenophanes; 11 and Diodorus of Ephesus
] ~Diogenes LaerLi us 9.34. rtnus. H appears, Irowever-,
that maintained that Empedocles emulated Anaximander. 18 Georgias of
1-lbid., 9.38. Diogenes Laertlus
Dtcaearchus' Olymptc Festwal, as it is
Iquotes
. also Glaucon of RIiegtum . as recorded by Atbenaeus, consLilutes the
Leontini was blamed for having stolen from Melesagoras: 19 and
lavmg slated that Democrltus "v ultimata authority.
taught by one 0 f the PyLhagoreans"vas Socrates is said to have taken from Archelaus the notion that ethics is
23Diogenes Laertius 9 15
And ~pollodorus of CYZiC1l5, accordi~g 24Idomeneus of Erel;ia' might have a philosophical discipline;" It was also suggested that Socrates wrote,
10, DlOgenes. Laerfius (9.38), insisted derived0' this stor-y from Menede mus.
that Democrttus "lived with Philolaus" 25 rcgenes Laertius 2.60. See also or at least helped write, some of the tragedies subsequently published
the Pythagorean. . , under the name of Euripides who, in turn, refused to acknowledge his
Athe~aeus, Deipnosophistae 13.6IlD.
13Clement of Alexandria Stromateis
6.2.27. I
Judgl.ng from the remark in Diogenes indebtedness to Socrates.21 According to Dicaearchus, Cleomenes (the
Laerll us (2 .62) , A"rlS '"IPPUS apparenlly
14 Diogenes Laertius 88 B tl rhapsodist) recited at Olympia the Rites of Purification of Empe-
aulhoriLy of Aristoxenus
I I (8 '
n: y I"
al.s~ suspected
IOgenes a so PI.sIstraLus of Ephesus,
Aeschines' authorship.
according to docles,:zz allhough it is not clear from the text whether he did so in
sa es :8 and 8.21) that PyLhagoras DlOgenes LaerLius 2.61, flally denied
had received the mosL imporlant of his Ih.at Aeschines ever wrote any dialogues. the name of Empedocles or in his own name, claiming the Purifica-
moral doctrines from the D I h' Dlogenes Laertius conlinues: "However
priestess Themistoclea. epic tions for himself. And it was said that Pausanias's works were so
that may be, of the writings of
lli/b'd 8 -
.::14. Diogenes conLinues'
'" I., Aeschines those slamped with a Socratic similar to those of Heraclitus of Ephesus that he was puhlicly called
.Neanlhes reporls that down to th~ character are seven." The expression
lime of Philolaus and Empedocles all "So~ratic character" (~w1(pa'l:~1(ov f)9oc) is Uthe imitator of Heraclitus." 23
Py.thagoreans (Empedocles, accordincr to ambiguous.
thiS report. was a pupil of P y IIlagoras 0
Menedemus of Eretria, and later also ldomeneus of Lampsacus,24
"b' 26Diogenes Laertius 2.61.
( t td., 8.54)] were admitted to II maintained 'that the various dialogues which were circulated under the
dis . lese 27Ibid., 2.63.
c~sslOns. But when Empedoetes Z~The list of works ascribed to
published these discussions in a poem name of Aeschines of Sphettus in fact were authored by Socrates; after
AnhsLhenes contains a Cyrus a CYl'lIS
[a?~ probably claimed them as his own or OJ Souereignty (Diogen~s Laertill~ Socrates's death, the story goes on, Xanthippe gave these dialogues to
angInal contributions], they [the 6.16), a Cyrus, or the Beloved, and a
Pylhagoreansl passed a resolution thaL Cyrus, Aeschincs, who then claimed their authorship.25 Perseus, indeed, went
or the SCOtti (ibid., 6.18); a
Jtbese discussions] should not be Greater Ilel'acles, 01' OJ Strength (ilJid so far as to attribute the majority of these dialogues to Pasiphon, a
Imparted to any poet" (ibid 855) 6.16), a lIeracles 01" Midas and .~
Hi/bid., 8.55. ., . - member of the School of Eretria, who inserted them among the works
J~e~acles, or Of Wisdom and' Strength
11Ibid., 8.56.
(~b~d., 6.18); as well as an Alcibiadcs of Aeschines.26 In addition, this same Aeschines, who also has been
iI![bid., 8.70.
19C1ement of Al exandria,
(Ibl.d ... 6.18). The dependence of the
called "a close imitator of Gorgias of Leontini," 27 was charged with :
Stromateis Alc!blades of Acschines on lhe Alcibiades
6.2.26.
of Antislhenes is fairly well established. having made extensive use of the Little Cyrus, the Lesser Heracles, and
2Diogenes Laerlius 2.16. Sec A.-H. Chroust, Socrates: Man and
2IIbid., 2.18.
Myth, The Two Socratic Apologies of
the Alcibia.des of Antisthenes,28 without, however, giving the laller any
.22Athcnacus, Deipnosophistae 14.6200' Xenophon (London: RoutledO'e & KeNan
Dl.og~ne~ Laertius 8.63. Diogenes quote~ Paul, 1957) pp. 175 IT. '=' '" Charges of Philosophical Plagiarism in Greek Antiquity
thiS lllcidenl on the authority of Favo- Anton-Hermann ChrousL

222 223
 credit whatever;" This might also explain why "Lysias attacked
Aeschines in a speech which he entitled On Dishonesty." 30 In any
event, when Aeschines "was reading one [of these dialogues] at
Megara, Aristippus challenged him with the remark, 'Where did you
get that, you thieO'" 31

29Diogcnes Lacrtius 2.6L 3SThe Homeric passage would be

301lJid., 2.63.
Iliad 16.856. Plato himself quotes (and
su, 2.62. disapproves of) this Homeric passage in
32PlaLo himself apparently was HepulJlic 3860.
plagiarized by Dionysius the Younger, 39Alhcnaeus, Dcipnosophistae l1.S08C If.
Ihe lyrant of Syracuse and friend of 4LlCIcment of Alexandria, Stromakis
Plato. See Philo P), Seventh Epistle 6.2.27. Clement adds that Pylhagoras
341AB and ibid. 344D345A. According derived this doctr-ine from the Egypfinns,
to this report, Plato had once discussed 410iogenes Laertms 8.54 and 8.55.
some philosophical topics in the 421'ho reference seems 10 be to
presence of Dionysius, without however At-istotle, Poetics 1447 b 10. See also
pcnetrufing Ihe subject. Dionysi us, it Aristotle, frag. 72 (Rose). Plato him-
seems, subsequently published a resume sell' ascribes lhe usc of the dialogue to
of Ihis discussion under his own name, Parmentdes (Sophist 217C). Diogenes
thus creating the impression that this Lnorti us (3.48) claims that Zeno the
was his own original philosophy. In Eleofic was the inventor of t.he dialogue,
his gentle rerutauon of Dionysius, Plato but he also quotes Aristotle (on the
merely stresses the fact that Dionysius aulhorily of Favorfnus) as having said
was oat, and could not possibly have thnt Alexamenus of Styra or Teas was
been, conversant with Plato's uHimate the flrst 10 wr-ite dialogues. Diogenes
views on this subject. But Plaia was Lacr-ti ua, however, extolls Plato for the
not interested in pointing out a beauty, inventiveness, and perfection in
plagiarism as such. using the dialogue form. Even Simon
33Alhenaeus, Deipnosophislae 1L508C. the Shoemaker had been credited wilh
341s0crafes himself was an implacable the invention of the Socratic dialogue
enemy of Plato. (Diogenes Laerti us 2.123). It is most
35Athenaeus, Deipnosophislae 1l.508CD. unlikely that either zone or Parmenides
This particular charge apparently W:lS ever wrote any dialogues. For Zeno,
contained in a special work or diatribe see Plato, Parmenides 127C; Aristotle,
(/)t,:nPL~1j), the full liUe of which was Topics 170b22; Simplicius, AdverSlls
probably Ka-;o:/)pop.71-nj, m.ct'l"wlo~ 8\a-;pt~lj. Physicos 139.5. The reference to Par-
3SSee infra. menides may actually be based on <I
37Clement of Alexandria, Strotnatets hilarious confusion of the philosopher
;3.1490; 5.14.92; 5.14.96; 4.14.135. Parmerudes and the Platonic dialogue
Clement, it seems, insists that "the Pormenides.
"hole of the Hellenic wisdom was 43Alhenaeus, Deipnosophistae 1L505BC.
derived (or 'stolen') from Ihe philos- 14Diogenes Laeruus 3.18. This
ophy of the barbarians" (ibid. 5.14.141). passage would indica le that Plato
The barbarians might very well be the borrowed the characterizations of Ihe
peoples of Ihe Near East, including the main ;lctors in his dialogues from Ihe
Jews and the Egyplians. As a malleI' of Mimes of Sophron. Diogenes Laertius
fact, tile whole of lhe Slromateis, continues: "A copy of the Mimes, it is
Book VI, chaps. 4 IT., is dedicated 10 the said, was actually found under his
task of proving that the Greeks drew [Plato's] pillow" (3.18). See also Vale-
most of their philosophical leachings rius Maximus 8.7.3. Aristotle, Poetics
from the Egyptians and Indians. 1447b9 (see also nEpl ftOl'ij'l"WV, frag. 61,

224
 Plato himself did not escape the charge of plagiarism: 32
If one should go through his [Plato's] Timaeus and his Gorgias
and all other such dialogues ... one could not admire him for
them because one could get all this [information] from other au-
thorities either better or, at least, not worse."
'.\ ,".
Theopompus of Chios, the disciple of [socrates," bluntly asserted that
Uthe majority of his [Plato's] dialogues are useless and in error";
that a great many of them arc borrowed from the discourses of
"
Aristippus, ~ome even from those of Antislhenes, and the majority
Cram those of Bryson of Heraclea." Clement of Alexandria, a most
untrustworthy witness;" in a similar vein maintained that according
to a well-founded tradition, Plato derived much of his philosophy from
the "Barbarians." 37 The allegations that Plato's doctrine of the
immortality of the soul was lifted from Homer 38 may go back to
Theopompus;" while the story that he stole this doctrine from the
Pythagorcans is recorded by Clement of Alexandria." Timaeus, in the
ninth book of his Histories, states that Plato was excluded from the
discussions, or philosophical disputations, of the Pythagoreans, because
he plagiarized them for his own use; 41 and Pontianus, in his
harangue of Plato, contended that Plato

wrote. . dialogues, the pattern of which he did not invent him-

self. Before his time, in fact, Alexamenus of Teas had invented
this type of literature, as Nicias of Nicaea and Sotlon attest
and the most learned Aristotle 42 expressly declares that Alexa-
menus wrote dialogues before Plato."

Finally, it was also suggested that in his dialogues Plato "drew the
characters in the style of. . [Sophron]." 44
Aristoxenus, the implacable enemy of Plato and the Platonists.
maintained, according to the testimony of Favorlnus. that Plato copied

Rose), classifies together the Mimes of Mimes in Pia to's works; namely,
Sophron, the Jl,Jimes of Xenarcbus, and Republic 451C, where Plato disfiug uishes
the dialogues of Plalo. But he does not between the mimic roles played by men
insinuate that Plato's dialogues are and those roles played by women. Also,
dependent on the Mimes of So ph ron (or the quotations found in Republic 607B
those of Xcnarchus). There is only might have been borrowed from
one definite reference to Sophron's

Charges of Philosophical
Sophron.

Plagiarism in Greek Antiqflity

.,
Anton-Hermann Chroust

225
 most of his Republic from Protagoras's 'A'l'ttA'.l'(txi 45 and Al . sillographer, reported that Plato paid a fantastic price 47 for a work of
"histori " d ,emus a
. nan an contemporary of Aristoxenus, in his four-volurnn e k the Pythagoreans, possibly for the Ihp\=l:flua~w~ of Philolaus, from which
entitled npo~ 'A[.t:.hl"'/l\lasserted that Plato evidently "bor d h iVo,I' book he copied his Timaeus or, at least, part of it." Proclus records
f. E' h' or-rowe eavIly
10m pIC armus, using his "ery words". 46 'I"imon 0f P hlius, . the that already during Plato's lifetime the latter was charged 4.9 with
having stolen the Atlantis myth and especially the description of the
. 45D"rogenes L aertlus 3.37. This all ega- ideal city of Atlantis 50 from the ancient Egyptians." Aristotle, at least 1 ".
from Pythagoras) is probably correct
t~on apparenLly was repealed by 'Favo- (Stromateis 6.2.27) _ See also text by indirection, also seems to suggest that certain ideas advanced by
r~nus. (See ibid" Laertius 3.57). Favo- infra. Diogenes Laertius also menlion~
nnus probably drew his information
Plato in his Republic, including the subdivision of the citizens into
a letter of fhe P~thagorean Archylas,
from Aristoxenus. guardians, warriors, and husbandmen, might originally have been ".
3d~ressed to Plaia, In which the former
-nu, 3.9-10: "Just consider. wnl~s Iha~ he had been able 10 get devised by Hippodamus of Miletus." Porphyry has preserved a report
;Ialo a,sserts that the object of the cer-tain philosophical works for Plato
~enses. IS that which never abides in "all of which we have sent on to you.': according to which the Peripatetic Prosenes had charged Plato with
qunn ttty or quality, but is ever in nux 48Gellius, Attic Nights 3.17.6. See having made use of his many intellectual predecessors and having in
and change. . . . But the object of also Diogenes Laertlus 8.85: "He
thought is something constant from [Philclaus] wrote one book, and it was
all likelihood borrowed heavily from them. Prosenes also is said to
wh~ch noLhing is subtracted and to this book Which, according to Hermip- have declared that if more of the pre-Platonic philosophical literature
~,llIch nothing is added. . . . And, pus, some authors claimed that Plato,
Indeed, .Epicharmus has expressed him- the philosopher, when he went to
had survived, he could establish and prove the great many literary
self plal nly about the objects of the Sicily to the court of Dionysi us , hought thefts committed by Plato."
s8.nSt1S and t~e objects of thought." from Philolaus' relatives . . . from
Diogenes Laer-t.i us continues: "These and which also the [Platonic] Timoeus was The truth about Plato is that in keeping with the prevailing tradition
~lnlll;jr Instances Alcinus notes ... point- copied." That Plato is not the only
mg. out the assistance which Plato
he was extremely reluctant to reveal by direct reference the many
ancient philosopher or author charged
derived from Epicharmus" (3.17). See which having plagiarized Pythagoras or SOurces and authorities for the doctrines and theories which he
also the whole of Diogenes Laerttus the Pythagoreans might be gathered
3.9-17_ advanced. He displayed an equal reluctance to indicate the authorities
from Diogenes Laerlius 8.54, where
47 According to Gellius, Attic Nights Empedocles is suspected by Timaeus of for the views which he rejects, combats, or ridicules. This pronounced
3.17.4, Pla'.lo paid 10,000 d enarii; having committed the same crime. See attitude, which practically amounted to a policy, together with the fact
accor~ing 10 Hermippus (Diogenes n. 15.
LacrhllS 8.85), 40 Alexandrian minae' 49Apparently by Crantor.
that with the exception of his personal followers he apparently was not
and ac~ording to Diogenes Laertius 8.15: 50In Plato's fragmentary dialogue very popular among his contemporaries or with later generations, soon
100 m~nae. Others, again, say that he Critias. 54
,~as given tJlis book-Philolaus's HSFt 51Proclus, Commentarius in Platonis
made him one of the preferred targets for charges of plagiarism.
lpUO"tlll<;_as a present or token of grati- Timaeum 1.76.2 (ed. Diel).
tu~e for ha;ing rescued a disciple of
Heracleides of Pontus likewise was severely criticized by Chamaeleon
52politics, 1267b22 fT.
Ph~lolaus. CICero, De Republica 1.10.16 53Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica of Pontus 55 for having plagiarized his, Chamaeleon's, work on Homer
wflles lhal PlaLo received Ihis work as ~ 10.3.24-25. See also n. 104. and Hesiod.56 It was also rumored that Xenophon "made Thucydides
personal pr:esent from Philolaus; and 54This is also one of the reasons why
Satyrus (DJOgelles Laertius 3.9; 8.15) lhe writings of PlaLo have become onc famous by 'pu4lishing his History, which had remained unknown, and
r~cords that Plato wrote lo Dian askino- of the great problems of present-day which he [Xenophon] might have appropriated for his own use." 57
hlln to purchase three Pythogarea~ historical and liLerary scholarship.
works . composed by Philolaus for 55Diogenes LaerUm 5.92. It was said of Arcesilaus, the founder of the so-called Middle Academy,
100 mtnac. Jamblichus, in his Vita 56This work is lisLed as Of the Age of that he ""was caught copying (or editing) certain works of Crantor. ...
Pythagorae 199, maintains that Dian Homer and Hesiod, two books, in lhe
bo~ght this work from the heirs of catalogue of the works of Heracleides of
Phllolaus. (See also Diogenes Laertius Pontus. (Diogenes Laertius 5.87). A
8:84). Thus it seems fairly well estab- companson of Plutarch, Pericles 27, and
lished that Plato bought the chief work Alhenaeus. Deipnosophisfae 12.533E It.,
or works of Philolaus the Pylhagorean should iudicale that Lhe work of
If this be true, then Clement of Heracleides and lhat of Chamaeleon are
Alexandria's allegalion that PlaLo very similar indeed. This then would Charges of Philosophical Plagiarism in Greek Anliql1ity
borrowed from the Pylhagoreans (or support the allegalion of Chamaeleon. Anton-Hermann Chroust

226 227
 ,

Hephaestion, who accuses everyone else of literary theft [y'),01t~]

~nd s~me represent him as an imitator of Pyrrho [of Elis] "~8
took the solution [rom me, but claimed it for himself when
usebius of Caesarea openly denounced the Neoplatonist Hierocl .
governor of Bithynia and a lena . . es, the publishing his work on . . . Anacreon. . .. And the same
having copied verbatim all h~~OUpSh~I:::gp~~lstl
of C~kristianity, ~II Ior Hephaestion proved a like thief in the case of the noble Adrastus
so 60 A lea WOI s from old
urces. thenaeus goes to great len th' h . er [or Aphrodisia.] ." For Adrastus had published five books, On
with having plagiarized him t ' 1 g In C argrng Hephaestion Qaestions of History and Style in the Ethics of Theophrastas, and
ex ensive y: . I ,'.

a sixth book, On the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle. . saying

a great deal about Antiphon, But Hephaestion stole all this also
HDiogenes
. Laertius 257
.. TI Ie re f er- 112The reference Is to X h and wrote a book, all, the Antiphon of Xenophon's Memorooitio-" -,
e~ce IS obviously to Xenophon's Helle- Memorabilia 1.6.1. enop on,
nIc.a. A comparison of Thucydides' (un- G634At~enaeus,Detpnosophiuae 15.673E tf although he had discovered nothing additional of his own. . . 63
fl nished ) Pel cpcnnesicri War d Diogenes Laerti us 684 D' .
X~nophon's l-Iellenica should makeanil L' L' (" 8 .. rogenes
. <I.eI'IUS u.9) also reports tbat "th Onesicritus, a pupil of Diogenes of Sinope, wrote an Education oj
fairly clear thai. Ihis accusation is prob- is t ere
E . urren a .work of Crates, entitled
?bly groundless. But since Xenopho ' p~stlcs, which contains excellent Alexander which he fashioned closely alter the Cyropaedia of
111 a way is a SOl'L 0 f continuation
. . nof5
philosoph y in a sly le which at times Xenophon: "In their diction both [Onesicritus and Xenophon) are not
I'hucydides ' work, there naturally exists resembles Plato."
th~ remote possibilily that Xenophon "Dtogenes Laerttus 6100
unlike," Diogenes Laertius comments, "except that Onesicritus, as
might have rewritten, restyled, and might be expected from a mere imitator, falls short of his model." 54
6.2~;~.!ement of Alexandria: Stromaieis
pe.r~aps somewhat reoriented what could
ortgmall y have been the now "missing" And of Menippus the Cynic it was said that "experts doubted the genui-
67H must ser iousf y be doubted
part of Th ucydides" Peloporuiesunv War whether .Cle men t of Alexandria had ness of the works attributed to him, alleging them to be by Dionysius
and that he published it under his OWI~ ~.ven an IIlkling of the many and aL
n~me as part (perhaps the early part) of and Zopyras of Colophon, who, writing them for a joke, made them
lines desperately difficull problems
hiS IIellenica. over to Menippus." 6:> It is not impossible that Menippus subsequently
connect~d. wilh the origin, nature, and
HDiogenes Laertius 4.32. auth.e~tJclty of some of the works
HTbis Hierocles might be th tradillonalJ)' ascribed lo Arislolle. Of
published them as his own original productions.
ymous e anon-
i\I pagan philosopher with whom ~ate a ra.Lher extravagant thesis concel'll- Neither did Aristotle escape the charge of plagiarism. "Aristotle lis
I acnrius, the bishop of Magnesia h d IIlg AflsLolle's writings has boon
lon~ and biller dispute concerning a th a advanced b" J osep I1 Zurcher,
'
said to have] derived the majority as well as the most important
tel ' Arislo
A
menLs I '
of ( Christianity . S ee l.aCllflUS
:iI, ,e cs IVerk Ulld Geist (Paderbol'll, 1952). aspects of his [philosophical] teachings from Plato." GG Since this
p~ og~(t cd. Blondel). Some scholar~ A short resume of this book can be
maintain, however " thaL :if "
.. acanuss ~ound in I. Brady, "The New Aristotle"
particular charge is made by the wholly unreliable Clement of
o~ponent was Porphyry and Lhat Mac'l 111 the New Scholasticism XXVII (1953\ Alexandria, it can safely be disregarded.61 Clement, on the authority
flUS use~ an ,anonymous excel'pt fro~ 305-34. According to Z~rch"er Adstoll~
:crp~yry s Ka-ra. xpt<n1a~w~. Aeneas of Gaza of the equally untrustworthy Aristobulus, also claims that the whole
was really a Platonist who' borl'Owed
It WltI. be rem em b ere,d was a disciple ' I~any of his main ideas from Plato. of Peripatetic (or Aristotelian) philosophy "was derived from the law
of Hlerocles. 1h~. Aristotelian elemenls in the
6Advcrsus H'feroc I em 1.369.4 IT. (ed, of Moses and from the other prophets" 58_an utterly ridiculous state
wntlllgs ascribed to Aristotle are
Kayser). actu~lly by Theophraslus. Jf Zurcher'S
. GIA P enpatelic
. philosopher during rhe
ment. 69
theSIS were cor reel, then Clement's
lillIe of Ihe Antonines and probabl allegation might be true, al. least in The Stoics in particular came in for much recrimination. They
Leacher of All lenaeus. None Y Lhe of parL. There exisls no reason however, ,"
were accused by the Peripatetics 70 of having "stolen" their whole
Adrnstus's original writings have b why Zurcher's thesis sl~ould be
presened
. . Th eon 0 f S myrna, een
Prochls philosophy from them: "These people [the Stoics], to be sure, have
accepte~.. See A.-II. Chroust, "Tile
P lorlnus F'avorinus E I . ., CompOSitiOn of ArisLolle's Metaphysics,"
of Alex~ndria
'
anei C~a~~ildu.s, A?aLolius
< IUS m part New ~cholasticism, XXVIIl (1954), 58 Cr.,
taken (rom us [the Peripatetics) not just one idea here and another
were
Ad mfluenced b" Ihe I eae h'tngs of espeCially pp. 65-66 and n. 27. idea there. They took over and appropriated our ,,,hole philosophy" 11
ras~us. As a maLLer of fact he is G8Stromateis 5.14.98. -a thesis it would be difficult to substantiate, even though Stoic
the. "Ila! connecting link beLwe~n P ._ 69As to Lite unreliabilil.y of Arislobu-
dOlllUS (an d I'HS all-impOl'lant OSI
Com- Jus, see the text infra. Charges of Philosophical Plagiarism in Greek Antiquity
ll1enl~!r~ to the Timaeus of Plato) , d :Ol\~. Pupius Pi so Frugi, 1.0 be exact. Apton,Hermann Chroust
Ch a !CH:l illS. n
<lCu:ero, De Finibus 5.25.74.
229
228
 ph~losop~y, especialJy late Stoicism, contains a having pilfered the majority as well as the most important of their
Aristotelian thought "And" C. . certain amount of doctrines [rom Plato; 74 and the same Clement, who also observes a
, lGeLD contmues "like all other thieves
of this kind who change the 'trade marks' the thin I 0; certain dependence of the Stoics on Heraclitus of Ephesus," informs us
stolen, these [the Stoics], in order to use our teachings :sSt~l~~have that according to tradition Zeno in particular had "borrowed" heavily
changed our particular nomenclature" 72 P I h ell own, frOIDPlato.76 Diogenes Laertius tells the story that Chrysippus "copied
is .d t I . 0 eman, t e Academician
Z sal 0 lave addressed Zeno. the Stoic, as follows' "You 81" .' out the whole of Euripides' Ai edea" 17 and Apollodorus of Athens ".1

maintained that "if one were to strip the works of Chrysippus of all

eno,. by the back door-I am quite aware of this~ Ip In, 7

teach mgs and th ' h )OU steal my extraneous quotations, his pages would be left bare." 78 It is not clear,
en give t em a Phoenician make-up" 73 A di
Clement f AI d ' ' ccor 109 to however, whether Chrysippus gave due credit to the fact that he made
h 0 exan rra, who apparently denies that any Greek phil -.
op er ever produced a ,. I as- use of many "extraneous quotations." Carneades, according to Dio-
of Plat' I n angina thought of his own, some followers
o vigorous y asserted that the Stoics had b een C Ira-ged with genes Laertius, went so far as to call Chrysippus "the literary parasite
of Epicurus." 79
iu. Epicurus. as is well known, wished to create the (obviously false)
to Diogen~s LaerLius 10.12-13, he also
"Diogenes Laertlus 7.25. The refer- was acquainted with Ihe teachings of impression that in his philosophical doctrines he was a complete
ence La the "Phoenician make-up" IS
Ana~agoras, Archelaus, Praxlphanes (a u'toIHBrxx'tO,;.80 His former disciple Timocrates, the brother of Herrno-
~roL<l~I~ a reference to Zeno's pupil of Theophra stusj ), and Xenocratcs
1 hoel~IClan origin; but it might also 1 he rilla"t(l:'l'lAtCl(l: of Democrttus is said to dorus, claimed, however, that "most of what is contained in the thirty-
contain ;~n allusion to a kind of have become lite rifj(l:f1Bl''l (or all(l:f'-~lo: seven books On Nature [written by Epicurus] is a mere repetition of
camouf1agwg with red paint or painting -fearless.ness) of Epicurus (Clement of
{'v~r someone else's property with red ~lexan~rIa, Stromaleis 2.21.130); and
what previously had been said by others." 81 Timocrates also insisted
point, Lhu~ making it appear as one's
own. This would imply, then, that
/H': logic (Canon) of Epicurus supposedly that Epicurus "had copied his Canon out of Nausiphanes' l'pmoBo:;." 82
IS .based Oil the logical teachings (the
zeno merely changed the nomenclature Tnpo.d) of Nausiphanes (Diogenes
In later years it was suggested that Epicurus had borrowed-some used
used by Polemon. See n. 72 and Lhe Laer-tius 10.14). For some time Ept- the term "stolen" 83_a great many ideas from Democritus; 84 it was
text thereto. curus called himself a Democruean
HStronwleis 2.6.27 and 51496 (Plutarch, Adversus Coloten 3.3); but
suggested that he had borrowed especially [rom Of the Gods, a book
751bid., 5.14.106. . . .
laLer he denied any and all connections by Theodorus the Atheist, "most of what he wrote on the subject." 8~
,",76}bid., 6.2.27. Diogenes Laertius with the lhoughl of Democritus whom
(/.33) reports IhaL in his Republic Zeno he c~lIed a nonsense-monger (Diogenes
It was also said that "he put forward as his own the teachings of
~pparently used ideas that can be found LaerllUS 10.8). He went so far as to Democritus about atoms, and the teachings of Aristippus about
III the "P?liLical" wrilings of Philo. maintain that he never had a teacher,
See also Dlogenes LaerLius 7131 pleasure." 86 According to Sextus Empiricus, he derived certain of
that no one ever Laught him anything, '."
77Diogenes Laertius 7.180.' . and that he was a complete autodidacl his basic doctrines from the ancient poets: 87 from Homer 88 his defini-
781bid., 7.181. (See n. 4.) (Cicero, De Nalura Deoru.m 1.26.72 and
a/bid., 10.26. tion of pleasure, and from Epicharmus and Homer 89 his teachings about
1.33.93; Sextus Empiricus Adversus
~OAccording La Diogenes Laerlius 10.2, Malhematicos 1.3). ' death. Diogenes Laertius informs us that Epicurus's many writings
Eplcurus read some of the works of 8lDiogenes Laerlius 10.7.
De~ocrilus aL the age of fourteen.
"contain not a single citation from other authors"; 90 but Carneades
82lbid.
(DlOgenes Laertius 10.14 reduces the age 83~erhaps the expression "shameless" insists that "he has so many citations that they alone fill his books." 91
10 lwelve.) On the island of Samos he in Dlogenes Laerlius 10.3 refers to Epi
heard lI~e Platonist Pamphilius (ibid.,
These are some of the recorded instances where philosophers of
curus's plagiarisms.
I?14.; Cicero, De Natura Deorum 1.2.72). 84Clement of Alexandria Stroma/cis Greek antiquity, rightly or wrongly, have been charged with
Nauslphanes, a follower of Democritus 6.2.2i. '
pr~bably had a lasting innuence o~
plagiarism. Since much, and perhaps too much, of the original
85Diogenes LaerLius 2.97.
Eplcurus and his thought (Cicero De s6/bid., 10.4. ancient literature either has been lost or has come down to us in an "
Natu~a Deorum 1.26.73; Dio~enes 87Adversus Mathematicos 1.273. altered and even mutilated form, it is difficult and, in most instances,
Laerhus 10.12 and 10.14). In laler 88Hamer, Iliad 1.469.
year~ .he emphatically, though not s9/bid., 24.54.
COl~vInclllgly, denied this influence
Charges of Philosophical Plagiarism in Greek Antiquity
~ODiogenes Laerlius 10.26. Anton-Hermann Chroust
(DJOgenes Laertius 10.12). According ~11bid., 10.26.

230 231
 h . to verify these cbarges . It,'1 emarns now to discuss
impossible , so statements, and expressions.92 As a result of all this, a new type or
t e ancient authors or critics who have made 't tl . ~e of "'scholarlY" literature developed which concerned itself exclusively
b . I 1 1811' partIcula
usmess to erret out and ascertain philosophical plagiarisms. r with problems 01' plagiarism, Unfortunately, only a few fragments o l
this literature have survived, most through the writings of Porphyry,93
lL Clement of Alexandria;" and Eusebius of Caesarea."
porphyry mentions a number of authors who had composed specific r
Alrea~y in late antiquity special efforts were made to establish and detailed works or critical studies on plagiarism; namely,
Lh e baSIS f" .. I" . on
.. 0 criuca Investigations a number of philosophical Aristophanes or Byzanlium,96 Latinus," Caecilius or Calacte." Philo-
p Iagiansms . These e IT01't S pro-oba b ly were prompted b tl . I
stratus of Alexandria," Lysimachus,IO(l Polliof n ) , 1/)1 and Aretades. (l2 "
frequently random char es a Y 18 vanous and
bv rival oh! g nd countercbarges of borrowing d These men probably supplied Porphyry-and, through Porphyry,
y rival ph los h s rna e
, I op ers or competing schools of philosophy At th Eusebius and perhaps Clement of Alexandria-with some information
lime, a~ "" increasing number of learned commenta;'ics S :osas:se
concerning ancient plagiarism. With the exception or a few and per-
and jlorileqia made their appearance which a I' y P ,
collat d ,mong ot ier matters also haps seriously distorted remarks round in the <bt).o),0'Y0~ axpoCiO"t~ of
e , compared, and analyzed parallel or merely similar ideas, Porphyry, all or nearly all of their critical studies are lost. Hence it
is impossible to verify their allegations or determine their influence on
nor ~reat importance were also the aeeu~ed. a number of histor-ians with
wo~k,s 01 grammarians and the sever-al
later authors.
plngiartsm, such as Herodotus (who
liE?' E'JP7ll-'-~1:U,l\lwhich frequently attempted s~ole from Hecataeus}, Ctesies, and
Porphyry, who, besides his extensive philosophical works, also
~o es.t'lbhsh the seniority amonc com el- 'l'heopompus, who, in the eleventh book engaged in critical philological, historical, and literary studies,
... Ideas ,ocd trrmcs,
1Il0" i or writings. 0 P
of his I\).m.,m:O: (11' B, fr ag. 110;
9sln It).,ti).DrO~ iltptiqQ"t~. which in pad recorded, collated, and probably also unearthed (or thought he had
Mueller, Fl'agmcnla Historiecrusn Grae-
has been preserved by Eusebius Pr COrt~~, p. 295) stole from the Areo- unearthed) a number of plagiarisms committed by some of his
rorauo Evangclica 10.3.1-24. ' roe-
/lag.I/ICUS of Isocrates (t'rocpcraiio Boon-
9Jln Stromateis, Book V, chap. 14 predecessors. He seems to havc reported certain of his findings in the
o
?eltca 10.3.4). The passage from which
a nd Book VI, chap. 2, et passim. ' I he~~omplls allegedly stole is Areo- ~AO)..Oj'O:; ax.polXl1l:; a work of which an excerpt (or abbreviation) or
9~ln Pl'acparatio ElJangclica 1011-9' !,OgllICUS 7.4. According to Pollio(n),
]0.2.1-14; 10.3.1-26. .. , fragment is preserved in the Prepal'atio Evangelica lD3 of Eusebius or
~hcopomptls commilled a great man)'
96Ibid., 10.3.12. Accordin<T 10 Ide.l'ary thefts. SeQ Praeparatio Evan- Caesarea. The only philosophical plagiarism which, according to the
Porph}:ry (Eusebius), Aristopha~es of gchea 10.3.9-11.
B)"1.a.lltl.um wrote mosll~' on the alleged report of Eusebius, was recorded by Porphyry is the charge made by
ID2Euscbius, Praepal'atio Evangelica
plagiarisms of Menander. It is probable 10.3.23.. Areladcs, it appears, discovered, Froseoes the Peripatetic that Plato not only had made extensive use or
ho~vever, that he wrote an On Paml: or cIalr.ns to have discovered, a great
le/isms (cf. ibid., 10.3.12: lbp! '1tr:tpq)J:l)l.o,~ many lIlerary plagiarisms his predecessors but also had pilfered them on a huge scale. But [or
among Greek
rCllhe.r lhan an On Plagiarisms (nElli poels. Il should be noled thai none of the nearly complete loss of the pre-Platonic liter~ture, Prosenes con
ltlo'1tqt~). and lhal it was Porphyry who the authors on plagiarism, mentioned
added the term plagiarism. tinues, we might possibly detect cven more literary thefts committed
by. Porphyry, has deall wilh philoso-
HE b'
'use IUS, Pracparalio EvangeliC(( by Plato, who, among other things, probably also borrowed from
ph lCal plagiarisms, at least nol accord-
1~.3.12. Lalinus, 100, apparently dealt ing to the reporl of Porphyq.
With the "plagiarisms" of l\Ienander Protagoras's A.oj'o:; 7tspl'tou '}v":o~.
10\
ID3See n. 93. Eusebius quotes
9Blbid., ~0.3.13. Caecilius, too, see;ns Porph)"ry's work primarily in order 10 Eusebius of Caesarea, in his search for plagiarism, relied mostly on
10 have wntten on the "plagiarisms" of show that the Jewish or Christian
Menander.
Porphyry and Clement of Alexandria, and wished to impress his
<Iuthors (see infra) were not the onl}'
99lbid 10.3.17. Philoslratus of ones or even the first ones 10 accuse readers with the [act that most and perhaps all of Hellenic philosophy
Alexandr'i'a charged Sophocles with the Greeks of plagiarism, but. that the is not perchance an original contribution or the Greeks but rather is
plagiarism. .'
Creeks themsell'cs had alread"y done so
loolbid., 10.3.23. I Ike some of IllS for some .lime (Pracpal'atio Evangcliea borrowed, :-stolen, or plagiarized directly from older and presumably
predecessors, Lyslmachus charged Epho- 10,1.7),
rLis wilh plagiarism. 1/)4/bid., ]0.3.24-25. See also n. 53. Charges of Philosophical Plagiarism in Greek Antiquity
IOllbid. In Ilis 'lp7l1:ai, Pollio(n) Anlon-Ilermann Chroust

232 233
 more
to b advanced
' civilization&-especially from tl18 JCWIS
. I1 people 01 time, proclaim the absolute superiority and greater antiquity of the
e mors exact, from the scriptural tradition of the Jews. Cle:nen; Judaeo-Christian teachings over those of the Greeks.
of Alexan~ri~, one of Eusebius's sources, in turn seems to have ,', Like Aristobulus l
and essentially for the same reasons, Clement of
;ood,e OfHhllsllHformation about Greek philosophical plagiarism fr~:I:~d Alexandria, in the last part of Book V of the Stromaleis,101 goes to great
whu aeo-
II' e emstrc. Apologist
01 S
(b u t not necessarily from
.
Aristobulu )e length in his effor-t to prove that the whole of Greek philosophy or philo-
"N 0
Th ounshed In AIexandria from tl ie 111 century before Ch .s ,
tb i -d sophical wisdom had been pilfered from the Script.ures. In order ,'.
tl t e most prominent and certainly the most influential of the ear;~st. further to substantiate his thesis, he demonstrates in Book VI,
Chapters 2-4, of the Stromateis that tbe Greek poets and philosophers
A~~stO:~IU~re~:h~~e:~nd:~dae,~;Heuenistic AIpologists was probably
h .. .. ,10 In an a most fanatical .. extensively and rather shamelessly stole from one another. This being -,

c auvrmsm Insisted that the tea hi d savi spmt of so, how much more readily would the)' steal from foreigners.
ophers and poets were either b~s~~gS an s~ymgs ,of the Greek philos-
the Old Testament m J .' Ion, or Immediately derived from, Inasmuch as they pilfer from one another, they establish the fact
S . n pal ncu ar, he claimed that P th
that they are thieves ,. clandestinely appropriating, . the
ocrates, Plato, and Aristotle had found their bas" d . Y agoras,
Scriptures 106 TI' h .. rc octrmes In the truth which helongs to us. If they do not keep their hands off
. .118 t eory, It will be noted' f " I08
significance, With som diflcati , ,IS 0 great historical each other, they will hardly keep them off our authors.
e
period of time adhered t:ob I canons It was adopted and for a long
Christian theolo ians y many of the early, and even later, Clement then proceeds in a totally disorderly and confusing manner
to enumerate approximately sixty instances of alleged plagiarisms,
the PhilosoPhica~ ten~t:v~~ :~:sG~~~:: :~d)~SibJe to uphold many 01
omans and, at the same which he tries to support with about one hundred and eighty illustra-
tions or quotations chosen at random. First he points out, citing
10~In order 10 prove h is extrnvacant
examples, where in his opinion one Greek author borrowed the ideas,
. nu, 6.2.25-27.
thesis, Aristobulus not only falsified nu, 6.2.16. expressions, 01' statements Cacl.r%'1ovJ:t y.ctlAE~St:;) 109 of another Greek
Gre~k lex Is; he also tried, lhrou h r-iu, 6.2.17. author.l1O Then he lists those instances where a Greek writer had
fanel~ul allegorical interpretations gof ll~[bid. Thus we are told that
cerlal.n biblical passages, to achieve a lifted or appropriated whole sections and passages (t.AOI(),~PO: 9wpio:) 111
Empedocles derived his doctrine of the
pla usf hle rapprochement of th S' Crom another Greek writel'.1l2 In sum, the first part deals with petty
tu die crtp- four. basic elements from Atbamas's
~es an tw writings of cer-tain Greek thesIs tha1 "there are four roots-lire
philosophers
d and poels .... In "dd'l'
I lon, . thievery, while the second part is concerned with wholesale theft.
In waler, air, and earth." From lhes~
or ~r further to strengthen his thesis sprang everylhing lhat is generaled. Among Lhe incidents of petty thievery, Clement ..efers to the follow-
he Invented lhe incredible story that Ih~ 116lbid.
Old Testament had several times been ing authors: Xenophon stole from Sophocles; 113 Heraclitus of Ephesus
1l7/bid., 6.2.23. Arislophanes' SLille-
lranslaied inlo Greek at a' t ment lhat "to think and to acl are Lhe Crom Orpheus; 114 Empedocles from the Pythagorean, Athanes; W
period. "cry ear y
sll.me thing" supposedly is identical Menander from PlaLo; 116 Aristophanes from.Parmenides; 111 Euripides
I06EusebillS, Praepa,"t,'o... E'vangelica ~nth Parmenides' asserLion that "lhink-
13 .12.1 ff. See also ibid 8938 d Crom Empedoc1es; 118 and Epicurus from Euripides, 119 as well as from
13113' _ .. an Ing and being are one and lhe same."
. :' Clement of Alexandria St _ 1l8lbid., 6.2.24.
malelS 1.15.72' 51497 t .' fO
Aristophanes.12o Then follow the relatively few cases where Clement
I07C "', e passun. 119/bid.
5.14.89~~~~nt of Alexandria, Stromateis 120fbid. believes to have uncovered instances of wholesale theft; that is, in-
12Ilbid., 6.2.25-27. Sce also ibid., stances where one Greek author had lifted major sections from the '.
I08/bid., 6.2.4. Clement prefaces hIS
6.2.25: "They [,Lhe Greek authors] will ;
report on Greek plaglaflsms With the also be convicled of lhe possession of writings of another Greek author.l21 Eugammon of Cyrenel we arc
state~ent: "Let us adduce the Greeks what is slolen wholesale. Slealing told, pilfered Irom Musaeus the whole book which the latter had .'
as witnesses against lhemselves to the wholesale whal is the production of
theft" (ibid.).
olhers, they have published il as their
composed about the '{hesbrotians; 122 Peisander of Camirus has
I09/bid., 6.225
own ..
lI/bid., G.2.5-24. Charges of Philosophical Plagiarism 10 Greek Antiquity
122lbid., 6.2.25.
Ill/bid., 6.2.25. Anton-Hermann Chroust

234 235
 "

1larities, parallelisms, and dependences, they are frequently mere

plagiarized
. wholesale the Heraclea of Pisinus of Lindus: ' and Pa nya~ns
'
commonplace sayings, truisms, proverbs, or just the general formula-
of Halicarnassus has taken over a large part of the Capture of Oechalia
tions of certain universal human experiences which in the course of
composed by Cleophilus of Samos.!" Homer, too, is accused of major
time have been repeated again and again by different authors in similar
thefts from Orpheus; 124 Hesiod from Musaeus; 12:; Aristophanes from
or identical language.134 Only a few examples cited by Clement can
Cratinus: 126 the comic poet Plato, from Aristophanes (and vice-
justifiably be termed deliberate plagiarisms. Hence his statement that
versa); 127 and Aratus (AristophanesP) from the comic poet, Phil-
nearly all philosophical authors of Greek antiquity-or at least those
emon. us In addition, a goodly number of other writers are mentioned
with whom he happened to be acquainted-were shameless plagiarists
as major plagiarists; Gorgias of Leontini (and Eudemus of Naxos) , simply borders on the absurd, especially since this statement was -,
who presumably stole important ideas from 1\lelesagoras; 129 Heraclitus uttered by a man who himself is a plagiarist of the worst sort.
of. Ephesus, who allegedly "took a great deal from Orpheus"; 130 Where, then, did Clement derive his information concerning the
Aristotle, who "pilfered the majority of his most important teachings many-alleged and true-instances of: plagiarism among Greek philos-
from Plato"; 131 and Epicurus, who derived his main doctrines from
ophers and authors? It would not be amiss to presume that for the
Democritus.!" "Life would fail me," Clement concludes in a rather relatively short report on alleged wholesale thefts 13:\ he made use of
condescending manner, "were I to undertake to go over the subject a work On Plagiarism, or ns.pt 7tohfj;, which, however, is no longer
[Greek philosophical plagiarism] in detail." r aa extant and the author of which is unknown.
136
The considerably
Clement's allegations, it goes without saying, cannot be taken at longer excursions dealing with petty thievery, or stolen ot~'JOtGtt XGtt Ai;et~,
their face value. In his apologetic fervor he definitely overshoots his cannot possibly have been taken from an ancient work entitled
own target. Wherever he believes to have detected suspicious sim- Dept x).,07tij<;, and this for the simple reason that most of the examples
quoted by Clement are not plagiarisms in the accepted sense of the
123Ibid. Since nearly all the works are told, rose to such eminence exactly term but merely accidental parallelisms or perhaps eye-catching sim-
mentioned by Clement in this connec- because he competed with Homer,
lion are completely lost, Clement's because he used Homer as his model. ilarities which in all likelihood had been compiled by the unknown
allegations of theft or plagiarism can no See also what Pliny had to say about author of some lost commentary synopsis, or florilegium.
longer be veri ned. As regards the theft Virgil (n. 9). Our anonymous author
of Eugammon from Musaeus, it might also quotes with much approval from
be intimated here that it is more likely Ammontus's flEpi -rwv aT:O n).Q"tUlVG' foU!"tEVo'
that the poems which were circulated "'''lTfl-ivwv t~'O"'1JPOU (scholirun ad Hom.
under the name of Musaeus were lliad. 9.540), a work in which Ammo-
plagiarized from Eugammon. Accord- nius shows the decisive inOuence of
ing to Pausanias 1.22.7, wilh the possi- Homer on Plato. Ammonius denies,
ble exception of the Hymn to Demeter, however, that Plato ever plagiarized
most of the poems ascribed to Musaeus Homer. See Theon, Progymnasmata
were forgeries. 2.62 n., who likewise stresses the use-
124Ibid., 6.2.26. fulness and appropriateness of relying
1251bid. on and imitating the great literary
1251bid. models of the past.
121Ibid. 13f;Stromuteis 6.2.25-27.
1281bid. 136lt seems that none of the authors
129/bid., 6.2.2i. of a DEpt XA'l1rii~, menlioned by Porphyry
130lbid. (see supra), has been Clement's :'
131Ibid. informant. Neither is it certain Lhal he
1321bid. relied on Ar-istobulus , although both
133Ibid. Clement and Arislobulus seem to have
134The anonymous author of flEpi ~'f'lU', much in common. Naturally, it is not
chap. 13, points out that imitation impossible that he made some use of Charges 01 Philosophical Plagiarism in Greek Antiquily
(pJ"'7j"t<:) of the great poets of old is by Arislobulus. This, however, canllol be Anton-Hermann Chroust
no means plagiarism (xJmn)). Plato, we shown conclusively.
237
236
 ...
>-
a:
<
z Z ~
"'-
Sl
......
>
;>.
.......... -8 -
r/l
00

-'
Z .s :>< H

< --
~ (J) ~
>-~ :.E: :>< <
a:w :>< :> 00

"'- ,;
<0 ~ S -e
"-
a: ....
al< Q
Cl

'=!
"":;;:., ~ ~-
c

-U
....
-
a:Cl
wo
~ ....
(/)0
0 ~
::
....
::s
.~
,c.
...l
0
>
.....
r/l
;:l
0
-
ii;
c
;;
~
;:JW
J:
~
~
~
.... ....:l "
'i::

..... c,
vI-
:Ea:
W
....
~
0 ....
'=!
;:,:
~
~
-c
~
'"
.....ro~
~
Q

-s
-e
....
:J
u,
=:c 0 "'<: '"
::J!

:is"
(/)
"
-
...,~
~ o,
~
~ ~-
-c
."
"
" "'""-
U ~
,
c
:<: ~

ir: -
""
a,
c
l'.,
-!:
C
U

""
I-.