Diogenes

1) Reference Edition: Müseler 1994.

2) Sender(s): all the (pseudepigraphic) letters are sent by the 4th century B.C. Cynic philosopher Diogenes of Sinope (see s.v. Diogenes (2), OCD4).

3) Extent and range of length

49 letters in the fullest version in the mss (Palatinus graecus 398);1 two further letters (26, 29) are preserved in a different branch of the tradition (see §5, 9 below), for a total of 51 letters in modern editions. The overall mean length is 15.27 lines in Müseler’s edition, but this conceals a sharp difference between the 38 shorter letters (17 lines or fewer), whose mean length is 7.6 lines and the 13 longer letters (23 lines or more), whose mean is 37.69. The longest letter is 28 (61 lines), the shortest 48 (2 lines).

4) Dating

It is not certain when the collection took its final shape: some, at least, of the letters look to date

2 from the 1st century B.C. (Trapp 2003, 27, Sykutris 1931, 210); but our collection may have been formed from distinct earlier groups composed at different times, for instance in the Second Sophistic

(or later) in addition to the first century B.C., which may explain some of the variation in length and character among the letters (Emeljanow 1967, 4–7, Gerke 1896, 85-6; see also §8 below). The letters of Diogenes referred to in Diogenes Laertius (6.23, 6.80), Epictetus (4.1.30) and Julian (Or. 7.212d) appear to be different from those preserved in the medieval mss (Rosenmeyer 2001, 221, Malherbe 1977, 14).3

5) Arrangement of letters in the mss

1 Pal. gr. 398 is late 9th century B.C. Some late mss preserve 50 letters, but these are Vaticanus gr. 1353 and its descendants (Matrit. 4557, Vindob. 179). Vaticanus gr. 1353 is a late, composite ms created by Lascaris in the fifteenth century by supplementing letters 1-29 from one branch of the tradition (see §5 below) with further letters from a copy of Pal. gr. 398 (from the other branch): see Müseler 1994: 81-2, 100. 2 Historical references in 31 suggest it must have been written after 200 B.C. and 19 after 28 B.C. (Malherbe 1977, 14, Marcks 1883, 8–20). 3 The addressees of the letters mentioned in Julian (Archidamus) and Epictetus (Persian king) are not found in the surviving Diogenes letters. The coincidence of a reference to the storage jar in which Diogenes makes his home (τὸν ἐν τῷ Μητρῴῳ πίθον, Diog. Laert. 6.23 & letter 16) does not demonstrate that Diogenes Laertius knew letter 16 or the wider collection: he does not name the addressee of the letter he mentions andthe story of the πίθος is one of the most famous associated with the Cynic Diogenes (see e.g. Lucian, Hist. conscr. 3.13, Maximus of Tyre, Diss. 26.2.21, 32.9.2). Cf. Emeljanow 1967, 9-10.

[1]

No ancient ms preserves all of the letters in their modern 1-51 arrangement, which originates with Hercher 1873: he supplemented the 1-29 order of the Aldine, which is itself based on a ms from the ψ branch of the tradition (see §6 below). ψ contains a large number of mss dating principally from the 14th to the 16th centuries, but preserves only letters 1-29 (in that order). The other branch (designated χ by Müseler 1994) is represented by the oldest surviving ms of the letters of Diogenes, Palatinus gr. 398 from the ninth century, and its descendants.4 Pal. gr. 398 preserves 49 letters in the following order: 20, 13, 41, 15, 16, 42, 21, 17, 22, 51, 23, 24, 18, 48, 14, 19, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 43, 9, 44, 10, 35, 36, 45, 37, 38, 11, 12, 39, 8, 50, 46, 47, 40, 49, 28, 25, 4, 5, 7, 1, 2, 3, 6. Letters 26 and 29 are omitted.

The relationship between χ and ψ is variously explained: Emeljanow 1967, 7 suggests that ψ represents an earlier collection which was combined with further, originally separate collections in a compilation represented by Palatinus gr. 398 (perhaps in the fourth century A.D.), but that the earlier collection continued to be popular and circulated separately. However, it seems more likely that ψ represents a selection of mainly shorter letters from a larger collection represented by Palatinus gr. 398, so that the ψ collection and order is derivative and that in Palatinus gr. 398 more authoritative (see Sicherl apud Müseler 1994, 97; cf. Capelle 1896, 6). The more authoritative order is, however, not reflected in the Aldine or Hercher 1873 and therefore not employed in modern editions (see above). Some groups of letters transmitted in ψ (1–3, 4–5, 9–12, 17–18, 20–24, 27–28) are found in the same relative order (with some considerable interruptions from other letters) in Palatinus gr. 398 (these letters are represented here in bold): 20, 13, 41, 15, 16, 42, 21, 17, 22, 51, 23, 24, 18, [...] 19, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 43, 9, 44, 10, 35, 36, 45, 37, 38, 11, 12, 39, 8, 50, 46, 47, 40, 49, 28, [...] 4, 5, 7, 1, 2, 3 [...]: see Sicherl apud Müseler 1994, 98, Gerke 1896, 85–6.5 It is more plausible to interpret these similarities as indicating the selection of the 1-29 letters in ψ from the fuller collection, esp. because letters 1-29 in ψ represent an arrangement of twenty-seven short letters followed by two long letters (28, 29), including the longest letter of Diogenes (28), while Palatinus gr. 398 shows alternating groups of shorter and longer letters.6 This suggests letters 1-29 in ψ may have

4 Many mss of χ are selections of only a few letters, deriving from Pal. gr. 398 (Müseler 1994, 75-6, 81-2): Parisinus suppl. gr. 212 (15th/16th c.), contains letters 51, 19, 41, 15, as do the newly-discovered mss Cgrm 323 (ff 110-117r) and Cgrm 582a (ff 215-215v), which contain the same letters in a different order, 41, 15, 51, 19 (see Hinz 1999, 24 n.5). Vindobonensis phil. gr. 342 (11th c.) contains letter 46 among various classical and Byzantine epistolographers, including a few letters of Crates (12, 7, 3). On Vaticanus gr. 1353 (15th c.), which contains 1-50, see n. 1 above. 5 Only 4-5 and 1-3 are uninterrupted by other letters, however, and the 20-24, 17-18 and 9-12 sequences are interleaved with one another. 6 Seventeen short letters, then five long, four short, two long, one short, two long, two short, one long, four short, one long, one short, one long and a closing group of eight short letters.

[2]

been chosen for their brevity (a pattern observable in other collections),7 along with a representative pair of longer letters, placed at the end of the selection. Moreover, Sicherl argues that the two ms traditions, ψ and χ, share common textual errors which suggests that they stem from a single archetype, which contained all the letters of Diogenes as well as those of Crates,8 probably together with letters of other ancient philosophers (Sicherl apud Müseler 1994, 100-3).

6) Publication history

The first printed edition of the text of the letters of Diogenes was the Aldine (1499), which contains 1–29. This edition was based on a ms of the ψ tradition, Mutinensis gr. 54, an indirect descendant of a member of the γ family,9 with further conjectures and corrections from another ψ ms, a member of the β family, perhaps Parisinus gr. 2755 (15th c.).10 According to Boissonade 1818, 122–3, Griffolini had already translated the letters into Latin in 1487. Since Griffolini translates forty-seven letters, he almost certainly had access to a ms of the χ family, a close relative of Palatinus gr. 398 (Hinz 1999, 40). In 1601 Lubinus published an edition of the Greek epistolographers, based on an apograph of the Aldine edition accompanying them with Latin translation. Lubinus used the translations of Griffolini and so omitted letters 26 and 29, which, though published in the Aldine edition, had not been translated by Griffolini (Boissonade 1818, 122–3). In 1606 Cuias reprinted the Aldine edition with Latin translations for all 29 letters. Some re-editions of selected letters from the Aldine edition were also made, the most important of which were those by Camerarius (Delectae quaedam Graecae epistulae 1540, 3), which included letters 1, 19 and 2, and by Patousas (1710, 188–90), which included letters 4, 6, 9, 16 and 23 (see Boissonade 1818, 127). The first edition of the Greek text of letters 30–51 was by Boissonade (1818), who used Palatinus gr. 398 and Vaticanus gr. 1353, also providing French translations. Hercher (1873) collected all fifty-one letters together, based on the Aldine edition and the mss Palatinus gr. 398, Vaticanus gr. 1353 and Mazarineus 4454. Modern editions adopt Hercher’s order, which supplements letters 1-29 from the Aldine with distinct groups of longer letters (30-40, contiguous with the long letters 28 and 29) and shorter letters (41-51).

7) Addressees and summary of contents

7 Cf. PLATO. 8 See CRATES §5. 9 Müseler 1994 divides the main branch of ψ into α, β, γ families, which derive from a common ancestor ω (see Müseler 1994, 33-4; families α, β, γ are described at length on pp. 34-67). The other branch of ψ is represented by Ambrosianus sup. B4 (=A81): see §9 below. 10 See Müseler 1994, 47-52, 58-64.

[3]

There are 35 different named addressees in the fullest arrangement in χ (represented by Pal. gr. 398); the addressee of one letter (38) has not been preserved. The addressees vary in type. There is a marked tendency to include both known contemporaries of Diogenes from the fourth century B.C. (e.g. his teacher Antisthenes and pupil Crates) and famous figures who must have lived considerably earlier (such as Epimenides, the late-seventh century Cretan sage) or later (such as Amynander, king of the Athamanians). Such anachronistic correspondents are marked with an asterisk below: in some cases it is not possible to determine with certainty if the addressee is the famous figure concerned, since there is nothing explicit to confirm this in the content of the letter; but given the pronounced tendency to address significant figures of similar types in the collection, it seems likely that the names were supposed to bring those figures to mind.

The addressees include philosophers or sages, both Cynics (Antisthenes: 2; Crates: 9, 11, 12, 6; Metrocles: 44, 10; Hipparchia (the wife of Crates & sister of Metrocles): 3; Monimus: 37, 39) and non-Cynics (Aristippus: 32; Plato (described as ὁ σοφός): 46; Zeno* (i.e. the Stoic of Citium): 47; Epimenides*:11 51; Anniceris* (apparently the Cyrenaic):12 27); kings and their associates (Alexander: 24, 40, Perdiccas: 45, 5; Antipater: 15, 14, 4; Olympias: 34; Agesilaus (Spartan king):13 22; Amynander* (perhaps the late third/second-century king of the Athamanians: 21);14 statesmen/generals (Timomachus (perhaps the fourth-century Athenian general):15 36; Phanomachus* (perhaps the fifth-century Athenian general):16 33; Charmides: 50; Melesippus* (perhaps the fifth-century Spartan statesman):17 20, 41; Antalcidas (Spartan general):18 17); cities/groups of citizens (Maroneans: 43, Sinopians: 1; Greeks: 28); private individuals, including both Diogenes’ father, Hicetas (30, 7),19 and more obscure figures (Apolexis: 13, 16, 18; Phaenylus: 31; Melesippe: 42; Lacydes: 23; Rhesus: 48; Sopolis: 35; Eugnesius: 8; Aroueca: 49); the Anaxilaus

20 addressed in 19 is perhaps the fourth-century B.C. comic poet who parodied Plato. The addressee receiving the most letters is Crates with four; two others (Antipater and Apolexis) receive three each.

The letters to fellow Cynics are mostly short and usually exhort their addressees to continue with the Cynic life in spite of obstacles and hardships they might encounter (e.g. 11, 10 on begging) or praise them for success in doing so (3, 9); some add short narratives to illustrate a particular moral point,

11 One of the Seven Sages according to Diog. Laert. 1.13. 12 See Emeljanow 1968, 133-4. 13 See Emeljanow 1968, 127. 14 Strabo 9.4.11, Polyb. 4.16.9. See Emeljanow 1968, 126. 15 Xen. Hell. 7.1.41-2. See Emeljanow 1968, 172. 16 Thuc. 2.70, 79. 17 Thuc. 1.139, 2.12. See Emeljanow 1968, 213. 18 Xen. Hell. 4.8.12. See Emeljanow 1968, 212. 19 He is ‘Hicesius’ at Diog. Laert. 6.20. 20 Emeljanow 1968, 123. See PCG 2.279ff.

[4]

such as the possibility of greater simplicity shown by Diogenes’ seeing a slave using his hands instead of a cup to drink (6). One of the longer letters to Monimus (39) dispenses ethical advice at greater length, advising him on the need to practise dying, while the other (37) tells the story of Diogenes’ visit to Lacydes, during which he told Lacydes of learning the pleasures of poverty. Of the letters to other philosophers some are hostile and rebuke their addressee (32, 46, 51), while others direct criticism elsewhere (27, on the difference between the simplicity of the Spartans and that of Diogenes) or elucidate a particular view (e.g. 47, on the desirability of not marrying or having children). The letters to private individuals include several anecdotes which illustrate some aspect of Diogenes’ simple existence as a Cynic (e.g. 13, 16); some are related at greater length with a similar purpose (e.g. 31, the demonstration to a successful pancratiast of the greater need to be steadfast in life); 49 encourages its addressee towards self-knowledge. The two letters to Diogenes’ father concern the Diogenes’ choice of the Cynic way of life: in 7 he urges his father not to be upset at the slur that Diogenes is a ‘dog’, while the longer 30 gives an account of being given the clothing and accoutrements of a Cynic by Antisthenes. The letters to kings contain a mix of self-defence against criticism of the Cynic way of life, particularly the dress Diogenes adopts (e.g. 14, 15, 34), explanations for not heeding summonses (4, 5; cf. 23), and more hostile denunciations (e.g. 45, responding to threats against Diogenes, 40, urging the need for Alexander to be taught to escape his evils; cf. 8, where Diogenes tells the story of upbraiding Dionysius). Of the letters to groups, that to the Maroneans praises them for changing their city’s name to Hipparchia (43), but letters 1 (to the Sinopians) and 28 (to the Greeks) are much more hostile, berating the former for exiling Diogenes, and the latter for their many excesses, urging on them the need to learn self-control from Diogenes and Socrates, or hang themselves.

In the reduced number of letters in the ψ-branch of the tradition, there are twenty-one different addressees for the twenty-nine letters, including another addressee not shared with Pal. gr. 398 (Dionysius, the tyrant of Syracuse, letter 29). Crates receives a further letter, 26, bringing the total addressed to him in ψ to five (6, 9, 11, 12, 26). The only other addressees receiving more than one letters in ψ are Antipater and Apolexis (three each). The different groups listed above are all represented, but it is notable that in the 1-29 group there are far fewer letters to non-Cynic philosophers (only 27, to Anniceris the Cyrenaic), which serves to make the selection in ψ focus on Diogenes’ interactions with the powerful, with his fellow Cynics and with an assortment of private individuals, in the letters to whom the description and defence of the Cynic life is prominent.

8) Characteristics of the collection

[5]

In the collection as it is printed in modern editions since Hercher, the letters divide into three main groups, on the basis of length: shorter letters 1-27 followed by a group of substantially longer letters (28-40) and then another group of shorter letters (41-51), of similar length to 1-27. In Pal. gr. 398 (χ- branch) these groups are mixed up, though there is a group of seventeen shorter letters at the beginning and a group of eight shorter letters at the end (see §5 above). There are some signs of grouping of addressees in some parts of Pal. gr. 398: of the first five letters, two are to Melesippus (20 & 41, first and third in the arrangement), two to Apolexis (13 & 16, second and fifth); the two letters to Metrocles are found next to one another (44, 10), as are two of the letters to Crates (11, 12; the second is labelled as ‘to the same’ in ω). At the end of the arrangement in Pal. gr. 398 there are two letters to kings excusing Diogenes (4, 5), followed by a letter to his father (7) about his Cynic way of life, then the letter berating the Sinopians (1), before a final group of three letters to prominent Cynics (Antisthenes, 2; Hipparchia, 3; Crates, 6). This suggests some concern with ordering by theme, at least in parts of the χ arrangement. Earlier a letter about Alexander (23) is followed by one to Alexander (24).

The arrangement in ψ appears to be one influenced by length, since the selection consists of twenty- seven shorter letters followed by two longer ones (28 and 29), one of which is the longest of all the letters of Diogenes (28), directed at the Greeks and urging on them the need to learn from Diogenes. There also seems to be some concern with thematic arrangement, since the opening of the selection begins with the letter to Diogenes’ home city (1), followed by letters to Cynics (2, 3), kings (4, 5), before the first of the five letters to Crates (6), then the letter to Diogenes’ father. This similar to the end of the arrangement in Pal. gr. 398, with some reordering. There also seem to be some clear addressee groups: 9, 11, 12 to Crates, 13, 16, 18 to Apolexis, 14, 15 to Antipater.

Some of the letters of Diogenes seem clearly to be the model for some in the Crates collection: CRATES 6 appears to develop Diogenes 30, CRATES 8 seems to be related to Diogenes 9, CRATES 21 develops Diogenes 12.21

9) Associations in mss

The most important ms of the letters of Diogenes, Pal. gr. 398, consists of a number of works by geographers and paradoxographers (including Strabo and Antigonus of Carystus), followed by a closing group of epistolographers: the letters of Hippocrates, Themistocles, Diogenes, Brutus.

21 See Malherbe 1977, 10-11, Boissonade 1827, 14. See further CRATES §4, 8.

[6]

The majority of the mss of the ψ family belong to the large family ω and have been classified into three sub-families: α, β and γ.22 The most important representatives of the α sub-family are Harleianus 5610 (14th c.), Laurentianus 57.12 (15th c.) and Mazarineus 4454 (15th/16th c.), which contain Diogenes’ letters 1–29 and Crates’ letters 1–14 next to one another along with the letters of several other Greek epistolographers.23 The β sub-family consists mainly of 15th century mss,24 which contain both pagan and Christian authors of various works and letters in Greek, including Diogenes’ letters 1–29 and Crates’ epp. 1–14.25 The γ sub-family consists of 15th century mss, which contain mainly pagan Greek epistolary collections, including Diogenes’ letters 1–29 and Crates’ letters 1–14, and their apographs.26 Some of the most important representatives of the γ sub-family (Vaticanus gr. 1353, Bononiensis 3563 and Laurentianus CS 153) have been classified under Harleianus 5610 (in Müseler’s α sub-family) in the stemmata codicum of the editors of other Greek epistolographers included in the same mss,27 but Müseler, following Städele, preferred to classify them as a separate sub-family within the large ω family.28

The other branch of the ψ-tradition is represented by Ambrosianus sup. B4 (= A81) (10th c.),29 which contains Proclus, On Letter Form, Demetrius, Epistolary Types, followed by a selection of Greek epistolographers in the following order: Phalaris, Isidore of Pelusium, Firmus, Theophylact Simocatta, Julian, Basil, Libanius, Aelian, Aeneas of Gaza, Heraclitus, Brutus, Procopius of Gaza, Dionysius of Antioch, Apollonius of Tyana, Philostratus, Diogenes’ letters 18–29, Crates’ letters 11– 14, Phalaris, Photius.30

22 See n. 8 above. 23 For a list of the contents of these mss, see CHION §9. To α belongs also Parisinus gr. 3047 (a. 1419), which contains only a selection of the letters of Diogenes and Crates: Diogenes’ letters 4–7, 9–14, 16, 18–20, 22, 25– 27 and the title of 28, as well as Crates’ letters 3, 5 and 9. 24 Laurentianus 86.8, Vindobonensis phil. gr. 82, Parisinus gr. 1760, Parisinus gr. 2755, Parisinus gr. 3044, and Parisinus suppl. Gr. 205 and its apographs. 25 Some mss contain only selections: Laurentianus 86.8 contains only Diogenes’ letters 1–3, 14, 4–6, 8–9, 11, 13, 17–19, 23, 20, 22, 24,25, Vindobonensis phil. gr. 82 and Parisinus gr. 1760 only Diogenes’ letters 1–23 and the title of 25. 26 The main representatives of the γ family, Mutinensis gr. 54, Taurinensis C.VII.2, Vaticanus gr. 1461, Vossianus gr. Q 51, Harleianus gr. 5635, Laurentianus Conv. Suppr. 153, Bononiensis 3563 and Vaticanus gr. 1353 (all dating to the 15th c.), contain Diogenes’ letters 1–29 and Crates’ letters 1–14, but their apographs contain only selections from these letters, apart from the Aldine (1499) and its apographs (see Müseler 1994, 61-9). 27 E.g. Düring 1951 (Chion), Reuters 1963 (Anacharsis), Gösswein 1975 (Euripides), Attridge 1976 (Heraclitus), Moore-Blunt 1985 (Plato). 28 Müseler 1994, 37, Städele 1980, 136. 29 This ms has one apograph, Laurentianus 56.3 (15th c.), which omits Diogenes, but contains (among other works) the letters of Synesius, Phalaris, Brutus, Crates’ letters 11–14, Plato. 30 Müseler 1994, 9, Martini-Bassi 1906, 92-4.

[7]

10) Current text-critical and editorial work

The most important work is that of Müseler 1994, including the important contribution of Sicherl (see also Sicherl 1993, 1994), now supplemented by Hinz 1999.

11) Modern critical editions and indicative bibliography of significant items

Editions  Müseler E., Die Kynikerbriefe. 1. Die Überlieferung, 2. Kritische Ausgabe mit deutscher Übersetzung (Paderborn, 1994).

Other significant works

 Aldus, M., Epistolae diversorum philosophorum, oratorum, rhetorum sex et viginti: Synesius, Demosthenes, Plato, Aristoteles, Philippus, Alexander, Hippocrates, Democritus, Heraclitus, Diogenes, Crates, Anacharsis, Euripides, Theano, Melissa, Myia, Alciphron, Philostratus, Theophylactus, Aelianus, Aeneas, Procopius, Dionysius, Lysis, Amasis, Musonius (Venice, 1499).  Boissonade M., ‘Notice des lettres inédites de Diogène le Cynique, contenues dans les manuscrits 1353 et 398 du Vatican’, Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque du roi et autres bibliothèques 10.2 (1818), 122–289.  Camerarius, J., Delectae quaedam Graecae epistulae, ceu flosculi, de diversis editis quondam et ab AIdo et aliis, cum interpretation Latina plurimum, quorum nomina suae quodque operae ascriptum cernetur (Tübingen, 1540).  Capelle W., ‘De cynicorum epistulis’, diss., Göttingen (1896).  Cuias I., Epistolae Graecanicae mutuae antiquorum rhetorum, oratorum, philosophorum, medicorum, theologorum, regum ac imperatorum, aliorumque praestantissimorum virorum (Geneva, 1606).  Emeljanow V.E., ‘The letters of Diogenes’, diss., Stanford (1968).  Gerke A., ‘Handschriftliche Ordnung der Diogenesbriefe, an excursus to his Seneca Studien’, Jahrbücher für classische Philologie Supp. 22 (1896), 85–90.  Hercher, R., Epistolographi Graeci, Paris, 1873 (repr. Amsterdam, 1965): 235-58 (=TLG)  Hinz V., ‘Kritisches zu den Diogenesbriefen im Palatinus gr. 398 und zur Griffoliniana’, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 142 (1999), 24–52.

[8]

 Junqua F., ‘Les correspondances apocryphes de Diogène de Sinope et Cratès de Thèbes’ in L. Nadjo, É. Gavoille (eds.), Epistulae antiquae (Leuven, 2004), 271–85.  Junqua F., ‘Lettres de cyniques : étude des correspondances apocryphes de Diogène de Sinope et de Cratès de Thèbes’, diss. Paris (2000).  Krueger D., ‘Diogenes the Cynic among the fourth century Fathers’, Vigiliae Christianae 47 (1993), 29–49.  Lubinus E., Epistolae veterum Graecorum, nempe Hippocratis, Heracliti, Cratetis, Diogenis, Phalaridis, Bruti, aliorumque ad eosdem (vol. 1) (Heidelberg, 1601).  Malherbe A.J., The Cynic Epistles (Atlanta, 1977).  Marcks J.F., ‘Symbola critica ad epistolographos Graecos’, diss. Bonn (1883).  Martini A., Bassi D., Catalogus codicum graecorum Bibliothecae Ambrosianae (vol. 1) (Milan, 1906).  Overwien, O., ‘Das Bild des Kynikers Diogenes in griechischen, syrischen und arabischen Texten’, Philologus 155.1 (2011), 92-124.  Patousas, I., Ἐγκυκλοπαιδεία Φιλολογικὴ εἰς τέσσαρας τόμους διῃρημένη, πρὸς χρῆσιν τῶν φιλολόγων καὶ φιλομαθῶν τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς Γλώττης συναρμοσθεῖσα, προσφωνηθεῖσα δὲ τῷ ἐκλαμπροτάτῳ καὶ ἐνδοξοτάτῳ κόμητι, φιλοσοφίας τε καὶ ἰατρικῆς διδασκάλῳ ἐξοχωτάτῳ κυρίῳ κυρίῳ Σπυρίδωνι τῷ Περουλίῳ (vol. 1) (Venice, 1710).  Rudberg G., ‘Zur Diogenes-Tradition’, Symbolae Osloenses 14 (1935), 22–43.  Schafstädt H., ‘De Diogenis epistulis’, diss. Göttingen (1892).  Sicherl M., ‘Epistolographen-Handschriften kretischer Kopisten’ in G. Cavallo, G. De Gregorio, M. Maniaci (eds.), Scritture, libri e testi nelle aree provinciali di Bisanzio (Spoleto, 1991), 99-124.  Sicherl M., ‘Bemerkungen zum Text der Kynikerbriefe’, Illinois Classical Studies 18 (1993), 263–77.  Sicherl M., Griechische Erstausgaben des Aldus Manutius. Druckvorlagen, Stellenwert, kultureller Hintergrund (Paderborn, 1994).  Von Fritz K., Quellenuntersuchungen zu Leben und Philosophie des Diogenes von Sinope, Philologus Supp. 18 (1926).

[9]