On Numenius the Platonic Philosopher

matters, but only in words, and there he taught the differences between Plato, Aristotle, and Zeno. This opinion is confirmed by these words in fr. II, § 11: "I have mentioned Zeno as having studied with Xenocrates, and then with Polemon, etc.," by which Numenius likewise calls us back to the earlier part of this book.

In writing this history, Numenius seems to have used the same sources as Diogenes Laertius, for he agrees with him in many matters 1). In the first fragment, in Eusebius XIV, 5, after briefly mentioning Speusippus, Xenocrates, and Polemon, Numenius explains his opinion about Plato (cf. p. 2). He blames the Academic philosophers because they did not keep the doctrine of Plato pure and sincere, and he praises the Epicureans because they never departed from the doctrine of their master 2).

Then, at the end of this and throughout the whole second fragment (cap. 6 = fr. II. § 1 sqq.), he disputes about Arcesilaus and his contention with Zeno. In the seventh chapter (fr. III), with an intolerable wordiness, he relates a small story about Lacydes, which Diogenes Laertius handed down much more briefly. I believe Gaisford was correct in deciding that the things brought forward in paragraphs 14 and 15 of that same chapter were drawn from Numenius, but were reduced to a summary by Eusebius. In the following fragments (IV—VII), the discussion is about Carneades, and finally at the beginning of the ninth chapter (fr. VIII), about Philo and Antiochus.

Eusebius preserved some fragments of the books On the Good in the Evangelical Preparation from the first book,

1. Cf. our annotations to the fragments of Numenius.
2. Cf. Zeller op. cit. V. p. 194: "Dissatisfied with the entire post-Platonic philosophy, Numenius wants to return entirely to Plato and Pythagoras. He considers these two to be in complete agreement, as he believes the former borrowed his entire teaching from the latter and only changed the expression out of necessary considerations of prudence."