^{page 185 note 1} In antiquity the passage in question ittracted in particular the attention of the Christian Fathers. Eusebius (Praep. Evang. II. II, PG 21, cols. 876–80) quotes a lengthy extract from the De E ap. Delph. beginning at (391 F) and stretching down to …(393 B). Cyril of Alexandria quotes from , … 393 A) down to … (393 B) at Adv. Jul. 8 (PG 76, col. 908). Theodoretus (Graec. off. cur. 2. 108, PG 83, col. 860) quotes from 392 E: . Since his version differs:onsiderably from the accepted text we must issume that Theodoretus, or his authority, was quoting from memory. This in itself is an ndication of the popularity of the De E ap. Delph.

^{page 185 note 2} There are certain textual difficulties, which do not, however, affect the present discussion. I quote from Plutarque: Sur I'E de Delphes, texte et traduction avec une introduction et des notes par Flacelière, R. (Annates de l'Université de Lyon, 3^e série, Lettres, fasc. 11, Paris, 1941).Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 3} See Norden, E., Agnostos Theos (rp. Darmstadt, 1956), pp. 231–3Google Scholar, where Norden quotes a private communication from Diels.

^{page 185 note 4} Cf. in particular DK 22 B 32 (.

^{page 185 note 5} There is, to my knowledge, no pre-Neoplatonic counterpart to Plot. Enn. 5. 1. 9 . It should be noted that the doctrine which Plotinus here ascribes to Heraclitus resembles only superficially that of the De E. Plutarch contrasts God and man in respect of being; in Plotinus, since refers to the material universe in general, the contrast is impersonal.

^{page 186 note 1} Cf. Arist. Metaph. A, 986^b24 f. ((sc. Xenophanes) ), and especially the ps.-Aristotelian MXG (= DK 21 A 28).

^{page 186 note 2} Cf. DK 21 B 23 .

^{page 186 note 3} Cf. Norden, loc. cit.

^{page 186 note 4} It is interesting to compare Plutarch's formulation with Philo, , De vit. Mos. 2. 2Google Scholar. Since Rep. 473 c 11 ff. (cf. also Ep. 7. 326 b) was a favourite Platonic commonplace which, in condensed form, is specifically referred to Plato by Cicero (ad Q. Fr. I. I. 29) and Jul. Capitolinus, who remarks that this sententia was constantly on the lips of Marc. Aurelius (Vita 27), it can hardly be doubted that Philo was aware that he was presenting a paraphrase of Plato. Thus, one must assume that the phrase is intended as sophisticated flattery of the educated reader who might reasonably be expected to recognize the allusion to Plato and to feel in consequence entitled to pat himself on the back. Interestingly, Justin (Ap. I. 3, PG 6, col. 332) quotes same sentiment with a similar indirect reference to Plato:. It may be noted that Capitolinus' condensation of Plato's text (florere civitates si aut philosophi imperarent aut imperantes philoso-pharentur) resembles that of Philo to such a degree that one is tempted to believe that their common source was a Hellenistic florilegium rather than the actual text of Plato. Cicero's version, though somewhat more elaborate (… Plato turn denique fore beatas res publicas putavit, si aut docti ac sapientes homines eas regere coepissent aut ii qui regerent omne suum studium in doctrina et sapientia collocassent), follows the same basic pattern. Cf. also Alb. Didasc. 34, Apul. de Plat. 2. 24.

^{page 186 note 5} Plutarch often quotes Heraclitus (see Helmbold, W. C. and O'Neil, E. N., Plutarch's Quotations (Baltimore, 1959), p. 34),Google Scholar but that in so doing his general practice seems to be to refer to him specifically by name.

^{page 186 note 6} Cf. Dorrie, H., ‘Die Schultradition im Mittelplatonismus und Porphyrios’ (Porphyre, Entretiens sur l'Antiquité classique xii [Vandoeuvres-Genève, 1966], pp. 3 ff.)Google Scholar, and Andresen, C., Logos und Nomos (Berlin, 1955), pp. 108 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 186 note 7} This in spite of Diog. Laert. 9. 5 (= DK 22 A 1) (sc. Heraclitus). For Heraclitus' own estimate of Xenophanes see Diog. Laert. 9. 1 (= DK 22 B 40) .

^{page 187 note 1} Already Plato (Phlb. 16 c 7 f.) could refer to the Pythagoreans as , .

^{page 187 note 2} De E. 388 F; De Iside 354 F and 381 F.

^{page 187 note 3} Strom. I. 24, PG 8, col. 912.

^{page 187 note 4} Enn. 5. 5. 6.

^{page 187 note 5} De abst. 2. 36, p. 165. 3 ff. N.

^{page 187 note 6} Anth. I, p. 21. 26 ff. W. (cf. Diels, , Doxogr., pp. 96 ff.).Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 7} De mens. 2. 12, p. 33. 8 ff. W.

^{page 187 note 8} Sat. 1. 17. 7 = SVF ii. 1095.

^{page 187 note 9} Sat. 1. 17. 65 - Numenius fr. 38 Leemans vocant …, ut Numenio placet, quasi unum et solum, ait enim prisca Graecorum lingua unum vocari unde et frater, inquit, dicitur quasi iam non unus. Macrobius refers to an interpretation of rather than of Apollo. But clearly there would be no point in Numenius interpreting as meaning ‘one’ if he were not already familiar with the Pythagorean etymology of Apollo. For the formula unus et solus (= ) see below. Cf. Apuleius, , De Platone 1. 11Google Scholar deorum trinas nuncupat species, quarum est prima unus et solus summus ille, ultramundanus, incorporeus.

^{page 187 note 10} 354 F (sc. the Pythagoreans) . 381 F .

^{page 187 note 11} Loc. cit. .

^{page 187 note 12} Loc. cit. Cf. Plutarch's account in n. 10 above.

^{page 187 note 13} Anth. I, p. 22. 1 f. (sc. Pythagoras).

^{page 187 note 14} Loc. cit. (cf. De mens. 2. 4, p. 21 W.) Cf. Clem. Alex. loc. cit. , .

^{page 187 note 15} REG lxxvi (1963), 91 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 16} DK 44 B 20

^{page 187 note 17} De opific. 100.

^{page 187 note 18} De mens. 2. 12, p. 34. 1 ff. W.

^{page 187 note 19} This is indicated too by the Latin version of this etymology given by Cicero, N.D. 2. 68Google Scholar: lam Apollinis nomen esl Graecum, quem solem esse volunt, …, cum sol dictus sit vel quia solus ex omnibus sideribus est tantus vel quia cum est exortus obscuratis omnibus solus apparet. For parallels see A. S. Pease ad loc.

^{page 188 note 1} Cf. Lydus, , De mens. 4. 1, p. 64. 11 f. W. (regarding the etymology of ) … .Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 2} La Révélation d'Hermès Tristnégiste ivGoogle Scholar, Le Dieu inconnu et la Gnose (Paris, 1954), pp. 18 ff.Google Scholar See further Clem. Alex. Strom. 5. 14.Google Scholar PG 9, col. 193, where Clement quotes as follows from a work entitled ascribed to the early Pythagorean Thearidas:

^{page 188 note 3} C.H. 4. 1 (i. 49. 4), 5 (i. 51. 6), 8 (i. 52. u); C.H. 5. 1 (i. 60. 17 f.); C.H. 10. 14 (i. 119. 16 ff.); C.H. 11. 5 (i. 149. 9); C.H. 14. 3 (ii. 222. 19); Exc. Stob. 2A. 15. The same phrase was apparently used of this world in the ; cf. Nock-Festugière ii. 304 f.

^{page 188 note 4} De agric. 54; Quis rer. div. 216; Leg. alleg. 2. 1 ff.; De gig. 64. The locution, after finding its way into Philo, soon lost its Pythagorean ring and eventually (no doubt via Philo) received a new home in the Christian formulary; cf., e.g., Eusebius, , Praep. Evang. 1. 1Google Scholar, PG 21, col. 24, and passim. This is particularly obvious in the case of Pseudo-Justin's Exhortation to the Greeks (composed in the second half of the third century after Christ ?) where the fact that Pythagoras regarded the Monad as first principle of everything and source of all good things is accepted as evidence that (Cohort. 19, PG 6, col. 276) . The formula reoccurs in a Christian context at Cohort. 20, PG 6, col. 276.

^{page 188 note 5} (De E. 391 E).

^{page 188 note 6} On Ammonius see Zeller, , D. Phil. d. Griech., iii. i.⁵832 n. IGoogle Scholar; iii. ii.⁵ 177 n. 1.

I assume that Plutarch is reproducing substantially the teaching of Ammonius. However, this assumption is not vital to my argument, for Plutarch's own interest in Neopythagoreanism is well known and is indeed sufficiently attested by the discourse put forward in his own name in the De E. (387 F–391 E). See further Zeller, , D. Phil. d. Griech., iii. ii.⁵175 ff.Google Scholar; Geigenmuller, P., ‘Plutarchs Stellung zur Religion und Philosophic seiner Zeit’, N. Jahrb. f. klass. Alt. xlvii (1921), 251 ff.Google Scholar If from no other source, Plutarch would be familiar with Alexandrian Neopythagoreanism (see n. 7 below) from Eudorus' commentary upon the Timaeus; cf. below. Plutarch himself had visited Alexandria in his youth, but it is not known what he studied there; cf. Qu. conv. 678 c.

^{page 188 note 7} Recent work, above all Thesleff's examination of the Pythagorean pseudepigrapha (Thesleff, H., An Introduction to the Pythagorean Writings of the Hellenistic Period [Acta Academiae Aboensis, Humaniora xxiv. 3, Aabo, 1961]),Google Scholar has shown that Zeller's view that Neopythagoreanism was in its inception exclusively an Alexandrian movement is improbable. To some extent, however, the evidence of Plutarch (whom we know to have been familiar with Alexandrian sources) may, like that of Philo, be taken as representative of Alexandrian speculation.

^{page 188 note 8} Loc. cit.; cf. op. cit., pp. 182 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 9} Sagesse de Plutarque (Paris, 1964), p. 193 n. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 1} Cf. (as Flacelière notes) Carcopino, J., De Pythagore aux Apôtres (Paris, 1956), pp. 45 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 2} Cf. De Iside 369 D–371 B.

^{page 189 note 3} Cf. De Iside 370 E; Simplicius' report of Eudorus' views, in Ph. 181. 22 ff. Diels; Porph. V.P. 38, p. 37. 2 ff. N.

^{page 189 note 4} Cf. Dodd, C. H., The Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, 1953), p. 61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 189 note 5} Deity and intelligible reality are similarly identified at De Iside 352 A. Cf. De def. orac. 433 D–E where Plutarch identifies Apollo with the Form of the Good.

^{page 189 note 6} Cf. Simplicius, in Ph. 181. i7ff. Diels. Cf. Philo, , Leg. alleg. 2. 3Google Scholar Cf. Festugiere, loc. cit. (p. 188, n. 2, above).

^{page 189 note 7} I. 3. 8 (D 280 f.) = DK58B 15:1.7. 18 (D 302)

^{page 189 note 8} Haer. I. 2, PG 16, col. 3024 (sc. Pythagoras) .

^{page 189 note 9} Suppl. 5, p. 6 Schwartz = DK 46. 4

^{page 189 note 10} Protr. 6, PG 8, col. 180

^{page 189 note 11} Theol. ar. p. 3. 21 f. de Falco

^{page 190 note 1} On this latter topic see Boll, Fr., ‘Die Lebensalter: Ein Beitrag zur antiken Ethologie und zur Geschichte der Zahlen’ (Kleine Schriften zur Stemkunde des Altertums (Leipzig, 1950), pp. 156 ff.).Google Scholar

^{page 190 note 2} Cf. Theiler, W., Die Vorbereitung des Neuplatonismus (rp. Berlin/Zürich, 1964), pp. 12 ff.Google Scholar Theiler draws attention (op. cit., p. 38Google Scholar) to Cicero, , Acad. I. 30 f.Google Scholar, where id quod semper esset simplex et unius modi et tale quale esset is contrasted with the objects of sense perception which are ita mobiles et concitatae ut nihil umquam unum esset constans, ne idem quidem, quia continenter laberentur et fluerent omnia. However, Cicero is here no longer dealing with deity (cf. Acad. 1. 28 f.) but with the simplicity of the individual Forms as can be seen from the context (cf. PI. Phd. 78 d). Thus in Cicero the contrast is impersonal in that impersonal Forms are contrasted with impersonal physical objects, whereas in Plutarch the contrast is between the stability of the deity and the impermanence of man.

^{page 190 note 3} Ep. 58. 22 f. Quaecumque videmus aut tangimus Plato in illis non numerat quaeesse proprie putat; fluunt enim et in adsidua deminutione atque adiectione sunt. Nemo nostrum idem est in senectute qui fuit iuvenis; nemo nostrum est idem mane qui fuit pridie. Corpora nostra rapiuntur fluminum more. Quidquid vides currit cum tempore; nihil ex iis quae videmus manet; ego ipse, dum loquor mutari ista, mutatus sum. Hoc est quod ait Heraclitus: ‘in idem flumen bis descendimus et non descendimus.’ Manet enim idem fluminis nomen, aqua transmissa est. Hoc in amne manifestius est quam in homine; sed nos quoque non minus velox cursus praetervehit, et ideo admiror dementiam nostram, quod tantopere amamus rem fugacissimam, corpus, timemusque ne quando moriamur, cum omne momentum mors prioris habitus sit: vis tu non timere ne semel fiat quod cotidie fit!

Cf. also Ep. 58. 27 Inbecilli fluvidique inter vana constitimus: ad ilia mittamus animum quae aeterna sunt. Miremur in sublimi volitantes rerum omnium formas deumque inter ilia versantem. …

^{page 190 note 4} Cf. De E 392 B–D “

The contrast between god and man is explicit:

^{page 190 note 5} p. 117. 18 ff. Hobein

^{page 190 note 6} 141

^{page 191 note 1} Cf. De Cherub. 114 ff. Cf. the Hermetic Exc. Stob. 2 A. 11 ff.

^{page 191 note 2} Met. 15. 176 ff. In particular, 214 ff. should be compared with the passages of Plutarch and Seneca quoted above (p. 190, nn. 3 and 4).

On the relationship between Met. 15. 199 ff., Philo, , De aetern. 58Google Scholar, and Ocellus Lucanus 16 see Theiler, (Gnomon i (1925), 151Google Scholar and ii (1926), 588 ff.).

^{page 191 note 3} See Boll, , op. cit., pp. 171 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 4} Cf. Diog. Laert. 8. 6 ff., in particular 8. . Thesleff, , op. cit. (p. 188, n. 7 above), pp. 20 and 32.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 5} 10. 9. 5.

^{page 191 note 6} p. 98. 11 ff. Hiller.

^{page 191 note 7} Cf. Clem. Alex. Strom. 4. 23, PG 8, col. 1360 The sentiment goes back to the Old Acadmy at least; cf. Epin. 986 D and 992 B () The same conception occurs in the Valentinian Gospel of Truth (Evangelium Veritatis, ed. by Malinine, M., Puech, H. C. and Quispel, G. (Zürich, 1956)) at, e.g., p. 25. 10 ff.Google Scholar On the Platonic-Pythagorean background of Valen-tinianism see now Krämer, H. J., Der Ursprung der Geistmetaphysik (Amsterdam, 1964), pp. 238 ff.Google Scholar For the general significance in Gnostic religion of the conception in question see Jonas, H., The Gnostic Religion (2nd ed.Boston, 1963), pp. 58 ff.Google Scholar On in Clem. Alex, see Krämer, , op. cit., P. 245.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 8} at 392 D recalls Timaeus 50 c. As Theiler points out (Die Vorbereitung des Neuplatonismus, pp. 14f.Google Scholar), there are reminiscences of Ti. 41 A–B at De E. 393 E and at Sen. Ep. 58. 27 f. Furthermore, Bickel, E. (Rheinisches Museum ciii (1960), 1 ff.)Google Scholar has shown convincingly that Ep. 58. 16–22 (i.e. the portion immediately preceding that quoted in p. 190, n. 3, above) is closely related to the Timaeus and no doubt derives from a commentary thereon. Bickel identifies this commentary with that of Posidonius. But Seneca's source might equally well have been the commentary of Eudorus; cf. below.

^{page 191 note 9} Cf. De procr. an. in Ti. 1013 B, 1019 E, 1020 c.

^{page 192 note 1} Loc. cit. (p. 187, n. 15, above).Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 2} The texts in question are Lyd. De mens. 2. 12, pp. 33 f. W.; Ph. De opific. 100 and De Dec. 102–5. It is worth remarking that Ammonius opens his discourse with a reference to (391 F); cf. Qu. conv. 738 D .

^{page 192 note 3} See ‘Philo von Alexandria und der Beginn des kaiserzeitlichen Platonismus’ in Parusia, Festschr. für J. Hirschberger, hrsg. von Kurt Flasch (Frankfurt, 1965), pp. 199 ff.

^{page 192 note 4} Op. cit.; cf. in particular pp. 216 f. For a possible link between Seneca and Eudorus see Theiler, loc. cit., and Zeller, , D. Phil. d. Griech. iii. i⁵. 635 Anm.Google Scholar