¹ The document of Clearchus (FHG II, 323, frg. 63 Mueller), with a short commentary, may be found in Th. Reinach, Textes d'auteurs grecs et romains relatifs au Judaisme (Paris, 1895), 10 ff. Cf. Flavius Josèphe contre Apion, texte établi et annoté par Th. Reinach (Paris, 1930), 34 f.

² Above all, the excellent commentary of Gutschmid published after his death and containing explanatory notes to c. Ap. I, 1-185, Kleine Schriften (Leipzig, 1893), IV, 578 ff., is to be mentioned, which will remain the basis for every critical treatment of Josephus' treatise against Apion. E. Silberschlag, The earliest record of Jews in Asia Minor, JBL (1933), 66-77, is mainly concerned with refuting older views on the genuineness of the fragment of Clearchus in Josephus, but hardly contributes anything new to its understanding.

³ See notes 13 and 85.

⁴ See note 14.

⁵ Gutschmid illustrates this rule by adducing Isocrates Euagoras 12: ρΠῶτον μὲν οὖν περί τῆς ϕύσεως τῆς Εύαγόρον καί τίνων ἦν ἀπόγονος …δοκεῖμοι πρέπειν…διελθεῖν. Άπαγγεία denotes ‘describing’; cf. Plato, Rep. 394 C; Aristot., poet. 5.1449 b 11. 6. 1449 b 26.

⁶ Coelesyria was the Greek name of the former Persian satrapy ‘Abarnahara,’ which embraced the whole of Syria and Palestine. Cf. Theophrastus hist, plant. II, 6; 2, 5. U. Kahrstedt, Syrische Territorien in hellenistischer Zeit, Abhdlg. Goettingen, N. F. XIX, 2 (1926), 6. 20 f.

⁷ Ίερονσαλήμη, (Laur.), ‘sicher die ächte Lesart Klearchs,'Gutschmid, 1584. This singular form shows that Clearchus was not yet acquainted with the Grecized form Ίεροσόλνμα which, in Greek literature, occurs at first in Hecataeus (Jos. c. Ap. I. 197).

⁸ ἐπιξενούμενος πολλοῖς, literally ‘accepted by many as guest.’ Gutschmid quotes well Demosth. ad Polycl., 56, 1224. Aristot., Polit. VII, 6. 1327 a 13.

⁹ For the following cf. W. Jaeger, Aristotle, 111 ff.

¹⁰ So already Gutschraid, Neue Beitrage zur Geschichte des Alten Orients (Leipzig, 1876), 77, 1. H. Schr., IV, 586.

¹¹ I formerly thought that with the highlands mentioned by Clearchus the hills of Ida extending to the northeast of Assos were meant, but the objections of Professor Nock have induced me to give up this view. I think it worth while to quote his arguments: “The quotation begins with remarks about Palestine which I interpret as meaning that he came down from the hilly country of Judea to the Greek cities of the Phoenician coast line. The reference to his meeting with Aristotle implies that as a travelled man he happened to pay a visit to the coast line of Asia Minor. I do not see why a legend should postulate a Jew at this time regularly resident in the hinterland of Asia Minor. On the other hand, all these legendary Oriental travellers were liable to make extensive journeys.”

¹² Jaeger, in the English edition of his Aristotle, 116, quotes the passage of Clearchus as testimony, “that there had been a time when Aristotle was teaching in Asia Minor together with other Platonists, and that can only have been the time when he was teaching in Assos.”

¹³ θανμασιότητά τινα καί ϕιλοσοϕίαν, can hardly have been explained, as Gutschmid, 579 proposed, as hendiadys like θανμάσιόν τινα ϕιλοσοϕίαν. θανμασιότης stands by itself and denotes the miraculous qualities of the man, as the additional TIS proves, which emphasizes the irrationality of his virtues. In § 182 πολλήν καί θανμάσιον καρτερίαν the adjective θανμάσιος has also maintained its original signification. See note 83.

¹⁴ Gutschmid, 580 f., has made the fine suggestion that the words θαυμαστόν, όνείροις ἵσα σοι δόξω λέγειν are arranged in a rhythmical order and can easily be changed into an iambic trimeter (θαυμαστ’ ὀνείροις σοι δόξω λέγειν ἴσα,) which perhaps is taken from a tragedy or comedy.

¹⁵ Proclus in Platonis rempubl. comment. II, 122, 22 sq. Kroll. On the other fragment of Clearchus preserved by Proclus, II, 113, 22 sq. Kroll, see E. Rohde, Kleine Schriften (Tuebingen, 1901), II, 179 ff.

¹⁶ Proclus, l.c., Οτι δὲ καὶ ἐξιέναι τὴν ψυχὴν καὶ εἰσιέναι δυνατὸν εἰς τὸ σῶμα, δηλοῖ καὶ ὁ παρὰ τῷ Κλεάρχῳ τῇ ψυχονλκῷ ῤάβδῳ χρησάμενος ἐπἰ τοῦ μειρακίου τοῦ καθεύδοντος καὶ πείσας τὸν δαιμόνιον Άριστοτέλη, καθάπερ ὁ Κλέαρχος ὲν τοῖς περὶ ὔπνου ϕησίν, περί τῆς ψνχῆς, ὡς ἄρα χωρίζεται τοῦ σώματος καί ὡς εἸσεισιν εἰς τὸ σῶμα καὶ ὡς χρῆται αὐτῷ οῖον καταγωγίῳ. πῆ γὰρ ῤάβδῳ πλήξας τὸν παῖδα τὴν ψνχὴν ἐξείλκνσεν καὶ οῖον ἂγων δι’ αὐτῆς Πόρρω τοῦ σώματος ἀκίνητον ἐνέδειξε τὸ σῶμα καί ἀβλαβὲς σῳζόμενον ἀναισθητεῖν πρὸς <τὰς πληγὰς τῶν γναπτάν- [restituit Bernays]>- των ὂμοιον ἀψύχῳ ἐκείνην δὲ μεταξς διενεχθεῖσαν πόρρω τοῦ σώματος ἐγγύθεν αύτῆς αγομέης πάλιν <ὑπό> τῆς ῤάβδον μετὰ τήν εῐσοδον άπαγγέλλειν έκαστα. Τοιγαροῦν ἐκ τούτων πιστεῦσαι τούς τε ἂλλους τῆς τοιαύτης θεατὰς καί τὸν Άριστοτέλην χωριστὴν εἶναι τοῦ σώματος τὴν ψνχήν.

¹⁷ The commentary of Proclus is preserved only in one Ms. (a Laurentianus) which has become unreadable in many places. The first deciphering and elucidation of the above passage is due to Bernays, who in the notes to his admirable Zwei Abhandlungen ueber die aristotelische Theorie des Dramas (Berlin, 1880), 90 was the first to point to its importance.

¹⁸ Cf. Plato, Rep. 614 b 7, ἀναβιοὺς δ’ ἕλεγεν ἂ ἐκεῖ ἴδοι. See note 39.

¹⁹ As in the tale preserved by Josephus, so also in the passage quoted by Proclus, Aristotle appears surrounded by many friends: it is they who, on the hypnotist's request (see ἐνέδειξε) persuade themselves by beating (τῶν γναπτόντων, only the final syllable των of the verb can be read with certainty) of the body's insensibility.

²⁰ E. Havet, Memoire sur la date des écrits de Bérose et de Manethon (Paris 1873), 67. Gutschmid, 587.

²¹ Jaeger, 162 f.

²² τὴν ἴδιον ἀπολαβοῦσα ϕύσιν, Aristotle, frg. 10 Rose; Jaeger, 161 f.

²³ The words όνείροις ἲσα (see note 14) recall the famous Homeric verse ψνχὴ δ’ ἠύτε ὄνειρς άποπταμένη πεπότηται. By this allusion too, Aristotle's pupils are prepared to hear of a miracle concerning the soul.

²⁴ Gutschmid, 588, refers to Lev. 19, 26 (Dtn. 18,10), prohibition of sorcery; cf. also Orac. Sib. III, 225. The remarks of later writers about Jewish sorcerers cannot be applied to this period.

²⁵ Re s.v. Kalanos (the passage of Clearchus is missing there).

²⁶ Cf. H. Lewy in ZNTW 31 (1932), 125 f.

²⁷ Diog. Laert. I, prol. 9, Κλέαρχος δὲ ό Σολεὺς έν τῷ περὶ παιδειας καὶ τοὺς γυμνοσοϕιστὰς ἀπογόνους εἰναι τῶν μάγων ϕησίν.

²⁸ Re s.v. Mageia (Hopfner) and Magoi (Clemen). It may suffice to refer to Theopompus 115 F 64 Jac.

²⁹ Gutschmid, 587, rightly remarks that the striking reticence of Josephus in quoting Clearchus arouses suspicion. Later on, Josephus cites, at full length, Hecataeus’ story of the archer Mosolammus, in which, just as in the tale of Clearchus, the intellectual superiority of a Jew to the Greeks is praised. See my article quoted in note 26.

³⁰ Porphyry, de abst. IV, 11 quotes the work with the title πρὸς τοὺς Έλληνας.

³¹ See note 35.

³² Cf. from this point of view the many examples of wonder-stories collected by Wendland, Antike Geister- und Gespenstergeschichten, Festschrift z. Jahrhundertfeier d. Universitaet Breslau (1911), 33–55. See also Rohde, Kl. Schr. II, 184 f.

³³ Proclus, in the passage quoted note 16, calls him τὸν δαιμόνιον Άριστοτέλη as often; see e.g. in Plat. Tim. comm. I, p. 6, 22 ed. Diehl.

³³ Proclus in his works consistently avoids any mention of Jews or Christians and any biblical quotations. This silence was in his age (the fifth century of our era) the last possible form of opposition to the victorious Church. The same principle was followed by all Neoplatonists of the Athenian school till its close (a. 529 A.D.). Veiled anti-Christian polemic is found in Proclus’ works by Wilamowitz, Die Hymnen des Proklos, etc., Sitzungsber. Berlin (1907), 276 and E. R. Dodds, Proclus, The Elements of Theology (Oxford, 1933), p. xxviii, n. 4. Under the pressure of Christian zealots, Proclus was compelled to leave Athens for one year (Marinus XV).

³⁵ Proclus signified the thaumaturge according to his action as ὸ τῇ ψνχονλκῷ δάβδῳχρησάμενος. The adjective does not seem to have been used before; ψυχουλκέομαι de-notes III Mace. 5, 25 ‘to be dying'; ψυχουλκός was the name of a plant, Hesych. Accordingly, Proclus replaced the original description of Clearchus by a word of his own coining. It recurs in the same work, p. 121, 11 Kroll, in connection with αἷμα (Odysseus’ sacrifice in the underworld, λ 26), and was probably formed on the analogy of the epitheta of Hermes ψυχοπομπός, ψυχαγωγός, χρυσόρραπις who, with his staff, conducted the souls of the dead and brought sleep and dreams; Odyssey ω 2 ff., Virgil, Aen. IV, 242 ff.

³⁶ On the literary form of the Aristotelian dialogue see Jaeger, 27 ff.

³⁷ See note 14.

³⁸ Cf. the ironical reference to the rules of the rhetoricians, note 5.

³⁹ Gutschmid, 580, has already noted some resemblances to the style of Plato's dialogue, but did not realize Clearchus' literary intentions. For οὐ χεῖρον (177) cf. Plato Phaedo 105 a 5f. (a formula of transition familiar also to Aristotle, e.g. Polit. 1316 b 38, Eth. Nicom. 1127 a 14). For the first sentence cf. for instance Plato, Rep. 615 a 4 f., τὰ μὲν οὖν πολλά, ὦ Γλαύκων, πολλοῦ χρόνου διηγἡσασθαι τὸ δ’ οὖν κεϕάλαιον ἒϕη τόδε εἷναι…

⁴⁰ Cf. also note 18.

⁴¹ Hirzel, Der Dialog (Leipzig, 1895), I, 334 f., has collected the majority of the examples adduced in what follows. See Wilamowitz, Platon I, 392, 2.

⁴² Rohde, Psyche⁵ II, 296, 1.

⁴³ This inclination to transcendental speculation links the pupils of the older Plato to the Neoplatonists, to whom we owe the majority of the fragments of this species of literature. Proclus for example, in his commentary on the myth of Plato's Republic, has preserved a series of tales about the resurrection of men taken for dead; among them, two quotations from Clearchus (about the second, see note 15) as proof that the soul could leave the body and return to it again.

⁴⁴ Rohde II, 94, 1. Re s. Herakleides no. 45, 18. Wilamowitz, Glaube der Hellenen, II, 533 ff.

⁴⁵ Rohde, II, 91 and 418.

⁴⁶ Re s. Herakleides no. 45, 28. His tale that the soul of Hermotimos left the body for many years, and after having returned from its ecstatic voyage, brought back with it mantic insight into the future, was famous; Rohde II, 94 f. Similarly, Epimenides’ sleep in the cavern and his ecstasies were taken as proof “that the soul could leave the body as much as it liked, and return to it” Rohde II, 96, 4. Another instance was the ecstasy of the miracle worker Aristeas of Proconnesus; Rohde II, 91 ff. the two latter examples were mentioned by Proclus as parallels to the myth of the Platonic Er.

⁴⁷ In particular, as Heinze, Xenokrates (Leipzig, 1892), ha s proved, by Plato's pupil Xenocrates, who was to become ‘der eigentliche Vater des hellenischen Geisterund Teufelspukes,’ Wilamowitz, Platon I, 719.

⁴⁸ De sera numinis vindicta c. 22 sq. (563 sq.).

⁴⁹ Rohde, Kl. Schriften II, 180, 5, Psyche II, 94, 1.

⁵⁰ Plutarch in his dialogue de facie in orbe lunae c. 26, 2 introduces the hero of his myth as Aristotle did his Jew: ἐγὼ μὲν οὖν ὺποκριτής εἰμι, πρότερον δὲ αὐτοῦ ϕράσω τὸν ποιητὴν αὐτοῦ.

⁵¹ The interestof the Academy was attracted by two doctrines which seemed to verify the fundamental principles of their own philosophy: The Chaldaean dogma of the divine nature of the celestial spheres and the religious dualism of the Persian Magi. Jaeger, Aristotle 131 ff.

⁵² Alexander the Great did not enter Jerusalem on his campaigns (the tale of his meeting with the High Priest of the Holy City is a pious legend). The military and commercial roads of Palestine run along the coast, where the fortified cities Acco, Jaffa and Gaza were situated; Jerusalem was strategically without any importance. It was scarcely entered by Greek troops, which were accompanied by historians, before a. 320. In this year Ptolemy I took the Holy City by assault and deported many Jews to Egypt (Appian Syr. 50. Letter of Aristeas 12; see ZNTW (1932), 121,1). Hecataeus of Abdera, the companion of Ptolemy I on his second campaign in Syria (a. 312), was the first Greek who is known to have been acquainted personally with Palestinian Jews, but even with him it is more than doubtful whether he ever set foot in Jerusalem (ZNTW 1932, 128 ff.). These historical facts explain why in Alexander's age such imperfect and obscure views circulated concerning the Jews.

⁵³ Cicero de divin. I, 2 therefore distinguishes between the ‘natio Assyriorum’ and the ‘gens Chaldaeorum’ of which it forms a part.

⁵⁴ ‘Sapientiae sectae,’ Plin. n. h. XXX, 1, 3.

⁵⁵ Porphyry, de abst. II, 26. Bernays, Theophrastos' Schrift ueber Froemmigkeit (Berlin, 1866), 111.

⁵⁶ See note 27.

⁵⁷ Theophrastus composed a work entitled Άκίχαρος (Diog. L. V, 50), in which he reproduced the wise teachings of the sage minister of the Assyrian king Sanherib. As is known, fragments of his story were discovered in an Aramaic version of the fifth century B.C. About the contentof Theophrastus’ book, of which the title alone is preserved, see Ed. Meyer, Papyrusfund von Elephantine (Leipzig, 1912), 124, 1, and H. Diels, Vorsokratiker II³ 122, 18. Heraclides Ponticus wrote a book entitled Zoroaster (Plutarch adv. Colotem 14), that is perhaps identical with the dialogue in which he introduced a Magus who, at the courtof the Sicilian king Gelon, gave report on the circumnavigation of Africa; Posidonius 87 P 28, 9 Jac. Cf. Bernays, Gesamm. Abhdlg. I,42.

⁵⁸ Th. Hopfner, Orient und griechische Philosophie. Beihefte z. Alten Orient, Heft 4 (Leipzig, 1925).

⁵⁹ ap. Euseb. pr. ev. XI, 3, 8; FHG II, 281, frg. 31 Mueller.

⁶⁰ Cf. Plato. Phaedo 96 f., Xen. Mem. I, 1, 11 ff. For other passages see Zeller II 1³, 113 f., 114, 4. 116,2.

⁶¹ Aristoxenus acknowledges the influence of pro-Oriental biographers by telling that Pythagoras was the pupil of Zaratas the Chaldaean, a counterfeitof Zoroaster the Magus; see Hippolyt. refutat. I, 2, 12 f.; cf. VI, 23, 2 ed. Wendland.

⁶² Megasthenes ap. Strab. XV, 1, 70. 719 C: τοὺς δὲ Βραχμᾶνας καὶ ἆστρονομίαν ἀσκεῖν. Calanus was already mentioned by Nearchus, 133 F 23 Jac., as member of the Indian sophists, who τὰ περὶ τὴν ϕύσιν σκοποῦσι.

⁶³ Comparisons between Greek and Indian teachings were established before Megasthenes by travelers to India; see Onesicritus 134 F 17 Jac, about Indian and Cynical form of life. Cf. Jac, p. 476 ad loc.

⁶⁴ For internal reasons see Hirzel 335, 1. Jaeger 165, 1.

⁶⁵ Jos. c. Ap. I, 179 Οὖτοι (sc. οί Ίουδοῖοι).δέ είσιν άπόγονοι τῶν ἐν Ίνδοῖς ϕιλοσόϕων καλοῦνται δέ, ὣς ϕασιν, οί ϕιλόσοϕοι παρὰ μὲν Ίνδοῖς Καλανοί, παρὰ δε Σύροις Ίονδαῖοι.

⁶⁶ Suidas s.v. Κάλανος. Ίνδός έκ τῶν Βραχμάνων. οὔτω δὲ πάντα σοϕὸν οἱ Ίνδοὶ προσαγορεύουσιν.

⁶⁷ Chares frg. 15 Mueller (FSA, 117 f.).

⁶⁸ Kl. Schr. IV, 583.

⁶⁹ Megasthenes frg. 41 (II, 437 Mueller).

⁷⁰ V. Rose, Aristoteles Pseudepigraphus, 50.

⁷¹ Diog. Laert. II, 45 (Aristot. frg. 82 Rose): Jaeger, Aristotle 165 n. 1 has confused the Indian of Aristoxenus with the Magus in the Magicus.

⁷² Arrian., Anabasis VII, 22. 1; Plutarch, Alexandr. 73; Appian. bell. civ. II, 153. The theory was widespread. Theopompus or Philochorus (Gellius XV, 20, 2), told that a Chaldaean prophesied the future glory of his newborn son to Euripides” father.

⁷³ The terminus ante quern of the Magicus is the History of Philosophy by Sotion (200-170 B.C.), who used the Magicus in the section ‘About the philosophy among the Barbarians’ (Aristot. frg. 35 Rose and Jaeger, 135 n. 1). Consequently, Antisthenes of Rhodos, a historian of the second century B.C., to whom the Magicus was also ascribed (frg. 33), cannot have been its author, as Ed. Meyer, Ursprung d. Christent. II, 91 n. 3, suggested.

⁷⁴ An anonymous writer, quoted by Diogenes (prooem. 9), derived the Jews directly from the Magi; Ένιοι δὲ καὶ τοὺς Ίουδαίους ἐκ τούτων (sc. τῶν μάγων) εἴναι (sc. ϕασίν.). Diogenes’ source was Sotion (n. 78). Consequently, this author must have lived at latest in the third century. I suggest that Sotion borrowed this notice from the Magicus.

⁷⁵ The author of the Magicus emphasizes the fact that the true Magi did not practice the γοητικὴ μαντεία but taught pure mantic; frg. 36 Rose. For other passages cf. Clemen, Griech. und lat. Nachrichten ueber die persische Religion, 206 f. “But even this passage shows that the figurative sense (of the word Magi) was quite familiar to the Greeks”; Ed. Meyer, II, 74, 2. Apuleius, Apology c. 25 f., who refers to [Plato] Alcib. I 122 a, μαγείαν…θεραπεία, therefore distinguishes between the superior theosophy of the Magi and the mos vulgaris of the magic exorcists. Clearchus’ Jew is to be considered as ‘magician’ and theosopher in one person.

⁷⁶ See Diog. Laert. prooem. 2.

⁷⁷ The phrase πειρώμενος αύτῶν τῆς σοϕίας (Jos. c. Ap. 1,181) recalls similar debates reported by Hellenistic writers. Alexander the Great put to the Indian sages speculative questions; έρωτήματα προὔβαλεν ἄπορα Plutarch, Alex. 64. Ptolemy II subjected the Jewish ambassadors to a similar examination; Philo, de vita Mosis II, 33, II. 139 M., ὀ μὲν γὰρ ἀπεπιρᾶτο τῆς ὲκάστον σοϕίας καινὰς…ζητήσεις προτείνων. Philon's source was the Letter of Aristeas.

⁷⁸ Jos. C. Ap. I,180, οὖτος οὖν ὁ ἄνθρωπος…Έλληνικὸς ἦν οὐ τῇ διαλέκτῳ μόνον, ἀλλὰκαί τῇ ψνχῇ. For this use of ψνχή cf. Heraclitus 12 B 107 Diels βαρβάρους ψνχάς; Plato, Timaeus 22 b 6 νέοι ἐστὲ τἀς ψυχάς; Julian about the Christians (ep. 204 ed. Bidez-Cumont) οἱ τὴν γνώμην βάρβαροι καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν ἄθεοι. The antithesis διάλεκτος : ψυχή is affected, while that of is ϕωνή: τρόπος is usual, Isocrates, ep. 9, 8; cf. Cicero, de rep. I, 58 lingua: mores, according to Isocrates, paneg. 50. So γλῶσσα : δίαιτα Herodot., IV, 78, 1 ff.; Plutarch, de facie in orbe lunae 26, 6. ϕωνή : γνώμη epist. Anachars. 1; p. 102 Hercher. Agatharchides (s. III B.C.) tells in his book about the Red Sea (ap. Phot, p. 442 a 23), that he got the explanation of the sea's name from a Persian living in Athens and named Boxus, ὂν καὶ ὲλληνίσαι γλῶσσαν καί γνώμην. The same combination of γλῶσσα and γνώμν occurs in the vita Auxentii (s. VI A.D.), Migne, PG 114, 1428 B:οὗτος…τῇ γλώττη μὲν βάρβαρος ὑπῆρχεν…, τῇ γνώμη δὲ πάνσεμνος see K. Holl, ges. Aufsaetze z. Kirchengeschichte II, 239. According to Strabo, 662 C., the hellenization of the barbarians consists in Έλληνικῶς ζῆν ἣ μανθάνειν τὴν ἡμετέραν διάλεκτον.

⁷⁹ Cf. the judicious criticism of Zeller, II, 2₃, 896, 3, ‘Nur als Erfindung des Literaten werden wir auch das von Klearch berichtete Gespraech zwischen Aristoteles und einem Juden…anzusehen haben.' Similarly Wilamowitz, Glaube der Hellenen II, 255,2.

⁸⁰ Plutarch, de audiendis poetis 1. mor. 14 E, τὰ περὶ τῶν ψυχῶν δόγματα μεμιγμένα μυθολογίᾳ μεθ᾽ ἡδονῆς ἐνθουσιῶσι. It is not an accident, that the participants of the discourses reproduced in Plato's Phaedo and the Republic express their readiness to listen to the myth ‘with pleasure,’ ἡδέως; Phaedo 108 d 3, cf. 110 b 4., Rep. 614 b, 1. In Clearchus, this aesthetic motif is missing, because he relates a fact and not a myth.

⁸¹ See Rohde II, 94, 1, ‘Hiernach wird es deutlich, dass Empedotimos [see note 46] nur eine Dialogfigur des Heraklides war und wohl so wenig jemals existiert hat wie Er der Sohn des Armenios oder Thespesios von Soli oder dessen Vorbild Kleonymos von Athen bei Klearch von Soli.’ Similarly Wilamowitz, Platon I, 715.

⁸² In pointof historical fact there remains nothing from the whole fancy of the Jewish thaumaturge. Very probably, Clearchus once observed some wandering juggler making hypnotic experiments on a boy. Similar magic tricks with children as media are testified to by Apuleius, Apology c. 42 f., Origenes de princ. III, 3, 3 and Hippolyt. refut. IV, 28. The people called these sorcerers Magi (according to Origenes, l. c.). This popular use may have stimulated the imagination of a capricious writer to his orientalizing romance. — ‘Das also war des Pudels Kern.…’

⁸³ Jos. c. Ap. I, 182 Ταῦτ᾽ εἴρηκεν ὁ Ἀριστοτέλης παρὰ τῷ Κλεάρχῳ καὶ προσἐτι πολλὴν καὶ θαυμάσιον καρτερίαν τοῦ ᾽Iουδαίου ἀνδρὸς ἐν τῇ διαίτῃ καὶ σωϕροσύνην διεξιών.

⁸⁴ In excuse of Josephus we could say only, that he had found the quotation already curtailed in an apologetic collection of Greek testimonia concerning Jews, and failed to consult the unabridged original. It is, indeed, very probable that he perused one or more works of this type while preparing his pamphlet against Apion; see J. Freudenthal. Alexander Polyhistor (Breslau, 1875), 170, 1 and Hoelscher in Re s.v. Josephus, col. 1996 f. In this case, the responsibility may be caston his predecessors.

⁸⁵ Jos. c. Ap. T, 177: Ἀλλὰ τὰ μὲν πολλὰ μακρὸν ἂν εἴη λέγειν, ὅσα δ᾽ ἔχει τῶν ἐκείνου θαυμασιότητά τινα καὶ ϕιλοσοϕίαν ὁμοίως, διελθεῖν οὐ χεῖρον. This sentence is arranged quite symmetrically: μακρὸν ἂν εἴη λέγειν corresponds to διελθεῖν χεῖρον (sc. ἄν εἴη), and τὰ μὲν πολλά to ὅσα till ὁμοίως. Ὁμοίως depends grammatically on ἕχει and refers logically to the preceding noun ϕιλοσοϕίαν, cf. e.g. Thucyd. I, 20, 1. It emphasizes the strange combination of both virtues in the same person. Reinach corrects ὁμοίως into ὅμως, but I do not think it necessary to alter the text if we accept the above interpretation.

⁸⁶ Gutschmid's eminent merits in the interpretation of Josephus' work against Apion have been mentioned above; yet unfortunately he barred his way to the right understanding of the fragment of Clearchus by his belief in the historical reality of the Jew. We are no more justified in considering Clearchus' tale. “as the oldest testimony about the Jewish diaspora in Asia Minor and about its early intimate intercourse with the Greeks” (Neue Beitraege zur Geschichte des Alten Orients 77, 1. Kl. Schr. IV, 586). His reference to Obadiah 20, Sepharad, which at his time was held to be the name of the satrapy Lydia (Çparda), is to be given up since a bilingual inscription of Sardis has shown that Sardis herself is meant; Sardis, Publications of the American Society for the Excavation of Sardis, vol. VI. Lydian Inscriptions, part I, by E. Littmann (Leyden, 1916), 12. (I owe this reference to H. J. Polotsky.)

⁸⁷ Bernays, Theophrastos' Schrift ueber Froemmigkeit, 187.

⁸⁸ Olympiodori in Plat. Phaed. comment., p. 200, 3 ff. Norvin (Leipzig, 1913), ὅτι δὲ δεῖ τι καὶ ὅλον γένος ἀνθρώπων εἶναι οὔτω τρεϕόμενον, δηλοῖ καὶ ὁ τῇδε ταῖς ἡλιακαῖς ἀκτῖσι μόναις τρεϕόμενος, ὅν ἱστόρησεν Ἀριστοτέλης ἰδὼν αὐτός. b. ad eundem locum (p. 239, 19 ff. Norvin): Εἰ ἐνταῦθα ἱστόρησεν Ἀριστοτἐλης ἄνθρωπον ἄυπνον καὶ μόνῳ τῷ ἡλιοειδεῖ τρεϕόμενον ἀέρι, τί χρὴ περὶ τῶν ἐκεῖ οἴεσθαι; Rose, Aristot. frg. 42, noted Bernays’ identification in the apparatus criticus, but apparently could not persuade himself to single out the testimony from the group of fragments assigned to the Eudemus of the genuine Aristotle.

⁸⁹ Olympiodorus added ‘on this earth’ (ἐνταῦθα, τῇδε), because Plato, in the myth of Phaedo 111a, had spoken about the dwelling-place of the pure spirits in the ‘upper earth.’

⁹⁰ Bernays did not realize the relation between the fragment discovered by him and the quotation preserved by Josephus. Therefore he proposed to correct ἄυπνον to ἄπνουν, appealing to Heraclides’ work περὶ τῆς ἄπνου, mentioned in note 46. But the ἀυπνία is required as much by the theme of the discourse as by the coherence of the context.

⁹¹ Jos. c. Ap. I, 182: Ἔνεστι δὲ τοῖς βουλομένοις ἐξ αὐτοῦ τὸ πλέον γνῶναι τοῦ βιβλίου ϕυλάττομαι γὰρ ἐγὼ πλείω τῶν ἱκανῶν παρατἱθεσθαι.

⁹² When Josephus prepared the chapter dealing with Greek writers concerning Jews, he became aware that he was in want of material proofs; for, as he himself declares (c. Ap. I, 5 ff.), the Jews were very rarely mentioned in the Greek literature of the fifth and fourth century B.C. Since his own knowledge of Greek literature was very scanty and the references of his sources (see note 84) did not suffice for the epoch in question, he felt compelled to take refuge in forcible interpretations. In fact, neither his quotation from Herodotus (I, 168 f.), nor that from Choerilus (I, 172 f.) nor, as can be shown, that from Theophrastus (I, 166 f.), applied to the Jews. This difficulty explains why he did not want to give up Clearchus, whose testimony would fit his purposes only after a thorough recasting.

⁹³ Rohde, Psyche II, 259 ff.

⁹⁴ Rohde, 384, 2 and passim.

⁹⁵ Rohde, 161 ff. 165, 2. 257 ff. 320.

⁹⁶ Rohde, 320, 1; cf. 94, 1. The soul is, according to Heraclides, an αἰθέριον σῶμα, ϕωτοειδής. See Re s.v. Herakleides, no. 45. col. 476.

⁹⁷ In the second book of his ‘Bioi’ (frg. 2; Athen. IV, 157c), Clearchus related the teaching of another Pythagorean; who told that the souls are punished by being tied to their body, and pray for release from their corporeal prison; see Rohde II, 122, 1.161, 2.

⁹⁸ πᾶσαν τὴν περὶ τῶν ψυχῶν ἀλήθειαν, Heraclides ap. Procl., l. c. See Rohde, II, 94, 1.

⁹⁹ Heraclides ap. Procl., l. c, II, 119, 25 Kroll: καταλημϕθῆναι μὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ ϕωτὸς τοῦ περιθέοντος κύκλῳ τοὺς θεούς.

¹⁰⁰ The magnetic powers of the hypnotist were transferred to his staff, which did not contain magic virtues in itself.

¹⁰¹ Hermippus, ap. Jos. c. Ap., I, 165. The wording of the fragment shows that Hermippus treated the Jewish belief in the soul's immortality as well known.

¹⁰² It is also possible that Clearchus had no direct information of the alleged Jewish creed of immortality, but derived his view from an argument by analogy. The Magi were in his opinion the model of the Jewish philosophers (see above p. 211) and, according to his contemporary Aristoxenus (see note 61), the teachers of Pythagoras. It may be noted, that Neanthes (about 300 B.C.) had made Pythagoras a Syrian and a pupil of the Chaldaeans living in Tyros; see Porphyry, Life of Pythagoras c. 1.

¹⁰³ Cf. Re s.v. Klearchos von Soli. FHG II, 302 ff. Mueller.

¹⁰⁴ Cf. F. Leo, Griech.-roem. Biographic 98 f.

¹⁰⁵ The many examples for the τρυϕερὸς βίος, borrowed from the ‘Bioi’ of Clearchus and preserved by Athenaeus, must not be taken as the expression of the author's view. The tendency of the whole work was even opposed to it, as the moral application shows; cf. frg. 24 (Athen. XIII, 611 b).

¹⁰⁶ On Theophrastus’ works see Diog. Laert. V, 42 ff. The Γεργίθιος of Clearchus (frg. 2 f.) corresponded, as to the choice of the theme, to Theophrastus’ treatise περἱ κολακείας. In the same way, the Ἐρωτικά of Clearchus recall the ἐρωτικὰ προβλήματα of Aristotle (Schweighaeuser).

¹⁰⁷ The majority of these titles are to be found also in the catalogues of Aristotle's writings; see Arist. frg., p. 3 ff. Rose.

¹⁰⁸ Cf. e.g. frg. 10. 18. 22. Mueller.

¹⁰⁹ Athen., XV, 701 c (frg. 46 Mueller), Κλέαρχος ὁ Σολεὺς οὐδενὸς ὤν δεύτερος τῶν τοῦ σοϕοῦ Ἀριστοτέλους μαθητῶν; Jos. c. Ap. I, 176, Κλέαρχος … ὁ Ἀριστοτέλους ὢν μαθητὴς καὶ τῶν ἐκ τοῦ περιπάτου ϕιλοσόϕων οὐδενὸς δεύτερος. Cf. Gutschmid, 578: “Wahrscheinlich ein traditionell gewordenes Urteil.”.

¹¹⁰ Plutarch, de facie lun. 2, 5. 920E (frg. 76 Mueller), Ἀριστοτέλους … γεγονὼς συνήθης, εἰ καὶ πολλὰ τοῦ Περιπάτου παρέτρεψεν.

¹¹¹ Cf. frg. 44 a Mueller; see note 115.

¹¹² Diog. Laert. III, 2; cf. Re s.v. Speusippos p. 1667 f.

¹¹³ Diog. Laert. III, 2. The objections of P. Lang, de Speusippi Academici scriptis (Diss. Bonn, 1911), 32 ff. against the authorship of Clearchus of Soli disappear, now he is placed midway between the Academy and the Peripatus.

¹¹⁴ See Clearchus, frg. 44 and 77, Mueller. R. Heinze, Xenokrates, 47 ff. Re s. v. Clearchus, p. 582.

¹¹⁵ Clearchus called one of his treatises by the name of Arcesilaus, see note 111. As is generally supposed (see Re s.v. Klearchos, p. 581), the receiver of this dedication can scarcely have been other than the future founder of the Middle Academy, who was born in 316 and became head of his school ca. 268. This identification is supported by the fact, that Arcesilaus' teacher and beloved friend, Crantor the Platonician, came from the same place as Clearchus, — Soli in Cilicia. Clearchus agreed with Grantor's views on the harmonic figures in Plato's Timaeus, see Plutarch, de animae procreat. 20 (1022 d; frg. 77 Mueller). It may be supposed that Clearchus became acquainted with the younger Arcesilaus through the intermediation of his town-fellow Crantor.

¹¹⁶ Heraclides Ponticus, who alone could be mentioned besides Clearchus, was often called a Peripatetic; but in fact, he is not to be considered as a pupil of Aristotle. He seceded from him after Plato's death and, after Speusippus’ death (in 338), returned into his native town, the remote Heraclea on the Pontus, where he maintained the views of the older Plato, without being affected by Aristotle's later teachings.

¹¹⁷ See note 110.

¹¹⁸ Cf. Jaeger, Aristotle, 45 ff.

¹¹⁹ Proclus, quoted note 16, ὡς ἄρα χωρίζεται τοῦ σώματος καὶ ὡς εἴσεισιν εἰς τὸ σῶμα καὶ ὡς χρῆται αὐτῷ ὡς καταγωγίῳ. For χωρίζεται see Plato, Phaedo 67 c ff. For the comparison between the body and an inn, καταγώγιον, cf. the passages quoted by A. D. Nock, Sallustius concerning the Gods and the Universe (Cambridge, 1926), xxxi, n. 85. To these patristic parallels may be added a gnostic testimony. According to Hippolytus, refut. VI, 34, the Valentinians held the ὑλικὸς ἄνθρωπος οἱονεὶ πανδοχεῖον ἢ κατοικητήριον ποτὲ μὲν ψυχῆς μόνης, ποτὲ δὲ ψυχῆς καὶ δαιμόνων, ποτὲ δὲ ψυχῆς καὶ λόγων. See also the famous poem of the dying Hadrianus, ‘Animula vagula blandula, hospes comesque corporis,’ etc., Spart. Hadr. 25, 9 (FPL 137 Morel).

¹²⁰ It may be objected against Bernays, Zwei Abhandlungen ueber die aristotelische Theorie des Dramas, 91, that the Aristotle of Clearchus maintained the soul's, and not the reason's separability from the body. This is a truly Platonic view which contradicts the principle of the later Aristotle on the θύραθεν νοῦς. Since Bernays denied a Platonic period in Aristotle's development, he subsequently did not know what to do about this suspect testimony which he himself had discovered. Jaeger's epoch-making investigations on Aristotle have prepared the way for fixing the place of Clearchus' work on sleep within the history of ancient philosophy.

¹²¹ Stilpo the Sceptic (about 320 B.C.) wrote a dialogue Ἀριστοτέλης, Diog. Laert. II, 120; but unfortunately nothing except the title is preserved, see Hirzel, Dialog I, 309, 3.315, 3.

¹²² Cf. Zeller II, 23, 888 ff. Rohde, Psyche II, 309, 2.

¹²³ Lactantius, div. inst. VII, 13, 7 (Dicaearchus, frg. 66 Mueller), ‘Falsa est ergo Democriti et Epicuri et Dicaearchi de animae dissolutione sententia. Qui profecto non auderent de interitu animarum mago aliquo praesente disserere, qui sciret certis carminibus cieri ab inferis animas et adesse et praebere se humanis oculis videndas et loqui et futura praedicere, et si auderent, re ipsa et documentis praesentibus vincerentur.’

¹²⁴ Lact., div. inst. II, 14, 10, ‘visus hominum praestigiis obcaecantibus fallunt, ut non videant ea, quae sunt, et videre se putent ilia, quae non sunt.’ Lactantius' model was Minucius Felix, Octavia 26, 10; cf. Tertullian, Apologet. c. 22 ff. and de anima c. 57.

¹²⁵ Lactantius did not borrow this view from his own knowledge, as we infer from the chronological order in which the Greek philosophers are put by him; see VII, 8, 8, ‘Dicaearchus primo (!), deinde Democritus, postremo Epicurus.…’

¹²⁶ Thus the testimony of Lactantius is to be cancelled in Mueller's collection of Dicaearchus’ fragments (FHG II 266); see note 123.

¹²⁷ On Lactantius’ reading of Cicero, see H. Diels, Doxographi Graeci 121, 1.

¹²⁸ Diog. Laert. IX, 34 ff.; Diels Vorsokr. 55 A 1. Democritus is said to have composed works ‘On the sacred books in Babylon’ and a ‘Chaldaean Logos’; Diels 55 A 33; B 298 b; B 299.

¹²⁹ Diels 55 B 300, 12–15.

¹³⁰ Cf. R. Heinze, Tertullians Apologeticum. Ber. sächs. Akad. (1909), 408 ff.

¹³¹ Plin. n. h. VII, 55, 189, ‘reviviscendi promissa Democrito vanitas’ can hardly be applied to Democritus’ genuine work περὶ τῶν ἐν Αἵδου (Diels 55 B 1), but seems to refer to a passage of one of his alleged magic treatises; Zeller I⁴, 810, 3.

¹³² Μυθολογῶν ὡς ποιητής, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἀποδεικνὺς ὡς ἐπιστήμων, Colotes the Epicurean on Plato's myths, see Proclus in Plat. rempubl. II, 105, 25 sq., Kroll.

¹³³ From Aristotle's work on the rise of the Nile, quoted by Photius; see Jaeger, 331, 2.