694 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. 



Since my previous discussion I have come to doubt whether the words 

 of the Timaeus may be used to support the statement of Diogenes. 

 About the agreement itself there can be no question. Plato does not, 

 however, mention Xenophanes, and there is no indication in his text 

 that what he saj-s is to be taken as a correct statement of his doctrine. 

 If we were quite sure that the report of Diogenes came materially 

 unchanged from Theophrastus, the parallel would unquestionably 

 prove that Xenophanes expressly denied the doctrine of the cosmic 

 respiration. Tannery would then be justified in holding, as he did, 

 that the brief notice of Diogenes was a precious document showing 

 beyond c}uestion that Xenophanes was engaged in a sharp polemic 

 against the Pythagoreans, whose doctrine, amply attested by Aristotle, 

 he emphatically denied. Tannery's position would be untenable 

 except on the assumption that Pythagoras himself proposed the 

 theory of cosmic respiration: the testimony of Aristotle, however, 

 who refers (as always) not to P^'thagoras but to the Pythagoreans, 

 is scarcely adequate to establish it. On the other hand, as has already 

 been said, the accuracy and integrity of the account of Diogenes is 

 subject to grave suspicion. The statement "with which it opens, that 

 Xenophanes held the doctrines of the four physical elements (o-rotxeta) 

 and of innumerable worlds, cannot be reconciled with other data 

 unc^uestionably derived from Theophrastus. Again, the sentence 

 Y- 34, 19, TrpcoTOs T€ aire(l)r]vaTO otl ttolv to jLVOixevov (pdapTOV earL, in 

 which Otto Gilbert, Die mdcoroJ. Thcoricn dcs gr. Altcrtums, p. 98, 

 n. 1, sees "nur ein ungenauer Ausdruck fiir die Riickbildung der 

 Elemente in den Urstoff" (!), appears to be nothing but an echo of 

 the anecdote related by Aiist. Rhet. 2.23 1399^ 6 (V- 35, 21), olov 

 Zivocpavrjs e\eyev otl "ojuotcos aaepovaiv ol yeveadaL (f)aaKOVTes tovs deoi's 

 rots dirodavelv \eyov(nv," and of De Melisso, Xenophane, Gorgia, 977'"* 

 14 sq., which latter passage in turn incorporates arguments derived 

 from Plato. This fact should give us pause, and suggests that 

 Diogenes's account of the philosophy of Xenophanes is derived from 

 a source which, like that of Hippolytus (V- 41, 25 sq.) and Simplicius 

 (V"40, 21 scj.), sought to eke out the scanty Theophrastean summary 

 with information coming from the spurious De Melisso, Xenophane, 

 Gorgia, and ultimately from the Timaeus and Parmenides of Plato. 

 I am therefore inclined to beheve that the statement of Diogenes, 

 /ui) fxevTOL avaTTPttv, rests solely on the Timaeus, which the compiler 

 regarded as a trustworthy source for the philosophy of Xenophanes. 



I may add a brief note on the word Trpwros in the sentence just 

 quoted (V" 34, 19). Diels long ago observed that the claim of 



