Book Notes

Presocratics Myth Doxography

JAAP MANSFELD

Collections of articles pertaining to a common theme have gradually become a

publishing venture equal in importance to the traditional learned journals, which
even su er a bit from the competition. Sometimes the quality of the ingredients
is uneven, especially when they are the nal version of papers read at a collo-
quium. The consistency of the volume as a whole too may be weaker than one
would like it to be.1 The present book (deriving from the Bristol Myth Colloquium
of 1996) is no exception,2 though I hasten to add that much is to be learned from
it. It takes its cue from the title of NestleÕs famous Vom Mythos zum Logos (with-
out question-mark) of 1940, 3 whose predecessor seems to have been entirely for-
gotten. 4 It is also of some relevance to point out that Kranz, apparently with DielsÕ
blessing, in the fth edition (1934-7) of the Fragmente der Vorsokratiker drasti-
cally and in uentially modi ed the sequence of chapters, putting Orpheus
Musaeus Pherecydes e tutti quanti before Thales.
The papers in the Buxton volume are quite divergent as to contents and treat-
ment. I shall here only speak of those which to some extent I feel in a position

1
See also below, on the volume edited by Ph. J. van der Eijk.
2
R. Buxton, ed., From Myth to Reason? Studies in the Development of Greek
Thought, Oxford etc.: OUP 1999, pp. xv + 368. Hardback, 45. ISBN 0-19-815234-5.
Contents summarized by the editor in the slightly apolegetic preface, pp. 14-21.
3
This took the story as far as the Sophists. His Griechische Geistesgeschichte von
Homer bis Lukian in ihrer Entfaltung vom mythischen zum rationalen Denken (21944)
went much farther. Nestle is a bit les rigid than he is often supposed to be, see e.g.
Vom Mythos p. 19: ÒEs ist also nicht so, da sich ein mythisch denkendes Zeitalter
von einem philosophisch denkenden zeitlich scharf trennen lie e. Vielmehr gehen
beide Formen der Weltbetrachtung nebeneinander her, doch so, da eine fortwŠhrende
Auseinandersetzung zwischen beiden stattfand, wobei sich denn doch der Schwerpunkt
mehr und mehr von dem Mythos zum Logos verlagerteÓ etc.
4
J. Dšr er, ÔVom Mythos zum Logos. Kritische Bemerkungen Ÿber das VerhŠltnis
der griechischen Weltbildungslehren zur jonischen NaturphilosophieÕ, 44. Jahres-
bericht des Kaiser Franz Josef-Staatsgymnasiumszu Freistadt in Oberšsterreich, Freistadt
1914, 3-57. He assigns an all-important role to Orphism, of which at the time far less
was known than now (see J. Bremmer ap. Buxton, pp. 71-83). Dšr er and Nestle wrote
letters to each other. An account of the history of a logos vs mythos opposition, viz.
of the transition from rationalizing or allegorizing myth to its unprejudiced study is
given by G. W. Most ap. Buxton, pp. 25-47.

2000 Phronesis XLV/4

342 BOOK NOTES

to talk about, though some have to be left out for lack of space. Several contri-
butions belong to the domain of Religionswissenschaft; fun to read, but beyond
both my competence and the domain of this journal. A single observation is per-
haps permitted. In the past century, more especially since the second world war,
myths of all sorts from all over the world and from all periods have been stud-
ied and compared in a responsible way and from a variety of angles, to a degree
unparalleled before. This has profoundly in uenced the notion, or rather notions
(for no general agreement has been reached) of what it is for something to be a
myth. For this reason alone already the discussion about a postulated develop-
ment from myth to reason in the Greek world (parallel, naturally, to a persistance
of myth) is very much di erent from what it was in NestleÕs days, let alone in
those of Dšr er though on the other hand one is also struck by the presence of
a quaestio perennis, viz. that of the relation between cosmological myth and early
Greek philosophy.
I recommend G.E.R. Lloyd, ÔMythology: re ections from a Chinese perspec-
tiveÕ, pp. 145-65 which, apart from providing a discussion of a Chinese text which
makes no distinction at all between what we at rst sight would call mythical and
rational (to my mind, and I suppose to LloydÕs, this does not entail that we should
follow suit), most welcomely lists important evidence for the earlier periods per-
taining to the explicit distinction on the Greek side (pp. 154-5; from a later period
add e.g. Gal. PHP 3.8.28). This paper was commissioned for the volume. Chr.
Rowe, ÔMyth, history and dialectic in PlatoÕs Republic and Timaeus-CritiasÕ, pp.
263-78, is also quite commendable for its quali ed acceptance of a view defended
elsewhere, viz. that PlatoÕs dialogues as a whole are ÒnarrativesÓ and therefore,
in some sence of the word, ÒmythsÓ (P. Murray, ÔWhat is a muthos for Plato?Õ,
pp. 251-62). Republic and Timaeus are singled out by M. as instances of such
narratives, though she acknowledges that Plato about as often distinguishes
between mythos and logos as he does not, and explicitly uses myths more often
than not of his own fabrication in order to persuade, or instruct (at a lower
level, I would say). Rowe points out that, indeed, at some deep level PlatoÕs dia-
logues are avowedly Ò ctionalÓ, and that in this respect a distinction between what
is mythical and what is rational is hardly relevant. But he rightly points at pas-
sages in the Republic other dialogues too could have been cited, e.g. Theaetetus
and Sophist where Plato presents hard arguments (or arguments, I venture to
suggest, he believed to be hard). These do not become soft by the mere fact of
being stated in a ctional context. 5
C. Calame in his sparkling essay ÔThe rhetoric of Muthos and Logos: forms of
gurative discourseÕ, pp. 119-43, goes much farther. He argues that there is no

5
To an astonishing degree this discussion is anticipated by L. Edelstein, ÔThe func-
tion of myth in PlatoÕs philosophyÕ, JHI 10 (1949) 463-81, repr. as nr. 8 in L. Tar‡n,
ed., L. Edelstein, Selected Philosophical Papers, New York and London 1987 (not in
the bibliography of the Buxton vol.)
 BOOK NOTES 343

ÒmarkedÓ distinction because both mythos and logos are forms of ÒdiscourseÓ, and
because what modern anthropology calls ÒmythÓ is not devoid of some form of
rationality. Even so, what belongs to the same kind may well exhibit a di eren-
tia speci ca. There is a marked di erence between the ÒdiscoursesÓ of Nestle and
Calame, though both are dealing with virtually the same subject. Generous terms
such as ÔnarrativeÕ and ÔdiscourseÕ, which are all-embracing and so explain every-
thing, end up by explaining nothing in particular.
Most instructive is W. Burkert, ÔThe logic of cosmogonyÕ, pp. 87-106, reason-
able as to the narratological aspects of ÔmythÕ, good on the variety of types of
myth, and quite informative about the mythical cosmogonies and cosmologies of
the Middle East in relation to those of the early Greek poets. His point (shared
not only by Calame but also by most of the other contributors) that there often is a
kind of rationality inherent in myth is true, even a shade truistic. Certainly, myths
often possess a clear structure, and the sequence of ctional events, however unex-
pected at times, may be quite palatable. This especially holds for cosmogonic
myths, which (as he points out) are capable of an intuitive sort of abstraction from
the here-and-now by postulating a beginning, and an evolution by means of
genealogy and/or manufacture. But one should, in my view, distinguish between
form and content: for instance, the structure of the ancient cosmogonical and
cosmological myths and of the cosmogonies and cosmologies of the early philo-
sophers may be quite similar, but the speci c contents and experiential and the-
oretical approach are signi cantly di erent. B. p. 105 sees the ontology of
Parmenides as the real beginning of rational argumentation. But what about
AnaximanderÕs geometrically structured and symmetrical cosmos (shorn of what
can be paralleled from traditional tales),6 or about his intuitive use of the princi-
ple of su cient reason?7 One need not share the Ôfrom-myth-to-reasonÕ ideology
in order to maintain that there is a distinction between myths, or ÒtraditionalÓ or
Òjust so storiesÓ, and rational expositions that can be checked, revised, and
amended in a methodical way, which is di erent from the lively ways myths
develop and change.
Hesiod already has his Muses distinguish between various ctitious stories
resembling the truth and those that are true. The proverb pollŒ ceædontai ŽoidoÛ,
Ôthe poets tell many di erent ctitious talesÕ, already referred to by Solon (fr. 29
West), is quoted Arist. Met. 983a4-5 to discredit the poetsÕ view that the gods are
envious. Aristotle may have Pl. Rep. 379a . in mind, a passage which to Plato
certainly was not just another myth. Several relatively ancient authors indeed sharply

6
For these parallels see W. Burkert, ÔKonstruktion des RŠumes und rŠumliche
Kategorien im griechischen DenkenÕ, in D. Reichert, ed., RŠumliches Denken, ZŸrcher
Hochschulforum Bd. 25, ZŸrich 1996, 70-3.
7
I entirely sympathize with Jonathan Barnes alii, scorned by Calame p. 123,
though I would say (and have) that what began at Miletus is proto-science rather than
philosophy.
344 BOOK NOTES

distinguished myths that are told, from theses and views that are argued for, or
can be argued for in a rational way; most importantly, perhaps, Aristotle, not
entirely satisfactorily dealt with by Th. K. Johansson, ÔMyth and logos in Aris-
totleÕ, pp. 279-91. True, Aristotle believed that cosmological myths are the
debased form of the metaphysics and physics of the best philosophy of the pre-
ceding world-cycle (so came up with a from mythos-to-logos-to-mythos-to-logos-
etc. story), just as proverbs are what remains of the philosophical ethics of such
a previous period. True, he recognizes that myths may be intended to explain.
Accordingly, a myth may be decoded. For all that the distinction is maintained.
ThalesÕ seminal approach is sharply distinguished from that of the ancient poets
and theologoi (Met. 983b20-a3). Particularly instructive is Met. 1091a29-b31 (not
cited by Johansson or elsewhere in the volume), where Aristotle distinguishes
between (1) the theologoi of today, (2) the ancient and later poets, (3) the Ômixed
ones among the ancients, because they do not tell everything the mythical way,
e.g. PherecydesÕ (fr. 81 Schibli, 7A7 DK), and some others, and (4) the later
experts (sofÇn), e.g. Empedocles and Anaxagoras. 8 What one should recognize
moreover (this is pointed out by Lloyd, Murray, Rowe and others) is that
Wortphilologie is not always helpful. We may for instance think of ParmenidesÕ
goddess, who calls her account of the two ways a mythos (B2.1). 9 Her disciple
has to judge this with logos (B7.5). Announcing the account of the way of Being
she says mñnow dƒ ¦ti mèyow õdoÝo / leÛpetai Éw ¦stin (B8.1-2).
Parmenides fascinates the young, as I know only too well. The majority of stud-
ies devoted to him are dissertations, or books or articles published early in a scholarÕs
career. ThanassasÕ thought-provoking and well-argued study (a TŸbingen disser-
tation of 1996) 10 provides an original and very philosophical interpretation of the
doxa section of the poem. This according to him is not intended as proof that the
world of our experience is illusory, or its description a mere dialectical exercise.
On the contrary, the fundamental error made by humans must be corrected by
ÔthinkingÕ (i.e. realizing) that the factors constituting this world should be united
qua their ÔbeingnessÕ (ÒSeiendheitÓ); see his attractive interpretation of fr. B4, pp.

8
Burkert pp. 88-9 cites Met. 983b27 but fails to dwell on the distinction postu-
lated by Aristotle, and (instead of 1091a29 .) cites 1071b26-8, where Aristotle says
that both theologoi (the reference is to the cosmogony from Night) and physikoi (cos-
mogony from the Ôall things togetherÕ) are wrong, which is di erent from having them
Òside by sideÓ in a positive sense.
9
Cf. Calame p. 122, on Empedocles.
10
P. Thanassas, Die erste >>zweite Fahrt<<. Sein des Seienden und Erscheinen
bei Parmenides, MŸnchen: Fink 1997, pp. 301. Paperback, DM 58. ISBN 3-7705-3163-9.
Includes critical Lesetext with some conjectures and facing German transl. pp. 274-85,
but no index locorum.
 BOOK NOTES 345

68 . which however, I believe, need not pertain to the world of the doxai. Sense-
perception is thoroughly discredited. 11 The dokoènta mentioned B1.31 ÒsindÓ
(p. 41, cf. pp. 47, 50, 84, 89, 147-8), are real insofar as they can, and must of neces-
sity, be collectively considered as to their Ôbeingness.Õ This, again, brings them
close to the single and singular Being of the al theia section of the poem, where
¦on should mean ÒSein des SeiendenÓ (pp. 92 .; I do not know how to translate
this Heideggerian formula into English). The mistake made by humans would be
that they have separated the two ÔformsÕ light and night (B8.53-9, pp. 160 .),
instead of considering them together as to their complementarity and to the extent
that neither of them participates in ÔnothingÕ:12 together they constitute the world
qua plenum, combined they constitute all the compounds (B9, pp. 163 .). I nd
this a bit hard to come round to, for how can the mere combination-in-thought
(as in reality) of ÔformsÕ whose separation as the habitual and fundamental impo-
sition of humans is not otherwise attested but clearly is a Parmenidean invention,
make up for this separation? One of the traditional views, viz. that the world of
our experience is explained, starting at B8.51 (Žpò toède), as what consistently
follows from a vitium originis seems preferable. And, pace T., Ôbeing all thingsÕ
is by no means the same as being simpliciter.
TÕs interpretation of this corrected status of the ÔformsÕ and their various com-
binations is explicitly made dependent upon his constitutio and interpretation of
the nal words of B1.32 (pp. 39 .) He defends the by now quite popular read-
ing p‹nta per önta and categorically rejects p‹nta perÇnta (DK). One of the tra-
ditional arguments is that of SimpliciusÕ mss. three have the former and only an
inferior one the latter.13 But perÇnta is con rmed by (the manuscript translated
by) William of Moerbeke, whose calque of B8.31-2 reads et haec discite quomodo
quae videntur / oportebit probata esse per omne omnia terminantia.14 This does
not really help, however, because Parmenides had only one character for both long
and short o: he wrote PANTAPERONTA in scriptio continua. The choice is still ours.
I have found no parallels for per positively qualifying forms of pw, or indeed
for its qualifying forms of pw at all. The Attic form of the participle (önta)
is also remarkable; one would expect ¤ñnta, which however is metrically impos-
sible here. Elsewhere Parmenides always uses Ionic forms of eänai, with the
exception of B8.57 ³pion ön. But PrellerÕs brilliant conjecture ±piñfron (for the
word cf. Emp. fr. 35.30 DK) is Òzu beachtenÓ (DK ad B8.57 in apparatu), because
one needs an opposite to B8.59 Žda°, and line 57 as transmitted is anyway out

11
But see this journal 44 (1999) 326 .
12
But one may also translate Ôthere is nothing which does not belong with either
of them.Õ Not all things are compounds of both elements, if we may believe Thphr.
Sens. 3-4 (~ 28A46) on dead bodies.
13
The other, that pern can only mean Ôto pass through and leave behindÕ is false,
see D. OÕBrien ad loc., in P. Aubenque, ed., ƒtudes sur ParmŽ nide, Paris 1987,
1.14.
14
See BICS 40 (1995) 231 n. 33.
346 BOOK NOTES

of tune. B1.22 has the word prñfrvn, and B16.4 uses fron¡ei of the elemental
constituents humans think-and-percieve with.15 Adjectives composed with -frvn
are frequently found from the Homeric epics onwards (Kretschmer/ Locker/
Kissen p. 196). But one cannot be sure: Attic forms of eänai are already attested
in the epics (the participle at Od. 7.94.), and once in Empedocles (fr. B129.13,
substantivated participle. Note that ¤ñntvn is impossible here for metrical reasons).
I conclude that there are no compelling reasons to prefer per önta to perÇnta.
T.Õs case would perhaps look a bit stronger if instead of concentrating on önta he
had focused on eänai in the same line. But then the di culty becomes even more
obvious, because this in nitive is quali ed by dokÛmvw: one still is in the sphere
of mortal opinions. It seems moreover that T. sometimes believes that per goes
with önta instead of p‹nta. The interpretation of the opaque lines B1.31-2 (inten-
tionally opaque, I think) depends anyhow upon oneÕs view of what follows in the
poem, and should not be used to substantiate such an interpretation. Simplicius
found Parmenides so di cult that he misapplied SocratesÕ words about the Delian
diver to him (in Ph. 32.36 .) One can only sympathize.
S. Mouraviev has been studying Heraclitus and writing about him for more
than thirty years. Most of this time was spent in the former USSR, where the
Ephesian (promoted by Marx) was one of the few ancient philosophers one was
allowed to publish about but conditions for research were hopeless. Apart from
impressively numerous articles and reviews M. has published a preliminary recon-
struction of the treatise, and now this volume of testimonia.16 Quite a few more
volumes are planned, among which one with his de nitive reconstruction of the
treatise. The preliminary one published in 1991 is far from satisfactory. M.Õs
ordering is not always credible: e.g. fr. 1 DK with which according to Sext. M.
7.132 the book began (note the inceptive d¡) is his fr. 10. Sometimes the frag-
ments are connected with each other by a few words in Ionic composed by M.,
which begs the question of the original sequence. There are quite a few wilful or

15
For the idea also cf. Emp. B109 and B111.10 DK.
16
S. Mouraviev, Heraclitea IV.A, HŽ raclite dÕƒph se, << Les muses >> ou << De
la nature >>, Moscou-Paris: << Myrmekia >> 1991, pp. xxvii, 31. Hardback.
ISBN 2-910107-01-9 (no longer available); Heraclitea II.A.1, Traditio 1, HŽ raclite
dÕƒph se, La tradition antique et mŽ diŽ vale, A. TŽ moignages et citations, Textes et
traduction, 1. DÕƒpicharme ˆ Philon dÕAlexandrie, Sankt Augustin: Akademia Verlag
1999, pp. xxvi + 270. Hardback, DM 98. ISBN 3-89665-090-4 (chs. 1-15 previously
published Moscow 1993). This volume is accompanied by a yer, PrŽ sentation de
lՎ dition, which pp. 8-12 has a brief bibliography of editions of and works on
Heraclitus (M. has missed, or chosen to ignore, the Reclam Vorsokratiker, but never
mind), pp. 13-6 lists a good number of the authorÕs 142 contributions quite a few
in Russian to Heraclitean studies, and p. 2 sets out the plan of the whole multi-vol-
ume enterprise. Printing: II.A.2, Traditio 2, De SŽ n que ˆ Diog ne La‘rce, Sankt
Augustin: Akademia Verlag 2000, pp. 402. Hardback, DM 118. ISBN 3-89665-134-
X. Just published: S. Mouraviev, ÔHŽ raclite dÕƒph seÕ, DPA 3, Paris 2000, 573-617.
 BOOK NOTES 347

super uous emendations. The volume of testimonia, on the other hand, is useful,
not least because it has a meticulous index of passages, and because sometimes
a text is accompanied by a brief commentary (e.g. a passage from the Derveni
papyrus, IV.A.1 pp. 58-9). The source authors are presented in chronological
order, the passages excerpted in the order life and doctrine. Perhaps, though, too
many texts have been included, for not every passage in an ancient author where
one is reminded of an attested Heraclitean fragment has to be regarded as being
indispensable for reconstructing his thought. But de nitive judgement is precluded
until the series of volumes with testimonia is complete, and the commentary deal-
ing with this material at oneÕs disposal. Hopefully, we shall learn a lot about the
various angles from which the Ephesian was considered in the course of all those
centuries of reception, and about the (often already traditional) preoccupations of
individual authors dealing with him. One also wants to learn about the company
he was made to keep, or not to keep, in these various traditions and in the cen-
tos of quotations and/or references found in many sources. Anyway, one hopes
M. has the energy and nds the time and funding to complete this major under-
taking, and wishes him well. Some amount of sifting and reconsideration is
strongly recommended, however.17 One cannot help feeling that the prospect of
similar vast corpora being assembled for each individual major Presocratic is a
bit daunting.
I end with a biblÛon Žjiñkthton: a collection of essays about the Òdoxography
and historiography of medicineÓ from Aristotle to Oribasius.18 This subject over-
laps with the doxography and historiography of ancient philosophy. The essays
were commissioned by its diligent, ambitious, and proli c editor who contributes
three chapters himself. A few preliminary remarks may be in order, though pre-
sumably I should not be the rst to throw stones. In several contributions the
notions behind the terms ÔdoxographyÕ and ÔhistoriographyÕ are conceived in a
too generous way. But not all the instances where an author, critically or not,
refers to the views of others come under ÔdoxographyÕ or Ôhistoriography.Õ A
Doxography (prime example: A‘tiusÕ physical Placita) is a systematic collection
of tenets (doxai etc.) and not much more than that, though it may have a critical
undertone and even sport explicit criticisms. Such collections existed and were

17
Heraclitea III, Recensio: Les fruits de la critique (at least four vols.) is to con-
tain a volume on the life and work of Heraclitus, one on the views attributed to him,
one on the fragments of his book, and one on the sources used by him.
18
Ph. J. van der Eijk, ed., Ancient Histories of Medicine: Essays in Medical Doxography
and Historiography in Classical Antiquity. Studies in Ancient Medicine 20. Leiden
etc.: E. J. Brill 1999, pp. viii, 537. Hardback, US 123. ISBN 90-04-10555-7. Excellent
indexes. One regrets the absence of a general bibliography (references in the footnotes
only), because much of the literature is hard to nd, esp. for non-specialists. The edi-
tor notes (pp. 29-30) that the volume doen not aim at completeness and mentions top-
ics that could not be included. One particularly misses treatment of GalenÕs On Sects
and [Galen?] On the Best Sect.
348 BOOK NOTES

freely used by others, but a passage in say Tertullian ultimately deriving from a
Doxography is not itself a Doxography, but an example of how, and how freely
and for how many di erent purposes a Doxography may be used. Another vari-
ety of this use is imitation, that is to say the listing of tenets in a particular con-
text in the manner of a chapter, or a blow-up of such a diaeretic and/or diaphonic
chapter in a Doxography but without recourse to a doxographical source. These
uses of, which in most cases I should not hesitate to call ÔdialecticalÕ a func-
tional characterization in my view being preferable to a vague descriptive label
should not be confused with Doxography itself. Furthermore, ÔA‘tianÕ Doxo-
graphy also grew out of the compilation of name-lists-cum-excerpts from the lit-
erature, such as Aristotle advises one to assemble (Top. 105b12 .) Such lists may
form the raw material, so to speak, for shorter or longer dialectical overviews, or
for Doxographies. Compiling lists appararently became and remained a popular
pastime, though availing onself of a Doxography of the A‘tian type, or of an
already current list19 naturally saves time. Consequently, I believe that it is not
necessary to look for, or postulate, a doxographical treatise as the source each
time someone lists the views of others in his eld.
As to historiography it is not so easy to formulate a cogent distinction between
the criticism of, or appeal to, others which is such an important characteristic of
ancient medical and philosophical literature alike on the one hand, and the over-
views or even whole works or ÔbooksÕ which deal with a speci c discipline, or a
speci c ÔschoolÕ, or a speci c part of medicine or philosophy, on the other. Aris-
totle created dialectic as a discipline. Doxography proper is the o spring of
AristotleÕs dialectical overviews, so has its origin in a critical attitude which takes
both the positive and the unacceptable aspects of what others have said in the past
into account. But a mostly polemical attitude including the citing of names is
already found in Heraclitus, who does not distinguish between poets, philosophers,
historians, and wise men. The Ephesian deserves to be studied in this respect, and
so does Plato (and the precedents in Gorgias and Hippias), for what they did
undoubtedly in uenced AristotleÕs more systematic enterprise. Yet I should be
unwilling to dub these fragments of Heraclitus, or PlatoÕs rather numerous and
elegant proto-dialectical overviews doxographical, or historiographical, however
interesting and important from a historical point of view they may be to us. The
term historiography sensu stricto should be restricted to works, or sections of
works, which are concerned with the development of (a part of ) a given disci-
pline. CelsusÕ proem may therefore be called historiographical, though the author
is concerned with his own position (below, on von StadenÕs chapter). And so, to
some extent, may be the dialectical overview in Arist. Met. A, and Diogenes La‘rtiusÕ
compilation.
In his introducton ÔHistorical awareness, historiography and doxography in

19
See K.A. Algra, ÔChrysippus, Carneades and Cicero: the ethical divisiones in
CiceroÕs LucullusÕ, in B. Inwood and J. Mansfeld, eds., Assent and Argument. Studies
in CiceroÕs Academic Books, Phil. Ant. 76, Leiden etc. 1997, 107-39.
 BOOK NOTES 349

Greek and Roman medicineÕ, pp. 1-31 (rich bibliography in the footnotes), Ph. J.
van der Eijk a shade prematurely strives to put medical (and philosophical) Ôdox-
ographiesÕ and ÔhistoriographiesÕ into the larger context of a variety of Ôhistorio-
graphicalÕ genres and of approaches to and uses of the past, and to analyze the
quite varied attitudes of ancient physicians towards their predecessors and antag-
onists. E. also points out, rightly but a bit too modestly, I think, that what this
volume o ers are preliminary attempts to reconnoitre a large and complicated eld
(I can here only scratch the surface). What is true is that several essays in the
volume are rather general, while what one really needs is patient Kleinarbeit.
Because E. mounts philosophical doxography as a sort of paradigm I am not
satis ed with his too wide de nition of doxography as Òan explicit rendering of
views in the form of reportÓ (p. 21); this may also pertain, e.g., to the minutes
of a meeting. But E. de nes the way doxography is understood by several of his
contributors. More satisfactory in this respect is D. T. RuniaÕs chapter ÒWhat is
doxography?Ó, pp. 34-55, a clear and informative rehash of results reached so far
by himself and other, mostly Dutch scholars in the eld of philosophical doxog-
raphy and dialectic 20 (for R.Õs other paper see below). R.Õs lesson seems lost on
J. AlthofÕs oddly entitled ÔAristoteles als MedizindoxographÕ , pp. 57-94 (the edi-
tor should have intervened). A. rst discusses AristotleÕs methodology, not citing
the literature summarized by Runia. 21 He then discusses four passages in Aristotle.
But AristotleÕs method is not doxographical but dialectical, and to a remarkable
degree the views dealt with in these passages derive from philosophers not physi-
cians. As is well known (and pointed out by several other contributors to the vol-
ume), Aristotle puts philosophers and physicians on a par insofar as theories about
human physiology, anatomy etc. are concerned. Nonetheless A.Õs conclusions as
to AristotleÕs relative reliability and his pragmatic and critical use of the views
of his predecessors are sound, though far from new.
This piece is followed by a marvelous chapter, D. Manetti, pp. 95-151, ÔÔAristotleÕ
and the role of doxography in the Anonymus Londinensis (Pbrlibr inv. 137)Õ, pp.
95-151. M. has been working on a new edition of the papyrus for years. She has
discovered (see her papers as well as her contributions to the CPF, cited in the
footnotes) that it is an autograph, an un nished draft, that the author (to be dated

20
Brie y summarized by Manetti too (see below), pp. 95-6, who also refers to
Baltussen (see next n.) For the Galenic passage quoted by Runia pp. 55-6 see RUSCH
5, New Brunswick/London 1992, 89 ., and for his remarks on prosopographic as con-
trasted with thematic doxography Long (above, n. 1) 35-6.
21
Apart from the literature cited by Runia (and van der Eijk, p. 1 f. n. 1) see for
the endoxa etc. e.g. H. Baltussen, ÔPeripatetic dialectic in the De sensibusÕ, RUSCH
5 (above n. 20), esp. 6 . and his dissertation (van der Eijk, l.c.), revised and expanded
as H. B., Theophrastus against the Presocratcs and Plato: Peripatetic Dialectic in the
De Sensibus, Phil. Ant. 86, Leiden etc. 2000. On AristotleÕs dialectical method in gen-
eral see K. Algra, Concepts of Space in Greek Thought, Phil. Ant. 65, Leiden 1995,
esp. 153-81.
350 BOOK NOTES

to the 1st cent. CE) excerpted earlier derivative literature himself, and that his
work is not, pace Diels, to a large degree an extract of the Placita of Alexander
Philalethes (used for Asclepiades only; see also von Staden, pp. 164 .) And he
also has views of his own (cf. below, on DebruÕs chapter). The Synagog by
ÔAristotleÕ, still available to GalenÕs readership (15.25.13-26.6 K.) and ascribed
to an otherwise unknown Meno, excerpted by An. Lond. for the views of 5th-4th
cent. physicians and three philosophers (Philolaus Hippo Plato) should be rmly
placed in an early Peripatetic setting. Its methodology and lay-out, down to the
details, are largely comparable to those of A‘tius and go back, ultimately, to
Aristotle. The structure of this part is diaeretic; though di erences of opinion are
indicated, contradictions (diaphoniai ) are not emphasized (here we note a di er-
ence with A‘tius etc.) Another di erence is that authorities are treated prosopo-
graphically and in sequence, but the main diaeresis, I suggest, may (anachronis-
tically) be seen as a sort of blow-up of twinned placita chapters (e.g. A‘t. 4.2-3
Diels, on the incorporeality and corporeality of the soul). This division is between
those who explain diseases by means of the residues of digestion (perittÅmata,
an Aristotelian term) and those who attribute them to the elemental ingredients
(stoixeÝa) of the body. The former lists views which from one authority to the
other become more speci c, the other, so M., originally enumerated the authori-
ties according to the number of elements assumed (this deserves further study).
The underlying view of pathogenesis is virtually the same as that of the ÔAristotelianÕ
Problemata, esp. its rst section: another rm link with the early Peripatos. The
mutilated introductory section on de nitions, on the other hand, with its anti-Stoic
polemic22 and alternative versions of the same paragraphs (admirably compared),
according to M. is based on contemporary handbooks. I tend to look in the direc-
tion of the Horoi literature and may add that, after the proem, A‘tius too begins
with a de nition, viz. of fæsiw, and that a series of chapters in book one also
begin with de nitions. Further compare the de nitions at the beginning of
StobaeusÕ ethical doxographies pp. 2.35.18-39.18 W. The physiological part of
An. Lond. is again di erent. Apart from a ÔdoxographicalÕ passage on urine it pre-
sents a number of theses pro and contra, which M. believes were a preliminary
to the authorÕs own physiology. 23 She argues that these will derive from contem-
porary (perhaps rhetorical) literature, and compares the Dictyaca of Dionysius of
Aegae preserved in outline by Photius (discussed in detail by von Staden, see
below). One may also mention the so-called Dissoi logoi 24 (Presocratic? DK 90)
preserved in the mss. of Sextus, and esp. the aporiai of Arist. Met. B so here

22
Texts not in SVF or FDS.
23
One should however recall the discussion concerning TheophrastusÕ De sensu: is
the extant dialectical overview a preliminary to the exposition of TheophrastusÕ own
views, or is it not?
24
F. Caujolle-Zaslawsky, DPA 2.864. For the question-mark see M. F. Burnyeat,
ÔDissoi hogoiÕ, Routl. Enc. Phil. vol. 3, London 1998, 106-7.
 BOOK NOTES 351

a Peripatetic paradigm is possible too. 25 M. is also excellent on the Sitz im Leben

of the tract. By his choice of ÔAristotelianÕ material dealing with the ÔancientsÕ
and his extensive treatment of Plato (and criticism of the Stoics) the author reveals
that he wishes to be included in the Platonic-Peripatetic tradition, with roots in
an even earlier preplatonic past. ÔDoxographyÕ , and the selection of models quoted
and followed, here serve the purposes of self-de nition. This, to me, is new as a
use of dialectic, one gratefully to be added to the le; it is, naturally, an impor-
tant feature of the Successions literature and that On Sects, by which Anonymus
may have been in uenced in this respect. Moreover, as to self-de nition by means
of the use of recherchŽ sources one can hardly help being reminded of the posh
references in Diogenes La‘rtius, or in the biography of Hippocrates by [Soranus].
The return to the classics had already begun around 100 BCE; An. Lond. is no
exception.
H. von Staden writes about ÔRupture and continuity: Hellenistic re ections on
the history of medicineÕ, pp. 143-87. Special attention is given to AndreasÕ
Medical Genealogy, of which only a quotation concerning HippocratesÕ alleged
burning of the library at Cnidus survives, and to [Sor.] Genos and Life of Hippocrates.
S. claims that Ôgenealogy.Õ i.e. the description of the whole family tree, is to be
distinguished from the genos component of a biography. Yes and no: [Soranus]
is rather exceptional; I would say that the standard genos introduction of biogra-
phies 26 may be embellished by a family tree. S. also discusses the scanty remains
of works by Hellenistic physicians which mention other views besides those of
the author, more often than not with critical intent (one should compare the sim-
ilar practice of the Hellenistic mathematician Apollonius of Perga, whose Conics
is extant). Herophilus wrote an Against Common Opinions; S. points out that such
doxai may be those of experts and cites Arist. Ph. 213a19 . (add Ph. 187a17-8,
Met. 996b27-9, 997a19-21). Several works belong with the literature On Sects and
mainly serve the purpose of self-de nition, but as S. points out discussion among
Herophileans was for the most part an internal a air. There is some material of
Empiricist provenance, but hardly anything that can be related to Erasistratus.
S. insists that this quasi-historical stu cannot be characterized by a single catch-
word. Special attention is given to Dionysius of Aegae (cf. above), whose t.p.q
is put by S. on plausible grounds at ca. 200 CE. He is included in this chapter
because S. (like Manetti) believes him to have had Hellenistic predecessors. The
treatise is analyzed in some detail: the author is a sort of Sceptic. For what it is
worth I add that according to Photius Dionysius is from Aegae, just as the earli-
est Neopyrrhonist Aenesidemus, p. 170a14 B. (but there were several towns
named Aegae), and that the second time Photius provides an abstract from the
Dictyaca (cod. 211) this is immediately followed by the famous abstract from
AenesidemusÕ Pyrrhoneioi Logoi (cod. 212).

25
In general see A. A. Long, ÔAristotle and the history of Greek ScepticismÕ, in
D. J. OÕMeara, ed., Studies in Aristotle, Washington D.C. 1983, 86 .
26
See e.g. ICS 20 (1995) 157 .
352 BOOK NOTES

D. T. Runia in his rich second contribution analyzes ÔThe placita ascribed to

doctors in A‘tiusÕ doxography on physicsÕ, pp. 190-250. He rst (resuming earlier
results, cf. above, text to n. 20) describes the sources for A‘tius and the doxogra-
pherÕs methods. Next he gives an example of how an A‘tian chapter may be recon-
structed, in the process demonstrating why and how it is structured the way it is.
The lemmas concerning physicians (the only ÔPresocraticsÕ being Hippocrates and
Polybus) are meticulously collected and analyzed in various schemas as well as,
in some cases, individually. A handicap is that for the last book of A‘tius, where
the majority of medical placita are found, parallels and extra material in Stobaeus
are lacking (with one exception, see below); so reconstruction is impos-
sible. R. rightly refuses to wrench medical lemmas away from their diaphonic (or
diaeretic) environment, alerts his readership to the perils of culling ÔfragmentsÕ
from this context, and claims that in the Doxography on physics the physicians are
not on their home grond. R. also addresses the issue of the tradition(s) A‘tius
depends on, esp. as to his medical lemmas. To this end he brie y studies parallels
and/or similar passages in Censorinus, Tertullian, Philo, [Gal.] Def. med.,27 and
Sextus, all belonging in a variety of ways with the traditions of physical Doxo-
graphy and so pointing the way to A‘tiusÕ doxographical predecessors. He also
compares A‘tiusÕ tenets concerning PlatoÕs views on medical subjects with what
is in Timaeus, establishing that the doxographer (or his predecessor) unsurprisingly
excerpted ad [purported] sensum, not ad litteram. Quite interesting are his remarks
on the Chrysippus fragment at Gal. PHP 3.1.11-15 (SVF 2.885) about the dis-
agreement among philosophers and physicians as to the location of the regent part,
undeniably related to the contents of A‘t. 4.5 Diels. He argues (p. 233) that it is
unlikely that Chrysippus already mentioned Erasistratus and Herophilus, so these
were not included in the predecessor of DielsÕ Vetusta placita used by the Stoic
scholarch. 28 He also brie y compares ÔdoxographiesÕ to be found in medical
sources (discussed at greater length elsewhere in the volume), noticing for instance
that as to names An. Lond. and A‘tius have little in common. His conclusion is
that physicians were incorporated in physical Doxography rather late in the day.
This hypothesis, I believe, needs further elaboration. Something must have trig-
gered the inclusion, and I fail to see why Hippocrates and Polybus could not have
gured in TheophrastusÕ Physikai doxai. Conversely, Philolaus Hippo Plato had
found a place in the ÔAristotelianÕ Synagog used by An. Lond. (see above). As
we have noticed Aristotle already in some respects put physicians and philosophers
on a par. It is not at all likely that the Hellenistic philosophers were included late

27
On the complicated textual traditions see R. W. Sharples, ÔAlexander and pseudo-
Alexander of Aphrodisias, Scripta minimaÕ, in W. Kullmann, J. Althof and M. Asper,
eds., Gattungen wissenschaftlicher Literatur in der Antike, TŸbingen 1998, 392-3.
28
It has to be conceded that (apart from PlatoÕs) Chrysippus does not mention
names, and fails to tell us exactly where in the head his disagreeing authorities placed
the regent part. But Chrysippus gives us no more than a very brief abstract.
 BOOK NOTES 353

in the day, and this should also hold for the physicians, astronomers etc. However
this may be, one must at any rate be grateful for a bonus, viz. R.Õs reconstruction
of ps.Plu. Plac. 5.29-30 at pp. 246-50 which o ers more than Mau Lachenaud.
In his substantial second contribution von Staden deals with CelsusÕ long proem
and comparable passages in the De medicina: ÔCelsus as historian?Õ, pp. 251-94.
The proem to the whole work is our earliest surviving Ôhistory of medicineÕ: it
deals inter alia with the origins of medicine, the history of the medical schools
and the successions of physicians, and the development one after the other of the
three main parts of medicine. S. points out the nuances in CelsusÕ exposition, not
only here but also elsewhere in his work, and his reservations, as a Roman,
towards Greek culture. This proem might have been usefully compared with the
much shorter proem of Diogenes La‘rtius which inter alia contains the same (no
doubt traditional) four ingredients, this time pertaining to philosophy and philoso-
phers.29 This may be representative of the literature perÜ t¡xnhw, which helps to
explain the pivotal position of Hippocrates, said by Celsus to have emancipated
the medical ars from philosophy. Because his encyclopedic oeuvre also contained
six(?) books on philosophy (lost), one wonders to what extent CelsusÕ proem etc.
are in uenced by his familiarity with various forms of philosophical Ôhistoriogra-
phy.Õ S. further shows that Celsus does not take sides in the disputes which
opposed the medical schools to each other (about which, however, the Roman
scholar is a bit schematic), that his own views seem in some cases to be not un-
original, and in other cases are what I would call ÔeclecticÕ in bonam partem, i.e.
mediating between warring doxai and taking over and adapting from various sides
what is useful (cf. SenecaÕs quod verum est, meum est). As S. shows this suits a
Roman gentleman who idealizes a past when people were healthy and did not
need the admirable discoveries of long lines of professional physicians.
Ph. J. van der Eijk in his second contribution studies ÔThe Anonymus Parisinus
and the doctrines of the ancientsÕ, pp. 295-331 (note that this is his name for what
used to be called An. Fuchsii), and states that this is only a preliminary attempt
to interpret this On Acute and Chronic Diseases. It is not yet possible to estab-
lish the a liations (Methodist? Pneumatist?) and date of this curious tract, the
editio princeps of which by I. Garofalo appeared as late as 1997. E.Õs analysis is
useful. In the ÔdoxographicalÕ sections An. Par. invariably limits himself to four
authorites (not always mentioned by name, and there are also chapters where no
previous views are mentioned), viz. Erasistratus Praxagoras Diocles Hippocrates
not always in the same order. Though he notes di erences, the author is not out
to emphasize them; on the contrary, he often states that his Vier-MŠnner agree
among themselves. Why just these four remains something of a riddle. E. empha-
sizes that An. Par. as to the ÔsymptomsÕ and therapeutical sections of each chap-
ter often goes his own way, though sometimes he appears to be indebted to Methodist
therapy. The sources acccording to E. are to be sought in philosophical as well

29
See Elenchos 7 (1986) 306-7.
354 BOOK NOTES

as, primarily, previous medical ÔdoxographiesÕ (note the vagueness of this use of
the term). I like E.Õs correction of my translation of ¤j Žkoloæyvn in the very rst
line of the tract (Garofalo now reads ¤j Žkoloæyou, better), and accept that this
formula (like katŒ tò Žkñlouyon etc.) represents an inferential explicitation by An.
Par. of what one of the quartet said (cf. Simp. in Cael. 89.26-8, Phlp. in Ph.
397.9-11). I note in passing that the rare ¤j Žkoloæyou cannot be paralleled before
the third cent. CE, and that the earliest datable occurrences of katŒ tò Žkñlouyon
(but not in the sense required here) are in Philo of Alexandria.
M. Vegetti, ÔTradition and truth: forms of philosophical-scienti c historiogra-
phy in GalenÕs De placitisÕ, pp. 333-57, is a slightly revised and updated version
of a seminal paper rst published in 1986. In his rst footnote V. deplores the
lack of interest in this important treatise on the side of historians of medicine
and of philosophy; one wonders why the study of T. L. Tieleman (1996, diss.
published Utrecht 1992) is cited as late as n. 72. V. is excellent on GalenÕs strate-
gies and his construction, through careful selection and interpretation of authori-
ties, of a past that suits his own convenience. This is also why he uses Posidonius
as ammunition against Chrysippus: an ally in the camp of the enemy. Later dis-
coveries are calmly attributed to Hippocrates, or even Plato, to whom purportedly
they were too self-evident to be put down in writing. Wittily but not without
justi cation V. compares the rewriting of the past in OrwellÕs 1984. What is also
most appreciable is his explanation of the abundance of GalenÕs verbatim quota-
tions (those from Chrysippus and Posidonius being of especial importance to us):
he did not write for philosophers or physicians, but (so to speak) for people in
other departments lacking easy access to the writings of Plato Hippocrates etc.
Even so, there is something typically Galenic i.e. (fortunately) long-winded about
this generosity. V.Õs approach proves equally fruitful in his second (and new)
contribution, ÔHistorical strategies in GalenÕs physiology (De usu partium, De natu-
ralibus facultatibus)Õ, pp. 383-95. GalenÕs need to nd antecedents for his teleol-
ogy this time even permits him to include the Stoics, and to be nice to physicians
he severely criticizes elsewhere. And he simply omits what would speak against
the end he set himself. His historical shopping-lists are not inconsistent but may
vary considerably, depending on the skopñw involved.
A. Roselli, ÔNotes on the doxai of doctors in GalenÕs Commentaries on
HippocratesÕ, pp. 359-81, is a most welcome contribution. R. (together with D.
Manetti) has studied these commentaries in depth no mean feat. M. points out
that the Commentaries serve an entirely practical and pedagogic purpose and do
not display erudition for its own sake. References to the views of others are sub-
servient to this purpose. When faced with a problem Galen nds a solution either
through reasoning or via the senses, and consistent observations of earlier physi-
cians (e.g. in the eld of anatomy), considered as doxai, may come under the
latter category. M. provides three case-studies which prove this point, and inter-
estingly cites a passage where Galen almost certainly depends on an earlier list
of doxai, not on his own erudition. So his use of doxai may depend on precedents
in earlier literature (not necessarily commentaries on Hippocrates).
 BOOK NOTES 355

Ph. J. van der Eijk looks at ÔAntiquarianism and criticism: forms and functions
of medical doxography in Methodism (Soranus, Caelius Aurelianus)Õ, pp. 397-
452. This is a bit super cial, though the surface is vast. He rst surveys the works
we know to have been written by Methodists, then studies those of Soranus
(ca. 100 CE) and Caelius Aurelianus ( fth cent. CE) that are extant. One of the
questions to be answered is why they refer to views of others on a regular basis
or even large scale, though an a-historic attitude is typical of Methodism. They
mostly cite and refer only in order to criticize, not sparing earlier representatives
of their own sect (though Soranus is the authority for Caelius), and are especially
unkind to Asclepiades to whom the founding of the sect was often attributed.
Soranus presents a special problem, because his only surviving work (mutilated)
seems to be written for midwives rather than colleagues. The large treatises of
Caelius Aurelianus are often believed to be translations of Soranus, but E. elo-
quently argues that, though much of Caelius, perhaps also numerous passages
referring to the views of others in mostly negative terms derive from Soranus, he
is by no means a mere translator. Against this assumption are several considera-
tions, among which the fact that he often mentions SoranusÕ name, whereas in
the extant parts of a work of his that comes close to SoranusÕ extant treatise he
fails to mention his name precisely in those passages where he does translate him.
So Caelius should be seen as an original author, who however used the literature
composed by earlier members of his sect on a large scale, and possibly other lit-
erature as well, including what E. calls Ôdoxographies.Õ Though both Soranus and
Caelius operate with diaphoniai , the relation to Pyrrhonism should not be exag-
gerated: Methodists are not full-blown Sceptics, because they consider their own
views to be true. Caelius wrote in late antiquity. The views of physicians cited
were mostly obsolete. E. suggests that CaeliusÕ motives for his ÔdoxographicalÕ
references and reliance on Soranus were two-fold: one the one hand he likes to
show o his learning (antiquarianism), on the other he wants to promote Method-
ism as a valid alternative to the dominant Hippocratic-and-Galenic tradition of his
own time. Galen is never mentioned by him.
A. Debru contributes ÔDoctrine et tactique doxographique dans lÕAnonyme de
Bruxelles: une comparaison avec lÕAnonyme de LondresÕ, pp. 453-71. This late
treatise used to be called Vindicianus but D.Õs designation is better. She argues
that it is not a fragment but a complete tract, a sort of medical De natura hominis,
its structure being more consistent than has been realized. The underlying idea is
that the formation of the components of our anatomy, their functions and their
diseases may all be explained as caused by the food consumed30 and the places
in the body where it goes to. She notes some (indeed noteworthy) di erences with
An. Lond., but argues that e.g. the view of digestion and its consequences is sim-
ilar in both An. Lond. and An. Brux. (as to this ÒcomparaisonÓ one misses refer-
ences to ManettiÕs chapter). The substantial ÔdoxographicalÕ discussion of semen

30
Cf. Pl. Phd. 96c-d on increase.
356 BOOK NOTES

(cf. ps.Plu. Plac. 5.3-5) introduces two groups of individual physicians and
philosophers which are diaeretically opposed to each other (the notion of succes-
sion also playing a part). One group favours the view that the blood is the origin
of the semen, the other (supported by the author) that it is the food. These author-
ities are introduced as having, literally, a discussion with each other. The antecedents
of this disputatio are not to be sought in pedagogic literature alone: apostrophe
(to my mind not good enough as a parallel, however) is already found in Diocles
who addresses Hippocrates, and Galen who interpellates Aristotle. The anonymous
authority to whom An. Brux. appeals in the pathological section is probably an
Hippocrates interpretatus, but more research is needed. One waits for the new
edition of An. Brux. promised by D. with some impatience.
The nal chapter, R. De Lucia, ÔDoxographical hints in OribasiusÕ Collectiones
medicaeÕ, pp. 473-89, is a bit odd. OribasiusÕ work is a systematic anthology con-
taining for the most part abridged extracts from Galen, considered to be the
authoritative physician. These may be supplemented with extracts from other med-
ical writers. L. calls these instances of Galen plus supplements Òa sort of quali ed
(if restricted) doxographyÓ (p. 479; cf. the ÒhintsÓ in his title). I disagree. When
stretched to this extent the notion of ÔdoxographyÕ becomes almost meaningless.
One could for instance apply it to StobaeusÕ Anthology. This is not to say that
the chapter is without worth. One learns quite a lot about OribasiusÕ aims and
method, but the volume could easily have done without this essay.

Department of Philosophy, Utrecht University