Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities, vol. 16

Series Editor: William W. Fortenbaugh Advisory Board: Dimitri Gutas Pamela M. Huby David C. Mirhady Eckart Schiitrumpf Robert W. Sharples

On Stoic and Peripatetic Ethics: The Work of Arius Didymus I Theophrastus of Eresus: On His Life and Work I

Theophrastean Studies: On Natural Science, Physics and Metaphysics, Ethics, Religion and Rhetoric I

Ciceros Knowledge of the Peripatos IV

Theophrastus: His Psychological, Doxographical, and Scientific Writings V

Peripatetic Rhetoric after Aristotle V1

The Passionate Intellect: Essays on the Transformation of Classical Traditions presented to Professor I.G. Kidd VII

Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources VUI

Demetrius of Phalerum: Text, Translation and Discussion 1X Dicaearchus of Messana: Text, Translation and Discussion X Eudemus of Rhodes XI

Lyco of Troas and Hieronymus of Rhodes XII

Aristo of Ceos, Text, Translation and Discussion XIII Heraclides of Pontus, Text and Translation XIV

Heraclides of Pontus, Discussion of the Textual Evidence XV





Routledge Taylor & Francis Group LONDON AND NEW YORK

First published 2011 by Transaction Publishers

Published 2017 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business Copyright © 2011 by Taylor & Francis.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

Library of Congress Catalog Number: 2010037996 ISBN: 978-1-4128-1127-9 (hbk)

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Strato of Lampsacus : text, translation, and discussion / [edited by] Marie-Lau- rence Desclos and William W. Fortenbaugh. p. cm. -- (Rutgers University studies in classical humanities ; v. 16) English, French, Latin, and German. Includes index. ISBN 978-1-4128-1127-9 1. Straton, of Lampsacus. I. Desclos, Marie-Laurence. I. Fortenbaugh, William W.

B626.S54S76 2011 185--de22 2010037996

Professor Jorgen Mejer Scholar, Colleague, Contributor to RUSCH 1942-2009 In Memoriam

Taylor & Francis Taylor & Francis Group




1. Une introduction a Straton de Lampsaque Marie-Laurence Desclos

2. Strato of Lampsacus: The Sources, Texts and Translations Robert W. Sharples

3. Sur deux passages difficiles de la Vie de Straton de Diogéne Laérce Tiziano Dorandi

4. La physique de Straton de Lampsaque: Dans /a lignée de Georges Rodier Pierre Pellegrin

5. Strato on “Microvoid” Kirk R. Sanders

6. The Evidence for Strato in Hero of Alexandria’s Pneumatics Sylvia Berryman

7. Elemental Qualities in Flux: A Reconstruction of Strato δ Theory of Elements Paul 7: Keyser

8. Straton sur le poids: Fragments 49 et 50A, B, C, D Sharples

David Lefebvre








9. Straton et la question du temps comme 353 nombre du mouvement

Annick Jaulin

10. Sensation et transport: Straton, fragments 64-65 Sharples 367 Pierre-Marie Morel

11. Physicalism in Strato’s Psychology 383 Deborah K. W. Modrak

12. Theophrastus and Strato on Animal Intelligence 399 William W. Fortenbaugh

13. Strato’s Aporiai on Plato’s Phaedo 413 Luciana Repici

14. The Pseudo-Aristotelian Mechanics: 443

The Attribution to Strato Istvan Bodnar

15. Nachleben 457 Anonymous

Index of Ancient Sources for Chapters 3-15 461


Le présent volume contient une nouvelle édition des fragments de Straton de Lampsaque et un ensemble d’ articles, tous directement issus du Col- loque international de Grenoble, les 5-7 avril 2005. La tenue de ce colloque, et les excellentes conditions dans lesquelles il sest déroulé, n'auraient pas été possibles sans la participation active des étudiants de Master et de Doctorat a son organisation matérielle, et l'investissement du groupe de recherches Philosophie, Langages et Cognition. Je leur adresse mes plus vifs remercie- ments, ainsi quaux diverses institutions qui nous ont apporté leur soutien: l'Université Pierre Mendes France et la MSH-Alpes, évidemment, mais également le Ministére des Affaires Etrangéres, le CNRS, le Conseil Général de l'Isére, la Communauté dagglomération Grenoble-Alpes Métropole et, enfin, la Ville de Grenoble.


The preceding words of appreciation are well directed. I second them and add that I and all the participants in the Grenoble conference are deeply indebted to Marie-Laurence for her leadership role in organizing the Grenoble conference. It was a very special occasion: fourteen scholarly papers over three days, periods of relaxation with old and new friends, comfortable housing and, of course, French cuisine.

The languages of the conference were English and French. Conse- quently the papers in this volume are divided between the two languages.


Χ Preface

Marie-Laurence has served as editor of those in French and I have per- formed the same role for those in English. Others have lent assistance when called upon. I mention Robert Shaples of University College London, and Eleanor Jefferson, a graduate student at Rutgers University. I am especially grateful to Diane Smith who has formatted the volume while making cor- rections and on occasion typing Greek, Latin, and Hebrew. This is Diane's thirteenth consecutive volume. She began with volume 4 and will be leav- ing off with the present volume. Her skill and loyalty will be sorely missed. Finally, I mention Larry Mintz of Transaction Publishers, who in recent years has reviewed our work with a keen eye and caught not a few errors.

Some twenty-nine years ago, I conceived the idea of starting a new series called Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities (RUSCH). The Provost's office approved the idea, and Transaction Publishers agreed to produce the series. It was to serve as a vehicle for advancing the work of Project Theophrastus and at the same time to enhance the name of Rut- gers among classical scholars. It has certainly achieved the former goal and perhaps done more than a little in regard to the latter. It is now time for me to give up the position of series editor. Twenty-nine years is long enough. Happily, my former graduate student, David Mirhady, now at Simon Fraser University, will take over as series editor. I am grateful and expect him to do more than fill my shoes. Not that I plan on disappearing straightway. Over the next few years, I intend to continue directing Project Theophras- tus and to help David with editing, whenever he needs my assistance. But I am growing older and in time will join those senior citizens who are aptly characterized by Theophrastus as τυμβογέροντες.

I close on a sad note. Last September Jorgen Meier passed away. That was a significant loss to Project Theophrastus in which Jorgen exhibited a keen interest over many years, to the series RUSCH to which Jorgen was a contributor on four occasions, and to the larger world of classical philol- ogy in which Jorgen was greatly respected. This volume is dedicated to his memory.

WWE December 2009


Sylvia BERRYMAN, Department of Philosophy, 1866 Main Mall E-370, University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC V6T 1Z1, Canada

Istvan BODNAR, Department of Philosophy, Central European Univer- sity, Nador utca 9, Budapest, H-1051, Hungary

Marie-Laurence DESCLOS, Université Pierre Mendés France, Grenoble 2 UFR des Sciences Humaines, Département de Philosophie, BP 47, 38040 Grenoble cedex 9, France

Tiziano, DORANDI, CNRS, Centre Jean Pépin, UPR 76, 7 rue G. Moquet, BP 8, F-94801 Villejuif cedex, France

William W. FORTENBAUGH, Department of Classics, Rutgers Univer- sity, 131 George Street, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1414, USA

Annick JAULIN, Université Paris 1-Panthéon Sorbonne, UFR de Philoso- phie, 17 rue de la Sorbonne, 75005 Paris, France

Paul KEYSER, IBM T. J. Watson Research Center, 19 Skyline Drive, Haw- thorne, NY 10532, USA


xii Contributors

David LEFEBVRE, Université Paris Sorbonne-Paris 4, UFR de Philoso- phie 1, rue Victor Cousin, 75230 Paris cedex 05, France

Deborah MODRAK, Department of Philosophy, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627-0078, USA

Pierre-Marie MOREL, Ecole Normale Superieure Lettres et Sciences Humaines, Section de Philosophie, 15 Paris René Descartes, 69342 Lyon cedex 07, France

Pierre PELLEGRIN, CNRS, Laboratoire de Philosophie et d’Histoire des Sciences, UMR 7219, 7 rue Guy Moquet, BP 8, 94801 Villejuif cedex, France

Luciana REPICI, Universita di Torino, Dipartimento di Filosofia, Via Sant’ Ottavio 20, 10124 Torino, Italie

Kirk SANDERS, Department of Classics, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801, USA

Robert SHARPLES, Department of Greek and Latin, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK

Une introduction a Straton de Lampsaque

Marie-Laurence Desclos

Le présent ouvrage sinscrit dans le cadre du Project Theophrastus, fondé en 1981 al initiative du Professeur William W. Fortenbaugh de l'Université Rutgers, dans le but de rééditer les fragments et opuscules de Théophraste @’Erése, premier successeur d’Aristote a la téte du Lycée. II s’agissait égale- ment de les accompagner d'un patient travail exégétique. Les premiers volumes des Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities (RUSCH) ont ainsi permis de mettre a la disposition du public savant les riches résul- tats de cette entreprise. Aprés 1993, les membres du Project ont décidé délargir l’investigation aux autres péripatéticiens, lédition de Fritz Weh- rli, Die Schule des Aristoteles, étant incomplete et réclamant une traduc- tion qui la rende plus aisément, et plus largement, exploitable. Cest ainsi quen 1995, un colloque a été consacré a Démétrios de Phaleére (vol. 9 des RUSCH) et a Dicéarque de Messine (vol. 10). Les années suivantes ont été vouées a lédition, la traduction et la discussion des textes dans lesquels sont nommés Eudéme de Rhodes (vol. 11), Lycon de Troade et Hiérony- mos de Rhodes (vol. 12), Ariston de Céos (vol. 13), Héraclide du Pont (vol. 14 et 15). Ce volume est dédié a lédition et a l'interprétation des fragments de Straton de Lampsaque. II se situe donc dans la continuité dune série de

2 Marie-Laurence Desclos

manifestations scientifiques destinées a permettre une meilleure connais- sance de lécole péripatéticienne, des infléchissements théoriques dont elle a été le théatre, et de son influence sur les courants de pensée dont elle est contemporaine, ou qui lui sont postérieurs.

Or donc, Straton. Je partirai d'un constat, celui du peu d’intérét que semble manifester les érudits pour le péripatéticien de Lampsaque quand ils ne le confondent pas purement et simplement avec son homonyme de Sardes, auteur dépigrammes érotiques. II convient donc de s’interroger sur les raisons de cette méconnaissance, létat fragmentaire du corpus, méme sil constitue un élément non négligeable, nexpliquant pas tout. Jen avance- rai deux, nayant nullement la prétention de lexhaustivité. La premiére est liée, me semble-t-il, a la place quoccupe Straton dans le choeur de ceux que jappellerai, par commodité, les “savants” grecs; la seconde tient a [état de la question, sans que lon sache toujours trés bien sil est la cause, ou la conséquence, de la désaffection dont souffre Straton.

Dans un article déja ancien, paru dans la revue Belfagor, Mario Vegetti entreprenait détudier “la production théorique grecque’ a travers la figure du “scienziato,” du “savant,” en laquelle il voyait la “premiére manifesta- tion,” une manifestation “paradigmatique,’ de celle du théoricien. Une telle étude, nous dit-il, devra, pour prétendre a quelque efficace, adopter “les traits dune description topologique,” se faire, par conséquent, “géo- graphie’ intellectuelle. Par quoi nous devons comprendre la nécessaire prise en compte des “lieux” du savoir, 4115 soient idéologiques, sociaux ou matériels. Premier de ces lieux: agora, occupée par des demiourgoi, dont les médecins de la seconde moitié du ν᾿ siécle constituent le meilleur exemple, tout en sinscrivant dans une tradition inaugurée par Thales et Hécatée de Milet. Hommes de la méthode, ils concoivent la science comme une “route,” cest-a-dire, selon le mot de Mario Vegetti, comme “un pro- cessus rationnel cumulatif et ouvert,’ ot ’accroissement des connaissances est indissociable d'une articulation étroite de “la théorie et de lexpérience, de la raison et de la pratique, de la “téte” et des “mains.” A cette tradition sen oppose une autre, vivace pendant le vi‘ et le ν᾿ siecles, représentée par ceux que Mario Vegetti appelle “les hommes du temple”: voila notre deuxieme “lieu.” Pythagore, Parménide et Héraclite en sont les premiers porte-parole, en qui sincarne la figure du “pur théoricien,’ adepte de la “vie contemplative” et dune rationalité de type logico-mathématique seule a méme de “déchiffrer” le “plan divin du monde.” Commence aussi a se faire jour la volonté d’harmoniser les institutions légales et les principes dorganisation du kosmos, cest-a—dire darticuler étroitement le savoir et le pouvoir. Cette “parole” cependant, “oraculaire et prophétique,’ ne persuade

Une introduction a Straton de Lampsaque 3

pas son auditoire, se contentant d’annoncer, ou dénoncer, la vérité. Entre le pur théoricien et lempirique, entre le temple et l'agora, devra donc se glis- ser un troisieme homme, capable de faire résonner le discours vrai dans la Cité: le dialecticien, et un troisieme lieu, dou il pourra le faire: cette école, que lui est 'Académie. Ecole, également, le Lycée, que pourtant tout sépare de l'autre, la platonicienne. Non pas tant pour son mode, interne, de fonc- tionnement et pour les recherches quon y méne, quen raison du pouvoir politique, celui du Macédonien, quelle trouve en face delle. Lautonomie, relative, et le remarquable développement de ce que nous appellerions aujourd’ hui les différentes sciences régionales vis—a—vis de la philosophie premiere, laquelle, dans le méme temps, voit disparaitre ses ambitions régaliennes: voila qui signe ce que Mario Vegetti appelle “lexpulsion” du savant, du scienziato, hors des lieux du pouvoir. Ce dernier, en effet, n’a plus pour tache, comme le voulait Platon, de former homme politique ou de se substituer a lui: seulement de le désillusionner. Encore préserve-t-il son indépendance. II nen sera plus vraiment de méme au début du 11° siécle, lorsque Straton, et d'autres, rejoignent le Musée d’Alexandrie fondé par Ptolémée Sdter. Nous sommes maintenant en présence de professionnels du savoir, denseignants salariés, assurés d’un travail tranquille tout entier consacré a l'accumulation des connaissances. Certes, tel est le réve secret de tout universitaire, pour autant il n’y a rien la qui soit susceptible dexciter les imaginations, et de susciter ces publications que mériterait cependant loriginalité de sa physique et de sa psychologie.

Il est, en effet, fort peu de monographies qui aient explicitement, et exclusivement, Straton de Lampsaque pour objet. Citons, outre les recueils de fragments, louvrage de Gatzemeier, paru en 1970, consacré au probleme du mouvement, et celui, plus récent (1996), de S. Berryman, sur la phi- losophie stratonienne de la nature et la question de la téléologie; celui de L. Repici (1988), sur sa psycho-physiologie; sans oublier lancienne these de G. Rodier (elle date de 1890), sur sa physique. Les articles sont, certes, plus nombreux, mais sont bien loin de connaitre linflation que lon cons- tate pour dautres auteurs, d'autres écoles ou d'autres périodes. Sans me prononcer sur leur contenu, jobserve néanmoins que, bien souvent, la pen- sée de Straton est moins étudiée pour elle-méme que pour ses trahisons et ses fidélités prétendues a légard d’un prédécesseur pour toujours figé dans la posture du magister. A quoi bon, dés lors, étudier le disciple indo- cile, ou lépigone déviant, aux textes fragmentaires et d’accés peu aisé, alors quAristote et son ceuvre, dont on sait les stimulantes difficultés, soffrent a notre sagacité Deuxieme remarque, inspirée sans doute par ma longue fréquentation de ces prosateurs grecs, que nous nommons des historiens,

4 Marie-Laurence Desclos

et des commentaires dont les accablent ceux qui, aujourd’hui, se disent leurs collegues. Un Hérodote, un Thucydide, un Xénophon, un Polybe ne valent que parce qu'ils préfigureraient, et en tant qu ils préfigureraient, avec un inégal succes dailleurs, lhistoire telle quon lécrit a partir du x1x° siécle. Or, a lire certains articles, on a impression qu’il en va de méme pour un Straton, écrasé par limposante stature intellectuelle d’Aristote, mais qui regagnerait, par sa capacité a anticiper les démarches et les résultats de la physique moderne, ce 411] perdrait dans sa comparaison avec le Stagirite. La physique, en ses enfances, rachetant, en quelque sorte, la philosophie en son déclin. Ou Straton entre juvénilité et senescence. La encore, on com- prend que d’aucuns aient préféré la maturité triomphante dun Platon ou dun Aristote, des membres la Stoa ou de ceux du Jardin. Constat qui suscite une derniére question, en forme de construction annulaire: celle du lieu, improbable, occupé par Straton, entre aristotélisme orthodoxe et philoso- phie hellénistique, dont il fait indéniablement partie, mais dans laquelle on oublie trop souvent de l’inscrire.

Il nous faut donc rendre a Straton la place qu’il mérite, et mettre en évidence l' importance théorique qui a été la sienne aussi bien pour ses con- temporains que pour ceux qui, apres lui, au Lycée ou ailleurs, ont subi son influence.

Ouvrages cités

Berrymann, S. 1966. “Rethinking Aristotelian Teleology: the Natural Phi- losophy of Strato of Lampsacus.” Diss. Austin: University of Texas. Gatzmeier, M. 1970. Die Naturphilosophie des Straton von Lampsakos. Zur Geschichte des Probleme der Bewegung im Bereich d. friihen Peripatos. Meisenheim am Glan: Anton Hain.

Repici, L. 1988. La natura e lanima: saggi su Stratone di Lampsaco. Torino: Tirrenia Stampatori.

Rodier, G. 1890. La physique de Straton de Lampsaque. Paris: Félix Alcan.

Vegetti, M. 1973. “Nascita dello scienziato.” Belfagor 28:641-63.

Wehrli, F. 1967-1978. Die Schule des Aristoteles. Texte und Kommentar. Vols. 1-10 and suppl. 1-2. Basel-Stuttgart: Schwabe.


Strato of Lampsacus The Sources, Texts and Translations

Robert W. Sharples Contents

Introduction 6 Abbreviations and Bibliography 18

Texts and Translations Life and writings (1-12) 28 Logic (13-16) 46 Physics (17-54) 56 Psychology, Physiology, Zoology (55-81) 132 Ethics and Politics (82--86) 178 Miscellaneous (87) 184 Appendix (App. 1-13) 184 Concordances 210 Omitted Texts 214 Index of Sources 215 Index of Passages Cited 220 Index of Names 226

6 Robert W. Sharples Introduction: On Editing the Sources for Strato! 1. General principles followed in this collection

This collection of the sources for Strato of Lampsacus follows the same basic principles as those of the sources for Theophrastus in FHS&G?* and for other early Peripatetics in previous volumes of RUSCH. (I follow these collections in using the term “sources” because in dealing with prose authors it is not always easy to draw a hard-and-fast line between “frag- ments,’ in the sense of quotations, on the one hand and testimonia on the other.) In particular, the present collection is essentially confined, as far as texts printed in full are concerned, to passages where Strato is men- tioned by name a principle which is probably more important in the case of Strato than of any other Peripatetic (see below, Introduction §2).° Related texts are grouped together under a single number (e.g. 5A and 5B); texts that name Strato but are parallel to those printed in full are listed in the upper apparatus, as are texts that do not name him but are otherwise comparable. The present collection also follows FHS&G and the previous collections in RUSCH in arranging the material by subject-matter, with separate lists of the titles attested for Strato cross-referring to the individual texts, rather than seeking to arrange the items primarily by their putative relation to the attested titles, a procedure which is obviously appropriate in the context of reconstructing lost dramatic works, for example, but less obviously so in that of philosophical doctrines.’ In the case of Strato very few of the reports in the fragments actually cite a book-title; I have consid- ered whether to indicate after each title, even if only tentatively, the frag- ments that might possibly relate to it even if there is no actual evidence that

' This is a version of the paper given at the conference at Grenoble in April 2005 and to seminars in London in October 2005 and in February 2006, revised in the light of the discussion on these occasions and of subsequent work on the texts.

2 For abbreviations see below, p. 18.

* Mansfeld 1998, 20 n.22, while expressing approval for the principle in FHS&G of including only reports that name Theophrastus, has said that references should have been included to more passages in the doxographical tradition, even where these were not printed in full, on the grounds that the title of FHS&G did after all refer to sources for Theophrastus’ influence. While this is true, the need may partly be filled in the case of FHS&G by reference to the accompanying commentary volumes, in the present case by reference to the studies contained in the present volume.

* Though this is not to deny that the original context in Strato’s work of arguments reported by a later source may not be crucial for questions of interpretation; for an example see below, n.6.

Strato of Lampsacus: The Sources, Texts and Translations 7

they do so; however, this is usually so uncertain that I would be reluctant to do so except perhaps in a very few cases, and it therefore seems more consistent not to do so at all.

There are relatively few titles attributed to Strato whose classification is unclear. It may just be chance that we have no reports of Stratos view on winds;° but given Strato’s psychological theories it would I think be perverse to classify Peri pneumatos as a meteorological rather than a psychologi- cal or physiological work. On the other hand, there are some boundaries which it is hard to draw. I have therefore divided the titles up into sepa- rate lists only as far as follows: Logic and Topics; Physics and Theology; Psychology, Physiology and Zoology; Ethics, Politics and Discoveries; and Miscellaneous. The boundary between psychology and physiology is hard to draw, and, while we have titles that indicate discussion of creatures other than human beings, the only actual reports that seem to link with any zoo- logical title are on reproduction, where Strato, like Aristotle, seems to have treated humans and other animals in the same work.

Whatever the content of the work On Gods may have been, the reports that we have relate to the place, or lack of it, of divine agency in Strato’s physical theory. For that very reason, while in general I have tried to arrange texts and titles in the same order as each other, I think it appropriate to fol- low Wehrli in putting the “theological” passages at the start of the physics section, but the title On Gods at the end of the relevant list. In the light of Professor Repici’s paper in the present volume there is I think a strong case for treating Strato’s criticisms of the arguments for immortality in Plato's Phaedo as a separate section, rather than as part of the psychology section, to avoid readers taking them as necessarily evidence for Stratos own views when they may rather be dialectical arguments.° On the other hand, the criticisms of the Phaedo have been placed in a separate section following Psychology/Physiology (p. 166), rather than being included under Logic/ Topics; the Logic/Topics section should be concerned with theoretical issues or with general statements about Stratos practice, not with specific examples of dialectical argumentation.

> Wehrli included one text on winds where Strato is not named (his fr.88); see further below. Cf. also fr.6 Gottschalk.

° Wehrli detached 79 here (his fr.118) from the other criticisms, which has actually led to its being treated as evidence for Strato’s own view; at any rate Caston 1997, 339 and n.71 says that “the harmonia theory is attributed to no less than four of [Aristotle's] colleagues and students, and . . . Strato even defends it against a category-mistake objection,’ citing this passage. This at any rate suggests that he supposes that Strato actually endorsed the harmonia theory.

8 Robert W. Sharples

Wehrli put On the Principles, Three or Two? and On Causes under both Logic and Physics, in the case of the first title with a question-mark in both places but in that of the second without. I incline to think that both titles belong under physics. Wehrli put On the Nature of Man under both physiology and ethics; I think it belongs in the combined psychology and physiology section. After all, Aristotle's De anima and Nemesius’ On the Nature of Man to take just two examples both include discussion of choice and action, but that does not lead us to regard them as belonging to ethics. On the Future is listed by Wehrli under Ethics, but I suspect it may relate rather to logic. Both in ordering titles and in ordering the fragments, I have kept close closer than Wehrli to the “Bekker order” of Aristo- tle’s writings. This may conceivably introduce distorted perspectives, but to arrange the evidence relating to Strato differently could be even more tendentious if for example we were to put physiology before psychology in the supposition that Strato reduced the latter to the former.

It has been suggested that it is artificial to separate 10 (16 Wehrli) and 14 (19 Wehrli), both on Stratos practice of argument, in the way that Weh- rli did, placing the former under biography but the latter under logic. The former, however, relates to the general character of Stratos writings, while the latter makes a specific point about the importance Strato attached to dialectic.’ For the placing of 60 under psychology, with Wehrli, rather than under logic see Professor Modrak’s paper in the present volume.

Unlike Wehrli, I have treated the lists of titles separately from Diogenes Laertius life of Strato. It is one thing to present the list of titles as Diogenes gives it, in such a way that readers can draw inferences from its arrange- ment; another to catalogue titles ourselves and list the other evidence for them. There are in any case titles which are not in Diogenes list, such as On Being, reported by Proclus (24) and On Motion, or On Change, reported by Simplicius (40 and 41)

In general my approach to including context material has been to quote more rather than less. A notable case is 54, Strabos report and criti- cism of Eratosthenes’ appeal to Strato for the claim that geological changes

7 Strato is indeed mentioned here in a general list along with other Peripatetics and Academics; but it is the content of the report that is relevant to where it is placed in our collection, not the degree of precision it displays.

δ᾿ Wehrli lists On Motion and On Time as titles at the head of his “Motion and Time” section and follows them with a reference to Diogenes Laertius 5.59, with no indication that only On Time is included in Diogenes’ list. I do not see any simple solution to the question whether to translate kinesis in the fragments of Strato by “motion” or by “change”; some contexts require one, some the other.

Strato of Lampsacus: The Sources, Texts and Translations 9

can connect seas that were previously separate, and even lead to the entire draining out of some. Here the previous standard collection, in Wehrli 1967-1978 vol. 5, was decidedly selective; both Jones 1917 and Aujac 1979 regard as a report of Strato more than was included by Wehrli. The state- ment about Egypt at 54.49 is shown by the grammatical construction still to be a report of someone's views; and there is nothing to indicate that it is now Eratosthenes that Strabo is reporting, rather than Strato. The reference of “this” at 54.95 needs to be explained either in a note or by including the remarks of Strabo that precede it; the latter is simpler, presents the original evidence rather than just an interpretation of it, and facilitates discussion. To be sure, there is a danger that such context material may be taken as evi- dence either for Stratos own opinions or for his terminology; this danger is always present when collections of texts are consulted in a cursory way because they are ancillary to some other enquiry, or when points about terminology are made on the basis of the consultation of indexes or of elec- tronic word-searches.° But that is hardly a sufficient ground for excluding context material altogether.

Wehrli divided Diogenes’ life of Strato into five separate items, one of which is the list of titles: following Berryman 1996, I have reunited them into a single one and included the material that Wehrli omitted the list of other Stratos in section 61, which is directly relevant to the question of the attribution of some of our reports. Similarly I have, again following Berryman 1996, combined into a single item (31) Simplicius’ discussion of Stratos views on time, divided by Wehrli into five separate fragments," and included the additional context material from Simplicius, as urged in Professor Jaulin’s paper.

There is a particular issue concerning how to cite Aétius, the doxog- rapher whose lost work was reconstructed in parallel columns by Diels in DG from the pseudo-Plutarch Placita and from Stobaeus. Very often a report of Strato appears only in one of these two sources; where that is the case I give the text as from that author, noting the putative Aétius refer- ence in the apparatus, but where the same text does appear in both sources I give Aétius as the heading. The procedure followed in the first type of case should not be taken to indicate disbelief in the general principles of Diels’ reconstruction, rather a desire to give the actual, rather than putative

° To cite one well-known example, the terms cited under the names of particular Pre- socratics in the index to DK are evidence for the terminology the Presocratics themselves used when they relate to B-texts (fragments proper) but not necessarily when they relate to A-texts (testimonia).

75-77, 80 and 81Wehrli.

10 ΒΚοβετί W. Sharples

source of a report as it has come to us."' For a similar reason, while editors’ names are normally placed after the page reference to their edition, Diels’ name appears after the book, chapter and section numbers of Aétius as printed by him, to show that the structure of the work is essentially the result of his conjectural reconstruction.

Fr.44 Wehrli is from the pseudo-Clementine Recognitions, a Christian romance written to give Christian readers an alternative to pagan novels, but including edifying material, including a list of the material principles of various philosophers, among them Strato. Wehrli prints this fragment from Rufinus’ Latin version. The edition of Rufinus’ version in the series Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller prints the Greek of a scholion on one of St. Basil’s homilies as evidence for the lost original Greek version.” Berryman 1996, 87-88 gives only the Greek and not the Latin. The sim- plest way to give all the available information has been to print both the Greek and the Latin as two parallel texts, 45C and 45D.

The texts printed here are not based on new collations of the MSS of the authors who refer to Strato; they are rather based, along with the informa- tion on MSS readings, on the best published editions of those authors. The exception is the reports from Diogenes Laertius (1 and 4), which Tiziano Dorandi has very kindly allowed to be based on his forthcoming edition of that author. In editing the fragments I have reported editorial conjectures reported by Wehrli that are not recorded in the standard edition I have followed, often more recent than the one he used, but I have not recorded readings of MSS that he gives but a later standard edition does not. For in such cases the edition will have decided as a matter of deliberate editorial policy not to report these MSS even though the earlier edition used by Wehrli does so. Moreover, confusion would arise from using more than one set of sigla.

2. The relation of the present collection to its predecessors

The first edition of the evidence for Strato by Fritz Wehrli (1944-59, vol. 5) included 154 items (including a and b fragments). That number was however inflated, in two ways. First, and less important, Wehrli assigned item or “fragment” numbers to some, though not all, of those book titles attested for Strato to which no further texts could be linked. (Where there were such texts, these bore numbers but the titles themselves did not.)

"Cf. further n.1 to 33. '* The passage is also printed in the Latin version, and discussed, by Diels in the preface to DG, 250-51.

Strato of Lampsacus: The Sources, Texts and Translations 11

Thirty-three of Wehrlis numbered items are book titles.'* Wehrli also assigned item numbers to four cross-references where a passage was rel- evant to more than one aspect of Stratos work.'* Second, and more impor- tant, Wehrli included a number of texts that do not name Strato, all taken from Hero's Pneumatica,’’ on the strength of the close parallel between one of these passages (65b = 30B here) and a report by Simplicius (30A) which does name Strato. In his first edition Wehrli adopted the convention of printing all these passages except 30B itself in the same font and size but with narrower spacing of the letters. Such devices, when editors use them, are often overlooked. But in Wehrli’s second edition the distinction was in any case dropped, and all the passages were printed in a similar typeface. In the present collection 30B is the only Hero text that has been included."® Significantly, it does not seem that any of the other passages from Hero included by Wehrli are appropriate for inclusion even as unnamed appara- tus parallels to named texts,'? which implies that, if the material in Weh- rli’s unnamed Hero passages did in fact come from Strato, no other author recorded it as doing so. This may make us hesitate over whether these pas- sages do in fact reflect Stratos views the more so because Sylvia Berry- man, in her paper in the present volume, demonstrates that the preface to Heros treatise contains a number of different physical theories which are actually incompatible with one another, and so cannot all be Stratos.

Nine of Wehrli’s texts naming Strato, being essentially parallels to other texts, are here reduced to the status of apparatus items.'® Fr.146 Wehrli, from a scholion to Euripides, Hippolytus, is a parallel, not itself naming Strato, to fr.147 Wehrli (86); a further parallel, from a scholion on Pindar, Pythian 2.63, is mentioned by Wehrli only in his commentary." Fr.28 Wehrli is from Brandis’s collection of Aristotelian “scholia,’ and is in fact the same text as fr.29 Wehrli (15 here) from Simplicius’ Categories commentary.”

8 Wehrli 20-26, 31, 68-69, 92-93, 100-6, 132-33, 135-43, 148-50.

4 Wehrli 46 = 87, 47 = 89, 107 = 74, 117 = 48.

'S Wehrli 56, 57, 64, 650, 66, 67, 88.

A full list has however been given of passages included by Wehrli or Gottschalk that are not included in the present collection (below, 214).

17 The amount of context I have given in 30B does however have the consequence that not only Wehrli’s fr.65b, the passage corresponding to Simplicius, is included, but also his fr.66.

'8 Wehrli 2, 29, 40, 79b, 79c, 119a, 121, 125, 131.

Cf. Berryman 1996, 17.

* Cf. Berryman 1996, 17 and 66 n.45.

12 Robert W. Sharples

In 1965 the late Hans Gottschalk published a collection which was in part a revision of, and in part a supplement to, the texts collected by Wehrli in his first edition. The revision, Gottschalk rightly argued, was needed because of inadequacies in Wehrli’s edition, especially in Damascius’ reports of Stratos criticisms of Platos arguments for the immortality of the soul in the Phaedo (76-81 in the present collection). The supplement, Gottschalk claimed, was needed because there were a number of texts which did not mention Strato by name but which were, in Gottschalk’s view, evidence for his physical theories; Gottschalk argued forcefully in support of Wehrli’s attribution to Strato of the material from Hero’: pref- ace, and then connected with Strato other passaged where he detected the same physical theory. In fact Gottschalk’s argument in support of the attri- bution of the reconstructed theory to Strato is an argument from silence; it rests on the claim that there is no other suitable candidate at the right date to have originated it.

Gottschalk added twelve new texts to Wehrli’s collection, one from Philo of Byzantium (Gottschalk 2), two from Themistius (3a and 3b), one from Simplicius (4), one from Ibn Bahlul’s version of Theophrastus’ Metar- siology (5 = 13.7-17 of the longer Arabic version by Ibn al-Khammar at Daiber 1992, 268), one from Cicero (11) and six from the pseudo- Aristotle Problems. Gottschalk argued (1965, 159-60) that Ibn Bahlul’s text was a compendium from various sources and that the material in question came from Strato not Theophrastus; but, apart from the fact that the same mate- rial is also present in the longer Arabic version, Gottschalk was wrong to argue that the principle of horror vacui was not used by Theophrastus: see Daiber 1992, 279 and 283. Of Gottschalk’s supplementary texts not naming Strato only one, Cicero, Tusc. Disp. 1.46, seems to me to merit inclusion as a parallel, to 61.”

Wehrli’s second edition improved on his first by adding five new frag- ments: one from Plutarch (4.1 = 2 here), three from Damascius (41.1, 41.2, 82.1 = 25AB and 37) and one from Tertullian (131.1 = 69).2 Another collection was made by Sylvia Berryman in her Ph.D. thesis (Berryman 1996), which she has very kindly let me use for the present one. Of the new texts that she adds, four, from [Galen], History of Philosophy, are in the

*! An apparatus of parallels should in my view err on the side of exclusiveness; too often in the history of scholarship vague similarities between passages have been seized on as evidence of influence or of a specific common source where they are nothing of the sort. The place for mentioning such passages is rather in a commentary, in the present case in the other studies in this volume.

22 Respectively 4.1; 41.1, 41.2 and 82.1; and 131.1.

Strato of Lampsacus: The Sources, Texts and Translations 13

present collection treated as apparatus parallels to texts already in Weh- rli.? One from Stobaeus is a paraphrase of a passage from Plutarch which Wehrli included in his second edition (fr.4.1W = 2 here). This leaves as new primary texts one passage from Simplicius on time (34 in the present collection), one from Galen himself, a passing reference to the physician Athenaeus referring to the views of Strato identified by Galen as “the physicist” on shivering (75), and one from pseudo-Galen, a passage on the causes of disease where Stratos name may only appear as the result of a textual corruption (Appendix 7). 34 had been omitted by Wehrli because the standard edition of Simplicius prints the name of Plato in the main text, though several MSS have that of Strato, and comparison with Stobaeus in 33 suggests that this is correct.What 34 adds to other reports of Strato’s views on time may have more to do with Simplicius’ interpretation than with Stratos own views; none the less, it is a report of Strato by name and clearly needs to be included.

There are no further references to Strato in the Latin texts on the Pack- ard Humanities Institute CD-ROM, the website,™ or the website (which includes patristic and medieval Latin material). There is no entry for Strato (unlike Theophrastus) in the index to the Encyclopedia of Islam, and he is not mentioned in the philo- sophical section of an-Nadim’s Fihrist. A search of the on-line Thesaurus Linguae Graecae has produced three new items not in Wehrli, Gottschalk or Berryman, but they are hardly very significant. Eusebius, Praep. Ev. 15.61.2 is a parallel to 57, listed in the apparatus there. Photius, Bibl. 167 114b19, from Photius’ summary of Stobaeus (12), simply lists Strato as among those whose sayings Stobaeus recorded. Tzetzes, Chiliades 8.212.599 is a versification of Strabo’s report of Eratosthenes’ report of Strato in 54; it is listed in the apparatus to 20-28 there, for, while it adds extra information,

23 In the present collection they appear as apparatus items to texts 70, 51, 63A and 74.

** Except for one by Patrizzi, Panaugiae Liber secundus De diaphano, fol.4r, which is too late (1588) for us to include. Patrizzi attributes to Strato the view that air, water and earth, being simple bodies, are all by nature white: “Quid ergo, sive sit in aere lumen, sive sit in lumine aer, dicendumne erit, aerem videri? Per se quidem cerni non videtur, quoniam dum sine lumine est, non videtur. Si videtur illuminatus, non per se, sed videbitur per lumen. Si visilis per se esset, cerneretur, sicuti lux, etiam in obscuro. An vero aer, sicuti color est qui in tenebris non cernitur, cernitur in lumine? Et eo devolvetur questio haec, ut iuxta Stratonis physici sententiam dicatur, aerem, et aquam, et terram natura esse alba, quia simplicia sint corpora? et ut colorata sunt cernantur, quamvis non nisi illuminata?” The source, as Paul Keyser has pointed out to me, is the first sentence of [Aristotle] De coloribus (1, 791a1-6); it appears that it was Patrizzi himself who originated the attribution of this work to Strato, in his Discussiones peripateticae, Basel 1581, 74 (Schmitt 1971, 316).

14{ βΒοβετί W. Sharples

it does so erroneously. For Tzetzes adds, to the references to the Bosphorus and the Straits of Gibraltar which are given by Strabo, a further reference to the Straits of Messina which is in fact irrelevant to the point being made; the Tyrrhenian Sea, unlike the Black Sea or the Medierannean as a whole, can hardly have been regarded as being a closed lake before the creation of the straits leading into it. The creation of the Straits of Messina converted Sicily from a peninsula to an island, rather than joining two seas which had previously been totally separated.”

3. Strato the doctor, and other doctors named Strato

Ancient medical sources refer, in highly technical contexts, to a Strato who was a doctor and a pupil of Erasistratus.*° The question arises whether this person is to be identified with Strato of Lampsacus. Diogenes Laertius lists them separately in his list of individuals with the name of Strato (1.67-68); Tertullian in 58 also appears to distinguish between them, though Diels emended away the distinction. Berryman 1996, 98-105 discusses the issue and concludes (103) that the fragments explicitly assigned to the pupil of Erasistratus are so technical that, even if this person was in fact identical with Strato of Lampsacus, it is of little import whether these texts are taken into account in an assessment of the latter’s thought. Nevertheless, our collection aims to be complete where Strato of Lampsacus is concerned; and in addition to the medical texts explicitly mentioning the pupil of Erasistratus, there are others that simply refer to “Strato.’’” Some at least of these, concerning treatments for epilepsy (Appendix 13) apparently derive from Strato of Beirut, in the first century AD; others, concerning poisons, may be from Strato the pupil of Erasistratus,** whether or not he