those quotations from Parmenides at second hand, and not improbably from earlier commentators on Aristotle. The quotations from Herakleitos are all of them in a late form, and show that Simplicius was not familiar with any work under the name of Herakleitos.1 Nor did Simplicius know Xenophanes at first hand. The two quotations from his poem occur in the discussion of a passage from Theophrastos, and are probably taken from him. The quotations show, however, that Simplicius knew at first hand the works of Zeno, * Melissos, Anaxagoras, Parmenides, and Empedokles, and it remains to examine the numerous quotations from the last two thinkers in order to form some idea as to the probable accuracy of Simplicius' method of quotation.

Stein in his attempt to restore the text of Parmenides finds numerous misarrangements of the lines and breaks where one or more lines have dropped out. Certainly there is evidence that Simplicius omitted four or more lines between 89 and 94, nor does he indicate the break in any way. Several times a phrase of his own is inserted in the middle of a line (e.g. Phys. 39, 28; 143, 22), and once a line is filled out metrically, according to our manuscripts, by a phrase which is generally regarded as a comment from Simplicius (Phys. 145, 16). The text itself of these fragments is often very dubious in our manuscripts (e.g. lines 96, 98, 100), but Simplicius may not be responsible for this. In our manuscripts also we read sometimes wurós, sometimes autós, and when either ὤν οι ἐών (ὄντα or ἐόντα) is metrically possible, the shorter is usual; here again we cannot with any confidence hold that Simplicius is responsible.

The quotations from Empedokles shed more light on the method of Simplicius. Not infrequently lines are omitted in sequence, as two lines between 68 and 70 (Phys. 158, 1 f.), and again in the same quotation one line between 90 and 92, and two lines between 93 and 94. According to Bergk the line between 174 and 176 should be omitted (it is identical with 184); and Schneidewin inserts here line 175 (of Stein)

Four out of the six quotations from Herakleitos are given either in Plato or Aristotle, or both; Frag. 20 comes directly or indirectly from a Stoic source.

from Stobaeos; the passage occurs twice in the same form in Simplicius, however (and once in the scholia to Aristotle), so that this error probably existed in the text from which Simplicius copied. On p. 33, 19 of the Physica two passages from different parts of the poem of Empedokles are joined without break, and the end of line 95 (Stein 115) is modified to make the connection between the two passages. In two instances I believe that Simplicius (or some copyist) has repeated in a quotation some lines from the last previous quotation. On p. 159 of the Physica the end of the first quotation is repeated as the end of the second, except that a summary phrase is substituted for the last half-line; again on p. 160 (lines 6-8) we find three lines which had occurred in the last previous quotation, and which are inserted here. with the change of a connecting word. Sometimes we can point out an error that probably existed in the text from which Simplicius copied, as in the case of line 175 mentioned above. Thus edero in line 99, kpvέ in 93, ßeßλáorŋke at 105, and probably epos in 78 appear in repetitions of the same quotation at different points, and so may be assigned to the source of Simplicius. In other instances we may say that Simplicius copied carelessly, as in the case of line 89, which is corrected in the prose paraphrase, and possibly 138, where the curious text in the Physica may be corrected from the de caelo. The state of our manuscripts of Simplicius, however, is probably responsible for most of the numerous errors in the forms of words.

From this survey of the sources I have omitted the names of many writers who furnish some little addition to our knowledge of the fragments, for their method of quotation is relatively unimportant, nor have I thought it necessary to consider later writers who throw light only on the later history of the fragments. Accordingly I have not spoken of Eusebios, who repeats quotations from Plutarch and from Clement, or of Theodoret, who drew from Clement, or of Julian, who drew from Plutarch. Again, I have not spoken of Stobaeos, or Eustathios, or the scholia generally, as sources, for we are not at present able to determine the line of tradition for these fragments. I have, however,

examined the more important sources of fragments, in order that the student may be able to estimate the relative value of the sources, both as to text and as to directness of transmission, in his own study of them.

II.

§ 15. Turning now to the doxographic tradition, we may state the problem as follows:-In the Placita philosophorum attributed to Plutarch, in the Eclogae physicae of Stobaeos, in fragments from Arius Didymos, in Hippolytos, and in other writers, we find copious statements as to the opinions of the early philosophers. These opinions shed light on many points not mentioned in the fragments of their writings now remaining, and so they have great importance for the student of their systems. At the same time they are often confused and unreliable. The problem is to determine the relation of these writers to each other, as well as to the source of the whole series, in order that we may estimate their relative value. This work has been most successfully accomplished in the Prolegomena to Diels' Doxographi Graeci, a work that is absolutely indispensable to the student of this subject. There is no occasion to reopen here a question that Diels has so successfully solved, but I propose to state briefly a few of the conclusions which the reader will find substantiated in the work of Diels.

The most obvious fact to one who takes up the study of the doxographic writers is that the Placita attributed to Plutarch, and the Eclogae physicae, which was originally a part of the Florilegium of Stobaeos, are intimately related; and when the two are printed side by side, as the reader finds them in the text of Diels, the likeness of the two is most striking. At the same time the two books are not identical, and each gives much material that the other omits. Stobaeos cannot have copied from the work attributed to Plutarch, for even in passages that occur in the Placita Stobaeos not infrequently gives the fuller form; nor can the writer of the Placita have copied from Stobaeos, for his work can be traced back nearly three centuries before the time of Stobaeos. It was used by

Athenagoras in his defence of the Christians 177 A.D. (Dox. p. 4); it was mentioned by Theodoret (Dox. p. 47); and important corrections of the text are made by Diels on the authority of Eusebios, Cyril, and the pseudo-Galen, all of whom had used it. Theodoret (Therap. IV. 31, Dox. 47) mentions the epitome by Plutarch, but only after he has mentioned the Placita of Aetios, Αετίου τὴν περὶ ἀρεσκόντων συναγωγήν, and it is this work of Aetios which Diels vindicates as the source both of Plutarch and of Stobaeos, while Theodoret also quotes from it occasionally. A careful study of these three writers and their methods enables Diels to reconstruct a large part of the work of Aetios; and it is the sections of this work bearing on the earlier philosophers which I have translated (see III. English Index under 'Aetios'). Of Aetios himself almost nothing is known; the work assigned to him must have been written between the age of Augustus and the age of the Antonines (Dox. 100). It was in four books, divided into chapters by topics, and in each chapter the opinions of the philosophers were given not by schools but by affinity of their opinions.

§ 16. Fortunately we are in a position to say what was the beginning of that style of composition of which the work of Aetios is an example. Aristotle, as we have seen, paid considerable attention to the earlier thinkers and often stated their opinions as the introduction to his own position. A list of the works of his pupil and successor Theophrastos is given by Diogenes Laertios (v. 46, 48), and in the list there is mentioned a book in eighteen chapters περὶ τῶν φυσικῶν, and a little later another book in sixteen chapters of puoiкK@v Sógov. We have a long fragment de sensibus which Diels has edited in connection with the later doxographists (Dox. pp. 499 f.), and from this we can learn something of his method. In this fragment he discusses the opinions of his predecessors as to sense-perception, grouping them by affinity, and not chronologically or by schools. The work is done conscientiously, and is based on a study of the original writings of the thinkers he treats (v. supra, pp. 230 f.). Other fragments from the first book have been pointed out by Brandis and Usener (Analecta Theophrastea) in Simplicius' Commentary on

Aristotle's Physics; while we have also several pages preserved in Philo de incorrupt. mundi. In the first book, to judge from the fragments in Simplicius, Theophrastos arranged the earlier thinkers by schools and accompanied his statements with brief biographical notices (e.g. pp. 11, 257 supra). Such a work was of the greatest convenience to later writers, and especially to the compilers who were so numerous in the age of the decadence. In fact the whole doxographic tradition may be traced back to this work of Theophrastos.

In the last centuries of the pre-Christian era there was an unusual interest in the biographies of famous men. Apocryphal anecdotes were gathered from popular gossip, deduced from the works of these writers, or made up with no foundation at all. In the second century several writers of the peripatetic school wrote the lives of the philosophers after this fashion. We hear of ẞío by Hermippos and by Satyros, and of the διαδοχαὶ τῶν φιλοσόφων of Satyros; and we are told that Herakleides of Lembos worked over what his immediate predecessors had collected. Phanias of Eresos is one of the ' authorities' of this school. Much of this material has come down to us in the work of Diogenes Laertios.

On the book of Theophrastos, and on the 'Lives' or the 'Successions of the philosophers,' as they were often called, the later doxographic writers based their work. Even in Diogenes Laertios there is material from both sources, and we can define some fragments almost in Theophrastos' own words. In the Philosophumena of Hippolytos the two sources are pretty clearly distinguished: chapters 1-4 and 10 (on Thales, Pythagoras, Empedokles, Herakleitos and Parmenides, see III. English Index under Hippolytos') are made up of personal anecdotes such as writers of the lives were eager to collect and to repeat; chapters 6-8 and 11 (on Anaximandros, Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, and Xenophanes) come indirectly from the work of Theophrastos. The Stromateis attributed by Eusebios to Plutarch (see III. English Index under Plutarch,' and Dox. pp. 579 f.) are like the last-mentioned chapters of Hippolytos, though the language is often more careless.

A comparison of Aetios with Hippolytos, the Stromateis, and the doxographic material in Cicero and Censorinus (from