HEIDEL. — Ilepl 4>v<r€<os. 81 



words quoted from Professor Burnet. It is probably true that early 

 prose writings had no formal titles ; but our information on this point 

 is really too scanty to admit of dogmatic statement. 9 It is reasonably 

 certain that philosophical works were familiarly quoted as bearing the 

 title Uepl cfivo-ews some time before the close of the fifth century, as we 

 may see from the works of Hippocrates ; 10 and from the time of Xeno- 

 phon, Plato, and Aristotle ll onwards it must have been the accepted 

 designation. In regard to the scope of the title Hepl <£i'o-ews and Pro- 

 fessor Burnet's attempt to limit it narrowly to the meaning Concerning 

 the Primary Substance, and to distinguish it, as if coordinate, from 

 such titles as Ilepi ovpavov and Ilept /xeTtwpwv, we shall be in better posi- 

 tion to decide at the conclusion of our inquiry. But, while it is clearly 

 impossible, without writing a history of Greek philosophy, to refute his 



9 Besides Herodotus, we have incorporated titles from Hecataeus (fr. 332 Muller), 

 Antiochus of Syracuse (fr. 3 Muller), Alcmaeon (fr. 1), and Thucydides. It is possi- 

 ble that the MiKpbs AtdKoafios of Demociitus had such a title ; cp. Diog. Laert. IX. 41. 

 We have, however, what are said to be the opening words of other works, but mention 

 neither the name of the author nor the subject ; e. g. Heraclitus, fr. 1 ; Archytas, 

 fr. 1 ; Anaxagoras, fr. 1 ; Protagoras, fr. 1 and 4 ; Diogenes of Apollonia, fr. 1. For 

 those who hold the fragments attributed to him to be genuine I may add, Philolaus, 

 fr. 1. One may, of course, assume that the incorporated title was in these cases 

 disregarded, either because a formal title had been substituted for it, or because it 

 was considered negligible. The works of Hippocrates, however, do not have incor- 

 porated titles naming the author ; but have in some cases an introductory sentence 

 which announces the subject: e. g. II. ywaiKeirjs (pvaios (7,312 Little) irepl 5e rijs 

 yvvaiKeir/s (pvuios ml vocryjixdruv rdSe \iyu ; similarly Demociitus, fr. 165 Xtyu rdde 

 irepl tQiv £vfiirdvTuv. Cp. also Hippocrates (Littre) 8, 10 ; 8, 408 ; 8, 466 ; 8, 556 ; 

 8, 512. 



10 Hippocr. II. dpx- l-qTpiKyjs, 20 (1, 620 Littre) reivei 8e aureus 6 \6yos is <pi\oao- 

 <pif)v, Kaddwep 'EjnreooKXris fj &W01 ol wept <puo~ios yey pdcpaaiv. iyu 5e rovro fxiv, oaa. 

 tlvI ei'prjTai fj crofpLffTrj 7) 1-qrpQ fj yiypairrai. irepl (ptjenos, fjacrov vofiifa rrj IriTpiKy ri^yv 

 irpo<ri)Keiv fj rrj ypcupiKfj. II. crapK&v, 15 (8,604 Littre) xal elal rives ol ^Xe^av <pvaiv 

 £vyypd(povTes on 6 iyxecpaXos icrnu 6 ijxiuv. In Hippocrates we lind such titles as 

 II. (pvcrios oariuv, II. (pvcrios iraidlov, II. (pvcrios dv6pibirov, II. (pvcrios ywaiKeirjs. The 

 meaning of these titles will be seen, I trust, in the sequel. It may excite com- 

 ment that I quote Hippocrates indiscriminately. I do so because to do otherwise 

 were to prejudge a question not yet settled — hardly even fairly put. I incline to 

 the opinion that the works of the Corpus Hippocrateum (with possibly one or two 

 exceptions) belong to the fifth century ; at any rate, the conceptions and points of 

 view they present show few traces of the influence of Socratic thought. 



11 Xen. Mem. I. 1, 14 rdv re irepl rrjs rQv iravruv (pvcrecos p.epip.vuvrwv ; Plato, 

 Legg. 891 C ; Phaedo 96 A (see above, note 7) iyw ydp, ?(pt] (sc. 6 Sw/cpdr^s), vios ibv 

 6avfj.aaTu>s us iire6vfj.rjcra raiTijS ttjs crocpias fjv 8r] KaXovcri Trepl epvereoos iffropiav, which is 

 of great importance since in this connexion Plato most clearly defines the relation 

 of the Socratic-Platonic philosophy to that of the (pvcriKoi ; for Aristotle it is hardly 

 necessary to do more than refer to Bonitz's Index under the expressions ol (pvcriKoi, ol 

 Trepl epverews, ol (pvcrioX6yoi, cpvaioXoyelv, 



VOL. XLV. — 6 



