Physica et mystica (CAAG 2.41–53) and Book 5 Addressed to L (CAAG 2.53–56). The
first, a compilation of unrelated fragments, can be divided as follows: a) recipes concerning
purple (41–42); b) the story of a student in Egypt (presumably De ̄mokritos) who recalls from
Hades his unnamed teacher (42–43); c) polemic against a group of “new” alchemists; d) ten
recipes for making gold (43–46); e) three further recipes for gold (48–49); f) nine recipes for
ase ̄mos (49–53) and g) a conclusion on gold- and silver-making (53).
The tale in section b) should probably be interpreted in relation to the tradition first
preserved in S’ dialogue on The Book of De ̄mokritos (CAAG 2.57), but perhaps derived
from H S’ On the Mages (Bidez and Cumont 170–171), that the
Persian mage O initiated De ̄mokritos in the temple at Memphis. At the end of this
section is found the oft-repeated alchemical maxim “Nature is delighted by nature; nature
conquers nature; nature rules nature,” which is said to bring together the whole of alchem-
ical teaching. The texts edited under the title Physica et mystica, although not the four books
of the Principle, appear to contain material from those books. Book 5 Addressed to Leukippos,
containing instructions for a single process resulting in khrusokorallos (gold-coral), is, however,
not the On Pearls. Not referred to elsewhere in the alchemical corpus, it appears to be a late
composition.
Alchemical texts ascribed to De ̄mokritos are extant in both Syriac (Berthelot and Duval
1893: edition 10–60 and partial translation of this and other texts 19–106; 267–293) and
Arabic (Ullmann 1972: 159–160), but their relations with the Greek texts remain unclear.
Berthelot (1885) 145–163; Idem. and Duval: La chimie au moyen âge, v. 2, L’alchimie syriaque (1893) 19– 104
and 267–293; Bidez and Cumont (1938) 1.170–171; J.P. Hershbell, “Democritus and the Beginnings
of Greek Alchemy,” Ambix 34.1 (1987) 5–20.
Bink Hallum
De ̄mokritos, pseudo (Agric.) (ca 250 – 50 BCE)
Numerous opinions regarding agricultural doctrine and procedure are attributed to
D. Some may go back to the philosopher’s work On Farming (D
L 9.48); C (11.3.2) specifically ascribes an opinion on the expense of
building a wall around a garden to that treatise. But the majority ought to be classified as
apocryphal; Columella identifies B M as the author of the pseudo-
De ̄mokritean Kheirokme ̄ta, a collection of recipes which included such things as advice on
how to prevent the spread of erusipelas in a flock of sheep (bury an infected animal
before the threshold of the stall: 7.5.17). A treatise On Sympathies and Antipathies, if
distinct from the Kheirokme ̄ta, seems to have contained precepts of a magical character, e.g.
to eliminate caterpillars from a field, have a menstruating woman walk around it
(11.3.64). The De ̄mokritean material in the G and the Arabic agricultural trad-
ition often veers into paradoxography, e.g. giving instructions for “wild” grafts (Wellman
fr.41). Various lists of weather-signs are assigned to De ̄mokritos, some of which may be
genuine (cf. P Phaseis 27), but one that links weather and climate phenomena to
the position of the planets in different zodiacal houses will postdate 100 BCE (Wellmann
fr.4).
Ed.: DK 68 B300.1–20; M. Wellmann, “Die Georgika des Demokritos,” Abhandlungen der Preussischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-Hist. Kl. (1921) #4.
RE S.4 (1924) 219–223, I. Hammer-Jensen.
Philip Thibodeau
DE ̄MOKRITOS, PSEUDO (AGRIC.)