Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rdgjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T12:16:42.994Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE ARISTOTELIAN CORPUS AND THE RHODIAN TRADITION: NEW LIGHT FROM POSIDONIUS ON THE TRANSMISSION OF ARISTOTLE'S WORKS*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 November 2013

Irene Pajón Leyra
Irene Pajón Leyra*
Affiliation:
Oxford University – FECYT (Madrid) – ILC, CCHS, CSIC (Madrid)
*
irene.pajon.leyra@csic.es
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The ancient sources tell a particular story about the destiny of the works of Aristotle and Theophrastus after Theophrastus' death. According to information provided mainly by Strabo and Plutarch, the texts produced by the Peripatetic school were lost and unavailable during a period of more than two hundred years, from the time of Neleus, the heir of Theophrastus' library, until Sulla's victory in Athens, in 86 b.c., at the end of his campaign against Mithridates. That was the point at which the private library of a famous bibliophile was confiscated: Apellicon of Teos, who at some time at the beginning of the first century b.c. had acquired the autograph papyri that contained the only copies of Aristotle's and his disciple's works. Sulla, so these sources maintain, recovered then for later generations the so-called ‘esoteric writings’ of Aristotle, and this prepared the ground for the general diffusion of Aristotelian thought, and for the work of Andronicus of Rhodes, whose name has gone down in history as the author of the editio princeps of the Aristotelian Corpus.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 63 , Issue 2 , December 2013 , pp. 723 - 733
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2013 

The ancient sources tell a particular story about the destiny of the works of Aristotle and Theophrastus after Theophrastus' death. According to information provided mainly by Strabo and Plutarch,Footnote 1 the texts produced by the Peripatetic school were lost and unavailable during a period of more than two hundred years, from the time of Neleus,Footnote 2 the heir of Theophrastus' library, until Sulla's victory in Athens, in 86 b.c., at the end of his campaign against Mithridates. That was the point at which the private library of a famous bibliophile was confiscated: Apellicon of Teos,Footnote 3 who at some time at the beginning of the first century b.c. had acquired the autograph papyri that contained the only copies of Aristotle's and his disciple's works. Sulla, so these sources maintain, recovered then for later generations the so-called ‘esoteric writings’ of Aristotle, and this prepared the ground for the general diffusion of Aristotelian thought, and for the work of Andronicus of Rhodes, whose name has gone down in history as the author of the editio princeps of the Aristotelian Corpus.

However, this notion of the complete disappearance of the works of Aristotle and Theophrastus was criticized at an early stage,Footnote 4 and although it is true that knowledge about Aristotelian thought and science progressively weakened among subsequent generations and that there was later a ‘Renaissance’ of Peripatetic studies in the first century b.c.,Footnote 5 Strabo's and Plutarch's tales of the total loss of the Corpus during the more than two hundred years between Neleus and Sulla seem hard to accept.

There are clear pieces of evidenceFootnote 6 that point, if not to a broad circulation of the Corpus' treatises, at least to the existence of copies of several Aristotelian works, preserved in the various culture centres of the Hellenistic period associated with the Peripatos. Though it is most unlikely that the works of Aristotle and Theophrastus were at that time widely known and available, the idea that they were preserved in single copies can hardly be sustained, so that the problem now is not to determine if there was a total loss of the Corpus, but when and where the different treatises were known, and what their relation is to the version of the Corpus that we know today.

In this context, the preserved fragments of the works of the Stoic philosopher Posidonius of Apamea might offer useful information. The aim of this paper is, then, to examine how they demonstrate that the author had access to some Aristotelian treatises during the time when they were supposed to be lost, and how Posidonius' reading of Aristotle can shed light on the tradition of Peripatetic studies developed in Rhodes, and on its role in developing the final version of the Aristotelian Corpus as we know it today.

POSIDONIUS AS A READER OF ARISTOTLE

Since the nineteenth century scholars have appreciated the closeness between Aristotle's and Posidonius' thought in many aspects. Ancient sources explicitly attribute to Posidonius the direct use of at least the treatises On the soul,Footnote 7On the sky and On coming to be and passing away, and also of a work of Theophrastus entitled On the genesis of the elements.Footnote 8 To this we have to add the clear evidence in the fragments for Posidonius' contact with and thorough use of the Aristotelian Meteorology.

Posidonius most probably lived between the years 135 and 51 b.c.Footnote 9 These dates make it impossible for Posidonius to have known Andronicus' edition, for this has been dated after Cicero's lifetime on the grounds that Cicero never mentions it.Footnote 10 But the possibility remains that Posidonius knew what had happened during the Mithridatic war, the conquest of Athens and the seizing of Apellicon's library.

Thanks to PlutarchFootnote 11 it is known that precisely in the year 86 b.c., when Sulla is supposed to have recovered the lost Aristotelian texts, Posidonius was in Rome as ambassador of Rhodes. That means that he was in an exceptional position to be a direct witness of the facts, and this is corroborated by Athenaeus of Naucratis,Footnote 12 who offers testimony suggesting that Posidonius actually knew of the existence of Apellicon's library, which included the old library of Aristotle.

If Posidonius could have had access to Apellicon's books once they were taken to Rome by Sulla, that raises the further question of when he read the works of Aristotle that he did read. If Posidonius read them after the date of Sulla's victory, then we cannot exclude the possibility that the treatises he used might be only the books that had just been found. But if it can be proved that he read Aristotle before Sulla's conquest of Athens, then Posidonius offers evidence of the availability of the Aristotelian works that is completely independent of the library that was supposedly lost and recovered. To find a precise date for Posidonius' reading of Aristotle appears, then, to be indispensable – if we can.

Besides the explicit allusions to Posidonius' knowledge of the treatises On the soul, On the sky and On coming to be and passing away, the evidence for the use of these texts is slight. The Aristotelian Meteorology, however, is frequently reflected in the fragments of Posidonius' works, especially those that are connected to his activity as a geographer, and particularly to the scientific travel he undertook in the west Mediterranean.Footnote 13

Examples are Posidonius' research on the origin of the stony Plain de la Crau, in southern France,Footnote 14 or his polemic against Artemidorus of Ephesus about the phenomena that attend the sunset in the western part of Europe.Footnote 15 Similar cases abound,Footnote 16 but among them the most significant for our present concern is the text that refers to the explanation given by Aristotle of the phenomenon of tides.Footnote 17 Very strong tides do happen on the Lusitanian coast, which is flat and sandy, and this contradicts directly the philosopher's hypothesis, for he connected the movements of high and low tide to coasts with a rocky and abrupt orography, able to produce straits and narrow places where the water can be squeezed and consequently go up or down. The main interest of this text is that it can hardly be explained except on the assumption that Posidonius had read the Aristotelian treatise before he travelled to the West. The special attention he pays to the nature of the Lusitanian coast in connection with its supposed influence on the tides can best be understood if the author is trying to prove through his own experience the accuracy of his predecessor's theories and that therefore he already knew of these when he visited the south-western area of the Iberian Peninsula.Footnote 18

This desire to check on the ground the information provided by older texts is not limited to the Aristotelian Meteorology, but points to a constant feature of Posidonius' method as a geographer.Footnote 19 Polybius' descriptionFootnote 20 of the particular features of a well in Gadeira is explicitly denied by Posidonius, when he gives his own explanation, based on his direct observation of the phenomenon. It is difficult to imagine that Posidonius would have had such an interest in checking and explaining the strange well if he had not read about it previously. Similarly, Artemidorus' tale about the sunset at the Sacred Promontory seems to have moved him to observe the sunset at the western extremity of the world.Footnote 21 The treatise On the ocean written by Pytheas of Massilia is commonly seen as the inspiration of his analysis of tides, and it is likely that the statements of SeleucusFootnote 22 about the extraordinary strength of the tidal waves near the time of the summer solstice influenced the date he selected for his voyage. As with the rest of the sources used by Posidonius, his reading of the Meteorology most probably preceded his travel, so that to find the date when he visited the West would help to confirm if he had access to the Aristotelian treatise before or after Apellicon's library was found.

Marie Laffranque offers a thorough study of the date of Posidonius' travel.Footnote 23 According to her analysis, the turbulent situation in the Mediterranean due to the Jugurthine War, the barbarian threat to Rome and Massilia, and the second Slave War in Sicily make it difficult to think that Posidonius' ship could have sailed before 105 b.c. After this moment, however, and even more with the end of the internal revolts and external threats in 101 b.c., Mediterranean navigation should have become relatively calm and safe.

On the other hand, Posidonius' political duties began at the end of the nineties of the first century b.c., a period in which wars and revolts again affect Rome and the area under Roman influence.Footnote 24 These make it very unlikely that Posidonius could be away from Rhodes for a long time and cultivate his scientific interests while neglecting his responsibilities in other fields.Footnote 25

Lastly, the sources testify that in the sixties of the first century b.c. Posidonius was in Rhodes, where he was visited several times by Pompey (in the years 67/6 and in 63/2).Footnote 26 The severe arthritis that the geographer suffered at the time of the second visitFootnote 27 make one think that during this period, and maybe even sooner, the consequences of age would have hindered him from making so long and physically demanding a voyage.

Therefore, the period between 101 and 91 b.c. emerges as the most likely date of his travel to the West, and we have seen that Posidonius had at that stage most probably already read the Aristotelian Meteorology. Years before Apellicon's library was found, then, Posidonius seems to have had in Rhodes, where he spent most of his intellectual life, access to at least a copy of the Meteorology, and maybe also the other works of the Aristotelian Corpus that the sources mention as read by him, even though in these cases there is no clear evidence that allows a dating of the reading.Footnote 28

THE ARISTOTELIAN CORPUS IN RHODES AND ITS REFLECTION IN POSIDONIUS' FRAGMENTS

None the less, Athenaeus preserves some information that contradicts the story about the disappearance of the Corpus in Scepsis. In the first chapter of his work (Ath. 1.3), the author states that Ptolemy II Philadelphus bought all the books of Neleus, ‘as well as all that came from Athens and Rhodes, and brought them to his beautiful Alexandria’.

MorauxFootnote 29 points out that it is not possible for both pieces of information, Athenaeus' and Strabo's, to be true, and TaránFootnote 30 adds that it is possible that both are false. In principle this applies only to the books that Theophrastus left to his heir, but perhaps it might be further extended to the idea that the Museum's library included works from the Peripatetic tradition that had developed in Rhodes.

Remarkable discrepancies can be detected, indeed, between the version of the Aristotelian Corpus that Posidonius' fragments testify as preserved in Rhodes and the one that other sources reveal as known in the Museum.

There are important pieces of evidence that allow us to see that some texts of the Corpus, in particular of the subcorpus of natural science, were used and studied in Alexandria during the period of their supposed unavailability.Footnote 31 However, the situation is quite different regarding the subcorpus of physics and cosmology,Footnote 32 whose traces among Alexandrian authors are practically non-existent. The most relevant point to our present concern is the silence about the Meteorology among the authors who pursued their studies in the Museum.Footnote 33

Many Alexandrian authors dealt with topics that also figure in the cosmological works of Aristotle and in particular in the Meteorology. However, this closeness of interest rarely leads to concrete allusions to the text of the treatise, so that only two cases are known of authors connected to the environment of the Museum who echo some of its contents. And in both of these the allusions to the treatise can be explained through intermediate sources, without their necessarily having direct access to and knowledge of the original text.

It is, on the other hand, significant that these two Alexandrian reflections of the Aristotelian Meteorology appear, respectively, in the paradoxographic work of Callimachus and in the geographic fragments of Eratosthenes, two authors who are both distinguished by their close connection to the library of the Museum, and who have to be assumed to be perfectly aware of the book collections preserved there.

The main theme of Callimachus' paradoxographical work is hydrography and its natural phenomena. Thermal sources, particular properties of their water, and the salinity of some lakes or interior seas are the object of his interest, and also figure among the points that Aristotle examines in his meteorological treatise. Nevertheless, despite this similarity of topic, nothing points to a direct use by Callimachus of the Meteorology, whose contents appear just once in his list of curiosities, and these seem to be taken from the historical work of Theopompus of Chios and not directly from the Aristotelian text.Footnote 34

The case of Eratosthenes is more complex. His approach to geography has as background the theories expounded by Aristotle in the treatise we are now discussing, in particular his argument about the spherical nature of the earth and the consequent need to change the way that geographical texts are written. But in his fragments there is just one indication of contents that seem to derive from Aristotle:

Παραμυθούμενος (Ἐρατοσθένης) δ᾽ ἐπὶ πλέον, ὅτι κατὰ ϕύσιν ἐστὶ τὸ ἀπὸ ἀνατολῆς ἐπὶ δύσιν διάστημα μεῖζον λέγειν, κατὰ ϕύσιν ϕησὶν εἶναι ἀπὸ τῆς ἕω πρὸς τὴν ἑσπέραν μακροτέραν εἶναι τὴν οἰκουμένην, καθάπερ εἰρήκαμεν· <ἐπὶ πλάτος μὲν γὰρ ὁρίζεσθαι τὴν οἰκουμένην τῇ τε κατεψυγμένῃ καὶ τῇ διακεκαυμένῃ, ἐπὶ μῆκος δὲ τὴν κάθ᾽ ἡμᾶς εὔκρατον>,Footnote 35 ὡς οἱ μαθηματικοί ϕασι, κύκλον συνάπτειν, συμβάλλουσαν αὐτὴν ἑαυτῇ, ὥστ’ εἰ μὴ τὸ μέγεθος τοῦ Ἀτλαντικοῦ πελάγους ἐκώλυε, κἂν πλεῖν ἡμᾶς ἐκ τῆς Ἰβηρίας εἰς τὴν Ἰνδικὴν διὰ τοῦ αὐτοῦ παραλλήλου, τὸ λοιπὸν μέρος παρὰ τὸ λεχθὲν διάστημα ὑπὲρ τὸ τρίτον μέρος ὂν τοῦ ὅλου κύκλου …Footnote 36

He (Eratosthenes) sustaining even further the thesisFootnote 37 that it is according to nature to say that the distance from east to west is greater, says that it is according to nature that the inhabited world is longer from east to west: the reason for this is, as we have stated, <that the inhabited world is limited in breadth by the ice and the burnt zones, but in length the well-mixed zone we live in>,Footnote 38 as the mathematicians state, joins together in a circle, joining up with itself, so that, if the size of the Atlantic Ocean not had prevented it, we could even sail from Iberia to India along the same parallel, the remainder of the circle, apart from the distance mentioned, being more than a third of the whole …

The allusion to the Meteorology is clear:

ὅ τε γὰρ λόγος δείκνυσιν ὅτι ἐπὶ πλάτος μὲν ὥρισται, τὸ δὲ κύκλῳ συνάπτειν ἐνδέχεται διὰ τὴν κρᾶσιν, οὐ γὰρ ὑπερβάλλει τὰ καύματα καὶ τὸ ψῦχος κατὰ μῆκος, ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ πλάτος, ὥστ’ εἰ μή που κωλύει θαλάττης πλῆθος, ἅπαν εἶναι πορεύσιμον …

For theoretical calculation shows that it (the inhabited world) is limited in breadth but could, as far as climate is concerned, extend round the earth in a continuous belt: for it is not difference of longitude but of latitude that brings great variations of temperature, and if it were not for the ocean which prevents it, the complete circuit could be made …Footnote 39

However, it is necessary to take into account that the geographer does not attribute the quotation to Aristotle,Footnote 40 but to a collective group of ‘mathematicians’ (οἱ μαθηματικοί), that is, to a tradition in which not just one person, but many, held the same opinion about the structure of the earth's surface, divided into climatic belts according to the different latitudes.Footnote 41

The lack of clear references to the Aristotelian subcorpus of physics and cosmology in authors such as Eratosthenes and Callimachus, whose works are lost and can be known only through indirect quotations, cannot be taken as decisive evidence that the Museum's library had no copies of these texts. But to it has to be added the testimony provided by the lists of works of Aristotle.

Three catalogues of works of Aristotle are known: one through Diogenes Laertius,Footnote 42 the second in the biography of Aristotle elaborated by HesychiusFootnote 43 and the third in the Arabic translation of the list given by Ptolemy el-Gharib.Footnote 44 It is clear that the last of these depends on Andronicus' edition,Footnote 45 whereas the others seem to derive from a common origin,Footnote 46 one that most scholars connect with the Museum of Alexandria.Footnote 47 In the context of the problem of the availability and circulation of copies of the Aristotelian treatises on physics and cosmology, it is significant that titles that can be recognized, such as On the sky, On coming to be and passing away and particularly Meteorology, are completely absent from the list, whereas all of these are in some way attested as used by Posidonius, and therefore available in the Rhodian Peripatetic tradition.

The section of the list regarding the field of physics, both in the catalogue of Diogenes and in that of Hesychius,Footnote 48 is limited to just one work Περὶ ϕύσεως in three books,Footnote 49 and another one entitled Φυσικόν, in one book. It is unclear what connection these can have with the eight books of the Φυσικὴ ἀκρόασις in Andronicus' edition.Footnote 50

A similar discrepancy can also be seen concerning the works of Theophrastus, given that the text entitled Περὶ τῶν στοιχείων γενέσεως, known and used by Posidonius according to Simplicius,Footnote 51 is not present in the list of works offered by Diogenes Laertius 5.42 ff. that is generally considered as having the same origin as the list preserved in Aristotle's biography.Footnote 52

Posidonius, then, seems to have had contact with Peripatetic philosophy in an environment where the version of the subcorpus of physics and cosmology was closer to Andronicus' edition than to the version evidenced by the Alexandrian sources.Footnote 53 Lack of information excludes the possibility of comparing the situation in other traditions, like those of Pergamum or Athens, that have not transmitted lists or catalogues of the Aristotelian Corpus. But the data we have already seen may suggest the conclusion that the different Hellenistic culture centres had diverse versions of the Aristotelian Corpus, that these were perhaps linked with the different knowledge fields cultivated by the Peripatos, and that the centres consequently differed in having more or less complete versions of the various subcorpora. Thus the Alexandrian sources suggest a special attention in the Museum to the treatises on natural science, particularly biology. That agrees completely with what can be expected from the influence that Strato of Lampsacus, the enthusiastic researcher of biology and preceptor of Ptolemy II before his reign, could have exerted on the king, and that later would stimulate the development of cultural and scientific activity in the city.Footnote 54

Recent research highlights some signs of the presence in Andronicus' edition of materials that came from non-Alexandrian traditions.Footnote 55 One of these non-Alexandrian origins can be postulated for the current subcorpus of physics and cosmology, whose basis might well be the tradition of Peripatetic studies developed in Rhodes from the time of Eudemus, and that we can partially know thanks to the geographic fragments of Posidonius.

The evidence offered by Posidonius' fragments allows us to appreciate the importance of the Rhodian tradition, at least in the field of physics, for the edition of Andronicus, who also received his education in this city. GrayeffFootnote 56 points to the possibility that Andronicus was a disciple of Posidonius in Rhodes. Lack of information makes it impossible to confirm this hypothesis, but if it were true it could establish a new link between Posidonius' reading of the Aristotelian treatises and the final version of the Aristotelian Corpus.

In this context, perhaps the task of Andronicus as editor princeps of the Corpus was not only to arrange the material into treatises and make them legible, but also to guarantee to the readers that he was offering them a complete collection of the writings of Aristotle, gathering texts from different traditions. The entry in the list of Ptolemy el-Gharib Footnote 57 about the texts coming from the library of Ablicum, clearly the Arabic version of the name Apellicon, seems to suggest that the texts Sulla recovered played only a marginal role in the final result of Andronicus' editorial work, though their inclusion can easily be explained in terms of an aim of Andronicus to guarantee the completeness of his edition.

On very few occasions an author whose works are preserved so precariously can offer so much important information on a problem. The geographic fragments of Posidonius not only help to confirm the availability of works of Aristotle in the period between the third and the first centuries b.c., contrary to the legend about their total loss, but also cast light on some aspects of the cultural history of the Hellenistic period, in which the dramatic lack of information makes every new insight precious.Footnote 58

Footnotes

*

I am deeply thankful to Professor Christopher Pelling, Oxford University, for all the interesting comments, suggestions and corrections that he kindly offered me during the writing of this article, both in content and in style. Professors Javier de Hoz and Tomás Calvo of the Complutense University and Professor António Pedro Mesquita of the University of Lisbon read preliminary versions of this work and made countless very useful comments. I would like to thank them for their kind advice. The content of the article was also discussed at the session of the SIFG (Sociedad Ibérica de Filosofía Griega), in Madrid, on 9th October 2010. I thank the audience for a stimulating discussion. I am also indebted to the anonymous reader who evaluated this work for his suggestions and comments which contributed to make a better paper and to Professor John Wilkins for his final reading. However, responsibility for all mistakes that these pages might contain is exclusively mine.

References

1 Str. 13.1.54, Plut. Sull. 26. See also Porph. Plot. 24.

2 Also Diog. Laert. 5.52.10 presents Neleus as heir of Theophrastus' library. On the grounds for Neleus' retirement to Scepsis, taking the library with him, see von Arnim, H., ‘Neleus von Skepsis’, Hermes 63 (1928), 105Google Scholar, Brink, K.O., ‘Peripatos’, RE Suppl. VII (1958 =1940), 931Google Scholar; on Theophrastus' reasons for leaving his library to Neleus, see Chroust, A.-H., ‘The miraculous disappearance and recovery of the Corpus Aristotelicum’, C&M 23 (1962), 50–1Google Scholar, Gottschalk, H.B., ‘Notes on the wills of the Peripatetic scholarchs’, Hermes 100 (1972), 336–7Google Scholar, Barnes, J., ‘Roman Aristotle’, in id. and Griffin, M. (edd.), Philosophia Togata II. Plato and Aristotle at Rome (Oxford, 1997)Google Scholar, 5. Tanner, R.G., ‘Aristotle's works: the possible origins of the Alexandria collection’, in MacLeod, R. (ed.), The Library of Alexandria. Centre of Learning in the Ancient World (London and New York, 2000), 83Google Scholar understands Neleus' departure as flight from the threat of the Ptolemies to invade Athens, and the removal of the library as an attempt to protect it from looting. On the possibility that Neleus might have had the intention to found his own school, in Scepsis or Assos, see Blum, R., Kallimachos und die Literaturverzeichnung bei den Griechen. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Biobibliographie (Frankfurt am Main, 1977), 127–8Google Scholar.

3 On whom, see Dziatzko, K.F.O., ‘Apellikon, 1’, RE 1.2 (1894), 269–74Google Scholar.

4 On the first critics, in the sixteenth century, see Brink (n. 2), 939. A systematic critique came in the eighteenth century, from the Benedictine Jean Liron. See Primavesi, O., ‘Ein Blick in den Stollen von Scepsis: vier Kapitel zur frühen Überlieferung des Corpus Aristotelicum’, Philologus 151 (2007), 52–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In the nineteenth century scepticism about the story is almost general, e.g. Susemihl, F., Geschichte der griechischen Literatur in der alexandrinischer Zeit (Leipzig, 1892)Google Scholar, 296 ff.; Stahr, A., Aristotelia II, Ueber die verlorenen Briefe des Aristoteles (Halle, 1830), 5–121Google Scholar; Zeller, E., Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung, Zweiter Teil, zweite Abteilung: Aristoteles und die alten Peripatetiker (Hildesheim, 1963 = 19214 = 1878), 138–154, esp. 144Google Scholar; and Shute, R., On the History of the Process by Which the Aristotelian Writings Arrived at their Present Form (Oxford, 1888)Google Scholar, 34 ff. Of the profuse bibliography generated by the question during the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first, the following works deserve a special mention: Moraux, P., Les listes anciennes des ouvrages d'Aristote (Louvain, 1951)Google Scholar; Chroust (n. 2); Düring, I., Aristotle in the Ancient Biographical Tradition (Göteborg, 1957)Google Scholar; Gottschalk, H. B. (n. 2) and ‘Aristotelian philosophy in the Roman world from the time of Cicero to the end of the second century ad’, in Haase, E. (ed.), ANRW II: Principat; Band 36: Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik; 2. Teilband: Philosophie (Berlin, New York, 1987), 1079–174Google Scholar; Blum (n. 2); L. Tarán, review of Moraux, P., Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias. 1. Band: Die Renaissance des Aristotelismus im 1. Jh. V. Chr. (Berlin and New York, 1973)Google Scholar, Gnomon 53 (1981), 721–50; Barnes (n. 2); and Primavesi (n. 4). The general veracity of the story is maintained by Bignone, E., L'Aristotele perduto e la formazione filosofica di Epicuro, Parte prima (Florence, 1936), 466–71Google Scholar, who sees no clear evidence of concrete knowledge of the texts of Aristotle during the third and second centuries. For a survey of criticism of this opinion see Angeli, A., Filodemo. Agli amici di scuola (PHerc 1005) (Naples, 1988), 234–8Google Scholar. See also Tarán (n. 4), 724 and Gottschalk (n. 4), 1080.

5 On this weakening of the Peripatos in the third century b.c. see Chroust (n. 2), 50–62; Barnes (n. 2), 12 ff.; and Mesquita, A. P., Obras completas de Aristóteles. Tomo 1, volume 1: Intruduçâo geral (Lisbon, 2005)Google Scholar, 215 ff. On the ‘Peripatetic Renaissance’, see Moraux, P., Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen. Von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias, I : Die Renaissance des Aristotelismus im 1. Jh. v. Chr. (Berlin, 1973)Google Scholar, xiv ff.; Gottschalk (n. 4), 1083–97; Tanner (n. 2), 84; Barnes (n. 2), 13 ff.; and Grant, E., A History of Natural Philosophy. From the Ancient World to the Nineteenth Century (Cambridge, 2007), 30–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Particularly important is the information provided by Philodemus and Simplicius. See Phld. Cont.: P.Herc. 1005, fr. 111 Angeli; Crönert, W., Kolotes und Menedemos. Texte und Untersuchungen zur Philosophen und Literaturgeschichte (Amsterdam, 1965 = 1874)Google Scholar, 174, on the existence of copies of the Aristotelian Analytics and Physics. See Grayeff, F., Aristotle and his School. An Inquiry into the History of the Peripatos. With a Commentary on Metaphysics Z, H, Λ and Θ (London, 1974)Google Scholar, 70 n. 2. Simpl. In Phys. 923.9 ff., on the letters exchanged between Theophrastus and Eudemus, regarding a mistake of the scribe on the copy of the Physics available in Rhodes. See Zeller (n. 4), 149 n. 2; Sandys, J. E., A History of Classical Scholarship. Vol. 1: from the Sixth Century B. C. to the End of the Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1921)Google Scholar, 85.

7 Ach. Tat., Isag. in Arati Phaen. 13 (41 Maass) = Posidon. F 149 Edelstein–Kidd (cf. De an. 411b6–10). See Edelstein, L., ‘The Philosophical system of Posidonius’, AJPh 57 (1936), 299 n. 53Google Scholar.

8 See Simpl. De caelo 700, 3–8 (In Aristotelis De Caelo 4.3, 310b1): Posidon. T 100, F 93 E.–K. See also Simpl. In Phys. 291.21: Posidon. F 18 E.–K. On the point, Tarán (n. 4), 724 n. 7.

9 The dates of his birth and death have been deduced from the testimonies of Ps.-Lucian, Longaevi 20, 223 (Posidon. FGrH 87 T 4, T 4 E.–K.) and Sud. s.v. Ποσειδώνιος (Posidon. FGrH 87 T 1, T 1 E.–K.). On this point, see Edelstein, L. and Kidd, I. G., Posidonius II. The commentary: (i) Testimonia and Fragmenta 1–49; (ii) Fragments 150–293 (Cambridge and New York, 1988), 4, 8–9Google Scholar.

10 See Brink (n. 2), 938; Düring (n. 4), 421; Moraux (n. 5), 45–9; Gottschalk (n. 4), 1095; Barnes (n. 2), 22–4.

11 Plut. Mar. 45.7: Posidon. FGrH 87 T 7, T 28 E.–K.; see Edelstein and Kidd (n. 9), 22–3. See also Posidon. FGrH 87 F 37, F 255 E.–K.

12 Ath. 5.53 214d–e: Posidon. FGrH 87 F 36, F 253 E.–K. On Posidonius' more than probable direct knowledge of the recovered texts of Apellicon's library see Edelstein and Kidd (n. 9), 85.

13 Testimonies of this travel: Posidon. TT 14–18 E.–K.: Str. 3.5.9, 1.15 – FGrH 87 T 5a – 2.5.14, 3.5.8, 13.1.67.

14 Str. 4.1.7: Posidon. FGrH 87 F 90, F 229 E.–K. Cf. Mete. 368b23 ff. Laffranque, M., Poseidonios d'Apamée. Essai de mise au point (Paris, 1964), 175Google Scholar, on the basis of Dubois, M., Examen de la Géographie de Strabon (1891)Google Scholar, considers it practically beyond doubt that the references to Aristotle in Strabo's work are never due to a direct reading of the philosopher by the geographer, but to intermediary sources, and these include Posidonius. So also Aujac, G., Strabon et la science de son temps (Paris, 1966), 39Google Scholar.

15 Str. 3.1.5: Posidon. FGrH 87 F 45, F 119 E.–K.; cf. Arist. Mete. 342b5 ff. Posidonius does not mention Aristotle's name, but the text follows almost literally the Aristotelian treatise.

16 A brief review can be seen in Edelstein–Kidd (n. 9), 85–6: see for example Str. 2.2.2: Posidon. FGrH 87 F 28, F 49.14 ff. E.–K. (cf. Arist. Mete. 362a32 ff.), Sch. Arat. 881: Posidon. F 121.15 E.–K. (cf. Arist. Mete. 377b15–19), Sch. Arat. 1091: Posidon. F 131a E.–K. (cf. Arist. Mete. 343b), Sen. QNat. 2.54.1–55.3: Posidon. F 135 E.–K. (on the Aristotelian basis of Posidonius' theory about lightning, Edelstein–Kidd [n. 9], 507; cf. Arist. Mete. 369a10 ff.).

17 Str. 3.3.3: Posidon. FGrH 87 F 84, F 220 E.–K.; cf. Arist. Mete. 354a5 ff.

18 The interest in testing the information of earlier writers is not exclusive to Posidonius. See e.g. Hdt. 2.4–5, when the historian is most probably checking Hecataeus' hypothesis on the origin of Egyptian soil in silt (see FGrH 1 F 301: Arr. Anab. 5.6.5). See A. Lloyd's note ad loc. in Asheri, D., Lloyd, A. and Corella, A, A Commentary on Herodotus. Books I–IV, ed. Murray, O., and Moreno, A. (Oxford, 2007), 246Google Scholar.

19 On the sources of the treatise On the ocean, see Laffranque (n. 14), 169 ff., esp. 184, on the interest in empirical checking of information as an essential element in Posidonius' scientific travel, and Laffranque (n. 14), 193 on the value of previous testimony, either oral or written, as the element that drives Posidonius to observe the phenomena in person.

20 Str. 3.5.7–8: Posidon. FGrH 87 F 85, F 217 E.–K., Polyb. 34.9.5. Artemidorus of Ephesus and Silanus are also referred to, even if their explanations are not quoted. See Edelstein and Kidd (n. 9), 768–9, on the importance of personal observation in Posidonius' research on the well, as the element that gives him authority over the theories of his predecessors.

21 See n. 15. Str. 3.1.5.22–4: τὸ δὲ ψεῦδος ἐλέγξαι ϕησί τριάκονθ’ ἡμέρας διατρίψας ἐν Γαδείροις καὶ τηρήσας τὰς δύσεις.

22 Str. 3.5.9: Posidon. FGrH 87 F 86, F 218 E.–K. On Seleucus, see Gossen, H., ‘Seleukos, 38’, RE IIA, 1 (1964 = 1921), 1249–50Google Scholar, and Gundel, W. and Gundel, H.G., Astrologumena: die astrologische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte (Wiesbaden, 1966), 44Google Scholar. The will to check the previously known theories of Seleucus is clear: αὐτὸς δὲ κατὰ τὰς θερινὰς τροπὰς περὶ τὴν πανσέληνόν ϕησιν ἐν τῷ Ἡρακλείῳ γενόμενος τῷ ἐν Γαδείροις πλείους ἡμέρας μὴ δύνασθαι συνεῖναι τὰς ἐνιαυσίους διαϕοράς. Seleucus' theories are a starting point for Posidonius' observations, and therefore he had to have read them before making those observations.

23 Laffranque (n. 14), 65–7.

24 Particularly the war between Sulla and Mithridates (88–84 b.c.), the rebellion of Spartacus (73–71 b.c.), the war of Sertorius (82–72 b.c.) and the struggles between Marius and Sulla (87–82 b.c.).

25 The ancient sources also testify his presence in Rhodes and Rome during this period, something that had not been the case in the former decade. See TT 27–39 E.–K. and the corresponding commentary in Edelstein and Kidd (n. 9), 21–30.

26 Str. 11.1.6: Posidon. FGrH 87 T 8a, T 35 E.–K.; Plin. HN 7.112: FGrH 87 T 8b, T 36 E.–K.; Solin. 1.121: T 37 E.–K.

27 Cic. Tusc. 2.61: Posidon. FGrH 87 T 8b, T 38 E.–K.

28 With regard to the availability of the treatise On coming to be and passing away, the testimony of Ps.-Ocelus Lucanus, a supposed Pythagorean of the fifth century b.c., is particularly valuable. A Late Hellenistic author of a cosmological text seems to have hidden under this identity, and to have paraphrased part of the treatise. On Ps.-Ocellus' date, see Diels, H., Doxographi graeci (Berlin and Leipzig, 1929 2 = 1879), 186–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Nothing is known about the real author, his origin and education, but it is extremely relevant that Harder, R., Ocellus Lucanus. Text und Kommentar (Berlin, 1926), xiii–xivGoogle Scholar, connects with Posidonius or his school the practice, manifested in Ocellus' text, of presenting Pythagoreanism as an antecedent of Aristotle's thought.

29 Moraux (n. 5), 30.

30 Tarán (n. 4), 727.

31 The use of the biological treatises of Aristotle and Theophrastus made, among others, by the Greek paradoxographers of the third and second centuries b.c. allowed Regenbogen, O., ‘Theophrastos von Eresos’, RE Suppl. VII (1940)Google Scholar, 1377 ff., to confirm the availability of some treatises of the Corpus and counter the idea of a total loss during this period.

32 Although Düring (n. 4), 68, considers it unimaginable that the Museum's library lacked copies of these works.

33 A similar silence concerning the Museum affects also the other cosmological works known to Posidonius.

34 Antig. Car. Mirabilia 143, = Callim. F 3 Giannini, Theopomp. FGrH 115 F 272; cf. Arist. Mete. 359a 22. Theopompus is explicitly mentioned as source of the information in Antig. Car. ibid. 141, and there is no indication of a change of source until Antig. Car. ibid. 144. Nevertheless, it cannot be completely excluded that the reference comes from the same ‘Aristotelian’ work mentioned in Antig. Car. ibid. 144, and that has been identified with Theophrastus' treatise Περὶ ὕδατος, present in Diogenes' list of Theophrastean works. Schneider, O., Callimachea II (Leipzig, 1873), 336Google Scholar considers the text as taken directly from Meteorology, comparing it with Pliny 31.82. Theopompus, however, is recurrently mentioned among Pliny's sources for HN Book 31, whereas Aristotle is not mentioned even once in that book.

35 The various editors of Strabo consider that there is a lacuna at this point. Berger, H., Geschichte der wissenschaftlichen Erdkunde der Griechen (Leipzig, 1903)Google Scholar, 82 n. 4, proposes this reconstruction, following Meteorology.

36 Str. 1.4.6: Eratosth. F IIA.6 Berger, F 33 Roller.

37 On this value of παραμυθεῖν, cf. Sext. Emp. Math. 7.66.

38 The English translations of Jones, H. L., The Geography of Strabo, vol. I (Cambridge Massachusetts, 1969, = 1960, = 1919)Google Scholar, and Roller, D. W., Eratosthenes' Geography. Fragments collected and translated, with commentary and additional material (Princeton, Oxford, 2010)Google Scholar don't consider this lacuna. However, the text is seriously corrupted, and Berger's emendation helps to find a coherent general meaning.

39 Arist. Mete. 362b15–19, English translation of Lee, H.D.P., Aristotle: Meteorologica (Cambridge, MA, 1952), 181–3Google Scholar.

40 It is worthwhile to highlight the complete absence of Aristotle from the fragments that Berger, H., Die geographischen Fragmente des Eratosthenes (Amsterdam, 1967 =1880)Google Scholar, 40 ff., classifies as corresponding to Eratosthenes' review of the History of Geography and where are mentioned explicitly names such as Hesiod, Anaximander, Hecateus, Damastes, Euemerus and Pytheas.

41 In this tradition of mathematic geographers Dicaearchus of Messene, disciple of Aristotle and well known by Eratosthenes, could have had great importance. His ‘fundamental parallel’ or διάϕραγμα (known through this name since Berger [n. 35], 418), seems to form the background of the parallel that Eratosthenes proposes to follow along the temperate zone. Geus, K., Eratosthenes von Kyrene. Studien zur hellenistischen Kultur- und Wissenschaftsgeschichte (Munich, 2002)Google Scholar, 271 highlights the importance of Dicaearchus' thought in Eratosthenes' conception of the structure of the earth. See also Roller (n. 38), 149 on the importance of this text as testimony of the construction of a main parallel. On the outline of the fundamental parallel, see Agathem. 5: Dicaearch. F 110 Wehrli. Aristotle, Mete. 362b20–1, mentions the Columns as starting point of his measurement of the earth in the direction west–east, and this has sometimes been understood as an antecedent of the διάϕραγμα. None the less, the philosopher never describes its course, nor does he talk about any division inside the temperate zone.

42 Diog. Laert. 5.22–7. See Düring (n. 4), 67–9.

43 Known also as Vita Menagiana, from the name of its first editor, Gilles Ménage (1663). On the list, see Rose, V., Aristoteles pseudepigraphus (Leipzig, 1863), 18–20Google Scholar, Moraux (n. 4), 195 ff., Düring (n. 4), 90–2.

44 Moraux (n. 4), 289 ff., Düring (n. 4), 221–31, Hein, C., Definition und Einteilung der Philosophie. Europäische Hochschulschriften XX, 177 (Frankfurt am Main, 1985), 421–39Google Scholar.

45 According to Primavesi (n. 4), 61, this dependence is probably not direct, but the author could have known a work of Andronicus himself that dealt with the collection of books of Aristotle.

46 On the differences between them, explained as the result of post-Hellenistic interpolations in Hesychius' list, see Primavesi (n. 4), 59.

47 Moraux (n. 4), 312 ff. is a remarkable exception; he suggests that the list has an Athenian origin, connected with Ariston of Ceos. Düring, I., ‘Ariston or Hermippus? A note on the Catalogue of Aristotle's writings’, C&M 17 (1956), 11–21Google Scholar, id. (n. 4), 67 ff. and now Primavesi (n. 4), 59 argue for an Alexandrian origin. A different picture is presented by Lord, C., ‘On the early history of the Aristotelian corpus’, AJPh 107 (1986)Google Scholar, 145 ff., who considers the catalogue of Diogenes Laertius and Hesychius to be the inventory of the books taken to Scepsis by Neleus. None the less, the arguments that point to the Alexandrian origin of the list abound. Another pointer in this direction may be the clear distinction between the lists of works of Aristotle and Theophrastus in Diogenes' work, as this might reflect the work of the Alexandrian philologists in separating the two authors' corpora, according to Regenbogen (n. 31), 1377 ff. There are no traces of a similar process in other culture centres like Athens or Pergamum.

48 At least in the original version of the list. Meteorology, like the rest of the subcorpus, does appear in the late appendix, that probably corresponds to an attempt to complete the catalogue of Aristotelian works adapting it to Andronicus' edition. See Moraux (n. 4), 252.

49 In Diogenes Laertius' list. Notice that the text Περῖ ϕύσεως in Hesychius' catalogue consists of just one book.

50 The absence of the other works has been generally explained as a result of transmission problems. See Moraux (n. 4), 186–91, Blum (n. 2), 129–30.

51 De Caelo 700, 3–8 (see n. 8).

52 On the Alexandrian origin of Theophrastus' list, see Regenbogen (n. 31), 1366–70 and Blum (n. 2), 124 ff. On the similar oblivion concerning the works of Theophrastus from the third to the first century b.c., see Barnes (n. 2), 4. On Theophrastus' life in Diogenes Laertius' work, see Sollenberger, M.G., Diogenes Laertius' Life of Theophrastus (Rutgers, 1984)Google Scholar.

53 However, it has to be emphasized that the version of the Meteorology that Posidonius seems to know predates Andronicus' edition. Posidonius clearly knows a Meteorology consisting of three books, not four. On the spurious character of Mete. 4 see Hammer-Jensen, I., ‘Das sogenante IV. Buch der Meteorologie des Aristoteles’, Hermes 50 (1915), 113–36Google Scholar; Jaeger, W., Aristoteles (Berlin, 1923)Google Scholar, 412 ff.; Regenbogen (n. 31), 1418; Solmsen, F., Aristotle's System of the Physical World. A Comparision with his Predecessors (Ithaca, NY, 1960)Google Scholar; Gottschalk, H.B., ‘The authorship of Meteor. IV’, CQ 55 (1961), 67–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Baffioni, C., Il IV libro dei «Meteorlogica» di Aristotele (Naples, 1981), 34–44Google Scholar. In the opinion of Barnes (n. 2), 15, a likely indication of Mete. 4 as an independent text can be seen in a fragment of Philochorus (fourth–third c. b.c.; FGrH 328, F 173: Ath. 14.72.12, 656b, cf. Arist. Mete. 380b 21).

54 See Sandys (n. 6), 101 ff., on the importance of the zoological interest of Ptolemy II (Diod. Sic. 3.36.3 ff.) in the early stages of the Museum. Tanner (n. 2), 80–1, building on the argument of Thompson, W.D'Arcy, On Aristotle as a Biologist (Oxford, 1913)Google Scholar (see Guthrie, W.K.C., A History of Greek Philosophy, vol. VI. Aristotle, An Encounter [Cambridge, London and New York, 1981], 29–30Google Scholar), points to the possibility that the germ of the Alexandrian collection of Aristotelian texts on natural science can be found in the books that were used by Aristotle to teach Alexander in his childhood.

55 So Primavesi (n. 4), 58–70 states, on the basis of the preservation of an obsolete, pre-Alexandrian, numbering system in Andronicus' edition: the use of a sequence of letters in alphabetical order. See also Goldstein, J.A., The Letters of Demosthenes (New York and London, 1968), 269Google Scholar. The author interprets it as a sign of the presence of Neleus' texts in Andronicus' edition. However, the old system might equally have been preserved in other places, and not only in the cellar of Scepsis, given that the scant circulation of the Aristotelian treatises during the Hellenistic period seems to be a general phenomenon.

56 Grayeff (n. 6), 77 n. 1.

57 Nº 92 Düring, 97a Hein; Düring (n. 4), 230 and 245–6, understands that the following items (93–9) give the list of works found in Apellicon's library. They would be, then, just ὑπομνήματα, quick drafts or sketches, and personal letters – not important treatises. See also Hein (n. 44), 437–8 on items 98–100 of his edition of the list. On the marginal character of the texts of Apellicon's library in the Corpus, see Moraux (n. 4), 298 and Blum (n. 2), 117.

58 This article has been elaborated in the context of the research project La memoria escrita: estudio integral de las colecciones papirológicas españolas (ref. FFI2012-39567-C02-01/02, Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitivity).