692 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY, 



still encumber the text, though we cannot determine to whom they 

 are due. Diels formerly bracketed irvKvorarov (V^ 18, 39), but now 

 contents himself with characterizing it as an inaccuracy of the late 

 compiler. There are, however, two larger additions which are false 

 and misleading. V- 18, 31, depa aTeipov ecftr] ttjv apxw elvat, e^ ov 

 TO. y Lvofxeva Kai to, yeyovora /cat ra kaofxeva Kal Oeovs Kal 

 6 el a yiveadaL, ra Sc XotTrd eK tcov tovtov [so Diels, following C: 

 TOVTCcv T] aTToyovuiv. It is obvious that in the statement of Theoph- 

 rastus the invbyovoL were those of the first generation, and not the 

 absurd list we here have presented to us. The primary forms of 

 existence are afterwards mentioned, V- 18, 35-40: the report of 

 Theophrastus is even better preserved by Cic. Acad. 2. 37. 118 (V- 19, 

 16), " Anaximenes infinitum aera, sed ea, quae ex eo orerentur, defi- 

 nita: OW^i autenn terrain, aquam, ignem, turn ex iis omnia. The 

 variant readings above noted are probably due to the intrusion of the 

 impertinent clause, which clearly does not derive from Theophrastus. 

 Whether Hippolytus or some other made the addition I find it diffi- 

 cult to decide. A second instance of the same kind occurs V- 18, 35, 

 KLveiadaL Se ad • ov yap peTa!3aXKeLV oaa /^era/^aXXet, el prj klvolto. 

 This sentence is awkward and intervenes between two parts of the 

 exposition of the changes to which "air" is subject. What we expect 

 from Theophrastus is something about the dvyjaLs aidios, and doubt- 

 less he did refer to it here. The clause KLveladat he aei in all probabil- 

 ity is sound and derives from him; but the sentence ov yap . . . 

 klvoIto introduces a foreign element. Perhaps Hippolytus found it 

 in his immediate source. 



I add heie a note on V- 19, 2, where the ]MSS read ave/jiovs 8e yevvd- 

 odai, oTav eKTreirvKvccjjLevos 6 drjp dpaiuidels (j^epTjrai, and Diels prints 

 orav f] TreTVKVoopevos 6 dr]p Kal coadels 0eprjTat. This reading seems to 

 me to depart farther than necessary from the MS. text. I would 

 propose orav ^ tt. 6 drjp t) dpaiccdels 4>epr]TaL. Though a greater degree 

 of rarefaction or condensation would, according to Anaximenes, re- 

 sult in fire or cloud respectively, it does not appear wh}' he might 

 not have held that a more moderate change in either direction gave 

 rise to wind. 



c. 11. Xenophanes. 



V^ 34, 16. Diog. L. 9 .19, {4>ri(jl) to. ve4>r} avvlcraadaL rrjs d0' rfKlov 

 drixido^ dva4>epojjLevris Kal alpovarjs avrd els to irepiexov. 



Diels still regards this doxography preserved by Diogenes as de- 

 rived from Theophrastus through the biographical line of tradition. 



