Peripatetic Ethics in the First Century BC: the Summary of Didymus

CHAPTER 6 Peripatetic Ethics in the First Century BC: The Summary of Didymus Georgia Tsouni 1 Didymus and his Work One of the numerous sources that Ioannes Stobaeus used to compile his anthology of ancient wisdom in the fifth century AD was the work of a certain philosopher named Didymus. Didymus figures as one of Stobaeus’ (philosophical) sources in the list of authors provided by Photius in his Library (cod. 167.114a). This evidence is supported by a lemma in Stobaeus’ Anthology [Florilegium] 4.39.28 (918.15–919.6 Ηense) which is introduced by the words “From the Summary of Didymus” (Ἐκ τῆς Διδύμου Ἐπιτομῆς). Since the part prefaced with these words appears also in the Peripatetic doxography of ethics in Book 2.7 (in the part where the Peripatetic conception of eudaimonia is treated), Didymus may be securely identified with the author of the whole doxographical piece on Peripatetic ethics entitled Of Aristotle and the Rest of the Peripatetics on Ethics (Ἀριστοτέλους καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν Περιπατητικῶν περὶ τῶν ἠθικῶν). Since the publication of Diels’ monumental work Doxographi Graeci, the prevailing hypothesis has been that the author of the Peripatetic and Stoic doxographies in Stobaeus’ Selections 2.71 is Arius Didymus, a Stoic philosopher who lived in the time of Augustus.2 This Arius Didymus would be the same person as the Stoic Arius who appears in the so-called index locupletior of Diogenes Laertius,3 and as Arius Didymus, the author of an epitome of Stoic philosophy referred to in Eusebius’ Preparation for the Gospel.4 1 All references to Didymus’ text are given following the pagination in Wachsmuth 1884. Deviations from Wachsmuth’s text, and English translations, follow the forthcoming edition and translation by Georgia Tsouni in Fortenbaugh 2016. 2 See Diels 1869: 80. Diels followed Meineke on this point. Cf. Meineke 1860: CLV. This hypothesis is taken for granted in most modern bibliography after Diels. See Giusta 1964: 81, Moraux 1973: 259, and Hahm 1990: 3047. The only exception known to me is Göransson 1995: 203–218. 3 The Index locupletior refers to a lost part of Book 7 of Diogenes Laertius’ text. See also the reference to the Stoic Ἄριος in Strabo Geography 14.5.4. 4 Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel [Praeparatio Evangelica] 15.15. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��6 | doi ��.��63/97890043�540�_008 Peripatetic Ethics in the First Century BC 121 Although it has remained unchallenged for a very long time, this hypothesis does not rest on evidence that is beyond dispute. In the index locupletior, the Stoic Arius (who on Diels’ hypothesis is identical with the writer of the ethical doxography) is not listed as Arius Didymus, but only as Ἄριος. Moreover, this Arius, who was a friend and an advisor of Augustus, was not a Roman citizen, and therefore most probably did not have a Roman cognomen.5 One could still argue that Eusebius provides a secure basis for the identification of Didymus with the Stoic Arius. However, there is a further complication: while Eusebius recalls Arius Didymus as the writer of an epitome of Stoic philosophy, he men- tions only a certain Didymus as the author of a work on the doctrines of Plato (Περὶ τῶν ἀρεσκόντων Πλάτωνι συντεταγμένων).6 We cannot exclude the possibility that Arius the Stoic philosopher and Didymus the doxographer of the views of Plato are two different persons. There is also the possibility that “Arius” has been falsely attached to Didymus in Eusebius as a result of a scribal error. An alternative source from the Suda makes reference to an Academic philosopher Didymus with the cognomen Ateius;7 he could provide an alternative authorship for the text, and one which would connect the writer of the epitome with the Academic milieu. A connec- tion between the Peripatetic doxography in Stobaeus, the circle of Antiochus, and the revival movement of Aristotelian philosophy in the first half of the first century BC will be argued for in due course. Since I wish to keep the question of the authorship of the text open, I will refer to the writer of the doxography as Didymus, and not, as has been customary until now, as Arius Didymus. There are two titles attributed to Didymus in Stobaeus. The first is a “Summary” or an “Epitome” (see the lemma Ἐκ τῆς Διδύμου Ἐπιτομῆς in Book 4, chapter 39.28); the second is a work “On Philosophical Sects” (Διδύμου ἐκ τοῦ Περὶ αἱρέσεων in Book 2, chapter 1.17). One may assume that they both refer to a single work, a doxographical summary organized according to schools. In this work, Didymus seems to have collected the views of the most important sects of his time, and most probably those of Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics, pre- sumably on all three branches of philosophy, i.e. physics, ethics, and dialectic.8 5 For evidence of Arius’ Alexandrian citizenship see Julian’s Letter 111.39–40. 6 Cf. also a reference by Clement of Alexandria in Miscellanies [Stromata] 1.16.80.4 (perhaps to the same Didymus who appears to have written on Pythagorean philosophy as well). 7 Suda s.v. “Didymus” (δ 871 Adler) reads as follows: “Didymus bearing the name Ateius or Attius, Academic philosopher. [He wrote] Solutions of Plausible Arguments and Sophisms in two books. And many other things.” (Translation Catharine Roth, Suda Online, April 2005, http://www.stoa.org/sol-bin/search.pl.) 8 This corresponds to Diels’ reconstruction of Didymus’ Epitome. Cf. Diels 1879: 72–73..

Load more