Asklepiades and "Historia" Slater, William J Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Fall 1972; 13, 3; ProQuest pg. 317

Asklepiades and Historia 
William J. Slater 

W HAT WE KNOW of Asklepiades' grammar is preserved by 
Sextus Empiricus, who quotes him by name three times 
in the adv. Grammaticos, but follows him, as has long been 

known, to some extent in the general layout of his refutation. In his 
summary of the doctrines of the grammatical theorists, however, 
Sextus has not only compressed their views but also distorted them 
by forcing them into artificial schemes. 

We know that Asklepiades (adv. Gramm. 61, cf. 72) defined ypa/L/La­

TtK1} as a ·dXVTJ in contradistinction to the J/L7TELpla-definitionl of his 
great predecessor Dionysius Thrax; in this I believe he was following 
an otherwise unknown Ptolemaios the Peripatetic;2 in addition he 
quoted 3 Callimachus (adv. Gramm. 47ft) to demonstrate that ypa/L­

/LaTtK1} was divided into two sections, ypafL/LaTLCTLK~ (= litteratio), read­
ing and writing, and ypap.p.aTLK1} proper (= literatura),4 higher 
literary studies. This was a well known division (Stoics, Quintilian, 
Varro, Cicero),5 the origin of which lay in Greek educational and 

1 For Cicero's view on such a distinction see H. Dahlmann, Studien zu Varro 'de Poetis', 
AbhMainz 1962 no.10, p.14. It seems that Asklepiades too followed a traditional scheme in 
the introduction to his work. 

2 A. Dihle, Hermes 85 (1957) 314ff, rejects the identification with Ptolemaios Chennos, and 
also Wilamowitz' guess ofPtolemaios of Askalon (Antigonos von Karystos [Berlin 1881] 27). 
But his own equation with the rpt/..o/..0ywTaToc peripatetic Ptolemaios whom Longinus heard 
in his youth (Porph. V.Plot. 20; cf RE 23.2 [1959] 1860 S.V. PTOLEMAIOS 70) can scarcely stand 
in view of F. Kudlien's new dating of Sextus to ca. 100 (RhM 106 [1963] 254). If the adv. 
Gramm. is in fact a late work (references in E. Krentz, Phronesis 7 [1962] 155), it should have 
been written about 130 or before. More important, the language of § 61 seems to indicate 
to me that Asklepiades is following Ptolemaios' argument, i.e. that Ptolemaios is to be 
placed between Dionysius Thrax and Asklepiades, and therefore, like all the other 
grammarians quoted by Sextus, before 30 B.C. 

a For the reasons adduced by B. A. Miiller, De Asclepiade Myrleano (diss. Leipzig 1903) 27; 
cf schol. Dion.Thrax 3.19ff Hilgard. 

4 E. W. Bower, Hermes 89 (1961) 474ff. 
6 RE 7 (1912) 1808ff S.V. GRAMMATIK (Gudeman); SVF II p.31,25; Varro fr.235 F.; Quint. 

1.4.2; K. Barwick, Remmius Palaemon und die rom. Ars grammatica (Leipzig 1922) 219ff and 
esp. 231. Varro, as one would expect, mentioned several systems of grammar, including 
that of Dion. Thrax (234F) and the notorious quadripartitio, which H. Usener probably 
wrongly attributed to Tyrannion (RE 7A [1943] 1818 S.V. TYRANNION 2 [Wendel]). 

317 



318 ASKLEPIADES AND HISTORIA 

grammatical theory, as can be seen from the division into optCTLK+ 

EgYJYYJTLKT] or 1-'-€f}oDtK+tCTOptKT]. Unfortunately what follows Askle­
piades' definition is certainly not all his, nor is what precedes (ad. 
Gramm. 44-46);6 and we can only conclude that his analysis of the 
word ypal-'-I-'-CXTCX was meant to justify the concern of grammar with 
literature in its widest form, i.e. both prose and poetry. 

In §§ 61-90 Sextus gives us a series of definitions of previous gram­
marians (Ptolemaios, who agrees with Asklepiades in his criticism of 
Dionysius Thrax; Chares;7 Crates the Stoic; and Demetrios Chloros).8 

These two fragments however are insignificant compared with 
Asklepiades' tripartition of ypCXI-'-I-'-CXTLK~ quoted in adv. Gramm. 252, for 
it corresponds to Sextus' own outline in § 91, which he follows 
throughout. ypCXI-'-I-'-CXTLK7} is divided by Sextus into T€XVtKOV, tCTOptK6V 

and lDtCXLnpov, while Asklepiades (§ 252) divides into T€XVtKOV, tCTOptKeW 

and ypcxl-'-l-'-cxTtK6v, which partakes of the previous two parts.9 Sextus 
has rechristened Asklepiades' special term YPCXI-'-I-'-CXTLKbV as lDtCXLT€POJl, 

in order to avoid confusion with the general term ypCXI-'-I-'-CXTLK7} (cf 44 
with 93). By this division Asklepiades doubtless meant, in Stoic 
fashion, that the T€XVtKOV and the tCTOptKOV were together subordinate 
to the ypCXI-'-WXTtKOV proper, i.e. the study of literature, or literary 
criticism. This view takes support from several considerations: (a) the 
definition of Chares (76ff), which looks like a development of Askle­
piades' system, where this subordination is evident; (b) the fact that 
Asklepiades' ypCXI-'-I-'-CXTLKOV, unlike the other two parts, is nowhere 
separately defined by Sextus; (c) the parallel with the Stoic system of 

6 W. Heintz, Studien zu Sextus Empiricus (Halle 1932) 264, points out that §§ 44-48 and 49-
56 do not logically connect with each other or what follows or what precedes. 

7 J. Mau's second ed. (Leipzig 1961) annoyingly fails to correct the definition of Chares 
or Chairis as it appears in § 76; the correct text is given by schol. Dion. Thrax p.1l8,1l Hil­
gard: €t,v dVaL a7To -dXV'1C (Kat LCTop{ac> S,ayvwcT'K~V. The homoeoteleuton was first cor­
rected, to my knowledge, by Barwick, op.cit. (supra n.5) 219 n.2. I am incidentally not quire 
so certain as Mau and some older scholars that Chares was not his name. The paradeig­
matic declensions of Chares and Theon in § 237 are both grammarian names, and it was a 
habit of grammarians to use their own names as 7TapaSdyp.am, which would then be 
transmitted by the doxography, the most notorious instance being Tryphon in Apoll. 
Dysc. Syntax; in general see A. Nauck, Aristophanis ByZ. Fragmenta (Halle 1848) 6 n.8; many 
Stoic examples in G. Blihring, Untersuchungen zur Anwendllng ... der stoischen numeri 
officii (diss. Hamburg 1960) 26 n.83. 

8 In the middle of the first cem. B.C., V. di Benedetto, AnnPisa 35 (1966) 321ff. 
9 There is a remarkable parallel in Sen. Ep. 88.3, which was noted by Barwick, op.cit. 

(supra n.5) 219, and not by A. Stlickelberger, Senecas 88. Brief (Heidelberg 1965) 103, who 
wrongly compares Dion. Thrax for the tripartition curam sermon is ... historias ... carmina. 



WILLIAM J. SLATER 319 

Tauriskos (248), whose "\0YLKOV and TpL{3LKOV together equal Asklepia­
des' TEXVLKOV, and whose KPLTLK~ has subordinate to it ,.\OYLKOV+ TpLf3LKOV 

and LCTOPLKOV; (d) the fact that Sextus clearly has confused Tauriskos' 
system by parallelism instead of subordination.1o 

These three divisions of Asklepiades are followed by Sextus: 

(i) §§ 97-247 deal with the TEXVLKOV, or technical part, divided as 
Sextus promises (91ff) into three parts, as was customary: (a) 99-168, 

CToLXELa and fJipYj "\oyov; (b) 169-75, orthography; (c) 176-247, J"\"\YjVLC­

fLOC (= latinitas), which includes a discussion of analogy versus anom­
aly, etymology, and barbarism. 

(ii) The tCTOPLKOV: §§ 248-69. 
(iii) The literary part: § 270-end, T<J 7TEP~ 7ToLY)Tac Ka~ cvyypac/JELc. 

Roughly speaking, these three parts represent the same areas as the 
six subdivisions of Dionysius Thrax. 

The problem centres on § 252, where Sextus summarizes Askle­
pia des' theory of the LCTOPLKOV, a passage which at one time gave rise 
to a great deal of controversyll through its implications for the origin 
of the novel and its parallels with the divisions of narratio according to 
the Auctor ad Herennium and Cicero, De Inventione. My purpose is to 
see what we can derive from the text of Sextus' treatise to help eluci­
date this early theory of the LCTOpLKOV. The text of §§ 252-53 runs as 
follows (in my translation, with Mau's text and apparatus): 

"Asklepiades, after stating in his work on grammar that there are 
three primary parts of grammar, technical, historical, grammatical 
(the last partakes of both the historical and the technical), divides the 
historical part (LCToPLKOV) into three; for, he says, of iCTopta one (Sc. 

LCTopta) is true to some extent [if this is the translation of Twa], one 
false, and one as if true; true is the 7TpaKTLK~ (Sc. iCTopia), if;woi] OE T~V 
7TEP~ 7T"\aCfL(XTa Ka~ fLv8ovc, WC a,.\Y)8i] OE ofa ECTLV ~ KWfLl.{Jota Ka~ Ot fLLfLoL' 

of the true (Sc. iCTOpta) there are in turn three parts: the one (Sc. 

LCTOpta) is concerned with the persons of gods and heroes and notable 
men, another with places and times, another with actions (7TpagELC). Of 
the false (Sc. LCTopLa) i.e. the mythical, he says there is only one kind, 
the genealogical. He says, like Dionysius, that the part dealing with 
glosses is also subordinated to the tCTOPLKOV; for it evidences (iCTOpEL) 

that KP~YVOV is 'true' or 'good'. Similarly with 7TapoLfLLwV Ka~ opwv." 

10 Barwick, op.cit. (supra n.5) 218 n.2. 
11 E.g. W. Schmid (1914) in E. Rhode, Der griechische Roman4 (Darmstadt 1960) 603 n.3. 



320 ASKLEPIADES AND HISTORIA 

WA&Uf1-CX'TCX I«xl del. Mette I ciATj8ij 8~ <~v w€plw>"&uf1-CX'Tcx> oXcx Mette: 
ctrdic. Theiler cl.l92" opwv G edd: 'YPUpwv dub. Fabricius: EOp-rWV dub. 
Usener. 

Mau quotes Mette for the transposition and Theiler for the refutation. 
The original emendation, however, was made by Kaibel Ccf § 263) in 
189712 and rejected by Reichel,13 who compared § 265. This was re­
jected in turn by Barwick.14 Mau followed Theiler's defense15 of the 
text, in comparing § 92. The question is highly complex and depends 
ultimately on how carefully Sextus followed and interpreted his 
sources. 

As it stands § 252 makes no practical sense, nor does it fit in with 
§§ 91ff or 263, where we have views so similar that it has been gener­
ally assumed that both these passages also are to be attributed to the 
influence of Asklepiades. Schissel von Fleschenberg16 recognized the 
problem in § 252 that there were really two divisions, one wrongly 
subordinated to the other, but his solution appealing to the divisions 
of some of the later progymnasmatic theoreticians is improbable; 
yet he rightly saw that there were two separate systems, one literary 
<rhetorische-tendenziose', the other historiographical 'his to risch­
sachlich'. Yet he did not account for the parallel chapters in Sextus, 
nor consider whether it was reasonable for Asklepiades to postulate 
a system into which only the first of the three types of history (true, 
false, and as-true) could be divided according to the aspects of place, 
time, etc., while the other two are apparently incapable of such a 
divisionP Worse still, how can y.\WCCCXL be true or false or as-true, let 
alone wapoLl-'laL or 'definitions' ,18 The one example that Sextus gives, 

12 G. Kaibel, Die Prolegomena 1rf,pt Kw/um8tac, AbhGottingen N.F. 2.4 (1897) 25, approved by 
R. Reitzenstein, Hellenistische Wundererzahlungen (Leipzig 1906, repro Darmstadt 1963) 
9On.1. 

18 G. Reichel, Quaestiones progymnasmaticae (diss. Leipzig 1909) 60, approved by W. Kroll, 
Studien zum Verstandnis der rom. Literatur (Stuttgart 1924) 61 n.37, and presumably by O. 
Schissel von Fleschenberg, Hermes 48 (19l3) 626. See too D. Matthes, "Hermagoras von 
Temnos," Lustrum 3 (1958) 197 n.3. 

14 Barwick, Hermes 63 (1928) 269 n.l, followed by J. Mesk, WS 46 (1928) 234. 
15 Gnomon 28 (1956) 285, against H. J. Mette, Sphairopoiia (Munich 1936) 157, fr.18,20ff. 
18 Op.cit. (supra n.13) 627. 
17 E.g., how would one classify Plin. Ep. 9.33, incidi in materiam veram sed simillimam fictae, 

under the system enunciated in § 252? 
18 Both glosses (cf the definition of Dion. Thrax) and pOSSibly 1TapOt/Ltat might be the 

object of [cTopia; but definitiolls must belong to the T£XVtKOV since that is the origin ofthe 
term oP"'WC'I], and grammarians, including perhaps Asklepiades (B. Heinicke, De Quintiliani, 



WILLIAM J. SLATER 321 

that the gloss KP-rlYVOV means 'true', is meaningless as a general cri­
terion, for then we would divide according to the meaning of glosses, 
and not according to the correctness of the use of glosses. As it stands 
and probably as Sextus wrote it, § 252 can only be a misrepresenta­
tion of a grammatical system. 

We have three sources to which we may appeal, all in themselves 
of dubious value as evidence, §§ 91, 263 and Sextus' general discus­
sion19 of the tCTOPLK6v 248-69. He begins, as he did in classifying the 
parts of ypajLjLaTLK~, by discussing earlier theories of the Stoic Tauris­
kos, pupil of Crates, of the Alexandrian Dionysius Thrax, and finally 
of Asklepiades. In §§ 255-69 he deals with and refutes various types of 
tCTopLa, utilizing his own medical analogies. 

In §§ 257 (cf 92) and 263 the definitions of Asklepiades recur, first 
the tripartite division (icTop{at) times/places, people, actions, followed 
by examples; then the tripartite division ({,CTOpovjL€va) true, false, as­
true, followed again by examples. Here there is no sign that these 
systems are in any way subordinated to each other; on the contrary, 
it seems clear that these two systems are redivisions of the same sub­
ject matter according to different criteria. The 'historiographical' 
division occurs in §§ 92, 252, 257, and from 252 and 257 we see that 
such divisions are called tCTOptaL whereas the 'rhetorical' divisions are 
called {,CTOpOVjL€va; i.e. we have a division according to (a) the nature 
of the subject to be investigated and (b) the degree of truth of the ob­
ject under investigation. It might be possible then to subordinate (b) 
to (a), but not vice versa, and we may safely assert that it is Sextus who 
forced this absurdity upon Asklepiades.20 

What caused Sextus to introduce his mistaken subordination? It is 
possible that he thought that the 'historiographical' division applied 
only to 7TpaKTLK~ tCTopta, but in trying to follow through with his equa­
tions he became muddled in equating 7TAd.CjLaTa, 'myth', 'false', and 
Y€V€aAoytK~, which of course must be wrong. An incidental but im-

Sexti, Asclepiadis arte grammatica [diss. Strassburg 1904] 75) apparently agree that the op"n­

KGI' is unsystematic (§§ 269 and 254). To the emendations proposed in Mau's text I would 
add TTOTaJLWv Kat opwv, comparing opwv 7j TTOTaJLWV in § 92 as the object of the optCnKOv; but 
see below p. 324 for a probable explanation. 

19 Barwick, op.cit. (supra n.5) 253ff, indicates the dangers inherent in using Sextus as a 
source for Asklepiades; cf Heinicke, op.cit. (supra n.1S) sff, who makes this error. 

20 Barwick, op.cit. (supra n.14) 269, gives a similar explanation of the confused divisions of 
narratio in Anon. Seguerianus, which is generally accepted, e.g., by A. La Penna, Sallustio e 
la rivoluzione romana (Milan 1968) 312ff. 



322 ASKLEPIADES AND HISTORIA 

portant advantage of this supposition is that it would partially resolve 
the problem of the glosses and proverbs; since it might conceivably 
be possible to consider them under the headings of both (a) the area 
to which they belong and (b) whether or not they are true. The ex­
ample that Sextus gives then must be fictitious, an attempt to ex­
plain his own confusion. It may be that Sextus' confusion was caused 
by the terminology of Asklepiades. He divides ypafJ-f.tanK~ into three 
parts, one being ypafJ-fJ-anKc)J); he divides-so SextuS-1TpaKnK~ into 
three parts, one of which is 7Tpag€LC ;21 and he divides LCTOPLKOV into 
three parts, one of which was ;,cTopla, corresponding to the later argu­
mentum, fabula, historia. 

Both these systems occur elsewhere, separately but never sub­
ordinated. The <historiographical' system is really quadripartite, as 
the parallel literature shows, and, we might suppose, originally a 
Stoic 7T€plcTaCLc;22 it is not historiographical (Polyb. 9.1.3; Cic. De Or. 
2.53) in any real sense, but is simply a practical system of division 
(quis, quid, ubi, quando) which finds expression in rhetoric, law and 
philosophy, technical grammar (Varro, Ling. 1.5.3ff) and EKcppaC€Lc. 

None of Sextus' three statements concerning this system match each 
other exactly. In § 92 he divides personae, loci and then switches into 
1TAaCfJ-aTa, fJ-V(}OL and the rest, where we should expect tempora and res. 
We have a tripartition here compounded from our two systems, 
which should not therefore be used as a basis for judging the text of 
§ 252. In § 257 Sextus gives us the complete division into four parts, 
which he subdivides into two groups; personae + res and tempora + loci. 
In § 253 these four divisions have become three by a fusion of loci + 
tempora. This is significant, since it seems to me almost certain that 
Asklepiades' division of the LCToplaL was quadripartite, as in § 257, and 
that therefore the presentation in § 252 is caused by Sextus himself. 

After I had written this paragraph, I discovered that the remarkable 
dissertation of G. Biihring suggested other avenues of exploration. 
The Stoic numeri have a longer history and a wider application than 

21 On the possibility of confusion with 'TTpaYlLa'TLK'I] and 'TTpaKT£K~, see infra n.37. 
22 Quis, quid, quando, ubi are the first parts of almost all the 'TT€pLCTCXmc cited by R. Volk· 

mann, Rhetorik der Griechen und Romer2 (Leipzig 1885) 36ff. See also Dahlmann, op.cit. 
(supra n.1) 121ff with litt.; M. Fuhrmann, Das systematische Lehrbuch (Gottingen 1960) 186 
n.2, and 166. H. Lausberg, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik I (Munich 1960) 202ff, follows 
the slightly different system of Quint. 5.10.23. First authority on all these systems is now 
Biihring, op.cit. (supra n.7), after H. Usener, "Ein altes Lehrgebaiide," Kl. Schriften II (Leip­
zig 1912) 286-87, and F. Schupp, WS 45 (1926) 175f. 



WILLIAM J. SLATER 323 

previously realized. Btihring23 seems to follow Matthes in suggesting 
a dependence of Asklepiades from Hermagoritic rhetoric; this I be­
lieve to be unjustified. The quadripartitio of Asklepiades has no more 
direct parallel with Hermagoras' or Theophrastus' rhetoric than with 
Quintilian's or with Aristotle's categories or the ethical numeri of the 
Stoics. It is a definite division into four and no more. We know it to be 
associated principally with Varro, as his words (Ling. 5.10) reveal: 

Pythagoras Samius ait omnium rerum initia esse bina ut finitum et infini­
tum, bonum et malum, vitam et mortem, diem et noctem. quare item duo 
status et motus; quod stat aut agitatur, corpus; ubi agitatur, locus; dum 
agitatur, tempus; quod est in agitatu, actio. quadripertitio magis sic appa­
rebit; corpus est ut cursor, locus stadium qua currit, tempus hora qua 
currit, actio cursio. quare fit, ut ideo fere omnia sint quadripertita et ea 
aeterna, quod neque unquam tempus, quin fuerit motus; eius enim interval­
lum tempus; neque matus, ubi non locus et corpus, quod alterum est quod 
movetur, alterum ubi; neque ubi is agitatus, non actio ibi. igitur initiorum 
quadrigae locus et corpus, tempus et actio. 24 

Whence Varro derived this strange paragraph, we cannot say; I do not 
follow Dahlmann's view, who sees a mixture of Stoic and Pythagorean 
doctrines, and prefer to think that Varro found both bipartite and 
quadripartite divisions in the same text, which would not of course 
exclude the view that the ultimate sources were as Dahlmann postu­
lates. IfVarro had one text, then it was a pseudo-Pythagorean. 

What is important is the fact that Varro attached such importance 
to this quadripartitio that he used it as scheme for different works, and 
even in such a place as this, fr.335 Buecheler from Aulus Gellius 13.11: 
Ipsum deinde convivium constat, inquit, ex rebus quattuor et tum denique 
omnibus suis numeris (!!) absolutum est, si belli homunculi eonleeti sunt (1), 

si eleetus locus (2), si tempus leetum (3), si apparatus non negleetus (4). 
Biihring25 learnt this from Knoche, but Dahlmann 26 had already 

drawn attention to this same phenomenon and paralleled it from 
other works, following Boissier and Usener. There can be no doubt 
that this is the same quadripartitio as is followed by Asklepiades, since 

23 Op.cit. (supra n.7) 248 n.606, though only indirectly. 
24 Quoted after H. Dahlmann, Yarra und die hellenistische Sprachtheorie (Berlin 1932) 36, 

who analyses the passage. 
25 Op.cit. (supra n.7) 314. 
26 Dahlmann, MusHelv 7 (1950) 219 with references. 



324 ASKLEPIADES AND HISTORIA 

Varro's actio/actus/res corresponds to Asklepiades' 1Tpd.g€LC,27 where we 
might expect circumstantiae or causae had the system followed been 
that of Theophrastus (ap. Gell. 1.3.28) or Aristippus (fr.29 Mannebach 
= Diog.Laert. 2.66) or Seneca (De OfficiiS, deduced by Biihring from 
Martin of Bracara, Formula vitae honestae p.475,30 Haase) or other 
quadripartitions. Biihring follows Dahlmann in supposing that Varro 
derived his quadripartitio from a reduction of the Stoic numeri and 
suggests as source Antiochus of Askalon.28 I find this not entirely 
satisfactory. Certainly Varro was much influenced by Stoic linguistic 
theory as by other Stoic beliefs, but it is difficult to see why at the cost 
sometimes of great confusion to his work he should have picked out 
only the four numeri and applied them so relentlessly to so many 
areas. One feels he must have known of a quadripartitio of some wider 
appeal. Again it seems impossible that Varro and Asklepiades, who 
were contemporaries, could have derived the quadripartitio from each 
other, or independently from the Stoic numeri; it would be easier to 
imagine an intermediate source for both Varro and Asklepiades. 

But now we see that the <historiographic' divisions are numeri, and 
are intended to define an act, hence the frequent connection of them 
with opl~w, e.g. Arist. EN l109b14: OU yap p~OLOV oLOplcaL Kat 1TWC Kat 

, , '" " " I f. PI Le 636 h h 'net KaL €1TL 1TOLOLC KaL 1TOCOV xpOVOV 0PYLCT€OV; c. . g. E, were t e 
v6/Lwv 1Tlpt OtaCKo1Tov/L€VOL will be able to judge by using them. 

From this observation we may derive two results. The <definitions' 
of Sextus are a mistaken attempt to convey the notion that the quadri­
partitio is a means of definition of the subject of iCTopla; its four divi­
sions are OLOPLC/Lol, the very term that Biihring29 has found in Aspasius 
applied to the numeri. Secondly they are means of definition, not, as 
Sextus claims, objects of definition of iCTopla, which is represented by 
our next division. 

The second division 30 of the lCTOpOV/L€va into true, false and as-true 

27 Noted by Biihring, loc.cit. (supra n.23); Dahlmann (see previous note) defends actus in 
Varro, Ep. ad Mar. ap. Non.Marc. 545,4 M. Res=actus in Quint. Inst. 3.6.28. Varro also used 
res as the final part of a quadripartitio (Biihring, op.at. [supra n.7] 113; Dahlmann, op.cit. 
[supra n.24] 36 n.4). Obviously the terminology was not fixed, which means that in Greek 
we could substitute 1Tpa~€,C for 1Tpayp.a-ra. See infra n.37. 

28 Cf. W. Kroll, RhM 58 (1903) 564ft'. 
29 Biihring, op.at. (supra n.7), quoting Aspasius, Comm. in Arist. EN p.82,21 (Heylbut) on 

EN 111SblO fl. I am indebted to Biihring for the two previous quotations also. 
30 A. Rostagni, Arte poetica di Orazio (Turin 1930) introd. lvii, and Scritti minori I (Turin 

1955) 207, calls this system Theophrastean without, I think, sufficient justification. Barwick, 
op.at. (supra n.14) 282, gives better reasons (doubted by F. W. Walbank, Historia 9 [1960] 



WILLIAM J. SLATER 325 

recurs only in § 263, since we have seen that the mention of'TT'Aacp.amx 
and myths in § 92 is due to a confusion and therefore unhelpful for our 
purposes. However, § 263 contradicts § 252 both in general and in de­
tail: (a) in general, the divisions that are defined in § 263 are tC'TopLa, 
p;/JOoc and 'TT'Aaq,L(x, whereas the divisions defined and exemplified in 
252 are true, false and as-true; (b) in particular, 'TT'Aacp.a as division is 
defined in 263 as 'as-true' while the division 'false' in 252 is exemplified 
b \ \ \ I \ IQ ( • ') Y T7]V 'TT'€pt 'TT'lVxcp.aTa Kat p.vvovc Sc. tCTOptaV . 

Not unreasonably, therefore, Kaibel and others saw in 263 the 
original system, since Ca)'TT'Aacp.aTa must include comedies and mimes, 
(b) a similar connection of p.vOoc and 'TT'Aacp.a occurs in 92 and 265, 
showing the tendency of the thought of Sextus (cf. Pluto Camill. 22 
•.. p.vOdJS7] Ka2 'TT'Aacp.aTLav), (c) the parallels show that the objects to be 
defined are as in 263, and Cd) the addition in 263 of y€yov6Ta (truth) 
and ay'V7JTa (myth) presupposes a third division of 0-0 y€yov6Ta aAA' 
ora (tv Y'VOtTO, i.e. KaTtx CPVCtJI possible, i.e. comedy31 and mime. How­
ever it should be apparent by now that Sextus, probably by equating 
true iCTopta with the numeri, was perfectly capable of making the 
blunder with 'TT'Aacp.aTa; we should therefore refrain from emending 
the text in § 252. 

If the first division represents means, then the second division repre­
sents objects, which are to be defined by the application of the numeri 
as belonging to three groups, true, false and in-between. The immedi­
ate inference is that we have a reworking of the Stoic concept of the 
ethical ailLacpopov, which by application of the numeri can be defined as 
good, bad or indifferent. But we can go further. What Asklepiades 
has done is to introduce a literary true, false and true-false tripartitio 
into the framework we normally associate with Stoic ethics. This tri­
partition has been traced rightly to Isocrates and ultimately to Plato, 
Rep. II 376E by Pfister.32 . 

227) for its being generally Peripatetic. Matthes, op.cit. (supra n.13) 196 n.3, agrees with 
Barwick, and in the context of the rhetoric of Her mag or as, shows that we have in it a KaTa 

7Tpayp.aTa system opposed to a KaTa 7Tpocw7Ta system. Miiller, op.cit. (supra n.3) 35, thinks of 
opyava as opposed to p.tp'Y}, as in the system attributed by Usener to Tyrannion. 

31 Clearly New Comedy, since Old Comedy would be 7Tapa .pVCLV. On this complex issue, 
see the basic discussion of Barwick cited supra n.20 with Matthes' comments. Sextus has 
misunderstood his source here too. 

32 F. Pfister, Hermes 68 (1933) 457. One must of course avoid confusion with the common 
historia (= facta)-fabula antithesis, where grammatical theory is disregarded; cf Mesk, 
op.cit. (supra n.14) 233. Our tripartition is not to be confused again with the famous one in 
PI. Rep. III 392n, on which lastly P. Steinmetz, Hermes 92 (1964) 461. 



326 ASKLEPIADES AND HISTORIA 

To summarize, Asklepiades subordinated 'TEXVLKOV and lC'TOPLKOV to 
his ypCt.f-Lf-LCt.TLKOV proper, explained in § 91. The 'TEXVLKOV he subdivided 
into elementary grammar, orthography and J>J.7]VLCf-L0C. The iC'TOPL­

KOV he subdivided in one way, according to a quadripartition (per­
sonae, loci and tempora, res, the first being subdivided [§§ 92, 252] into 
gods, heroes and men); the object being a KCt.'Ta 1TpaYf-LCt.'TCt. division of 
iC'T0povf-LEVCt. according to truth content.33 Asklepiades then used a 
1TEplc'TCt.nc with the object of defining lC'ToplCt. as true, false, or as-true, 
i.e. historia proper, fabula, and argumentum. 

It will be obvious that such a scheme might be useful for the his­
toriographer, but of little value for the grammarian, since the appli­
cation of truth as a criterion to literature is historical, not literary 
criticism. We shall find that this suspicion is justified. What have we 
to understand by this term iC'ToplCt., and why is Sextus so opposed to 
it? The complexity of the problem is principally due to the varied 
meanings of the Greek word, which underwent further variations on 
being imported into the Roman language.34 As a result, a historian or 
a grammarian or a rhetorician each had a different view of iC'ToplCt., in­
asmuch as it formed a part of all their arts. I offer an example ofPolyb­
ius' conception, which makes an interesting parallel with the scheme 
of Asklepiades. 

Polybius (9.14, 11.8) defines an education in generalship35 as (a) re­
search ~K 'TWV V1TOf-LV7Jf-La'TWV, i.e. in commentariis, (b) acquaintance with 
proper informants,36 (c) personal experience 8L' Ct.V'TWV 'TWV 1TpCt.y­

f-L&''Twv. In 12.25E he applies a similar system to 1TPCt.Yf-LCt.'TLId] iC'ToplCt., i.e. 
(a) research into the commentarii, (b) geographical experience, (c) ex­
perience 1TEP~ 'TaC 1Tpa~ELc 'TaC 1To>tLTLKac. This methodological treatment 
of the art of the political historian37 is parallel and not subordinate to 

33 Cf the discussion in Entretiens Hardt 9, Varron (Geneva 1963) 26. 
34 In general see TLL S.v. historia and litt. there cited. 
36 Biihring, op.cit. (supra n.7) 302, notes that Epictetus, Ench. 30 mentions the application 

of numeri to define the duties of a general. 
36 H. J. Mette, Paratereseis. Untersuchungen zur Sprachtheorie des Krates von Pergamon (Halle 

1952) 56, considers Polybius' views here to be 'empiric'. 
37 F. W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius (Oxford 1957) ad loc., translates 

'lTPa"Ip,a:TtK~ as 'political history', which must be right. But the term was a difficult one, cf 
esp. for rhetoric W. Kroll, Philologus 91 (1936) 197££, and for poetical theory H. Farber, 
Philologus 92 (1937) 369££. In Plut. Galba 2.3 the function of 'lTPa"Ip,anldj ZcTopla (cf A. W. 
Gomme, A Historical Commentary on Thucydides I [Oxford 1945] 55), as opposed to Plutarch's 
own methods, is TO, Ka(J' EKaCTa TWV 'Y€VoP,'VWV ci'ITayy,,u€tV ciKpt{3WC. This comes from Arist. 
Poet. 1451bll: TO 8~ Ka(J' EKaCTov Tl 'AAKt{Juf&]c E1Tpag"" Ka~ 'Tl E1T(X(JW. At Pol. 1341b30 1TpaK­

TtKo, is a division of poetry. 



WILLIAM J. SLATER 327 

another theoretical discussion of historiography in 9.1.3 (cf 9.2.1), 

where Polybius opposes his own J 1TEP~ 7'ctc 1Tpd.~EtC 7'p61TOC to (a) J 
YEvEaAoYLK6c= 1TEP~ fLvBovc and (b) J 1TEP~ 7'ctc a1TOLKLac K7'A, which is 
essentially a chronological scheme.3s Despite the seeming coincidence 
here of his own type of history, which he claims appeals to the 7ToAt7't­

KC)c, with the 7Tprxyj-tanKYJ iCToptrx, a closer exalllination shows that this 
is not so, since the two schemes are different in nature, one dealing 
with methods of acquiring and distinguishing true information, the 
other dealing with the (chronological) areas to be covered by histori­
cal research. Yet as I have suggested it is precisely by this easy 
error in subordinating the methodological division to 7TpaKnK~ 

~c7'opla only that Sextus too may have arrived at his subordinating 
system. 

We must note also that in 12.25D-F Polybius is making an extensive 
but scarcely apposite 39 comparison with an early Alexandrian tri­
partite division of medicine. Of this comparison, which is both epit­
omized and corrupt, we can say only with certainty that Polybius 
equated the first part of his historical division with the AOytK6v 40 of 
medical terminology, i.e. theoretical research into doxographical case 
histories, which, according to Polybius, being over-emphasized 
by the Alexandrians, militates against truth and the facts because 
not enough attention is paid to the practical side of medical 
research. 

It will not be denied that there is a suspicious similarity between 
Polybius' three systems (a) commentariijgenealogy-mythjtheory, 
(b) BEd. concerning geography, (c) personal experience, 1Tpa~EtC, 

1TpaYfLa7'a; and a resemblance to the quadripartition. Important for us 
is the conclusion that behind all this artificial systematization we seem 
to see a scheme where a type of ~C7'OpLa was equated with AOytK6v, 

with commentarii, research into myth, genealogies and mythological 

38 P. Scheller, De Hellenistica historiae conscribendae arte (diss. Leipzig 1911) 15ff; Schissel, 
op.cit. (supra n.13) 624. 1soc. 15.45 distinguishes prose mythographers, commentators on 
poetry, and war historians as prose genres before giving up. Varro apparently followed this 
chronological scheme in his De Gente Populi Romani. 

39 Cf Walbank (supra n.37) ad loc.; Fuhrmann, op.cit. (supra n.22) 177; in general P. 
Pedech, La Methode historique de Polybe (Paris 1964) index s.v. ASCLEPIADE, and pp.21-43. 

40 Cf Tauriskos ap. Sext. adv. Gramm. § 248; later the empiric-skeptic c'YJ/LnWTLK6v. Also cf 
Galen, Subfiguratio empirica 67.4 (Deichgraber): KaA€iv 7Tav TO Jv fN3/..{OLC ye/pa/L/Llvov [cToplav, 

Slon Toic 7TAdoCL TWV laTpwv oihwc CVV7J(}lC JCTL KaA€iv. For genealogy in place of personae in 
our quadripartitio see the scholia to Dion.Perieg. cited by Usener, loc.cit. (supra n.22). 



328 ASKLEPIADES AND HISTORIA 

personae. Therefore Polybius (9.14.1, cf 11.8.1) equates 'T~ Jg tC'Toptac 

with SL<X 'TWV {nro!-,V"fJ!-'cXTWV, i.e. not empiric research, a true Hellenistic 
attitude. 

Historia in Latin may mean fabula as in poetry or annalium confectio 
(Cic. De Or. 2.52) or anything in between. But in grammatical (i.e. 
educational) and medical parlance it preserved an original Greek 
sense of bibliographic research. In grammatical language, despite the 
definition of Dionysius Thrax and occasional protests from gram­
marians, this historia came to mean what every schoolboy knew, the 
enarratio poetarum. 

This grammatical historia may be of a more specialized kind as in 
Varro, Ling. p.126,19 (Goetz-Schoell), which appears to mean 'Ent­
wicklung der Sprache';U or in the general use of auctoritas to translate 
iC'Topta in the sense of determination of stylistic authority. But its most 
common use in Latin as in Greek in grammatical language is in de­
scribing the research necessary to determine and explain the meaning 
and origin of a word or phrase or story in poetry; e.g. Cicero, Div. 
1.116 compares interpreters of oracles with the grammarians' duty to 
the poets. Now this historia fabularis (Suet. Tib. 70) was always the 
province of the grammaticus (Suet. Gramm. 4: poetarum interpres= 
grammaticus) and included even what we should call aetiology.42 But 
there was a strong feeling that history in the strict sense belonged to 
the rhetor (Quint. 2.4.2, 2.5.1, esp. 2.1.4). This was a professional quar­
rel which could arise only with the division of education between 
grammaticus and rhetorician. Sextus § 268 agrees with Quintilian and 
Cicero (De Or. 2.62; De Leg. 1.2.5 etc.) that true historiography is the 
province of the rhetorician, though they often meant by this no more 
than prose history: concessum est rhetoribus ementiri in historiis, jokes 
Cicero, Brut. 42. In De Or. 2.62ff43 Cicero assumes this, regrets the 
rhetoricians have not written historiography, proceeds to give (a) 
general historiographical principles, and then in 63 (b) the areas of 
history according to the scheme tempus, locus, res gestae, homines, 
causae. 

41 R. Reitzenstein, M. Terentius Varro und johanl1£s Mauropus von Euchaita (Leipzig 1901) 
82. 

42 Dahlmann, op.cit. (supra n.24) 27. 
43 But Isoc. 15.45 and schol. Dion. Thrax 449.1 both exclude historiography from rhetoric. 

Note that at De Or. 2.53 Cicero classifies our quadripartitio as annalium confectio, possibly a hit 
at Yarra. 



WILLIAM J. SLATER 329 

In the eyes of dedicated historians, or those who had learned the 
proper cliches, the division between poetic historia and prose history 
was one between lies 44 and truth, and therefore the limits of gram­
matical historia were of perennial interest to all historians, since it was 
part of elementary schooling; many of the fixed cliches assembled by 
Scheller and A venarius are to be explained by the desire on the part 
of historians to disassociate themselves from the common school prej­
udices about history, which reeked of pedantry and mythological 
obscurities, but also of fiction. 

Precisely what this grammatical history was we can see best from 
the examples given us by the educators, who, if rhetoricians, usually 
write with a certain contempt, and by Sextus himself: it consists 
almost wholly of what we should now call mythology and biography, 
usque ad ineptias atque derisum (Suet. Tib. 70). Sextus adduces (§§ 257-
258) several stories of biographical interest, which he calls aXPT)cra.45 

He goes on to exemplify the folly of biography from the various 
accounts given of the deaths of Odysseus and Asklepios.46 

In Roman and in Hellenistic times we see the traces of a discussion 
that begins with the critics of Homer in the fifth century concerning 
the relationship of historia to truth 47 and its place in education. Of this 
we are offered principally views biassed according as the source is a 
historian, a rhetorician or a grammarian.48 

Sextus' tirade against LCTop{a falls into place when we realize that 
though skeptic, he dislikes the empiric school of medicine.49 Especi­
ally he dislikes their-to his mind-unskeptical reliance on icropta, 

transmitted case doxographies. We have a remarkable parallel in 

44 G. Avenarius, Lukians Schrift zu Geschichtsschreibung (Meisenheim 1956) 16; and cf, 
Sext. adv. Gramm. 267: fL'1)SEfLLac OtJC'1)C UA'1)fJouc lc-ropiac 7Tapa TOLC ypafLfLaTtKo'ic. 

45 Avenarius, op.cit. (supra n.44) 22ff, shows this to be a part of the technical abuse used by 
historians. 

46 Cf RAC 6 (1966) 1258ff S.V. EXITUS ILLUSTRIUM VIRORUM (Ronconi) for this tapas, where 
add Cic. Brut. 43 on mars vulgaris. 

47 The quarrel begins with the critics of Homer's veracity; see F. Mehmel, AuAbendl 4 
(1954) 16ff; H. Homeyer, Lukian, Wie man Geschichte schreiben soli (Munich 1965) 279; and litt. 
cited by R. Haussler, Tacitus und das historische Bewusstsein (Heidelberg 1965) 191 n.2, with 
whom I cannot agree. 

48 Isid. Etym. 1.41.2 following Augustine still defines historia as belonging to grammar, 
but cf 1.44.5 and L. Arbusov, Colores rhetorici2 (Gottingen 1963) 95 and 109, where most of 
the topoi listed are Hellenistic in origin. 

49 See his comments at the end of Pyr., and K. Deichgraber,Die griechische Empirikerschule 
(Gottingen 1930, repro 1964) 268, and on {cTopia, 65ff, 298ff: he quotes Gal. Subfig.emp. § 8 
(restored): ... p,LKpoAoyia Tic lCTt 7TEP£ TOU rijc {cTopiac Ov6p,aToc. 



330 ASKLEPIADES AND HISTORIA 

[Galen's] IIEp~ aplc77Jc EVP€CEWC I, pp.142ff Klihn,50 where arguments 
very similar to those of Sextus are marshalled against lCTop{a, e.g. 
that it is aXP'Y}cToC and without a KPtT~PtOV of truth. Again with 
[Galen's] contention that (I p.145,5-6) the judges of lCTopla cannot 
judge ,\6yctJ, compare Sextus' introduction § 43, where a claim of the 
grammarians is that they can TO: €K TWV JLV(}WV TE Ka~ lcTOptWV '\6yctJ 

OtOpl'EtV. 
In this passage (I p.148,4 Kuhn) and in Galen's Subfiguratio empirica 

p.68,8 D. we have the same example given for methods of lCTopla, 

vi\'.. how can we know for a fact that Crete is an island. We shall not, 
we are told, accept e.g. as evidence letters to this effect, cf. Sen. Ep. 
22. Iff : non potest medicus per epistolas cibi aut balinei tempus eligere. But 
we shall accept as evidence the cvJL1>wvla of reports of intelligent ob­
servers. Deichgraber51 says: "In der Zusammenstellung dieser Kri­
terien wie in der Einflihrung des Prinzips der lCTopla liberhaupt sind 
die Empiriker durchaus selbstandig. Wenn Philippson ... in Aristo­
teles einen Vorlalifer dieses Prinzips findet, so weiss ich nicht welche 
Nachrichten es sind, die zu dieser Annahme berechtigen." 

There is in fact such evidence: at PI. Leg. 662B the Athenian replies 
ironically to the Cretan, who has asked Ka~ 7TWC <Xv TafJTa y' ETt cvyXW­

pO'iJLEV; the following: 07TWC; El (}EOC ~JL'iv, WC EOtKEV, JJ 1>l'\ot, ool'Y) TtC 
,I,. I • ~ ~ \ "~ , , '" I, ,\, ~',I,. I CVJL'f'WVtav, wc vvv yE CXEOOV a7TCf-OOJLEV a7T WV\'Y}IlWV. EJLOL yap O'Y} 'f'atVETaL 

TaVTa otlTWC avaYKa'ia, WC OVO€, JJ 1>l'\E IDEtvla, KP~T'Y} vijcoc ca1>wc. 
This is a direct reference to the proverb 0 Kpfjc TOV 7T6vTOV, which is as 
old as AIkman (Alcaeus?) fr.164 (Page, PMelGr) and is based on the 
ancient reputation of the Cretans for falsehood. The variant proverb 0 
EtKE'\6c •.. is therefore secondary, though EtKE'\{av occurs at Gal. 
Subfig.emp. p.68,7 D. also. We are forced to believe that the methodo­
logical discussion of lCTopla is at least as old as Plato. 

Now Blihring has shown that from the time of Plato onwards the 
numeri are often connected with medicine (PI. Phdr. 268A, Prot. 314A, 
etc.), and Aristotle speaks of them as being applied by a doctor, EN 
1137a16: TOCOVTOV EPYOV OCOV laTpov EtVaL. It becomes all the more 
difficult to believe the numeri and the discussion of lCTopia do not be­
long together in medical practice from an early period. Why should 
Asklepiades have been interested in them? There is an obvious 
solution. 

50 Deichgraber, op.cit. (supra n.49) fr.59, with other medical passages. 
51 Deichgraber, op.cit. (supra n.49) 300, but cf. Reid on Cic. Acad.Pr. 95. 



WILLIAM J. SLATER 331 

Opinion has been unanimous in this century,52 though not before, 
that Asklepiades in the adv. Gramm. is Asklepiades of Myrlea, who was 
among other things a source for Strabo. The grounds for this are (a) 
the Myrlean was a grammarian and only a grammarian would write 
on grammar; (b) Suidas, in a confused passage,53 tells us that an 
Asklepiades wrote at least ten books on grammarians; if he followed 
an arsfartifex M principle or arsfartifexfopus division,55 we should ex­
pect that he would be the same man who wrote on grammar; and (c) 
both Asklepiades of Myrlea and our Asklepiades criticize Dionysius 
Thrax. Against these arguments we have to set others just as convinc­
ing. (a) Sextus does not indicate that Asklepiades is a grammarian; in 
fact everywhere else in his works Asklepiades or aL1T€pt 'ACKIt?}1T£a8?}v 
refers to the famous doctor of the first century B.C., Asklepiades ofBi­
thynia.56 Since there is no further definition in the adv. Grammaticos, 
Sextus must mean the same person. Even the ai 1T€pt 'ACKf..?}1T£a8r]V 
(adv. Gramm. 73) has its exact parallels in other works with the 
systematic school founded by Asklepiades the physician, while we no­
where hear of a school of the Myrlean. Perhaps Sextus mistook 
another Asklepiades-as a physician he must have read several-as 
the famous physician, but there seems little doubt that he does not 
differentiate his source in the adv. Grammaticos because he believes it 
to be the same as the one he knows best. (b) Though we do not know 
that either Asklepiades wrote a grammar, we learn from Pliny, NH 
26.7 that the medical Asklepiades was a rhetorician before he became 
a physician and earned the abuse of Galen. Further, physicians were 
more interested in literary matters than we are apt to believe. Galen 
especially wrote an immense number of literary tracts.57 Dahlmann 

52 RE 2 (1896) 1628 S.V. ASKLEPIADES 28 (Wendel), on which see W. Kroll, Philologus 88 
(1933) 463 n.34, who there makes some sensible remarks about our evidence for Stoic 
rhetoric. 

53 Suidas s.v. 'Oprp€VC KPOTWVUXTT}C, cf F. Susemihl, Gesch.gr.Lit.Alex. II (Leipzig 1892) 18 
n.96. 

54 E. Norden, Hermes 40 (1905) 481ff: despite C. O. Brink, Horace, Ars Poetica (Cambridge 
1971) 325ff, I still prefer to believe H. Dahlmann, Varros Schrift 'de Poematis', AbhMainz 1953 

no.3, p.lll n.2, when he claims that there is simply not enough evidence for Norden's 
thesis. 

55 D. van Berchem, MusHelv 9 (1952) 79ff, but again there is no evidence for general 
application. 

56 There is no collection of his fragments beyond that of the incompetent H. von Vilas, 
Der Arzt und Philosoph Asklepiades von Bithynien (Vienna/Leipzig 1903). Newer litt. cited by 
I. M. Lonie, Mnemosyne SERA, 18 (1965) 126. 

57 J. Ilberg, RhM N.F. 52 (1897) 617ff. 



332 ASKLEPIADES AND HISTORIA 

has shown the fragility of the whole arsfartifex argument; we cannot 
suppose that a work on Grammarians automatically implies a work 
on Grammar. (c) The third point has to be considered in the light of the 
reputation of Dionysius Thrax; since he was the grammarian par ex­
cellence for the first century B.C. and later times, it would be impos­
sible for anyone who wrote a grammar to avoid criticism of his 
definition of grammar. This is far from being sufficient evidence for 
equating two people of the same name. 

We cannot say who the source of Sextus certainly is, but Sextus ap­
pears to assume that it is the famous physician. Confusion was easy, 
since there were many persons named Asklepiades, and our two came 
from the same area at about the same time; they are confused even 
in the text of Strabo 12.4.9 C566. But if the physician wrote on gram­
mar and had available to him the source of Varro's quadripartitio, he 
would have produced a chapter on :'cropta much as we have recon­
structed. The <historiographical' element in the system would be due 
to its use in medical historia, and ill adapted to grammar. Polybius too 
saw parallels in medicine with historiography; it is not surprising 
that someone applied the methods of medical historia to grammatical 
historia. Who could be more likely to do so than a rhetorician (i.e. at 
this time a grammaticus also) with medical interests? 

To sum up, I believe the methodological interest in historia to be 
originally a medical one; its methodology produced a series of numeri 
which could be applied not only to historia but to ethics and other 
fields. The application to grammar took place in the first century B.C. 

when both Varro and Asklepiades applied it to the T€XVLK6V and the 
:'CTOPLK6V respectively. Their source had affinities with Stoicism, but 
need not have been Stoic. 

A final thought. Biihring, following Knoche, points out that fr.127 
of Pindar seems to presuppose the concept of numeri. The term 
apdlfJ-6C one connects with Pythagoreanism. Varro mentions a debt to 
Pythagoreanism. Is it too much to suggest that the original impetus to 
systematize might have come from that fertile but obscure source of 
much Greek thought? The fJ-€C677JC concept, which is not too far from 
the numeri, we can trace in medicine and then in ethics ;58 it too is 
found in Pythagoreanism. Perhaps the idea is not to be rejected out of 
hand. 

68 F. Wehrli, "Medizin und Ethik," MusHelv 8 (1951) 4Off, esp. 56. 



WILLIAM J. SLATER 333 

As for Sextus, we find him to be a bungling doctor, whose eagerness 
to refute grammatical doctrines was not equalled by his capacity to 
understand them. Since we have recently been informed by a learned 
essay that the adv. Grammaticos illustrates Sextus' "unity of 
thought,"59 it may be as well to emphasize that what little unity of 
thought we find usually conceals a distortion of his sources.GO 

McMASTER UNIVERSITY 

April, 1972 

59 Krentz, op.cit. (supra n.2). The tendency to tripartition is attributed with exaggeration 
to Asklepiades by Miiller, op.cit. (supra n.3), a view modified by Heinicke, op.cit. (supra n.18) 
14ff. There is good reason to believe that Sextus may be in part responsible for the division 
into three, since this was typical of empiric medicine, with its CVCTflnKct and TE:I..LKct, and cf 

Usener, op.cit. (supra n.22) 274ff. 
60 I should have noticed E. Elorduy, Die SoVa1philosophie der Stoa (Philologus supp!. 28.3, 

Leipzig 1936) 69ff, 251ff, and L. Radermacher, Artium Scriptores (SBWien 227.3, 1951) 116.