Chapter 1 Diels’ Whodunit: The Reliability of the Three Mentions of Aëtius in Theodoret
In: Aëtiana IVSearch for other papers by Jean-Baptiste Gourinat in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Purchase instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Abstract
Diels’ hypothesis that Aëtius was the author of a version of the Placita more complete than the version transmitted to us in the manuscript tradition and known by Eusebius relies on three mentions of Aëtius by Theodoret in his Therapy of Greek Diseases, alongside Porphyry and Plutarch, to the latter of whom the shorter version of the Placita was attributed. Though it is beyond any doubt that Theodoret, like Stobaeus, had access to a longer version of the Placita, one may have some doubts about Diels’ depiction of the way Theodoret relied on the longer Placita and to the identification of the author as Aëtius. Diels thought that Aëtius was Theodoret’s main source and that he added the name of Porphyry and Plutarch because of their fame among the Greek philosophers. A careful examination of the three mentions of Aëtius, together with Plutarch and Poprhyry, shows that Theodoret’s primary source was Eusebius, and that he used the longer version of the Placita as an additional source for some material missing in Eusebius. Three of Eusebius’ authorities were Plutarch, Porphyry and Arius Didymus. It seems that Theodoret, voluntarily or not, substituted Aëtius’ name for that of Arius. He may have done that on purpose or by mistake, and not had any copy of a book by an author named Aëtius. Though Diels’ hypothesis remains plausible, an alternative possibility is that the two versions of the Placita circulated under the name of Plutarch.