In Attic Nights (= NA) 20.4, Aulus Gellius reports how his Athenian teacher, the Platonist L. Calvenus Taurus (fl. c. a.d. 145), advised one of his pupils to temper his devotion to stage actors and to turn his attention to the study of philosophy. Wishing to divert his (rich) student from associating with theatre people (hominum scaenicorum), Taurus assigned the daily reading of a specific chapter from Aristotle's Προβλήματα Ἐγκύκλια (= fr. 209 Rose). He sent his student an extract from the book, which Gellius quotes (in Greek): ‘Why are Dionysian artists mostly worthless people?’Footnote ¹ —the problem is still extant in the Aristotelian collection of Problemata physica that came down to us (Pr. 30.10.956b11–15). The explanation Aristotle suggested (in Gellius’ version) is that ‘these men are least familiar with reason and philosophy (λόγου καὶ φιλοσοφίας),Footnote ² since they devote most of their life to the necessary arts (ἀναγκαίας τέχνας), and because they are in an intemperate state (ἐν ἀκρασίαις) most of the time, sometimes even in difficulties (ἐν ἀπορίαις),Footnote ³ both of which conditions cause meanness (φαυλότητος)’.

Taurus’ message is clear: the excerpt is surely meant as a witty pedagogical slap for the (morally) astray student, but at the same time it is a not-to-be-misunderstood protreptic towards the serious study of philosophy (notably Pr. 30.10.956b12 simply has σοφίας instead of Gellius’ φιλοσοφίας). It is uncertain what were the precise nature and the content of the Προβλήματα Ἐγκύκλια that Gellius attributes to Aristotle in this passage, but since the problem at hand can be traced in the extant Aristotelian collection, and since Gellius elsewhere does quote Aristotle's Problemata physica (with this precise title),Footnote ⁴ there is much reason to assume that there must have been at least some connection to the collection that came down to us. This does not necessarily imply, however, that both collections were identical.

The goal of this contribution is to reconstruct the potential relation between both collections and to shed light on what may have been the exact nature and content of the Προβλήματα Ἐγκύκλια attributed to Aristotle. In so doing, I will try to place this title in the broader tradition of Aristotle's collections of problems and will also reflect on its concrete use as a school text.

The textual history of the Aristotelian Problemata physica is notoriously complex.Footnote ⁵ It is accepted that Aristotle initiated the work by authoring an unknown number of chapters in it, but most of the content should be ascribed to his acolytes in the Lyceum. It was only after the formal edition of Aristotle's works by Andronicus of Rhodes in the first century b.c. that the genre of natural problems revived and gained in popularity also beyond the confines of the Lyceum, attracting numerous and various readers, both Greeks and Romans.Footnote ⁶ Scholars agree that Gellius relied on Andronicus’ edition, which is no longer extant but was probably much more voluminous, in seventy books (the ancient evidence for this seventy-book version of a Problemata is provided by Vita Marciana 427.8 R³, index Hesychii #168 and Elias’ commentary on Aristotle's Categoriae 114.12–13).Footnote ⁷ This edition was different not only from Aristotle's original collection of Problemata,Footnote ⁸ but also from the collection that came down to us (in thirty-eight books).Footnote ⁹

Interestingly, the lists of Aristotle's writings mention, among several other collections of προβλήματα (such as the two books of Ἐπιτεθεάμενα Προβλήματα and Προβλήματα ἐκ τῶν Δημοκρίτου), a set of Ἐγκύκλια, either in two books (according to Diog. Laert. 5.26 #122 and the index Hesychii #113) or in four (according to Ptolemy al-Gharîb #67).Footnote ¹⁰ One may wonder if this set of Ἐγκύκλια was perhaps incorporated as a subsection in Andronicus’ edition, so that Gellius chose not to quote the title of the entire collection but of the specific subsection in which he found the problem at hand.Footnote ¹¹ It is not unlikely, in any case, (though this remains speculative) that Gellius preferred to substitute φυσικά with ἐγκύκλια, acknowledging that the problem about stage actors does not exactly fall under the category of natural philosophy (did he perhaps assume that his readers were not as familiar with this work?).

The lists of Aristotle's writings also mention a φυσικῶν [sc. προβλημάτων] κατὰ στοιχεῖον λη (Diog. Laert. 5.26 #120; index Hesychii #110). This entry is probably related to the collection of Problemata we have (in thirty-eight = λη books). Perhaps the title implies ‘natural problems until/down to letter λη’,Footnote ¹² and not just ‘natural problems according to letter, in λη books’ (or the like).Footnote ¹³ In any case, scholars agree that this section (in thirty-eight books) was also incorporated in the more voluminous edition (in seventy books) of Andronicus, so that it is not impossible that the Προβλήματα Ἐγκύκλια were originally included in that section, that is in the (presumably) first thirty-eight books (after which the larger collection in seventy books was, then, named).Footnote ¹⁴ Scholars have long recognized that Problemata 27–30 clearly stand out from the rest of the Problemata physica by their interest in ‘the canonical moral and intellectual virtues (and their contraries)’.Footnote ¹⁵ This subsection can perhaps be identified with the four books of Προβλήματα Ἐγκύκλια in Ptolemy's list, as is suggested by the presence of Gellius’ problem about stage actors (Pr. 30.10). In that case, the title of this subsection must have changed or have been deleted afterwards (as is not uncommon in the text's history).Footnote ¹⁶

As to the nature of the Προβλήματα Ἐγκύκλια, Menn has recently suggested that they are ‘popular, i.e. non-technical, problems’.Footnote ¹⁷ Surely, Pr. 27–30 deal with matters pertaining to ethical rather than natural philosophy (Pr. 27: courage; 28: moderation; 29: justice; 30: intellectual virtues), yet many of their chapters involve physical causes (for instance, explaining fear and courage in terms of bodily processes), so that they are not necessarily less technical than an average natural problem.Footnote ¹⁸ Notably, in ΝΑ 19.4, Gellius quotes a passage about ethical philosophy as deriving from the Problemata physica (with this precise title),Footnote ¹⁹ presumably because its content also relates to human physiology: ‘How does it come that when fear (timor) of a great disaster suddenly seizes people, they suffer at once from looseness of the bowels?’ (this chapter is paralleled in Pr. 27.10). A second physiological question is added: ‘Why does it happen that a person desires to urinate when he has stood near the fire for some time?’ (paralleled in Pr. 7.3). So even if the problem about stage actors in ΝΑ 20.4 may seem to be less technical (to us) than an average natural problem (disregarding its connection with the arts),Footnote ²⁰ another meaning is perhaps preferable for ἐγκύκλια.

Interestingly, in his commentary on Aristotle's Eth. Nic. 10.30–2, Aspasius writes: ‘Among them [i.e. the Peripatetics], “round-about” problems are miscellaneous ones (ἔστι δὲ αὐτοῖς προβλήματα ἐγκύκλια παντοδαπά)’, which clearly highlights the various nature of these problems and does not (at least explicitly) say anything about their level of technicality. Scholars agree that the ἐγκύκλια that are mentioned in the passage Aspasius is commenting on (that is, Arist. Eth. Nic. 1.5.1096a3; cf. also Cael. 1.9.279a30) are probably Aristotle's lost dialogues and are, therefore, different from the Ἐγκύκλια mentioned in the lists of the Stagirite's writings (and to which Aspasius is probably referring).Footnote ²¹ Aspasius adds: ‘They were also called “round-about”, because they sat in a circle (ἐγκυκλίως) and tried their hand at the proposed problem, or else because they listened to the lectures standing in a circle (ἐν κύκλῳ).’Footnote ²² This etymology (contested though it may be: see n. 22) is more concerned with the (practical) use than with the (theoretical) content of the collection. Nevertheless, it nicely illustrates the educational value of the genre of problems in philosophical school contexts in Aspasius’ time (the second century).Footnote ²³ And perhaps that is also what the collection of Προβλήματα Ἐγκύκλια originally was: a text ‘in circulation’ in Aristotle's Lyceum (that is not necessarily a ‘popular’ text, neither a ‘non-technical’ one).Footnote ²⁴

Although Gellius did not necessarily have this etymology in mind on referencing Aristotle's Προβλήματα Ἐγκύκλια, the passage from NA 20.4 does clearly indicate that the collection of Problemata he used was particularly useful in an educational context. Other passages from the Attic Nights can confirm this. For instance, in NA 19.6 (= fr. 243 Rose), we find Gellius reading and discussing a chapter from the Problemata with his teacher Taurus (‘Why do men who are ashamed blush, whereas those who are afraid turn pale, although the emotions are similar?’).Footnote ²⁵ In NA 19.5 (= fr. 214 Rose), to give another example, an anonymous Peripatetic philosopher dissuades Gellius and his fellow students from drinking water made of melted snow. In order to make his point, the Peripatetic brings a book of Aristotle where the explanation is found (most likely a collection of Problemata).

What these passages demonstrate is that the Aristotelian Problemata physica—probably including the Προβλήματα Ἐγκύκλια, as I have tried to show—were often read and discussed in group, and that excerpts of specific chapters were distributed among fellow group-members for contemplation. As such we are dealing with a versatile text, particularly useful in a community context. Further systematic research on the reception of the Aristotelian Problemata by Gellius and by other authors from the second century (that is ‘l’aurea aetas dei Problemi’)Footnote ²⁶ seems worthwhile, as it can yield a fascinating kaleidoscopic perspective on how this often underestimated text circulated in various socio-intellectual milieus in Greco-Roman times.