Deconstructing doxography

MA a SE IL »\ 2 Ors 2_ JAAP MANSFELD DECONSTRUCTING DOXOGRAPHY In a paper recently published in this journal Leonid Ya. Zhmud! has criticized attempts by myself and others to revise Diels’ reconstruction and interpretation of the ancient doxographical traditions. The motive prompting this polemic may be characterized as an instantiation of the well-known struggle of self-styled orthodoxy against revisionism, an orthodoxy representing a doctrine that, as it were, has been frozen solid and is defended whatever the cost, while revisionism stands for efforts to amend and reformulate this theory with regard to the data it originally was devised, or set out, to explain. Criticism is of course most welcome, but Z.'s manner of argumentation is far from helpful. He theorizes at an ideological level situated at a considerable distance from the evidence. His erudition is largely derived from the literature he criticizes. Most of the time he argues ad hominem (or homines), availing himself moreover of the art of partial? and/or selective quotation by leaving out what would obstruct his presentation. eno. as I shall not discuss Z.’s points contra one by one but only give a few examples (ab illis discite omnia), and concentrate on the few pages where he seems to present arguments in favour of what he apparently believes to be an unrevised Dielsian orthodoxy. In fact it is not so easy to discover what his own views are. Perhaps one should allow oneself to be guided by his apophthegm at p. 234: “Every theory is a lucky combination of previous ideas.” Every theory! Examples of arguments ad hominem: our emendations of Diels’ theory are seen by Z. p. 221 as attacks on “his integrity as a scholar”. Evidently one way of arguing ad Lemos hominem is to claim that one’s opponents argue ad hominem. And I am admonished by Z. p. 236-237 for accepting the theory of the Doxographi Graeci in my Reclam ! Zhmud (2001). Hereafter referred to as Z. plus page number(s). ? There is a marvellous example at Z. p. 233: a remark of Runia's about “original doxographical sources” (my emphasis) is repeated as “original source” (“source” in the singular, “doxographical” suppressed), from which Z. infers that “in the course of the 20" century the term “original source” or “early source” has taken an opposite meaning and begun to denote not Anaxagoras’ treatise, and not even Theophrastus’ compendium, but Aetius and his epitomators”. However a vitium originis is involved as well: Z. fails to realize that “the original sources” here means “the sources one started with”, i.e. the (doxographical) sources from which the quoted texts were abstracted and copied. I too have spoken of “original sources” in this sense, sec Mansfeld (1999b) 25, quoted Z. p. 232 n. 75.

278 Philologus 146 (2002) 2 Vorsokratiker?, and for changing my mind a number of years later. Changingd one’s form mind clearly is not done. Z. furthermore believes that Baltussen Runia Mansfel putative Any line. party the toe should which of s member , what he calls a “school” sin committed by one of these people is to be attributed to and visited on the others‘. On the other hand, that Runia and the present writer should disagree is seen by Z. as a serious weakness fatally undermining what he calls “the new doxography”. He fails to appreciate that we are independent scholars who may or may not agree to disagree | | among ourselves. An example of misunderstanding: Z. p. 221 with n. 12 reveals his lack of a sense of in Diels humour or irony by taking a remark of mine about che Quellenforschungtion: Z. Ppresenta false or Doxographi Graeci au pied de la lettre. Another confusion hical doxograp “the that 237 states that “the main thesis” of a paper published 19876 is tradition” offers “not Theophrastus’ report on Xenophanes but Theophrastus’ own view”. Quod non: I argued that the doxographical traditions concerning Xenophanes are complicated and of diverse provenance. Z. adds that this main thesis was refuted by Runia”. But Runia merely argued against the attribution to Theophrastus rather than Xenophanes of one of the two tenets at Aet. 2.20.3 Diels. Z. has mistaken the detail about Act. 2.20.3 for the argument of the paper as a whole. Quite amusing is his contention, p. 238, that to explain certain important aspects of Aétian doxography through an appeal to the Peripatetic dialectical approach to real and possible views on a given topic advocated in the Topics, amounts to a form of Einquellentheorie®. Z. clearly confuses form, or rather method or approach, with content. So also at p. 229, where he posits that Theophrastus’ “criticism was scientific, and not dialectical”. To create an absolute opposition between (Peripatetic) dialectic and (Peripatetic) science is as absurd as to believe that science excludes logic, or conversely. Enough of this. Let us turn to Z.’s own position. He states (I quote from p. 229-230) that Aristotle “initiated” “a historiographic project”, to which “Theophrastus’ physical and Menon’s medical doxographies” belong, as well as “three histories of science, 279 written by Eudemus, that were arranged according to the chronology of the mathematicians and astronomers”. Also included was “Eudemus’ History of Theology that discusses the doctrines of the 8eoAdyot in chronological sequence” ?. “(I)t is history and not dialectic that unites various parts of the project into the one meaningful whole.” The idea of such a project is not new, but there is no ancient evidence to support it. It is a modern hypothesis '°. Much depends moreover on what is understood by “historiographic” and “history”!!. Z. is regrettably far from clear on this point, but what he seems to view as a defining characteristic of history, or rather of this kind of historiography, is the treatment of individual members of a given profession in chronological order (see also below). He states, p. 227, that the “more important” issue is “whether Theophrastus’ approach to the Presocratic doxai was more historical or more systematic”. In my view this particular disjunction of “historical” and “systematic” is misleading. The terminology itself is obfuscating, since what is meant is an odd contrast between chronology and content. That what we have here is indeed history (in whatever vague sense) is concluded by Z. from the titles of Eudemus’ works quoted in ancient sources: Fewpetotxî iotogia, ‘Aotpokoyixkh iotogia, ’Apıduntıcn iotogia'2, He therefore believes that Theophrastus’ treatise may be referred to as Puoi iotopia, or ‘lotopia tout court. Its full title he says is Pvotxdv ö6Eaı as Usener and Diels assumed, not (as others have stated or argued) Pvoixat 56Eat, that is to say: “Tenets (Views, Opinions) of the Physicists”, not “Tenets Pertaining to Physics”. Z. p. 228 with n. 46 adds that “(m)y search with TLG in the entire corpus of Greek literature brought only one example of quon 86Ea (Olymp. in Meteor. 138.29)” 1. The suggestion seems to be that this evidence may be discounted as being late, and the implication that quoi 66Ea is bad Greek. In fact the following parallels for the combination quoi d6Ea (or the plural) are found as well: Philo Leg. all. 1.59, GAN ? Note that this title is not attested for Eudemus but for Theophrastus in the catalogue ap. Diog. Laert. 3 Vol. 1 first published Stuttgart 1983. Naturally I had been working on the little books for several years | that Mansfeld possible hardly seems “It like: not does he essay an (1999), Runia to referring 226, p. 4 Z. before that date. was unaware of the conclusion reached by Runia(...).” | | aspects of 5 Also see Z. p. 233 n. 77. Moreover he has failed - notwithstanding his references to other Mansfeld see which for account, into schung Quellenfor on views my these publications elsewhere - to take (1998), or Mansfeld (1999 a) 13-16, 29-30. o | | | 8 “(...) the new doxography substitutes its own Einquellentheorie with Aristotle’s Topics as fons et origois of really as the entire doxography”. Apart from the bizarre use of the term Einquellentheone this contention false as can be. Of course Top. 1.11 and 1.14 are not the only passages appealed to, and Peripatetic dialectic is not the only approach mentioned (nor is the Topics the only treatise cited), and the argument is that with regard to content a plurality of sources is to be taken into account. For this plurality see e.g. also Mansfeld (2000), a paper not mentioned by Z. attributed to Eudemus not Theophrastus. Cf. below, n. 12). 10 See Wehrli (1969) 113, with references to earlier literature (add e. g. von Fritz (1972) 318-9); in Flashar (1983) 531 Wehrli is more cautious. The existence of this particular project and division of labour has been inferred from the 158 Constitutions and similar collections (for which see Moraux (1951) 122-133, and Flashar (1983) 286-287) on the one hand, and the works of Theophrastus, Eudemus, and Meno(?) cited in the text on the other. !! Weil (1977) 202 aptly distinguishes between “what may be called in a broad sense ‘historical’ research” and “the narrowest sense of ‘historical’, the modern one”. + Mansfeld (1987). 7 Runia (1992). 5.48 = fr. 251.1 FHS&G (acknowledged by Z. p. 230 n. 58, who of course posits that nevertheless it should be 12 Note that these titles are also found in the catalogue of Theophrastus ap. Diog. Laert. 5.48, ‘Iotopuk@v Yempetouirv a’ B’ y” à" (= fr. 264.3 FHS&G), 5.50 ‘Actookoyuxñis totoplas a’ }' y’ à €’ (= fr. 137.43 FHS&G) and ‘Agi dyunticdy lotopuby regi abEnjoeus a’ (= fr. 264.2 FHS&G). The usual assumption is that Eudemean titles have strayed into Theophrastus’ catalogue. Yet titles such as Analytics Topics Physics Mepi MEEwS are attested for both Theophrastus and Eudemus. - Cf. also below, n. 25. 1 To his quotation add tiv Aéyouoav Ex tüg árpidos toépeoPat Tov Avv. For the tenet cf. Aer. 2.20.4 Diels: Olympiodorus’ example of a physiké doxa is attested in the Placita literature.

otros Latouchy dóEav Éktidépevor LäkAov À Quoixhy, “the tenet propounded by these exegetes belongs to medicine rather than to physics” (note that this seems to be the only instance of iargıch S6Ea in preserved Greek literature). Further Gal. in Hippocr. Nat. hom. 15.50.5-8 K., ... émdédeuktar dà tod epi tav kad" "Imrokgátnv OTOLXELWV brrouvhuatos, Evda kai acom oxed0v THV PYOLKdv SOEMV fuvnpovevoaof later doxographies. It is the job of the historian to provide not only descriptions or to tell stories, but also and especially to attempt to provide an explanation of what happened. The “why” is at least as important as the “what” and the “how”?!, But though Z. presents a travesty of my position, that is to say of the explanation concerned with doxography, dialectic, and scientific investigation, I do not want to repeat here what I have argued several times elsewhere on this subject22, I merely note that at 280 uev'4, Soar nepl TÜV NEWIWV doxdv À otoLxelwv yeyövaoıv, Nicom. Excerpt. 5.3, 281 áxokobdws TH quo tod Nvbaydoou Kai MAdtwvog ööEn, Eus. Pr. Ev. 2.6.16, thv ... PUOLKMTEOAY TAG nel Dev iotopias Ö6Eav, and Philop. in Gen. corr. 25.13 ff., ÖOEAV ...,... TOM. kal midavwréoa Kal voikwtéoa. The majority of these parallel passages are early enough, and show that quoixn 66Ëa is entirely unproblematic from p- 239 Z. regrettably writes that “any detailed analysis of ‘dialectical doxography’ an idiomatic point of view !5. Aristotle uses è6ypa and Eu interchangeably in the sense of “tenet”, or “view” 16, though the latter is found more often. But in this sense Theophrastus only uses dó£a 7, The combination of gvoıxög with dóyua in the sense of “view” or “tenet” is an important ingredient of the revision of the history of ancient doxography, viz. the also found, though not, as we see, in Theophrastus. Interestingly enough the title of Ps.-Plutarch’s Placita at Eus. Pr. Ev. 14.13.9 and in most mss.!* is Tlepi túv ápeoxóvtwv TOTS Prroddpots Pvoikdv doyuátwv. Here Pvorkdv doyuatwy can only be the genitive of pvotkd Ööynara!?. Even so I do not claim that quoiküv doti is always unambiguously the genitive of vocal 56a. One cannot be absolutely certain, but what I do say and have said is that in references to a work by Theophrastus this is not only a possible option?, but also a very probable one. It puts this work firmly in the context of Peripatetic dialectic and helps to explain the Sitz im Leben would go beyond the limits of this paper, so I have to be apodictic here”. I would indeed have preferred arguments to the snap impressions and apodictic utterances which constitute the bulk of Z.’s indictment. Moreover what in my view constitutes impact of Aristotle (whose dialectical overviews in the pragmateiai we have)? on later doxographies, and not merely that of Theophrastus (whose contribution, for lack of evidence, is a bit harder to assess) is entirely left out by Z., who writes as if the position of Theophrastus is all that matters. Z. in fact follows Diels’ succinct account of Theophrastus’ doxographical work in the Doxographi Graeci?* but cites what is to be found there as selectively as he treats what he calls “the new doxography”. To be sure, Diels too argues that references to NEPAL QUOLK@V, to meol TV puakóv, to Ev TOIG PvorKkois, to puoi lotogiac all pertain to the Physicorum opiniones, or Pvouxd@v d6Eau, as he calls the treatise. Certainly, Diels too? cites as parallels the three Eudemean titles where the word totogia(t) occurs. But Diels, though apodictically plumping for the attribution of all these references to a sort of historical work treating the “philosophorum a Thalete ad Platonem turba”, naturally was too good a scholar to omit the evidence pointing in 14 A glance at the De elementis ex Hippocrate shows that Galen indeed means “practically all the physical doxai” pertaining to the principles or elements: he starts with the theory that there are smallest parts (Democritus Epicurus Asclepiades) and only later describes the (various versions of the) theory that there are four elements. He claims that his overview is complete and that the full diaeresis shows that there are four and another direction. This evidence is left out by Z.26 Should one defend Diels against his defender? At Doxographi Graeci, 192, Diels quotes the title of Theophrastus’ (!) History of Plants, ‘Iotogia tav qur@v (as at Hist. plant. 1.1.4, 1.4.3)?7 — not a “historical” treatise dealing with the evolution of plant only four main possible theories (1.427.2ff. K., térrapes pév yao al mica 66Ea Karà tiv dualpeow eiploKovraı KTA.). 15 The combination is not more strange than quaukdç tóxOS (i.e. the physical part of philosophy, S. Emp. M. 9.4), quouxds Öpog (Porph. Abst. 1.54, 129.12 N.), varios ópronós (Philop. in de An. 44.4), quouxai the queen died” is a story. “The king died, and then the queen died of grief” is a plot. &noglo (Simpl. in Phys. 148.27), puorkai érodelEers (ibid. 290.21) and quoi péttodog (ibid. 1196.4). 16 See Bonitz, Index Aristot. s.v. d6yua. longer and more detailed argument see Mansfeld (1992) esp. 67-76, 92-11 (revised and amplified Mansfeld 17 At Phys. op. fr. 6a Diels = fr. 227 FHS&G ap. Diog. Laert. 9.22 S6ypata belongs to Diogenes or his 4° Or think of the distinction between story and plot attributed to E. M. Forster: “The king died, and then 2 Easily accessible short accounts are at Mansfeld (1999b) 28-32, and Mansfeld (2000b) 347-348. For a (1993)). No reference to the relevant arguments of 1992-3 in Z. See also Sharples (1998) 7-13, and Sedley source not Theophrastus. (1998) 179-185. 18 Eus. Pr. Ev, 14.13.9, 6 MAottagyos tv olg Eréypaye “Ilepi tv doeoxdvtwv tots GLAOOÓPOLE puoi doypätwv", See apparatus at Diels DG, 273. Confirmed by Qusta ibn Luga's translation which Diels did not forthcoming paper entitled “ Aëtius, Aristotle and Others on Coming to Be and Passing Away”. have. 1 Parallels for this combination: Phil. Virt. 8, Albinus Prol. 151.1-2 H., lambl. Epist. ad Sop. de dialectica 22 See c.g. Mansfeld (1992) 94-109. The argument about Aristotle and later doxography is continued in a 2 DG 102 f. 25 Z.'s contention p. 231 that Diels failed to “adduce all the possible evidence”, viz. the Eudemean titles, in ap. Stob. 2.2.6, 19.28 W., Procl. in Ti. 2,41.14-5, Olympiod. in Meteo. 18.4-6. favour of his (and Usener's) interpretation of what they called the ®vouxdy ddE«, is mistaken: Diels does 20 As is now definitively proved by the parallels cited in the text (when 1 first thought and wrote about these matters the TLG was not available to me). And Phys. op. fr. 11 Diels, Ist text = fr. 241A FHS&G- cf. 137.6bFHS&G and the comment of Sharples (1998) 10 -, &v ti Mepi tHv puatkdy doEtbv can only mean “in the On the Physical Tenets”, not “in the On the Tenets of the Physicists” which would require another article quote the titles DG 102, before tv, év taîg lotaglats elgntan apóregov (the first sentence of the work), 1.1.2, 1.2.5, etc. Compare the references in * Of course this evidence is also cited by Steinmetz (1964) 334-351, whose arguments are summarily rejected by Z. 7 Cf. the references in the C. plant.: 1.1.1, tüv putdw al yevéorig dti pév gior rAeloug kai 1600 Kal tives

species, since iotogia here is used alio sensu and means scrutatio, i. e. enquiry, investigation, factification, as he conscientiously points out. And in the footnote to this overview in Metaph. A combined content and relative chronology. It is to be regretted that Z. fails to take this more complex structure seriously into account. At p. 228 he denies that this combination holds for Theophrastus’ even more complicated De sensibus%, apparently believing that a relative chronological sequence is ipso facto person-oriented and “historical”. But there is also something like a relative chronology of views, or doctrines, allowing an author moreover to mention in one breath earlier and later persons subscribing to the same tenet (e. g. Thales plus Hippo: water as the principle; Anaximenes plus Diogenes of Apollonia: air as the principle). The theory of causes, or principles, as described in the first book of Aristotle’s Metaphysics develops and grows, and in this sense has a history the phases of which can be, and are, determined. But as Aristotle shows this development (or evolution) need not be linear. Some further order is introduced by counting: the philosophers of nature added causes (finding they needed two not one as their earliest predecessors did, and then three or even four instead of two), similar to the way the great tragedians as described in Aristotle’s Poetics (1449a14-19) increased the number of actors from one via two to three”. It is of course well known that Aristotle viewed cultural developments as analogous to biological developments, viz. as teleologically determined 38, This teleological approach imparts a biographical undertone to his description of the quasi-personal development of the theory of causes/principles in Metaph. A, or of tragedy in the Poetics - which suggests that one should not speak in contexts such as these of genres in any strong sense. In view of Aristotle’s famous distinction section he appositely refers to the so-called autobiography where Socrates speaks of his passionate interest in natural philosophy as a young man (Plat. Phaed. 96a, tñc Coplas fiv di xadodar meQi qÜoeuws Lotoplav)2*. He also takes notice of several parallels for this meaning, quoting Aristot. Cael. 298b1-3, pavegòv Sti tiv rAelornv ovpPaiver Tic mepi púcews iotoplas regi owpdtwv elvar29, and quoting trevi púoews totopías at Theophr. Phys. op. frs. 1 and 9 Diels, One may add regi guoemg totopíus as at Phys. op. fr. 5 Diels = 224 FHS8G3!. Diels also refers to Aristotle’s designation of the investigations of the De anima in the opening lines of this treatise as Tv Meo tis puyiig Lotopiav. In Phys. op. fr. 1 Diels Theophrastus (amending Aristotle) says that though it is recorded that Thales was the first to bring the nepi Pboewg lotopiav to the Greeks, he in fact had numerous predecessors. It is beyond doubt that epi Pboewg iotopía here means “enquiry concerning nature” not “history of natural philosophy” in the sense advocated by Z. Thales was not on record as the first historian of natural philosophy. At fr. 5 Diels Theophrastus (following Aristotle) says that Xenophanes’ “doxa belongs to another enquiry rather than to that concerning nature” (érépas elvaı uardov N thc repl Pioews Lotopias thy uvunv tig Totrtov S6Enc). And at fr. 9 Diels Theophrastus says that though Plato “concerned himself mostly with first philosophy he also devoted himself to the phenomena, taking up the enquiry concerning nature” (ENEÖWKEV Éautdv Kal toic parvopévore Gwpdpevos tig neol pioewg Lotopias, viz. in the Timaeus). Plato in the Timaeus is not a historian of physics. Diels moreover argued that Theophrastus’ sequence is determined by both (relative) chronology and content». To judge from the fragments in Simplicius attributed by 283 between history (iotogia, with reference to Herodotus) and poetry (esp. tragedy) at Poet. 1451a36-b32 it may even be doubted that he would have used the term iotopia for his account of the evolution of the doctrine of causes/principles*. The developments from the positing of a single cause/principle to that of pluralities of causes/ Diels to what he calls the Physicorum opiniones this is correct. Aristotle too in his Aristotle's systematic zoological works to the History of Animals (Part. an. 646a9-10, Gen. an. 716b30-1, dudgrotar de negi adta@v akpiféoregov Ev tats totogiais taîc regi TOV Cwv, 717234, 719210, 728b13-4, yéyoamtat tv tals epi rá toa lotoplaıg). See also Gotthelf (1988). 2 Also compare Eur. Fr. 910 ’N. ap. Clem. Al. Stromat. 4.25.155, OAPiog Satis tic Loropías / Faxe pan ou, |...]/GAA' &Bavatov ratori puden KTA. # Cf. Part. an. 639a12-13, dfidov Sti Kal tag regi puorv lotoglas det tivas Indpxewv Sgous, where again negi pra Lotogiug pertains to the study of or enquiry concerning nature. % = frs. 225 and 230 FIIS&G. arrangement, but according to affinities of doctrine”, transl. FHS&G). Not in Sperrdruck in the DG, but Diels 104 n. 4 admitted that these words non solum Simplicii sed etiam Theophrasti rationem describere possunt. 35 I note a subdued reference, Z. p. 228, to a “combination of topic- and person-oriented approach” which should characterize “Meno”’s (or “Aristotle”'s) latriké Synagöge. Also cf. Z. p. 238, “a Peripatetic history of philosophy, systematic and critical”. But these incidental remarks do not carry the same weight as Z.'s sustained musings concerned with chronology. % “The DS was obviously more person-oriented and historical {i.e. in presenting a chronological % In Simplicius the formula regi pÜoeus lotopia only occurs at in Cael. 552.27 and 553.12 (where he sequence JM] than later doxography". True enough as to the relative chronology. But the a-chronological quotes Aristot. Part. an. 639a12-13, see note 29), and in the three Theophrastean passages cited in the Physics sequence Parmenides — Plato - Empedocles for instance is determined by content (escalating number of senses Commentary. One therefore need not doubt that the usage in these Theophrastean passages in the Comassumed: none-two-four). No argument is given for Z.'s rejection (p. 228 n. 51) of a paper of mine on the De mentary derives from Theophrastus himself. sensibus as being “not convincing”. 32 “History of physics”, Z. p. 230. The correct translation is rejected out of hand, ibid. 231. Y DG 104ff. I cannot resist quoting, from page 104: angustae mentis erat neglecta dogmatum necessitudine exteriorem temporum continuationem quasi principem legem custodire. * Z. is also silent about Phys. op. fr. 8 = 229 FHS&G ap. Simpl. in Phys. 28.30-31, aisın piv y obvropoc negidmpes tov lotognpévwy regi dipyòv où Kath xobvoug dvaypapelau, GAAG tiv tie SENS avyyévevav (“This is the summary account of what has been ascertained about the principles, recorded not in a chronological 7 Cf. previous n., on counting senses in the De sensibus. # von Fritz (1972) 319, 323-326; Weil (1977) 209-217. # Compare Dicaearchus’ Kulturgeschichte, entitled Blog 'EMábos (frs. 1 and 47-66 Wehrli); see von Fritz ‘ Alexander of Aphrodisias did so a number of centuries later, in Phys. 9.5-6, kai tiv lotoplav tv mpd avroó TI regi altu@y eionKötwv mapatiberat evióyoc. See below, n. 44 ad finem.

principles, he argues, are inevitable — a qualification remarkably similar to the “probare not doing history of philosophy our way. I do not claim that the idea, or concept, of “history” is unambiguous, but today’s ideal of impartiality and objectivity * differs from the Peripatetic inclination to regard the tenets of other philosophers as materials ability or necessity” characterizing what is at issue in poetry*!. As to the sequence itself of the persons positing the principles, both Diels and Z. believe that Theophrastus began with Thales, just like Aristotle in Metaph. A. But this is not certain: the order of the fragments in Simplicius is first Xenophanes cum suis, then Thales, etc.*? In Aristotle’s Physics too the Eleatics are discussed first. In an arrangement of views according to content it makes sense to climinate, or at least determine at the beginning, doctrines which arguably do not belong with the topic at issuc. The fragments on the archai in Simplicius which Diels, followed by Z., ascribes to a @voixwv dÓEaL are moreover limited, as far as the themes dealt with are concerned, to the principles or elements, and cosmogony. In Diels’ view other subjects were treated in other sections of the treatise. This may be the case. At any rate these fragments demonstrate that the point of view is topic-oriented, however much (several of) the contributions to the development of the topic may have been listed in relative chronological order. This topic-oriented approach also appears to, be valid for Eudemus*. See frr. 285 to be used fora specific purpose, and to view reflections on philosophy's past simply as ingredients of doing philosophy. One should be wary ofimposing terms with modern connotations upon ancient realitics, or at least when doing so be very much aware of the fact chat this preciselyis what one is doing. I do not claim that Z. applies the h.-word with its modern connotation, or has really thought out its implications; quite the contrary. But “history” is a suggestive word and its use may well mislead the reader. There is nothing about the above demonstration that is particularly new, but the publication of Z.’s piece obliges one to make a few noises. For the purposes of the present paper it is not necessary to discuss at length and to explain the various forms of the titles for or references to Theophrastean works or passages therein concerned with the treatment of earlier doctrines. Naturally these matters will be tackled in a forthcoming volume of Aétiana. And I have not dealt with rebukes specifically addressed to Baltussen or Runia either: amicorum iniuriae amicis curae! 139-40 W.: the themes are squaring the circle and the construction of moonlets, the persons are Antiphon and Hippocrates (of Chios). Proclus cites a title Tlepi ywviac (fr. 30 W.), which clearly suggests systematic treatment of various theories concerned Bibliography with angles. This may or may not have been a section of Eudemus’ Geometrical Enquiries. Z. tells us a paper of his on Eudemus is in the press. One is intrigued. Will he reinterpret the evidence and prove that Eudemus’ approach is different from Theophrastus’? C. Calame, The Craft of Poetic Speech in Ancient Greece, Ithaca and London 1995. DG =H. Diels, Doxographi Graeci, Berlin 1879 and later repr. H. Flashar (Hrsg.), Die Philosophie der Antike 3: Ältere Akademie, Aristoteles - Peripatos, Basel - Stuttgart 1983. Z.'s view of the historical nature of Theophrastus’ dialectic, mainly based on his FHS&G = W.W. Fortenbaugh - P.M. Huby - R. W. Sharples - D. Gutas (eds.), Theophrastus of Eresus: interpretation of the term lotogia* in a number of references and quotations is Sources for his Life, Writings, Thought and Influence (Philosophia Antiqua 54.1-2), Leiden etc. 1992, repr. untenable, as I believe to have shown. Baltussen Runia Mansfeld, in calling attention 1994, to the dialectical aspects of Aristotle’s and Theophrastus’ overviews and accounts of D. Frede, Necessity, Chance and “What Happens for the Most Part” in Aristotle’s Poetics, in: A. Oksenberg doxai, never implied that these men failed to engage in some way in what we may call the history of philosophy from Thales (or Xenophanes) to Plato*5, The point is that they K. von Fritz, Die Bedeutung des Aristoteles für die Geschichtschreibung, in: F.-P. Hager (Hrsg.), Ethik und Rorty (ed.), Essays on Aristotles Poetics, Princeton 1990, 197-219. Politik des Aristoteles (Wege der Forschung 208), Darmstadt 1972, 313-350. A. Gotthelf, Historiae 1: plantarum er animalium, in: W.W. Fortenbaugh - R.W. Sharples (eds.), Theophrastean Studies: On Natural Science, Physics and Metaphysics, Ethics, Religion, and Rhetoric (Rutgers * Metaph. 984a16-17, noviovtwv d' oÚtos, abtd tó AOGypa WEOROINGEV abtots Kai ouvnvúykace Cnteiv, cf. 984b9-10, 986b31; Poet. 1451238 and b9, tó eixög $ td QvayKatov. See further D. Frede (1992). University Studies in the Classical Humanities 3), New Brunswick 1988, 100-135. G. Huxley, On Aristotle’s Historical Methods, GRBS 13, 1972, 157-167. *2 The sequence in FHS&G of the first three fragments (224-226A) follows Simplicius’ order. J. Mansfeld, Theophrastus and the Xenophanes Doxography, Mnemosyne 40, 1987, 147-173. 4 Wehrli (1969) 113; 116 ad frr. 139-40. J. Mansfeld, Physikai doxai and problemata physika from Aristotle to Aétius (and Beyond), in: W. W. Forten- * A good account of the semantic history of the term iotogia is to be found in Press (1982); on Peripatetic baugh - D. Gutas (eds.), Theophrastus: His Psychological, Doxographical and Scientific Writings (Rutgers titles see ibid. 33, 37 (not entirely satisfactory). Huxley (1972) 158 translates “empirical investigation” and University Studies in the Classical Humanities 5), New Brunswick N. J. - London 1992, 63-111. Revised ibid. 165 speaks of Aristotle's “systematic enquiry into facts and events (rá ovufrfinkôta) past and present” and amplified version: Physikai doxai e problemata physica da Aristotele ad Aezio (ed oltre), in: A. M. Bat- (note that this paper is not concerned with the historiography of philosophy). For Herodotus’ Enquiry see tegazzore (ed.), Dimostrazione, argomentazione dialettica e argomentazione retorica nel pensiero antico, e.g. Calame (1995) 80-81 and the literature there cited. The meaning “enquiry” did not become obsolete, sce Genova 1993, 311-382. e.g. the final sentence at Plut. Mor. 253E, obdév olópevor tig kará xoóvov ThEEws delodar Thy imoxerevav lotogiuy. An account of the use of ictogia in the late commentators would be rewarding but cannot be provided here. 45 See e.g, Mansfeld (2000b) 348. # Nipperdey (1986).

J. Mansfeld, Doxographical studies, Quellenforschung, Tabular Presentation and Other Varieties of Comparativism, in: W. Burkert & al. (Hrsg.), Fragmentsammlungen philosophischer Texte der Antike - Le raccolte dei frammenti di filosofi antichi (Aporemata 3), Göttingen 1998, 16-40. J. Mansfeld (19992), Sources, in: K. Algra - J. Barnes — J. Mansfeld - M. Schofield (eds.), The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy, Cambridge etc. 1999, 3-30. J. Mansfeld (1999b), Sources, in: A. A. Long (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Early Greek Philosophy, Cambridge etc. 1999, 22-44. J. Mansfeld (20002), Cosmic Distances: Aëtius 2.31 Diels and Some Related Texts, Phronesis 45, 2000, 175-204. Also in: M. Canto-Sperber - P. Pellegrin (eds.), Le style de la penséc: Receuil de textes en hommage à Jacques Brunschwig, Paris 2002, 429-463. J. Mansfeld (2000), Book Notes: Presocratics Myth Doxography, Phronesis 45, 2000, 341-356. P. Moraux, Les listes anciennes des ouvrages d’Aristote, Louvain 1951. Th. Nipperdey, Kann Geschichte objektiv sein?, in: Th. N., Nachdenken über deutsche Geschichte. Essays, München 21986, 218-234, G. Press, The Development of the Idea of History in Antiquity, Kingston and Montreal 1982. D.T. Runia, Theophrastus or Xenophanes? An Aétian doxographicum on the Sun, in: W. W. Fortenbaugh — D. Gutas (eds.), Theophrastus: His Psychological, Doxographical and Scientific Writings (Rutgers University Studies in the Classical Humanities 5), New Brunswick N. J.- London, 112-140. D.T. Runia, What is Doxography?, in: Ph. J. van der Eijk (ed.), Ancient Histories of Medicine: Essays in Medical Doxography and Historiography (Studies in Ancient Medicine 20), Leiden 1999, 34-55. D. N. Sedley, Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom, Cambridge etc. 1998. R. W. Sharples, Theophrastus of Eresus, Commentary Vol. 3.1: Sources on Physics (Philosophia Antiqua 79), Leiden etc. 1998. P. Steinmetz, Die Physik des Theophrastos von Eresos (Palingenesia 1), Bad Homburg etc. 1964. F. Wehrli, Eudemos von Rhodos (Die Schule des Aristoteles 7), Basel - Stuttgart 21969. R. Weil, Aristotle’s View of History, in: J. Barnes - M. Schofield - R. Sorabji (cds.), Articles on Aristotle 2, Ethics and Politics, London 1977, 202-217. L. Zhmud, Revising Doxography: Hermann Diels and his Critics, Philologus 145, 2001, 219-243. Department of Philosophy Utrecht University NL - 3508 TC Utrecht Abstract This paper is a critical reply to the article of Leonid Zhmud published in this periodical (2001).