No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
In this paper I will reconsider the doxographical text about Aristotle in Clement of Alexandria's Protrepticus 5.66.4:
οὐδ⋯ν δ⋯ οἶμαι χαλεπ⋯ν ⋯ντα⋯θα γεν⋯μενος κα⋯ τ⋯ν ⋯κ το⋯ Περιπ⋯του μνησθ⋯ναι· κα⋯ ⋯ γε τ⋯ς αἱρ⋯σεως πατ⋯ρ, τ⋯ν ὅλων οὐ νο⋯σας τ⋯ν πατ⋯ρα, τ⋯ν καλο⋯μενον ‘ὕπατον’ ψυχ⋯ν εἶναι το⋯ π⋯ντος οἴεται· τουτ⋯στι το⋯ κ⋯σμου τ⋯ν ψυχ⋯ν θε⋯ν ὑπολαμβ⋯νων αὐτ⋯ς αὑτῷ περιπε⋯ρεται. ⋯ γ⋯ρ τοι μ⋯χρι τ⋯ς σελ⋯νης αὐτ⋯ς διορ⋯ζων τ⋯ν πρ⋯νοιαν, ἔπειτα τ⋯ν κ⋯σμον θε⋯ν ⋯γο⋯μενος περιτρ⋯πεται, τ⋯ν ἄμοιρον θεο⋯ θε⋯ν δογματ⋯ζων.
1 Clemens Alexandrinus, vol. i. Protrepticus und Paedagogus, ed. Stählin, O. (GCS, Leipzig 1905, repr. Berlin 1972), pp. 50–1Google Scholar. Clement of Alexandria with an English Translation, by Butterworth, G. W. (London, 1919; repr. 1960), p. 150Google Scholar; Clément d' Alexandrie, le Protreptique, introd., transl. and notes by Mondésert, C. (Paris, 1949), p. 131Google Scholar.
2 Festugière, A. J., L' Idéal religieux des grecs et l'Évangile (Paris, 1932), pp. 221–63Google Scholar. Runia, D. T. took this study as his point of departure in ‘Festugière Revisited: Aristotle in the Greek Patres’, VC 43 (1989), 1–34Google Scholar.
3 Festugière, A. J., op. cit., pp. 225–32Google Scholar. Cf. id., La Révélation d' Hermès Trismégiste, ii (Paris, 1949), p. 478. For a detailed discussion of the De mundo, see ibid., pp. 460–518.
4 Moraux, P., D' Aristote à Bessarion: trois exposés sur l'histoire et la transmission de l'Aristotélisme grec (Québec, 1970), p. 41Google Scholar.
5 Moraux, P., op. cit., p. 55Google Scholar; cf. p. 10. See also Moraux, P., ‘Diogène Laërce et le Peripatos’, Elenchos 7 (1986), 245–94, p. 281Google Scholar.
6 Arist, . M.A. 4Google Scholar, 700al, quoting Il. 8.20–2.
7 Cf. Aristotele: Trattato sul cosmo per Alessandro, transl. with Greek text, introd. and comm. by Reale, G. (Naples, 1974)Google Scholar, who, after P. Gohlke, is the first to defend its authenticity. His position is accepted in Bos, A. P., Aristoteles, Over de kosmos, introd., transl., notes (Meppel, 1989Google Scholar); id., ‘Supplementary Notes on the De mundo’, Hermes 119 (1991), 312–32. A date in the first century B.C. or A.D. is again vigorously defended for the De mundo by Moraux, P., Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias, ii (Berlin, 1984), pp. 5–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Gottschalk, H. B., ‘Aristotelian Philosophy in the Roman World from the Time of Cicero to the End of the Second Century’, in ANRW, 36.2 (Berlin, 1987), 1079–1174, pp. 1132–9Google Scholar. For a discussion of their positions see Bos, A. P., ‘Considerazioni sul “De mundo” e analisi critica delle tesi di Paul Moraux’, Riv. di Filos. Neo-scolastica 82 (1990), 587–606Google Scholar. An important contribution to the discussion is given in Schenkeveld, D. M, ‘Language and Style of the Aristotelian De mundo in Relation to the Question of its Inauthenticity’, Elenchos 12 (1991), 221–55Google Scholar. Mansfeld, J., ‘Two attributions’, CQ 41 (1991), pp. 541–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Holwerda, D., ‘Text kritisches und Exegetisches zur pseudo-Aristotelischen Schrift περ⋯ το⋯ κ⋯σμου’, Mnemosyne 46 (1993), pp. 46–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
8 Mu. 6. 397b24–27: τ⋯ν μ⋯ν οὖν ⋯νωτ⋯τω κα⋯ πρώτην ἔδραν αὐτ⋯ς ἔλαχεν, ὕπατ⋯ς τε δι⋯ το⋯το ὠν⋯μασται, κατ⋯ τ⋯ν ποιητ⋯ν ‘⋯κροτ⋯τῃ κορυϕῇ’ το⋯ σ⋯μπαντος ⋯γκαθιδρυμ⋯νος οὐρανο⋯.
9 In the small work De mundo, Reale, G., op. cit., p. 351Google Scholar, draws attention to eight quotations of Homer. In view of what follows below, I believe there are nine.
10 Thus W. L. Lorimer; J. Tricot; P. Gohlke; D.-J. Furley; G. Reale, ad loc.
11 Regen, F., ‘Die Residenz des persischen Grosskönigs und der Palast des Menelaos’, Hermes 100 (1972), 206–7Google Scholar. In the text of Il. 5 there is a combination of ‘the loftiest crest’ (754) with ‘Zeus, the Highest’ (756).
12 Pl. Tim. 41a7ff. Cf. Philo, , Aet. 13Google Scholar. Philo's reference in ch. 16 to Aristotle's discussion of Plato's views must have been based on Aristotle's lost works (pace R. Arnaldez, ad loc.).
13 Cf. Lévêque, P., Aurea catena Homeri: une étude sur l'allégorie grecque (Paris, 1959)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
14 PL Tht. 153c9.
15 Eustathius, , In Horn. II. (ed. van der Valk, M., Leiden, ii, 1976), p. 695.2ff. and p. 695.9ffGoogle Scholar.
16 Arist, . M.A. 4Google Scholar, 699b37, where Il. 8.21–2 and 20 are quoted: ⋯λλ' οὐκ ἅν ⋯ρὑσαιτ' ⋯ξ οὐραν⋯θεν πεδ⋯ονδε | Z⋯ν' ὕπατον π⋯ντων, οὐδ' εἰ μ⋯λα πολλ⋯ κ⋯μοιτε· | π⋯ντες δ' ⋯ξ⋯πτερθε θεο⋯ π⋯σα⋯ τε θ⋯αιναι (the Homeric text reads Z⋯ν ὕπατον μ⋯στωρ' in line 22). Cf. Aristotle's De motu anim., text with transl., comm. and interpretative essays by Nussbaum, M. C. (Princeton, 1978), pp. 320–1Google Scholar. Nussbaum sees in this text a veiled polemic with Plato, , Tht. 153c9Google Scholar: in his reference there to ‘the golden cord’, Plato had disregarded the figure of Zeus, who is central in Homer's picture.
17 Theophr. Metaph. 5b15, quoting Il. 8.24.
18 Line 22 should be preferred to line 31 on account of the reference in Theophrastus. But see also Plut, . Quaest. Plat. 9Google Scholar.
19 Cf. Bos, A. P., ‘Supplementary Notes’, Hermes 119 (1991), 326–7Google Scholar.
20 Mu. 6, 397b11—12: εἰ κα⋯ μ⋯ δι' ⋯κριβε⋯ας, ⋯λλ' οὖν γε ὡς εἰς τυπώδη μ⋯θησιν. See also ch. 4, 394a8.
21 Cf. notes 3–5 above.
22 Cf. Arist, . Metaph. Λ 9Google Scholar. 1074b15–35.
23 We find this view attributed to Aristotle by Tatian, , Or. adv. Graecos 2Google Scholar; Athenagoras, , Leg. 25Google Scholar; Hippolytus, , Ref. 1.20, 22 and 7.14Google Scholar; Clement, , Strom. 5.14Google Scholar; Origen, , C. Cels. 1.21 and 3. 75Google Scholar; Eusebius, , Praep. Ev. XV 5, 1Google Scholar; Gregory, of Nazianzus, , Or. 27.10Google Scholar; Epiphanius, , Adv. Haer. 3. 2,9Google Scholar; Theodoretus, Graec. aff. 5.77.47 and 6.86.7; Ambrose, Off. 1.13.48; Chalcidius, , In Tim. 248Google Scholar. Cf. A. P. Bos, Providentia Divina; The Theme of Divine ‘pronoia’ in Plato and Aristotle (Assen, 1976), p. 5Google Scholar; Runia, D. T., ‘Festugière Revisited’ VC 43 (1989), 1–34, p. 18Google Scholar.
24 See , Ps.-Plut. Plac. 2.3Google Scholar; Stob, . Ecloga 1.21Google Scholar. Cf. Diels, H., Doxographi Graeci, p. 330Google Scholar. See also Diog. Laertius 5.32: τ⋯ν δ⋯ θε⋯ν ⋯σώματον ⋯π⋯ϕαινε, … διατε⋯νειν δ' αὐτο⋯ τ⋯ν προνο⋯αν μ⋯χρι τ⋯ν οὐραν⋯ων κα⋯ εἶναι ⋯κ⋯νητον αὐτ⋯ν· τ⋯ δ' ⋯π⋯γεια κατ⋯ τ⋯ν πρ⋯ς τα⋯τα συμπ⋯θειαν οἰκονομεῖσθαι and the commentary of Moraux, P., Elenchos 7 (1986), 281Google Scholar. It is striking how easily scholars like Moraux (and before him Festugière) accept that the whole of antiquity took a completely wrong view of matters on such an important subject as the Aristotelian doctrine of divine Providence. For an entirely new analysis of the problem of ancient doxography, see Mansfeld, J., ‘Doxography and Dialectic: The Sitz im Leben of the “Placita”’, in ANRW 36.4 (Berlin, 1990), 3057–3229Google Scholar; cf. Runia, D. T., ‘Xenophanes on the Moon: A Doxographicum in Aëtius’, Phronesis 34 (1989), 245–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
25 Cf. Arist, . Philos. fr. 26Google Scholar Ross, fr. 25. 1 Gigon.
26 Mu. 6. 397b27–32 (directly after the passage in which God is described as ὕπατος and enthroned on the ⋯κροτ⋯τῇ κορυϕῇ): μ⋯λιστα δ⋯ πως αὐτο⋯ τ⋯ς δυν⋯μεως ⋯πολα⋯ει τ⋯ πλησ⋯ον αὐτο⋯ σ⋯μα, κα⋯ ἔπειτα τ⋯ μετ' ⋯κεῖνο, κα⋯ ⋯ϕεξ⋯ς οὖτως ἄχρι τ⋯ν καθ' ⋯μ⋯ς τ⋯πων.Δι⋯ γ⋯ τε κα⋯ τ⋯ π⋯γ⋯ς⋯ ἔοικεν, ⋯ν ⋯ποστ⋯σει πλε⋯στῃ τ⋯ς ⋯κ θεο⋯ ⋯ντα ὠϕελε⋯ας, ⋯σθεν⋯ κα⋯ ⋯κατα⋯λληλα εἶναι και πολλ⋯ς μεστ⋯ ταραχ⋯ς. Cf. Lilla, S., Clement of Alexandria: A Study in Christian Platonism and Gnosticism (Oxford, 1971), p. 47 with n. 1Google Scholar.
27 Ibid. 397b32–398a4: οὐ μ⋯ν ⋯λλ⋯ καθ' ὅσον ⋯π⋯ π⋯ν διικνεῖσθαι π⋯ϕυκεν τ⋯ θεον, κα⋯ τ⋯ καθ' ⋯μ⋯ς ⋯μο⋯ως συμβα⋯νει τ⋯ τε ὑπ⋯ρ ⋯μ⋯ς, κατ⋯ τ⋯ ἔγγι⋯ν τε κα⋯ πορρωτ⋯ρω θεο⋯ εἶναι μ⋯λλον τε κα⋯ ἦττον ὠϕελε⋯ας μεταλαμβ⋯νοντα, κρεῖττον οὖν ὑπολαβεῖν, ὅ κα⋯ πρ⋯πον ⋯στ⋯ κα⋯ θε⋯ μ⋯λιστα ⋯ρμ⋯ζον, ὡς ⋯ ⋯ν οὐρανῷ δ⋯ναμις ⋯δρυμ⋯νη κα⋯ τοῖς πλεῖστον ⋯ϕεστηκ⋯σιν, … αἴτιος γ⋯νεται σωτηρ⋯ας, ….
28 With D.-J. Furley I reject the addition of ⋯π⋯ before τ⋯ καθ' ⋯μ⋯ς by W. L. Lorimer as misleading. Diogenes Laertius 5.32 expresses the same idea as the doxographical tradition in the Words: τ⋯ δ' ⋯π⋯γεια κατ⋯ τ⋯ν πρ⋯ς τα⋯τα συμπ⋯θειαν οỉκονομεῖσθαι.
29 Cf. Hermes 119 (1991), 327–8Google Scholar, where I argue that the passage τ⋯ς δ' εὐταξ⋯ας κατ⋯ συμβεβηκ⋯ς οὐ προηγουμ⋯νως μετ⋯χειν in the doxographical testimony indicates the right way to read Mu. 6. 397b33: κα⋯ τ⋯ καθ' ⋯μ⋯ς ⋯μο⋯ως συβα⋯νει τ⋯ τε ὑπ⋯ρ ⋯μ⋯ς.
30 Theophr, . Metaph. 1Google Scholar. 4, 4b14; 1.5, 5al.
31 Theophr, . Metaph. 5b13Google Scholar: ώς οὐ διικνουμ⋯νου το⋯ πρώτου.
32 Contrary to what Moraux, P., op. cit. (1984), pp. 41–4 claimsGoogle Scholar.
33 It is remarkable that Apuleius, , De mundo 24Google Scholar translates the Greek words δυν⋯μει χρώμενος ⋯τρ⋯τῳ (6. 397b23) as ‘quodam infatigabili providentia’. Elsewhere he uses ‘potestas’ for δ⋯ναμις.
34 Mu. 2. 392a29. It is noteworthy that the explanation for the presence of the order (τ⋯ξις) in the ethereal sphere posited in ch. 2, 392a32 is not given until the theological sixth chapter, 39`7b27–30, by means of the doctrine of divine dynamis.
35 Clem. Protr. 5.66.4: τ⋯ν καλο⋯μενον ‘ὕπατον’ ψυχ⋯ν εἶναι το⋯ π⋯ντος οἴεται· τουτ⋯στι το⋯ κ⋯σμου τ⋯ν ψυχ⋯ν θε⋯ν ὑπολαμβ⋯νων αὐτ⋯ς α⋯τῷ περιπε⋯ρεται.
36 Clem. Protr. 5.66.3: οὐδ⋯ μ⋯ν τοὺς ⋯π⋯ τ⋯ς Στο⋯ς παρελε⋯σομαι δι⋯ π⋯σης ὔλης κα⋯ δι⋯ τ⋯ς ⋯τιμοτ⋯της τ⋯ θεῖον δ⋯κειν λ⋯γοντας, ο⋯ καταισχ⋯νουσιν ⋯τεχν⋯ς τ⋯ν ϕιλοσοϕ⋯αν.
37 A forthcoming joint study on the doxographical tradition by J. Mansfeld and D. T. Runia will strongly emphasize this systematic approach. See also their preliminary studies mentioned above (n. 24).
38 , Ps.-Plut. Placita 2.3Google Scholar.
39 Cf. von Arnim, H., ‘Die Entstehung der Gotteslehre des Aristoteles’, SB Akad. W. Wien 212.5 (1931), 3–80Google Scholar; repr. in F. P. Hager, Metaphysik und Theologie des Aristoteles (Darmstadt, 1969), 1–74; Guthrie, W. K. C., ‘The Development of Aristotle's Theology’, CQ 27 (1933), 162–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar; 28 (1934), 90–8; Moreau, J., L'Ame du monde de Platon aux Stoïciens (Paris, 1939; Hildesheim, 19652), p. 122Google Scholar; Festugière, A. J., La Révélation d'Hermès Trismégiste, ii (Paris, 1949), pp. 221, 245, 258–9Google Scholar; Pépin, J., Théologie cosmique et théologie chrétienne (Paris, 1964), p. 171Google Scholar: ‘Le dialogue De philosophia professait une théologie cosmique assez élaborée.’ Cf. also Rist, J. M., The Mind of Aristotle: A Study in Philosophical Growth (Toronto, 1989), p. 15Google Scholar: Aristotle's dialogue De philosophia ‘denies a transcendent God and identifies the highest principle of the cosmos with an immanent World-mind’; and Runia, D. T., art. cit. (1989), p. 19Google Scholar. This view was still held in Bos, A. P., On the Elements: Aristotle's Early Cosmology (Assen, 1972)Google Scholar and id., Providentia divina (Assen, 1976).
40 See Bos, A. P., Cosmic and Meta-cosmic Theology in Aristotle's Lost Dialogues (Leiden, 1989), p. 92Google Scholar, where it is pointed out that the criticism of Plato's doctrine of the creation of the world by a divine Demiurge in Aristotle's De philosophia must have gone together with criticism of the doctrine of the World-soul in the Timaeus, and that Aristotle's alternative of an uncreated and imperishable world suggested the notion of the divine fifth element, which took the place of the Platonic World-soul. For the actualization of its intellectual capacity, however, this divine substance was believed by Aristotle to be dependent on the effect of the pure, highest Intellect.
41 Clem. Strom. 1.28.176: ⋯ μ⋯ν οὖν κατ⋯ Μωυσ⋯α ϕιλοσοϕ⋯α τετραχῇ τ⋯μνεται, εἴς τε τ⋯⋯στορικ⋯ν κα⋯ τ⋯ κυρ⋯ως λεγ⋯μενον νομοθετικ⋯ν, ἄπερ ἂν εἴη τ⋯ς ἠθικ⋯ς πραγματε⋯ας ἴδια, τ⋯ τρ⋯τον δ⋯ εỉς τ⋯ ἱερουργικ⋯ν, ⋯ ⋯στιν ἤδη τ⋯ς ϕυσικ⋯ς θεωρ⋯ας· κα⋯ τ⋯ταρτον ⋯π⋯ π⋯σι τ⋯ θεολογικ⋯ν εἶδος, ⋯ ⋯ποπτε⋯α, ἣν ϕησιν ⋯ Πλ⋯των τ⋯ν μεγ⋯λων ὅντως εἶναι μυστηρ⋯ων,' Ἀριστοτ⋯λης δ⋯ τ⋯ εἶδος το⋯το μετ⋯ τ⋯ ϕυσικ⋯ καλεῖ. Clarke, E. A., Clement's Use of Aristotle (New York, 1977), p. 68Google Scholar, points out that Clement seems unaware that the title ‘Metaphysics’ does not originate from Aristotle himself.
42 Mu. 6. 397b16–24.
43 Mu. 6. 400a3–9. Cf. 398a11–35.
44 Mu. 6. 399b10–19. Cf. b14: κα⋯ γ⋯ρ ⋯ ψυχ⋯, δι' ἦν ζ⋯μεν τε κα⋯ οἴκους κα⋯ π⋯λεις ἔχομεν, ⋯⋯ρατος οὖσα τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτ⋯ς ⋯ρ⋯ται … b19: Τα⋯τα χρ⋯ κα⋯ περ⋯ θεο⋯ διανοεῖσθαι … δι⋯τι πασῇ θνητῇ ϕ⋯σει γεν⋯μενος ⋯θεώρητος ⋯π' αὐτ⋯ν τ⋯ν ἔργων ωρεῖται.
45 Mu. 1. 391a11–16.
46 Cf. Mu. 4. 394b9–12: λ⋯γεται δ⋯ κα⋯ ⋯τ⋯ρως πνε⋯μα ἥ τε ⋯ν ϕυτοῖς κα⋯ ζῷοις [κα⋯] δι⋯ π⋯ντων δι⋯κουσα ἔμψυχ⋯ς τε κα⋯ γ⋯νιμος οὐσ⋯α, περ⋯ ἦς ν⋯ν λ⋯γειν οὐκ ⋯ναγκαῖον Cf. Hermes 119 (1991), 321–4Google Scholar.
47 Cic. N.D. 1.13.33 = Arist, . De philos. fr. 26Google Scholar Ross, 25. 1 Gigon: Aristotelesque in tertio de philosophia libro multa turbat a magistro suo Platone dissentiens. modo enim menti tribuit omnem divinitatem, modo mundum ipsum deum dicit esse, modo alium quendam praeficit mundo eique eas partes tribuit ut replicatione quadam mundi motum regat atque tueatur. turn caeli ardorem deum dicit esse quern alio loco ipse designarit deum.
48 Bos, A. P., Cosmic and Meta-cosmic Theology, pp. 185–200Google Scholar.
49 Ps.-Plut. Placita 1.7.881e: Ἀριστοτ⋯λης τ⋯ν μ⋯ν ⋯νωτ⋯τω θε⋯ν εἶδος χωριστ⋯ν, ⋯πιβεβηκ⋯τα τῇ αϕα⋯ρα το⋯ π⋯ντος, ἥτις ⋯στ⋯ν αἰθ⋯ριον σ⋯μα, τ⋯ π⋯μπτον ⋯π' αὐτο⋯ καλο⋯μενον. In the parallel text from Stobaeus <χωριστ⋯ν> is lacking, but it adds ⋯μο⋯ως Πλ⋯τωνι. In the preceding section Ps.-Plut. had noted for Plato: νο⋯ς οὖν ⋯ θε⋯ς, χωριστ⋯ν εἶδος. τουτ⋯στι τ⋯ ἄμιγες π⋯σης ὕλης κα⋯ μηδεν⋯ παθητῷ συμπεπλε⋯νον Cf. Diels, H., Doxographi Graeci, pp. 304–5Google Scholar; Pépin, J., Théologie cosmique, pp. 159–60Google Scholar, who believes this text echoes Aristotle's De philosophia.
50 Diog. Laert. 5.32: τ⋯ν δ⋯ θε⋯ν ⋯σώματον ⋯π⋯ϕαινε καθ⋯ κα⋯ ⋯ Πλ⋯των, διατε⋯νειν δ⋯ αὐτο⋯ τ⋯ν προνο⋯αν μ⋯χρι τ⋯ν οὐραν⋯ων κα⋯ εἶναι ⋯κ⋯νητον. See Moraux, P., Elenchos 7 (1986), 281Google Scholar.
51 Athenag, . Leg. 6.3Google Scholar: Ἀριστοτ⋯λης κα⋯ οἱ ⋯π' α⋯το⋯ ἔνα ἄγοντες ο⋯ονε⋯ ζῷον σ⋯νθετον, ⋯κ ψυχ⋯ς κα⋯ σώματος συνεστηκ⋯τα λ⋯γουσι τ⋯ν θε⋯ν, σ⋯μα μ⋯ν αὐτο⋯ τ⋯ αΈθ⋯ριον νομ⋯ζοντες το⋯ς τε πλανωμ⋯νους ⋯στ⋯ρας κα⋯ τ⋯ν σϕαῖραν τ⋯ν κινο⋯μενα κυκλοϕορητκ⋯ς, ψυχ⋯ν δ⋯ τ⋯ν ⋯π⋯ τῇ κιν⋯σει το⋯ αώματος λ⋯γον, αὐτ⋯ν οὐ κινο⋯μενον, αἴτιον δ⋯ τ⋯ς το⋯του κιν⋯σεως γιν⋯μενον. Bardy, G. notes in Athénagore, Supplique au sujet des Chrétiens (Paris, 1943) p. 85 n. 2Google Scholar: ‘En realité ce n'est pas la doctrine d'Aristote qui est ici exposée mais celle du Du monde’, with reference to A. J. Festugière, L'Idéal religieux. But Schoedel, W. R. notes in Athenagoras, Legatio and De Resurrectione, ed. and transl. (Oxford, 1972), p 15 n. 3Google Scholar: ‘Possibly derived from Aetius, Plac. 1.7.32; but it is more likely that Athenagoras reflects the early (Platonizing) Aristotle here (Lazzati, G., L'Aristotele perduto e gli antichi scrittori cristiani (Milan, 1938), pp. 69–72Google Scholar; cf. Aetius, Plac. 5.20.1)’. Cf. also Pépin, J., Théologie cosmique, p. 159Google Scholar.
62 Diog. Laert. 5.32–3: κα⋯ τ⋯ν ψυχ⋯ν δ⋯ ⋯σώματον, ⋯ντελ⋯χειαν οὖσαν τ⋯ν πρώτην σώματος [γ⋯ρ] ϕυσικο⋯ κα⋯ ⋯ργανικο⋯ δυν⋯μει ζω⋯ν ἔχοντος. λ⋯γει δ', ⋯ντελ⋯χειαν, ἦς ⋯στιν εἶδ⋯ς τι ⋯σώματον. On the problems connected with this passage, see Moraux, P., Elenchos 7 (1986), pp. 282ffGoogle Scholar. Various corruptions must have taken place in this doxographical passage of Diogenes Laertius. However, Moraux does date it to an earlier period than the commentaries on Aristotle's treatises. The author's original intention must have been to say something like: λ⋯γει δ' ⋯ντελ⋯γειαν εἷδ⋯ς τι ⋯σώματον … (art. cit., p. 285).
53 Cf. n. 44 above.
54 Cf. Arist, . Anim. 3.5Google Scholar, Metaph. 2.1, 993b9–11.
55 Cf. Arist, . Anim. 1.3, 407b12–26Google Scholar. See also Martyr, Justin, Dial. 4.2–7Google Scholar. Cf. van Winden, J. C. M., An Early Christian Philosopher: Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho Chapters One to Nine (Leiden, 1971)Google Scholar.
56 Alex, , of Aphrod, . Aporiae 1.25, p. 40.17 (ed. Bruns, I.)Google Scholar.
57 Clem. Protr. 5.66.4: τ⋯ν κ⋯σμον θε⋯ν ⋯γο⋯μενος.
58 Cf. Pépin, J., ‘Cosmic Piety’, in Armstrong, A. H. (ed.), Classical Mediterranean Spirituality; Egyptian, Greek, Roman (New York, 1986), pp. 408–35, p. 413Google Scholar: ‘In his best-known works, which arise from his teaching as head of a school, Aristotle leaves no room even for the possibility of a religion of the world. But probably it was not always so.’
59 Cic., N.D. 1.13.33 = Arist, . Philos. fr. 26Google Scholar Ross; 25.1 Gigon. Cf. n. 47 above.
60 Jaeger, W., Aristotle (Oxford, 1948), p. 139Google Scholar. Cf. Festugière, A. J., La Révélation d'Hermés Trismégiste, ii. 244 n. 4Google Scholar.
61 Pépin, J., Theologie cosmique, p. 146 with n. 2Google Scholar. Cf. Berti, E., La filosofia delprimo Aristotele (Padua, 1962), p. 378 with n. 230Google Scholar.
62 Philo, , Aet. 3.10Google Scholar = Arist, . Philos. fr. 18Google ScholarRoss, and Philo, , Aet. 5.20Google Scholar = Arist, . Philos. fr. 19aGoogle Scholar Ross. Cf. Pépin, J., ‘Cosmic Piety’, pp. 413–14Google Scholar.
63 Stobaeus, Ecl. 1.43.1 = Arist, . Philos. fr. 22 RossGoogle Scholar.
64 I would like to acknowledge my gratitude for the stimulating criticism of a draft version of this article which I received from my colleagues D. M. Schenkeveld and D. T. Runia of the Free University, Amsterdam and J. C. M. van Winden of the State University of Leiden, and from an anonymous referee of the CQ. The final version was realized during a study leave spent at the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study in Wassenaar in 1991–2.