DIOGENES LAERTIUS AND THE CHREIA TRADITION
Jan Fredrik Kindstrand
DIOGENES LAERTIUS AND THE CHREIA TRADITION

219

1. Introduction.

In Diogenes Laertius’ work on Greek philosophers pointed sayings

and anecdotes play an important role. These items may occur separa-

tely, integrated in the running text, but the majority are presented

in individual collections, which often have a more isolated character.

These collections are prominent especially for the Seven Sages and

many members of the Socratic schools, and certainly belong to the

most entertaining parts. In some biographies they dominate absolutely,

and if they were to be removed, little would be left in the form of

biography for characters such as Anacharsis, Aristippus, Antisthenes

and above all the Cynic Diogenes.

Despite their importance the study of these collections has been

generally neglected, even during a period which was more interested

in gnomological material than the present century. It was pointed out

already by F. Bahnsch1 in 1868 that Diogenes used several, already

existing collections of sayings and anecdotes, especially for the Cynic

Diogenes. This view was accepted by E. Schwartz2 in his RE-article

on Diogenes in 1905, who added: «diese Untersuchungen lassen sich

nur auf Grund handschriftlichen Materials weiterführen». This general

idea seems to have prevailed and is plausible enough3. But not much

220

material from MSS has been brought to light after Schwartz, and there

has hardly been any investigation or analysis of these parts in Diogenes.

A. Elter, who around the turn of the century published many valuable

contributions to the history of gnomologies, also promised the publica-

tion of even more, such as an investigation of exactly this material in

Diogenes and a more general survey of the collections of ἀποφθέγματα,

which would have been of great interest as regards Diogenes4. Un-

fortunately none of these studies was ever published5.

In giving a more general presentation of Diogenes’ relations to

the so-called χρεία-literature, I shall be treating a subject which is

little known, and I must confine myself largely to what can be rea-

sonably assumed rather than proved. Therefore no final solutions or

even new hypotheses will be offered here. I shall start by dealing

with the question of terminology, both in general and more specifically

as far as Diogenes is concerned. This will be followed by a survey of

the information to be found in Diogenes concerning collections of

relevant material. Next I shall give a brief historical survey of this

kind of literature, its origin, forms and uses, as far as they are known

to, or can be plausibly visualized by us. I shall then try to relate

parts of Diogenes to preserved examples of gnomological collections,

in order to gain an idea of the sources he may have used, of his method

of working with them, and of his general intentions.

221

2. Terminology in general.

When dealing with the singular items, which make up these col-

lections of pointed sayings and anecdotes, we are confronted with

different terms, of which γνώμη, ἀπόφθεγμα, ἀπομνημόνευμα and

χρεία are the most important. Ancient tradition, and especially works

on rhetorical theory, provide definitions for some of these concepts,

but are generally of a late date and do not relate the different terms

to each other in a consistent and complete manner, which results in

a lack of clear distinctions, as the terms constantly seem to overlap.

To start with we may note that the four terms just mentioned are

not of the same character, as the first three appear to indicate — at

least in principle — three formally different expressions, while for

χρεία no such information is provided.

In general we may define the terms as follows. Γνώμη 6 indicates

a short saying, in poetry or prose, with a general application and a

moral intention, the Latin equivalent being sententia. We know the

word with this technical meaning at least from Xenophon, Isocrates

and Aristotle7, who also provides a definition8.

The term ἀπόφθεγμα9 is known from Xenophon and Aristotle10,

but the term is rarely treated in rhetorical theory, and no definition

is offered until very late 11. Originally it indicates just a pointed saying,

222

and can therefore include different types, as is clear from its application.

So it can be used for short, moral maxims, usually called γνώμαι,

which are associated especially with the Seven Sages12. But it can

also denote a saying which includes an indication of the situation and

an element of wit and is attributed to a specific individual13. The

Latin equivalent here would be dictum14. This second meaning becomes

dominating, and appears e.g. in titles of collections preserved under

the name of Plutarch.

The term ἀπομνημόνευμα15 is known first from Xenophon’s

recollections of Socrates, and is used — originally — for personal

recollections of sayings and actions, belonging to a remarkable indi-

vidual. It is therefore very close to the ἀπόφθεγμα in its second

meaning, but usually longer in form. In Plutarch, however, the terms

seem to be used without any real difference16. A late Latin equivalent

is commemoratio17.

223

The term χρεία18 does not provide any information concerning

the form, but seems to be used originally as a collective term for the

different types already mentioned, stressing their usefulness19. The

origin of this use of χρεία can be found in the Socratic schools. We

find the term used for what seems to be a separate work of Antisthe-

nes: χρείαν Σοφοκλέους, mentioned in Diog. Laert. VII 19 but of

doubtful interpretation; the work is otherwise unknown and not

included in the catalogue20. The anonymous catalogue of Aristippus’

works in Diog. Laert. II 84 includes the following three works:

χρεία πρὸς Διονύσιον, ἄλλη ἐπὶ τῆς εἰκόνος, ἄλλη ἐπὶ τῆς Διονυσίου

θυγατρός. If these titles are genuine, we must assume that the term

χρεία is here used for a somewhat longer text than is usually assumed,

as it merits a separate title. It would probably indicate a short philo-

sophical treatise, probably shorter but perhaps not too different in

character from those called διατριβαί21. It is commonly held that the

use of the term χρεία for shorter items originated in the Cynic school,

but even if this is doubtful, there is a strong connection between the

224

χρεία and the Cynics, as indicated by an anecdote in Diog. Laert.

V 18, where the Cynic Diogenes is described as χρείαν εἴη μεμελετηκώς,

which seems to imply the conscious fabrication of a cutting reply.

The first known collector of χρεῖαι is also a Cynic, Metrocles (Diog.

Laert. VI 33). Among later writers on rhetorical theory, the writers

of Progymnasmata22 have especially tried to provide the concept with

a clear definition, by separating it from γνώμη and ἀπομνημόνευμα.

The χρεία is here regarded as an ἀπομνημόνευμα, consisting of a

saying or an action of a specific individual, always in prose, sometimes

with an element of wit, but shorter than the pure ἀπομνημόνευμα.

The γνώμη on the other hand is always a short saying, in poetry or

prose, moral and general in character, to mention the most important

differences. These writers do not include the ἀπόφθεγμα in their

treatment, and it seems to have been replaced by the term χρεία,

which therefore has received a more limited meaning than it originally

had. On the other hand it is more general than the ἀπόφθεγμα, as

it can be used of an action without any saying. Against this background

we may regard χρεία as a suitable collective term for different types

of sayings and anecdotes, which in collections, including also those

of Diogenes, are brought together without any obvious regard for

their differences23.

3. Terminology in Diogenes.

When I now turn to Diogenes’ use of these terms, I would

first point out that for the sake of simplicity I shall use the name

Diogenes when indicating the source for the items, which we find

225

in his biographies, without trying to distinguish between Diogenes

himself and the different layers of his sources. I have found no cases,

where γνώμη is used with this specific meaning in Diogenes’ text.

There are more instances of ἀπόφθεγμα, which is used with the two

different meanings. Firstly it occurs in connection with the Seven

Sages, with Thales in I 35 and with Pittacus in I 79. We also find

the verb ἀποφθέγγομαι used for others of the Seven Sages (I 63,

I 73, I 88 and I 93) 24. Here the term denotes sayings of the type

which is usually styled γνώμη, being short and general in character.

Secondly we find the same term also in connection with anecdotes,

where the use is perhaps more common: ἀποφθέγματα χρειώδη are

mentioned for Bion of Borysthenes in IV 47, ἀποφθέγματα for Ari-

stotle in V 17 and V 34, and ἀποφθέγματα ταυτὶ χρειώδη for Theo-

phrastus in V 39. Here the specific meaning is indicated by the addition

of the adjective χρειώδης, indicating that the ἀπόφθεγμα is similar

to the χρεία in its more limited sense. The term has therefore been

applied to two different types of sayings and two different groups

of philosophers, the Seven Sages and Peripatetics, among whom we

may include Bion as he had connections with this school. The reason

for this discrepancy lies in the term as such but probably goes back

to Diogenes’ sources. The terms ἀπομνημόνευμα and χρεία do not

seem to be used in context by Diogenes, when he refers to his col-

lections of sayings and anecdotes25. Instead they appear in titles, a

point to which I shall soon return. We may sum up by stating that

Diogenes used technical terms without any theory and very sparingly,

and, when formally introducing his collections, which is not always

the case, he contents himself with a very general expression, such as

ἔλεγε, ἔφασκε and ἀναφέρεται.

226

4. Collections mentioned by Diogenes.

We find numerous cases in Diogenes, where titles of collections,

containing the relevant terms, are mentioned. When I here give a

survey of these cases, I cannot hope to detect Diogenes’ immediate

sources, but to collect such information as can be gathered about the

origin and extent of this kind of literature. When dealing with these

collections we may first divide them according to the kind of items,

which they are said to contain, secondly according to their place in

Diogenes’ text, i.e. in context as sources for isolated items or in

catalogues of literary works.

There is no mention of collections with the terms γνώμη or

ἀπόφθεγμα in the title26. On the other hand ἀπομνημονεύματα is

well known as a title since Xenophon, whose work on Socrates is cited

three times (III 34-35 and VII 2). We find other works with similar

titles mentioned in the catalogues for several Stoics: Zeno of Citium

wrote ἀπομνημονεύματα Κράτητος (VII 4; cfr. Athen. iv 162 b),

Persaeus one book of ἀπομνημονεύματα (VII 36) and Ariston of

Chios three books of ἀπομνημονεύματα (VII 163) 27. In the last two

cases it is difficult to decide whether we have to deal with recollections

of the philosopher in question, but really written by someone else,

or with a work by the philosopher, in whose catalogue it is found,

containing items concerning others 28. We also find a work with the

same title by a certain Diodorus mentioned in IV 2 29. The term is

227

further used in tides of works by Dioscurides (I 63; cfr. Athen, XI 507 d)

and Favorinus (passim), but here it seems to have acquired a new

meaning, referring to examples of the so-called “Buntschriftstellerei”,

which relies exclusively on literary sources30.

We find more collections mentioned by Diogenes with the term

χρεία in the title31. To the first group, containing those cited only

in catalogues, belongs a work, attributed to Aristippus by the catalogue

of Sotion and Panaetius, i.e. three books of χρεῖαι, mentioned together

with six books of διατριβαί (II 85). There are several difficulties

concerning this title, especially as regards the meaning of χρεῖαι.

Does it refer to short philosophical treatises, as we have seen that it

probably does for other titles of Aristippus, or does it denote short

items of the more ordinary type? In the latter case it is uncertain

whether Aristippus should be regarded as the author or the main

character of this work. I find the second alternative more plausible.

Aristippus is well known for all the anecdotes, which centred around

him, as we can see e.g. from the collection in Diog. Laert. II 66-83

and from a statement concerning Arcesilaus: πρὸς τοὺς διασύροντας

προεφέρετο τὰς Ἀριστίππου χρείας (Diog. Laert. IV 40). The following

philosophers are also reported to have left collections of χρεῖαι:

Demetrius of Phalerum (V 81), the Cynic Diogenes according to Sotion

(VI 80), the Stoics Persaeus (VII 36), who wrote διατριβαί and

ἀπομνημονεύματα as well, Ariston of Chios (VII 163), who also left

ἀπομνημονεύματα, and Cleanthes (VII 175)32, who in addition left

228

two books of διατριβαί. None of these collections is mentioned out-

side of the catalogues33. We may here, as in the case of Aristippus,

sometimes even doubt whether the philosopher connected with the

collection is really the author and not only the main character, around

whom the sayings and anecdotes have been collected. This applies

especially to the collection, which is attributed to the Cynic Diogenes,

who holds a very prominent position in most later collections34.

Furthermore a number of collections are mentioned in context

as sources for different sayings and anecdotes: one by the Stoic Hecaton

in two books, which is quoted for Cynic and Stoic philosophers five

(or seven) times (vi 4, vi 32, vi 95, vii 26, vii 172; cfr. vii 2 and

vii
181)35, one by the Cynic Metrocles, quoted for the Cynic Diogenes

(vi 33) and one by Zeno of Citium, quoted for the Cynic Crates

(vi 91). Here the relations to Zeno’s ἀπομνημονεύματα Κράτητος,

229

mentioned in the catalogue, as well as the real authorship are un-

certain 36.

This survey of relevant works cited by Diogenes provides little

information about the immediate sources for his collections, as the

works quoted, both in catalogues and in context, were certainly not

used directly by him, with the exception of that of Favorinus37. In-

stead the items quoted in context give the impression of being isolated,

second-hand quotations, added to previous collections. On the other

hand these titles are useful for an evaluation of the origins of the

χρεία-literature. We see that works of this kind belong particularly

to the Hellenistic period, and that they were employed especially in

the Cynic and Stoic schools. In this period we must also look for the

ultimate sources for later collections. As Diogenes never names a

source for his collections, he may well have had to rely on anonymous

works of later date, but before we try to visualize these sources, it

may be useful — as a background for a discussion of Diogenes’

sources — to sum up, what we can reasonably know about the

production of such collections during previous periods, apart from

the information, which Diogenes himself gives us.

5. The χρεία-literatureits origin, forms and uses.

It is certainly a very common trait to take an interest in the

sayings and actions of persons, who are in any way remarkable or

230

outstanding38. If these are at first preserved by the oral tradition,

they also form an aspect of a man’s life important enough to give

them a place in biographical writings from an early date, whether as

single items or as collections, an aspect to which I shall return. It is

also an easy step to collect, and preserve them in separate works.

This activity would produce a work of isolated items, each having a

famous person as its main character, while the compiler himself does

not have a prominent place and may remain anonymous. The model

for collections of this kind was provided by purely gnomic works, in

poetry and prose, a literary form, not unusual in the archaic period.

Such works, of which Epicurus’ Κύριαι δόξαι is an example, also

consist of isolated items, which however are the creation of a single

individual, and the expression of a single mind. They should therefore

be regarded as a tradition basically different from the collections we

are dealing with here, although they may have contributed some

material to the latter. It is also plausible that the χρεία-literature was

preceded by anthologies with material mainly from poetry, put together

for pedagogical reasons. It is clear from references in e.g. Xenophon,

Plato and Isocrates that this type of collection existed in the classical

period39. Here, however, I am only concerned with collections of

sayings and anecdotes in prose.

The first group of persons, who could have had their sayings

collected — presumably within some kind of framework — at an

231

early date was the Seven Sages, probably already in the archaic period40.

In all traditions dealing with the Seven Sages their sayings have a

very prominent place, as can be clearly seen in e.g. Plutarch’s Septem

sapientium convivium,
which reproduces old sources. The Seven Sages

are especially associated with γνῶμαι, and when we also find anecdotes

attributed to them, we may well ask whether this is a later develop-

ment of the tradition. However, I think that this form too is old

enough to have originally been connected with the Seven Sages. For

the following periods we gain the impression that certain groups of

people especially attracted χρεῖαι, such as the Spartans, for whom

there probably existed a collection in the classical period41, wits,

different kings and rulers, such as Themistocles, Philip of Macedonia

and at a later date Alexander the Great, and finally philosophers,

among whom Socrates and other members of the Socratic schools hold

pride of place, following the tradition from the Seven Sages. Collections

for this group would have existed already in the fourth century42.

The most important period in the history of the χρεία-literature is

the Hellenistic period, as we have already seen from the names and

titles which we know. The compilation of material also seems to have

ended at this time, characterized by a great interest for different kinds

of anthologies, and later periods have provided very little material

for purely pagan collections. Although this kind of literature is very

little known through the centuries prior to Diogenes we have good

reason to assume that there was a rich production of collections of

this kind, although differing with respect to form and intention. But

232

it was a literature with no firm tradition and lacking a good reputation,

being instead generally anonymous and highly variable in character.

Moreover we may assume that there was a constant exchange of

material between originally different collections, and that new ones

were constantly appearing, as almost every scribe would try to improve

upon his immediate predecessor. The same element of frequent change

would also apply to the single items, where an anecdote could be

abbreviated into a pure saying or a saying developed into an anecdote,

not to mention changes of attribution. These conditions are difficult

to prove for the periods before Diogenes, but there is no reason to

assume that the situation then differed from that prevailing during

the Byzantine period, for which collections are preserved, the thorny

interrelations of which have to some extent been demonstrated43.

Let us now consider the sources which were available for the

compilers! Apart from the oral tradition they could use the person’s

own writings, biographical works or other kinds of literature, where

suitable material was preserved, they could attribute floating material

of a very general character to a specific individual, and they may

even fabricate the items they included. At a later date the compilers

would be satisfied with combining different previous collection.

As far as the form is concerned, the collections could have been

devoted to a single individual, or a limited number of persons, forming

a group or a philosophical school, as we have reason to assume that

e.g. Hecaton’s work dealt with Cynics and Stoics. The collection may

also have covered a greater number of names, which could be arranged

in different orders, such as alphabetical after the names of the cha-

racters or the first word of the item, or after the subject matter,

or the items may be given without any obvious order, even lacking

the names.

The purposes of these collections could differ greatly, too. They

could be made for scientific reasons, as we see in Peripatetic circles.

233

They could have a philosophical aim, serving as an introduction to a

philosophical study or as an ethical manual44. They could be used for

educational purposes on an elementary level, which is documented by

several fragments in papyri. They could also feature in the higher

levels of rhetorical education, which is made clear especially from

the so-called Progymnasmata45. They would also have been an indi-

spensable aid to, especially Hellenistic, authors of popular philosophical

treatises, who would not have been able to provide all their illustrative

material unless they had access to collections. Teles gives us an idea

of this use. Collections of this kind may also have served as a kind

of literature in its own right, being both entertaining and edifying,

and this aspect becomes increasingly dominant during later periods.

6. Diogenes’ use of the χρεία-literature.

Returning to Diogenes we can without hesitation assume that

he had access to a vast literature in the form of collections of pointed

sayings and anecdotes, which was of a later date. It is not possible

to make any general statements concerning his sources or to try to

reconstruct them, and it is doubtful whether it ever will be. But we

can hope, that from a comparative study of Diogenes and such col-

lections as have come to light we shall be able to form some idea of

the character of the collections he was using. We can start from the

assumption that Diogenes chiefly used anonymous collections, which

presented the material in alphabetical order after the main character,

as his own rearrangement of the material, if taken from collections,

would have implied too great an effort. The biographies of the Seven

234

Sages in Book ι proved to be particularly useful for such a comparison.

This group of Sages were from an early date known just for their

sayings, usually in the form of γνώμαι, but probably also anecdotes.

They occur in great numbers, both in collections devoted especially

to this group, and in such of a more general character. All Diogenes’

biographies of the Seven Sages are similarly constructed, and all

contain certain elements, although their internal order may differ;

so we find at the end of the biographies examples of their songs (τῶν

ᾀδομένων), a collection of sayings of different kinds, called ἀπο-

φθέγματα for Thales in I 35, but usually without any introductory

term, and finally the saying which is especially connected with the

Sage in question, often introduced by the terms ἀπόφθεγμα or ἀπε-

φθέγξατο. A closer scrutiny of these collections of sayings clearly

shows that they do not form a uniform group, but are based on at

least two different sources, which becomes evident already from the

presentation of the material. The first part, which contains sayings

of the two types γνώμη and ἀπόφθεγμα, is introduced by a general

verb of speech. The second group, which consists mainly of γνῶμαι,

is introduced in most biographies by a more specific phrase, such as

συνεβούλευσε (i 60, I 88, i 92), προσέταττε δὲ καὶ ταῦτα (ι 69)

or ἔλεγε δὲ καὶ τάδε (ι 97), indicating the beginning of something

new. I do not think that they were originally connected in a pure

collection, as the borderline in most cases is still obvious, even giving

place for some additional material; if Diogenes found them combined

in his source is another matter.

For the first parts of Diogenes’ collections we are able to estab-

lish a parallel tradition in an originally very substantial collection of

sayings of philosophers but also of other remarkable personalities,

arranged in alphabetical order and originating in the Hellenistic period.

We know different recensions of this collection; the most complete

is to be found in codex Vaticanus graecus 743, which was published

by L. Sternbach in 1887-1889 with the title Gnomologium Vaticanum

(reprinted in 1963). Other published versions can be found in Flori-

legium Monacense
(1832), Florilegium Leidense (1837) and the Wiener

Apophthegmen-Sammlung,
which was published from codex Vindo-

bonensis Theologicils graecus
149 by C. Wachsmuth in 1882, but is

235

unfortunately far from complete. Of numerous versions preserved in

MSS46 I here refer only to the one contained in the so-called Corpus

Parisinum,
known from codex Parisinus graecus 1168 and codex

Digby
647. These versions differ in length, and the number of items

varies between 571 and 113. That this collection is related to the

material found in Diogenes for the Seven Sages is clear from the

facts that it shares a considerable number of items, and also in several

cases preserves the internal order, although generally more for small

groups of items than for the whole collection, as is particularly true

of Thales and Bias. This relationship is further underlined by the

collection of sayings, which we find for Anacharsis in Diogenes and

the gnomologium48. Here Diogenes seems to follow a single source,

and we find remarkable similarities between his collection and especially

236

the Wiener Apophthegmen-Sammlung, although the latter has under-

gone changes in the way of both omissions, in most cases easy to

explain, and additions. The same order however is preserved in both

cases. The similarities are so strong that it is natural to ask whether

Diogenes actually may have been the source for this part of the Wiener

Apophthegmen-Sammlung.
I do not find this the most natural ex-

planation, as we must consider the gnomologium as a whole in relation

to Diogenes. Then we note that there are cases, where the gnomologium

has preserved a better text than that of Diogenes, which makes it an

independent witness49. Furthermore it is unlikely that Diogenes would

have been used just for one name. Instead I find it plausible that

both Diogenes and the gnomologium ultimately have a source in

common, which is perhaps preserved in its most original form in

Diogenes, as the gnomologium uses other sources too. We may go

one step further and assume that there was an original collection,

devoted especially to the Seven Sages and the other names connected

with them. This is indicated by the fact that Diogenes gives only one

saying for Myson in I 108, which in both Gnomologium Vaticanum

(134) and the Wiener Apophthegmen-Sammlung (66) is attributed to

Anacharsis, following immediately after the last Anacharsis-saying,

which can be found in Diogenes. This attribution to Anacharsis may

well be due to the loss of the lemma Myson, and the sayings were

perhaps originally collected for the Seven Sages in the same order

as we find them in Diogenes 50.

Also for the second parts of the collections of sayings for the

Seven Sages, containing statements in the form of γνώμαι, we may

establish a parallel collection or even an ultimate source, i.e. the

collection of sayings of the Seven Sages, which is preserved in Stobaeus

III 1, 172, and attributed to Demetrius of Phalerum with the following

237

title: Δημητρίου Φαληρέως τῶν ἑπτὰ σοφῶν ἀποφθέγματα51. There

seems to be no reason to doubt that Demetrius really made a collection,

although it is not included in the catalogue of his works in Diogenes,

which however does mention one book of Aesop’s Fables and one

book of χρεῖαι (v 81). Diogenes does not seem to have used this

collection immediately, if we assume that Stobaeus presents the most

original form, as the material in Diogenes has undergone certain

changes, compared with this collection, especially in the form of omis-

sions, most conspicuous in the case of Thales, but there are also some

changes of attribution and transpositions. Furthermore the Sages do

not appear in the same order in Demetrius and Diogenes, and the

first saying of each of the Sages in Demetrius, connected especially

with the Sage in question, has been removed from the proper col-

lection in Diogenes, and is in most cases given instead at the end

of the biography, as the Sage’s special ἀπόφθεγμα. Still in general the

same order is preserved in Diogenes. Against this background it is

plausible that Diogenes or his source did not have immediate access

to the collection of Demetrius, but that he used him through an

intermediate source. Diogenes, who nowhere mentions Demetrius in

this context, has also at one point indicated such a source, i.e. in

ι 60, where in the biography of Solon he introduces the second part

of the collection of sayings in the following way: ὥς φησιν Ἀπολ-

λόδωρος ἐν τῷ Περὶ τῶν φιλοσόφων αἱρέσεων. It is therefore probable

that Diogenes received the material, which ultimately derives from

Demetrius, through Apollodorus52, although perhaps not directly.

238

When we have been able to find a parallel tradition to Diogenes’

collections, at least for the Seven Sages and Anacharsis, which is best

preserved in Gnomologium Vaticanum, it is natural to ask whether

he used the same collection also for other biographies. The situation

here is somewhat different, as a comparative survey will show. The

two texts share some small groups of material, e.g. for Anaxagoras,

Socrates and Aristotle, but in general the similarities are not impressive,

or indeed are non-existent. Therefore we may state that the original

collection behind Gnomologium Vaticanum and its parallel versions

even in its complete form was certainly not the only or even the main

source used by Diogenes for the philosophers of the Socratic schools.

Now this is in no way surprising and we have no reason to assume

that Diogenes received his collections of sayings and anecdotes just

from one source. As we have already seen, this kind of literature was

at this period widespread and easily available, and the collections as

such may already have been present — completely or in parts —

in earlier biographies, which Diogenes used as his sources.

We can see from many indications that the collections as found

now in Diogenes are not uniform, but that they represent the product

of a long process, which seeks to combine different collections. This

is clear from many biographies but especially from that of the Cynic

Diogenes53, where, thanks to the fact that what originally must have

been the same saying or anecdote occurs at different places in slightly

different forms, we see that different sources have been combined.

Furthermore characteristics of form and content indicate that the

collections in Diogenes cannot all have come from an originally uni-

form collection54. This combination of sources may have taken place

already long before Diogenes.

239

7. Diogenes’ collections of χρεῖαι and biography.

Even if it is most natural to assume that Diogenes’ collections

originally came from gnomologies, there is still reason to consider

the relations between his collections and earlier biographies, a point,

on which I have already touched. It would seem that biography from

an early stage contained a large amount of sayings and anecdotes,

perhaps originally integrated in the text55. When we come to collec-

tions of items, which are presented in isolation, this practice too

seems to be of long standing. We can here refer to e.g. Xenophon

mem. m 13-14 and Ages. 11. For the Hellenistic period it is difficult

to combine this habit with names56, but we can see that collections

of this type appear in Hellenistic biographies, preserved in papyri,

which deal with Socrates and the Cynic Diogenes57. Among later

examples, but previous to Diogenes, we can mention e.g. Plutarch’s

biography of Cato the Elder, where we find a substantial collection

of sayings and anecdotes in 7, 2-8, 3, Suetonius’ biography of Vespasian,

with a collection in 22-23, and Lucian’s biography of Demonax, which

is dominated by the collection of what may be called ἀπομνημονεύματα.

Are there any certain indications that Diogenes’ immediate biographical

sources also contained collections of this kind? We have one indication

in the biography of Aristippus. Suda (s.v. A, 3908) has preserved a

short biography of this philosopher, which is assumed to go back to

Hesychius, who uses the same source as Diogenes. In Diogenes the

biographical introduction is followed by a long list of anecdotes, while

Suda-Hesychius simply adds after the biographical section: ἀποφθέγματα

δὲ αὐτοῦ πλεῖστα καὶ ἄριστα, which indicates that their common

240

source here contained a collection of sayings and anecdotes58. However,

there is no reason to think that this collection was identical with the

one, which we find in Diogenes, as this has received a number of

obvious additions. We may also adduce the short biography of Thales

in Suda-Hesychius (s.v. Θ, 17), containing the following passage:

ἀποφθέγματα δὲ αὐτοῦ πλεῖστα· καὶ τὸ θρυλλούμενον· γνῶθι σαυτόν,

which indicates that already Hesychius’ source gave both a collection

of sayings and separately his special saying, which coincides with the

arrangement in Diogenes59.

On the other hand, there are also clear arguments in other bio-

graphies against an assumption that Diogenes took his collections from

the same source as the pure biography, or at least against the view

that he preserved them in their original form and in the same place.

In the biography of Aristotle we find after the will a collection of

the philosopher’s ἀποφθέγματα, carefully defined by the following

phrases: ἀναφέρεται δ’ εἰς αὐτὸν καὶ ἀποφθέγματα κάλλιστα ταυτί

and καὶ ταῦτα μὲν εἰς αὐτὸν ἀναφέρεται (ν 17-21). But in v 34,

after the catalogue and an outline of Aristotle’s philosophy, we find

the following remark: πολλά γάρ καί άλλα εις αύτον άναφέρεται

συγγράμματ’ αύτοῦ καί άποφθέγματα, άγράφου φωνής εύστοχήματα.

It is therefore possible that in the source used by Diogenes the col-

lection appeared here, as it follows' after the catalogue for Demetrius

of Phalerum (V 82) and Bion of Borysthenes (ΙV 47), where it is

introduced in a very similar way: πλεῖστά τε καταλέλοιπεν ὑπομνή-

ματα, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀποφθέγματα χρειώδη πραγματείαν περιέχοντα60.

But it is impossible to say whether we have the original collection in

Diogenes, having been transferred, or a completely new one. Further-

241

more there are a number of cases, which make it fairly certain that

Diogenes has placed his collections of sayings and anecdotes in such

places, where they — in their present form — could not originally

have been found. In II 127 Menedemus is characterized by means of

a number of adjectives, ending with παρρησιαστής, to which is

connected a list of sayings and anecdotes, partly illustrating this qua-

lity, which ends in II 129, when Diogenes refers back to the previous

description by διὰ δὴ οὖν τὸ παρρησιαστικὸν τοῦτο. Perhaps at least

part of the collection has here been inserted in what was originally

a continuous text. We find similar conditions in the biography of

Bion of Borysthenes, where IV 47 seems to originally have been

connected with IV 52, while now the collection of sayings and anecdo-

tes falls in between. The same applies to the biography of the Cynic

Diogenes, where VI 23 ends with the participle συνασκών. Then

follows the huge collection of sayings and anecdotes, which ends with

VI 69. With the beginning of the next paragraph VI 70: διττὴν δ’

ἔλεγεν εἶναι τὴν ἄσκησιν, Diogenes seems to refer back to what

preceded the collection, which would therefore have been inserted

in a description which was originally continuous. Also for Zeno of

Citium the paragraphs VII 16 and VII 26 seem to have been originally

connected, while now the collection of sayings and anecdotes inter-

venes61. Against these cases I do not consider it reasonable to believe

that Diogenes always received the collections as such from his bio-

graphical source, unless we postulate that the source was composed in

the same unsatisfactory fashion. It is more natural to assume that he

obtained them from a different source, i.e. a pure collection, and

that he included them in his compilation in this way, sometimes under

the influence of associations, as they did not have a definite place

within the biography. A further element to help us to decide whether

Diogenes acquired his collections from biographies or gnomologies is

inherent in the different comments on the text, which discuss que-

242

stions of authenticity, add associated sayings or provide sources for

different items. They cannot have been found in the original collection,

and the question now is whether we can regard Diogenes or a pre-

decessor as responsible for them. If the latter alternative is the case,

Diogenes probably obtained his collections from biographies. However,

I find these additions to the original collections to be so uniform in

character that I think they can very well go back to Diogenes himself62.

8. Diogenes’ motives.

Can we form any idea about the motives which prompted Diogenes

to include these collections, which have such a prominent place in his

biographies? We find no explicit information given by Diogenes him-

self, which is not to be expected, but already the extent of these

collections make it obvious that he considered them as an important

part of the characterization of the philosophers. That this is their

main function is made clear by their place in the biographies, and

we may especially adduce Diog. Laert. II 85, where he ends his bio-

graphy of Aristippus, which is composed chiefly of a collection of

χρεῖαι, in the following way: ἐπειδή τὸν βίον ἀνεγράψαμεν αὐτοῦ,

making it clear that χρεῦαι belong to the βίος. This is further under-

lined by e.g. Plutarch’s appreciation of the saying and the anecdote

as a means of characterizing the person in question for a biography63.

It is certain that the χρεία was originally intended to convey a

philosophical message, and popular especially with the Cynics. Con-

sequently we can assume that it dealt with ethical and practical

questions, being less suited to a discussion of more technical prob-

lems. This is indicated also by the name. With the passage of time,

and the continual exchange of material between biographies and col-

lections and even between different philosophers, it is only natural

243

that the philosophical content of the χρεῖαι was diluted. What remains

is — if we look at the material as a whole — a very general ethical

attitude, and in many cases a prominent element of wit. This conforms

with the characterization of the χρεία found in the Progymnasmata,

where on the one hand it is described as βιωφελής and χρήσιμος,

and on the other is said to be occasionally only intent on χαρίζεσθαι

(Theo. Prog. 5 pp. 96-97 Spengel 2). This general description also

holds true for the χρεῖαι which we find in Diogenes’ collections.

Many of them contain an ethical message, but many also have traits

to attract and entertain the reader, who would delight in all the witty,

well formulated remarks64. This reminds us of the period, when

Diogenes was writing, the Second Sophistic. This movement stressed

the purely literary aspects of all kinds of literature, and generally

strove to please the reader by providing entertaining reading. On the

other hand much of the literature of this period also manifested a

rather general moralistic tinge. In this literary climate Diogenes’

collections of χρεῖαι would have been most welcome as meeting both

these demands65

1.
F. Bahnsch, Quaestionum de Diogenis Laertii fontibus initia, diss. Königsberg

1868, p. 33 and p. 45.
2.
E. Schwartz, Diogenes Laertios (n. 40) in RE, V (1905) col. 758.
3.
Cfr. e.g. F. Leo, Die griechisch-römische Biographie nach ihrer litterarischen

Form,
Leipzig 1901 (repr. Hildesheim 1965) p. 50; A. Delatte, La Vie de

Pythagore de Diogene Laërce: Édition critique avec introduction et commentaire,

(Académie Royale de Belgique, Classe des Lettres et des Sciences Morales et Politi-

ques, Mémoires, 2. Série, 17:2) Bruxelles 1922, p. 29; W. Schmid-O. Stählin,

Geschichte der griechischen Litteratur, 2:2, 6. ed. (Handbuch der Altertumswissen-

schaft, 7:2:2) München 1924, p. 864; K. von Fritz, Quellenuntersuchungen zu

Leben und Philosophie des Diogenes von Sinope,
(Philologus, Suppl. 18:2) Leipzig

1926, p. 8; J. Bompaire, Lucien écrivain: Imitation et création, (Bibliothèque des

Écoles Françaises d’Athènes et de Rome, 190) Thèse Paris 1958, p. 447 note 4.

For a different view see I. Gallo, Frammenti biografici da papiri; 2: La bio-

grafia dei filosofi,
(Testi e Commenti, 6) Roma 1980, pp. 243-4.
4.
Cfr. A. Elter, Γνωμικά ὁμοιώματα des Socrates, Plutarch, Demophilus,

Demonax, Aristonymus u.a.,
1, Univ.-Progr., Bonn 1900, col. 66 (for Diogenes)

and A. Elter, De Gnomologiorum Graecorum historia atque origine commentationis

ab A.E. scriptae ramenta,
Univ.-Progr., Bonn 1897, col. 12 (for the collections

of ἀποφθέγματα).
5.
I am informed by letter (26.11.1984) from the University Library in Bonn

that A. Elter’s ‘Nachlass’, which had been entrusted to the Library, was lost

during the Second World War.
6.
Cfr. RE, Supplbd. VI (1935) s.v. Gnome, Gnomendichtung, Gnomologien,

coll. 74-90 (K. Horna-K. von Fritz); LAW (1965), s.v. Gnome, col. 1099

(O. Gigon-K. Rupprecht); KP, 2 (1967) s.v. Gnome (n. 2), coll. 823-9

(W. Spoerri); H. Lausberg, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik: Eine Grund-

legung der Literaturwissenschaft, 2.
ed. München 1973, §§ 872-879.
7.
Cfr. Xenoph. mem. IV 2, 9, Isocrates II 44, Aristot. rhet. B 21.1394 a 22

and 1395 a 11; cfr. also Quintil. inst. orat. VIII 5, 3: sententiae vocantur, quas

Graeci
γνώμας appellant.
8.
Aristot. rhet. B 21.1394 a 21-26
9.
Cfr. W. Gemoll, Das Apophthegma: Literarhistorische Studien, Wien-

Leipzig 1924; RAC, 1 (1950) s.v. Apophthegma, coll. 545-50 (Th. Klauser - P. de

Labriolle
); LAW (1965) s.v. Apophthegma, coll. 222-3 (O. Gigon-K. Rupprecht).
10.
Cfr. Xenoph. hist. gr. II 3, 56 and Aristot. met. Γ 5.1009 b 26; oec.

A 6. 1345 a 2; rhet. B 12. 1389 a 16; B 21.1394 b 34; Γ 11. 1412 a 21.
11.
Cfr. the definition, which has been established for Troilus: ἀπόφθεγμά

ἐστι λόγος σύντομος καὶ εὔστοχος (prol. ad Rhet. p. 50.13-14 Walz 6; cfr. also

prol. ad Hermog. Rhet. p. 18. 2-3 Walz 4). See further O. Schissel, Apophthegma

bei Troilos von Side,
«Byzantinische Zeitschrift», XXVIII (1928) pp. 241-50.
12.
The term is used with reference to the maxims of the Seven Sages by

e.g. Aristot. rhet. B 12.1389 a 16; Demetrius of Phalerum, ap. Stob. III 1, 172;

Clearchus, ap. Stob. III 21, 12 ( = fr. 69 c Wehrli 3); Clem. Alexandr. strom.

I 14, 61, 1-3; cfr. also Trypho trop. p. 202.17 Spengel 3: Δελφικὰ ἀποφθέγματα.
13.
Therefore γνώμη and ἀπόφθεγμα can be used together to indicate similar,

but different forms of expressions; cfr. Demetrius rhet. 9: ἀποφθεγματικὸν ἡ

βραχύτης καὶ γνωμολογικόν and J. Cousin, Études sur Quintilien, 2, Thèse Paris

1936, pp. 54-5.
14.
Cfr. Cic. de off. I 29, 104: multaque multorum facete dicta, ut ea,

quae a sene Catone collecta sunt, quae vocantur
ἀποφθέγματα.
15.
Cfr. E. Köpke, Ueber die Gattung der Ἀπομνημονεύματα in der Grie-

chischen Litteratur
, Progr. der Ritter-Akademie zu Brandenburg 1857, pp. 1-30

and RE, II (1896) s.v. Apomnemoneumata, coll. 170-1 (E. Schwartz).
16.
Cfr. e.g. Plut. Them. 18,1, 18,5, Cat. Ma. 2,4, 3,2, 7,1, 7,2, 8,3,

9,7. According to Diodorus Siculus fr. 7.7 libri 33 the terms can be used for

the same item, viewed from different aspects: τὸ δὲ ἀφελείᾳ λόγου βραχέως καὶ

ἀπερίττως ῥηθὲν τοῦ μέν εἰπόντος ἀπόφθεγμα γίνεται, τοῦ δὲ ἀκούσαντος

ἀπομνημόνευμα. The two terms also seem to be used for the same work by

Lynceus, quoted in Athenaeus; cfr. E. Köpke, Ueber die Gattung cit., pp. 10-2.
17.
Cfr. Prisc. praeexercitamina 8, p. 431.30 Keil 3.
18.
Cfr. G. von Wartensleben, Begriff der griechischen Chreia und Beiträge

zur Geschichte ihrer Form,
diss. Wien; Heidelberg 1901; G. A. Gerhard,

Phoinix von Kolophon: Texte und Untersuchungen, Leipzig-Berlin 1909, pp. 247-53;

F. H. Colson, Quintilian I. 9 and the ‘Chria’ in Ancient Education, «The Classical

Review», XXXV (1921) pp. 150-4; O. Schissel, Die Einteilung der Chrie bei

Quintilian,
«Hermes», LXVIII (1933) pp. 245-8; H.-R. Hollerbach, Zur Bedeutung

des Wortes
χρεία, diss. Köln 1964; LAW (1965) s.v. Chrie, col. 586 (O. Gigon-

H. Hommel
); H. Lausberg, Handbuch cit., §§ 1117-1121.
19.
Cfr. Horna-von Fritz, in RE, Supplbd. cit., coll. 87-89 and Th. Klauser,

in RAC, cit., coll. 545-546.
20.
Most modern translators understand this as a work by Antisthenes on

Sophocles: «dessen Abhandlung über Sophokles» (O. Apelt), «that author’s

essay on Sophocles» (R. D. Hicks), «il breve saggio di Antistene su Sofocle»

(M. Gigante); cfr. also F. Decleva Caizzi, Antisthenis Fragmenta (Testi e Docu-

menti per lo studio dell’antichità, 13), Varese-Milano 1966, p. 87 with the same

interpretation. For a different view see Sophocles f 1116 c (TrGF, 4) with S.

Radt’s note, taking this to be a reference to a saying of Sophocles.
21.
This would be valid for all works of this list, as they are contained in

one volume; cfr. C. Wendel, Die griechisch-römische Buchbeschreibung verglichen

mit der des Vorderen Orients
, (Hallische Monographien, 3) Halle 1949, pp. 51-3.
22.
Cfr. Hermog. prog. 3-4, pp. 6-10 Rabe; Aphtho. prog. 3-4, pp. 3-10

Rabe; Theo. prog. 5-6, pp. 96-106 Spengel 2; Nicol. prog. pp. 17-29 Felten;

Quintil. inst. orat. I 9, 3-5 and see further G. Reichel, Quaestiones progymnasma-

ticae,
diss. Leipzig 1909, pp. 46-9.
23.
For combinations of these terms cfr. Demetr. rhet. 9 and 170 and

Menander Rhetor, p. 122.30-31 Russell-Wilson: καὶ γὰρ πλήρεις εἰσίν ἱστοριῶν

καὶ ἀποφθεγμάτων καὶ παροιμιῶν καὶ χρειῶν.
24.
The same verb also occurs in Diog. Laert. I 6: καὶ φασι τοὺς μὲν Γυμνο-

σοφιστὰς καὶ Δρυΐδας αἰνιγματωδῶς ἀποφθεγγομένους φιλοσοφήσαι.
25.
The only exceptions are Diog. Laert. III 38 with reference to ἀπομνημονεύ-

ματα αὐτοῦ (scil. Πλάτωνος) and Diog. Laert. V 18, where the Cynic Diogenes

is described as χρείαν εἴη μεμελετηκώς.
26.
Cfr. however Diog. Laert. v 46, adducing Περὶ γνώμης as a work of

Theophrastus; for this see RE, Supplbd. VII (1940) s.v. Theophrastos (n. 3)

col. 1524 (O. Regenbogen), who takes it to be a rhetorical work.
27.
It is a matter of dispute, whether this work should be attributed to Ariston

of Chios or Ariston of Ceos; cfr. F. Wehrli’s note to Ariston of Ceos fr. 9 Wehrli 6.
28.
Cfr. e.g. E. Schwartz, in RE, cit., col. 171, who takes this work to be

recollections of Ariston, not writings by him. However, the title ἀπομνημονεύματα

Ἐπικτήτου, found in Stob. III 6, 58 etc. and adduced by Schwartz, does not

constitute a proof; cfr. Diog. Laert. vii 2, where τῶν Ξενοφώντος Ἀπομνημονευ-

μάτων are mentioned and where the name certainly refers to the author.
29.
Other works with the same title are documented for Aristodemus (Athen.

vi
244 f etc.), Empodus (or Empedus) (Athen. ix 370 c), Lynceus (Athen. vi

248 D etc.), Serenus (Stob. ii 2, 17), Stilpo (Athen. iv 162 c = fr. 191 Döring

with K. Döring’s commentary, pp. 151-2).
30.
So E. Schwartz, in RE, cit., col. 171; for a survey with literature see LAW

(1965), s.v. Buntschriftstellerei, coll. 521-2 (W. Spoerri).
31.
There are a number of collections of χρεῖαι, known from other sources

than Diogenes, and attributed to Aristotle (Stob. iii 5,42 etc.; cfr. V. Rose,

Aristotles pseudepigraphus, Leipzig 1863, pp. 611-5, attributing this collection to

Ariston, and O. Hense’s note to Stobaeus loc. cit.), Dio of Prusa (Stob. iii 7, 28

etc.), Machon (Athen. xiii 577 d), Theocritus of Chios (Suda, s.v. Θ, 166 = T 1

FGrHist, 760).
32.
The text gives the title as Περὶ χρειῶν, which is translated «Von

Nutzanwendungen» (O. Apelt), «Of usages» (D. R. Hicks), «Dei vantaggi pra-

tici» (M. Gigante), which is a singular title. I would prefer, as G. A. Gerhard,

Phoinix cit., p. 249 note 1 and H.-R. Hollerbach, Zur Bedeutung cit., p. 80, to

take this as a reference to a work of χρεῖαι. The preposition περί is therefore

not very suitable, and could easily have been added by mistake after all the

preceding titles, containing περί; perhaps then the number of books was lost.

This view is supported by the fact that this title is followed by Διατριβῶν δύο;

the two terms occur together in Diog. Laert. ii 85 and vii 36.
33.
For the place given to collections of χρεῖαι within catalogues see W. Crönert,

Kolotes und Menedemus: Texte und Untersuchungen zur Philosophen- und

Literaturgeschichte
, (Studien zur Palaeographie und Papyruskunde, hrsg. von

Wessely, 6) Leipzig 1906 (repr. Amsterdam 1965), p. 139 and P. Moraux,

Les listes anciennes des ouvrages d’Aristote, Louvain 1951, pp. 150-3 and p. 217.
34.
Dio Chrysost. lxxii 11 testifies to the fact that the Cynic Diogenes’

χρεῖαι were widespread: πυνθανόμενοι [...] καὶ περὶ Διογένους, ὅτι καὶ αὐτὸς

πρὸς ἅπαντα εὐπόρει λόγου καὶ ἀποκρίσεως. καὶ τὰ μὲν τούτου καί διαμνημο-

νεύουσιν οί πολλοί, τα μέν τινα ίσως είπόντος αύτοϋ, τά δε καὶ ἄλλων

συνθέντων. For the latest discussion see G. Giannantoni, Socraticorum Reliquiae,

3 (Elenchos: Collana di testi e studi sul pensiero antico, 7:3) Roma-Napoli 1985,

pp. 418-25.
35.
The material is collected in H. Gomoll, Der stoische Philosoph Hekaton:

Seine Begriffswelt und Nachwirkung unter Beigabe seiner Fragmente
, Bonn 1933,

pp. 90-1 and pp. 112-3.
36.
The two titles were identified by e.g. U. von Wilamowitz - Moellendorff,

Antigonos von Karystos, (Philologische Untersuchungen, 4) Berlin 1881, p. 106

note 6 and F. Susemihl, Geschichte der griechischen Litteratur in der

Αlexandrinerzeit
, 1, Leipzig 1891, p. 56 note 190, which does not seem necessary.

Cfr. also RE, Χ a 1 (1972) s.v. Zenon (n. 2), col. 90 (K. von Fritz), where the

two titles are kept apart, but the collection of χρεῖαι regarded as a work dealing

with Zeno and published by his students.
37.
Cfr. E. Schwartz, Diogenes Laertios cit., coll. 743-744; E. Mensching,

Favorin von Arelate I: Der erste Teil der Fragmente: Memorabilien und Omnigena

historia,
(Texte und Kommentare, 3) Berlin 1963, pp. 8-21; J. Mejer, Diogenes

Laertius and his Hellenistic Background,
(Hermes Einzelschriften, 40) Wiesbaden

1978, pp. 30-2.
38.
For gnomologies containing material from poetry the standard work is

A. Elter, De Gnomologiorum Graecorum historia atque origine commentatio, 1-10

Univ.-Progr., Bonn 1893-1895; for more information, dealing also with collections

in prose, see RE, IX (1916) s.v. Ioannes Stobaios (n. 18), coll. 2549-86 (O. Hense);

Horna-von Fritz, in RE, Supplbd. cit., coll. 74-90; J. Barns, A New Gnomo-

logium: With Some Remarks on Gnomic Anthologies,
1-2, «The Classical Quarterly»

xliv (1950) pp. 126-37 and xlv (1951) pp. 1-19; Dictionnaire de Spiritualité, v

(1964) s.v. Florilèges spirituels grecs, coll. 475-512 (M. Richard); RAC, vii (1969)

s.v. Florilegium, coll. 1131-1160 (H. Chadwick); D. Gutas, Greek Wisdom Lite-

rature in Arabic Translation: A Study of the Graeco-Arabic Gnomologia,
(American

Oriental Series, 60) New Haven (Connecticut) 1975, pp. 1-35 and pp. 451-5.
39.
Cfr. Xenoph. mem. I 6, 14; Plat. leg. VII 810d-812a; Isocrates ii 44.
40.
Cfr. F. Wehrli, Gnome, Anekdote und Biographie, «Museum Helveticum»,

XXX (1973) pp. 193-208 and R. Hirzel, Der Dialog: Ein literarhistorischer Versuch,

1, Leipzig 1895, p. 145 note 3, who thinks that the origin lies with the Sophists.

For a different view see M. L. West, The Ascription of Fables to Aesop in

Archaic and Classical Greece, Entretiens sur l’Antiquité Classique,
30, Vandoeuvres-

Genève 1984, pp. 126-7.
41.
Cfr. E.N. Tigerstedt, The Legend of Sparta in Classical Antiquity, 2,

«Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis, 15», Uppsala 1974, pp. 16-30 (with copious

notes pp. 298-309).
42.
Cfr. O. Gigon, Kommentar zum zweiten Buch von Xenophons Memorabilien,

«Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft, 7», Basel 1956, pp. 2-3.
43.
Cfr. especially the complex tradition for the so-called ὁμοιώματα, which

has been unravelled by A. Elter, Γνωμικὰ ὁμοιώματα cit., 1-5, Univ.-Progr., Bonn

1900-1904.
44.
Items of this kind should be memorized for practical use in life; cfr. Diog.

Laert. vi
31 (for the Cynic Diogenes) and x 12, 36, 83 (for Epicurus) and P.

Rabbow
, Seelenführung: Methodik der Exerzitien in der Antike, München 1954,

pp. 215-22.
45.
For the pedagogical uses see H.-Ι. Marrou, Histoire de l’éducation dans

l'antiquité,
2. ed. Paris 1950, pp. 217-8 and pp. 238-42 and J. Barns, A New

Gnomologium cit.
46.
Smaller excerpts from the same collection were published separately by

L. Sternbach, in Rozprawy Akademii Umiejętnosci, Wydział Filologiczny, Serya ΙΙ,

Tom V, Cracow 1894, pp. 30-44, 171-82, 202-18. It has been stated, e.g., in

C. Wachsmuth’s edition of the Wiener Apophthegemen-Sammlung, p. 36 and in

D. Gutas, Greek Wisdom cit., p. 25 that codex Patmiacus 263 contains a version

of this collection, which was recently published by A. Bertini Malgarini, ΑΡ-

ΧΑΙΩΝ ΦΙΛΟΣΟΦΩΝ ΓΝΩΜΑΙ ΚΑΙ ΑΠΟΦΘΕΓΜΑΤΑ in un manoscritto di

Patmos,
«Elenchos», v (1984) pp. 153-200. However, I suspect that we here, at

least for the first part of the collection, have excerpts from Diogenes. It would

otherwise be difficult to explain the fact that the philosophers are presented in

the same order as in Diogenes, and not in alphabetical order, and that the first

part of this collection contains only material known from him.
47.
For this “Universalgnomologium”, which is of central importance for the

later tradition, see J. Freudenthal, Zu Phavorinus und der mittelalterlichen Flo-

rilegienlitteratur,
«Rheinisches Museum», XXXV (1880) pp. 408-30 and pp. 639-40;

C. Wachsmuth, Studien zu den griechischen Florilegien, Berlin 1882 (repr.

Osnabrück 1971) pp. 131-5; H. Schenkl, Die epiktetischen Fragmente: Eine Unter-

suchung zur Ueberlieferungsgeschichte der griechischen Florilegien,
«Sitzungsbe-

richte der phil.-hist. Classe der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu

Wien», 115 (1888) pp. 460-514; L. Sternbach, in Rozprawy cit., pp. 53-82; A.

Elter
, Γνωμικά ὁμοιώματα cit., coll. 63-74; D. Gutas, Greek Wisdom cit.,

pp. 11-6.
48.
For a survey of the similarities see J. F. Kindstrand, Anacharsis: The

Legend and The Apophthegmata
«Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Graeca

Upsaliensia, 16», Uppsala 1981, pp. 104-5.
49.
Cfr. E. Mannebach, Aristippi et Cyrenaicorum fragmenta, Leiden-Köln

1961, pp. 105-6, who for Aristippus states that Diogenes and the Gnomologium

'Vaticanum
are independent, and O. Luschnat, in his introduction to the reprint

of the Gnomologium Vaticanum, (Texte und Kommentare, 2) Berlin 1963, p. vi.
50.
Cfr. F. Lortzing, Zur Wiener Apophthegmensammlung, «Philologus»,

XLIII (1884) pp. 222-3.
51.
The best study is G. Brunco, De dictis VII sapientium a Demetrio Phalereo

collectis,
«Acta Seminarii Philologici Erlangensis», III (1884) pp. 299-397; cfr. also

C. Wachsmuth, Die ἀποφθέγματα τῶν ἑπτὰ σοφῶν des Demetrios in der Wiener

Apophthegmen-Sammlung,
«Rheinisches Museum», XXXIX (1884) pp. 468-70 and

RE, II a 2 (1923), s.v. Sieben Weise, coll. 2255-61 (O. Barkowski). Another collec-

tion was later published by A. Delatte, Les sentences des sept sages du manuscrit

d'Athènes 1070,
«Fontes Ambrosiani», XXV (1951) pp. 13-8 (Miscellanea Gio-

vanni Galbiati, 1).
52.
For a different view see E. Schwartz, Diogenes Laertios, cit., col. 745,

who thinks that this reference has been misplaced.
53.
Cfr. F. Bahnsch, Quaestionum cit., pp. 30-3; F. Leo, Die griechisch-römische

cit.,
p. 50; K. von Fritz, Quellenuntersuchungen cit., pp. 10-1.
54.
Cfr. G. Rudberg, Zur Diogenes-Tradition, «Symbolae Osloenses», XIV

(1935) pp. 39-42.
55.
Cfr. D. R. Stuart, Epochs of Greek and Roman Biography, (Sather Clas-

sical Lectures, 4) Berkeley 1928, pp. 33-49 and A. Momigliano, The Development

of Greek Biography,
Cambridge (Mass.) 1971, pp. 68-71.
56.
It has been connected especially with Antigonus of Carystus (cfr. U. von

Wilamowitz-Moellendorff
, Antigonos cit., and F. Susemihl, Geschichte cit.,

pp. 491-2) and with Aristoxenus (cfr. A. Momigliano, The Development cit.,

p. 76).
57.
They have been edited and discussed by I. Gallo, Frammenti biografici cit.
58.
Cfr. E. Mannebach, Aristippi cit., p. 103.
59.
Cfr. also Suda, s.v. Σόλων, 776: καὶ φέρεται αὐτοῦ ἀπόφθεγμα τόδε

μηδὲν ἄγαν and Suda, s.v. Πίττακος, 1656: τούτου ἀπόφθεγμα, καιρὸν γνῶθι,

which coincide with Diog. Laert. i 63 and ι 79.
60.
Cfr. F. Leo, Die griechisch-römische cit., p. 52. I Düring, Aristotle in the

Ancient Biographical Tradition
«Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, 63:2», Gothen-

burg 1957, p. 66 and p. 77 thinks it is probable that already Hermippus included

a collection of anecdotes.
61.
For these cases cfr. F. Leo, Die griechisch-römische cit., p. 75, p. 66, p. 49

and for Menedemus and Zeno U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Antigonos cit.,

pp. 86-122.
62.
For Diogenes’ method of working see J. Mejer, Diogenes Laertius cit.,

pp. 16-29.
63.
Cfr. Plut. Sol. 27, 1; Cat. Ma. 7, 2; Nic. 1, 5; Alex. 1, 1-3; Cat. Mi. 24, 1.
64.
For the success of this material through the ages see M. Gigante, Diogene

Laerzio. Vite dei Filosofi
, I, Roma-Bari 1983, pp. xxiii-vi.
65.
Cfr. B. P. Reardon, Courants littéraires grecs des IIe et IIIe siècles après

J.-C.
(Annales Littéraires de l’Université de Nantes, 3) Paris 1971, pp. 227-8. For

a general characterization of this period see B. A. van Groningen, General Literary

Tendencies in the Second Century A.D.,
«Mnemosyne», Ser. 4, XVIII (1965)

pp. 41-56.


Jan Fredrik Kindstrand . :

This page is copyrighted

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.