Eudorus of Alexandria

Mauro Bonazzi
Eudorus of Alexandria and the

Pythagorean pseudepigrapha
1. In the controversial history of Pythagoreanism the pseudepigrapha are one of
the most controversial issues. On the one side it is now clear and commonly
agreed that these texts were not written by the authors to whom they are attributed. On the other side, however, divergences on their date, origin, nature and
scope are so wide that the temptation is strong to renounce entering the bottomless pit of this research, to paraphrase a famous sentence by Guthrie on the history of Pythagoreanism. But this is not, perhaps, the last word. For even though
a complete and exhaustive account of the entire Pythagorean apocryphal literature is probably impossible to obtain, from this it does not follow that it is also
impossible to reach positive results on particular and limited issues. On the contrary it may be claimed that this is the only viable way to work. For the major
mistake that must be avoided is to conceive of all Pythagorean literature as if
it were a coherent and unified corpus. As many authoritative scholars have correctly remarked, Pythagoreanism is the result of the combination of several traditions, emerging from different contexts, responding to different problems and
promoting different theories, which are not always and not necessarily compatible. Indeed, it is clear that there was no single Pythagorean tradition. The problem, in other words, is that unitarian approaches inevitably tend to obscure the
variety of traditions which constitute Pythagoreanism in its long history. And this
applies also to the pseudepigrapha, which do not need to be taken a priori as all
together belonging to the same tradition. In consideration of these remarks, the
aim of my paper is to concentrate on a coherent group of testimonies and try to
account for their origin and scope. The group consists mainly of treatises which
are attributed to Archytas, which scholars have paralleled with the testimonies
on Eudorus of Alexandria and other Early Imperial Platonists. In the first part
of my paper I will investigate these parallels in order to prove their compatibility
(by the way, this will make it possible to provide these apocrypha with a probable date). In the second part I will offer a possible answer to the question of
why they were composed by concentrating on some doctrinal features of these
texts. An intriguing consequence of this discussion is that this group of pseudepigrapha is important for the history not so much of Pythagoreanism as of Pla-
Guthrie 1962, 146 n. 1.

Cf. e. g., Burkert 1972b; Centrone 1996, 144 148.
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet | 212.87.45.97
Heruntergeladen am | 09.12.13 13:00
386
Mauro Bonazzi
tonism. In itself this conclusion is not a striking novelty. But I hope that my
paper will call attention to the philosophical interest of these texts.
2. Admittely, that it is possible to circumscribe a group of treatises and texts, written in an artificial Doric, mainly but not exclusively attributed to Archytas, and
sharing a similar doctrinal system was recognized long ago by many distinguished scholars, from Eduard Zeller to Heinrich Drrie, Walter Burkert, Thomas Szlezk, Matthias Baltes, Paul Moraux, and Bruno Centrone. Further, the affinities of
these texts with the extant testimonies concerning the first century B.C. Platonist
Eudorus of Alexandria have not escaped the attention of these and many other
scholars. But a correct evaluation of this connection has been prevented by the
fact that scholars who recognized parallels failed to recognize the significance of
this fact. On the contrary, it appears to me that within the historical and philosophical context of the early Imperial age the connection is important. Unfortunately, given the scanty number of surviving testimonies on Eudorus, the comparison is reduced to few points, and this prevents an exhaustive analysis and
an overall interpretation of the whole Doric corpus (which, by the way, it is
not necessary to interpret as a single corpus). Nevertheless, the similarities are
striking and the apocrypha concerned are important. More precisely, it is pseudo-Archytas On Principles and On the Whole System [scil. of Categories] or On the
Ten Categories (henceforth On Categories), together with pseudo-Timaeus On the
Nature of the World and of the Soul that offer the most interesting parallels with
Eudorus, on important issues such as the doctrine of principles, the creation of
the universe and the categories.
The first point I will discuss presents a most remarkable affinity. Both Eudorus and pseudo-Archytas argue for a doctrine of three principles articulated on
two levels (immanent and transcendent, so to speak). As stated by pseudo-Archytas at the beginning of his treatise, there are two principles of things, the one
containing the series (systoichia) of ordered and determined things the other
containing the series of unordered and undetermined things (
Zeller 19235, 123; Drrie 1963, col. 271; Burkert 1972b, 40 41 opposing Thesleff 1961 and 1972
(suggesting a third cent. B.C. date); Szlezk 1972, 13 19 (on pseudo-Archytas On the whole
System or On the Ten Categories); Baltes 1972, 20 36 (on pseudo-Timaeus On the Nature of the
World and of the Soul); Moraux 1984, 606 607; Centrone 1990 (on pseudo-Archytas ethical
treatises); Huffman 2005, 594 620.
By focusing on these texts only I leave aside the question of establishig which treatises in
Thesleffs edition can be taken as part of this same group; useful remarks are found in Centrone
1990, 16 17 n. 9.
Cf. Centrone 1992; Bonazzi 2005, 152 157.

Eudorus of Alexandria and the Pythagorean pseudepigrapha
387
,
, ;
19.5 7). The same is said by Eudorus, who likewise introduces the two systoichiai
with the sequence ordered-determined opposed to unordered-undetermined
(Simpl. In Phys. 181.25 27). A further point of similarity is that both authors
qualify the two series as the series of the good and the series of the bad respectively (ps.-Arch. de princ. 19.16 17: ; Eud. ap. Simpl. In
Phys. 181.14 15: ); and both suggest that the two
series are part of the world: they are the logoi intrinsic to reality (ps.-Arch. 19.16);
this statement corresponds to Eudorus claim that they are the stoicheia, the elements of reality (Simpl. 181.15 16, 23). Admittedly, up to this point, it may be
correctly objected that such a dualism is not distinctive of pseudo-Archytas
and Eudorus alone, but is found in the entire Pythagorean-Academic tradition.
What is really important and distinctive is the claim that these two principles/elements alone do not suffice to properly account for reality. For a third principle is
needed, which can bring the other two together: this principle, which is not properly speaking part of our reality, is the most important principle and is consequently called God by both authors: the God above, Eudorus says (
: Simpl. 181.10 11), who is further characterised by pseudo-Archytas as artificer and mover ( <> : ps.-Arch. 19.25
27). Remarkably pseudo-Timaeus appears to share the same system in slightly
different terms (206.11 12). In pseudo-Timaeus the two basic constituents
from which the sensible () comes are equated to the nature of sameness
and of otherness (205.11, 206.4): the language is clearly reminiscent of Platos Timaeus, but the doctrine is basically the same as in pseudo-Archytas and Eudorus. As in pseudo-Archytas, these two are called form and matter/substance (ps.Tim. 206.11 12; ps.-Arch. 19.18, 21), and as in both pseudo-Archytas and Eudorus
the third principle is called God (and, needless to say, demiurge: 206.12). Indeed,
the introduction of this third and most important principle produces a new doctrine of three principles which is difficult to find elsewhere in the Pythagorean
literature. Rather the affinity with Middle Platonism is clear, and this is one
major reason for dating the two treatises to the early imperial age.
The reference to pseudo-Timaeus points to a second important parallel. One
of the most hotly debated issues in the early imperial era was the creation of the
world, more precisely whether Platos account in the Timaeus (which was regard-
One slight differene is that Eudorus uses instead of .

See Baltes 1972, 32; Centrone 1992, 92 93.
Mansfeld 1988, 103.

388
Mauro Bonazzi
ed as the true account of the creation) was to be read as literally arguing for a
creation in time or as allegorically endorsing that the universe is eternal. A testimony from Plutarch informs us that Eudorus opted for the second reading, restoring the interpretation of the early Academics (Xenocrates and Crantor) in opposition to the literalist interpretation which dominated during the Hellenistic
centuries (Plut. De an. procr. 1012d-1013b). Indeed, it has been correctly suggested
that Eudorus was the first, after centuries, to argue for such a reading a reading
which soon became dominant (Baltes 1976). With regard to this problem, it is remakable that the same interpretation is argued for in pseudo-Timaeus (206.11) as
well. Admittedly, it may be objected that Eudorus novelty need not be overemphasized for he was simply recovering the interpretation of the Old Academy. In
consequence one may conceive of the parallel between Eudorus and pseudo-Timaeus as simply depending by this common source (the Old Academy) and not
implying any strict relation. This might be correct. And yet the possibility of the
strict relation between the two still appears as more than plausible, and not only
on general grounds. For what is remarkable is not only that both in the same period (if the standard dating is correct, as I think) were arguing for what was, at
that moment, the minority thesis; what is really remarkable is that both Eudorus
and pseudo-Timaeus employ the same expression, , which was not common at all in this debate. Again, it deserves to be mentioned that the thesis
that the universe is eternal is not attested in the original Pythagorean tradition
(cf. Aristotle On heaven I 10, 279b12). In sum, the evidence further suggests a distinctive connection.
Finally the categories. The Neoplatonist Simplicius reports that Eudorus
commented on many problems of Aristotles Categories. Unfortunately many of
Simplicius reports are trivial and not very useful to reconstruct Eudorus
thought. But in a couple of cases at least, the testimony is interesting and enables us to detect striking parallels with pseudo-Archytas. More precisely, both
Eudorus and pseudo-Archytas endorse the same sequence substance, quality,
quantity (as opposed to the sequence substance, quantity, quality; Eud. ap.
Simp. in cat. 205.10 15, ps.-Arch. cat. 23.17 24.16). The parallel need not be dismissed, for even though the problem of the sequence was scarcely relevant for
See Baltes 1976.

Baltes 1972, 48. A further remarkable piece of evidence which strongly speaks in favour of
the affinity between Eudorus and pseudo-Timaeus is the fact that both, when commenting on
the formation of the world-soul, appear to work on a text which is not the text of our manuscript
tradition; cfr. Opsomer 2004 and Bonazzi 2013.
Theiler 1965, 205; Szelzk 1972, 17 and 132; Moraux 1984, 608 628; Huffman 2005, 595 597;
Tarrant 2009; Chiaradonna 2009.

389
Aristotle and is hardly interesting for us, it was the object of hot debates in the
early Imperial Age. Secondly, and even more importantly, both Eudorus and
pseudo-Archytas appear to apply the category of substance to both the sensible
and the intelligible substance, adapting the Aristotelian system to a Platonist
problem.
(A further, but more controversial, parallel regards ethics. In Bonazzi 2007b I
tried to argue that Eudorus account of ethics, as reported by Stobaeus, while employing a Stoic jargon endorses in fact a dualist psychology which does not fit
the Stoic system but can be paralleled, among other texts, with the pseudo-Pythagorean treatises; cf. ps.-Arch. de educat. eth. 43.14; ps.-Metop. de virt. 117.12
14. It is interesting to add that this same dualist psychology is further regarded as
Pythagorean also by later Platonists such as Plutarch [cf. Donini 1999 on the de
virtute morali], whose acquaintance with Eudorus has been already mentioned.)
3. How are we to evaluate the affinity which links Eudorus and the pseudo-Pythagorean treatises? The best way to address this problem is to reconstruct the
sources of both, starting with one major problem: the relationship to the Old
Academy. What is sure, it might be objected, is that the doctrines endorsed in
these texts have very little to do with genuine Pythagoreanism (pre-Archytan Pythagoreanism, so to say). But what about the Old Academy? Thanks to the research of Walter Burkert and of many other scholars following in his footsteps,
it is now well known that during the fourth century B.C. ancient Pythagoreanism
was progressively assimilated into the Academy: considering themselves as the
heirs of this philosophical tradition, Plato, Speusippus, Xenocrates, and their
pupils reinterpreted and modified ancient doctrines according to their requirements, to the effect that a new and metaphysically oriented version of Pythagoreanism replaced the original one. As I mentioned in the previous section, if we
come back to our texts, we find many references to this Academic Pythagoreanism (think for instance of the categorial bipartition kathauto/pros ti in pseudo-
Chiaradonna 2009, 97 98.

Chiaradonna 2009, 99 106.
Burkert 1972, 15 96. Burkerts reconstruction has been challenged by Zhmud 2012 (chapter 12); see also his paper in this volume. Zhmuds thesis is brilliantly defended and opens new
paths for research. For the time being, I limit myself to remark the affinity of Zhmuds thesis with
the views defended in my present paper. By denying that the early Academics developed their
metaphysics in the footsteps of the Pythagoreans, Zhmud further emphasizes the importance of
Aristotle (in his opinion, Aristotle was the first to stress the close connection between Platonism
and Pythagoreanism) and of the Early Imperial Platonists (among the first to adopt such a view).
I will try to discuss this interesting study with the attention it deserves in a future paper.
On Plato, see however Carl Huffmans remarks in this volume, pp. 237.

390
Mauro Bonazzi
Archytas On Categories, of the non-literalist interpretation of the Timaeus cosmogony in pseudo-Timaeus and of the systoichiai in pseudo-Archytas On principles). The same applies also in the case of Eudorus testimonies and fragments,
where the same doctrines occur and links and references to the Old Academy are
explicit.
In consequence of these parallels a reductionist approach may be argued
for: there is no real and distinctive connection between Eudorus and the pseudopythagorica, for both were simply promoting a return to the Old Academy. More
precisely: one may concede a connection between Eudorus and the pseudopythagorica, but the importance of such a connection would be drastically reduced.
For their doctrines would be nothing but the Academic doctrines, and their
only relationship and interest would be that both were recovering the Academic
doctrines after centuries of oblivion (namely, the centuries of the sceptical Hellenistic Academy) and transmitting them to Neoplatonists. Such an interpretation has been defended, consciously or not, by some supporters of the perennial
unity of Platonism. But it does not account for the problem in all its complexity.
For the divergences with the Old Academy are no less remarkable than the affinities, and these too must be taken into account.
The cosmogony is the doctrine best suited to the reductionist approach. Indeed, pseudo-Timaeus and Eudorus non literalist interpretation of the creation
of the world might be regarded as a mere recovery of the Academic interpretation. Nevertheless, it is remarkable, as I have already mentioned, that both pseudo-Timaeus and Eudorus present their position with a term which is not usually
adopted (, cf. supra, p. 388). Besides, important as it is, the problem of the
worlds creation remains a specific problem and it is not therefore very relevant.
It may perfectly well be the case that the pseudopythagorica and Eudorus renewed the Academic position on the specific issue of the cosmogony. But this
does not exclude the possibility that this specific doctrine was inserted in a system that was not identical with the Old Academic one. In fact this is precisely
what emerges if we pass to more structural doctrines, such as that of the categories and that of principles (those, by the way, in which the followers of an eternal Platonism are more interested): the reference to the Old Academy does not
More generally, cf. for instance Centrone 1996, 157.

Bipartition: cf. Simpl. in Cat. 174.14 16; cosmogony: Plut. De an. procr. 1012d-1013b (where
the names of Xenocrates and Crantor are mentioned); systoichiai: Simpl. in Phys. 181.10 13.
Cfr. for instance Halfwassen 1992, 197 209 and Thiel 2006.
One further problem, which need not be addressed here but which is important for unitarian
reconstructions of Platonism, is whether it makes sense to speak of a single coherent Academic
system.

391
account for the most distinctive and striking details of our testimonies. First consider the doctrine of the categories. It is true that the bipartition reflects the Academic classification. But in the extant evidence traceable to the Old Academy
there is no reference to early Academics combining the bicategorial scheme
with the ten categories, as we see in Archytas and Eudorus. Indeed, this combination is not attested before the first century B.C.
That the pseudopythagorica and Eudorus present an undeniably original
view is further confirmed by the doctrine of the principles, the most important
doctrine. In pseudo-Archytas and even more in Eudorus we can detect many
terms and concepts that are traceable to the Academy. But the Academic doctrines of principles, be it Speusippus or Xenocrates, and most of the Pythagorean tradition as well endorse a dualistic system. Here, as Jaap Mansfeld correctly
remarked, the introduction of the God above the series of the paired principles
can be paralleled neither from the Old Academy nor from Pythagorean texts securely datable before the first century B.C. Indeed, both in the pseudopythagorica and in Eudorus, the legacy of Academic and Pythagorean philosophy consists
more in the reception of conceptual and terminological material than in an attempt to faithfully reproduce an old doctrine. Therefore, in order to understand
the nature and value of the pseudo-Pythagorean and Eudoran philosophy we
must concentrate on the elements of originality distinguishing them from
other Pythagorean traditions. And since these elements of originality patently
point to Plato and Aristotle, it is the relationship with Plato and Aristotle that
must be investigated.
4. References to Plato and Aristotle are patent, and scholars have easily detected
them. Just to limit ourselves to the three already mentioned treatises: pseudo-Timaeus can be basically described as a summary of the Timaeus, pseudo-Archytas On categories as a summary of Aristotles Categories, and pseudo-Archytas
On principles as the result of a combination of Platos and Aristotles doctrines of
principles as we find them in the Timaeus and the Metaphysics. However, it has
See Sedley 1995, 552, referring to Andronicus (ap. Simpl. In Cat. 63.22 24, 134.5 7) and the
anonymous commentator to the Theaetetus (68.1 7), along with Eudorus.
Cf. Bonazzi 2007a for a detailed analysis.
Mansfeld 1988, 99 100.
It is worth stressing that these elements of originality distinguish these texts and testimonies
not only from the Old Academy but also from other versions of Pythagoreanism, most notably
the one preserved by Alexander Polyhistor in D.L. 8.24 36 or the (rather mysterious) Roman
renovatio promoted by Nigidius Figulus, to mention just two broadly contemporary texts and
traditions.

392
Mauro Bonazzi
not always been observed that these summaries are not neutral but rather serve
to convey a certain kind of interpretation of Plato and Aristotle. As I will try to
show, this is a most important point for correctly understanding the nature of
these pseudo-Pythagorean treatises. Take for instance pseudo-Timaeus and Eudorus cosmogonical accounts. For both, Platos Timaeus is the reference point
on the assumption that Platos philosophy leads to truth. But in both cases it
is not a matter of simply paraphrasing the text (pseudo-Timaeus) or commenting
on it in an erudite way (Eudorus). On the contrary, both pseudo-Timaeus and Eudorus, each in his own way, convey an interpretation, and in so doing, take position (the same position) on a hotly debated issue. From the days of Speusippus,
Xenocrates and Aristotle it was a matter of disagreement whether the Timaeus
cosmogony was to be taken metaphorically or literally; while in the Old Academy
the first interpretation dominated, in the Hellenistic centuries, both inside and
outside the Academy, it was the latter that got the upper hand; against this prevailing interpretation, pseudo-Timaeus and Eudorus promoted a return to the
Old Academic view. In this context what is remarkable is not only that pseudo-Timaeus and Eudorus are taking the same position in the debate but also
that their views strategically converge. Pseudo-Timaeus provides the original
from which Plato was supposed to have drawn: and on the specific issue of
the creation of the word a small word is added, , which explicitly indicates
how the account is to be interpreted (that is, metaphorically). And it is exactly to
this Pythagorean background, and with the same (and, in this context, rare)
word , that Eudorus refers (via the mediation of Xenocrates, who is explicitly connected to Pythagoras) when arguing for the metaphorical reading. Indeed, the temptation is strong to claim a strict relationship between pseudo-Timaeus and Eudorus, but unfortunately evidence is lacking and it is difficult to
say the last word on the issue. But it remains uncontroversial that this renewal
of interest in the Pythagorean philosophy was not an end in itself, but rather part
of the Platonist debate. We will come back to this problem later.
5. The situation becomes even more intriguing when we pass to the doctrine of
principles. References to Plato in pseudo-Archytas On Principles are explicit, but
for a correct assessment of these references a preliminary analysis of Eudorus
Pythagorean Prinzipienlehre is needed. In the already mentioned quotation
from Simplicius commentary on Physics (181.7 30) Eudorus is quoted as source
for the ancient Pythagorean doctrine of principles. But as we have already remarked, this three-principle doctrine, articulated on two levels, which we also
find in pseudo-Archytas On Principles, has nothing in common with genuine Pythagoreanism and depends only in part on Academic Pythagoreanism. So the
question remains what reasons prompted to its elaboration. Elsewhere I have ar-

393
gued that a possible solution points us towards Plato, specifically to the Timaeus. Influence of other dialogues as well, such as the Philebus and the Republic, has been suggested. Needless to say, these references provide useful parallels; yet by themselves they fail to explain what appears philosophically most
important in the passage, namely the distinction between arche and stoicheion:
according to Eudorus, only the God above or the first One can properly be considered a principle, arche, while Monad and Dyad are called archai only in a secondary way. In fact, Monad and Dyad are rather stoicheia, elements, or more precisely, ultimate elements (antat stoicheia), given their prominent role in the
systoichiai.
Strange as it may appear, among Platos dialogues it is the Timaeus that
helps us grasp the meaning of the distinction between arche and stoicheia. Admittedly, in the Timaeus we do not find a clear account of the distinction between arche and stoicheion. But it is a well known fact that Timaeus elusive
statement on the value of his discourse (an eikos muthos) could and did encourage Platonists to creatively recover the real meaning of Platos doctrine. Eudorus account of arche and stoicheia can be properly regarded as one of these creative interpretations, as the analysis of the expression anotato stoicheia can
show. More precisely, Eudorus Pythagorean doctrine appears to emerge from
a cross-reading of Tim. 48b5-c2 and 53c4-d7. In the first passage, the traditional
first elements are at once denied the status not merely of principles, but also of
first stoicheia, whereas in the second the reduction of the four elements is conducted explicitly to the geometrical figures, but implicitly even further: this we
assume as the principle of fire and of the other bodies []; the principles yet further above these (anothen) are known to God and to such men as God favours.
See e. g., Bonazzi 2007a. The following section heavily depends on Bonazzi 2013.
For the Philebus, see Dillon 19962, 127; for the Republic, Trapp 2007, 352.
On the Platonists creative exegesis, see Hadot 1987; Donini 1994, 5080 5082.
Plat. Tim. 48b5-c2:
,

,
.
, ,
,
.
Plat. Tim. 54c4-d7: ,
.
.
, ,

394
Mauro Bonazzi
Contrary to most modern readings, for ancient Platonists it was only too natural
to proceed to the reduction process until we reach the ultimate elements/principles, the ingredient constituents of bodies. And these ultimate elements were traditionally identified as the Monad and the Dyad. That was a popular account in
Eudorus time, as the confrontation with many other texts easily shows. If one
further adds that Plutarchs above-mentioned testimony in the treatise On the
Generation of the Soul in the Timaeus also reports that Eudorus found in the Timaeus a reference to the Monad and the Dyad, it is more than reasonable to conclude that he too was ready (and perhaps was the first) to extract from the Timaeus the pair of One/Monad and Dyad as the first anothen constituents (termed
both archai and stoicheia), from which bodies derive and of which they are constituted.
But this is only half of the story. What is even more important is that the reduction of monad and dyad to (ultimate) elements paves the way for the individuation of the real arche. To a theologically-minded reader the reference to Gods
knowledge at 53d6 7 would have hardly been disregarded. On the contrary, this
reference to God could easily be taken as referring to Platos divine Demiurge
(30a, c, d, 34a), and by consequence interpreted as introducing another causal
level, an external one. And if Monad and Dyad, taken individually, are partial
causes, Platos demiurgic God is the common cause of generation: while things
still were in a chaotic condition, God began by giving them a distinct configuration by means of shape and numbers (53b). In spite of the terminological imprecision (but Timaeus account is said by Plato to be only probable), we can distinguish between two different levels, one transcendent and the other immanent;
in other words, between the real principle and the more ultimate elements, between God, who is external, and the pair Monad-Dyad, which is internal. It is true
that the Demiurge is not explicitly called a principle, but it is nevertheless clear
that insofar as he is the artificer, he is a principle. If this interpretation is correct,
therefore, it is against the background of the Timaeus that Eudorus account becomes relevant. Like pseudo-Timaeus and pseudo-Archytas the doctrine of what
,
.

.
Particularly relevant here is Plutarch, a philosopher influenced by Eudorus, see Plat.
quaest. 1002a, De def. or. 428e-f; in relation to Pythagorenism see further Alex. Polyhist. ap.
Diogenes Laertius 8.24 25, and anon. Vit. Pyth. ap. Photius, Bibl. 439a19 24 (on the latters
affinity with Eudorus, see Theiler 1965, 209).
Burkert 1972, 24.

395
is presented as the original Pythagorean doctrine turns out to be heavily influenced by Platos Timaeus. But the situation appears even more intriguing if we
further consider that the Timaeus alone does not solve all the difficulties.
In fact, the Timaeus alone does not suffice to account for Eudorus Pythagorean doctrine. For even though it is possible to read into the dialogue an analysis
of the notions of principle and elements with the consequent introduction of an
external and divine cause, it can hardly be argued that the Timaeus alone promoted it. The Timaeus is not so much the starting point as the fundamental authoritative text for confirming a doctrine which borrowed from other material as
well. The problem is now to find its source of inspiration.
But if not in Plato, where is it possible to search for such a distinction between arche and stoicheia? This distinction is attested for different authors
and in different periods: it was notoriously important in Stoicism, and was
adopted by Antiochus; later, pseudo-Galens Historia philosophos will also
refer to it. But the use of the same words and notions presupposes different
uses with respect to Eudorus. In particular, neither the Stoics nor Antiochus appear to reserve any place to one single arche as a transcendent cause above the
elements. At most we can admit that Eudorus exploits terms and concepts which
were used by Stoics, adapting them into a different context. But the Stoics are
not Eudorus major influence. In fact it is rather to Aristotle that we have to
look for a possible source. For Aristotle not only provides a clear analysis of
the notions of principle and element (and of their differences), but also exploits
the distinction in favour of a divine and transcendent cause. An important text is
surely Metaphysics XII.4 5, but other texts can be added, from De Gen. et Corr.
II.9 to the Peri Philosophias. In Metaphysics XII Aristotle argues that a theory
of principles reduced to a theory of first elements can hardly explain the causes
of reality; for the most one can say is that elements are the immanent constituents of things (i. e., they can be regarded as a sort of immanent cause), but still
an account of their interaction would be lacking, so that it cannot be properly
regarded as a proper causal theory of the generation of beings. If this is the prob-
Baltes 1975, 258.

See Diogenes Laertius 7.134 (= Posidonius, F5 Edelstein-Kidd), Cicero, Varro 26, ps-Galen,
Hist. phil. 21. A similar distinction is also adumbrated in Alexander Polyhistor ap. DL 8.24.
Cf. Ppin 1964, 65 67.
Remarkably, the Peri Philosophias was quoted by Cicero and later by Plutarch and Philo of
Alexandria, which confirms its popularity in Eudorus age. It probably included both a scrutiny
of the Academic doctrine of principles and a defence of the divine cause; if that is the case, the
resemblances are noteworthy; a further point in common is the thesis of the eternity of the
world, which was shared by Eudorus as well, as we have already seen.

396
Mauro Bonazzi
lem, Aristotle also provides his own solution: since not only what is present in
something is cause, but also something external, i. e., the moving cause, it is
clear that principle and element are different (
, , ;
1070b22 24). Here element is equivalent to the notion of immanent cause, as
opposed to an external one, the real principle. Since the actuality of things
(both in the sense of their coming to be and of their essential unity) is produced
not so much by their internal constituents as by the action of one external moving cause (which conveys form), this cause is definitely not an element, but the
proper arche. This external cause, which will be later specified as God, is first
and common to all things, insofar as it is the ultimate cause of all movement
(1072b35), because the existence of everything in the world depends on its action.
If my reconstruction is correct, an intriguing situation emerges. First of all,
the parallel between Eudorus and pseudo-Archytas becomes uncontroversial.
In both cases the reference to ancient Pythagoreanism reveals a heavy dependence on Platonic and Aristotelian texts and doctrines. Doctrines presented as Pythagorean turn out to be Platonic and Aristotelian developments. This calls for a
comparison with pseudo-Timaeus on the topic of the creation of the world. For
the analogies are clear, but there is an apparent novelty that is even more important. In all cases, in the two pseudo-Pythagorean treatises as in Eudorus, it resulted that the dependence on Plato (and most notably, on the Timaeus) is cardinal. Moreover, it also resulted that this dependence on Plato is not neutral, but
rather part of a more complex strategy. For in all cases a particular interpretation
of Plato is at stake, and it is this particular interpretation of Plato that accounts
for the function of the Pythagorean links: the references to the allegedly original
Pythagoreanism are the authoritative tool that serves to legitimate this interpretation of Platos philosophy a metaphysically and theologically minded interpretation, which marks a radical break with the Hellenistic centuries. The Drei-
Crubellier 2000, 144.

Admittedly, it may be objected that in pseudo-Archytas On principles there is no occurrence
of the terms arche and stoicheion, which play such an important role in Eudorus account. In
fact, to this objection it may be replied that we possess only a small fragment of the work, and
that more than these terminological variants it is the identity of system that is remarkable.
Besides, the similarities between Archytas and Eudorus become even more striking if Huffmans suggestion is accepted that the treatise also included the brief testimony of Syrianus in
Met. 151.19 20 on Archytas, distinguishing between hen and monas (remarkably, the context of
Syrianus discussion is Aristotles critical account of the Academic doctrine of principles), cf.
Huffman 2005, 597.

397
prinzipienlehre, as we have found it in pseudo-Archytas and Eudorus, is the doctrine which will dominate the Middle Platonist interpretation of Plato.
So far so clear. But from the analysis of the doctrine of principles a possible
difference also emerges. For it may be that the metaphorical reading of the Timaeus cosmogony faithfully represents Platos original view. But this cannot
be the case with regard to the doctrine of principles: in spite of its influence
on subsequent Platonists, this interpretation is a patent misinterpretation of
the Timaeus account. And this leads to a most important point. On this issue
it appears that the reference to Plato alone does not suffice, and neither does
the reference to the Old Academy. A fourth player enters, a player who was already there in one way or another from the very beginning: Aristotle.
6. The relation with Aristotle has traditionally constituted a major obstacle to any
attempt to keep Eudorus and the pseudopythagorica together. For it is commonly
assumed that Eudorus was a fervent opponent of Aristotle, a predecessor of Platonists like Atticus or Severus, who fiercly rejected the possibility of adopting Aristotelian doctrines within the Platonist system. On the contrary, the attitude of
the pseudo-Pythagorean texts is much more favourable and appears to point to
the opposite direction, towards a combination of Platonic and Aristotelian doctrines. If so, we are faced here with a real difference on a substantial issue. In
fact, as the previous section of this paper has shown, the situation is much
more complex and the simple opposition between symphatizers and enemies
of Aristotle is in danger of being misleading. For we have seen that Eudorus
was not an opponent of Aristotle, as Severus or Lucius were (with regard to either the categories or the doctrines of principles), nor was pseudo-Archytas simply paving the way for an eclectic combination of Aristotelian and Platonic doctrines. Once again the treatise On Principles provides the most interesting clue.
The adoption of Aristotelian terms and doctrines is evident; but it is no less evident that these terms and concepts are employed in a way that has nothing in
common with the Aristotelian doctrines: form and matter are set as metaphysical
principles, and the mover does not act on the heavens but on the two metaphysical principles; these views clearly fit the Platonist theory of principles, not Aristotles. Similar remarks apply also to the categories, if one considers how
pseudo-Archytas adopted the category of substance to both intelligible and sensible substances. So it is not a matter either of opposition or of eclecticism, but
Dillon 19962, 117 135; Karamanolis 2006, 82 84.

See the interesting remarks in Chiaradonna 2008 reviewing Karamanolis 2006.
Moraux 1984, 634; Bonazzi 2007a, 377.
As far as the ethical treatises are concerned, see Centrone 1990, 25 30.

398
Mauro Bonazzi
rather of theories being adopted by a different system. Indeed, this fact is remarkable from both a philosophical and an historical perspective. For the adoption of Aristotelian doctrines is the first attestation of a tendency which would
dominate the history of later Platonism: the renewed attention paid to Aristotle
provided Platonists with new stimulus and ideas that prompted the development
of a new Platonist system. We have here a first attestation of the depth of Aristotles influence on Platonism. Moreover, this influence is also remarkable
from an historical perspective, for it is now agreed that Aristotles school treatises were rediscovered and began to be studied again in the first century B.C. The
occurrence of these doctrines in the pseudopythagorica and in Eudorus further
confirms their date.
The relationship with Aristotle becomes much more intriguing if one considers more precisely which Aristotelian doctrines are at stake. Be it a matter of the
categories, of principles or of the eternity of the world, what is common is that all
these doctrines involve a polemic against Plato and his followers. It was against
the Academic bipartition between kathauta and pros ti that Aristotle developed
his doctrine of the categories; likewise, it is well known that when Aristotle
claimed to be the first to have argued for the eternity of the world a major polemical target was the attempts of Speusippus and Xenocrates to attribute the same
thesis to Plato and ancient Pythagoreans. Finally, even more striking is Aristotles account of principles, which, as famous texts such as Metaphysics A 6 or
De Gen. et Corr. II 9 clearly show, developed in opposition to Platos (and the Academics) failure to account for an efficient and transcending principle in addition
to the formal and material causes.
If we take this polemical background into account, the presence of Aristotelian views in the pseudo-Pythagorean treatises gains a strategic importance,
which enables us to account for at least some of the reasons for their creation.
On the assumption (which is taken for granted) that Plato depends on and develops Pythagorean doctrines, the occurence in allegedly Pythagorean texts of doctrines such as the categories or the eternity of the world legitimizes and orients
an interpretation of Plato which responds to Aristotles criticisms. In other
words, the renewed circulation of Aristotles school treatises influenced the Platonist systematization not only by providing concepts, ideas and doctrines but
also, more concretely, by providing a new textual basis for a polemical reversal
of his criticisms. Consider for instance the doctrine of principles under this perspective. Aristotle charged Plato and his followers with being incapable of accounting for an efficient and transcending cause. But the testimony of pseudoArchytas On Principles, paralleled by Eudorus reports on the Pythagorikoi,
shows that the ancient Pythagoreans such as Archytas, the famous friend of
Plato, had already argued for such principles; and since Plato followed the Py-

399
thagoreans, as the clear reminiscences echoes of the Timaeus in both pseudoArchytas and Eudorus confirm, it is clear that this doctrine is found in Plato
too, pace Aristotle.
The same remark also applies to the doctrines of the categories, and (perhaps) the eternity of the world. In fact, on this latter point it may be argued that
Eudorus and pseudo-Timaeus claim that Plato and Pythagoreans such as Timaeus argued for the eternity of the world need not imply an involvement and
a critical confrontation with Aristotles criticism in the On Heaven. Of course, Eudorus and pseudo-Timaeus could simply have returned to the Old Academy without any need of taking Aristotle into account. This latter hypothesis, however,
remains an intriguing possibility. A possible confirmation can be found in a
statement by another Platonist, Philo of Alexandria, who lived in Alexandria
in the same period and was acquainted with the new Pythagoreanizing Platonism. In his treatise On the Eternity of the World, when dealing with the problem of
who first introduced this thesis, he remarks that some say that the author of this
doctrine was not Aristotle but certain Pythagoreans, and I have read a work of
Ocellus the Lucanian entitled On the Nature of the Universe, in which he not
only stated, but sought to establish by demonstrations that the world was uncreated (ageneton) and indestructible. Likewise, I have already stressed that Eudorus, too, adopts the Old Academic interpretation of Pythagoreanism; on this
issue, too, a polemical move against Aristotle is not excluded.
7. We can now attempt to draw some conclusions. I am well aware that evidence
is lacking if one wants to demonstrate that the composition of these pseudopythagorica must be traced back to Eudorus. But my aim was rather to emphasize
the strategical convergence between the surviving Eudoran evidence and some
pseudo-Pythagorean treatises. To further claim that the composition itself of
Note that we know for sure that Eudorus was aware of at least one of the most important
Aristotelian passages (critically) concerning Platos theory of principles, that is Met. A 6; cf. Alex.
In Met. 58, 31 59, 8 and Moraux 1969.
Cf. Chiaradonna 2009.
Admittedly, with regard to the eternity of the world, the evidence is more controversial, for it
can be suggested that this thesis was also defended before the first cent. B.C.: pseudo-Ocellus
was dated to the second cent. B.C. by its editor Harder (but the only evidence is a probable Varro
quotation in Censorinus, De die natali 4.3 which indicates a terminus ante quem; the other
treatise attributed to Ocellus, a Peri nomou, has been dated to the first cent. B.C. first cent.
A.D., cf. Centrone Macris 2005). Be that as it may, also other pseudo-Pythagorean treatises
argue in favour of the eternity of the universe, using arguments from Plato and Aristotle; particularly relevant (and close to pseudo-Timaeus) are pseudo-Philolaus On the soul, 150, 12 20
and Aristaeus, On Harmony 52, 21 53, 2, cf. Huffman 1993, 343 344 and Moraux 1984, 635 636.

400
Mauro Bonazzi
these treatises must be attributed to Eudorus or to his circle is only an intriguing possibility which is difficult, if not impossible, to demonstrate. However,
even leaving this problem aside, I hope that, once strict affinity is acknowledged,
the importance of the pseudopythagorica becomes clear. For not only do we have
an important clue at our disposal that enables us to understand the nature, origin, and context of these pseudo-Pythagorean treatises; what is even more remarkable is that thanks to the comparison with Eudorus we can better assess
the philosophical value of these texts. If my reconstruction is correct, the pseudo-Pythagorean treatises emerge as belonging more to Platonism than to Pythagoreanism (perhaps as a further chapter in the history of the Platonic-Academic
appropriation of Pythagoranism). And this conclusion is extremely important,
for they emerge as being an early representative of a substantial turn in the history of Platonism, a turn which would have an important effect on the entire subsequent history of Platonism. The renewed attention to Pythagoreanism and
Aristotle may appear banal to our eyes, but it was not obvious in the early Imperial age. Indeed, it caused a real revolution, as can be seen by a comparison
between Hellenistic Academic and Imperial Platonist genealogies. In the Hellenistic Academic genealogies no mention was made of either Aristotle or the Pythagoreans (the absence of the latter is even more striking if compared with the
A controversial consequence of this hypothesis regards the problem of the forgery. The
distance between us and the ancients is here bigger than usual (cf. in general von Fritz 1972). But
the phenomenon, at least in the early imperial age, can be partly explained, if one considers that
distinctive of this period is the desire to restore the ancient truth (in this very same period, for
instance, new editions of Plato and Aristotle are produced): and part of this backwards-looking
movement could lead to the composition of texts, when the originals were missing.
See already Drrie 1963, 271; Baltes 1972, 20 21; Moraux 1984, 606 607; Centrone 1996, 159.
According to other scholars the aim of these treatises is rather to glorify the Pythagoreans at the
expense of Plato and Aristotle, see the status quaestionis in Huffman 2005, 95. A celebration of
Pythagoreanism is evident, but, as I tried to show, this recovery of Plato and Aristotle is not
neutral but rather depends on a precise view of what Platonism amounts to. Moreover, this
hypothesis, in order to be proved, would need the existence of some (Neo)Pythagorean philosophers who opposed Platonists and Aristotelians. But a careful analysis of the evidence which
regards philosophers (and not miracle workers or charlatans such as Apollonius and Alexander
of Abunouteichos) shows that this is highly debatable, cf. Centrone 2000. In my opinion, to
regard the pseudo-Pythagorean texts as an engaged part of the Platonist turn still makes better
sense of the evidence at our disposal.
On the importance of Pythagoreanism in later Platonism, see OMeara 1989; on Iamblichus
and Simplicius, see Hoffmann 1980, Macris 2002 and Gavray 2011. Among the more interesting
testimonies of the Neoplatonists interest for (pseudo)Pythagoreans, cf. for instance Simpl. in
cat. 2.9 25 (on Archytas and the categories), Syrian. In met. 151.18 20 (Archytas on principles),
165.34 166.8 (Archeaenetus, Philolaus and Brotinus on principles).
Cf. for instance Donini 1999.

401
many Presocratics claimed as predecessors by Arcesilaus, Carneades and Philo

of Larissa), whereas the line Pythagoras Plato (Aristotle) was commonly regarded by Platonists of the imperial era as the only possible genealogy. So the
emphasis on the Pythagorean Plato was part of a polemical debate.
Even more important for the history of Platonism is the presence of Aristotle.
The relevance of this polemical background has been usually registered by
scholars and then dismissed on the tacit assumption that Aristotle is nothing
more than a Platonist, or somehow part of the history of Platonism. But was
it really so? The issue is as controversial now as it was in Antiquity. Of course,
it is not possible to settle the question in the present paper. Here I will conclude
simply by saying that the importance of the pseudo-Pythagorean treatises is understood as soon as we acknowledge the importance of this issue. Thinkers such
as Eudorus and the authors of these treatises are the first to argue in favour of
this view. It is my hope that a more detailed investigation into this corpus
will contribute to the understanding of Platonism in this decisive period of its
history. That a better assessment of Platonism is an important result for our understanding of ancient (and modern) philosophy this at least is not controversial.
Bibliography
Baltes, M. 1972. Timaios Lokros. ber die Natur des Kosmos und der Seele. Leiden.
Baltes, M. 1975. Numenius von Apamea und der Platonische Timaios, Vigiliae Christianae
29, pp. 241 270.
Strictly related is also the problem of the terms used to define ones own allegiance. Recent
studies have shown that, within the field of Platonism, the transition from Akademaikos to
Platonikos was more complicated than is usually assumed, cf. Glucker 1978, 206 225 and Bonazzi 2003. It is an interesting remark that in the Early Imperial Age philosophers belonging to
the Platonist tradition but opposed to the still dominant Sceptical Academy could regard
themselves as Pythagoreans: Tarrant 1985, 130; Frede 1987, 1043.
An interesting but often neglected testimony comes from a pseudo-Xenophontean letter (I.
788 Hercher, who dates it to the 1st century BC), where the opposite position is stated: the
reference to those who betrayed Socrates real teaching by falling in love with Pythagoras
monstruous wisdom is probably directed against philosophers like Eudorus or the authors of the
pseudopythagorica; cf. Burkert 1972, 94 n. 48.
See for instance Gerson 2005.
An interesting parallel is the anonymous Life of Pythagoras, where Aristotle is introduced as
the tenth diadochos of the Pythagorean school, after Plato and Archytas (ap. Phot. Bibl. 249,
438b18 19).

402
Mauro Bonazzi
Baltes, M. 1976. Die Weltenstehung des Platonischen Timaios nach den antiken Interpreten,
vol. I. Leiden.
Bonazzi, M. 2002. Un dibattito tra academici e platonici sulleredit di Platone. La
testimonianza del commentario anonimo al Teeteto, in: Papiri filosofici IV. Firenze,
pp. 41 74.
Bonazzi, M. 2007a. Eudorus and Early Imperial Platonism, in: R.W. Sharples R. Sorabji
(eds.), Greek and Roman Philosophy 100BC200AD. London, pp. 365 378.
Bonazzi, M. 2007b. Eudorus Psychology and Stoic Ethics, in: M. Bonazzi Chr. Helmig
(eds.), Platonic Stoicism Stoic Platonism. The Dialogue between Platonism and
Stoicism in Antiquity. Leuven, pp. 109 132.
Bonazzi, M. 2013. Pythagoreanizing Aristotle: Eudorus and the Systematization of
Platonism, in: M. Schofield (ed.), Aristotle, Plato, and Pythagoreanism in the first
century b.C. Cambridge, pp. 160 186.
Burkert, W. 1972a. Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism. Cambridge (Mass.) (German
original Nrnberg 1962).
Burkert, W. 1972b. Zur geistesgeschichtlichen Einordnung einiger Pseudopythagorica, in:
von Fritz 1972, pp. 23 55 (reprint in W. Burkert, Kleine Schriften, vol. III: Mystica,
Orphica, Pythagorica, ed. Fr. Graf. Gttingen 2006, pp. 278 298).
Centrone, B. 1990. Pseudopythagorica ethica. I trattati morali di Archita, Metopo, Teage,
Eurifamo. Napoli.
Centrone, B. 1992. The Theory of Principles in the Pseudopythagorica, in K. Boudouris
(ed.), Pythagorean Philosophy. Athens, pp. 90 97.
Centrone, B. 1996. I pitagorici. Roma / Bari.
Centrone, B. 2000. Che cosa significa essere pitagorico in et imperiale. Per una
riconsiderazione della categoria storiografica del neopitagorismo, in: A. Brancacci (ed.),
La filosofia in et imperiale. Le scuole e le tradizioni filosofiche. Napoli, pp. 137 168.
Centrone, B. Macris, C. 2005. Pseudo-Occelos, in: R. Goulet (ed.), Dictionnaire des
philosophes antiques, t. IV. Paris, pp. 748 750.
Chiaradonna, R. 2008. Review of Karamanolis 2006, AGPh 90, pp. 229 245.
Chiaradonna, R. 2009. Autour dEudore. Les dbuts de lexgse des Catgories dans le
moyen platonisme, in : M. Bonazzi J. Opsomer (eds.), The Origins of the Platonic
System. Platonisms of the Early Empire and their Philosophical Contexts. Leuven,
pp. 89 111.
Crubellier, M. 2000. Metaphysics 4, in: M. Frede (ed.), Aristotles Metaphysics Lambda.
Oxford, pp. 137 160.
Dillon, J. 19962. The Middle Platonists. London [1st ed. 1977].
Donini, P. L. 1994. Testi e commenti, manuali e insegnamento: la forma sistematica e i
metodi della filosofia in et postellenistica, in: ANRW II 36.7, pp. 5027 5100 (reprint in
Donini 2010, pp. 211 281).
Donini, P. L. 1999. Platone e Aristotele nella tradizione pitagorica secondo Plutarco, in: A.
Prez Jimnez J. Garca Lpez R.M. Aguilar (eds.), Plutarco, Platn y Aristteles.
Actas del V Congreso internacional de la I.P.S. (Madrid-Cuenca, 4 7 de Mayo de 1999).
Madrid, pp. 9 24 (reprint in Donini 2010, pp. 359 373).
Donini, P. L. 2010. Commentary and Tradition. Studies in Aristotelianism, Platonism, and
Post-Hellenistic Philosophy. Berlin.
Drrie, H. 1963. Pythagoreismus 1C, RE XXIV 2, cols. 268 277.
Frede, M. 1987. Numenius von Apamea, in: ANRW II 37.2, pp. 1034 1075.

403
von Fritz, K. (ed.) 1972. Pseudepigrapha I: Pseudopythagorica Lettres de Platon

Littrature pseudopigraphique juive. Vanduvres / Genve.
Gavray, M. A. 2011. Archytas lu par Simplicius: un art de la conciliation, International
Journal of the Platonic Tradition 5, 85 158.
Gerson, L. P. 2005. Aristotle and Other Platonists. Ithaca.
Glucker, J. 1978. Antiochus and the Late Academy. Gttingen.
Guthrie, W. K. C. 1962. A History of Greek Philosophy, vol. I. Cambridge.
Hadot, P. 1987. Thologie, exgse, rvlation, criture dans la philosophie grecque, in :
M. Tardieu (d.), Les rgles de linterprtation. Paris, pp. 13 34 (reprint in Id., tudes de
philosophie ancienne. Paris 1998, pp. 27 58).
Halfwassen, J. 1992. Der Aufstieg zum Einem. Stuttgart.
Harder, R. 1926. Ocellus Lucanus, Text und Kommentar von R. H. Berlin.
Hoffmann, Ph. 1980. Jamblique exgte du pythagoricien Archytas: trois originalits dune
doctrine du temps, Les tudes philosophiques 35, pp. 307 323.
Huffman, C. 1993. Philolaus of Croton. Pythagorean and Presocratic. Cambridge.
Huffman, C. 2005. Archytas. Pythagorean, Philosopher and Mathematician King. Cambridge.
Karamanolis, G. 2006. Plato and Aristotle in Agreement? Platonists on Aristotle from
Antiochus to Porphyry. Oxford.
Macris, C. 2002. Jamblique et la littrature pseudo-pythagoricienne, in : S. C. Mimouni
(ed.), Apochryphit. Histoire dun concept transversal aux religions du livre. Turnhout,
pp. 77 129.
Mansfeld, J. 1988. Compatible Alternatives: Middle Platonist Theology and the Xenophanes
Reception, in: R. van der Broek, T. Baarda and J. Mansfeld (eds.), Knowledge of God in
Graeco-Roman World. Leiden, pp. 92 117 (reprint in Id., Studies in Later Greek
Philosophy and Gnosticism. London 1988).
Moraux, P. 1969. Eine Korrektur des Mittelplatonikers Eudoros zum Text der Metaphysik des
Aristoteles, in: R. Stiehl and H. E. Stier (eds.), Beitrge zur Alten Geschichte und deren
Nachleben. Festschrift fr Franz Altheim zum 6. 10. 1968, vol. II. Berlin, pp. 492 504.
Moraux, P. 1984. Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen von Andronikos bis Alexander von
Aphrodisias, vol. 2: Der Aristotelismus im I. und II. Jh.n. Chr. Berlin and New York.
OMeara, D. 1989. Pythagoras Revived. Mathematics and Philosophy in Late Antiquity. Oxford.
Opsomer, J. 2004. Plutarchs De animae procreatione in Timaeo: manipulation or search for
consistency, in: P. Adamson H. Baltussen M.W.F. Stone (eds.), Philosophy, Science
and Exegesis, vol. I. London, pp. 137 162.
Ppin, J. 1964. Thologie cosmique et thologie chrtienne. Paris.
Sedley, D.N. 1995. Commentarium in Platonis Theaetetum, in Corpus dei papiri filosofici
greci e latini, III. Firenze, pp. 480 562.
Szlezk, Th. A. 1972. Pseudo-Archytas ber Die Kategorien. Texte zur Griechischen
Aristoteles-Exegese: Berlin / New York.
Tarrant, H. 1985. Scepticism or Platonism? The Philosophy of the Fourth Academy. Cambridge.
Tarrant, H. 2009. Eudorus and the Early Platonist Interpretation of the Categories, Laval
thologique et philosophique 64, pp. 583 595.
Theiler, W. 1965. Philo von Alexandria und der Beginn des kaiserzeitlichen Platonismus, in:
K. Flasch (ed.), Parusia. Studien zur Philosophie Platons und zur Problemgeschichte des
Platonismus. Festgabe fr Johannes Hirschberger. Frankfurt am Main, pp. 199 218.
Thesleff, H. 1961. An Introduction to the Pythagorean Writings of the Hellenistic Period. bo.

404
Mauro Bonazzi
Thesleff, H. 1972. On the Problem of the Doric Pseudopythagorica, in: von Fritz 1972,
pp. 57 87.
Thiel, D. 2006. Die Philosophie des Xenokrates im Kontext der Alten Akademie. Mnchen.
Trapp, M. 2007. Neopythagoreans, in R.W. Sharples R. Sorabji (eds.), Greek and Roman
Philosophy 100BC200AD. London, pp. 347 363.
Zeller, E. 19235. Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung. Leipzig.
Zhmud, L. 2012. Pythagoras and the Early Pythagoreans. Oxford.


Eudorus of Alexandria

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eudorus of Alexandria

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mauro Bonazzi

Eudorus of Alexandria and the

Guthrie 1962, 146 n. 1.

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Eudorus of Alexandria and the Pythagorean pseudepigrapha

One slight differene is that Eudorus uses instead of .

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

See Baltes 1976.

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Eudorus of Alexandria and the Pythagorean pseudepigrapha

Chiaradonna 2009, 97 98.

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

More generally, cf. for instance Centrone 1996, 157.

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Eudorus of Alexandria and the Pythagorean pseudepigrapha

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Eudorus of Alexandria and the Pythagorean pseudepigrapha

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Eudorus of Alexandria and the Pythagorean pseudepigrapha

Baltes 1975, 258.

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Crubellier 2000, 144.

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Eudorus of Alexandria and the Pythagorean pseudepigrapha

Dillon 19962, 117 135; Karamanolis 2006, 82 84.

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Eudorus of Alexandria and the Pythagorean pseudepigrapha

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Eudorus of Alexandria and the Pythagorean pseudepigrapha

many Presocratics claimed as predecessors by Arcesilaus, Carneades and Philo

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Eudorus of Alexandria and the Pythagorean pseudepigrapha

von Fritz, K. (ed.) 1972. Pseudepigrapha I: Pseudopythagorica Lettres de Platon

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

You might also like