S N, and T M), the great majority of them have
long since been exposed as figments of the author’s imagination, only to be found in De
Fluuiis and another mediocre Pseudo-Plutarchan writing obviously coming from the same
pen (Parallela minora). As such, De Fluuiis is merely pseudo-paradoxographical, a gratuitous
concoction for a gullible, sensation-seeking audience.
Ed.: N. Bernardakis, Plutarchos, Moralia 7 (1896) 282–328.
RE 18.3 (1949) 1137–1166 (§34, 1164), K. Ziegler; RE 21.1 (1951) 636–962 (#2; III.10f-g, 867–871),
Idem; BNP 11 (2007) 424 (#2, IV.A), E. Olshausen.
Jan Bollansée, Karen Haegemans, and Guido Schepens
Podanite ̄s (250 BCE – 80 CE)
A, in G CMLoc 7.4 (13.115 K.), quotes his remedy for duspnoia: dis-
solve mustard, salt, and natron in water, drink often. The name seems otherwise unattested:
cf. Podanikos (LGPN 1.374), Podanemos (LGPN 3A.365), or perhaps Podare ̄s (ibid.).
Fabricius (1726) 375.
PTK
Polemarkhos of Kuzikos (360 – 330 BCE)
Follower of E, classmate or teacher of K (S, In de caelo, = CAG
7 [1894] 492). He noted the apparent variation in the brightness of planets but dismissed it
as evidence for variation in the distances of planets from the Earth, on the grounds that the
distance is not really observable, and so defended Eudoxos’ theory of homocentric spheres
(ibid., p. 505).
Simplicius, On Aristotle’s “On the Heavens 2.10–14,” trans. Ian Mueller (ACA 2005).
Henry Mendell
Polemo ̄n of Athens (ca 345 – 270/269 BCE)
Followed his teacher X as scholarch of the Academy in 314/313 BCE until
his death in (or near) 270/269 BCE. Sources other than D L (4.16–20)
and C are limited. Until recently, Polemo ̄n had been considered mainly a moral
philosopher (following D.L. 4.18), but Cicero’s mentor Antiokhos of Askalon stressed
wide-ranging connections between Polemo ̄n and Z the Stoic, once his pupil. Sedley
has now persuasively argued that the account of Platonic physics offered by Cicero (Acad.
1.24–29), attributing to P a single organic universe with two principles, active and
passive, operating in close conjunction within it, and hitherto seen as Antiokhos’ own sto-
icizing contribution, is in fact an account of Academic physics under Polemo ̄n. Like
Ze ̄no ̄n, Polemo ̄n had idealized “life according to nature (phusis),” and written a book on
the subject (Clement, Strom. 7.6.32.9). The passage identifies matter with the passive prin-
ciple, while the other principle seems to be given a sentient nature and perfect reason, called
the “soul of the world,” god, or providence. It also makes much use of the idea of bodies as
qualified matter, using earth, air, fire and water as “elements,” two more active and two more
passive, mentioning in addition the fifth astral body of A. These are distinguished
from compound bodies. While the attribution to Polemo ̄n is only hypothetical, it accords
with trends already found in Xenokrate ̄s and can be reconciled with early Academic
non-literal readings of the Timaios’ creation-process.
POLEMO ̄N OF ATHENS