T R A N S A C T I O N S

OF THE

AMERICAN PHILOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

I 909

I. - The a'vap,ot o- ycot of Heraclides and Ascle

By PROFESSOR W. A. IIEIDEL

WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY

HERACLIDES of Heracleia in Pontus, a disciple of Plato,

and Asclepiades of Prusa, a physician of the Ciceronian age,
proposed a form of corpuscular theory of matter, which, after
much discussion,' is still a subject of many doubts. Some of
these I hope to clear up in the coturse of this paper.
The first question relates to our sources of information-
the doxographic tradition. Two points appear to be above
suspicion; namely, that these thinkers propounded essentially
identical theories of the constittution of matter, Asciepiades
appropriating the doctrine of his predecessor; and that they
were agreed in calling the molecules advapuot ot ylcot. Beyond
this, almost everything may be said to be doubtful, since
conflicting testimony may be cited on almost every point.
We cannot hope to make any progress, therefore, without
first determining the relative value and credibility of our
sources.
To begin with Heraclides, the testimony to his philosophi-
cal doctrine is rather meagre; but in recent years there has
been put forward a theory which, if verified, would consider-

1 On Heraclides there is an excellent work: Otto Voss, de fleraclidis Pontici

Vita el Seriptis (Rostock Diss.), Rostochii, I896. I have failed to procure Chr.
W., Gumpert, Asclepiadis Bitiynzi Fragmzenta, Vinariae, I 794. The work of Hans
v. Vilas, Der Arzt und Philosopph Asklepiades von Bithynien, Wien und Leipzig,
1903, is wholly unsatisfactory. Zeller's account of these philosophers is peculiarly
unfortunate. The treatment of Asclepiades in Susemihl, Gesch. der gr. IiII. in
der Alexandrinerzeit, IT, 428 ff., is in its way admirable.

This content downloaded from 132.187.253.29 on Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:55:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 6 UK A. Heidel [Igog

ably extend our knowledge of it. This theory, most fully

elaborated by Paul Tannery,' is that the Pythagorean Ecphan-
tus of Syracuse, represented in the doxographic tradition as
the propounder of an atomic theory, was oilly a dialogi per-
sona in the IIepi fVOae(O of Heraclides.
I do not propose to repeat the argument of Tannery, which
seems to me in itself conclusive,2 but rather to supplement it
with another which is equally if not more convincing. If we
piece together the statements attributed to Ecphantus and
Heraclides touching their molecular theory, we discover^ that
they present a doctrine which is in almost every essential
particular the counterpart of the views attributed to Asclepia-
des. Thus Ecphantus is described as in pyschology a sensa-
tionalist; 3 and the same view is ascribed to Asclepiades.4
The teaching of Heraclides on this head is not reported, nor
is his view concerning the existence of empty space; but in

1 See Paul Tanniery, " Ecphante dle Syracuse," Archzivffiir Ceschz. der fT
phie, xi (1898), 263-269. Ml. 'T'annery was apparently not aware that the same
conjecture had been made two years earlier by Otto Voss, de Heraclidis Pont/ici
Vita et Scrip/is, Rostock, I896, p. 64. According to Voss, Ilicetas also is to be
regar(ded in the same light as Ecphnantus; but by parity of reasoning Philolaus
might be claimed as belonging to the same class, since the two points of (loctrine
attributed to Hicetas are also ascribed to Philolaus. It is best to dissociate the
personalities. So far as concerns Ilicetas, he should be considered rather with
referenice to the great interest in EJp- uara in Alexandrine tinmes. On this see
Brusskern, de lmerz-im Izve/ztazruv .Scr4p/oribus Graecis, Bolnn, 1864.
2 The forged writings of Ocellus and Timaeus are a part of the same campaign
to claim everything for the Pythagoreans. Probably neither was a real character;
the latter, however, was helped to a seemingly historical existence by Aristotle's
occasional metho(d of quoting the Timzaeais of Plato; e.g. de Animiza 4o6b 2 6 o T-
/0atos upvooXo/yeL 7r9v 1JX'Vv KLVELV r- o-Cosa (cp. Plato, Tim. 34 A, 36 C), and
de Senssu 437b 15 Wo7rep o TI',uawOs Xi,yes (cp. Timii. 45 D). This suggests how
Ecphantus and possibly I-licetas might come, in the course of uncritical excerpt-
ing, to he regar(led as historical persons.
3 Hippol. Refut. I, 15 (Diels, Dox., 566, II) E?oj1 m1 eivrxL evaaViqOtvv 'rCv 6VTWV
Xca3eZv -yvGo-tv, 6pt{etv U cW'm vo.iuetv (giving the text of Diels, Vor-sokr.2, 265, 29 ff.
Sextus Empir., adv. ath. VII, 201 6r7t -y&p -yivovr6 7Ltves r7 TOL07-0 a Lo)vTres,
rpo0mrrov 7re7roiWrKev TAvrioAos 6 ar 3 Ts aAKam7)sLaS, Pv 3eurip' TLOV KaVOVLKLV P177T
-ypdm'as raiira "&XXos / 7TLS, 'v eVTaTPLKV vA oi6ev6s 3e6repos, wr7o6gevos U KaI
)XocTorcas, e/7f110670 T's iL v a'a-0751ets 6VT1s KaCl iX?70bs Cv-TLtprets eEivatL X6Aymp
P7UV 6XCtwS mjas KacTaXaold3vetv." eOLKe Cyp - L1 Ko ttv 6 Av Lo'os... 'OKX?prLa
677v T6v t'aTrp6v atcVITTe00at, advatpouvTa cAev rT6 7)yUOVLK/V, Karr 'a T6v a6r6v %p6vo7
avTz -yev6pgevov.

This content downloaded from 132.187.253.29 on Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:55:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Vol. xl] The c'iap'uo t 7ol of Heraclides and Asciepiades 7

regard to this later point Ecphantus and Asclepiades are once

more in agreement.'
We cannot now complete this comparison of the two groups
of opinions, the relation of which will become clear as we
study the doxographic tradition. To this we must now turn
and begin with Asclepiades. Our earliest authorities for his
teachings date from the end of the second century A.D. They
are Galen and Sextus Empiricus, each of whom claims to
have written at considerable length on Asclepiades.2 As nei-
ther treatise has been preserved, we are here dependent on
other works of these authors; yet in view of the presumptive
familiarity of these writers with the thought of Asclepiades,
we are naturally predisposed to accept their testimony. From
Galen, if we except works certainly or presumably spurious,3
we learn little of the corpuscular theory of Asclepiades. It
amounts practically to this: that he posited molecules and
void 4 as the foundation of existence; that he called the mole-
cules avappot ol'7Kol5 and gave the name of 7To'pl6 to the void
intervals between them; that the theory of Asclepiades,

1 For Ecphantus, see Aetius, I, 3, 19 (Dox. 286b 7). For Asclepiades, see
Sextus Empir., adv. Alaht. VIII, 220 ATKX-qrtd5 e U 'Ws elvorcidews vPoqr6.v PyK6 v e'v
vo'qroZs capaLdjoaLtv and ib. PI, 5 vo'q rtves ev 7epuZv 7r6pot. The 7r6pot are defi-
nitely stated to be void by Galen, de Usu Par/ium Vri, 13 (III, 470 K.) clv o,uov
OVT el7lvCLWTKev 'ACTKX-7rtdar')s oUT, e6'wrep EVypw, 5vvacr6v lv ci a-rv ras airTas l'eupeZv
LS 6&YKOVS Kal Kevo'P aVad/oVpTt T7oV -yyvo/gvCwv a'raVrwV ras adpXcas; de Siip/ic.
Medic. A. 14 (XI, 405 K.) e7rtTK67rTeoTOat U, 'Ws efpqrats, ,r L6vov et 7waxvgepis
e-TTLt ) Xerro,uepi)s ' rCoV eteraco,dvwv /xapjAdLaKPv o,Ta, a,X' et KaC acpata Kat
7rVKVP. XVyw 57) aLpatapJ is 7a g6pta &LaXa/.pdverat XwpatS KevaZs, erto-ra/dvcpv
7i3V 5&qXov6,rt Kal Me.V?7Fd-V(pV T7)V o'LTav, 67Tt ,U7) KaOdirep 'EvLKo06p Kal A*,kKX?-q
7rtal 5OKe6, dXX7 'TTLP aepos 7rXhp-qs ep &7rao- ToLs LpaLoLs T/a.Tpv ?7 KEVP Xwpa.
2 Cp. Sextus Empir., adv. Alath. VII, 202. Is the treatise there mentioned the
`E/.7reLpLKa (or 'IarpLKa, cp. I, 202) vbro,utv?pjara referred to adv. Math. I, 6i ? Cp.
Galen, de Usu Par/ium, v, 5. His treatise, like that of Sextus, is no longer
extant.
3 Like the In/roduc/io and the Historia Philosophica.
4 See above, n. I, and below, p. 8, n. 2.
5 They are called dvappua o-cuara, de Usu Partium, XVII, I (IV, 350 K.); cp.
de Differ. Morbor. (vi, 839 K.) 0VK OiP lV IITTL 7b TLOV wwv -wga, KaOa7rep j
,rouos ' 'E7rLKo6peLoS X 7-iV dvdpuwp Ti T7V 'ACTKX?7prtdov. In de Usu Par/ium,
Xi, 8 (III, 873 K.) we meet 7a?s T' `E7rwKOvP1ons dr6/ioLS Kal 7oZs 'Ao-KX72rLa5eots
9'yKOLS. See below, p. 8, n. 2.
6 lb.

This content downloaded from 132.187.253.29 on Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:55:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 8 1X. A. Heidel [1909

equally with that of Epicurus, ruled out the purposive order-

ing of things by Nature operating to beneficent ends; 1 and
that the two views might be practically identified also in
another regard, inasmuch as both equally excluded the pos.
sibility of atXXot'woav (qualitative change in the Aristotelian
sense) in drugs, the drugs being incapable of alienating their
qualities.2
This last statement is especially interesting, since it is ac-
companied with the remark that Asclepiades merely changed
the terminology of Epicurus and Democritus, substituting
OLylcot for aJTOFOL and 7ro'pot for zo cEvO'v; but in the particular
application of the passage the fundamental doctrine of the
Atomnists is misrepresented, since, as everybody knows, the
atoms of Democritus and Epicurus possessed no qualities to
alienate. We shall presently see that in this case the doc-
trine of the Atomists is assimilated to that of Asclepiades,
with which Galen was best acquainted. When assimilation
occurs in later sources, it is always in the opposite direction,
-assimilation of the doctrine of Asclepiades to that of the
Atomists. But it is most important to note the fact that
contamination has already begun, and that Asclepiades is
supposed merely to have changed terms while holding fast
to the same opinions. That Galen spoke advisedly of the in-
defeasible qualities of the molecules of Asclepiades is shown
by his statement of his doctrine of nutrition,3 in which, con-
1 This is the chief ground of Galen's loud complaints, de Usu Partiumn, v, 5;
VI, 12, 13; XVIi, i. Asclepiades, like Epicurus, merely insisted on the natural-
istic, mechanical interpretation of nature inherited from the pre-Socratics. Galen's
attempt in this treatise to show that Hippocrates was a teleologist is instructive by
its very failure. He, if anylody, could make out a case fur Ilippocrates, assuming
that there were grounds for taking that view.
2 Theriac. a(a Pisonz. (XIV, 250 K.) et uav -yap et aTIo,ou KaTa T7v 'E7rLKO6pOV
TE Kat A?7fOKpiTOV X&yov oVVELOT?KE1 Ta& 7riv7a, EK TLVWV 6yKWV Kai rrhpWV KaTa,
TOv Iar-rpov 'AOKX?prLcaihqV. Kal y&p obros aMdaIas ra cv6uara u6voV Kal a6vTt uLp
Triv air6uwv r7is 6YKOVS, av'TV U TOO KEVOiJ TOiI 7r6povs XVywv Trv avr'7Xv eKEIVOLS TrCiv
OVTwv o6o-tav eirvat govX6uevos e-K6Trws clv E')uetvev avaXXotwra r'a acp,uaKa, KaTa
,u7HUV rptreoOrat /AIh 6'Xws t[o-TraoLa T7Is avLJTwv TrO6Tr'qTOS avvdueva.
3 Definit. JMedic. xcix (XIx, 373 K.) oh U eH 4C.Wv c?>aoav T&s dvaho-ets yl-
,yveaTOa, c&o--frep Karl 'AO KX?77rtd&s o6 BtOvv6s. This same doctrine is ascribed to
Asclepiades by Galen, ib. p. 379 and xv, 247; by Caelius Aurelianus, A.u. I, I4,
pp. 42 and 44, and by Celsus, i,praef. p. 4 Acceduntque Asclepiadis aemuli, qui

This content downloaded from 132.187.253.29 on Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:55:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Vol. xl] Tfz/ adVap/zot 6'ycot of Heraclides and Asclepiades 9

trary to the Aristotelian doctrine of the assimilation of foods,

involving a'XXoilo or the alienation of qualities,l Asclepiades
maintained the undigested (raw) distribution of the finely
divided particles of food to the several parts of the organism.
Sextus Empiricus was, like Galen, a physician, and doubt-
less wrote somewhat later. He shows an acquaintance with
the writings of Asclepiades, but his hold on the distinctive
doctrines of the physician was less firm. In his extant works
he regards him chiefly as a philosopher, and where he mis-
represents his doctrine it is in the direction of assimilating it
to that of the Atomists. Sextus presents three tables of the
doctrines of philosophers, which constitute one of the most
perplexing problems in the doxographic literature.2 The first
omnnia ista vana et supervacua esse proponunt: nihil enim concoqui, sed crudam
materiam, sicut assumpta est, in corpus omne didluci. In this Asclepiades fol-
lowed the lead of Erasistratus (cp. Susemihl, Geschl. der gr. Li/t. in der Alexan-
drinerzeit, i, 8o6, nn. 151, 152), who in turn reproduced the doctrine of
Anaxagoras. See Diels, Vorsokr.,2 303, ? 45, and Zeller, I, 987, n. I.
1 Perhaps the most succinct definition of digestion from the Aristotelian point
of view, which is shared by Galen, is in [Arist.] Probl. XIT, 7, 907a i8 ' -yap 7r,W/t
diXXoWwos eCort roi Trerro,gevou. There is a subtle alchemism at work in the body
which ' assimilates' foods, of whatever quality, to the several parts of the body,
which are thereby nurtured and augmented. The Aristotelian doctrine of aXXoi-
wots in this, as in other points, appealed stronglv to Galen and others who were
under the influence of Aristotle and the Stoics. 'I'he doctrine of Asclepiades,
Erasistratus, and Anaxagoras was also the doctrine of Hippocrates, according to
whom the elemental substances preserved in the body the selfsame 3dva,Lts (qual-
itv) which they possessed before entering into its composition. See Hippocrates,
HI. ?06ioo dviOp6$7rov, 3 (vi, 38 Littre). That Empedocles held the same opinion
is a reasonable inference from what we learn of the blood in his system (Theo-
phrastus, de Sensu, IO) as the vehicle of Tpo/o in the body, and of the function
of water (not the elemental water, but water considered as a mixture of the
elements) in the nutrition of plants. It is interesting to note how purely me-
chanical explanations, even of vital processes, appear so soon as any definlite view
is proposed. The ' subtle alchemy of life' is not a primitive conception, as some
have fancied, who have attributed it to the early lonians under the specious but
(to them) unmeaning names of 'dynamism' or 'vitalism.' These conceptions
are rightly associated with alchemy, which drew its inspiration from the mysteri-
ous and indefinable dXXotwos of Aristotle.
2 Diels has touched upon it lightly in his Doxographi Graeci, 248 ff. He
there points out the relation existing between Sextus Empir. Hypof. III, 30-32
an(d adv. Math. Ix, 359 ff., and between these on the one hand and the tables
preserved by [Galen] His/or. Phi/os. c. i8 and [Clement] Recogn. VIII, 15 on the
other. He does not discuss the third table of Sextus Empir., adv. Math. x,

This content downloaded from 132.187.253.29 on Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:55:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 10 W A. Heidel [1909

table 1 divides philosophers into two groups, the first positing

corporeal, the second incorporeal elements. The second
group comprises the Pythagoreans, with their numbers (atptO-
-tot), the mathematicians, with their limits of bodies (ra
7V1paTa TV- w -COuaTdOv), and the Platonists, with their Ideas
(38e'at). The second table 2 contains in general the same list
of names, with certain omissions aind additions,3 arranged
in approximately the same order; but there is no distinction
made between those who posited corporeal, and those who
posited incorporeal elements. Indeed, the omission of the
Platonists and the substitution of Strato, with his qualities
(7rotdTTE9), at the end of the table, gives to it an entirely
different character from that of the first table, and probab
as we shall see, led to the supposition that the numbers of the
Pythagoreans, like the 'qualities' of Strato, were corporeal.4

310 ff., though it greatly complicates the problem. I am inclined, with Diels, to
regard many of the differences between Iypot. III, 30-32 and adv. A1a/h. IX, 359
as duie to the additions of Sextus; but the division of the latter table into two
groups and the omission of Strato (or rather, perhaps, the addition of Strato to
the former table) are intimately connected. But, if that be so, can we attribute
this change to Sextus? See below, n. 4. Tlhe analytical table, acdv. Math. x,
310 ff., is probably the work of Sextus. The error in regard to Heraclides and
Asclepiades, noted below, can hardly be supposed to date from an earlier period.
1 Adv. Mat/-. IX, 359 ff-
2 Hypot. 1II, 30-32. Diels has Nv'ell shown how closely parallel this table runs
to [Galen] /is/or. P/zi/os. c. i8 and [Clement] Reecogn. viii, 15, and has traced
it to a Stoic source, which he dates between Seneca and the Antonines. Perhaps
the way in which Sextus alludes to the L7ro-Ls OX-q of the Stoics (Hypot. III, 31;
cp. adv. Mat/u. X, 312) tends to confirm his conclusion. I may add here that the
failure to distinguish in this table (as in the first) between corporeal and incor-
poreal elements may have been in part responsible for the attribution of 'ideas'
to Democritus in Pseu(do-Clement (see Diels, Dox., 251); for in our first table
Plato's i3EaL are mentioned (though omitted in the second), and in Pseudo-
Clement Plato appears only as postulating the four elements: "ignem, aquam,
aerem, terrain."
3 On these see Diels, Dox., 249 ff.
4 See above, n. 2, for Democritus and his "ideas." Here we may note
that the "limits of bodies," regarded as the elements of the ca0?7,ua7TLKO0 -
are omitte(l l)y Pseudo-Clement -naturally suggested something corporeal. The
numbers of the Pythagoreans were, I think, unquestionably corporeal, and so
Aristotle regarded them. See my article " Hepcas and A7reLpov in the Pythagorean
Philosophy," Archiv fur Gesch. der Philos., XIV (1901), 384-399, and Burnet,
Early Greek P'hilosophy,2 337 ff. Burnet, whose latest statement is much in-

This content downloaded from 132.187.253.29 on Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:55:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Vol. xl] The " 'vaprot &yicot of Heraclides and Asclepiades II

The third table I is of an entirely different character,

classifying minutely the elements posited by the several
philosophers. In the first table Asclepiades is mentioned
among those whose elements are corporeal as positing da'vap-
Oot 0'7yot; in the second, Heraclides and Asclepiades occur
with their avappot o'ycot, and the statement is added that their
elements are frangible arid qualitatively determined, in evi-
dent agreement with the view of Anaxagoras, who 'attributed
every sensible quality to his 6totop ' pEtat' 2 in the third,
Anaxagoras, Democritus, Epicurus, Heraclides, and Ascle-
piades are classed among those who posited elements infinite
in number; but a sharp distinction is drawn between their
respective views, Anaxagoras being contrasted with the others
on the ground that his elements were qualitatively like the
things begotten of them, whereas the other group of philoso-

debted to my article, makes it seem probable that the Pythagoreans called their
solid units 6YKOL. But this fact had quite dropped out of the consciousness of
these late epitomists. If, therefore, as seems probable, they invented the doc-
trine of Ecphantus, it was due to some such cause as the uncritical grouping of
distantly related doctrines. It was a case of the night in which all objects look
black. In Pseudo-Clement, Strato (for so we should doubtless read, with Diels,
for Cal/istratus), with his "qualitates," follows immediately after Pythagoras, as
Strato supplanted Plato in the second table of Sextus. Plato's Ideas were felt to
be sadly out of place in this company. That this change was due to Sextus, is
not altogether probable; as we have seen, Plato is in the list of Pseudlo-Clement,
though there is no mention of his Ideas, unless we loolk for them in the ' Ideas'
attributed to Democritus.
1 Adv. Math. X, 310 ff. Probably, though not certainly, this table owes its
origin to Sextus himself, who elsewhere also shows acquaintance with less familiar
accounts of philosophical doctrines, such as occur repeatedly in tables 3 and i.
In general the agreement is most palpable between tables 3 and 2. T his makes
all the more striking the contradiction in regard to Asclepiades.
2 H)pof. III, 33 oV -yap 317rov 3vvU0o16/e0a KaL TOLs 7repI 'AOKX?pz-q7LciV OVyKarTa-
TrO-Oa Opavo,aT& CIpaL Ta o& ToLXeCa XgXyovOt KaL roLd, KaL -rots repl A-)u6KpLTov,
dTo/ua T7LvTa elvat q/XO-KOVOt KaL L7rota, KaIt- TOCS 7lrepL 'Avataay6pav, 7-rto-av alo-0-1-rTv
7rOt6T?6Tarr repl TraLs o'goto/uepelats a7roXel7roVo-Lv. For Anaxagoras, see above, p. 8,
n. 3 and p. 9, n. i. While Sextus is clearly somewhat uncertaini in his mind as to
the relation of Asclepiades and Anaxagoras, - if he had been sure of his facts he
would hardly have treated the doctrines of the four men as quite distinct, - he
makes it evident enough that Heraclides and Asclepiades, like Anaxagoras,
regarded the 6-yKOt as qualitatively determined. That the qualities, or avva3U
were indefeasible was shown above, p. 8, n. 3 and p. 9, n. i. We shall presently
find this same doctrine attributed to Ecphantus.

This content downloaded from 132.187.253.29 on Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:55:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 I 2 W. A. Ileidel [I 909

phers regarded the elements as qualitatively unlike the things

begotten of them, though they differed among themselves in
that Democritus and Epicurus considered their aTro/uot as in
visible (w7raOB), while Heraclides and Asclepiades considered
their a'vaptot o'yKcot as divisible (7raOiTa').1
Here then we find a flat contradiction; in the second table
the o'yKcot are described as qualitatively determined and as
congeners to the o6,aotopu'petat of Anaxagoras, while in the
third they are grouped with the qualitatively indeterminate
atoms of Democritus and Epicurus and contrasted with the
o,uotoLepetat of Anaxagoras. Whatever may have been the
source of the third table, it is evident that on this point we
may without hesitation accept the authority of the second,
backed as it is by the testimony of Galen. There is, there-
fore, a clear case of contamination in the direction of assimila-
tion to the doctrine of the Atomists.2 But Sextus emphasizes
in both tables the distinction between the indivisible adTo,kot

1Adv. Math. X, 318 e' d7repwpv 3' 136oaoav T-' J TW'v rpayuaTowv ye'VEtp o0L
wep 'Avatay6pav T6V KXatovtovoP Ka w6KpLroP Ka' 'E7rKoupo' KL lXxot ra-
1rXz?eOs, a\\XX' o ue.v 'Avata-y6pas et 6/LoIwv TOLs -yeppvwg/OLL, ol R rep' TOp A?71AOLKpL-
TOV Kal 'ErIKoUpov et aLVOLooWV TE KKl adraOCvv, Tro)Tv(Tt TWV dr6Awp, ol 6R rep -rTV
RTovrK6V JHpaKX613qV Kart 'ATKrX?7rtcai)v t~ avo/loi'wv gPv 7ra0LqTWV se', Kacacrep -rCv
avdp,uwv py6KWP. One might be temptedl to suspect an error in the text; but the
carefully wrought analysis quite excludes that possibility. If, as I believe is
manifest, there is an error here, it must be charged to Sextus and not to a copy-
ist. I shall try presently to explain his error.
Comparison with the case of Galen (see above, p. 8, n. 2) suggests that Sextus
was troubled by the knotty problem of aLoXwoLSts. He was clear that the Monists,
who postulated a single, qualitatively determinate substance, e.g. water, implied
aXXolwo-Ls in the clevelopnielt of other things out of their apXy'7 (cp. adv. Ala/h.
X, 328). Aristotle had inisisted on this. But the means of effecting dXolrwas
(according to Aristotle) used by the Atomists were not so clear: indeed, w as the
birth of quality out of the 'ahrotop a clear case of arXXowcorts at all ? In regard to
Anaxagoras (and Heraclides and Asclepiades also, apparenitly) the case was
further complicated by the conception of T7rLKpTreLa, according to which certain
qualities predominating in the g-tyAa 'overpowered' others. Was there, or was
there not, acXXowo-Ls here ? Aristotle did not kniow, though he was fain to think
there was: was not the 7rdLTa 6AoO of Anaxagoras a ev ? The elusive concept of
adXXoowo-s, utterly foreign to the pre-Socratics, and disallowed by many in later
times, wrought sad havoc in the history of Greek thought as recounted by the
doxographers. On all this see my " Qualitative Change in Pre-Socratic Philoso-
phy," in Archzivfiar Gesch. der Phi/os. XIX (I906), 333-379.

This content downloaded from 132.187.253.29 on Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:55:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Vol. xl] The dvap,ot 'yKcot of Heraclides and Asciepiades I 3

and the frangible or divisible 6'5yKcot, and in other connections

he refers to the theory of pores, which are, like the 0yKcot, too
small to be seen. The molecules are eternally in motion,
and are apparently the basis of a far-reaching system of
effluences.'
By combining the data furnished by Galen and Sextus we
obtain a tolerably clear view of the corpuscular theory of
Asclepiades; but the uncritical contamination of his doctrines
by assimilation to the Atomic theory, the beginning of which
we have seen in Sextus, was destined to go much farther.
By the end of the second or the beginning of the third cen-
tury the suggestion of Galen that the difference between
Heraclides and Asclepiades on the one hand and the Atomists
on the other, is merely one of names, had come to be the
accepted view. This is stated by Dionysius,2 Bishop of Alex-
andria, and the cloak of charity which envelops Democritus,
Epicurus, Heraclides, and Asclepiades, is sufficiently ample
to take in also Diodorus Cronus, who posited altFepq aol-aT
All alike are said to advance a doctrine of strict atomism.
Only the singular expression avapHkos 3 remains to distinguish
the molecule from the atom. Here and there it is still re-
membered that the molecules are frangible or divisible; 4 but

1Adv. A/a/li. III, 5 o1)TC -yovv TpUTiJi vbroo&6eT KeXp'o-OaT oag/ev Tiv 'AOKX
irtdi7nv ELS KacLTaOKeIV7V T'S ThP 7VrpeT67o e7OL0I7qS eVPLTT7edOWS, gUt,a 1sP 67JTL P01
TtpVs eto Lt ep7/LV 7rhpOL, /LEy4poneLLet /a4oTpopres dXjXXXv, lev)TLpL Rh 67t 7rdVToO
VLypOu /Lhp'qKacL 7Ve6/aTos eK X6yy Oewp opqTiiV 6YK&JV POUV'VpdpVoLTaT V atwpos dv
/u'TCrV, TplTrJ U 6'rt d3atdXeorToi rtpes et's rO &KT6s et 'gCv dVrobopai yivovTat, r
,uev 7rXeiovs 7rowr U eXLdTTovs 7rpos Tr17V eveOT'7KVtav 7replTaTaLoV. Cp. adv. A/
VIII, 220, and Susemihl, op. cit. II, 433, n. 84, and 436, n. IOI.
2 Apud Euseb. P.E. XIV, 23 db-61ovs U evcaLi Oaotpv dcsO6repot (Epicurus and
Democritus) Kal XVyeoOat 3ta -'qv &Xvro oTrepp6-TrqLa. ol U Ta's dr61sovs /eTopo-
daLavTres dgepl oacortv evLat w'uararoaT r TOO 7ravrTos u Lp-q e i~v c nd3tatp& Pv 6VT&pV (vVT-
Oerat -ar 7rdvra Kal ets d &aLXeTaL. Kal TO6-rwpV baoi TWrV acgep63v 6vo/aTo7rotLv
AL63opov (i.e. D. Cronus) -ye-yovpva. 6vo/sa L, bao-tv, aVrTo7s &XXo 'HpaKXe6i?7s
OL,LEPOS eKdXeXoeV 6-yKovs, 7rap ov Kacl AOKX?77rtd3i7s o ILTp6S eLKX1pov6n7o-e Tr6 6vo/a.
Dionysius is engaged in an attack on Epicurus for religious reasons ; Asclepia-
des and Diodorus Cronus fall equally under the ban, more or less on general
principles.
3 This name recurs in the table of [Galen] His/or. Philos. IS.
4 The list of Pseudo-Clement preserves the name 6-yKOL, but not the qualifying
adjective. [Galen] In/rod. XIV. 250 K. KaT& U 'AO KX 77rLd'r7v o-ToteZca dvOpdnrov

This content downloaded from 132.187.253.29 on Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:55:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 I4 W. A. Heidel [I9o9

in general this seems to have been ignored. Our fullest

account of the doctrine of Asclepiades dates probably from
the turn of the second and third centuries; and to it we must
now give our attention.
It is contained in a medical treatise of Caelius Aurelianus,'

6'YKOL OpaVuO70 Kai r6pot. Aeius 1, I3, 4 (Diels, Dox. 312b io) 'HpaKXe6o1s OpacL-
a0aaTe. The expression Opa6o-gara is used also of Empedcocles, Aet. I, I3. I (Dox.
312,3); that the-se fragments are called 0IIOLOIuEPiI (ib.) is essentially true (see
above, p. 9, n. I), thouglh the expression is transferred from the Aristotelian termi-
nology applied to Anaxagoras. There can be no doubt that in the expression 7rpb
TWV orTotXetwv there is a suggestion of the view that the Opa6o-uara of Empedo-
cles were analogous to the &rotos IX- of the Stoics, out of which the o.rotxeta
grew by taking on qualities (aMoXoutcus ?). I have elsewhere shown that Aristotle
was tempted to impute this doctrine to Empedocles and Anaxagoras, because he
rashly assumed the fv of the uoa?pos and the raivra 1oiov to be also bootov. See
next note, where a sort of d7rotos V'X7 is imputed to Asclepiades. The 4bry}UaTa
or 4,7Wy/Ltcira attributed (ib.) to Heraclitus are of the same character; they refer
to the fiouents and efuents of the Heraclitic 'o', typified by civauv4ao-ts. All
these 68KOL were of course Opavur-roi, whether the philosophers felt called upon to
state the fact or not. It was the Eleatic dialectic which made it necessary to affirm
expressly or to deny the possibility of a Touj e's dretpov.
1 De ilorb. Acut. I, 14 Primordia namque corporis primo constituerat (sc.
Asclepiades) atomos, corpuscula intellectu sensa, sine ulla qualitate solita atque
ex initio comitata, aeternum se movenitia, quae suo incursu offensa, mutuis ictibus
in infinita partium fragmlenta solvantur magnitudine atque schemate (lifferenitia,
quae rursum eunaz'o sibi adiecta ve/ cozziuzcta omnzia faciunt sentsibi/ia, vinm in
semet mutationzis hlabenttia aut per meagnitud(iinem ant per muzDlitudiinem aut per
schema aiut per ordinemi. Nec, inquit, ratione carere videtur, quod nuilius faci-
ant qua/ita/ts corpora. A/iu(l enjiniz Partes, a/jud universi/atein sequitur;
argentum denique a/blum est, sed eius affrica/io nigr-a . caprinumz cornzu nigru;ni,
sed eius a/ba serrago. . . . Fieri autem vias complexione corpusculorum intel-
lectu sensas, magnitudine et schemate differentes, per quas succorum ductus solito
meatu percurrens, si nullo fuerit impedimento retentus, sanitas maneat, impeditus
vero statione corpusculorum morbos efficiat. The parts italicized deserve a word.
The clauses ' quae . . . sensibilia' and ' quod . . . corpora' imply that when the
6yKOL are shivered they lose all qualitative determination, which they acquire in
turn by a sort of avvepavPwO6ss; but we kniow that such was not the belief of
Asclepiades, whose a r/baTa were Opavafra KaL Wrota (Sextus Empir. Hypot. III, 33).
This applies not merely to the larger 6fyKOL, but also to the Opa6o/sar-a. Indeed
this is stated in the clause ' Aliud enim partes, aliud universitatem sequitur,'
and is implied in the illustrations of silver and horn. Similar cases were dis-
cussed by Anaxagoras (see Zeller, I, 987, n. I), and doubtless the same explana-
tion was given; to wit, that every larger 6-YKOS or mass is a )UysYa and has i
quality determined by the predominant ingredient, an(l that in certain cases
(compare the blackness of water and the whiteness of snow in Anaxagoras'
illustration) the large mass showed a marked difference in (apparent) quality

This content downloaded from 132.187.253.29 on Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:55:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Vol. xl] Tze 'vap" ot 6'y1cot of Heraclides and Asclepiades I5

who belongs to the fifth century, but translates a treatise of

Soranus. Its chief characteristic is the extremely uncritical
way in which contradictory statements are set down side by
side without any apparent consciousness of their incongruity.
The elements of Asclepiades are called atoms, corpuscles of
a size to be apprehended only by the reason, devoid of per-
manent character, eternally in motion; and are said to meet
in their career and to be shattered into infinitesimal fragments
differing in size and shape, which in turn as they proceed to
reunite, take on all sensible qualities adventitious or perma-
nent, and possess in themselves the power to change in qual-
ity according to size, number, shape, and arrangement.'
There are, furthermore, said to be formed by the combination
of these corpuscles paths (pores) of a size to be apprehended
only by the reason, differing in size and shape.
Here, then, we have atoms of the orthodox Atomistic sort,

which possess only the one characteristic property of the ob'/r

of Asclepiades, that they may be shivered into infinitesimal
fragments. Every other feature of the description is bor-
rowed from the familiar theories of Democritus and Epicu-
rus.2 It is evident that the deadly parallel had done its
from the chief constituent. The indefeasible U6va,us remained, though the
apparent property changed.
1 This mode of explaining change of quality is throughout Epicurean. Cp.
Lucretius, 1I, 730 ff.
2 There is an interesting passage in Epicurus' Epist. ad Herod. 68 ff., which
affords a striking parallel; but it has, I think, been expanded by scholia present-
ing the view of Asclepiades. In order to give my interpretation of the text I
will translate it with a few notes. " Yea, shapes, colors, sizes, and weights, and
whatever other things are predicated of body (matter) as predicates of all bodies
[including the ' corpuscula intellectu sensa'] or of bodies visible or, in general,
sensible [perhaps we should read Kal KaT atdo-qtv op 6XXws vyPwc-7os], we are
not to think of them either (i) as self-existent entities, - for that is inconceivable,
-nor (2) as something incorporeal appertaining to matter (body), nor (3) as
parts of body; but (4) we are to hold that the entire body, collectively, possesses
a specific character of its own [reading 161av for d&tov] derived from them, but
not as though it were a farrago [Hiere a scholion, giving a view of Asclepiades:
' as when a larger congeries arises from the 6yKOt themselves, either from the pri-
mary 6'yKOL (cp. the 'primordia corpuscula' of Caelius) or from 6yKOt which are
smaller than any particular one of the parts of the whole (cp. Caelius: ' in infinita
partium fragmenta solvantur')], but merely deriving from them collectively its
own peculiar [reading 161av for d1tov] character. [Another scholion, giving the

This content downloaded from 132.187.253.29 on Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:55:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 I6 WW A. Heidel LI909

work. The later writers, depending more and more on

emasculated excerpts for their knowledge of philosophical
opinions, and finding only the barest outline of doctrines
grouped in a way to suggest the points of resemblance with-
out the distinctive differences which marked the individual
systems, fell naturally into the pitfall of assuming that all
taught the same doctrines. If for any reason it was thought
desirable to amplify the traditional account, they did so by
adding details from the system best known to them - in this
case, the Epicurean. The case of Asclepiades is not without
parallel; even Heraclitus 1 was converted to Atomism.
But the most striking parallel is that of Ecphantus, or as I
think we may now safely say, Heraclides. Our main source
is Hippolytus,2 Bishop of Pontus, at the beginning of the

doctrine of Asclepiades: ' And all these (referring to the awdcraTa or 6yKoL) are
things possessed of specific (i16as. Should we perhaps here have the misplaced
dt&ovs ?) qualities (the text has Irt3oX&s, ' perceptions,' the subjective correlate
of qualities: cp. the ' sensibilia ' of Caelius) and differences (again the subjective

correlate, ' distinctions,' &taX'VfLs), the congeries following (i.e. being qual
tively like the specific differences and qualities of the 6YKOL) and not divorcing
itself from them (it may be fanciful, but I am renminded of Anaxagoras, fr. 8
d7roJCKor7-at 7reXKeL) but taking its predicate in accordlance with the total com-
plexion (again the subjective correlate, 'conception,' e'vvoLav) of the body."]-
The last sentence reminds one of Anaxagoras, who held 6,rou 7rXeo-rov 9Kao7-ov
eXeT, roJ aoKeTV ellvat r'1v 4/6tv roi wrpdiyfgaros. Cp. Arist. Phys. A. 4, 187b 2-7
1A&tius i, 13, 2 (Diels, Dox. 312). Stobaeus here has 'HpacKXeuros 7rp6 roO
eEV6s 0oKet rtt 4&fryfsara KaTaXeretLv; Ps. Plutarch has 'H. -y a'crL4f
X-aXfTra Kai a)uep'z et'Oa&yet. Diels, ad loc., suggests that PXdXftora Kac al/Lp
added here by mistake, transferred from the next section devoted to Xenocrates
and Diodorus Cronus; but this is specious rather than probable. The doctrine
there attributed to Xenocrates is probably false, and a somewhat similar case
occurs in 1, 14, 3 and 4, where (even if, with Diels, we interchange the names
' Leucippus' and 'Anaxagoras') the assimilation of the O'soLopoepiI to the &roA
both being pronounce(d roXvoX'4pova, is evident and misleading, to say the lea
To Leucippus, differences of oXX,ua were ultimate; to Anaxagoras, they must
have been almost unmeaning. Other cases occur, which I forbear to mention.

For the 4&frqyfara rp6 roO evos (an 67rotos vXr7 ?), see p. I3, n. 4.
2 Phizlosoph. A, I5 (Diels, Dox. 566), EKqbavr6s rts 2;vpaKO6OLOS e/o4 ,)-A
acXrqtPv'iv mXV 6vmcov XaJe3v -yv(iotv, opi?etv U c's voIp1etv. mai pIAv rp&ra d&ta
eivaL ottf1aaa Kat 7rapaXXwayas av6mcv rpeFs v'rdpXetv, I.4tye0os oXu/,a 5dvaf.Lv,
mra aiOrmai -ylve-Oat. 'Pvat i m6 T rX\tos avOmdv C ptot0/tVOP KaL TOlimO 6tmretpov (p
ably, with Duncker, we should read diptfuLvcv&Jv Katam TOmro, d7retpov). KLVfrLOOat U
Ta att6IaTa Il'iTe i'r6 3dpovS IL,Te 7rX-oy's, a\'X v'ro' Oteas oUPaveWS, Pv PoOP Kai

This content downloaded from 132.187.253.29 on Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:55:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Vol. xll The avapuot O"y/coL of Herac/ides and Asciepiades I7

third century. His statement is in part unintelligible, because

of corruptions in the text, but we can make out the main
points. Ecphantus of Syracuse said that the elements were
indivisible corpuscles, and differed among themselves in three
respects, in size, in shape, and in quality. Then follows an
unintelligible sentence, which has been plausibly emended to
read: 'though determinate in this respect, their number is
infinite.' The account continues: The corpuscles are moved
neither by gravity nor by impact, but by divine power, which
he calls reason or soul. The cosmos is the express image
(13e'a) of this, wherefore also it was made spherical by the
divine power. The earth as the center of the cosmos turns
from west to east about its own axis.
If now, as I suggested above, we combine this statement
with what we have learned about Heraclides, we obtain a
view similar in its main outlines to that of Asclepiades. The
corpuscles are qualitatively determined, and they are now
characterized as atomic, now as divisible. The doctrine of
Heraclides differs radically from that of Asclepiades in one
important particular; the former, as a true disciple of Plato,'
recognizes the hand of God in the operations of nature,
whereas the latter insists on a purely naturalistic and mechan-
ical interpretation. But even in his doctrine touching the
nature of God, Heraclides was subjected to a process of
assimilation to the views of the Atomists.2

4'vx'r rrpooa'yope6et. ro6-rov IAYv oi5 rbP K60/.OV edvpaL i6av, 3 6 Kai oroatpoet86
irb OIcas 8vldV4[ews ye'yovivat. Tr'P U 'y?)P /.4oP K6070U KLVEcTcOa irep rTo abris
K&rTpOp US rpos acpaToX\p. Cp. Aetius, III, 12, 3 (Diels, Dox. 378). This con-
stitutes the sum of our record regarding Ecphantus excepting the report of his
atomic monads to be considered later. In the passage quoted above note that
the ad?aipeTa ocwLcara .possess &ipal.Uts or quality. This use of 3tva,.ts is probably
derived from medicine (cp. Hippocrates, above, p. 8, n. 2), where properties appear
definitely as functional. That the -d64gara are said to differ in size and shape,
need not detain us; the statement is doubtless true, but (as in the case of
Anaxagoras, see preceding note) lacks significance, except as an indication of the
assimilation of corpuscular doctrines to Atomism, where these distinctions were
fundamental because they served to explain the resultant differences in quality.
1 Zeller, op. cit. J, 495, called attention to the fact that this doctrine was a
reminiscence of the Platonic.
2 Cicero, AN. D. i, 13, 34, Ex eadem Platonis schola Ponticus Heraclides puerili-
bus fabulis refersit libros et modo mundum, tum mentein divinam (sc. deum) esse

This content downloaded from 132.187.253.29 on Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:55:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 I8 W. A. Heidel [1909

If we accept the identification of Ecphantus and Heracli-

des, we are enabled to explain another striking point in the
doxographic tradition regarding the former. Attention was
above directed to the second table of philosophers given by
Sextus and its congeners, and it was noted that the omission
of the distinction between the two groups, containing the
thinkers who posited respectively corporeal and incorporeal
elements, combined with the addition of Strato's corporeal
'qualities ' at the end of the list, might have led naturally to
the supposition that the elements of the Pythagoreans and
the 'mathematicians' likewise were corporeal. Here, then,
was the natural place to class Ecphantus, known to be inti-
mately associated with Heraclides, and hence assumed to be
an Atomist.1 As a Pythagorean, he was peculiarly fitted for
his function. Hence, we are prepared to read in Stobaeus: 2
' Ecphantus of Syracuse, one of the Pythagoreans, said that
the elements of all things were atomic corpuscles and the
void; for he first 3 represented the Pythagorean monads as
corporeal.'
putat, errantibus etiam stellis divinitatem tribuit sensuque deuim privat el eius
for;camn miulabilem esse vull eodemque in libro rursus terram et caelum refert in
deos. Krische, Forschungen, p. 335 ff., regarded the words in italics as a mere
inference of the Epicurean quoted by Cicero, and Zeller, op. cit. 1I, a1034, 4,
agrees with him. Diels, Dox., 124, says 'nescio qua vel oblivione vel levitate
ipsum Heraclidemn Ponticum talia prodentem fecit.' It seems more probable to
me that the words, which fit ill into the sentence, are a gloss added by a later
hand, when the assimilation of all corpuscular theories to the Epicurean was in
vogue, than that the confusion existed in the days of Cicero.

1 Mention was make above (p. i6, n. i) of the ariepi Kai 1Xa'XLTra attributed
to Xenocrates, he being classed with Diodorus Cronus. Zeller, II, aIoI8, n. I,
discusses this point. It seems to me a clear case of confusion, closely parallel to
that of Ecphantus, and adds another argument in favor of the identification of
Ecphantus and Hferaclides.
2 Aeius, 1, 3, I9 (Diels, Dox. 286) 'EKaroPTos E2paKocTLoS els TrYv lvOla-yopehoy
irvrrYv 1-r ai&tapera aowc/ara Kai T6 KEP6v. Trs yip HuVOayOpOK&s uovcdas oTros
ipLBTOS aire6b7?viaTo O-waTucKus.
3 Mention was made above (p. 6, n. I) of the interest in ebp5cuaTa in Alexan-
drine times. Heraclidos himself appears to have been a leader in this department.
Who it was wvho discovered this ' discovery' of Ecphantus we do not know; but
we do know that there were many untenable hypotheses put forward. The cases
of Hicetas and Ecphantus probably belong to this class and their ' discoveries'
were published at a time when real criticism was at an end. That Cicero quotes
Theophrastus for Hicetas is probably due to the confusion noted above, p. 6, n. 2

This content downloaded from 132.187.253.29 on Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:55:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Vol. xl] The acvap,ot 6',ycot of Heraclides and Asclepiades I9

We have seen that in the strange farrago, presented by

Caelius Aurelianus as a statement of the philosophical opin-
ions of Asclepiades, nothing remained of the true account to
be culled from Galen and Sextus but the fact that the cor-
puscles, though called atoms, were held to be subject to
breaking into infinitesimal fragments. This may have been
due to such names as Opav6oaaa used to characterize them in
the doxographic literature, but it may have been nothing
more than a recognition of the meaning of the distinctive
name, avap,ot Ot'Kot, which Heraclides and Asclepiades gave
to their corpuscles. The adjective avap,Ao9 has received a
surprising variety of interpretations; 1 but no one, so far as I
am aware, has been able to do more than guess at its mean-
ing. Those who have discussed the subject have apparently
assumed that the word occurs only in connection with b'yKot;
but in this they are mistaken, probably misled by the lexica.2
The word does occur elsewhere, and in connections which
enable us to determine its meaning with certainty.
In Philostratus, lepi rvPAvao-rTK_v,, 29, we read,3 ' The off-
spring of parents of advanced years are to be detected as
follows: their skin is tender; the [flesh about the] collar-
bones is sunken; the veins protrude, like those of men who
have endured hardships; the hip is 'a'vap,Aov; and the muscles
weak.' Ib. 48 :4 'A variety of signs will serve to detect

1 It is not necessary to catalogue them here, since nobody has presented any
arguments but those which were suggested by the systems of Heraclides and
Asclepiades. Some were of course correct, but they were mere guesses.
2 Except Herwerden, to whom I owe the references. He says, Lexicon Graec.
Suppi.. "&cvcLp,uos: Philostrat. De Gymn. XXIX, 5 et XLVIII, 13 Volckmar ra6u'
vrap/tou, coxendicem laxam, tribuit viris provectioribus aut rei venereae indul-
gentibus. "
3 P. 156, i f., ed. Jiuthner: i de iK 7rpO1qK6VTVco (sc. o7ropa) ME iXeYKTga
Xe7rTv6 /t&v To7Tots TO6 3pia, KUaOdSet1 U at KXE&IES, b7raveOT7KVZaL U& al qXIjeT
Ka9aI7rep TOZS re7OVqK6ot, Kat o0XOP T0o67OLS dvap/oP Kat Tra gV6511 ciOeviP.
4 P. 174, 28 f., ed. Jiuthner: Tois 8' 9t &Opo&Otw(v PKOVTaS yVgPatoggPoVS /eP
irXelw 9tyTef * T'7_v L'O.X6P TE 'YCp brO8f8'&K6T1ES Kai 0TEVOi T6 7rpvega KaL T&S op/&1S
&TOXgOL Kai acra'9oO^T1es T6V 7r6OVwV Kat T7r TOaOTa &XIOKeO0a d aPoUPTas U KXe1s
Te &v d7ro&t1arTO KOIXfl Kar I0.XIOv dp/aOv Kat 7rXep& vl7roXapa"TToVOa Kat iPvXp6-
Trjs acaTos. Jiithner rightly directs attention to the similarity of the two pas-
sages. It is evident that they aim to represent a frame loosely put together and
broken in strength. A good firm hip is a prime requisite for an athlete. In

This content downloaded from 132.187.253.29 on Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:55:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 20 W A. Heidel [I909

those who come to gymnastic training from sexual debauch.

Their strength is toned down; they are short of breath; they
lack spirit in undertakings; they are pale after strenuous
exercise, and may be discovered accordingly. When they
strip, the hollow collar-bone,' the dvapu4ov hip, the plainly
marked ribs, and the chill 2 of the blood, would betray them.'
It is at once clear that the avapu^ov toax'ov is adduced as a
mark and proof of weakness,3 and a great number of related
passages, dating from Hippocrates to Oribasius, establishes

c. 34 the requirements for a boxer are set forth: etpeLr UT av'7T6V Kat'o f
6vzra-yes (well-knit, the opposite of dvap/Aov!)- rl -yap rpo/3oX?'r T6Wv xetpCv a7
Kpefdavvvat r[6 o]o[Aa, ei] gir7rl /3eg3atov uxoZro roO LoXiov. Jiithner re
dvap/Aov loXiov "1 ungefiuge Hiifte."
1 Such persons are often described as emaciate, more especially about the eyes
(Arist. de General. Antimal. 747a 13-17; Galen, VI, 443 K.; Oribasius, V, 587,
B. and D.); cp. [Arist.] Physiogn. 8o8a 12; [Arist.] Probl. 876a 36; 876b 5;
879b 8-II, 30; 880b 8) and the hips ([Arist.] Probl. 876a 36 ff. and 879b 8-
II, 30).

2 Cp. Galen, VI, 401 ff. (ituXpo's), and Arist. de General.

(q1uXp6v). This marks them as OXvUKoI- effeminate; for wo
than men.
3 Strength resides chiefly in the dpOpa and in the veupa, which are intimately
associated. Arist. de General. Animal. 787b I0 OT7L iAtv oiv z&ow 7 1oX S ev
7o0S vePpoLS, &6o KaL ra adKAadovTa IOXueVL /iLaXOV. dvapOpa -yAp 7& vPea /iAaXXOV KaL
dvevpa. [Arist.] Probl. 862a 30 - Utva/AS 'AtCPv ev TOTS dpOpoLS &Tiv. Arist.
Hist. Animal. 538b 7 aveup6repov KaL avapOp6repov r6 O Xu vAaXXov. Contrast
Physiogn. 8o9b 8 if., and ib. 29 ff. As women are YOVtJKpoTOL (ib. 8o9b 8), So
also the KlvaL&t (ib. 8o8a 13, 8IOa 34). Contrast ib. 81Oa 15 if. Ib. 8Iob 36
60aLS oe o'L CiLOL d-Oevels, dvapOpoL, AtaXaKol TaS V'uXaS. It is thus clear tha
Aos = dvapOpos and, like dveupos, denotes weakness. We might render it '
shot.' Its meaning is made more definite by such words as Xtetv, hKX66ev. [Arist.]
Probl. 879a 4 o0 df0po6ot3LLovreS 9KX6OvcatL Kat aoOevetOrepoL -ylvovraL. This is the
opposite of vrTreiveLv; cp. ib. 873a 30-36, and 953b 4 ff. (of wine). Relaxation
succeeds tension (cp. ib. 879a 11 ff.). So, too, of other emotions ; thus Eurip.
Herc. Fur. 1395 dp6pa -yap 7re7r-q-ye ,uou, and Hfippol. I99 XeXvJ/aUL AteXMOPv aI
apply to different phases of the same experience. So epcws (like sleep, death, fear,
wine, sickness) is XuOtAEeXiS; contrariwise Hippocrates, H. 76.rv e9vT6s 7ra6(LJv, 13
(VII, 200 L.) Kalt d7r6 Xa-yvel-qs -r6&e oiiv 7rdaoXe 086&v q 6te-q 4irl7r7eL av!7WT ... Kal
es Ta &ppa r)V KeX4)v, cIoe eV'OTE OV 86varat {uyKd/t7rTetv. Cp. also dvapOpot,
Littre, Hippocrates, ii, 90, and 807pOpcOAuevouS Kat 9VO6voUv, ib. II, 92, an(d ix, i6,
etc.; and Galen, VI, 443 K., and Oribasius, V, 587, B. and D. In Plato, Phaedr.
253 E the lascivious stud is e1K- peoprnt'vos. Psalm 22, 14 'I am poured
out like water, and all my bones are out of joint.' In Latin, compare the uses of
ftuere, laxus (metaphorical and late), dissolutus, enervis, enervus, enervatus,
elumbis, and fractus.

This content downloaded from 132.187.253.29 on Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:55:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Vol. xl] The c'vap"^ot icot of Heraclides and Asciepiades 2I

beyond the possibility of doubt that avapp,oq is the equivalent

of a'vap9pos, and means 'hip-shot,' 'loosely knit,' 'frail.'1
Hence we may conclude that the epithet Opavo-o4 as applied
to the 0'ryicot, is only an interpretation of the less familiar
avapp,ot.
1 The molecules which compose the soul are called admodum delicatae by
Chalcidius in Plat. Tim., c. 215, Wrobel. There is a bare possibility that in a
secondary application dvap/Aos meant ' not-fitting,' either (i) in the sense that the
molecules did not combine into solid masses (excluding a void), or (2) in the
sense that the molecules did not fit the pores. As to (i), Diels holds that Strato
and Heraclides were nearly agreed in their physical principles; hence it is of
interest to note the following words of Strato (p. 6, 23 ff. Diels), ra U& rol depos
Oa#aTa ivvepet8et iAtv 7rp6s &7XX)Xa oa, KaTa 7rav U& Aepos gapiA6{eL, dX exet
7tvtao-7-4Aa a Aerati KEva. As to (2), Atius, iv, 9, 6 (Diels, Dox., 397), classes
Heraclides among those who held the doctrine of the symmetry of pores. On the
other hand, it is contended that Asclepiades discarded this doctrine, at least in
the explanation of the phenomena of magnetism. See Fritzsche, " Der Magnet
und die Athmung in antiken Theorien," Rh. M., LVII (1902), 363-391.

This content downloaded from 132.187.253.29 on Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:55:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms