1. Introduction.

In Diogenes Laertius’ work on Greek philosophers pointed sayingsand anecdotes play an important role. These items may occur separa-tely, integrated in the running text, but the majority are presentedin individual collections, which often have a more isolated character.These collections are prominent especially for the Seven Sages andmany members of the Socratic schools, and certainly belong to themost entertaining parts. In some biographies they dominate absolutely,and if they were to be removed, little would be left in the form ofbiography for characters such as Anacharsis, Aristippus, Antisthenesand above all the Cynic Diogenes.

Despite their importance the study of these collections has beengenerally neglected, even during a period which was more interestedin gnomological material than the present century. It was pointed outalready by F. Bahnsch F. Bahnsch, Quaestionum de Diogenis Laertii fontibus initia, diss. Königsberg1868, p. 33 and p. 45. in 1868 that Diogenes used several, alreadyexisting collections of sayings and anecdotes, especially for the CynicDiogenes. This view was accepted by E. Schwartz E. Schwartz, Diogenes Laertios (n. 40) in RE, V (1905) col. 758. in his RE-articleon Diogenes in 1905, who added: «diese Untersuchungen lassen sichnur auf Grund handschriftlichen Materials weiterführen». This generalidea seems to have prevailed and is plausible enough Cfr. e.g. F. Leo, Die griechisch-römische Biographie nach ihrer litterarischenForm, Leipzig 1901 (repr. Hildesheim 1965) p. 50; A. Delatte, La Vie dePythagore de Diogene Laërce: Édition critique avec introduction et commentaire,(Académie Royale de Belgique, Classe des Lettres et des Sciences Morales et Politi-ques, Mémoires, 2. Série, 17:2) Bruxelles 1922, p. 29; W. Schmid-O. Stählin,Geschichte der griechischen Litteratur, 2:2, 6. ed. (Handbuch der Altertumswissen-schaft, 7:2:2) München 1924, p. 864; K. von Fritz, Quellenuntersuchungen zuLeben und Philosophie des Diogenes von Sinope, (Philologus, Suppl. 18:2) Leipzig1926, p. 8; J. Bompaire, Lucien écrivain: Imitation et création, (Bibliothèque desÉcoles Françaises d’Athènes et de Rome, 190) Thèse Paris 1958, p. 447 note 4.For a different view see I. Gallo, Frammenti biografici da papiri; 2: La bio-grafia dei filosofi, (Testi e Commenti, 6) Roma 1980, pp. 243-4.. But not much

material from MSS has been brought to light after Schwartz, and therehas hardly been any investigation or analysis of these parts in Diogenes.A. Elter, who around the turn of the century published many valuablecontributions to the history of gnomologies, also promised the publica-tion of even more, such as an investigation of exactly this material inDiogenes and a more general survey of the collections of ἀποφθέγματα,which would have been of great interest as regards Diogenes Cfr. A. Elter, Γνωμικά ὁμοιώματα des Socrates, Plutarch, Demophilus,Demonax, Aristonymus u.a., 1, Univ.-Progr., Bonn 1900, col. 66 (for Diogenes)and A. Elter, De Gnomologiorum Graecorum historia atque origine commentationisab A.E. scriptae ramenta, Univ.-Progr., Bonn 1897, col. 12 (for the collectionsof ἀποφθέγματα).. Un-fortunately none of these studies was ever published I am informed by letter (26.11.1984) from the University Library in Bonnthat A. Elter’s ‘Nachlass’, which had been entrusted to the Library, was lostduring the Second World War..

In giving a more general presentation of Diogenes’ relations tothe so-called χρεία-literature, I shall be treating a subject which islittle known, and I must confine myself largely to what can be rea-sonably assumed rather than proved. Therefore no final solutions oreven new hypotheses will be offered here. I shall start by dealingwith the question of terminology, both in general and more specificallyas far as Diogenes is concerned. This will be followed by a survey ofthe information to be found in Diogenes concerning collections ofrelevant material. Next I shall give a brief historical survey of thiskind of literature, its origin, forms and uses, as far as they are knownto, or can be plausibly visualized by us. I shall then try to relateparts of Diogenes to preserved examples of gnomological collections,in order to gain an idea of the sources he may have used, of his methodof working with them, and of his general intentions.

2. Terminology in general.

When dealing with the singular items, which make up these col-lections of pointed sayings and anecdotes, we are confronted withdifferent terms, of which γνώμη, ἀπόφθεγμα, ἀπομνημόνευμα andχρεία are the most important. Ancient tradition, and especially workson rhetorical theory, provide definitions for some of these concepts,but are generally of a late date and do not relate the different termsto each other in a consistent and complete manner, which results ina lack of clear distinctions, as the terms constantly seem to overlap.To start with we may note that the four terms just mentioned arenot of the same character, as the first three appear to indicate — atleast in principle — three formally different expressions, while forχρεία no such information is provided.

In general we may define the terms as follows. Γνώμη Cfr. RE, Supplbd. VI (1935) s.v. Gnome, Gnomendichtung, Gnomologien,coll. 74-90 (K. Horna-K. von Fritz); LAW (1965), s.v. Gnome, col. 1099(O. Gigon-K. Rupprecht); KP, 2 (1967) s.v. Gnome (n. 2), coll. 823-9(W. Spoerri); H. Lausberg, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik: Eine Grund-legung der Literaturwissenschaft, 2. ed. München 1973, §§ 872-879. indicatesa short saying, in poetry or prose, with a general application and amoral intention, the Latin equivalent being sententia. We know theword with this technical meaning at least from Xenophon, Isocratesand Aristotle Cfr. Xenoph. mem. IV 2, 9, Isocrates II 44, Aristot. rhet. B 21.1394 a 22and 1395 a 11; cfr. also Quintil. inst. orat. VIII 5, 3: sententiae vocantur, quasGraeci γνώμας appellant., who also provides a definition Aristot. rhet. B 21.1394 a 21-26.

The term ἀπόφθεγμα Cfr. W. Gemoll, Das Apophthegma: Literarhistorische Studien, Wien-Leipzig 1924; RAC, 1 (1950) s.v. Apophthegma, coll. 545-50 (Th. Klauser - P. deLabriolle); LAW (1965) s.v. Apophthegma, coll. 222-3 (O. Gigon-K. Rupprecht). is known from Xenophon and Aristotle Cfr. Xenoph. hist. gr. II 3, 56 and Aristot. met. Γ 5.1009 b 26; oec.A 6. 1345 a 2; rhet. B 12. 1389 a 16; B 21.1394 b 34; Γ 11. 1412 a 21.,but the term is rarely treated in rhetorical theory, and no definitionis offered until very late Cfr. the definition, which has been established for Troilus: ἀπόφθεγμάἐστι λόγος σύντομος καὶ εὔστοχος (prol. ad Rhet. p. 50.13-14 Walz 6; cfr. alsoprol. ad Hermog. Rhet. p. 18. 2-3 Walz 4). See further O. Schissel, Apophthegmabei Troilos von Side, «Byzantinische Zeitschrift», XXVIII (1928) pp. 241-50.. Originally it indicates just a pointed saying,

and can therefore include different types, as is clear from its application.So it can be used for short, moral maxims, usually called γνώμαι,which are associated especially with the Seven Sages The term is used with reference to the maxims of the Seven Sages bye.g. Aristot. rhet. B 12.1389 a 16; Demetrius of Phalerum, ap. Stob. III 1, 172;Clearchus, ap. Stob. III 21, 12 ( = fr. 69 c Wehrli 3); Clem. Alexandr. strom.I 14, 61, 1-3; cfr. also Trypho trop. p. 202.17 Spengel 3: Δελφικὰ ἀποφθέγματα.. But it canalso denote a saying which includes an indication of the situation andan element of wit and is attributed to a specific individual Therefore γνώμη and ἀπόφθεγμα can be used together to indicate similar,but different forms of expressions; cfr. Demetrius rhet. 9: ἀποφθεγματικὸν ἡβραχύτης καὶ γνωμολογικόν and J. Cousin, Études sur Quintilien, 2, Thèse Paris1936, pp. 54-5.. TheLatin equivalent here would be dictum Cfr. Cic. de off. I 29, 104: multaque multorum facete dicta, ut ea,quae a sene Catone collecta sunt, quae vocantur ἀποφθέγματα.. This second meaning becomesdominating, and appears e.g. in titles of collections preserved underthe name of Plutarch.

The term ἀπομνημόνευμα Cfr. E. Köpke, Ueber die Gattung der Ἀπομνημονεύματα in der Grie-chischen Litteratur, Progr. der Ritter-Akademie zu Brandenburg 1857, pp. 1-30and RE, II (1896) s.v. Apomnemoneumata, coll. 170-1 (E. Schwartz). is known first from Xenophon’srecollections of Socrates, and is used — originally — for personalrecollections of sayings and actions, belonging to a remarkable indi-vidual. It is therefore very close to the ἀπόφθεγμα in its secondmeaning, but usually longer in form. In Plutarch, however, the termsseem to be used without any real difference Cfr. e.g. Plut. Them. 18,1, 18,5, Cat. Ma. 2,4, 3,2, 7,1, 7,2, 8,3,9,7. According to Diodorus Siculus fr. 7.7 libri 33 the terms can be used forthe same item, viewed from different aspects: τὸ δὲ ἀφελείᾳ λόγου βραχέως καὶἀπερίττως ῥηθὲν τοῦ μέν εἰπόντος ἀπόφθεγμα γίνεται, τοῦ δὲ ἀκούσαντοςἀπομνημόνευμα. The two terms also seem to be used for the same work byLynceus, quoted in Athenaeus; cfr. E. Köpke, Ueber die Gattung cit., pp. 10-2.. A late Latin equivalentis commemoratio Cfr. Prisc. praeexercitamina 8, p. 431.30 Keil 3..

The term χρεία Cfr. G. von Wartensleben, Begriff der griechischen Chreia und Beiträgezur Geschichte ihrer Form, diss. Wien; Heidelberg 1901; G. A. Gerhard,Phoinix von Kolophon: Texte und Untersuchungen, Leipzig-Berlin 1909, pp. 247-53;F. H. Colson, Quintilian I. 9 and the ‘Chria’ in Ancient Education, «The ClassicalReview», XXXV (1921) pp. 150-4; O. Schissel, Die Einteilung der Chrie beiQuintilian, «Hermes», LXVIII (1933) pp. 245-8; H.-R. Hollerbach, Zur Bedeutungdes Wortes χρεία, diss. Köln 1964; LAW (1965) s.v. Chrie, col. 586 (O. Gigon-H. Hommel); H. Lausberg, Handbuch cit., §§ 1117-1121. does not provide any information concerningthe form, but seems to be used originally as a collective term for thedifferent types already mentioned, stressing their usefulness Cfr. Horna-von Fritz, in RE, Supplbd. cit., coll. 87-89 and Th. Klauser,in RAC, cit., coll. 545-546.. Theorigin of this use of χρεία can be found in the Socratic schools. Wefind the term used for what seems to be a separate work of Antisthe-nes: χρείαν Σοφοκλέους, mentioned in Diog. Laert. VII 19 but ofdoubtful interpretation; the work is otherwise unknown and notincluded in the catalogue Most modern translators understand this as a work by Antisthenes onSophocles: «dessen Abhandlung über Sophokles» (O. Apelt), «that author’sessay on Sophocles» (R. D. Hicks), «il breve saggio di Antistene su Sofocle»(M. Gigante); cfr. also F. Decleva Caizzi, Antisthenis Fragmenta (Testi e Docu-menti per lo studio dell’antichità, 13), Varese-Milano 1966, p. 87 with the sameinterpretation. For a different view see Sophocles f 1116 c (TrGF, 4) with S.Radt’s note, taking this to be a reference to a saying of Sophocles.. The anonymous catalogue of Aristippus’works in Diog. Laert. II 84 includes the following three works:χρεία πρὸς Διονύσιον, ἄλλη ἐπὶ τῆς εἰκόνος, ἄλλη ἐπὶ τῆς Διονυσίουθυγατρός. If these titles are genuine, we must assume that the termχρεία is here used for a somewhat longer text than is usually assumed,as it merits a separate title. It would probably indicate a short philo-sophical treatise, probably shorter but perhaps not too different incharacter from those called διατριβαί This would be valid for all works of this list, as they are contained in one volume; cfr. C. Wendel, Die griechisch-römische Buchbeschreibung verglichen mit der des Vorderen Orients, (Hallische Monographien, 3) Halle 1949, pp. 51-3.. It is commonly held that theuse of the term χρεία for shorter items originated in the Cynic school,but even if this is doubtful, there is a strong connection between the

χρεία and the Cynics, as indicated by an anecdote in Diog. Laert.V 18, where the Cynic Diogenes is described as χρείαν εἴη μεμελετηκώς,which seems to imply the conscious fabrication of a cutting reply.The first known collector of χρεῖαι is also a Cynic, Metrocles (Diog.Laert. VI 33). Among later writers on rhetorical theory, the writersof Progymnasmata Cfr. Hermog. prog. 3-4, pp. 6-10 Rabe; Aphtho. prog. 3-4, pp. 3-10 Rabe; Theo. prog. 5-6, pp. 96-106 Spengel 2; Nicol. prog. pp. 17-29 Felten; Quintil. inst. orat. I 9, 3-5 and see further G. Reichel, Quaestiones progymnasma- ticae, diss. Leipzig 1909, pp. 46-9. have especially tried to provide the concept witha clear definition, by separating it from γνώμη and ἀπομνημόνευμα.The χρεία is here regarded as an ἀπομνημόνευμα, consisting of asaying or an action of a specific individual, always in prose, sometimeswith an element of wit, but shorter than the pure ἀπομνημόνευμα.The γνώμη on the other hand is always a short saying, in poetry orprose, moral and general in character, to mention the most importantdifferences. These writers do not include the ἀπόφθεγμα in theirtreatment, and it seems to have been replaced by the term χρεία,which therefore has received a more limited meaning than it originallyhad. On the other hand it is more general than the ἀπόφθεγμα, asit can be used of an action without any saying. Against this backgroundwe may regard χρεία as a suitable collective term for different typesof sayings and anecdotes, which in collections, including also thoseof Diogenes, are brought together without any obvious regard fortheir differences For combinations of these terms cfr. Demetr. rhet. 9 and 170 andMenander Rhetor, p. 122.30-31 Russell-Wilson: καὶ γὰρ πλήρεις εἰσίν ἱστοριῶνκαὶ ἀποφθεγμάτων καὶ παροιμιῶν καὶ χρειῶν..

3. Terminology in Diogenes.

When I now turn to Diogenes’ use of these terms, I wouldfirst point out that for the sake of simplicity I shall use the nameDiogenes when indicating the source for the items, which we find

in his biographies, without trying to distinguish between Diogeneshimself and the different layers of his sources. I have found no cases,where γνώμη is used with this specific meaning in Diogenes’ text.There are more instances of ἀπόφθεγμα, which is used with the twodifferent meanings. Firstly it occurs in connection with the SevenSages, with Thales in I 35 and with Pittacus in I 79. We also findthe verb ἀποφθέγγομαι used for others of the Seven Sages (I 63,I 73, I 88 and I 93) The same verb also occurs in Diog. Laert. I 6: καὶ φασι τοὺς μὲν Γυμνο-σοφιστὰς καὶ Δρυΐδας αἰνιγματωδῶς ἀποφθεγγομένους φιλοσοφήσαι.. Here the term denotes sayings of the typewhich is usually styled γνώμη, being short and general in character.Secondly we find the same term also in connection with anecdotes,where the use is perhaps more common: ἀποφθέγματα χρειώδη arementioned for Bion of Borysthenes in IV 47, ἀποφθέγματα for Ari-stotle in V 17 and V 34, and ἀποφθέγματα ταυτὶ χρειώδη for Theo-phrastus in V 39. Here the specific meaning is indicated by the additionof the adjective χρειώδης, indicating that the ἀπόφθεγμα is similarto the χρεία in its more limited sense. The term has therefore beenapplied to two different types of sayings and two different groupsof philosophers, the Seven Sages and Peripatetics, among whom wemay include Bion as he had connections with this school. The reasonfor this discrepancy lies in the term as such but probably goes backto Diogenes’ sources. The terms ἀπομνημόνευμα and χρεία do notseem to be used in context by Diogenes, when he refers to his col-lections of sayings and anecdotes The only exceptions are Diog. Laert. III 38 with reference to ἀπομνημονεύ-ματα αὐτοῦ (scil. Πλάτωνος) and Diog. Laert. V 18, where the Cynic Diogenesis described as χρείαν εἴη μεμελετηκώς.. Instead they appear in titles, apoint to which I shall soon return. We may sum up by stating thatDiogenes used technical terms without any theory and very sparingly,and, when formally introducing his collections, which is not alwaysthe case, he contents himself with a very general expression, such asἔλεγε, ἔφασκε and ἀναφέρεται.

4. Collections mentioned by Diogenes.

We find numerous cases in Diogenes, where titles of collections,containing the relevant terms, are mentioned. When I here give asurvey of these cases, I cannot hope to detect Diogenes’ immediatesources, but to collect such information as can be gathered about theorigin and extent of this kind of literature. When dealing with thesecollections we may first divide them according to the kind of items,which they are said to contain, secondly according to their place inDiogenes’ text, i.e. in context as sources for isolated items or incatalogues of literary works.

There is no mention of collections with the terms γνώμη orἀπόφθεγμα in the title Cfr. however Diog. Laert. v 46, adducing Περὶ γνώμης as a work ofTheophrastus; for this see RE, Supplbd. VII (1940) s.v. Theophrastos (n. 3)col. 1524 (O. Regenbogen), who takes it to be a rhetorical work.. On the other hand ἀπομνημονεύματα iswell known as a title since Xenophon, whose work on Socrates is citedthree times (III 34-35 and VII 2). We find other works with similartitles mentioned in the catalogues for several Stoics: Zeno of Citiumwrote ἀπομνημονεύματα Κράτητος (VII 4; cfr. Athen. iv 162 b),Persaeus one book of ἀπομνημονεύματα (VII 36) and Ariston ofChios three books of ἀπομνημονεύματα (VII 163) It is a matter of dispute, whether this work should be attributed to Aristonof Chios or Ariston of Ceos; cfr. F. Wehrli’s note to Ariston of Ceos fr. 9 Wehrli 6.. In the last twocases it is difficult to decide whether we have to deal with recollectionsof the philosopher in question, but really written by someone else,or with a work by the philosopher, in whose catalogue it is found,containing items concerning others Cfr. e.g. E. Schwartz, in RE, cit., col. 171, who takes this work to berecollections of Ariston, not writings by him. However, the title ἀπομνημονεύματα Ἐπικτήτου, found in Stob. III 6, 58 etc. and adduced by Schwartz, does notconstitute a proof; cfr. Diog. Laert. vii 2, where τῶν Ξενοφώντος Ἀπομνημονευ-μάτων are mentioned and where the name certainly refers to the author.. We also find a work with thesame title by a certain Diodorus mentioned in IV 2 Other works with the same title are documented for Aristodemus (Athen.vi 244 f etc.), Empodus (or Empedus) (Athen. ix 370 c), Lynceus (Athen. vi248 D etc.), Serenus (Stob. ii 2, 17), Stilpo (Athen. iv 162 c = fr. 191 Döringwith K. Döring’s commentary, pp. 151-2).. The term is

further used in tides of works by Dioscurides (I 63; cfr. Athen, XI 507 d)and Favorinus (passim), but here it seems to have acquired a newmeaning, referring to examples of the so-called “Buntschriftstellerei”,which relies exclusively on literary sources So E. Schwartz, in RE, cit., col. 171; for a survey with literature see LAW(1965), s.v. Buntschriftstellerei, coll. 521-2 (W. Spoerri)..

We find more collections mentioned by Diogenes with the termχρεία in the title There are a number of collections of χρεῖαι, known from other sourcesthan Diogenes, and attributed to Aristotle (Stob. iii 5,42 etc.; cfr. V. Rose,Aristotles pseudepigraphus, Leipzig 1863, pp. 611-5, attributing this collection toAriston, and O. Hense’s note to Stobaeus loc. cit.), Dio of Prusa (Stob. iii 7, 28etc.), Machon (Athen. xiii 577 d), Theocritus of Chios (Suda, s.v. Θ, 166 = T 1FGrHist, 760).. To the first group, containing those cited onlyin catalogues, belongs a work, attributed to Aristippus by the catalogueof Sotion and Panaetius, i.e. three books of χρεῖαι, mentioned togetherwith six books of διατριβαί (II 85). There are several difficultiesconcerning this title, especially as regards the meaning of χρεῖαι.Does it refer to short philosophical treatises, as we have seen that itprobably does for other titles of Aristippus, or does it denote shortitems of the more ordinary type? In the latter case it is uncertainwhether Aristippus should be regarded as the author or the maincharacter of this work. I find the second alternative more plausible.Aristippus is well known for all the anecdotes, which centred aroundhim, as we can see e.g. from the collection in Diog. Laert. II 66-83and from a statement concerning Arcesilaus: πρὸς τοὺς διασύρονταςπροεφέρετο τὰς Ἀριστίππου χρείας (Diog. Laert. IV 40). The followingphilosophers are also reported to have left collections of χρεῖαι:Demetrius of Phalerum (V 81), the Cynic Diogenes according to Sotion(VI 80), the Stoics Persaeus (VII 36), who wrote διατριβαί andἀπομνημονεύματα as well, Ariston of Chios (VII 163), who also leftἀπομνημονεύματα, and Cleanthes (VII 175) The text gives the title as Περὶ χρειῶν, which is translated «VonNutzanwendungen» (O. Apelt), «Of usages» (D. R. Hicks), «Dei vantaggi pra-tici» (M. Gigante), which is a singular title. I would prefer, as G. A. Gerhard,Phoinix cit., p. 249 note 1 and H.-R. Hollerbach, Zur Bedeutung cit., p. 80, totake this as a reference to a work of χρεῖαι. The preposition περί is thereforenot very suitable, and could easily have been added by mistake after all thepreceding titles, containing περί; perhaps then the number of books was lost.This view is supported by the fact that this title is followed by Διατριβῶν δύο;the two terms occur together in Diog. Laert. ii 85 and vii 36. , who in addition left

two books of διατριβαί. None of these collections is mentioned out-side of the catalogues For the place given to collections of χρεῖαι within catalogues see W. Crönert,Kolotes und Menedemus: Texte und Untersuchungen zur Philosophen- undLiteraturgeschichte, (Studien zur Palaeographie und Papyruskunde, hrsg. vonWessely, 6) Leipzig 1906 (repr. Amsterdam 1965), p. 139 and P. Moraux,Les listes anciennes des ouvrages d’Aristote, Louvain 1951, pp. 150-3 and p. 217.. We may here, as in the case of Aristippus,sometimes even doubt whether the philosopher connected with thecollection is really the author and not only the main character, aroundwhom the sayings and anecdotes have been collected. This appliesespecially to the collection, which is attributed to the Cynic Diogenes,who holds a very prominent position in most later collections Dio Chrysost. lxxii 11 testifies to the fact that the Cynic Diogenes’χρεῖαι were widespread: πυνθανόμενοι [...] καὶ περὶ Διογένους, ὅτι καὶ αὐτὸςπρὸς ἅπαντα εὐπόρει λόγου καὶ ἀποκρίσεως. καὶ τὰ μὲν τούτου καί διαμνημο-νεύουσιν οί πολλοί, τα μέν τινα ίσως είπόντος αύτοϋ, τά δε καὶ ἄλλωνσυνθέντων. For the latest discussion see G. Giannantoni, Socraticorum Reliquiae,3 (Elenchos: Collana di testi e studi sul pensiero antico, 7:3) Roma-Napoli 1985,pp. 418-25..

Furthermore a number of collections are mentioned in contextas sources for different sayings and anecdotes: one by the Stoic Hecatonin two books, which is quoted for Cynic and Stoic philosophers five(or seven) times (vi 4, vi 32, vi 95, vii 26, vii 172; cfr. vii 2 andvii 181) The material is collected in H. Gomoll, Der stoische Philosoph Hekaton:Seine Begriffswelt und Nachwirkung unter Beigabe seiner Fragmente, Bonn 1933,pp. 90-1 and pp. 112-3., one by the Cynic Metrocles, quoted for the Cynic Diogenes(vi 33) and one by Zeno of Citium, quoted for the Cynic Crates(vi 91). Here the relations to Zeno’s ἀπομνημονεύματα Κράτητος,

mentioned in the catalogue, as well as the real authorship are un-certain The two titles were identified by e.g. U. von Wilamowitz - Moellendorff,Antigonos von Karystos, (Philologische Untersuchungen, 4) Berlin 1881, p. 106note 6 and F. Susemihl, Geschichte der griechischen Litteratur in derΑlexandrinerzeit, 1, Leipzig 1891, p. 56 note 190, which does not seem necessary.Cfr. also RE, Χ a 1 (1972) s.v. Zenon (n. 2), col. 90 (K. von Fritz), where thetwo titles are kept apart, but the collection of χρεῖαι regarded as a work dealingwith Zeno and published by his students..

This survey of relevant works cited by Diogenes provides littleinformation about the immediate sources for his collections, as theworks quoted, both in catalogues and in context, were certainly notused directly by him, with the exception of that of Favorinus Cfr. E. Schwartz, Diogenes Laertios cit., coll. 743-744; E. Mensching,Favorin von Arelate I: Der erste Teil der Fragmente: Memorabilien und Omnigenahistoria, (Texte und Kommentare, 3) Berlin 1963, pp. 8-21; J. Mejer, DiogenesLaertius and his Hellenistic Background, (Hermes Einzelschriften, 40) Wiesbaden1978, pp. 30-2.. In-stead the items quoted in context give the impression of being isolated,second-hand quotations, added to previous collections. On the otherhand these titles are useful for an evaluation of the origins of theχρεία-literature. We see that works of this kind belong particularlyto the Hellenistic period, and that they were employed especially inthe Cynic and Stoic schools. In this period we must also look for theultimate sources for later collections. As Diogenes never names asource for his collections, he may well have had to rely on anonymousworks of later date, but before we try to visualize these sources, itmay be useful — as a background for a discussion of Diogenes’sources — to sum up, what we can reasonably know about theproduction of such collections during previous periods, apart fromthe information, which Diogenes himself gives us.

5. The χρεία-literature — its origin, forms and uses.

It is certainly a very common trait to take an interest in thesayings and actions of persons, who are in any way remarkable or

outstanding For gnomologies containing material from poetry the standard work isA. Elter, De Gnomologiorum Graecorum historia atque origine commentatio, 1-10Univ.-Progr., Bonn 1893-1895; for more information, dealing also with collectionsin prose, see RE, IX (1916) s.v. Ioannes Stobaios (n. 18), coll. 2549-86 (O. Hense);Horna-von Fritz, in RE, Supplbd. cit., coll. 74-90; J. Barns, A New Gnomo-logium: With Some Remarks on Gnomic Anthologies, 1-2, «The Classical Quarterly»xliv (1950) pp. 126-37 and xlv (1951) pp. 1-19; Dictionnaire de Spiritualité, v(1964) s.v. Florilèges spirituels grecs, coll. 475-512 (M. Richard); RAC, vii (1969)s.v. Florilegium, coll. 1131-1160 (H. Chadwick); D. Gutas, Greek Wisdom Lite-rature in Arabic Translation: A Study of the Graeco-Arabic Gnomologia, (AmericanOriental Series, 60) New Haven (Connecticut) 1975, pp. 1-35 and pp. 451-5.. If these are at first preserved by the oral tradition,they also form an aspect of a man’s life important enough to givethem a place in biographical writings from an early date, whether assingle items or as collections, an aspect to which I shall return. It isalso an easy step to collect, and preserve them in separate works.This activity would produce a work of isolated items, each having afamous person as its main character, while the compiler himself doesnot have a prominent place and may remain anonymous. The modelfor collections of this kind was provided by purely gnomic works, inpoetry and prose, a literary form, not unusual in the archaic period.Such works, of which Epicurus’ Κύριαι δόξαι is an example, alsoconsist of isolated items, which however are the creation of a singleindividual, and the expression of a single mind. They should thereforebe regarded as a tradition basically different from the collections weare dealing with here, although they may have contributed somematerial to the latter. It is also plausible that the χρεία-literature waspreceded by anthologies with material mainly from poetry, put togetherfor pedagogical reasons. It is clear from references in e.g. Xenophon,Plato and Isocrates that this type of collection existed in the classicalperiod Cfr. Xenoph. mem. I 6, 14; Plat. leg. VII 810d-812a; Isocrates ii 44.. Here, however, I am only concerned with collections ofsayings and anecdotes in prose.

The first group of persons, who could have had their sayingscollected — presumably within some kind of framework — at an

early date was the Seven Sages, probably already in the archaic period Cfr. F. Wehrli, Gnome, Anekdote und Biographie, «Museum Helveticum»,XXX (1973) pp. 193-208 and R. Hirzel, Der Dialog: Ein literarhistorischer Versuch,1, Leipzig 1895, p. 145 note 3, who thinks that the origin lies with the Sophists.For a different view see M. L. West, The Ascription of Fables to Aesop inArchaic and Classical Greece, Entretiens sur l’Antiquité Classique, 30, Vandoeuvres-Genève 1984, pp. 126-7..In all traditions dealing with the Seven Sages their sayings have avery prominent place, as can be clearly seen in e.g. Plutarch’s Septemsapientium convivium, which reproduces old sources. The Seven Sagesare especially associated with γνῶμαι, and when we also find anecdotesattributed to them, we may well ask whether this is a later develop-ment of the tradition. However, I think that this form too is oldenough to have originally been connected with the Seven Sages. Forthe following periods we gain the impression that certain groups ofpeople especially attracted χρεῖαι, such as the Spartans, for whomthere probably existed a collection in the classical period Cfr. E.N. Tigerstedt, The Legend of Sparta in Classical Antiquity, 2,«Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis, 15», Uppsala 1974, pp. 16-30 (with copiousnotes pp. 298-309)., wits,different kings and rulers, such as Themistocles, Philip of Macedoniaand at a later date Alexander the Great, and finally philosophers,among whom Socrates and other members of the Socratic schools holdpride of place, following the tradition from the Seven Sages. Collectionsfor this group would have existed already in the fourth century Cfr. O. Gigon, Kommentar zum zweiten Buch von Xenophons Memorabilien,«Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft, 7», Basel 1956, pp. 2-3..The most important period in the history of the χρεία-literature isthe Hellenistic period, as we have already seen from the names andtitles which we know. The compilation of material also seems to haveended at this time, characterized by a great interest for different kindsof anthologies, and later periods have provided very little materialfor purely pagan collections. Although this kind of literature is verylittle known through the centuries prior to Diogenes we have goodreason to assume that there was a rich production of collections ofthis kind, although differing with respect to form and intention. But

it was a literature with no firm tradition and lacking a good reputation,being instead generally anonymous and highly variable in character.Moreover we may assume that there was a constant exchange ofmaterial between originally different collections, and that new oneswere constantly appearing, as almost every scribe would try to improveupon his immediate predecessor. The same element of frequent changewould also apply to the single items, where an anecdote could beabbreviated into a pure saying or a saying developed into an anecdote,not to mention changes of attribution. These conditions are difficultto prove for the periods before Diogenes, but there is no reason toassume that the situation then differed from that prevailing duringthe Byzantine period, for which collections are preserved, the thornyinterrelations of which have to some extent been demonstrated Cfr. especially the complex tradition for the so-called ὁμοιώματα, whichhas been unravelled by A. Elter, Γνωμικὰ ὁμοιώματα cit., 1-5, Univ.-Progr., Bonn1900-1904..

Let us now consider the sources which were available for thecompilers! Apart from the oral tradition they could use the person’sown writings, biographical works or other kinds of literature, wheresuitable material was preserved, they could attribute floating materialof a very general character to a specific individual, and they mayeven fabricate the items they included. At a later date the compilerswould be satisfied with combining different previous collection.

As far as the form is concerned, the collections could have beendevoted to a single individual, or a limited number of persons, forminga group or a philosophical school, as we have reason to assume thate.g. Hecaton’s work dealt with Cynics and Stoics. The collection mayalso have covered a greater number of names, which could be arrangedin different orders, such as alphabetical after the names of the cha-racters or the first word of the item, or after the subject matter,or the items may be given without any obvious order, even lackingthe names.

The purposes of these collections could differ greatly, too. Theycould be made for scientific reasons, as we see in Peripatetic circles.

They could have a philosophical aim, serving as an introduction to aphilosophical study or as an ethical manual Items of this kind should be memorized for practical use in life; cfr. Diog.Laert. vi 31 (for the Cynic Diogenes) and x 12, 36, 83 (for Epicurus) and P.Rabbow, Seelenführung: Methodik der Exerzitien in der Antike, München 1954,pp. 215-22.. They could be used foreducational purposes on an elementary level, which is documented byseveral fragments in papyri. They could also feature in the higherlevels of rhetorical education, which is made clear especially fromthe so-called ProgymnasmataFor the pedagogical uses see H.-Ι. Marrou, Histoire de l’éducation dansl'antiquité, 2. ed. Paris 1950, pp. 217-8 and pp. 238-42 and J. Barns, A NewGnomologium cit.. They would also have been an indi-spensable aid to, especially Hellenistic, authors of popular philosophicaltreatises, who would not have been able to provide all their illustrativematerial unless they had access to collections. Teles gives us an ideaof this use. Collections of this kind may also have served as a kindof literature in its own right, being both entertaining and edifying,and this aspect becomes increasingly dominant during later periods.

6. Diogenes’ use of the χρεία-literature.

Returning to Diogenes we can without hesitation assume thathe had access to a vast literature in the form of collections of pointedsayings and anecdotes, which was of a later date. It is not possibleto make any general statements concerning his sources or to try toreconstruct them, and it is doubtful whether it ever will be. But wecan hope, that from a comparative study of Diogenes and such col-lections as have come to light we shall be able to form some idea ofthe character of the collections he was using. We can start from theassumption that Diogenes chiefly used anonymous collections, whichpresented the material in alphabetical order after the main character,as his own rearrangement of the material, if taken from collections,would have implied too great an effort. The biographies of the Seven

Sages in Book ι proved to be particularly useful for such a comparison.This group of Sages were from an early date known just for theirsayings, usually in the form of γνώμαι, but probably also anecdotes.They occur in great numbers, both in collections devoted especiallyto this group, and in such of a more general character. All Diogenes’biographies of the Seven Sages are similarly constructed, and allcontain certain elements, although their internal order may differ;so we find at the end of the biographies examples of their songs (τῶνᾀδομένων), a collection of sayings of different kinds, called ἀπο-φθέγματα for Thales in I 35, but usually without any introductoryterm, and finally the saying which is especially connected with theSage in question, often introduced by the terms ἀπόφθεγμα or ἀπε-φθέγξατο. A closer scrutiny of these collections of sayings clearlyshows that they do not form a uniform group, but are based on atleast two different sources, which becomes evident already from thepresentation of the material. The first part, which contains sayingsof the two types γνώμη and ἀπόφθεγμα, is introduced by a generalverb of speech. The second group, which consists mainly of γνῶμαι,is introduced in most biographies by a more specific phrase, such asσυνεβούλευσε (i 60, I 88, i 92), προσέταττε δὲ καὶ ταῦτα (ι 69)or ἔλεγε δὲ καὶ τάδε (ι 97), indicating the beginning of somethingnew. I do not think that they were originally connected in a purecollection, as the borderline in most cases is still obvious, even givingplace for some additional material; if Diogenes found them combinedin his source is another matter.

For the first parts of Diogenes’ collections we are able to estab-lish a parallel tradition in an originally very substantial collection ofsayings of philosophers but also of other remarkable personalities,arranged in alphabetical order and originating in the Hellenistic period.We know different recensions of this collection; the most completeis to be found in codex Vaticanus graecus 743, which was publishedby L. Sternbach in 1887-1889 with the title Gnomologium Vaticanum(reprinted in 1963). Other published versions can be found in Flori-legium Monacense (1832), Florilegium Leidense (1837) and the WienerApophthegmen-Sammlung, which was published from codex Vindo-bonensis Theologicils graecus 149 by C. Wachsmuth in 1882, but is

unfortunately far from complete. Of numerous versions preserved inMSS Smaller excerpts from the same collection were published separately byL. Sternbach, in Rozprawy Akademii Umiejętnosci, Wydział Filologiczny, Serya ΙΙ,Tom V, Cracow 1894, pp. 30-44, 171-82, 202-18. It has been stated, e.g., inC. Wachsmuth’s edition of the Wiener Apophthegemen-Sammlung, p. 36 and inD. Gutas, Greek Wisdom cit., p. 25 that codex Patmiacus 263 contains a versionof this collection, which was recently published by A. Bertini Malgarini, ΑΡ-ΧΑΙΩΝ ΦΙΛΟΣΟΦΩΝ ΓΝΩΜΑΙ ΚΑΙ ΑΠΟΦΘΕΓΜΑΤΑ in un manoscritto diPatmos, «Elenchos», v (1984) pp. 153-200. However, I suspect that we here, atleast for the first part of the collection, have excerpts from Diogenes. It wouldotherwise be difficult to explain the fact that the philosophers are presented inthe same order as in Diogenes, and not in alphabetical order, and that the firstpart of this collection contains only material known from him. I here refer only to the one contained in the so-called CorpusParisinum, known from codex Parisinus graecus 1168 and codexDigby 6 For this “Universalgnomologium”, which is of central importance for thelater tradition, see J. Freudenthal, Zu Phavorinus und der mittelalterlichen Flo-rilegienlitteratur, «Rheinisches Museum», XXXV (1880) pp. 408-30 and pp. 639-40;C. Wachsmuth, Studien zu den griechischen Florilegien, Berlin 1882 (repr.Osnabrück 1971) pp. 131-5; H. Schenkl, Die epiktetischen Fragmente: Eine Unter-suchung zur Ueberlieferungsgeschichte der griechischen Florilegien, «Sitzungsbe-richte der phil.-hist. Classe der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zuWien», 115 (1888) pp. 460-514; L. Sternbach, in Rozprawy cit., pp. 53-82; A.Elter, Γνωμικά ὁμοιώματα cit., coll. 63-74; D. Gutas, Greek Wisdom cit.,pp. 11-6.. These versions differ in length, and the number of itemsvaries between 571 and 113. That this collection is related to thematerial found in Diogenes for the Seven Sages is clear from thefacts that it shares a considerable number of items, and also in severalcases preserves the internal order, although generally more for smallgroups of items than for the whole collection, as is particularly trueof Thales and Bias. This relationship is further underlined by thecollection of sayings, which we find for Anacharsis in Diogenes andthe gnomologium For a survey of the similarities see J. F. Kindstrand, Anacharsis: TheLegend and The Apophthegmata «Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia GraecaUpsaliensia, 16», Uppsala 1981, pp. 104-5.. Here Diogenes seems to follow a single source,and we find remarkable similarities between his collection and especially

the Wiener Apophthegmen-Sammlung, although the latter has under-gone changes in the way of both omissions, in most cases easy toexplain, and additions. The same order however is preserved in bothcases. The similarities are so strong that it is natural to ask whetherDiogenes actually may have been the source for this part of the WienerApophthegmen-Sammlung. I do not find this the most natural ex-planation, as we must consider the gnomologium as a whole in relationto Diogenes. Then we note that there are cases, where the gnomologiumhas preserved a better text than that of Diogenes, which makes it anindependent witnessCfr. E. Mannebach, Aristippi et Cyrenaicorum fragmenta, Leiden-Köln1961, pp. 105-6, who for Aristippus states that Diogenes and the Gnomologium'Vaticanum are independent, and O. Luschnat, in his introduction to the reprintof the Gnomologium Vaticanum, (Texte und Kommentare, 2) Berlin 1963, p. vi.. Furthermore it is unlikely that Diogenes wouldhave been used just for one name. Instead I find it plausible thatboth Diogenes and the gnomologium ultimately have a source incommon, which is perhaps preserved in its most original form inDiogenes, as the gnomologium uses other sources too. We may goone step further and assume that there was an original collection,devoted especially to the Seven Sages and the other names connectedwith them. This is indicated by the fact that Diogenes gives only onesaying for Myson in I 108, which in both Gnomologium Vaticanum(134) and the Wiener Apophthegmen-Sammlung (66) is attributed toAnacharsis, following immediately after the last Anacharsis-saying,which can be found in Diogenes. This attribution to Anacharsis maywell be due to the loss of the lemma Myson, and the sayings wereperhaps originally collected for the Seven Sages in the same orderas we find them in Diogenes Cfr. F. Lortzing, Zur Wiener Apophthegmensammlung, «Philologus»,XLIII (1884) pp. 222-3..

Also for the second parts of the collections of sayings for theSeven Sages, containing statements in the form of γνώμαι, we mayestablish a parallel collection or even an ultimate source, i.e. thecollection of sayings of the Seven Sages, which is preserved in StobaeusIII 1, 172, and attributed to Demetrius of Phalerum with the following

title: Δημητρίου Φαληρέως τῶν ἑπτὰ σοφῶν ἀποφθέγματα The best study is G. Brunco, De dictis VII sapientium a Demetrio Phalereocollectis, «Acta Seminarii Philologici Erlangensis», III (1884) pp. 299-397; cfr. alsoC. Wachsmuth, Die ἀποφθέγματα τῶν ἑπτὰ σοφῶν des Demetrios in der WienerApophthegmen-Sammlung, «Rheinisches Museum», XXXIX (1884) pp. 468-70 andRE, II a 2 (1923), s.v. Sieben Weise, coll. 2255-61 (O. Barkowski). Another collec-tion was later published by A. Delatte, Les sentences des sept sages du manuscritd'Athènes 1070, «Fontes Ambrosiani», XXV (1951) pp. 13-8 (Miscellanea Gio-vanni Galbiati, 1).. Thereseems to be no reason to doubt that Demetrius really made a collection,although it is not included in the catalogue of his works in Diogenes,which however does mention one book of Aesop’s Fables and onebook of χρεῖαι (v 81). Diogenes does not seem to have used thiscollection immediately, if we assume that Stobaeus presents the mostoriginal form, as the material in Diogenes has undergone certainchanges, compared with this collection, especially in the form of omis-sions, most conspicuous in the case of Thales, but there are also somechanges of attribution and transpositions. Furthermore the Sages donot appear in the same order in Demetrius and Diogenes, and thefirst saying of each of the Sages in Demetrius, connected especiallywith the Sage in question, has been removed from the proper col-lection in Diogenes, and is in most cases given instead at the endof the biography, as the Sage’s special ἀπόφθεγμα. Still in general thesame order is preserved in Diogenes. Against this background it isplausible that Diogenes or his source did not have immediate accessto the collection of Demetrius, but that he used him through anintermediate source. Diogenes, who nowhere mentions Demetrius inthis context, has also at one point indicated such a source, i.e. inι 60, where in the biography of Solon he introduces the second partof the collection of sayings in the following way: ὥς φησιν Ἀπολ-λόδωρος ἐν τῷ Περὶ τῶν φιλοσόφων αἱρέσεων. It is therefore probablethat Diogenes received the material, which ultimately derives fromDemetrius, through Apollodorus For a different view see E. Schwartz, Diogenes Laertios, cit., col. 745,who thinks that this reference has been misplaced., although perhaps not directly.

When we have been able to find a parallel tradition to Diogenes’collections, at least for the Seven Sages and Anacharsis, which is bestpreserved in Gnomologium Vaticanum, it is natural to ask whetherhe used the same collection also for other biographies. The situationhere is somewhat different, as a comparative survey will show. Thetwo texts share some small groups of material, e.g. for Anaxagoras,Socrates and Aristotle, but in general the similarities are not impressive,or indeed are non-existent. Therefore we may state that the originalcollection behind Gnomologium Vaticanum and its parallel versionseven in its complete form was certainly not the only or even the mainsource used by Diogenes for the philosophers of the Socratic schools.Now this is in no way surprising and we have no reason to assumethat Diogenes received his collections of sayings and anecdotes justfrom one source. As we have already seen, this kind of literature wasat this period widespread and easily available, and the collections assuch may already have been present — completely or in parts —in earlier biographies, which Diogenes used as his sources.

We can see from many indications that the collections as foundnow in Diogenes are not uniform, but that they represent the productof a long process, which seeks to combine different collections. Thisis clear from many biographies but especially from that of the CynicDiogenes Cfr. F. Bahnsch, Quaestionum cit., pp. 30-3; F. Leo, Die griechisch-römischecit., p. 50; K. von Fritz, Quellenuntersuchungen cit., pp. 10-1., where, thanks to the fact that what originally must havebeen the same saying or anecdote occurs at different places in slightlydifferent forms, we see that different sources have been combined.Furthermore characteristics of form and content indicate that thecollections in Diogenes cannot all have come from an originally uni-form collection Cfr. G. Rudberg, Zur Diogenes-Tradition, «Symbolae Osloenses», XIV(1935) pp. 39-42.. This combination of sources may have taken placealready long before Diogenes.

7. Diogenes’ collections of χρεῖαι and biography.

Even if it is most natural to assume that Diogenes’ collectionsoriginally came from gnomologies, there is still reason to considerthe relations between his collections and earlier biographies, a point,on which I have already touched. It would seem that biography froman early stage contained a large amount of sayings and anecdotes,perhaps originally integrated in the textCfr. D. R. Stuart, Epochs of Greek and Roman Biography, (Sather Clas-sical Lectures, 4) Berkeley 1928, pp. 33-49 and A. Momigliano, The Developmentof Greek Biography, Cambridge (Mass.) 1971, pp. 68-71.. When we come to collec-tions of items, which are presented in isolation, this practice tooseems to be of long standing. We can here refer to e.g. Xenophonmem. m 13-14 and Ages. 11. For the Hellenistic period it is difficultto combine this habit with names It has been connected especially with Antigonus of Carystus (cfr. U. vonWilamowitz-Moellendorff, Antigonos cit., and F. Susemihl, Geschichte cit.,pp. 491-2) and with Aristoxenus (cfr. A. Momigliano, The Development cit.,p. 76)., but we can see that collectionsof this type appear in Hellenistic biographies, preserved in papyri,which deal with Socrates and the Cynic Diogenes They have been edited and discussed by I. Gallo, Frammenti biografici cit.. Among laterexamples, but previous to Diogenes, we can mention e.g. Plutarch’sbiography of Cato the Elder, where we find a substantial collectionof sayings and anecdotes in 7, 2-8, 3, Suetonius’ biography of Vespasian,with a collection in 22-23, and Lucian’s biography of Demonax, whichis dominated by the collection of what may be called ἀπομνημονεύματα.Are there any certain indications that Diogenes’ immediate biographicalsources also contained collections of this kind? We have one indicationin the biography of Aristippus. Suda (s.v. A, 3908) has preserved ashort biography of this philosopher, which is assumed to go back toHesychius, who uses the same source as Diogenes. In Diogenes thebiographical introduction is followed by a long list of anecdotes, whileSuda-Hesychius simply adds after the biographical section: ἀποφθέγματαδὲ αὐτοῦ πλεῖστα καὶ ἄριστα, which indicates that their common

source here contained a collection of sayings and anecdotesCfr. E. Mannebach, Aristippi cit., p. 103.. However,there is no reason to think that this collection was identical with theone, which we find in Diogenes, as this has received a number ofobvious additions. We may also adduce the short biography of Thalesin Suda-Hesychius (s.v. Θ, 17), containing the following passage:ἀποφθέγματα δὲ αὐτοῦ πλεῖστα· καὶ τὸ θρυλλούμενον· γνῶθι σαυτόν,which indicates that already Hesychius’ source gave both a collectionof sayings and separately his special saying, which coincides with thearrangement in Diogenes Cfr. also Suda, s.v. Σόλων, 776: καὶ φέρεται αὐτοῦ ἀπόφθεγμα τόδεμηδὲν ἄγαν and Suda, s.v. Πίττακος, 1656: τούτου ἀπόφθεγμα, καιρὸν γνῶθι,which coincide with Diog. Laert. i 63 and ι 79..

On the other hand, there are also clear arguments in other bio-graphies against an assumption that Diogenes took his collections fromthe same source as the pure biography, or at least against the viewthat he preserved them in their original form and in the same place.In the biography of Aristotle we find after the will a collection ofthe philosopher’s ἀποφθέγματα, carefully defined by the followingphrases: ἀναφέρεται δ’ εἰς αὐτὸν καὶ ἀποφθέγματα κάλλιστα ταυτίand καὶ ταῦτα μὲν εἰς αὐτὸν ἀναφέρεται (ν 17-21). But in v 34,after the catalogue and an outline of Aristotle’s philosophy, we findthe following remark: πολλά γάρ καί άλλα εις αύτον άναφέρεταισυγγράμματ’ αύτοῦ καί άποφθέγματα, άγράφου φωνής εύστοχήματα.It is therefore possible that in the source used by Diogenes the col-lection appeared here, as it follows' after the catalogue for Demetriusof Phalerum (V 82) and Bion of Borysthenes (ΙV 47), where it isintroduced in a very similar way: πλεῖστά τε καταλέλοιπεν ὑπομνή-ματα, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀποφθέγματα χρειώδη πραγματείαν περιέχονταCfr. F. Leo, Die griechisch-römische cit., p. 52. I Düring, Aristotle in theAncient Biographical Tradition «Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, 63:2», Gothen-burg 1957, p. 66 and p. 77 thinks it is probable that already Hermippus includeda collection of anecdotes..But it is impossible to say whether we have the original collection inDiogenes, having been transferred, or a completely new one. Further-

more there are a number of cases, which make it fairly certain thatDiogenes has placed his collections of sayings and anecdotes in suchplaces, where they — in their present form — could not originallyhave been found. In II 127 Menedemus is characterized by means ofa number of adjectives, ending with παρρησιαστής, to which isconnected a list of sayings and anecdotes, partly illustrating this qua-lity, which ends in II 129, when Diogenes refers back to the previousdescription by διὰ δὴ οὖν τὸ παρρησιαστικὸν τοῦτο. Perhaps at leastpart of the collection has here been inserted in what was originallya continuous text. We find similar conditions in the biography ofBion of Borysthenes, where IV 47 seems to originally have beenconnected with IV 52, while now the collection of sayings and anecdo-tes falls in between. The same applies to the biography of the CynicDiogenes, where VI 23 ends with the participle συνασκών. Thenfollows the huge collection of sayings and anecdotes, which ends withVI 69. With the beginning of the next paragraph VI 70: διττὴν δ’ἔλεγεν εἶναι τὴν ἄσκησιν, Diogenes seems to refer back to whatpreceded the collection, which would therefore have been insertedin a description which was originally continuous. Also for Zeno ofCitium the paragraphs VII 16 and VII 26 seem to have been originallyconnected, while now the collection of sayings and anecdotes inter-venes For these cases cfr. F. Leo, Die griechisch-römische cit., p. 75, p. 66, p. 49and for Menedemus and Zeno U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Antigonos cit.,pp. 86-122.. Against these cases I do not consider it reasonable to believethat Diogenes always received the collections as such from his bio-graphical source, unless we postulate that the source was composed inthe same unsatisfactory fashion. It is more natural to assume that heobtained them from a different source, i.e. a pure collection, andthat he included them in his compilation in this way, sometimes underthe influence of associations, as they did not have a definite placewithin the biography. A further element to help us to decide whetherDiogenes acquired his collections from biographies or gnomologies isinherent in the different comments on the text, which discuss que-

stions of authenticity, add associated sayings or provide sources fordifferent items. They cannot have been found in the original collection,and the question now is whether we can regard Diogenes or a pre-decessor as responsible for them. If the latter alternative is the case,Diogenes probably obtained his collections from biographies. However,I find these additions to the original collections to be so uniform incharacter that I think they can very well go back to Diogenes himself For Diogenes’ method of working see J. Mejer, Diogenes Laertius cit.,pp. 16-29..

8. Diogenes’ motives.

Can we form any idea about the motives which prompted Diogenesto include these collections, which have such a prominent place in hisbiographies? We find no explicit information given by Diogenes him-self, which is not to be expected, but already the extent of thesecollections make it obvious that he considered them as an importantpart of the characterization of the philosophers. That this is theirmain function is made clear by their place in the biographies, andwe may especially adduce Diog. Laert. II 85, where he ends his bio-graphy of Aristippus, which is composed chiefly of a collection ofχρεῖαι, in the following way: ἐπειδή τὸν βίον ἀνεγράψαμεν αὐτοῦ,making it clear that χρεῦαι belong to the βίος. This is further under-lined by e.g. Plutarch’s appreciation of the saying and the anecdoteas a means of characterizing the person in question for a biography Cfr. Plut. Sol. 27, 1; Cat. Ma. 7, 2; Nic. 1, 5; Alex. 1, 1-3; Cat. Mi. 24, 1..

It is certain that the χρεία was originally intended to convey aphilosophical message, and popular especially with the Cynics. Con-sequently we can assume that it dealt with ethical and practicalquestions, being less suited to a discussion of more technical prob-lems. This is indicated also by the name. With the passage of time,and the continual exchange of material between biographies and col-lections and even between different philosophers, it is only natural

that the philosophical content of the χρεῖαι was diluted. What remainsis — if we look at the material as a whole — a very general ethicalattitude, and in many cases a prominent element of wit. This conformswith the characterization of the χρεία found in the Progymnasmata,where on the one hand it is described as βιωφελής and χρήσιμος,and on the other is said to be occasionally only intent on χαρίζεσθαι(Theo. Prog. 5 pp. 96-97 Spengel 2). This general description alsoholds true for the χρεῖαι which we find in Diogenes’ collections.Many of them contain an ethical message, but many also have traitsto attract and entertain the reader, who would delight in all the witty,well formulated remarks For the success of this material through the ages see M. Gigante, DiogeneLaerzio. Vite dei Filosofi, I, Roma-Bari 1983, pp. xxiii-vi.. This reminds us of the period, whenDiogenes was writing, the Second Sophistic. This movement stressedthe purely literary aspects of all kinds of literature, and generallystrove to please the reader by providing entertaining reading. On theother hand much of the literature of this period also manifested arather general moralistic tinge. In this literary climate Diogenes’collections of χρεῖαι would have been most welcome as meeting boththese demands Cfr. B. P. Reardon, Courants littéraires grecs des IIe et IIIe siècles aprèsJ.-C. (Annales Littéraires de l’Université de Nantes, 3) Paris 1971, pp. 227-8. Fora general characterization of this period see B. A. van Groningen, General LiteraryTendencies in the Second Century A.D., «Mnemosyne», Ser. 4, XVIII (1965)pp. 41-56.