to say which of the text is by Archime ̄de ̄s and which by later commentators, considerably
limiting our ability to judge Archime ̄de ̄s’ scientific personality. Assuming most of those
apparent glosses are indeed late, the emerging personality is that of a very precise, and yet
somewhat impatient author. While no mistakes are ever made, and careful attention is given
to many subtle points of logic, Archime ̄de ̄s can be quite cavalier about details he considers
obvious. (This, indeed, may be the reason why later readers felt the urge to add in their
glosses.)
In many of the introductions to his works, Archime ̄de ̄s mentions previously sent “enun-
ciations,” apparently challenges distributed so as to test Archime ̄de ̄s’ contemporaries. In one
case (the introduction to SL) he specifically mentions a false enunciation, i.e. one meant to
tease his contemporaries into proving a falsehood. The overall tone of the introductions is
of supreme self confidence. In the very choice of scientific subject matter, in the spirit of
“intellectual tournament” sustained through his correspondence, and finally in the subtle
and yet cavalier manner of his writing, Archime ̄de ̄s radiates a consistent persona – subtle,
self-confident, playful.
J.L. Berggren, “Spurious Theorems in Archimedes’ Equilibrium of Planes, Book I,” AHES 16 (1976–
1977) 87–103; W.R. Knorr, “Archimedes and the Elements: Proposal for a revised Chronological
ordering of the corpus,” AHES 19 (1978) 211–290; Idem, “Archimedes and the pseudo-Euclidean
Catoptrics,” AIHS 35 (1985) 28–105; Idem (1989); J. Sesiano, “Un Fragment attribué à Archimède,”
MH 48 (1991) 21–32; Reviel Netz, K. Saito, and N. Tchernetska, “A New Reading of Method
Proposition 14: Preliminary Evidence from the Archimedes Palimpsest,” SCIAMVS 2 (2001) 9–29,
3 (2002) 109–125; Reviel Netz, F. Acerbi, and N.W. Wilson, “Towards a Reconstruction of
Archimedes’ Stomachion,” SCIAMVS 5 (2004) 67–99; NDSB 1.85–91, F. Acerbi.
Reviel Netz
Areios Didumos (100 BCE – 200 CE)
A number of passages on Peripatetic and Stoic ethics and on Stoic physics in the church
father E and in I S are attributed to Areios, to Didumos or once to
Areios Didumos. It is a modern assumption that all these passages refer to one and the same
person called Areios Didumos, and that this person was identical with Emperor Augustus’
philosophical friend Areios. This identification is far from assured: all we can say is that
these texts seem to have been written before the end of the 2nd c. CE. In any case, these
excerpts seem to belong to that kind of doxographical literature where the philosophy of
each of the schools was dealt with in separate sections on logic, physics and ethics.
Ed.: Fragments of physical doxography in Diels (1879) 447–472; fragments of ethical doxography in
A.J. Pomeroy, trans., Epitome of Stoic Ethics (1999).
Moraux (1973) 1.259–443; W.W. Fortenbaugh, ed., On Stoic and Peripatetic Ethics, The Work of Arius
Didymus (1983); D. Hahm “The Ethical Doxography in Arius Didymus,” ANRW 2.36.4 (1990) 2935–
3055; T. Göransson, Albinus, Alcinous, Arius Didymus (1995); Mansfeld and Runia (1996) 238–266; NP
1 (1996) 1041–1042, D.T. Runia (not in BNP).
Jørgen Mejer
Areios of Tarsos, Laecanius (54 – 77 CE)
D dedicates his Materia Medica to an Areios (Pr.1), an instructor of medical
botany and mineralogy then resident in Tarsos, and likely one of Dioskouride ̄s’ primary
mentors in pharmacology. In CMLoc 4.8, and 5.3 (12.776 and 829 K.) G ascribes
AREIOS DIDUMOS