Antiochus and the Late Academy 9783666251511, 3525251513, 9783525251515

Citation preview

HYPOMNEMATA 56

H Y PO MN E MATA U N T E R S U C H U N G E N ZUR ANTIKE U N D ZU I H R E M N A C H L E B E N

Herausgegeben von Albrecht Dihle / Hartmut Erbse / Christian Habicht Hugh Lloyd-Jones / Günther Patzig / Bruno Snell

Heft 56

VANDENHOECK & R U P R E C H T IN G Ö T T I N G E N

JOHN

GLUCKER

Antiochus and the Late Academy

VANDENHOECK & R U P R E C H T IN G Ö T T I N G E N

CIP-Kurztitelaufnahme

der Deutschen

Bibliothek

Glucker, John: Antiochus and the late academy / John Glucker. - Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1978. (Hypomnemata; H. 56) ISBN 3-525-25151-3

© Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht in Göttingen 1978 - Printed in Germany. Ohne ausdrückliche Genehmigung des Verlages ist es nicht gestattet, das Buch oder Teile daraus auf foto- oder akustomechanischcm Wege zu vervielfältigen Gesamtherstellung: Hubert & Co., Göttingen

TO C A R O L

... τό re απλώς àya&òv και ήδύ απλώς έστίν, μάλιστα δέ ταύτα φιλητά.

Preface

This is not a general, descriptive work on Antiochus of Ascalon, on the history of the Academy, or on any of the other subjects discussed in any of its chapters. Such works exist - some of them of the highest quality - and they are often referred to on the following pages. My aim in this book has been to question some old orthodoxies; to reexamine some standard theories which have held the field for many years; to reconsider the evidence of the ancient sources and its precise interpretation, and to offer some tentative answers which point in new directions. I do not claim originality or comprehensiveness for everything I say in this book. Some of the ancient evidence and the manner in which I interpret it may be new to this particular field. Much of it has been frequently discussed before, and I have only sifted through it again and indicated those interpretations of it which seem to me more in accordance with the evidence as I understand it. On a number of issues which are new to this area of study, I have been anticipated in print by some recent publications. I reached most of my own conclusions many years ago, on the basis of my own examination of the sources, and before most of these new publications were available to me. When they came into my hands, it was pleasing and reassuring to discover that others — often more competent than myself — had been led by their own investigations to conclusions not unlike my own. There was still much left for me to add. The field is vast, large areas of it are still uncharted, and there is work for all of us and many more to come:

plurimi pertransibunt et multiplex erit scientia. It is, of course, impossible to be comprehensive on any of the issues discussed in this book. The ground it covers is very wide, and the evidence is mostly second-hand, often controversial and biased, and scattered in many literary, epigraphical and papyrological publications. After more than a century of proper historical study in this field, we still lack the basic tools: full critical collections of the fragments and testimonia of the sceptical Academy, of most of the Middle Platonists, of the Athenian schools of philosophy, and of the better-known schools and teachers of philosophy in the Imperial era. In some sections of this book, where this was of crucial importance, I had to make my own provisional collections of testimonia. I have also embarked on preparing a critical edition of the fragments and testimonia of the Academy from Arcesilaus and his contemporaries to Antiochus and his school. One can only hope that the other gaps will be filled soon. In a field like this, a proper, synoptic and critical view of all the available evidence is not a luxury: it is a necessary condi-

tion for any real progress in research. Much of the work done in the past has been vitiated b y the lack of the necessary tools for such a synoptic view. Nor could one be comprehensive in reading and digesting all the modern literature. I have done m y best, b u t I admit failure. If I were t o read every single work of modern scholarship touching on every single issue raised on any of the following pages, this b o o k would have taken many more years t o write. I doubt if this would have made it all that m u c h different, but I am sure it would have made it much longer. It is long enough as it is. I beg the forgiveness of all those scholars whose works are not mentioned, or not mentioned often enough, where they ought to be. This is no reflection on the quality of their work, b u t only on m y own ignorance and the brevity of human life. The bookseller, the librarian, the cataloguer and some readers m a y regard a printed book as a finished product. The scholar, if he knows anything of the history of his trade, can hardly hope t o entertain such a comforting thought. This is even more true of the author of a book which has so much to do with the ancient sceptics, and in which many an established orthodoxy is reexamined and disputed. If there is anything I have learnt from m y work on this b o o k , it is that the blind acceptance of 'standard theories' and the claim of finality for any historical reconstruction are among the deadliest enemies of proper scholarship. Many of m y own conclusions are offered quite explicitly as tentative suggestions. Where I speak in more positive terms, I still offer only what appears to me to be more πιϋανόν for the time being, on the evidence I have been able to examine. I regard this b o o k , like any other work of scholarship, as an interim report. Others will m o d i f y most or all of m y conclusions as time goes on and the debate continues. This book m a y contribute, in a small measure, to this debate, and make others join it. It will be a defeat for its whole objective and approach if it, t o o , falls prey to the human tendency t o turn tentative answers into standard theories and interim reports into established orthodoxies. For the rest, let it speak for itself. #

Many people and institutions have made m y work lighter and the composition and publication of his book possible. Only those who have experienced on their own flesh the research conditions prevailing until very recently in small provincial universities will be able to realize how much I owe to Mrs. Mary Connolly, Miss Heather Eva and their colleagues in the Inter-Library Loans Section of Exeter University Library. Without their unfailing help in procuring books, articles and dissertations from numerous libraries in Britain and abroad, this book would never have been finished. My colleagues Dr. K. C. Cameron and Mr. F. D. Harvey of the University of Exeter, Professor Franz F. Schwarz of the University of Graz, and Mr. N. G. Wilson of Lincoln College, Oxford, provided me on some occasions with copies and photographs of sections of books and articles not available to me here. My friend Stuart

8

Fortey obtained for me, during a period of residence in France, a number of French publications hard to get in this country. My friend Euthymios Souloyannis, of the Athenian Academy, sent me some Greek publications which would have been extremely hard to obtain outside Greece. Without their kind help, this book would have been even more imperfect than it is. Professor Sterling Dow of Boston University, Professor C. P. Jones of the University of Toronto, Professor James H. Oliver of the Johns Hopkins University, Professor Uriel Rappaport of the University of Haifa, and Professor Eugene Vanderpool of the American School of Classical Studies in Athens, have been all kind enough to write to me in answer to queries I put to them in their own special provinces. My gratitude to them does not imply that they are responsible in any way for the use I have made of their replies or for anything I have said in this book. In 1971/2, I was fortunate enough to spend a year at the Center for Hellenic Studies, Washington D. C. I am grateful to the Director, Professor Bernard M. W. Knox, and to the Senior Fellows, for electing me to the Fellowship, and allowing me to spend a year in conditions which it would be a discourteous understatement to describe as ideal. I benefited much from discussions with my contemporary Fellows of the Center, and especially with Professor Charlotte L. Stough, whose intimate knowledge of the Greek sceptics and deep sympathy for their mode of thinking often made me see sense. Legends about the Center are now already a literary topos in prefaces to books written by former Fellows. Those who have been there know that these legends are true. The production of technical works of scholarship is far from being a flourishing industry today. Professor Hartmut Erbse of the University of Bonn, Editorin-Chief of this series, showed, from my very first contacts with him, an enthusiasm for my book which I regard as a great honour. He read my typescript as soon as he received it, circulated the other Editors, and has been unfailing in his efforts to see the book made available in print. To him, the Professor Albrecht Dihle of the University of Heidelberg, and to the other Editors of this series, I can only express my gratitude in that famous verse of Naevius, laetus sum laudari me abs te, pater, a laudato uiro. Mr. Hellmut Ruprecht, of the great publishing house of Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht in Göttingen, took a personal interest in the fortunes of this book as soon as it was sent to him by the Editors, and has done far more than his duty in seeing it through the long and involved process of publication. Dr. Friederike Furchtbar, of the same firm, has been very patient and efficient in preparing my chaotic typescript for print. If it were not for them, this book would not be in the reader's hands now. I have received generous grants towards the printing costs from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft in Bonn, the Jowett Copyright Trust in Oxford, and

9

the Hugh Last Fund administered by the Faculty of the British School at Rome. These grants made the publication possible. At a time when I was still far from certain about some of the other grants, I was offered a substantial subsidy by the Publications Committee of the University of Exeter. In the event, this proved unnecessary. But I am grateful to the Publications Committee and to its chairman, Professor Walter Minchinton, for offering me the subsidy when it could have made all the difference to the prospects of publication. I was helped in the tedious task of proof-reading by my wife and by my friends David Harvey and Ivor Ludlam. They have all saved me from some of my own errors and made some improvements to the text. They are not responsible for the mistakes which oversight or my own obstinacy have left in the book. Mr. Ludlam has also helped me to check some parts of the Index. He did much of his proof-reading at a time when there were far more urgent calls on his attention. Many others would have excused themselves — with full justification — on the ground of such urgent pressures. Ivor went on cheerfully offering his help and spending his precious hours improving my book. Amicus certus in re incerta cemitur. •

There is one debt I can never hope to repay. My wife Carol has seen this book through, from its early infancy in a lecture to the local branch of the Classical Association to the tiring, but more rewarding, process of preparing it for print. She lived with that most temperamental and most difficult of God's creatures, an author, during those long periods when the Muse takes over and chaos reigns supreme. I may have written this book, but it belongs to her. Exeter, May 1978.

10

John Glucker.

Contents Chapter 1. The Sosus Affair A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H.

Background and Problems Antiochus' Secession from Philo Antiochus Meets Lucullus The Challenge to Philo The Sceptical Academy and Plato Philo's Tergiversations Dénouement Epilogue: Antiochus in Alexandria

Chapter 2. Antiochus and the School of Athens

13 13 15 21 27 31 64 88 90 98

Chapter 3. The Successors

121

Chapter 4. Platonica Secta

159

Α. Σχολή, Διατριβή, Αϊρεσις 1. Σχολή 2. Αιατρφή 3. Α'ιρβσις 4. Philosophical Αΐρεσις Β. Secta, Disciplina C. Platonici, Academici Chapter 5. The School Property A. Plato and his Immediate Successors B. The Area of the Academy C. The Later Literary Sources

159 160 162 166 174 193 206 226 226 237 246

Chapter 6. Interlude: Plutarch, Favorinus, Epictetus

256

A. Plutarch and the Academy B. Favorinus the Academic C. Epictetus and his 'Academic' Enemies

257 280 293

Chapter 7. Catena Aurea A. The Sceptical Academy and Esoteric Platonism B. The Golden Chain

296 296 306 11

C. Augustine: The Convergence of the Traditions D. Epilogue: Justinian Chapter 8. The End of the Diadochai A. Textus nunc ab omnibus receptus B. Positive Evidence of some Ancient Sources C. The Literary Diadochai D. Interlude: The 'Pharisaic' Diadochai E. Traces of Other Successions F. Quae Causa Leti?

315 322 330 330 337 344 356 364 373

Excursus 1. Plutarch, Lucullus 42,3—4

380

Excursus 2. Sources for Cicero's Lucullus

391

A. 'Philonian Innovations' in Cicero's Speech (Luc. 112-147) B. Are Cicero's Arguments a Proper Refutation of those of Lucullus? C. The Sources Additional Note: The Date of Att. XIII, 16

393 399 406 420

Excursus 3. Jesus of Nazareth as Kathegetes

424

Aids to Bibliography

449

Index Locorum

452

Index Nominum Antiquorum

480

Index Nominum Recentiorum

497

Index Verborum Potiorum (Graece et Latine)

505

Index Rerum Notabiliorum

507

12

CHAPTER 1

The Sosus Affair

A. Background and Problems Towards the end of 8 7 B.C., the quaestor L. Lucullus was despatched by Sulla from Athens to Crete, Cyrene, Egypt, Syria and Rhodes. 1 In his train were the Greek poet A. Licinius Archias, a native of Antioch, and the philosopher Antiochus of Ascalon. 2 When they were in Alexandria, a new philosophical work in two books by Philo of Larissa, the head of the Academy now in exile in Rome, was brought there. Antiochus, w h o had been Philo's pupil in Athens, read the new work, and — as we are told b y Cicero — 'although by nature the mildest of men, he became angry.' At first, he even doubted the authenticity of the new work. But Heraclitus of Tyre, another of Philo's former pupils, w h o had already been in Alexandria for some time, confirmed to him that 'he recognized it as a work of Philo.' 3 Heraclitus, like Antiochus, agreed that it contained matters which had never been expounded by Philo or by any other Academic philosopher. The authenticity of the new work was further confirmed by P. and C. Sellius and Tertilius Rogus, w h o had heard similar views expressed by Philo in his lectures in Rome, and had procured for themselves an authentic copy of 1 Van Ooteghem p. 22ff.; Broughton, MRR II, pp. 47; 55ff.; M. Gelzer, RE 13, pp. 377-8 tLicinius 104). 2 Archias: Cie.Arch. 11. Cicero says only that Archias was with Lucullus in Asia. But as a Greek client and native of the East who resided in Rome, he was most likely to join his patron as soon as he moved East. M. Gelzer, loc.cit., takes this for granted. Antiochus: Cie.Luc. 11. Van Ooteghem p. 25 n. 4 cites also Plut. Luc. 42,3 and Aelian, Var.Hist. 12,25. But Plutarch and Aelian speak only of Lucullus' adoption of Antiochus, and give no details of campaigns. Van Ooteghem ib. has also made the attractive suggestion that the constitution given to Cyrene by Lucullus was drafted by Antiochus. Antiochus would be more likely than Lucullus to know which constitution would suit an ancient Greek city - and this, after all, was one of the duties of a Greek 'companion' - as we shall soon see. The Platonic mot put in the mouth of Lucullus by Plutarch (Luc. 2) would sound more natural if we assumed that it originally came from a Greek philosopher. 3 Cic.Luc. 11 (Reid's translation): Philonis tarnen scriptum agnoscebat. Was it an autograph copy? Even in that case, Antiochus, a pupil of Philo for many years (Cic.Luc. 69) would recognize the handwriting - or the style - as well as Heraclitus. I take it that Antiochus merely wanted a second opinion, and confirmation from Roman pupils, before attacking Philo on the basis of this new work. This would imply that parts of the attack were personal, not purely theoretical.

the same b o o k — perhaps the very c o p y b r o u g h t t o A l e x a n d r i a . A n t i o c h u s c o u l d n o l o n g e r c o n t a i n h i m s e l f . H e w r o t e a b o o k against P h i l o e n t i t l e d

Sosus,

p r o b a b l y in h o n o u r o f a S t o i c p h i l o s o p h e r and native o f h i s o w n c i t y o f Asc a l o n . 4 H e also h e l d l o n g d i s p u t e s w i t h Heraclitus in Lucullus' p r e s e n c e , in w h i c h Heraclitus argued against A n t i o c h u s and A n t i o c h u s against t h e sceptical A c a d e m y . F i n a l l y , L u c u l l u s set h i m s e l f u p as a iudex, p u t s in his m o u t h , dedi Antiocho cognoscerem. docti

T h e quaestio

complures,

operarti

diligentius

and, in the w o r d s C i c e r o ut causam

ex eo

totam

w h i c h e n s u e d t o o k several d a y s , in the presence o f

including A n t i o c h u s ' brother Aristus and his t w o close friends

Aristo and D i o . T h e s t o r y is k n o w n t o u s in the f o r m in w h i c h it is narrated b y 'Lucullus' as the setting f o r Cicero's dialogue w h i c h bears his n a m e . 5 It marks the final break b e t w e e n A n t i o c h u s and the sceptical A c a d e m y , t o w h i c h h e h a d adhered f o r m a n y years. His arguments against P h i l o and against the older brand o f A c a d e m i c s c e p t i c i s m , as p r e s e n t e d b y 'Lucullus' in that dialogue, and b y 'Varrò' in t h e surviving s e c t i o n o f Cicero's Academicus

Primus,

s h o u l d provide us w i t h

s o m e clues t o a n u m b e r o f historical and p h i l o s o p h i c a l enigmas in a period o f Greek p h i l o s o p h y w h i c h is rather sparsely d o c u m e n t e d . S o m e o f t h e m o r e phil o s o p h i c a l issues o f this affair -

especially s o the p r o b l e m o f Philo's later phi-

l o s o p h i c a l p o s i t i o n s — have b e e n d e b a t e d b y m o d e m scholars m o r e than o n c e , 4

Zeller ΙΙΙ,Ι, p. 589, η. 3. Luck p. 15 makes the attractive suggestion that Sosus may have provided Antiochus with his first contacts with philosophy. That Sosus visited Ascalon is possible. It is more likely that, on arrival at Athens, Antiochus first contacted his countryman, who introduced him to the school of Mnesarchus and Dardanus. 5 Cic.Luc. 1 1 - 1 2 . The words are, of course, Cicero's - but why doubt the historicity of the story? Cicero had known b o t h Lucullus and Antiochus, and so, one assumes, did many of his readers. Krische p. 191ff. and Hirzel III, p. 265ff., ascribe this episode, and most of Lucullus' speech, to the Sosus as source - on this, see Excursus 2. M. Gelzer, RE 13, p. 378, reports a suggestion made to him in conversation by Karl Reinhardt that the source of this episode is 'a dialogue by Antiochus' - as if Krische and Hirzel had not written. But Cicero's description of Antiochus, homo natura lenissimus, changing his mood and becoming angry, makes it highly likely that he had also heard Lucullus' version of the episode. His description of Lucullus setting himself up as a iudex in this causa looks authentic and Roman: it is very reminiscent of the Gellius episode, Cic-Legg. 1,53. Van Ootcghem p. 28 claims that Cicero's admission to Varrò (Cic.Fam. IX,8,1) that the setting of the Academici is fictitious, should apply to this episode as well. But why? Cicero was forced to set the Academici in a disputation between him and Varrò which never took place. The Alexandrian episode could have taken place: there is no reason to assume that it did not. Besides, in his laudatio of Lucullus (esp.Luc. 4), Cicero is anxious to portray Lucullus as a great connoisseur in philosophy. The Lucullus of the Alexandrian episode has no inkling what the dispute is about, and has to learn it from Antiochus and Heraclitus. This, like Lucullus' whole 'statesmanlike' treatment of this causa, sounds authentic, while the fulsome praise of Lucullus 'the philosopher' is virtually disowned by Cicero himself in private ( A t t . XIII,16,1; 19,5). Lörcher pp. 2 4 4 - 5 is on the right track when he underlines the recurring emphasis in the laudatio on Lucullus' good memory. I cannot see why the frequent use of tum in Luc. 1 1 - 1 2 would render the whole story a 'Tendenzroman' (Lörcher p. 245 η. 1).

14

and we shall soon return to some of these debates. Issues of more historical interest have usually been treated with a certain measure of vagueness. When precisely and why did Antiochus secede from Philo's school? Where and why did Lucullus adopt him as his 'camp philosopher'? What were the connections between Philo's exile in Rome, Antiochus' defection to dogmatism, and the Sosus affair? Modern scholarship has often tended to pass over such issues briefly and cursorily, dropping a few hints, making a few conjectures, and hastening on to deal with the 'more relevant' philosophical problems. Yet history is not irrelevant to the Sosus controversy. Philosophical debates hardly ever occur in a vacuum — especially in a case like ours, where both protagonists are in exile, the school is in abeyance, and some of the central issues disputed are 'dynastic' in nature. Historical curiosity apart (and what is wrong with historical curiosity?), our understanding of the philosophical issues themselves may gain in clarity from a fuller knowledge of their background.

B. Antiochus' Secession from Philo Cicero's story in Lucullus 1 1 - 1 2 concerns itself only with the Alexandrian episode. It tells us very little — except occasionally and by implication — of the events which led to that episode. On Antiochus' break with Philo's Academy, we have a concise statement by Plutarch, supplemented by a longer account in another passage of Cicero's Lucullus. On the beginnings of Antiochus' friendship with Lucullus, our two chief sources are a brief statement of Cicero, supported by a longer, but no less concise, statement of Plutarch. Plutarch is most probably dependent here on a Ciceronian source. 6 But since his account refers to facts not found in our extant Cicero, his passages should be set out alongside those of Cicero. If we are to avoid speculation or petitio principii from the outset, we should confine ourselves to such testimonies which refer explicitly to the Sosus affair and its background. 7 Here they are: 6 Plutarch's source for his Life of Cicero is usually taken to be the Greek biography by Tiro - see H. Peter, Die Quellen Plutarchs in den Biographien der Römer, Halle 1865, p. 1 2 9 f f . More on this in Excursus 1. 7

Goedeckemeyer p. 103, n. 102, believes that one can prove that Antiochus had seceded from Philo before the Sosus episode from Cicero's statement in Luc. I l l , ... reprehensionem Antiochi... qua solebat dicere Philonem maxime perturbatum. But this in itself could have been said at the dramatic date of the Lucullus, not of its source. Hirzel III, pp. 3 3 7 - 8 , tries to prove this b y maintaining that Philo's Roman books were already directed against Antiochus. Perhaps - but w e are only told that Antiochus became angry on reading them and that he attacked Philo. Taken alone, there is nothing in Luc. 1 1 - 1 2 to contradict the alternative assumption (adopted, e.g., b y Lueder pp. 3 - 4 ) that it was precisely Philo's Roman books which made Antiochus secede from his school. Other arguments are required.

15

Plutarch, Cicero

4,1-2:

Ήδη yàp έξίστατο τής νέας λεγομένης Άκαδημείας ò 'Αντώχος καί την Καρνεά&ου στάσιν έ-γκατέλβιπεν, ehe καμπτόμενος ι)πό της έναρ^είας και των αισθήσεων, ehe, ώς φασα> ένιαι, φιλοτιμίο. τννί και διαψορφ προς τους Κλειτομάχου καί Φίλωνος συνήϋεις τον Στωϊκόν έκ μεταβολής ύεραπεύων λόΎον èv τοίς πλείστο te. Cicero, Lucullus

69—70:

Sed pauca prius cum Antiocho, qui haec ipsa quae a me defenduntur et didicit apud Philonem tarn diu ut comtaret diutius didicisse neminem, et scripsit de its rebus acutissime, et idem haec non acrius accusavit in senectute quam antea defensitaverat. quamvis igitur fuerit acutus, ut fuit, tarnen inconstantia levatur auetoritas. quis enim iste dies inluxerit quaero, qui illi ostenderit eam quam multos annos esse negavisset veri et falsi notam. exeogitavit aliquid? eadem dicit quae Stoici, paenituit illa sensisse? cur non se transtulit ad alios, et maxime ad Stoicos? eorum enim erat propria ista dissensio. quid eum Mnesarchi paenitebat, quid Dardani; qui erant Athenis tum principes Stoicorum. numquam a Philone discessit, nisi postea quam ipse coepit qui se audirent habere. unde autem subito vetus Academia revocata est? nominis dignitatem videtur, cum a re ipsa descisceret, retiñere voluisse. quod erant qui ilium gloriae causa facere dicerent, sperare etiam fore ut ii qui se sequerentur Antiochii vocarentur; mihi autem magis videtur non potuisse sustinere concursum omnium philosophorum. etenim de ceteris sunt inter illos non nulla communia; haec Academicorum est una sententia quam reliquorum philosophorum nemo probet. itaque cessit, ut ii qui sub novis solem non ferunt item ille cum aestuaret veterum ut maenianorum sic Academicorum umbram secutus est. Cicero, Lucullus 4: Cum autem e philosophis ingenio scientiaque putaretur Antiochus Philonis auditor excellere, eum secum et quaestor habuit et post aliquot annos Imperator eqs. Plutarch, Lucullus

42,3-4:

Φιλοσοφία» δε πάσαν μεν ήσπάξετο καί προς πάσαν εύμενής ην καί οικείος, ΐδιον δέ της 'Ακαδεμείας έξ άρχής'έρωτακαί ξήλον έσχεν, ού της νέας λeyoμένης, καίπερ άνύούοης τότε τοίς Καρνεάδου λόγοις δώ Φίλωνος, άλλα της παλαιάς, mòavòv άνδρα καί δεινον ειπείν τότε προστάτην έχούσης τον Άσκαλωνίτην 'Αντίοχον, δν πάση σπουδή ποιησάμενος ψίλον ò Λούκουλλος καί συμβιωτήν άντετάττετο τοις Φίλωνος άκροαταις, ών καί Κικέρων ην. καί σύγγραμμα ye πάγκαλοι έποίησεν εις την αϊρεσνν, έν φ τον υπέρ τής καταλήψεως λάγον Αουκούλλω περιτέάεικεν, αντω δε τον έναντίον. Λούκουλλος δ' àvayéypamai το βιβλίον. 16

Plutarch's last passage, if taken as a plain narrative of events happening at about the same time, appears to be teeming with contradictions and improbabilities. It appears to imply that Antiochus was already a προστάτης of his own 'Old Academy' while the 'so-called New Academy' was still flourishing under Philo;8 that it was then that Lucullus made Antiochus' acquaintance that is, before Philo left Athens; and that it was then that he 'set him up' (the Dryden translation for άντετάττετο) against Philo's pupils, one of whom was Cicero — in Athens, at the same time as Lucullus? Or is Plutarch referring to Rome? Was Antiochus there, and was it there that he seceded from Philo and obtained Lucullus' patronage? If so, what can Plutarch mean by telling us that - in Rome - Lucullus 'set up' Antiochus against all the other pupils of Philo, among whom was Cicerol When Lucullus first met Antiochus, in or before 87 B.C., Cicero was admittedly one of Philo's 'auditors'. But he was as yet an obscure young provincial, only just beginning to make his mark as a lawyer in Rome. As to his philosophical attainments, he was certainly no match for a pupil of Philo of long standing like Antiochus. In any case, a Roman, even if he had the talent and ambition, would hardly be considered the proper rival of a Greek philosopher (whose pupil, incidentally, he was to become eight years later.) And Cicero's Lucullus, mentioned by Plutarch in the same breath, was not written until 45 B.C. — more than forty years after the first meeting between Lucullus and Antiochus, and when both of them had been dead for some time. There is something odd about this passage of Plutarch, and we can, at present, seek no guidance from it as to the order of the events leading to the Alexandrian episode or their background. A proper discussion of this passage, its possible sources and the value of its evidence must be postponed until we have considered the evidence of other sources which may prove somewhat easier to interpret. 9 Nor do we obtain much help from Cicero's statement in Luc. 4. As can only be expected from a preface written in the style of a laudatio,10 it is couched in the most general and flattering terms. One should also remember that Cicero is speaking of Lucullus' interest in philosophy, and he must be anxious to justify his own curious selection of a soldier, statesman and bon vivant as the exponent, in that dialogue, of philosophical views of a very abstruse nature — a choice concerning which we know that Cicero had his compunctions. 11 One 8

His words (αιθούσης τότε cannot mean merely that Philo was still alive and teaching anywhere (as Cic.Luc. 17; N.D. 1,11). On the analogy of Cic.De Or. 1,45, cum venissem Athenis, fiorente Academia eqs., and 111,110, . . . apud Philonem, quern in Academia ... vigere audio (dramatic date 91 B.C.), it must refer to the school in Athens - especially so if this passage of Plutarch is derived, in the last resort, from a Ciceronian source: on which sec Excursus 1. ' For a discussion of the passage and related problems, see Excursus 1. 10 Cie.Att. XII,32,3. See M. Ruch, Le préambule dans les oeuvres philosophiques de Cicéron, Paris 1958, pp. 2 6 3 - 7 . 11 Cic.Att. XïII,19,5. 2

Glucker (Hyp. 56)

17

should therefore be wary even of accepting Cicero's reason for Lucullus' choice of Antiochus. This may be meant more as a compliment to Lucullus' taste in philosophy than as a statement of the real historical motives. Of this presently. More promising clues are provided by Cicero, speaking (officially) in propria persona, and with a considerable amount of candid rancour, in Luc. 69—70. Numqtiam, says Cicero, a Philone discessit, nisi postea quam ipse coepit qui se audirent habere. But when we meet with Antiochus in Alexandria, he is there in the company of his brother Aristus and of Aristo and Dio, quibus ille secundum fratrem plurimum tribuebat (ibid. 12). These are not the words of a new acquaintance concerning some people he has only recently met: they are clearly the words of a master estimating the ability of old and familiar pupils. 12 It is true that Aristo and Dio were Alexandrians. 13 But we have no evidence that Antiochus had visited Alexandria - to say nothing of founding a school there — before the time of the Sosus episode. Unless we make Cicero put an anachronism in Lucullus' mouth, 1 4 we can only conclude that Dio and Aristo (and Antiochus' brother Aristus, for that matter) were already considered by Antiochus as his own pupils. We can add to this the reading of the Acad. Ind. (XXXIV , 3 - 6 ) : ... έφ' ημών Άόήνη&€ΐ> π[αρα]βαλόντων έξ Ά[λ]εξαι>δρ6ύις. If these lines do refer to Antiochus' return to Athens some time after Sulla's victory — and this is what they have been construed to mean by most editors —15 they must also refer to a group of members of the Athenian school who returned to Athens and joined Antiochus' school there. We cannot prove that these members all came to Alexandria with him — Heraclitus, at least, was there before Antiochus arrived. 16 There may have been others, including Aristo and Dio, who had escaped there before Antiochus. But the Index does say that they came to Alexandria, from Athens, and returned to Athens when Antiochus was holding his school there. It is most likely that men like Aristo and Dio are among these migrant Academics. 11

See Italo Maiiotti, Aristone d Alessandria, Bologna 1966, pp. 2 3 - 4 and n. 1 on p. 23. Mariotti concludes that 'tutto fa pensare che Aristone e Dione fossero appunto, a quell'epoca' - that is, at the time of the Alexandrian episode - 'allievi suoi: il solo fatto che si riporti qui il giudizio di lui sul loro valore mostra che sia Aristo sia - e a maggior raggione - i due Alessandrini appartenevano ancora alla cerchia immediata dei suoi discepoli.' 13 Acad.Ind. X X X V , 8 - 9 . 14 'Lucullus' may, of course, be speaking retroactively at the dramatic date of the dialogue, between 63 and 60 BC. (Reid p. 41). But Cicero, as Reid p. 47 has shown, has taken special care to avoid anachronisms in this dialogue. Besides, his source for these names may well be the Sosus. 15 Mekler in his apparatus ad loc. (p. 108) cites Spengel and Buecheler. In the papyrus, only six letters are missing in these lines. For a discussion of the passage, see below, p. 93. 16 Cie. Luc. 11: erat iam antea Alexandriae familiaris Antiochi Heraclitus Tyrius.

18

B u t Cicero's e v i d e n c e d o e s n o t end here. In the previous s e n t e n c e , w e heard h i m say: cur se non transtulit Mnesarchi ruml

paenitebat,

quid

ad alios, Dardani,

et maxime

ad Stoicos?...

qui erant Athenis

quid

tum principes

eum Stoico-

— and the s e n t e n c e w e have j u s t discussed, c o n c e r n i n g A n t i o c h u s ' seces-

sion f r o m Philo, n o w f o l l o w s . T h e w o r d s qui erant Athenis

turn m u s t , t h e n ,

refer t o the period o f that secession. But w e d o h a p p e n t o k n o w a f e w things a b o u t Mnesarchus and Dardanus. A c c o r d i n g t o the Stoic.

Ind.

(LI,2—7), t h e y

were b o t h , t o g e t h e r w i t h Panaetius, pupils o f D i o g e n e s o f B a b y l o n . Dardanus, at least, w a s also a pupil o f A n t i p a t e r ( i b . L U I , 3 — 5 ) . B o t h are listed a m o n g the pupils o f Panaetius, and Dardanus (ib. 5—7) is described as his successor. B o t h (ib. L X X V I I I , l - 5 ) had their o w n pupils later, and it is probable that, after Panaetius' d e a t h , t h e y e x e r c i s e d s o m e f o r m o f 'joint h e a d s h i p ' o f the S t o i c s c h o o l . 1 7 D i o g e n e s o f B a b y l o n died c. 1 5 0 B . C . , 1 8 and the y o u n g e s t o f his pupils m u s t have b e e n in their t w e n t i e s at the time. When Dardanus and Mnesarchus(?) s u c c e e d e d Panaetius on his d e a t h in 1 1 2 / 1 1 0 B.C., t h e y m u s t have b e e n already in their sixties. B y 8 7 B.C., t h e y w o u l d b e in their late eighties 11

if t h e y were still alive. 1 9 A n t i o c h u s ' d e f e c t i o n f r o m P h i l o t o o k

Cicero calls both principes Stoicorum.

See K. von Fritz, RE 1 5 , 2 2 7 2 - 4

(Mnesarchos

5). It is true, as v. Fritz reminds us, that there is no evidence for a Stoic ' d o u b l e scholarchate' elsewhere: but there is always a first time. Cicero, De Or. I, 4 5 , says: vigebatque auditor Panaetii illius tui Mnesarchus.

The dramatic date of Crassus' visit is 110

B.C. The phrase is reminiscent of De Or. 111,110 (dramatic date as that of the dialogue: 91 B.C.) . . . apud Philonem,

quem in Academia

vigere audio - when Philo was, indeed,

scholarch of the Academy. But it is unlikely that, by 110 B.C., Dardanus, Panaetius' successor (Stoic.Ind.

L I I I , 5 - T ) was already dead. In that case, one would have to assume

that Antiochus seceded from Philo before 110. On 'double scholarchates', see also below, p. 103 n. 19. 18 This is generally accepted as the date of Diogenes' death. It is based on a safe inference. Cie.Sen. 23 mentions Diogenes in a list of poets, orators and philosophers of whom he says: in omnibus his studiorum agitatio vitae aequalis fuit. He was therefore dead before the dramatic date of the dialogue. See Susemihl I, p. 83 and n. 358. Zeller ΙΙΙ,Ι. p. 46 η. 1, sees in this statement only an indication of old age - b u t surely, vitae aequalis means more than that. " Zumpt pp. 1 0 5 - 6 makes Apollodorus Ephillus succeed Mnesarchus c. 90 B.C. He seems to have confused Apollodorus of Seleucia with Apollodorus of Athens - see Zeller 111,1, p. 48, η. 2; p. 589, η. 3; Traversa ad Stoic.Ind. L I I I . 7 - 8 . Even if the Apollodorus Sillus mentioned in Cie. N.D. 1,93 is Ephillus (the emendation is Zumpt's, loc.cit., not Giam belli's as reported by Ax in his Teubner text), this would still not give us a Stoic scholarch, nor his precise date. Zumpt assumes that Apollodorus inherited the school in 90 B.C., since Cicero makes him a contemporary of Zeno the Epicurean. It is true that Philo - obviously during his Roman lectures in the mid-eighties - called Zeno coryphaeus Epicureorum (Cie.N.D. 1,59). But it is only in 79 B.C., when Cicero is attending his lectures in Athens, that Zeno is princeps Epicureorum (ibid.). The most we can say of Apollodorus is that he was a pupil of Antipater of Tarsus and a contemporary of Zeno. Antipater died 129/8 B.C. (Diog.Laert.IV,64-5). To have been his pupil, Apollodorus must have been born about 150 B.C. In 79, when Cicero was in Athens, he would have been in his seventies at least. If he were still lecturing at the time, Cicero would have been sure to attend his lectures as well as those of Zeno the Epicurean. We hear nothing of the sort from Cicero.

19

place when, as Cicero tells us, he could still have joined the school of Mnesarchus and Dardanus. It is therefore most likely to have occurred some time in the nineties of the first century B.C. - and in the early nineties at that. It must have preceded the Alexandrian episode. 20 If the whole episode of Antiochus' secession, as narrated by Cicero in Luc. 6 9 - 7 0 , took place many years before the Sosus incident, we can understand the statement of Plutarch {Luc. 42,3) that from his very first contacts with philosophy (έξ άρχής) - which could not have been much earlier than his first acquaintance with Antiochus in 87 - Lucullus showed preference for the O l d Academy', which had already then (τότε) Antiochus as its 'leader' (προστάτην). By 87 B.C., Antiochus' own school had already been established, and by the time he met Lucullus, it is quite probable that it was already known by the name of 'Old Academy'. 2 1 Where did Lucullus meet him? Opinions vary nowadays between Athens, Rome and Alexandria. 22 The sources are far from explicit; but something could, perhaps, be established by combining their evidence. According to Cicero's story of the Alexandrian episode (Luc. 11 — 12), the reason for Antiochus' anger on reading Philo's work for the first time in Alexandria was the novelty of some of the ideas contained in it. Heraclitus, who had been in Alexandria for some time, also confirmed that he had never heard Philo express such views before. Yet these views were common knowledge among those who had heard Philo's lectures in Rome — the Sellii, Tertilius Rogus, and most probably Cicero and Varrò. 23 Antiochus could not have been in Rome before the Alexandrian episode. 10 I do not employ here another consideration. Cicero's source for his speech in the Lucullus is Philo's answer to the Sosus - see Excursus 2, esp. pp. 412ff. In that speech, Luc. 6 9 - 7 0 , we have, in that case, Philo's version of the reasons for Antiochus' defection - which must, therefore, have taken place before the Sosus affair. But any theory as to the sources of any passage in Cicero's philosophical works, however convincing it may appear to its author, must remain a likelihood. I prefer to employ firmer chronological arguments where possible. " See below, n. 49.

" Lueder pp. 2 - 3 suggests Rome, and argues that Antiochus must have left Athens at the same time as Philo and for the same reasons. Luck p. 14 follows her suggestion. The evidence for this hypothesis is argued in some detail by Susemihl II, p. 284 n. 253, who is followed by Pohlenz, Stoa II, p. 129. Brochard p. 210 and Zeller ΙΙΙ,Ι, p. 619 η. 1 are more sceptical. R. Büttner, Porcius Licinius und der literarische Kreis des Q. Lutatius Catulus, Leipzig 1893, p. 151, suggests that Antiochus may have followed Philo to Rome, but in that case, he would have stayed there only briefly, before Philo made his new views known. This is possible - but why multiply entities? For a more recent discussion, see Fraser I, p. 487; II, p. 704, n. 76. One might add that in Cic.Luc. 4, Cicero says: cum e phUosophis ingenio scientiaque putabatur Antiochus Philonis auditor excellere eqs. Cicero would not have said this of Rome, where Philo himself was at the time. The next few words of Cicero, eum secum quaestor habuit, seem to imply, if taken literally, that Lucullus did not meet Antiochus before he was Sulla's quaestor - in the East. 23 Cie.Acad. 1,13. These are Philo's books against which the Sosus was written. Whether one accepts Reid's emendation contra ea Philonis, which I find convincing, or supplies

20

Nor is it likely that it was in Alexandria that Lucullus met him. Cicero's words are quite explicit:/«ft Antiochus mecum must mean that Antiochus was in Lucullus' retinue. We are told immediately that erat iam antea Alexandriae familiaris Antiochi Heraclitus Tyrius - which would preclude the possibility that Antiochus had also arrived there before Lucullus. It is, of course, true that Lucullus was sent to the southern Mediterranean before Sulla had completed his siege of Athens and the Piraeus. 24 But as a former pupil of Philo, who had left for Rome cum Atheniensium optimatibus (Cie. Brut. 306), Antiochus, however much of a renegade pupil he might have been, was not likely to enjoy the favour of Aristion and the demos (Paus. 1,20,5) now that Sulla was approaching. He may have left Athens earlier without following his former master to Rome ( vhy should he, since he had already seceded from his school?), or he may h-ve left on Sulla's approach. 25 Somewhere in Greece, he met Lucullus. Lucullus already had in his train the poet Archias, an old client of his family in Rome. Now, at the start of his career in the Hellenistic East, he met Antiochus, and most probably his brother Aristus, if not also his pupils Aristo and Dio. During the last years in Rome, Lucullus would have had no time to spare for philosophy and Antiochus, even if Antiochus had been there. In his new position, Antiochus suddenly acquired a new significance for him.

C. Antiochus Meets Lucullus Both Cicero and Plutarch seem to imply that it was on account of his intellectual gifts that Antiochus was chosen by Lucullus as his 'camp-philosopher'. Cicero speaks of Antiochus' ingenium scientiaque, and Plutarch describes him as ·πιϋανός àinjp KCÙ δεινός eiueív. Both speak of the friendship between Lucullus and Antiochus in passages which attempt to bring out Lucullus' devotion to philosophy and letters. Both Cicero's prooemium to his Lucullus and Plutarch's source for his Lucullus 42 look too dangerously like a laudatio Luculli. This should be enough to put us on our guard. It was, as we all know, a widespread custom among the leading families of the late Republic to have Greek poets, philosophers and historians as members of their households. One need only refer to the blind Stoic philosopher Diodotus who resided in Cicero's house; to Philodemus the Epicurean and friend libros (or, perhaps, reads contra PhilonemT), the context is unmistakable. The words quod coram ex ipso audiebamus must include Varrò. Cicero's admission, in his dedicatory letter (Fam. IX,8,1), that the setting of the Academici is fictitious, does not apply to a fact like this. 24 Von Ooteghem pp. 2 2 - 3 . 25 See below, p. 381 n. 6.

21

of Piso; to the historian Theophanes of Mytilene who followed Pompey on his campaigns; or to the poet Archias, adopted by M. and L. Lucullus — not to mention the intimate relations between Scipio Aemilianus, the historian Polybius and the philosopher Panaetius.26 The adoption of such literary and philosophical clients has, until recently, been interpreted merely as an aspect of the cultural life of the period, and only one of these household Graeculi is mentioned in a book on foreign clientelae which has opened our eyes to the crucial importance, for the leaders of the late Republic, of maintaining a wide and influential following in the Hellenistic East.27 If such cultured Greeks had any other function beside teaching their patrons' children Greek, helping the patron himself with anything related to Greek letters, and serving as show-pieces in his Roman mansion or country residences, this has usually been taken to consist in celebrating the exploits of their Roman benefactors in a language more widely read than Latin. Cicero's words in his Pro Archia 23—25, although never intended to be taken as a generalization covering all cases, have all too often been taken to mean exactly that. We have no reason to suspect that Diodotus the Stoic was adopted by Cicero at an early age28 for any reason other than his knowledge of Greek literature and philosophy. But Cicero is hardly representative of the average nobiles of the late Republic. He was a new man, and very much — despite his own ambitions — a man of letters at heart even when he was playing at being a fulltime politician. He maintained a genuine interest in philosophy throughout his active career, and in his last years became the first major writer of Latin philosophical prose. He was also notoriously averse to leaving Rome, forwarding his career and improving his finances in the Hellenistic East. The case of Archias is somewhat different. M. Lucullus takes him as his companion to Greek-speaking Sicily (Cie. Arch. 6), and he accompanies L. Lucullus as quaestor and pro-quaestor in Asia (ib. 11). He was, we remember, a native of Antioch. Theophanes of Mytilene is, perhaps, our best illustration of the complex nature of such relationships. Cicero's description of Pompey's patronage of Theophanes merely in terms of scriptor rerum suarum, combined with the fact that Theophanes did write a historical work celebrating Pompey's military exploits,29 is still widely accepted as the whole truth. 30 But Cicero, one remembers, 16

For further examples see, e.g., Diels, Doxogr. p. 82, n. 2; W. Kroll, Die Kultur

der

Ciceronischen Zeit, Leipzig 1933, vol. II, pp. 1 2 2 - 3 and notes on pp. 1 8 2 - 3 ; and Professor Bowersock's book, n. 40 below. " E. Badian, Foreign Clientelae (264 - 70 B.C.), Oxford 1958. The one exception is Cn. Pompeius Theopompus of Mytilene, who is mentioned in a note on deification and a table of sigillatim ciuitate donati (pp. 296; 304). 28 Cicero,N.D. 1 , 6 - 7 , mentions him as the earliest of his philosophical tutors. Cf. Luc. 115 (dramatic date 6 3 - 6 0 B.C.): qui mecum vivit tot annos. 29 Jacoby, FGH II Β 188. 30 See, e.g., M. Hadas, Sextus Pompey, New York 1930, p. 61. M. Gelzer, Pompeius2, Munich 1959, p. 78, takes it for granted that Theopompus accompanied Pompey mainly

22

is speaking in defence of another Greek client of a distinguished Roman family, whose chief claim to fame is his fluency in composing poetry. Besides, the trial of Archias had clear political overtones. It was intended as a harrassment of Archias' patrons the Luculli. What had to be underlined by his defence counsel was not Archias' usefulness to his patrons, but his 'apolitical' image as an innocent and dedicated poet. By mentioning the fact that even Pompey, whose figure loomed menacingly behind the prosecution, had his own 'court-historian', Cicero could strengthen his defence of Archias. Any political role played by the Greek poet of Antioch — or by Theophanes of Mytilene — had to be suppressed in a trial of this nature. But Theophanes was more than a mere 'court historian'. This is clear from the evidence of Strabo, 31 from a Mytilenean inscription honouring him as a god, 32 and from the story of Plutarch, 33 according to which it was Theophanes who dissuaded Pompey, after his defeat at Pharsalus, from escaping to the barbarous Parthians, and thus drove him to 'civilized' Egypt and, unwittingly, to his death. Strabo, whose family may have had some connections with Pompey, and whose teacher Aristodemus of Nysa was also tutor to Pompey's sons, 34 says of Pomp e y ' s a d o p t i o n o f T h e o p h a n e s : . . . ò συγγραφεύς τικός

άνηρ

και πάσας

υπήρξε

και Π ο μ π ε ί ω τω

συηκατώρϋωοεν

αντώ

Θεοφάνης-

Μ ά γ ν ω κατέστη

τάς

πράξεις

φίλος

ούτος

8è και

διά την άρετην

πολιταύτην,

κ re.

To Strabo's cosmopolitan Greek readership, Theophanes would be better known as a writer, and he is at first introduced as such. But his relations with Pompey are clearly described as those of a political adviser — and a very influential one at that. Not a word is said by Strabo of a self-effacing scriptor rerum suarum, speaking only when spoken to. His adoption by Pompey took place διά την άρετην

ταύτην

— that is, precisely because he was a πολιτικός

άνήρ.35

Pompey's

theatre of operations was then the Greek East and Asia Minor. As an educated Roman, he would naturally pay his respects to Posidonius on his passage through as his official historian, but adds ' . . . und ihm zugleich in politischen Fragen als Berater diente.' In his entry on Lucullus, RE 13, pp. 377—8, Gelzer ascribes Lucullus' adoption of Antiochus on his Mediterranean expedition to 'lebhafte geistige Interessen'. 31 Strabo XII,3, pp. 6 1 7 - 8 . 32 S/G 3 , 755. Obviously for services rendered to Mytilene as Pompey's political adviser. A mere historian is not usually treated as a god outside the restricted circle of his devoted pupils. 33 Plutarch,Pompey 76,5; 78,2. 34 E. Honigman, RE IV A, p. 79. 35 The MSS' reading αυτήν - 'because of his very virtue' - would make little sense, especially in this context. The emendation ταύτην is recorded by Meinecke in his Teubner edition, vol. III, p. Ill, as one of his own improvements to Kramer's text. Kramer's apparatus on this passage records this as an emendation by Korais. R. Laqueur, RE V A, 2 0 9 4 - 5 and Der jüdische Historiker Flavius Josephus, Gießen 1920, pp. 1 5 0 - 1 , reads ταύτην, translates it as 'gerade dadurch', and has quite a few interesting things to say about the usefulness of a Greek-speaking Eastern intellectual for a Roman general in the East.

23

Rhodes.36 This was good for his public image. Pompey may even have entertained thoughts of adopting the Syrian-born philosopher as a camp-follower. But a sick man discoursing on the insignificance of pain, however distinguished he was as a philosopher and savant, was hardly what Pompey needed. Theophanes the provincial politician of Mytilene, not far from the coast of Asia Minor, became his choice. The growing importance of personal contacts in the Hellenistic East for Roman noblemen of the late Republic has recently been thrown into relief by the work of many a Roman historian — most notably by Professor E. Badian.37 For a Roman statesman or general going East — and not only for the first time — the local scene, with its multitude of independent and semi-independent kingdoms and city-states, was a constant source of bafflement. Local friends and supporters had to be acquired and maintained, and their power and influence in the areas now increasingly coming under Roman control helped to improve the Roman statesman's own position in the East and his influence at home. 38 On his travels in the East, however, such local 'friends', whom he may often have inherited from his father or from other members of his family and political circle, were not always absolutely reliable. They, too, had their own interests, and the more involved they were in large-scale politics in the East, the more prone they would be to measure their Roman alliances by the utility they were likely to possess for their own enhancement.39 Besides, men who were influential in local politics were not all that often available at short notice for accompanying their Roman patron around the Mediterranean world. What our Roman nobilis needed was an impartial Greek' friend, an educated Greek who understood the Orient — preferably a native of the East, who knew something of the political milieu in which his patron was to operate; but, most important of all, he needed a man who would be able and willing to accompany him on all his Eastern expeditions and to be constantly by his side for political advice. By becoming a member of his Roman patron's 'staff', such a Greek would put himself firmly on the Roman side. He might also obtain some benefits from his Roman master for his native city — as Theophanes did for Mytilene — or for other cities and states. But living and moving about in his Roman patron's retinue, he would no longer qualify as an independent force in Greek politics. Quite often, such a Greek

36

Cie.Tuse. 11,61. For later sources, see Posidonius Τ 3 5 - 3 9 Edelstein-Kidd. E. Badian, Foreign Clientelae (above, n. 27). See also his Roman Imperialism in the Late Republic, 2nd. ed., Oxford 1968, passim. 38 See, e.g., I. Shatzman, 'The Egyptian Question in Roman Politics ( 5 9 - 5 4 B.C.)', Latomus 30, 1971, pp. 3 6 3 - 9 . 39 By the time of the early Empire, such a policy of acquiring Roman 'friends' was an obvious step in one's own political advancement and the advancement of the interests of one's city: Plutarch,Mor. 814 Cff. (Praec.Ger.Reip. 18). 37

24

would be given Roman citizenship as well. It is only recently that the role of such learned Greeks has begun to receive proper treatment. 4 0 The tradition had already been established long before the age of Cicero and Pompey; Scipio Aemilianus had been among the first to realize the advantage of such a step. His patronage of Panaetius has often been described in purely — or predominantly — philosophical terms: Panaetius became the philosopher of the so-called 'Scipionic Circle', just as Polybius was its historian and Terence its dramatist. It has recently been shown by Professor A. E. Astin that this view has little to support it. 4 1 Astin has pointed out that the only event in the relationship between Scipio and Panaetius which can be determined with historical certainty is that Panaetius accompanied Scipio on his embassy in the East in 140/139 B.C. Prior to 146, Scipio was fully occupied in Spain and Africa and he had no time for any serious philosophical pursuits. 'It is likely,' writes Astin, 4 2 'and it is usually assumed, that Scipio had met Panaetius before he issued the invitation' ( t o join him on his embassy), 'although there is no evidence whatsoever about any previous contacts. It is entirely possible that prior to 140 these had been brief and not very intimate (assuming that they had occurred at all).' It is, indeed, quite possible that when Scipio was preparing for his Eastern mission, Panaetius — w h o may, for all we know, have been only a name to him so far — suddenly acquired a new importance for him. He was a Greek, a native of Rhodes, a former student at the Stoic school of Athens, and a man who had come to Rome most probably with a view to obtaining Roman patronage. If Astin is right in demonstrating that the doctrines of Panaetius made no great impact on Scipio, one may not be too rash in concluding that the first impetus to their friendship, however genuine and intimate it may have become later, was not given by motives of a purely philosophical nature. Nor is it unlikely, from what we know of Brutus' activities in the East, that his 'friendship' with Aristus of Ascalon, Antiochus' brother, 4 3 40

G. W. Bowersock, Augustus and the Greek World, Oxford 1965, pp. 2 - 4 . See esp. pp. 3 - 4 : 'Many of the first-century imperatores acquired on their campaigns cultured easterners, whom they maintained throughout their careers . . . Favoured and learned Greeks of this kind could instruct a Roman in the habits and predilections of the East, prevent them from making disastrous errors, and guide them in influencing local opinion. Beside furnishing advice, these men were valuable chroniclers of their patrons for the Greek public'. (Emphasis mine). For practically-minded Roman nobiles, this surely was the right order of priorities. Cicero's obsessive preoccupation with having his exploits celebrated in Greek prose and verse was the exception rather than the rule, and one of the surest marks of a novus homo. It presents him in his true light as much more of an orator and writer than a born statesman, and reveals an underlying current of uncertainty as to the true significance of his political achievement. 41 42 A. E. Astin, Scipio Aemilianus, Oxford 1967, pp. 2 9 6 - 3 0 2 . Ibid. p. 297. 43 Cie.Fin. V,8; Plutarch,Brutus 2,3: Brutus made Aristus his φίλος και αυμβιωτής - the same expression used by Plutarch (Lucullus 42,4) for the relations between Lucullus and Antiochus. If the demands made on Aristus by Brutus were of the same kind as those of Scipio and Lucullus - to accompany him on all his travels in the East - we can see why Aristus was άσχολούμβκκ (Acad.lnd. XXXV,6).

25

was not dictated originally by the disinterested Academic motive of 'searching for the truth.' This is only what one should expect. Α φίλος καί συμβιωτής of a Roman statesman in the East is more often than not an Eastern Greek, one of whose main functions is to guide his patron through the maze of the Hellenistic world, accompany him on all his Eastern expeditions, and serve as his mouthpiece and his go-between in alien surroundings. This is just what must have transpired between Lucullus and Antiochus. While still in Italy, Lucullus was too busy to entertain any thoughts of having his own 'household philosopher'. He could have obtained for the asking the services of the elected successor of Plato, who had left Athens against his will, and whose popularity in Rome is attested by the sources. 44 But it was only after Lucullus' arrival in Greece, and when he realized that he now had to establish contacts in the Hellenistic East, that he felt the need for more Greek 'companions'. A. Licinius Archias of Antioch was, indeed, an Oriental Greek. But he had lived in Rome for too long. Antiochus was an established philosopher in Athens, and also a metic, who would be grateful for Roman patronage. Moreover, he was a native of the Hellenistic city of Ascalon. He had with him his brother, a native of the same township, and perhaps his two Alexandrian students. He may even have told Lucullus that in Alexandria, there was another friend and fellow-student of his, Heraclitus, a native of another Eastern city, Tyre. 45 At the time, Lucullus most probably knew next to nothing of the philosophy of Antiochus or of the school he had seceded from. This, at least, is the impression we receive from Cicero's story. 46 Had he been as full of love and enthusiasm for philosophy as Cicero and Plutarch make him out to be in their laudationes, he would have hastened to the public lectures in Rome delivered by the head of the Platonic Academy. Even when he had come to know Antiochus and his philosophy, he showed no greater zeal for it than before: the only time we meet him in Antiochus' company again is on another of his Eastern campaigns. 47 Lucullus' choice of Antiochus (and quite probably of his 44

Cic.Brut. 306; Plut.Cic. 3,1. Plutarch's source is most probably Philo's younger contemporary M. Tullius Tiro - see n. 6 above. 45 The Academy was, in any case, teeming with oriental Greeks. Among Antiochus' pupils we find men from Tyre and Mytilene (Acad.Ind. XXXIV,7-9). Earlier on, in a list of pupils (of Carneades?), we find men from Nicomedia, Nicea, Paphus, Tarsus, Magnesia, Alexandria and Paros (ib. XXXII,33-42). So, of course, was the Stoic school, and presumably all other schools as well. On Easterners and the Athenian schools, see below, pp. 374-379. 46 See n. 5 above. 47 Cic .Luc. 61. Unless, that is, the lines about an embassy to Rome in Acad.Ind. XXXIV, 36ff. have been correctly restored and refer to Antiochus. Even then, such an embassy would presumably occur just before Lucullus' campaign in Syria mentioned by the Index immediately after it - not, as suggested by Luck p. 14, who connects this embassy with Cie. Luc. 11 as 'proof that Antiochus met Lucullus in Rome. This, as we have shown, is hardly likely. It is also highly improbable that the Athenians would send Antiochus on an

26

brother) was m a d e for reasons m o r e i m m e d i a t e l y relevant t o his political and military activities at the time. P h i l o s o p h y c a m e n e x t , and it w a s never a l l o w e d t o intrude t o o m u c h o n Lucullus' m o r e 'proper' o c c u p a t i o n s as a R o m a n

nobilis.

Lucullus the P h i l o s o p h e r is a creation o f Cicero, and even C i c e r o h a d his c o m p u n c t i o n s , and was o n l y t o o glad t o transfer his role t o the m o r e appropriate Marcus Varrò w h e n o p p o r t u n i t y w a s o f f e r e d .

D. The Challenge to Philo We return t o R o m e and t o Philo. When Philo escaped t o R o m e , A n t i o c h u s , as w e have s e e n , had already s e c e d e d f r o m the A c a d e m y and had b e g u n t o have his o w n pupils. We c a n n o t determine w i t h absolute certainty w h e n h e began t o call his s c h o o l b y the n a m e O l d A c a d e m y ' . Plutarch's s t a t e m e n t is t o o c o m p r e s s e d t o ascertain a proper chronological s e q u e n c e . 4 8 N o r is Cicero's s t a t e m e n t in 7 0 entirely u n a m b i g u o u s . 4 9 But w h a t is clear f r o m Cicero's w o r d s in Luc.

Luc.

69 is

that, already at the t i m e o f his s e c e s s i o n , A n t i o c h u s ' doctrines were hardly distinguishable, at least as far as e p i s t e m o l o g y w a s c o n c e r n e d , f r o m t h o s e o f the S t o i c s . This is the image o f ' A n t i o c h u s the S t o i c ' one finds d e p i c t e d w i t h m o n o t o n o u s u n a n i m i t y b y a large n u m b e r o f later s o u r c e s . 5 0 What is m o r e unofficial embassy to Rome just before 87 B.C., when he was merely establishing himself as head of his own school, and when heads of other schools were still available. In his later years, Antiochus was the most senior and established philosopher in Athens, a client of Lucullus and the former teacher of Cicero, who, in 7 0 - 6 9 B.C., was fast becoming a celebrity. 48

.Plut.Luc. 42,3 - see Excursus I. The words unde autem subito vetus Academia revocata est? follow immediately on the statement numquam a Philone discessit, nisi postea quam ipse coepit qui se audirent habere - which must refer, as we have just noted, to the time before Philo left Athens. But in the following sentences we are told that at first, Antiochus hoped that his pupils would be called Antiochii, and it was only then that he chose the name 'Old Academy'. When Antiochus returned to Athens, Philo was no longer there, and Antiochus would not then, after the Alexandrian incident, feel any compunctions about calling his own school 'Academy'. Yet even in 79 B.C. (Cie.Fin. V , l ) and under Aristus, after 69 B.C. (Cic.Brut. 332), Antiochus' school continued to be called 'Old Academy'. It is quite likely that Antiochus began to advertise his doctrines as those of the O l d Academy' even before he left Athens, but it is not certain when this became the semi-official name for his school. The only argument in support of a pre-Alexandrian date is the source of Cicero's statements in Luc. 70. If, as I argue in Excursus 2, this is derived from Philo's answer to the Sosus, then the name O l d Academy' must have been used by Antiochus while still in Athens before the Alexandrian incident (but after Philo had left?). Lueder pp. 3 - 4 takes Cie.Acad. 1,13, erroremque eorum qui ita putarent coarguit, to imply that Antiochus had already called his own school 'Old Academy'. But it only implies that he believed, at that early date, that the sceptical Academy was a break from the tradition of the early Academy. 49

50

Cic.Luc. 132; Sextus P.H. 1,235; Numenius ap.Euseb.P.E. XIV,9,2 (Fr. 8 Leemans; 28 Des Places): A\i%.C.Acad. 111,41. One notes that Cicero, although the dramatic date of his Lucullus is 6 3 - 6 0 B.C. (Reid p. 41), is most probably drawing on a Philonian source. I argue in Excursus 2 that his source is Philo's reply to the Sosus. In that case, Antiochus was already beginning to acquire his reputation as a Stoic even then. The other sources are later, and their picture of Antiochus the Stoic is unqualified. 27

portant is that, by the time of the Sosus affair, Antiochus was already claiming for his views good O l d Academic' ancestry. The Stoic elements in them, he claimed, were merely an adjustment of old and vulnerable Academic positions like the Platonic Theory of Forms - they were, in his own words, correctio veteris Academiae.51 Antiochus, we are told, had been a pupil, not only of Philo, but of the Stoic Mnesarchus, Panaetius' pupil. 5 2 The eclectic system of Panaetius contained many Platonic and Aristotelian elements, although the scanty remains of his writings can hardly help us in ascertaining the proportion and distribution of such elements. A fuller treatment of Panaetius and his possible influence on the eclecticism of Antiochus must be reserved for future discussion. 53 For the moment, suffice it to mention that Panaetius was famous as φιλοπλάτων καί φιλαριστοτέλης; 5 4 that, according to Cicero, semper ... habuit in ore Platonem, Aristotelem, Xenocratem, Theophrastum, Dicaearchum;ss that Cicero, in a somewhat exaggerated mood, can even refuse to believe that Panaetius could ever disagree with 'his' Plato; 5 6 that one of his works — or a section of it — was 51 Cie.Acad. 1,43. This follows on 30-42, in which Varrò has explained the Antiochia ratio for the Stoic substitution of the new criterion for the obsolete and refuted Platonic Forms. Varrò sums up (42): in his fere commutatio constitit omnis dissensioque Zenonis a superioribus. In Luc. Lucullus (= Antiochus) is arguing against 'the Academics', unqualified = the sceptical Academy. On this, see below, pp. 103-106. But Lucullus, too, stakes the same claim of Platonic ancestry, 'with a few slight changes', for the Stoic school (e.g. Luc. 15). " Numenius ap.Euseb.-P.tf. XIV,9,3 (Fr. 8 Leemans; 28 Des Places): Aug.C.Acad. 111,41. K. v. Fritz, RE XV, p. 2273, suspects that this is merely a hypothetical fact, based on Antiochus' later Stoic leanings, and that it is inconsistent with Cic.Luc. 69. But there is no inconsistency. Cicero only implies that after Antiochus left Philo's Academy and espoused Stoic doctrines, he should have joined the official Stoic school of Dardanus and Mnesarchus. This does not preclude the possibility that Antiochus had studied with Mnesarchus, but would make it most likely that he studied under Mnesarchus in his youth, before he joined Philo. If our suggestion (n. 4 above) has any force, it is quite probable that, on arrival in Athens, Antiochus was first introduced to the Stoic school by his countryman Sosus. Of our two sources for his studies under Mnesarchus, Numenius is extremely unlikely to depend on Cicero as his source, and Augustine is most likely to be drawing on a lost passage of Cicero for this particular episode. Luck p. 13 wrongly takes Cie. Luc. 69 as evidence for Antiochus' studies under Mnesarchus. But in the parallel passage in the second version, Cicero may well have specified this. I can find no source or evidence for Mr. Fraser's statement (Fraser I, p. 488) that 'Antiochus' Academic dogmatism led to his associating himself with one of the great dogmatic schools, the Stoic, one of whose spokesmen, Metrodorus of Athens, he had heard in his youth.' Cic .Luc. 69 is enough to show that Antiochus did not associate himself with the Stoic school. Metrodorus, I assume, is a misprint for Mnesarchus. 53 In a sequel to this book, which will deal with the sources of Antiochus' philosophy and its influence. 54 Stoic.Ind. LXI,2-8 = Panaetius, Fr. 57 Van Straaten. On Panaetius' familiarity with the Platonic dialogues, see Ë. Des Places, 'Le platonisme de Panétius', Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoire 68, 1956, pp. 83-93. 55 Cic. Fin. IV,79 = Fr. 55 Van Straaten. 56 Cic. Tusc. 1,79 = Fr. 56 Van Straaten.

28

e n t i t l e d Πβρί Σωκράτους κός.

58

; 5 7 and that Proclus s e e m s t o call h i m a Π λ α τ ω ν ι -

D e s p i t e Cicero's exaggerated s t a t e m e n t , it is clear that Panaetius w a s

far f r o m advocating a return t o full-fledged P l a t o n i s m . H e c o u l d hardly have d o n e this and remained h e a d o f the S t o i c s c h o o l , and an admirer, beside P l a t o , o f X e n o c r a t e s , A r i s t o t l e , T h e o p h r a s t u s and D i c a e a r c h u s . 5 9 B u t h e w a s clearly familiar w i t h the writings o f the early A c a d e m i c s and Peripatetics, and his interest in the h i s t o r y and doctrines o f the early A t h e n i a n s c h o o l s and their affiliations is a t t e s t e d in the title o f his lost b o o k Πβρί αιρέσεων.60

H e is e v e n

reported t o have relaxed s o m e o f the harsher d o c t r i n e s o f t h e early S t o a under the i n f l u e n c e o f A c a d e m i c and Peripatetic v i e w s . 6 1 It m a y b e m o r e than a m e r e attractive c o n j e c t u r e that all these activities, taken together, w o u l d p o i n t towards a claim for Platonic and Socratic ancestry f o r his o w n s c h o o l . 6 2 But w h i l e h e was m o s t likely t o stake this c l a i m , Panaetius c o u l d hardly ignore the differe n c e s b e t w e e n the d o c t r i n e s o f the early A c a d e m i c s and Peripatetics and those o f his o w n s c h o o l — especially t h o s e c o n c e r n e d w i t h the crucial issue o f the 'criterion'. If the S t o a h a d sprung o u t o f t h e early 'Socratic' s c h o o l s o f P l a t o , Aristotle and their i m m e d i a t e successors, it m u s t , in s o m e w a y s , have improved o n their doctrines. This w o u l d b e the o n l y w a y in w h i c h a 'reformed'

57 Plut./Imild. 27,335D = Fr. 50 Van Straaten. Perhaps only a section of his Περί αιρέσεων - see Van Straaten, Panétius p. 36 and references. But is Plutarch all that careless in quoting his titles - especially the title of a work on Socrates? s " Proclus, In Tim. I, p. 162 Diehl = Fr. 59 Van Straaten: ΪΙαναίτως μέκ και άλλοι τίνες των Π λ α τ ω ΐ Ί κ ω ν . On the meaning of this expression, see below, pp. 2 1 6 - 2 1 9 . 59 The philosophical implications of Panaetius' 'Platonism' will be discussed in the philosophical sequel to this book. One would, for the moment, d o well to remember that in Fr. 57 he is accused of 'tempering the doctrines of Zeno with Academic and Peripatetic elements' - not of abandoning them altogether. 60 Diog.Laert. 11,87 = Fr. 49 Van Straaten. See the discussions by M. Pohlenz, Stoa I, pp. 1 9 4 - 5 and RE 18,3, pp. 4 2 7 - 8 , and especially his emphasis on the decisive influence of Panaetius on the subsequent literature on this subject. See also our discussion below, pp. 174-180. ul Fr. 57 Van Straaten (which may be derived from a source similar to that of Fr. 55). 03 Van Straaten, Panétius pp. 4 7 - 5 3 (with references to modern discussions), esp. pp. 5 0 - 5 1 , suggests that the 'Platonism' of Panaetius may be the result of a rapprochement between the two schools in an age of 'circonstances plus calmes'. Schmekel pp. 3 7 9 - 8 0 ascribes his 'Platonism' and 'Aristotelianism' to the influence of Carneades. A Cameadean influence on Panaetius is quite probable, but one could hardly expect him to have learnt from Carneades that Plato and Aristotle had been dogmatics - see below, pp. 4 8 - 6 4 . It is, again, true that Clitomachus, Panaetius' exact contemporary as Academic scholarch, was familiar with Stoic and Peripatetic doctrines as well as with those of his own school (Diog.Laert. IV,67). But under Clitomachus and his successor Philo, the old battle against the Stoics was carried on as relentlessly as ever (Num.ap.Euseb.P.f. XIV,9,1 = Fr. 8 Leemans; 28 Des Places). Interest in the various schools and their views was probably common to Panaetius and Clitomachus. Both wrote books Πepl αίρίσίων - sec below, pp. 1 7 4 - 1 8 0 . But Panaetius conceived of the early Academics (including Plato) and Peripatetics as dogmatics, while the school of Clitomachus took Plato to be a sccptic and the other 'vetcres' to be probabilists - see below, pp. 4 8 - 6 4 ; 399.

29

Stoic like Panaetius could claim to be a follower of those older schools without altogether abandoning his Stoicism. Stoic doctrine must have appeared to Panaetius to constitute, on some issues, a correctio veteris Academiae — to borrow the phrase of Antiochus (Cie. Acad. 1,43). Nor is it an accident that, beside the early Stoics and Plato, Panaetius' favourite philosophers all belonged to the first two generations of the Academy and the Peripatos. 63 These are exactly the philosophers who, for Antiochus, constituted one and the same school under different names only — what he preferred to call vetus Academia or simply veteres,64 Thus we see that, on the issue of the early history of the two 'Platonic' schools, there must have existed a substantial area of agreement between Panaetius and Antiochus. One can hardly avoid the conclusion that Antiochus had learnt this conception of the early history of the Platonic schools and of the Stoics as a correctio veteris Academiae from Mnesarchus, the pupil of Panaetius; and that, when he seceded from Philo's Academy, the name O l d Academy' for his own new school would naturally occur to him — because he had already been taught this version of the early history of the Academy by Mnesarchus before he joined Philo's school. 65 Philo now saw his position threatened in a manner more alarming than that of any of his predecessors at the head of the sceptical Academy. Panaetius was, in all probability, the first among Stoic scholarchs to emphasize his school's claim to a direct - if somewhat 'improved' - descent from Plato. 66 Philo's immediate predecessors could occupy much of their time merrily refuting the various formulations of the Stoic criterion and reformulating their own 'criterion' of pro63 His familiarity with Demetrius of Phalerum and Heraclides Ponticus (see references in Schmekel p. 380, n. 3) appears to be antiquarian rather than philosophical. His praise for Crantor's book on mourning (Cic.Luc. 135) may, again, have been based merely on its literary merits. None of these philosophers are listed among the major influences on Panaetius in Frs. 5 5 - 5 9 . 64 E.g. Cie.Acad. 1 , 1 7 - 1 8 ; Luc. 15; Fin. V,7; 21. Cicero in propria persona always distinguishes between the early Academy and the Peripatus - e.g. Tusc. V,85. So does his Crassus: De Or. 111,62. 65 One might even suggest that it was this emphasis on Acadcmic ancestry in the school of Panaetius which made Antiochus leave the Stoics for Philo's Academy. After a period of many years as a member of the Academy, when he became disappointed with Philo's scepticism and reverted to a Stoic theory of knowledge which he had learnt earlier at the school of Mnesarchus, he could describe himself with greater justification as the successor of the Old Academy. He had been a member of the school which had sprung directly from Plato's Academy, as well as of the school which claimed Academic ancestry with some 'corrections' to the 'errors' of the old Academy. 66 This point is brought out by Pohlenz, locc.citt. n. 60 above, who also sees in it an attempt by the first Greek head of the school (his predecessors having all been Semites!) to establish for it a good Athenian ancestry. But Aristotle, Xenocrates, Thcophrastus and Dicaearchus were hardly Athenians — nor, for that matter, was Panaetius himself. Had he been so anxious to repudiate everything Semitic, why did he join, in the first place, a school teeming with Semites, where his predecessor and teacher was Diogenes of Babylon?

30

bability to meet new objections. Carneades could even frankly admit that 'if there had been no Chrysippus, I would not have been'. 6 7 Their position as the elected successors of Plato was secure, and nobody, as far as we know, examined their doctrinal credentials with a view to claiming that they had no right to act as scholarchs of the Academy. With a Stoic scholarch like Panaetius, whose knowledge of Plato and the early Academy and Peripatos was quite probably wider than that of his contemporary successors of Plato, the situation began to change. When Philo saw one of his oldest and best pupils abandon his school and teach doctrines similar to those of the contemporary Stoic disciples of Panaetius, fathering these new doctrines on the O l d Academy', he must have felt his own position as the successor of Plato to be at stake. Now in exile, and scholarch only by name and the legitimacy of his election, he must have feared for his position more than ever. His renegade pupil had not followed him to Rome, and, at first, he may not even have left Athens. Philo himself was reduced in Rome to giving public instruction to young Romans, and we do not know of any powerful patrons who offered to adopt him as 'household philosopher'. In those troubled times, the most powerful of his potential patrons were too busy cutting each other's throats to have the leisure for such trivia. Yet all hope was not lost. Philo might still return to Athens and resume his legitimate position as scholarch. He probably felt, now more than ever, that he had to defend at all costs his position as the successor of Plato, in doctrine as well as in title. Until now, he had only defended one or the other version of the sceptical views of Carneades and his school. One of the central issues of his Roman books, however, was clearly the matter of historical continuity within the Academy, and one of the chief claims made by Philo in this Roman work — and vehemently disputed by Antiochus — was that no difference existed between the philosophical orientations of the O l d ' and the 'New' Academies: that it was, indeed altogether wrong to employ such terminology. 68 Before we discuss the more central issues of Philo's new books and the whole controversy, it may be advisable to attempt to find out what was the attitude of Philo's predecessors in the sceptical Academy to this diadochical problem.

E. The Sceptical Academy and Plato When Arcesilaus led the Academy into its new era of scepticism, his own position as the head of the school was as secure as anyone could wish for. A 67

Diog.Lacrt. IV,62; VII,183. Cie.Acad. 1,13, erroremque eorum qui ita putarent coarguit. The plural eorum may refer merely to Antiochus (and his early pupils?). But, as suggested in this section, the idea of the 'two Academies' may have originated at the school of Panaetius, and Cicero may well be including them as well. 68

31

certain Socratides had resigned in his favour. 69 The Academy was not pledged to upholding any rigid dogma and ascribing all its teachings to a divinely inspired master, stamping them with an αυτός ëipa — as tradition tells us concerning the Pythagoreans 7 0 and history concerning the Epicureans. Earlier heads of the Academy were not strict Platonists, and it is more than likely that disagreement with Plato was allowed, or even encouraged, in Plato's own lifetime. 7 1 Yet in the Academy, at least, one continued to occupy oneself with the study of Plato's dialogues, and Crantor, Arcesilaus' intimate friend w h o had made him leave the school of Theophrastus and join Polemo's Academy, 7 2 was among the first in a long line of ancient commentators on the Timaeus.73 Arcesilaus himself, we are told, was a great admirer o f Plato, and he possessed his own copy of Plato's works. 7 4 The problem of the origins o f Arcesilaus' scepticism has occupied scholars for a long time. 7 5 The ancients attributed his scepticism mainly to the influence of Pyrrho of Elis and to Arcesilaus' own 'Socratic' interpretation of Plato. 7 6 Modern scholarship has added a few other suggestions. A recent theory has attempted to derive Arcesilean scepticism from the Peripatetic school of Theophrastus, of which he had been a member before joining the Academy. 7 7 An older view, which found its clearest and most forceful expression in a master69 Acad.Ind. XVIII,1-8 = Diog.Laert. IV,32. The source must be Antigonus of Carystus. This section of the Index was not yet available to Wilamowitz when he wrote his Antigonos in 1881, or he would have included it on p. 72. 70 Latest discussion: Burkert, Weissheit u. W«s. pp. 80-81, E.T. pp. 9 0 - 9 1 . 71 Cherniss, Riddle pp. 6 0 - 8 5 and 99-103. Cherniss, of course, takes the extreme position of denying the existence of any unwritten doctrines of Plato. But even some of the more extreme advocates of the theory of an oral Platonism admit that Plato's immediate successors were no blind followers - see Gaiser pp. 308-325. This is not the place to enter into the whole debate concerning the oral Plato, which most Englishspeaking scholars - with the one notable exception of the late Philip Merlan - have so far tended to reject, and which is fast becoming something of a communis opinio on the Continent. I shall only refer to some of its arguments when they touch on some detail of my own discussions. For a good collection of articles representing the various Continental views of the oral Plato, see J. Wippern (ed.), Das Problem der ungeschriebenen Lehre Piatons, Stuttgart 1972, with an excellent bibliography, pp. 449-464. 72 Diog. Laert. IV,29-30. 73 F. Kayser, De Crantore Académico, Heidelberg 1841, pp. 12-33 (including relevant fragments). 74 Diog. Laert. IV,32. 75 An excellent summary of modern views on the origins of the sceptical Academy: Krämer, Platonismus pp. 5 - 1 3 . On Kramer's own solution, see n. 79 below. 76 See esp. Diog. Laert. IV,32-3; Sextus,P.tf. 1,234; Num.ap.Euseb.P.f. XIV,5,12-14 (Fr. 2 Leemans; 25 Des Places) - all partly derived from a hostile tradition (Aenesidemus? see P. Natorp, 'Untersuchungen über die Skepsis im Altertum', RhM 38, 1883, pp. 28-91, esp. pp. 31-2). Sources for Arcesilaus' claim for Socratic and Platonic ancestry will be discussed presently. 77 Alfons Weische, Cicero und die Neue Akademie, Münster 1961, esp. pp. 13-20. For a cogent and detailed criticism of Weische's thesis, see Krämer, Platonismus pp. 11-12.

32

ly article by Pierre Couissin, emphasizes the role of Stoicism and its 'dogmatic' theory of knowledge and truth in provoking the extreme sceptical position of Arcesilaus and his school. 78 More recently, Professor Hans-Joachim Krämer has attempted, with his usual massive erudition, to demonstrate that much of Arcesilaus' dialectic, as well as many of the ideas and concepts employed by his school, were derived from the later Plato and the early Academy. 7 9 Much work remains to be done on this subject, and it is not likely to 7B

P. Couissin, 'Le stoicisme de la nouvelle Académie', Revue d'histoire de la philosophie 1929, pp. 2 4 1 - 2 7 6 . See also his other two articles in REG 1929, pp. 3 7 3 - 3 9 7 and 1941, pp. 4 3 - 5 7 . For more arguments in support of Couissin's view, see Kramer, Platonismus pp. 3 9 - 4 4 . One of Couissin's chief merits was to point out that much of the stock of arguments of the sceptical Academy and the terminology used by it make better sense if seen as a reaction against Stoicism in Stoicism's own terms. This is certainly true of the later Academic sceptics, and especially of Carneades, who admitted that 'without Chrysippus I would not have existed' (Diog.Laert. IV,62). Arcesilaus, however, made no such admissions, and - as we shall soon see - he traced back his ancestry to Plato, Socrates and some Presocratics. The only feature of his philosophical activities which the later Academic tradition derived from an extra-Academic source was the technique in utramque partem disputare: see next note. Ancient tradition makes both Zeno and Arcesilaus the pupils of Polemo (Zeno: Num.ap.Euseb./ > .£'. XIV,5,11 = Fr. 2 Leemans; 25 Des Places). Zeno was also said to have been a pupil of Crates the Cynic and of Stilbo of Megara (ibid.; SV F 1,1), and Arcesilaus a pupil of Diodonis Cronus (Num. ibid.; Diog.Laert. IV,33; Sextus,Ρ.Η. 1,234). We know too little about the school of Megara, but Hirzel III, p. 29ff., has given persuasive reasons for assuming that much of Arcesilaus' dialectic - as some contemporary sources appear to indicate - was indeed derived from that school, and Hirzel's view on this matter is generally accepted today (on Kramer's counter-arguments, see next note). It is at least most likely that, if both Arcesilaus' contemporaries and the late Academic sources are silent on this matter of his 'Stoicism' - and some of his hostile contemporaries would have seized the smallest opportunity of showing him up as plagiarizing the very Stoics he criticised - this is because his indebtedness to Stoicism is not demonstrable. It is somewhat dangerous to assume (as does Kramer, Platonismus p. 53) that Stoicism was the dominant philosophy in Athens virtually from its very beginning. If Zeno and Arcesilaus share such concepts as καταληπτός, evXoyov, άπολσγία, καθήκον, κατόρθωμα (see also n. 99 below), and the way of looking at things represented by such concepts, this may well be because both had learnt them from their common masters. Such concepts could already have become part of the general philosophical vocabulary of the age. Καταλαμβάνω or its cognates in the epistemological sense occur once in Plato (Phdr. 2 5 0 c 8 - d 2 - unless one accepts Stephanus' emendation to Phlb. 16d3), and nowhere in Aristotle. But Diog.Laert. (11,92) ascribes to the followers of Aristippus the view that τα πά&η καταληπτά in the epistemological sense. Καταλαμβάνω in the sense of 'find out' or 'discover' is found in earlier sources: Xen.Anab. 1,10,18; Oec. XI,14; Pl.Ax. 365a2; Phaedo 6 0 a l ; Sympos. 1 7 4 e l . One can thus see the epistemological sense of this verb already emerging before Arcesilaus and Zeno, and there is no reason to assume that Zeno invented it and Arcesilaus plagiarized it from him. Cicero's statement (Luc. 145) that Zeno invented the technical sense of κατάληψις is suspect. Cicero may be speculating on the basis of the anecdote he has just told, or he may have had his source explain the origin of the more complex Stoic term καταληπτικη φαντασία - which already takes it for granted that the epithet καταληκτικός has an epistemological connotation. 79

Kramer, Platonismus

3

Gluckcr ( H y p . 5 6 )

pp. 1 4 - 1 0 7 . Krämer underlines the influence of early Academic 33

Note 79 (continued) and Peripatetic dialectic on Arcesilaus (p. 24ff.). But it may be no accident that his central document for this part of his discussion is the Topics of Aristotle, whose influence on the Arcesilean technique in utramque partem disputare is acknowledged by the sources. Gilbert Ryle's work in this field, especially his 'Dialectic in the Academy', New Essays on Plato and Aristotle, ed. R. Bambrough, London 1965, pp. 3 9 - 6 8 , is accepted by Kramer pp. 14ff. But even Ryle - on p. 43 of that article and in his Plato's Progress, Cambridge 1966, p. 109 - produces no tangible evidence for the use of the practice of dialectic in Speusippus' school, and his only evidence for Xenocrates is the titles of two lost works. In Diog.Laert. IV,18, the words ώς κατά την έρώτηοιμ κτβ. are not (as suggested by Krämer pp. 3 3 - 5 ) a final clause dependent on Seiv... ϋβωρήμασι, but a consecutive clause describing the harmful effect of too much dialectic, to which Polemo, in this passage, appears to object altogether. His words are μή év τοις διαλεκτικοίς ϋεωρήμασι - not μη... μόνον. As to the ascription of Crantor's books to Arcesilaus (Diog.Laert. IV,24), this has nothing to do with an affinity between their attitudes to dialectic (as Krämer p. 35). Arcesilaus inherited manuscripts of Crantor, and was accused of publishing them with his own 'improvements'. This gave rise to the accusations of plagiarism (Diog.Laert. IV,32, where Hicks' Κράντορος makes the best sense). Gossip-mongers who produced such rumours need not have known anything of the contents of such books - they do not even seem to know that such books existed. Krämer's discussion of the early Academic origins of terms such as καθ' αύτά and προς τι (p. 79ff.) is generally fair, but it does not prove that the sorites as a type of logical argument was merely a Megaric or 'Neo-Acadetnic' extension to early Academic doctrines: only that, in adapting such arguments to the use of his Academy, Arcesilaus would naturally employ Platonic terminology which had become by then, in any case, common property (see table, Krämer p. 92). Nor do I see any need (as Krämer p. 60ff.) to go beyond Plato's dialogues for the idea that the phenomenal world ώ -γίνεται καάάπερ άνϋρώπου. τοιαύτη δε ούσα δύο äv εχοι σχέσεις, μίαν μεν ώς προς το φανταστόν, δευτέραν δε ώς προς τό φαντασισύμενον. κατά μεν ούν την προς τό φανταστόν σχέσιν ή άληύης -γίνεται ή ψευδής, και άληόης μεν δταν σύμφωνος η τώ φανταστώ, ψευδής δε 'όταν δώφωνος. Carneades, of course, is not greatly concerned with this first 'position'. He devotes his main effort to establishing degrees of probability in the more complex προς το φαντασιούμενον, where our errors and delusions occur. But he had asserted that there are objects of sensation outside the percipient himself, and that there is an objective aspect of sense-perception which consists of the agreement between it and its external object. As a sceptic, he did not, of course, believe that we had a valid criterion for detecting such a perfect agreement when it occurs. But he did admit the existence of such agreement in theory. It was against such a position that Antiochus' 'perturbing argument' (Cie.Luc. I l l ) was directed. By admitting that, in the nature of things, there is an agree225

Sextus P.H. 1,232: oUre yàp jrepl υπάρξεως fi άινπαρξίας άποφαινόμεΐΌς ευρίσκεται. 79

ment between our perception and its object, and that it was only by virtue of our own imperfect perception that we could not distinguish the true from the false, the Academy — so Antiochus claimed — had involved itself in a contradiction. For if we can never distinguish in practice between true and false perceptions, how could we claim, even if only in theory, that there are some perceptions which agree with their object - that is, perfectly true perceptions? At that early stage — as well as later on, when he saw that his new position was not all that much more defensible 226 — Philo retorted with the unconvincing stock-answer of the school of Carneades, that, although we cannot distinguish the true from the false with absolute certainty, we can do so with progressive degrees of probability. In his Roman books, he attempted to go a step further. While still maintaining that, in practice, there can be no certain criterion for distinguishing true from false impressions, he now claimed that, by the mere fact of holding this principle, the sceptical Academy was already of necessity admitting that such a distinction existed in rerum natura — and that this is what Carneades had implied when he spoke of his σχβσις πρός rò φανταατόν. Philo could not, of course, provide a criterion for this kind of κατάληψις, and he still held on to the traditional arguments against the Stoic one. But he now maintained that by the very fact of using such arguments, and speaking of άκαταληψία, even the sceptic was admitting that, in principle, things were καταληπτά. The whole discussion would be perfectly meaningless if one did not assume that what was denied by the sceptic for practical considerations was still considered, even by him, to be theoretically valid. To use an illustration, a philosopher who argues, say, that nothing exists, has already admitted, if only in theory, the concept of existing and of existent things. Similarly, a philosopher arguing for the impossibility of grasping our objects has already admitted in theory that objects are graspable. Carneades had done this when he admitted the existence of his σχβσις προς τό φανταατόν. But this was not enough. One of the main issues in the controversy was whether Philo and the sceptical Academy he stood for or Antiochus and his 'old Academy' were the true successors of Plato and his doctrines. Philo still maintained that Plato was a sceptic (A T). But he also claimed (D) that the Academy had never been absolutely sceptical. 227 He therefore was most likely to ascribe his

226

See below, pp. 8 4 - 8 8 . Cic.Luc. 12: negat Académicos omnino dicere. This could mean either 'he denied altogether that the Academics had said these things', or 'he denied that the Academics had said such things absolutely' - that is, that they had held a position of absolute scepticism. I believe that only the second of these two senses is acceptable. Philo could not deny altogether, the fact that the Academics had used sceptical arguments and held sceptical positions. This would be not a lie, but sheer idiocy: for Philo himself had used sceptical arguments and held strict sceptical positions in his earlier period, and he most probably continued to use sceptical arguments even in his Roman books. What he could deny is that this had been an all-out scepticism. Omnino is probably παιτελώς, quali227

80

new position, a scepticism quite consistent in practice but not absolute in theory, to the whole Academic tradition, including Plato. We have already seen how one could read such a position into Carneades. But Plato? And Philo could not turn Plato into an all-out dogmatic. This would conflict, not only with his new doctrines, but with one of the main objects of his innovations. For Antiochus, too, claimed that Plato had been a dogmatic, and that the scepticism of what he called the 'New Academy' was a break with the Platonic tradition. On this, as on so many issues in this controversy, the sources are silent — perhaps for reasons which we shall presently suggest. One can only conjecture. Part, at least, of the Platonic evidence adduced by Philo may well have come from the Theaetetus. We have already seen that this dialogue was used by the sceptical Academy to demonstrate that their own sceptical orientation constituted true Platonism. 228 If Philo also drew on that dialogue — which, after all, contains Plato's most developed and sophisticated treatment of the problem of knowledge — he could point out that, at the end of that dialogue, 229 Theaetetus has come up with no convincing answer to the question 'what is knowledge'? Socrates, however, does not advise him to give up his search. Αίσϋησις has been ruled out because of numerous objections —230 but so have all the other answers offered by Theaetetus. To us, with our preconceptions of Plato, it may seem perfectly clear that his Socrates wishes us to reject both senseperception and opinion, implying that there is only one true kind of knowledge: knowledge of the Forms (or of the Good? or the One and the Undefined Two?). Philo, with his sceptical upbringing, was far more likely to underfying dicere: ol ούν 'Ακαδημαϊκοί λέ·γονσι μέν ταύτα, ού παντελώς μέντοι. For such a sense of omnino, see Plaut. Asin. 233; V erg. A en. IX,248, where commentators compare Horn.Od. I V , 7 5 4 - 5 (πάγχυ); Cxc.Baìb. 43; Farn. IX,15,3; De Or. 11,156 (quoting Ennius); Tusc. 1,1 (?) ; O f f . 1,46 ; Acad.I, 27. It is true that in a negative clause, omnino usually strengthens the negation. But as our instances show, it can also qualify some other paît of the clause. 228 See above, pp. 3 8 - 3 9 . 229 Plato, 77ιίί. 210a3ff. 230 Ibid. 151d6ff. It is significant that in the course of that discussion, άίσ&ησις was identified with φαντασία ( 1 5 2 b 9 - c 3 ) , and was called άίσ&ησις ... τον οντος ... άψευδής (152c5) - a terminology employed, with greater complexity, by the Stoics in their definition of καταληκτική φαντασία (e.g. S VF I,59ff.; 11,60; 90; 105 et al.). One could add another point. Most of the sceptical Academy's arguments against the validity of senseperception may have been borrowed from the Pyrrhonians - sec Reid on Cie.Luc. 79 (infracto remo). But one, at least, was derived from the Theaetetus: the argument from drunken dreams and diseases (Thtt. 1 5 7 e l f f . and 159d7ff.). One compares, with the latter, Cic.Acad. p. 2 1 , 1 1 . 4 - 5 Plasbcrg, adding that most of the arguments on this issue have survived only in minute fragments. The whole of this argument was greatly elaborated by the sceptical Academy in their critique of sense-perception: see Cic.Luc. 49ff.; 88ff. They may have derived their arguments from other sources, or thought them out for themselves. But they did read the Theaetetus, whose arguments are used to refute scnsc-perception, perhaps for the first time in a written philosophical work.

6 Gluckcr (Hyp. 56)

81

stand the dialogue in a very different fashion: Plato rejected all pretenders to certainty, αΧσϋησις, όράη δόξα, and όρ&η δόξα μετ' έπιστήμης, because he could find ño valid criterion for any of them. But at the same time, he did not deny in theory that each of these kinds of knowledge is possible and has its own legitimate objects - including φαντασία or αίσθησις. Thus, Philo could have shown that the continuous tradition of the school, ever since Plato, was indeed sceptical in practice, but not absolutely so in theory. He could unite the apparent dogmatism of Plato — his recurrent claim that there is a truth and that it can be known — with the practical scepticism of the Academy (foreshadowed, to him, in the negative ending of the Theaetetus) that there is a truth — even in the realm of sense-perception — but that we have no safe criterion for discovering it in practice (e.g. Clitomachus ap.Cic.Luc. 102—4). In this manner, he could contest Antiochus' claim for the 'possession' of the Academy, counter some more recent Stoic arguments, and yet continue to count himself as a sceptic like his predecessors. If so, he had mistaken not only his enemies, but his friends. In Alexandria, Heraclitus concurred with Antiochus in maintaining that these views were unheard of in the Academy. In Rome, the Elder Catulus accused Philo of lying.231 Antiochus himself found it only too easy to refute the new position. A man who held that things were καταληπτά and yet denied what, to Antiochus, was the only proper criterion of κατάληψις, was obviously contradicting himself. This was precisely Antiochus' method of refutation. He claimed — probably not without some justice - that Philo had been driven to his innovations under pressure from his Stoic critics. He did not quite comprehend the desperate profundity of Philo's 'Kantian' solution, and merely played with the formal contradiction between words like καταληπτά and άκατάληπτα. 'Philo,' he appears to be saying, 'still prefers to sit on the fence and to contradict himself. For myself, I would rather go the whole way and accept the one solid criterion ever discovered.' In its philosophical essence, Antiochus' attack was somewhat superficial. But there was some justification for it. It was evident to Antiochus (Cic.Acad. I 3 0 - 3 3 ; 4 0 - 4 2 ) that Plato had been a dogmatic; that his criterion was the Forms; and that, after Aristotle's refutation of that criterion, Zeno's new criterion was a welcome 'correction' to the doctrines of the early Academy. As Philo's pupil of old standing, Antiochus was fully aware of the sceptical image of Plato, which he now rejected in favour of a more historical dogmatic image. As long as Plato continued to be presented merely as a sceptic, Antiochus, one assumes, would agree to differ. But once Philo began to ascribe to Plato a view which accepted — albeit only in theory — the possibility of adequate sense-perception, he could no longer concur. He was only too aware (Cic.Acad. 231

Our testimonium E. There is no reason to doubt the authenticity of Cicero's statement - see n. 218 above.

82

1 , 3 1 - 2 ) o f the fundamental ontological nature o f Plato's repudiation o f the validity o f the senses. He was also aware (testim. E ) that Philo had reached his new position under attack — or, as Numenius (testim. G) has it, because o f his growing awareness o f the èmpyeia

τών παθημάτων.

He must have sus-

pected that the new and milder version o f Plato was a concession to these attacks and to this awareness — perhaps even to the new image o f Plato the dogmatic and some o f the arguments used b y the Stoics and b y Antiochus himself in support o f it — rather than a genuine return to Plato. Such a true return to the authentic Plato would have entailed a return to the classic Theory o f Forms, which, Antiochus maintained, had been adequately refuted — and to which, in any case, Philo had not returned. The Platonism o f Philo's new insight, as Antiochus was certain to realize, was no Platonism at all. It was a Stoicism, but an incomplete and inconsistent one. What precisely were the criticisms o f Heraclitus and Catulus we are not told. But it seems a fair inference that they, too, regarded the new theory as Stoic — indeed, as a far greater concession to Stoicism than anything hitherto attempted by an Academic; far more so even than the mildest versions o f Carneadean probabilism. While Antiochus was criticizing Philo for not being enough o f a Stoic, they claimed that he had become too much of a Stoic. T h e y were, o f course, justified. For, however much a Cameades, with his σχέσις πρός rò φανταστόν, may have implicitly admitted the validity o f sense-perception, no Academic had so far explicitly done so. Philo scented war — and, once again, with his old enemies the Stoics. He took down, as Augustine tells us (C.Acad. 111,41), his trusty old arms — the ones he had used in his older days against the Stoics. This had been a long time ago, when, as an orthodox Clitomachean, he had fought the Stoics tooth and nail (testim. G). But the same weapons would make do once again. Thus we find him, in his answer to the Sosus,232 against Antiochus the germanissimus

defending the views o f Clitomachus

Stoicus,

who is often, and bitterly, ac-

cused o f defecting to the other school, or even (Cic.Luc. 1 0 2 ) o f forgetting the old Academic doctrines he had studied with Philo. Such an attack on Antiochus the Stoic would help to exonerate Philo in the eyes o f his Academic critics from the guilt o f having defected to Stoicism himself. In the tumult o f this new battle, Philo did nothing to defend his new insigjit. But — it will be objected — he should have defended it. He should even have tried to develop, articulate and intensify his new insight and fight for it, rather than defend once again the old Clitomachean views which he had already found unsatisfactory. Why did he abstain from doing so? The sources are silent, again, and one can only guess. Philo was a weak man in exile, èm ·γήραος ούδώ. His new insight was not appreciated even by his 232

That is - for us - Cicero's speech in his Lucullus:

see Excursus 2.

83

old friends; and, in his present condition, this should have been enough to discourage him from pursuing it any further. But what is, perhaps, of greater importance is that one of his main concerns, if not his chief one, was to demonstrate that he, and not Antiochus, was the rightful heir to the traditions of the Academy. His new insight, however interesting it may appear to us from a purely philosophical point of view, had been generated, to a large extent, by such 'diadochical' considerations. Now that he had in his hands an incriminating document, a book written by Antiochus which could be used to demonstrate that Philo's former pupil and self-styled restorer of the Old Academy was himself a Stoic of the Stoics, there was no longer any need to defend an elaborate new position, rejected by his Academic friends themselves. By exposing Antiochus as a Stoic, Philo could effortlessly reassert his own right for the continuous 'possession' of the Academy. This was what mattered most. One day, he might still return to Athens and resume his position as scholarch. Did Philo regard his innovations as adequately refuted by Antiochus? Again, no direct information is available. We know that Philo had once virtually admitted that an older argument of the school had been refuted by Antiochus (Cic.Luc. 111). We find in all the remains of the Sosus controversy no adequate answer to Antiochus' refutation of Philo's new position (testim. E). Had there been one, Cicero would have been sure to supply it, with a clear indication of his context. He does not. Nor does he ever set out to refute, clearly and incisively, the accusations made against Philo's new picture of the doctrines of the Academy by Heraclitus or the Elder Catulus. One can only conclude that, on this issue, Philo made no denials and had no answers. He probably found all these refutations and accusations too embarrassing. It is not unlikely that, in his excitement over Antiochus' self-unmasking as a Stoic, he forgot his new insight and did not attempt to draw any further implications from it. Be that as it may, he preferred to employ the best method of defence — a wholesale attack on Antiochus. Before we take our leave of Philo, there is one more conjecture which should, perhaps, be offered. I present it with some diffidence; but it has the small advantage that it does attempt to explain an obscure piece of text which has so far, to the best of my knowledge, never been given a satisfactory explanation. There is a passage in Augustine's account which I have not included among the primary testimonia, since it refers to the aftermath of the Sosus affair, not to the controversy itself - C.Acad. 111,41: Sed huic (= Antiocho) arreptis iterum illis armis et Philo restitit, donee moreretur, et omnes eius reliquias Tullius noster oppressif, se vivo impatiens labefactari vel contaminan quidquid amavisset. 84

The phraseology is essentially Ciceronian, 233 and the words se vivo and Philo restitit donee moreretur are an echo of expressions of the kind we find in Luc. 17 andAT.D. 1,11. But even our latest commentator 2 3 4 can throw no light on the last part of this sentence. It is plain that Cicero did not destroy all the remains of Antiochus. Far from it, the doctrines of Antiochus are expounded at great length in a large number of his philosophical works, and they are often praised by him as most convincing (Att. XII, 19,5 ; Fin. V,76; Luc. 139). Augustine must, therefore, be speculating - or so we are told. But why speculate? And why invent a story, calling on Cicero as false witness? Augustine may be prone to misunderstanding his Cicero at times — we shall have an opportunity to show that he did so at least once. But he also knew his Cicero, and was generally unlikely to misunderstand him without some 'help' from other sources. 235 It is most likely that in our case, too, Augustine misinterpreted something he found in a passage of Cicero, now lost to us, and that he had reasons for misreading that passage. It is remarkable how quickly Cicero passes over Philo's innovations in his Lucullus. He refers to them cursorily a few times, gives us a brief summary of Antiochus' refutation, repeats the accusations made by Heraclitus and Catulus, and does not even attempt to counter — let alone refute — them. The part of the Alexandrian disputation which was directed against Philo is expressly omitted from the main body of the discussion, and we are warned of this from the outset (D). It was mentioned in the Catulus, but we do not know that even there, Philo's new theory was discussed at much greater length. Our testimonies D and E seem to indicate that, in the best case, it was given some treatment there, but only as one among a number of topics, including Catulus' own version of the doctrines of Carneades. Yet the Sosus was written by Antiochus contra suum doctorem (Cic.Luc. 12), and it must have contained more than a mere cursory refutation of Philo's new theory. Why this silence? I submit that what Cicero 'suppressed' was not the complete doctrines or writings of Antiochus; this, as we have noted, was inconceivable. He suppressed, as far as he could, that part of the Sosus which was personally directed against Philo and his Roman books. He could not, of course, suppress it altogether. The book was in circulation in the Greek-speaking world, and some copies 233

Cf. esp. Cic.Fam. X,20,3. O'Meara p. 148, translates: 'and after his death our Tullius completely obliterated whatever remained of the work of Antiochus', and offers no explanation in his commentary. Zcller 111,1, p. 631 n. 1, rejects Augustine's statement altogether for the obvious reason that Cicero is our main source for much of Antiochus' doctrines. Luck, p. 86, has Augustine's passage as Fr. 56, but he nowhere comments on it. M. Testard, St. Augustin et Cicéron, Vol. I, Paris 1958, p. 173, and n. 1 on the same p., quotes and translates the passage with no comment. Earlier writers on Antiochus, such as Chappuis and Lueder, never mention this statement of Augustine. 235 See below, pp. 315-322. 234

85

m a y well have reached the more philosophically-minded Roman readers. What Cicero m a y have said in the passage hastily summed up b y Augustine was that he had suppressed — in his o w n version o f this controversy in his Academic books — all the more painful sections o f Antiochus' attack on Philo. 2 3 6 This would give us a reason for Lucullus' statement (D): sed ea pars quae contra Philonem erat praetermittenda est. N o t just for the reason given there, but also for Cicero's o w n reasons o f pietas. Could this be what Cicero implies when (Att. XIII,13,1) he says o f the second version of his Academic books: grandiores sunt omnino quam erant illi, sed tarnen multa detracta? Did he even Catulusl he says conlecta

censor out some criticisms o f Philo which had been included in the It is, in any case, significant that in another letter (Att. XIII,19,3), o f the same books: in eis quae erant contra άκατάληψίω> praeclare ab Antioche, Vaironi dedi. Contra άχαταληφίαρ - not contra Philo-

236 Another possibility is that Cicero suppressed the Catulus, which may have contained a moie direct and a harsher attack on Philo, modified in the second version. It is significant that, whereas the Lucullus is the only complete book of either version to have survived, no single reference to the Catulus has reached us beside what we find in the Lucullus and the letters to Atticus, and we depend in its reconstruction entirely on hints in the Lucullus and fragments of the second version - see Plezia I, p. 426ff. Reid's theory (pp. 3 6 - 7 ) that Varrò had a copy of the first version before he received the second, is based on the old dating of the letters to Atticus. The present dating makes Att. XIII,32 a good three months earlier than XIII,21 - see Shackleton Bailey pp. 1 7 7 - 8 and 255. Tyrrell-Purser pp. 87 and 146 date XIII,32 to May 29 and XIII,21 to July 28. Even that dating would make 21 about three weeks later than XIII,24,2 of July 11, when the second version is already in Atticus' hands. For further arguments against relating Att. XIII,

21.3 to the first version, see T. J. Hunt, pp. 2 4 - 7 . There is no evidence that Augustine knew the first version - see Krische p. 180 n. 1; Plezia I, pp. 4 2 9 - 3 0 ; Van Haeringen op. cit. η. 181 above, pp. 8 0 - 9 0 . Quintilian's statement (111,6,64) that Cicero suppressed Catulus and Lucullus when they had been iam editi is most probably based on a misunderstanding of Att. XIII,22,3. The Lucullus was known to the source of Plutarch,Luc. 42.4 (Nepos? See Excursus 1). In Plutarch's context, there is no call for mentioning the Catulus, and Plutarch calls the Lucullus σύγγραμμα, which usually means 'one roll' (Th. Birt, Das antike Buchwesen, Berlin 1882, pp. 29; 33). T. J. Hunt, pp. 2 8 - 3 1 , has argued convincingly that the first version could not have been published in Cicero's lifetime. One can add that Cicero would hardly allow an earlier version of a work now dedicated to Varrò to circulate simultaneously with the Varronian version. But it is not unlikely that between May 29 (Att. XIII,32,3), when Catulus and Lucullus were in Atticus' hands, and June 23 (Ibid. XIII,12,2) when Cicero quite definitely decided to recast them for Vano, Atticus' scribes had already made copies of the first version. Cicero suppressed the whole first version in his lifetime, so as not to offend Varrò, and the Catulus altogether, so as not to offend the memory of Philo. Augustine is 'telescoping' into one two statements to this effect which he found in a Ciceronian source now lost (a prooemium to a book of the second version?). After Cicero's death, Lucullus alone was published, and it reached us through a channel of transmission different from the second version: see Plasberg pp. XXI-XXIV; T. J. Hunt, 'The Mediaeval Tradition of Cicero's Theological Works', Pegasus 5, 1966, pp. 5 2 - 5 7 . Even if this suggestion is plausible, one must still assume that the other suppression - the 'censoring out' of details offensive to Philo from the second version - also took place. 86

nem. One could imagine that Cicero originally wrote something like: hinc inter Philonem et Antiochum controversia orta est atque liber is quem contra suum doctorem scripsit Antiochus. cuius omnes reliquias oppressi, me vivo eqs. In such a context, it would be easy for Augustine to imagine that it was Antiochus whose reliquiae were suppressed by Cicero, while Cicero would have only meant that he suppressed the relics of Antiochus' attacks on Philo. It is even more likely that Cicero's statement figured somewhere in the second version in response to a suggestion similar to that of Lucullus at the end of Luc. 17. Varrò may have made the same suggestion, to pass over (praetermittere) the arguments against Philo, for the same reasons as those given by Lucullus in the extant version. Cicero may well have replied in support of that suggestion, se vivo eqs. Augustine drew his own conclusion. Why suppress such parts of the controversy? Because they had pained Philo, and because Philo had apparently found no compelling answers. He glossed over these more painful parts of the Sosus in his reply, and Cicero, out of pietas for Philo, did his best to gloss over them in his Academic books. He could not suppress the painful facts altogether; but he tried to be as cursory and evasive about them as possible. If this is the case, we can perhaps guess why, during the preparation of the second version, Cicero was so anxious about Varro's possible reaction. Had he really believed that Varro's Antiochian part was so much more convincing than his own Philonian role (Att. XIII,19,5), he should have had nothing to fear. But Cicero did suspect (ib. 25,3) that Varrò was likely to detect, among other things, meas partis in its libris copiosius defensas esse quam suas. Does copiosius defensas merely mean 'more amply argued', or could it mean 'at greater length'? 237 Varrò might notice that, while Philo's attacks on Antiochus were reproduced down to the last detail of his rancorous personal incriminations, Antiochus' attacks on Philo were being quietly censored out. In Acad.I 13— 14, Varrò tells Cicero: sed ignorare te non arbitror quae contra Philonem Antiochus scripserit. Cicero retorts with a courteous immo vero, and immediately — and rather abruptly — he calls on Varrò to expound the views of Antiochus which, as Atticus tells us a few lines later, are ex Antioche iam pridem audita; not what Antiochus wrote (against Philo's Roman books). There is a consistent suppression, in all the remains of Cicero's Academic books, of more details than are absolutely necessary of Antiochus' attack on Philo. The

231 'More amply argued' is the translation of Shackleton Bailey p. 227. E. S. Shuckburgh (transi.), The Letters of Cicero, vol. 3, London 1900, pp. 3 0 6 - 7 , translates: 'that in these books my side in the argument is defended at greater length than his.' This is more likely. In Att. XJI1,19,5, Cicero states categorically that he finds his own arguments weaker and the Antiochian arguments more convincing. Copiosius must, therefore, refer to greater length rather than to force or fullness of argument: see, e.g., De Or. 11,151 (copiose et abundanter).

87

accusations levelled against him by Catulus and Heraclitus were probably too well known to be suppressed altogether. 238 But the strongest epithet Lucullus himself is made by Cicero to use against Philo is minus acer est adversarius (testim. D). The worse parts of Antiochus' attacks on Philo, to which Luc. 69-70,134, and possibly 102 are Philo's answer, were left out. Something to this effect is probably what Augustine found in his Ciceronian source. Since he was not very familiar with the Sosus affair, but did know what Cicero's attitude to Philo and to Antiochus was, he took the statement to apply to all the remains of Antiochus. But we should be grateful to Augustine for supplying us unwittingly with a clue.

G. Dénouement Philo was mediocre and colourless. Until his election to the exalted position of Plato's successor, no one had heard of him. He was elected, not on account of his personal or philosophical stature, but because, as a rather obscure pupil of Clitomachus who had not known Carneades himself, he was more likely than his potential rivals to propagate his master's brand of Carneadean scepticism, leave things as they were, and carry on the traditional pastime of the school, Stoic—baiting. Until his exile to Rome, he fulfilled the expectations of his Clitomachean electors. The winds of change were blowing around him. Metrodorus and his school were offering an alternative version of Carneadean scepticism which, they claimed, was more authentic than that of Clitomachus and Philo. It is not unlikely that Charmadas, the other surviving pupil of the Master, had his own version of Carneades' doctrines. Panaetius and his school had rediscovered Plato and the early Academy, and theirs was a very different image of Plato from the sceptical one offered so far by the sceptical Academy. In the case of Panaetius, at least, this new image of Plato was based on solid knowledge. Towards the end of his Athenian period, Philo was subjected to the traumatic experience of seeing his best pupil, who had spent more years with him than anyone else, virtually defect to Stoicism and call his new doctrines by the name of O l d Academy'. It was probably at the same time that Philo himself began to be aware of the force of some arguments for the validity of sense-perception used by his rival Academics and, perhaps, by his contemporary Stoics. He was still in this confused state of mind when the political upheavals of the Mithridatic War made him escape to Rome, where he had to support himself by public lecturing on philosophy and rhetoric. While he was writing 238

Even they may, for all we know, have been suppressed in the second version. Augustine, who knew the second version and based his Contra Académicos on it, never mentions Catulus or Heraclitus.

88

his Roman books, Antiochus obtained the patronage of Lucullus in the East; and it is not unlikely that, as Philo was preparing the final version of those books, he already knew that his renegade pupil was now under the protection of a man who might soon have some say in the destinies of Athens. His Roman books were an attempt to defend his own position as the true heir to Platonism and to the Academy, at the same time making allowances for the growing awareness all around him that Plato was not an all-out sceptic, nor had the teachings of Carneades been as strictly and uncompromisingly sceptical as Clitomachus had claimed. This was, perhaps, Philo's greatest moment as a philosopher, the one occasion when pressure made him rise above his humdrum orthodoxy and produce something new and original. His arguments were extremely astute, almost worthy of a Carneades himself. But he attempted to strike an all-round compromise, conceding to each side more than the other was willing to acknowledge. Besides, originality of thought, which had been taken for granted in a Carneades, was no longer expected of a successor who had been elected to defend that paradoxical thing, a sceptical orthodoxy. He found himself accused on all sides of abandoning the authentic party line, and in the din of battle, he forgot his new inspiration and returned to the safer stratagems of his happier days. A younger man, with a more original and vigorous mind, might have continued the struggle for the new insight and might even have preserved the fortunes of the sceptical Academy for some years. Philo was old and weary — and he was, in all likelihood, chiefly concerned about his position as head of the Academy, to which he might yet return when things were settled in Athens. He let his one single moment of originality slip by, and missed whatever chance he had of giving the old school another brief period of simulated life. Antiochus felt that he was the man for the job. To accusations of ambition, he replied that he had accepted the Stoic criterion καμπτόμενος imo της èvapyeiaç και των αίσϋήοβων239 - as Philo had already done without going the whole way. He believed that, at the small price of accepting the Stoic criterion as a 'correction', he could return in all else to the teachings of the Old Academy, thus bringing new glory to his school and rivalling the growing influence of the pupils of Panaetius — and perhaps even of Posidonius, who was also no mean Platonist, and whose school, fortunately, was not in Athens. We shall attempt to show elsewhere why his experiment failed. The short measure of success enjoyed by his school during his lifetime was due far more to Antiochus' personality than to any originality or force evinced by his amalgam of Stoic and Peripatetic elements which he called Old Academy'. But he had offended against his old and exiled teacher, and had defected to the Stoics on the most important issue between them and the Academy — that of the validity of sense—perception. Nemesis was, as usual, not too impatient to intervene, 239

Plut.C/c. IV,2. This must be Antiochus' o w n version, as against Plutarch's alternative version, which echoes the accusations of Cie.Luc. 70 - that is, Philo's side.

89

but at the end it did overtake his school, and its fate was no better at the end than that of Philo's. But before we return to Athens and the school there, we should consider one other issue of the Alexandrian episode which has lately acquired considerable dimensions.

H. Epilogue: Antiochus in Alexandria Apart from his presumed headship of the Academy of Athens, Antiochus' modem image as the harbinger of Middle and Neo-Platonism is based on two considerations: the influence of his visit to Alexandria and his teaching activities there on the whole subsequent history of Platonism and eclecticism in that city, and the influence of his books on later philosophical writers in Athens, Alexandria and elsewhere. With the second of these issues we shall deal elsewhere. 240 But an assessment of the possible influence exerted by his visit on the Alexandrian philosophical scene belongs in our present, more historical discussion. Legends grow fast. Chappuis, whose general chronology of Antiochus' career is as reliable as one could expect from an author of a dissertation written in 1854, 241 falls into the trap when he reaches Potamo: 'Ergo in omni doctrina Potamo Antiochum secutus est: quid autem mirum quum meminerimus Antiochum Luculli comitem Alexandriae commoratum esse, multumque, praesentibus doctis compluribus, in hac ipsa urbe in qua postea floruit Potamo, disput a s s e ? ' 2 4 2 Writing in 1892, Susemihl says: 'So kurz auch allem Anscheine nach die Wirksamkeit des Antiochos in Alexandria war, so hatte er dennoch sich rasch dort in Dion und Aristón Anhänger erworben, und hinterließ daselbst eine blühende Schule, aus welcher namentlich auch Eudoros, mag er nun den Antiochos noch selbst gehört haben oder nicht, und weiterhin Areios Didymos, trotzdem er sich als Stoiker bekannte, hervorging.' 243 For the central 'fact' of this statement, that Antiochus left behind him in Alexandria a flourishing school, no evidence is given. But once stated by an expert in a great work of scholarship, a 'fact' becomes a fact. Witt, quoting Susemihl as his single authority, writes: 'After what seems to have been a comparatively short sojourn in that city, he returned to Athens . . . but left behind him in Alexandria a group of adherents by whom the tradition was carried on. Consequently . . . after the death of Antiochus . . . the dogmatism which he had taught continued to live on in the Egyptian capital, which especially because

240 241 242 243

90

In the philosophical sequel to this book. Chappuis p. 2ff. Ibid. p. 75. Susemihl II, p. 295.

of its Museum was a congenial home for the study of Plato according to the methods prescribed by the Academy's greatest eclectic.' 24 * The beginner and the general reader, looking for guidance in one of the better modern handbooks available to him, will discover that 'during the period between his leaving the Academy of Athens after a quarrel with Philo and his return there as Philo's successor, he taught at Alexandria and left behind him there a group of pupils who carried on the traditions of his particular sort of eclecticism.' 245 Even our latest and best history of Hellenistic Alexandria speaks of Antiochus' eclectic dogmatism as becoming 'the recognized form of Academic philosophy in Alexandria'; asserts that Antiochus 'may thus be regarded as the main motive force in Alexandrian philosophy in the first century B.C.', and proceeds to speak of 'Antiochus' circle in Alexandria.' 246 The word 'circle' should sound somewhat ominous today, with the once magnificent Scipionic Circle now lying almost desolate. 247 How far was Antiochus' brief stay in Alexandria likely to create a circle and launch a tradition? Our sources tell us very little, and we shall soon see that discovering Eudorus, Arius Didymus or Potamo between the lines of Cicero's story in Luc. 1 1 - 1 2 can be a somewhat hazardous game. But we may as well start with some facts. Antiochus, as Plutarch tells us (Luc. 42,3), was adopted by Lucullus as his φιΚος και συμβιωτής. We have seen what this phrase means in such contexts. Antiochus was thus far from being a free-lance philosopher, adorning the movable court of a Roman potentate and indulging, on the way, in any action that caught his fancy. Lucullus, for his part, was not exactly taking a Mediterranean Cruise. He was sent by Sulla in haste to win allies and collect a fleet. In the course of one year, between the winters of 87/6 and 86/5, he went to Crete and won the Cretans over to Sulla's side; crossed over to Cyrene and gave the city a new constitution; went to Egypt and failed to persuade the king to abandon his neutrality; and then proceeded to Cyprus and to Rhodes, quite probably collecting on his way a fleet provided by various cities in Syria and Pamphylia. 248 During all these operations, Antiochus, as his adviser and gobetween in the Greek East, must have been indispensable to him, and would

244

Witt p. 25. Words omitted refer to Athens. A. H. Armstrong, An Introduction to Ancient Philosophy, paperback ed., London 1965, p. 146. 246 Fraser I, p. 488. 247 H. Strasburges 'Der Scipionenkreis', Hermes 94, 1966 pp. 6 0 - 7 2 . A more cautious view: A. E. Astin, Scipio Aemilianus, Oxford 1967, p. 294ff. Strasburger's article was not available to Astin. 248 Van Ooteghem pp. 2 4 - 9 ; M. Gelzer, RE 13, pp. 3 7 7 - 8 ; Broughton MRR II, pp. 5 5 - 6 ; 58; 61; 64; 69; 77; 81. The suggestion that Lucullus sailed along the Syrian maritime coast is Gelzer's: Van Ooteghem, p. 29, merely states that he collected those ships on his way to Cyprus. If so, and if - as is most likely - Antiochus sailed with him, they could not have visited Ascalon: Cic.Tusc. V,107. 245

91

hardly have left bis side. 249 He would be especially valuable to Lucullus once he moved east of Egypt and nearer Antiochus' native parts, and it is inconceivable that Lucullus would have left him behind in Alexandria when he was having his dealings with the Syrian coastal cities. 250 Lucullus' — and Antiochus' — sojourn in Alexandria could not have been very long. Their activities in Crete, Cyrene, Syria, Cyprus and Rhodes must have taken most of that year. Lucullus came to Egypt to try to persuade Ptolemy to join his side. Plutarch {Luc. 2—3) depicts him as a man in a hurry, ill-atease, reluctant to accept the royal honours lavished on him and anxious to get down to business. Once he realized that his mission had failed, he must have pressed on in the attempt to raise a navy and to pacify the rebellious areas on the Aegean and in Asia Minor. During his stay in Alexandria, he had business to do, and Antiochus must have been indispensable to him in his negotiations with the king. There were obviously some delays and lulls in the negotiations Ptolemy must have seen to that — and Antiochus could spend his free time in philosophical disputations with his old friend Heraclitus. His disputation before Lucullus must have taken place during such a long lull in the negotiations, and it would have helped his patron to while away his time. Cicero does not tell us exactly that Antiochus finished his Sosus in Alexandria: the book may well have been completed a few months later, in more peaceful times. If he did write the whole book in Alexandria, he must have done so in the time he could spare from more pressing calls on his attention — most of us have to make do with writing our books that way. That he could undertake any proper course of public instruction or find the time to establish a flourishing school in Alexandria is out of the question. He could never tell when Lucullus would require his help in his negotiations, or when he was likely to leave for the East and take him along to be of assistance to him in his native milieu. Nor does Cicero's story in the Lucullus offer us the flimsiest evidence for any teaching activities or the forming of a school. The first few sentences of Lucullus 11 and the first sentence of 12 refer merely to private disputations with Heraclitus, an old friend and fellow-student - no one else is mentioned. 251 249 See n. 2 above for Van Ooteghem's suggestion that Antiochus helped Lucullus draft the new constitution for Cyrene. 250 Chappuis p. 9 suggests that Antiochus remained with Lucullus until 79 B.C., when Lucullus returned to Rome and Antiochus to Athens. One cannot prove or disprove this. But we have no evidence that Antiochus returned to Athens before 79, when Cicero heard him there. As his Greek 'companion', it is quite likely that Antiochus stayed on in Lucullus' entourage as long as Lucullus was in the East and required his help. Later on, as soon as Lucullus returned East in 69, Antiochus immediately left Athens and joined him. At the same time, Archias was also in Lucullus' train at the time (Cic.Arch. 11). He was a native of Antioch, and had travelled through Asia Minor in his youth (ibid. 4). Once he had concluded his dealings with the Syrian cities, Lucullus could dispense with Antiochus, and Cicero (Luc. 11; 61) only tells us that Antiochus was with him in Alexandria. 251

92

Disputare often refers to a public or semi-public disputation - as in Cic .Fin. V,8, where

The rest of Luc. 12 does, indeed, appear to describe a more public disputation — but how public? Lucullus was living in the palace (Plut.Lwc. 2,4). Heraclitus, Aristus, Dio and Aristo and the other 'learned men' were abhibiti to a causa heard before him. The quasi-legal terms suggest that these people were summoned to the presence of Lucullus, and here he listened to the two sides arguing their case before him for a few days. It all sounds far more like a private hearing than a public disputation. Nor are we told the names of any of those docti invited, apart from Antiochus' brother, an old Academic friend now in Alexandria, and two men who were most probably already his students from Athens. 252 No mention is made of the Museum of Alexandria, or of any local scholars or philosophers who were not already friends or fellow-students of Antiochus. Even Susemihl, who takes it for granted that Antiochus came to know Dio and Aristo in Alexandria, has also suggested — this time on the evidence of the Acad.Ind. XXXIV, 3ff. — that there was a group of Academics who had left for Alexandria about the same time when Philo had left for Rome. 2 5 3 What more likely than that the docti complures of Lucullus' story were mostly — or wholly — such Academics in exile? After all, the main subject of that causa was a rather internal affair: two sides in an internal Academic dispute arguing each pro domo and attempting to prove that their faction was the true Platonic Academy. But, I shall be told, Lucullus himself was no doctus. He would remember the names of Antiochus' brother and closer friends, but not those of the local scholars and philosophers, who only came as an audience to the formal dispute. And what is to stop us believing that the causa was heard, not in Lucullus' private quarters in the palace, but in the Museum, which was not all that far from the palace? This is not the general impression one receives frori Cicero's narrative. But what is more important, the narrative is Cicero' . L U J U I I U S , the historical Lucullus, may well have been one of Cicero's soi ces or what took place in Alexandria, but the story must have been toi.' also in the Sosus of Antiochus. 254 Antiochus was most likely to have r.en, oned the names of any Alexandrian savants who came to the disputation, and the fact — if it were

it virtually means 'to deliver a lecture'. But its sense is merely that of 'holding an argument with o n e or more other persons' in a large number o f instances: e.g. C i e . T u s e . 1,7; V , 1 5 ; N.D. 1,15-Acad.III, p. 2 5 , 1 1 . 8 - 1 0 Plasberg (= Aug.C/v. V I , 2 ) : disputationem habuisse cum M. Varrone, where the reference is clearly to the fictitious (to us, w h o remember Cie. Fam. IX,8,1, if not, perhaps, to Augustine) disputation b e t w e e n V a n o and Cicero in the second version o f the Academic b o o k s . There, the only audience is Atticus. It is significant that this verb has c o m e to signify in our m o d e r n languages 'a dispute' or 'a disputation', whether public or private, but never a lecture. 252 253 254

See above, p. 18. Susemihl II, p. 2 9 5 . See n. 12 above. See n. 5 above.

93

a fact - that it took place in the celebrated Museum. Cicero would have had no hesitation in putting such details into Lucullus' narrative. Lucullus, after all, habuit... divinarti quondam memoriam rerum (Cic.Luc. 2); and Cicero has no compunctions, at least while writing this dialogue, in making Lucullus discourse on abstruse epistemological issues which were clearly beyond his ken. But let us assume for a brief moment that this was the case. It would still leave us with a single public disputation which lasted for a few days. Such a disputation may have enjoyed a brief succès de scandal in a city full of intellectual curiosity; but this is a far cry from founding a school or beginning a new tradition. This is simply not the way things happen. Each of us has attended public lectures and disputations where some new ideas were expressed. We sit, listen, are impressed - then we go away, reflect on the event for some time, and soon forget it, or remember it merely as a colourful episode. If the result is also a published book, some of us may read it when it comes out, and this may influence our opinions. The result of this disputation was, indeed, a published book, the Sosus. But what did the book and the disputation deal with? Not those subjects which were later to become central to the writings of the Alexandrian eclectics. Most of it was taken up with minute epistemological arguments for and against the various streams of Academic scepticism. The brief sections on Socrates, Plato, the Old Academy and the Stoics (Cie. Acad. I 15—42; Luc. 15) are merely brief introductory summaries. We hear nothing on natural science, ethics, the history of philosophy or the unity (or otherwise) of Platonism and Aristotelianism, except as short digressions to the more important discussion of the all-pervasive criterion. The few doxographical sections are cursory, and they, too, are subservient to the more central arguments. And in doxography in general, one suspects that the Alexandrian scholars could teach Antiochus more than they could learn from him. A discussion of the writings of these Alexandrian eclectics and of the possible Antiochian influence on such writings must be reserved to a later work. One notes, for the moment, that none of our sources ever speaks of Eudorus, Potamo or Arius Didymus as an Antiochian, an acquaintance of Antiochus, a pupil of his, or an acquaintance or pupil of any of his pupils.255 But two of Antiochus' pupils who took part in the disputation before Lucullus, Aristo and Dio, were Alexandrians. Is it legitimate to conclude that, on returning 255 On Potamo, the short Suda entry (Potamon, No. 2126 Adler) and a passage in Diog. Laert. 1,21 - both quoted by Fraser II, p. 710 n. 107 - are all we know. No relation to Antiochus or the Academy is mentioned. He wrote a hypomnema on Plato's Republic (Suda)·, this does not make him anything more than a commentator on a classic text. As to Arius, the Suda entry on Didymus, Ateius or Attius (No. 871 Adler), who is called an Academic, used to be taken to refer to him. This has been shown to be unnecessary and implausible by Zeller ΙΙΙ,Ι, p. 636 η. 2 and by Diels, Doxogr. p. 86. Even if it did refer to our Arius Didymus, all it would prove is that he studied in the Academy.

94

to their native city, either at the time of the Sosus episode or later, they opened their own Antiochian schools there? Is it possible that Aristus, whose pupils, we are told, they were (Acad.Ind. XXXV,8-9), remained in Alexandria and held his school there before returning to Athens to succeed his brother as head of his Old Academy'? And what of a pupil of Cameades, of whom the Acad.Ind. (XXIII,2—3) says: Ζηνόδωρος Ύύριος (κ)α(τ') Αλεξάνδρεια» ήγη(σ)ά(μει>ος) — 'which is probably to be understood to mean "Z. of Tyre who was head of the Academy in Alexandria"'? The myth of Zenodorus and an Alexandrian Academy has been adequately exploded by Mr. Fraser. 256 Nor are we told that Aristus had pupils anywhere except in Athens, as a successor to his brother Antiochus. The list of his pupils - if indeed they are his - 2 5 7 follows, in the Acad.Ind. (XXXV,5ff.) his succession to his brother's school. It is even likely — although the sources do not mention it - that on his travels in the East, Lucullus took Aristus with him as well as Antiochus: Aristus, too, was a native of Ascalon. It is more likely that, once Athens had been liberated by Sulla, Aristus and the other Academics in exile in Alexandria returned there. Athenian residents have always been in the habit of returning to Athens as soon as an odious régime has been overthrown. 'Aristón,' we are told, 258 'probably remained in Alexandria longer than Cratippus, 259 for he wrote an account of the Nile which apparently appeared at the same time and place as that of Eudorus of Alexandria — with the result that Strabo, a few years later, as he himself tells us, was unable to decide which had plagiarized the other.' But Strabo (790) says nothing to the effect that the books appeared 'at the same time and place' — only that they appeared και?' •ημάς. He seems to think that stylistic considerations would support Aristo's originality. Moreover, he calls him, in that context, a Peripatetic, a title he also bears in most other sources. 260 This would suggest that Aristo completed the book only some time after he had become a Peripatetic — that is, when he had left the school of Aristus 261 - obviously in Athens (Acad.Ind. XXXV,11-16). 256

Fraser II, p. 7 0 7 n. 92. This is the plain sense of that column in the Acad.Ind. But since Antiochus has just been mentioned - indeed, Aristus' succession is described in a sentence of which Antiochus is the subject - it is just possible that the list of 'heaters' still refers to Antiochus' pupils. The first two mentioned are Dio and Aristo, w h o m we have met in Alexandria in 8 7 / 6 B.C. as pupils of Antiochus - although there is no reason w h y they should not have stayed on in the school for some time as Aristus' pupils, and I shall work o n the assumption that this is the case. Be that as it may, this section o f the Acad.Ind. would constitute no proof that Cratippus was Aristus' pupil in Alexandria, as suggested by Fraser I, p. 4 8 9 . It refers clearly to the school in Athens. 257

258 259 260 261

Fraser I, p. 4 8 9 . But on Cratippus in Alexandria see n. 2 5 7 . Sec references and literature in Fraser II, p. 708 n. 95. Or possibly Antiochus - sec n. 257 above.

95

There is no evidence that he remained in Alexandria after the Sosus affair, or that he published his book early in his life: indeed, the title 'Peripatetic' would preclude this. It is at least likely - since Strabo speaks both of his book and of Eudorus' as written καϋ' ημάς —262 that he returned to Alexandria in his old age, when he was already known as a Peripatetic, and published his book there. We are left with the last member of the 'Antiochian Circle of Alexandria', Dio. Here we are on firmer ground. Dio is generally acknowledged to be the philosopher who headed the Alexandrian embassy to Rome in 57 B.C., and was murdered there, apparently by P. Asicius, at the instigation of Ptolemy Auletes. 263 He must, therefore, have been resident in Alexandria for some time before 57. But according to the Acad.Ind. (XXXV,7-9), he had already been a member of Aristus' school in Athens, and had seceded from it and become a Peripatetic.264 The best we can do is assume that his membership of Aristus' school did not last all that long - about a year or two; that he then became a Peripatetic like his fellow-student and fellow-Alexandrian Aristo, and that he soon returned to Alexandria, some time around or before 57. 265 Aristo may have returned at the same time, or some years later.266 None of our sources tells us about any teaching activities carried out in Alexandria by either Aristo or Dio. Why, then, this modern legend of the 'flourishing school' or 'circle' in Alexandria? The reason is implicitly given by a statement in Mr. Fraser's book: 267 262

Fraser II, p. 708 n. 96, argues convincingly that this phrase need not mean more than 'during my lifetime'. But Strabo was born in 64/3 B.C., and this must be the time when Aristo was still in Athens, if he was a pupil of Aristus, and not only of Antiochus. If in 86 Aristo was already a promising pupil of Antiochus, he must have been born c. 106 B.C. or somewhat earlier. In that case, he would be only in his fifties if he returned to Alexandria in 50 B.C. or so. If he did return during Strabo's period in Egypt around 24 B.C., he would still be only an old man in his early eighties, when many people retire to their native places. On the date and authorship of the book on the Nile, see also Italo Mariotti, Aristone d'Alessandria, Bologna 1966, pp. 3 8 - 4 1 . The book contains the testimonia and fragments of Aristo. Of the seven testimonia, the first three - the two passages in the Acad.Ind. and Cie.Luc. 1 1 - 2 - refer to him as an Academic. The other four including the Strabo passage - refer to him as á Peripatetic. Only fragments of his commentaries on Aristotle's Categories and Prior Analytics, and two 'incertae sedis fragmenta', have survived. For the latest discussion of Aristo and his chronology see Paul Moraux, Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen, Berlin 1973, pp. 1 8 1 - 2 . Moraux finds it rather unlikely that Antiochus' pupil was also the author of the book on the Nile, without replying to Mariotti's arguments in support of this ascription. 263 References and literature: Fraser II, pp. 7 0 9 - 1 1 , nn. 1 0 4 - 6 . Add Cic.Cael. 2 3 - 4 and the sources quoted by R. G. Austin (ed.), M. Tulli Ciceronis Pro Caelio Oratio, third ed. Oxford 1960, pp. 1 5 2 - 3 . 264 See n. 257 above. 265 But after 69/8 B.C., if he was a pupil of Aristus as well as Antiochus - see n. 257 above. 266 267 See n. 262 above. Fraser I, p. 489.

96

'Eudorus 2 6 8 and Aristón will on this calculation have flourished in the middle of the century, and have formed a bridge between Antiochus on the one hand and Potamon and Alius Didymus on the other, and it is through them, one might suppose, that the teaching of Antiochus was transmitted.' The implication is clear. We start with the assumption that Arius and Potamo are Antiochians. Once we have made this assumption, chronology forces us to seek for links in the transmission. Aristo and Dio were natives of Alexandria. Both they and Aristus were in Alexandria when Antiochus came there in Lucullus' train. Turn them into a 'school', or a 'circle' (adding, for good measure, Cratippus, who is quite likely never to have seen Alexandria in his life), and you have the missing link. I have promised to discuss in another work the problem of the philosophical affiliations of Eudorus, Arius and Potamo, and whether there is any reason for taking them to be Antiochians. But an examination of the evidence of our sources has shown that there is no good reason to assume any teaching activities — not to speak of a proper school - of Antiochus or Aristus in Alexandria. The Alexandrian episode was brief, and was transacted ambulando, in the train of a busy Roman general hastening on to other engagements. As to the other members of the 'circle', we soon find them in Athens with Antiochus, and the two of them who probably returned to Alexandria did so later, and after their defection to Peripateticism. Antiochus' — and Aristus' — main theatre of operations was in Athens. It is time we returned there. 268

But there is no good reason to believe that Eudorus floruit later than mid-century: see Fraser II, p. 708, n. 97. H. Döirie, 'Der Platoniker Eudoros von Alexandria', Hermes 79, 1944, p. 26, writes: 'Zweifellos war Eudoros Hörer des Antiochos von Askalon, als dieser in Alexandria weilte'. No evidence cited. He continues: 'Doch wird er sich kaum enger an Antiochos angeschlossen haben; gerade in den Grundfragen weicht er weit von Antiochos ab. Er muß etwa eine Generation jünger gewesen sein als dieser; er steht zeitlich zwischen Antiochos und Areios Didymos. Genauere chronologische Anhaltspunkte fehlen indes.' Why, then, assume that he was a pupil of Antiochus?

7

Gluckcr (Hyp. 56)

97

CHAPTER 2

Antiochus and the School of Athens

'Vers 79', writes Brochard 1 , 'lorsque Cicéron . . . alla passer six mois à Athènes, Antiochus y enseignait avec éclat: il était chef incontestable de l'Académie.' This view, that Antiochus was the official and uncontested head of the Academy, is still to be encountered almost everywhere 2 in the literature on the subject. 3 This could only be expected if - as is still widely believed - it was within the Academy that the reinterpretations of Plato which gave rise to Middle- and Neo-Platonism had their origin. 4 On that assumption, it would be most natural to believe that 'only the head of the Academy who turned from scepticism to dogmatism would seem to have been in a position to impose such a reinterpretation of Plato upon much of the subsequent tradition.' 5 1 Brochard p. 210. Brochard has a footnote containing many ancient references to Antiochus' teaching activities in Athens, but no single reference to support his other statement, that Antiochus was the head of the Academy. 2 The one notable exception is Lynch pp. 181-2. 3 Zumpt p. 68 expresses doubts, for good reasons, as to whether Antiochus was a proper scholarch of the Academy, but he adds, without giving any evidence or reasons: 'Aber ich sehe ihn doch als Diadochen an.' In his table of successions, p. 117, he puts him down firmly as the head of the school from 83(?) to 74 B.C. On Zumpt and his influence on modern scholarship, see below, pp. 330ff. One can only give a sample of the numerous more recent studies, textbooks, handbooks, articles and popular works, in which Antiochus is depicted as the head of the Academy without any qualification: Zeller ΙΙΙ,Ι, p. 619; Praechter p. 470; Witt p. 25; Lueder p. 3 and n. 18 (quoting Plut. Luc. 42 as evidence); Luck p. 16 (quoting Lueder p. 3); Fraser I p. 487; A. H. Armstrong, An Introduction to Ancient Philosophy, paperback ed., London 1965, p. 146; E. Bréhier, Histoire de la philosophie 1,2, Paris 1955, p. 411; Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy, London 1946, p. 261 ('After Clitomachus', the general reader is told in this widely-read popular work, 'the Academy ceased to be sceptical, and from the time of Antiochus (who died 69 B.C.) its doctrines became, for centuries, practically indistinguishable from those of the Stoics.'); The Oxford Classical Dictionary \ 1970, p. 73; O. Gigon, Mus.Helv. I, 1944, p. 62; DLZ 76,3, 1955, pp. 169-71; G. B. Kerferd, CR 1955, p. 199; P. O. Kristeller, Journal of Philosophy 1959, pp. 425-6. The modern student of doxography can observe here an example of the development of what started as a historian's hypothesis into an accepted fact. 4 I hope to demonstrate the error of the view which sees in Antiochus the 'archetype' of Middle-Platonism in the philosophical sequel to this book. From the following chapters, it will become clearly obvious that, after Antiochus, the Academy of Athens had precious little time left for starting a major revolution in Platonism. 5 P. O. Kristeller, loc.cit. n. 3 above.

98

But our business in this and the next few chapters is not so much with probabilities and hypothetical facts as with the evidence — positive, negative, or sometimes significantly silent — of our ancient sources. How far do our sources support this modern image of Antiochus as the undisputed head of the Academy? Our two major contemporary sources are the Academicorum Index Herculanensis, whose author probably knew some of Antiochus' pupils, 6 and Cicero, a pupil of Philo and Antiochus, whose lectures he attended in Athens, and a friend of Antiochus' brother Aristus, in whose house in Athens he stayed on his way back from his Cilician province. The author of the Acad.Ind., who may or may not be Philodemus, but who was clearly a contemporary of Cicero, 7 appears at first sight to confirm that Antiochus was the head of the school. If the readings in Mekler's edition, Col. XXXIV, are correct, we have here a reference to 'the school' (1.2); to a group of people from Athens who returned from Alexandria (11.3—5), and διακα(τ)εϊχεν in 1. 6,a verb which is used elsewhere, both in the same compound form or in its simple form κατέχω, for holding the headship of the school. 8 This is followed by a list of pupils, a description of an embassy to Rome, and of Antiochus' death in Lucullus' camp, which fill the rest of the column. In the next column, we are told about Aristus, who (11.2—3) τήν δέ διατριβή ν αύτοϋ δΐέδέξατο, and his pupils, some of whom (14—16) èy(é)vovro Περι·πα(τητι)κοί, ύ(·ποστα)τήσα(ντ€ς της ' Α)καδημείας. If this reading is correct, those who did not leave Aristus' school were, in the author's view, still members of the Academy. But things are by no means as simple as that — and it is on some of the more crucial points that the papyrus appears to let us down. In XXXIV, 2, the restoration τήν σχολήν is very dubious. Comparing the readings of Ν and Ρ as reported by Mekler, 9 I suspect that what is hiding behind these letters is Άντίοχον. This would give us (if only in the accusative, for reasons we cannot guess since the beginning of the sentence is missing) Antiochus' name, and rid us of the improbable Μαίκιος as the subject of this sentence and its verb. 10 But it would also deprive us of τήν σχολήν 'the school', 6

If the reading συνήtfeiç ημών in X X X V , 7 - 8 , as supplied by Buecheler and Mekler, is correct. 7 See Mekler's preface, pp. X X X I - I I , and the literature cited there. 8 Δ ι α κ α τ έ χ ω : Acad.Ind. XXX,7 (Crates of Tarsus); Stoic.Ind. XXIX,5 (Cleanthes); κ α τ έ χ ω : Acad.Ind. XXIV,31 (Crates of Tarsus); and perhaps X X V I I , 1 - 2 (Lacydes: κατέσχεν is the reading of Mekler, who supplies the whole of 1.1); Diog.Laert. IV,32 (Arcesilaus). 9 A P P n C A I T . N O X O N Ν: ΚΑΙΤ\ΝΟΧΟΝ.Π P. 10 Μαίκως is put firmly in t h e text b y Mekler, and he is followed by Luck, p. 75, Fr. 7. Both faithfully record this Maecius in their indices (Mekler p. 124; Luck p. 97), with no f u r t h e r comment. But who is he? Is it the literary critic and censor of plays in 55 B.C. Sp. Maecius Tarpa, mentioned by Cicero, Fam. VII,1,1 and Horace, Sat. 1,10,38 (on whom see F. Münzer, RE 14,238, Maecius 24)? But what is he to Antiochus? If Antiochus

99

as it was before Antiochus — that is, under Philo, whose death was most probably reported in the last column. 1 1 Antiochus would thus still be described as holding a school, 1 2 and Aristus as inheriting it from him. 1 3 The expression (XXXV,2—3) την 8è διατριβήν αύτον διεδέξατο would still not necessarily imply that what Aristus inherited was Antiochus' private school rather than the Acaever obtained Roman citizenship - none of our sources seems to know of that - he would most likely have been granted it by Lucullus, not by Maecius. We do not even know that Maecius ever went East and served there in any position. We do know that Lucullus was twice in the East, in an important official position, and on both occasions we find Antiochus in his company. In any case, even if Maecius were to be Antiochus' Roman name, why mention him by that name in a work written in Greek? Antiochus is known in all our sources, Greek and Roman, only by his Greek name. In N, which I have inspected in the Bodleian copy, the letter reported as μ is just as likely to be a it. If we read Άντίοχον in line 2, perhaps in line 3 we should read Su ος ο.παι κ (α) ι ος e. Admittedly, this leaves almost everything unclear. But αύτον would only go with τη ν σχολήν in line 2, which as I have suggested, is extremely doubtful; and Μαίκιος seems to me to be plain nonsense. The relative pronoun ο ς would connect the word Άντίοχον which I propose for line 2 with its verb in line 6. 11 The date of Philo's death has so far been a mystery. K. v. Fritz, RE 19,2535-6, argues for 86/5 B.C. Col. XXXIII of the Acad.Ind. records two deaths: 11.17-19 and 11.39-40. The second of these occurred - if we accept Buecheler's plausible suggestion - έπί Νικήτου. The date of this archon was unknown for a long time. J. Kirchner, Prosopographia Attica No. 10574a (vol. II, 1903, p. 477) follows Susemihl II, p. 284 n. 248 in accepting Buecheler's suggestion (Acad.Ind., Progr. Greifswald 1869, p. 20) that this passage refers to Heraclitus of Tyre, taken to be Philo's successor. This conclusion was accepted by W. Kolbe, Die attischen Archonten, Göttingen 1908, p. 147, and by W. B. Dinsmoor, The Archons of Athens, Cambridge Mass. 1931, pp. 291-2, who bases Niketes' approximate date on the likely date of Heraclitus' death. (See also Kirchner's revised dating, IG LP IV, p. 24). But this cannot be right. We have no evidence that Heraclitus ever returned to Athens, and certainly not that he became scholarch. Had he been Philo's successor, Cicero could not have passed over this fact in introducing Heraclitus in Luc. 11 (dramatic date 6 3 - 6 0 B.C. - see Reid p. 41) - nor could he have said (Luc. 18): Philone autem vivo patrocinium Academiae non de fuit. An inscription found in Athens in 1962 has the name ΝΙΚΗΤΗΣ and seven blanks underneath it (ed. Ε. Ν. Oikonomides, Τα Άϋηναϊκά 21, 1962, p. 477). The editors of SEG (21, 1965, No. 1055) date i t ' s . I a /IP'. This may be the case. But in the meantime, the date of the archon Niketes has come to light in an inscription edited by Sterling Dow, 'Archons of t h ì Period after Sulla', Hesperia Suppl. 8, 1949, pp. 116-125 and plate 15. In 1.8, one reads clearly έπί Νικήτου, and Dow dates this archon 84/3 B.C. Dow himself, p. 123, still follows the accepted view that Acad.Ind. XXXIII*40 refers to Philo's successor who, therefore, 'died not ca. 70 B.C., but only after four years as scholarch.' But as we have seen, it is very unlikely that Philo had a successor. I believe that the reference is to Philo himself, and that he died in 84/3, not in 85/6. It is true that he died away from Athens - but so did Antiochus, and his death is reported in XXXIV,39-44. This would imply a doublet in Col. XXXIII - but doublets are quite common in the· Acad.Ind. 12 This must be the force of διακατέχω - see n. 8 above. 13 The words of the Acad.Ind. XXXV,2-5 are reminiscent of Cicero's words, Acad. 1,17: ... cum Speusippum sororis filium Plato philosophiae quasi heredem reliquisset. Is it an accident that Cicero's words are put in the mouth of the Antiochian Varrò, and are most probably derived from an Antiochian source (see Excursus 2)?

100

demy. We have similar expressions for the proper succession to an established school. 14 But it would prove no more than that Aristus inherited from Antiochus — being his brother as well as his pupil (ibid. 4) — the school (whatever its nature) which had formerly belonged to Antiochus. It is only if we find firm evidence that Antiochus himself was the head of the Academy that we can proceed to maintain that the school which Aristus inherited from him was the Academy pure and simple. Nor is the reading in XXXV,15-16 all that convincing. In 1 4 - 1 5 , èy(é)voino ϊΐ€ριπα(τητι)κοί is as good a restoration as one can hope for. So is (Ά)καδημείας in 15-16. But for the rest of these two lines, we are left with Δ ΤΗΣΑ , which could be completed in other ways. 1 5 1 am not claiming that Mekler's restoration is utterly improbable - it is possible and attractive. But even if it were certain, it would only prove that Antiochus' school was known as 'Academy'. That this is what it was called — with the small but significant addition O l d ' — is not news. Nor do the first lines of XXXV shed any further light on our problem. Spengel had already noticed that the beginning of this column does not immediately follow on the end of XXXIV. 16 Even if 8(e)5eyQx)év(oç) in 1.2 stands for δια8e8eyμένος, we do not know what preceded it — and it might even have been a negation. 17 Thus, all we can conclude from the last two columns of the Acad.Ind. with any amount of certainty is that Antiochus headed a school; that a group of

14 AcadJnd. V I , 2 9 - 3 1 , has Σπ(ίύσιππος) μεν ούν πα(ρ)' α(ύ)του διεδέ(ξ)ατο τ-ην δ(ιατριβή)ν - which is more like the sort of expression one might expect. In IV,15; Q, 8 and XXX,6, we have the simple expression διαδέχεσόαί την α χολή ν or διατρφήν. But in XXV, 1 1 - 1 4 , we are told of Clitomachus τ-ην 6è Κ α ( ρ ) ν ( ε ά ) δ ο υ ¿(ιβδέ)ξατ(ο) επί Λυκί(σ)κου 7τ(αρά Κ)ράτητος το(ϋ) Ία(ραόύ)βν. Stoic.Ind. X L V I I I . 7 - 8 calls Diogenes of Babylon ò (•παραλαβών Ζ ή)νωνος την σχολήν. In LIII,1-3, we are told of Panaetius: κ (αϊ) διάδοχος èy(é)veTO (τή)ς Αντιπάτρου σχολής, and in 1 1 . 5 - 7 it says of Dardanus: και οΰτ(ος την Πα)ναι(τίου) σχολ(ην διαδεξά)ιuep(oç). 15 An alternative way of completing lines 1 2 - 1 6 , which I give only exempli gratia, would be: έ(πεΙ το) 0 Ά(ρίοτου ¥ι)κουσα(ν δύο ετ)η λό(·γ)ο(υς δ τ') éy(é)vov(To) Περι(πατητι)κοί ά(πέαχον) της α(ύτοϋ Ά)κα(δη)μείας κτε. The last two words of 1.18 are most probably (è){ α(ϋτής) - referring to their final departure from the same school. 16 L. Spengel, Philologus Suppl. II, 5, 1863, p. 544 - see Mekler's note in his apparatus to XXXV, 1. 17 One could, perhaps, complete the seven missing letters in line 1 as ούδβ δια-. This would turn -δεδε-γμένος of line 2 into the proper technical term one would expect here - at the same time negating it. The missing section between XXXIV and XXXV may well have mentioned that Antiochus had his own school, but that he did not properly succeed to Philo's Academy; or that he never inherited the school from him. This would explain the δέ in line 2: there was something which Antiochus did not pass on to Aristus because he had not properly succeeded to it himself - but he did succeed to Antiochus' own school, being his brother as well as his pupil.

101

Athenians returned from Alexandria and joined him as their teacher; 18 that Aristus, his brother and pupil, inherited that school from, him - and perhaps that his school was known as 'Academy'. Nor would it be a valid objection to point out that Antiochus and Aristus are mentioned in the Acad.Ind. along with their pupils, and that therefore they must have been scholarchs. Both the Stoicorum Index and ours devote much space to pupils of the school who did not become scholarchs in their own right, but some of whom had their own private schools and pupils none the less. The Stoicorum Index devotes more than four columns (XII,3—XVI) to Persaeus: four (XXX-XXXIII) to Dionysius of Heraclea; and five (XXXIIIXXXVII) to Aristo of Chios. Our own Academicorum Index tells the story of Aristotle and Xenocrates before their return to Athens (V), and devotes some space to Heraclides Ponticus (IX-X), Chaero (XI-XII), Crantor (XVI), Metrodorus of Stratonicea (XXVI), Boethus (XXVI; XXVIII,40-XXIX), Melanthius (XXXI,3-25) and Charmadas (XXXI.32-XXXII). The only qualifications for inclusion seem to be that one should have been a member of the school, who studied in it, proceeded to hold his own school and have his own pupils, but did not officially join one of the rival established schools. Antiochus answers to all these requirements. However much of a Stoic he may have been in many of his philosophical views, he never officially joined the Stoic school (Cic.Luc. 69-70). When he held his own school, he called it Old Academy' - probably before, and certainly after the Alexandrian episode (Cic.Luc.70, Brut. 315). But this is no proof that he was ever made the official head of the Academy and Philo's official successor. Far from supplying any more conclusive evidence for such an official succession, Cicero's careful — almost pedantic — nomenclature, coupled with some more explicit arguments on his part, should put us on our guard. In the autobiographical sketch towards the end of his Brutus — Cicero's account of his own institutio oratoria — he mentions all his philosophical masters except Posidonius. Philo is described there (306) as princeps Academiae. A few sections later (315), he speaks of Antiochus: Cum venissem Athenas, sex mensis cum Antiocho veteris Academiae nobilissimo ac prudentissimo philosopho fui studiumque philosophiae numquam intermissum a primaque adulescentia cultum et semper auctum hoc rursus summo auctore et doctore renovavi I have quoted the sentence in full to show that Cicero is far from being laconic. He calls Antiochus by a number of honorary epithets, including the semi-official veteris Academiae ... philosophus. And yet, in a work dedicated to Brutus, a pupil of Antiochus' brother Aristus, there is not a hint that Antiochus was ever princeps Academiae. This is far from being an accident. In De Or. 1,45, we are told by Crassus how, on his return from his quaestorship in 110 B.C., he passed 18

For this sense of παραβάλλω as intransitive with dative of the teacher, see XXIV, 1 5 - 1 6 ; POxy 9 3 0 , 2 0 - 2 1 \POxy 2190,25.

102

Acad.Ind.

through Athens and attended some lectures in philosophy, fiorente Academia, ut temporibus illis ferebatur, cum earn Charmadas et Clitomachus et Aeschines obtinebant. Fiorente is, of course, άνΰούσης (Plut.Luc. 42,4), and obtinebant must be κατεϊχον which we have just met with in the sense of 'being in charge of the school.' 1 9 Of Metrodorus of Stratonicea, whose interpretation of Carneades was different from that of Clitomachus and his school (Acad.Ind. XXVI,4ff.), and who most probably taught outside the school premises, 20 we are immediately told: erat etiam Metrodorus . . . , without any indication that he, too, was one of those who 'held' the school. Of Mnesarchus, Panaetius' pupil, who 'ran' the Stoic school together with Panaetius' official successor Dardanus, we are told that he vigebat — a verb used of Philo when he was already head of the Academy in De Or. Ill, 110. 21 Cicero is perfectly familiar with the etiquette and the administrative jargon of the Athenian philosophical schools and he uses it accurately enough. Nor is it an accident that in a later passage in his Brutus (332), he speaks of illa vetus Academia atque eius heres Aristus, in words reminiscent of those of the Acad.Ind. XXXV,25. Aristus is the heres = διάδοχος, 22 but of Antiochus' school, as the Index tells us, or of the Old Academy, in Cicero's careful wording. The close affinity between the two statements should confirm that in Acad.Ind. XXXV,3, αντοϋ is not just a 'manner of speaking'. Cicero appears, then, to be extremely careful not to describe Antiochus and Aristus as the official heads of the Academy proper. He is equally careful in his use of the term Academia and the epithet Academicus. With one exception —

" See n. 8 above. Of course, m Acad.Ind. XXXIV,6, διακατείχει» is used of Antiochus, but we have just shown that this need not refer to an established school. The reference to Charmadas and Aeschines 'holding' the Academy as well as the elected scholarch Clitomachus seems to imply that it was customary at the time for more than one person to 'run' a philosophical school, even if only one of them was the official scholarch. It was about this time that Dardanus succeeded Panaetius, and he probably directed the Stoic school together with Mnesarchus - see above, p. 19 n. 17. The same has been claimed for Zeno and Phaedrus the Epicureans. Zumpt pp. 1 1 2 - 3 assumes that Phaedrus succeeded Zeno as scholarch. Only Zeno, however, is called princeps Epicureorum by Cicero (N.D. 1,59), although both Zeno and Phaedrus were teaching in Athens at the time (Cic.N.D. ibid.; Fin. V,3). Phaedrus, rather than Zeno, seems to have been chosen by Atticus as his teacher (Cie.Fin. ibid.; Le gg. 1,53), just as Crassus seems to have chosen for his own teacher Charmadas rather than the scholarch Clitomachus (Cie. De Or. 1,47). To the older literature on Zeno and Phaedrus, on which see Zeller 111,1, p. 385 n. 1; p. 386 n. 1, one can now add A. E. Raubitschek, 'Phaidros and his Roman Pupils', Hesperia 18, 1949, pp. 9 6 - 1 0 3 . In the second inscription, restored by Raubitschek on p. 99, Phaedrus is called καθηγητής - the title of a private tutor, quite frequently used in Epicurean sources for a teacher who is not the head of the school - see below pp. 131 - 1 3 2 . 20

Acad.Ind. X X X V , 3 4 - 5 , and perhaps also X X X I I , 1 3 - 1 6 . See below, p. 107. See n. 19 above. 22 Cf. Cic.Acad. 1,17, where heres is obviously διάδοχο?, and quasi appears to point out that this is a new Latin word coined by Cicero - see Reid ad loc. (p. 112, s.v. quasi heredem). 21

103

Legg. 1,54, when Cicero is using metaphorical language - 2 3 Academia and Acaddemici, wherever they are not qualified by ν etus, refer to the 'New' Academy. 2 4 Cicero is prepared to speak o f ν et eres Academici and vetus Academia, both in reference to Antiochus' s c h o o l 2 5 and to the school in the period between Speusippus and Polemo. 2 6 In contrast to this latter sense, he uses twice the expression recens or recentior Academia.2'1 But this is not tantamount to admitting that there was a 'New' Academy, started by Arcesilaus, which made a break with the Platonic tradition. It is merely a reference to the fact that the veteres - in the sense accepted by Cicero - had expressed some positive views as 'probabilities' and that Arcesilaus was the man w h o brought out again the original sceptical orientation o f the Academic tradition. 2 8 Whenever the distinction between O l d ' and 'New' Academy is made by Cicero in earnest, one finds that this is done by a follower o f Antiochus, or in an argument with a follower o f Antiochus as a concession to his terminology or out o f courtesy. 2 9 That this is n o mere accident, but a fully conscious and premeditated accuracy, we are told by Cicero himself. His own view o f this nomenclature is set out in t w o passages o f Acad. I: 13 and 4 6 . 23 Atticus could hardly be expected to say: qui me ex nostris paene convellit hortulis, deduxitque in Ptolemaeum. This would make the metaphor lose all its force. But Antiochus, of course, did not teach in the Academy. 24 Brut. 306; Tusc. 11,4; 9; IV,47;N.D. 1,1; 11; 13; 80; 11,1; 2; 20; 147; 168; 111,72; Fin. 11,43; 111,31; Luc. 7; 12; 17; 18; 29; 55;63; 70; 103; 148. This is only a list of some of the more obvious passages: further examples could be added. 15 Brut. 315; 332; Acad. 1,14. 26 Tusc. V,75; 85\ Legg. 1,38; Fin. II,34ff.; Luc. 113; 131; 132; 135; 136 - not counting passages where the speaker is an Antiochian. 27 Legg. 1,39: recens; De Or. 111,68: recentior. 28 Most passages listed in n. 26 above are used in an argument against Antiochus, and employ his terminology to refute him (see especially the Lucullus passages); or are derived from the Cameadea divisio. On Carneades' view of the Old Academics' as probabilists, see pp. 6 3 - 6 4 above and p. 399 below. De Or. 111,68 clearly does not support the view that there was a break in the tradition. It comes immediately after the famous passage in 67, stating that Arcesilaus rediscovered the original scepticism of Socrates and Plato, and thus represents the sceptical Academy's view that Speusippus, Xenocrates and Polemo were simple-minded probabilists but not dogmatists (see last note). The Legg. passages are, perhaps, somewhat more problematic. But a discussion of Cicero's philosophical affiliations - and of the position taken in De Legibus - must be postponed to the philosophical sequel to this book. 29 Fin. V,7; 21 (Piso); 8 (concession to Piso); Acad. 1,7; 13; 18 (Varrò); 13; 33; 43 (concession to Varrò). Cf. Fam. IX,8,1: os adulescentioris Academiae - again, a semi-jocular concession to Varrò. It is interesting to note that Lucullus in his speech often speaks of Academia and Academici unqualified when referring to the sceptical Academy {Luc. 12; 17; 18; 29; 55). Even if the one and only source of Lucullus' speech were the Sosus, written while Philo was still alive and the official scholarch (but see Excursus 2, pp. 4 0 6 - 4 2 0 below), this could not explain his words in 17, Philone autem vivo, patrocinium Academiae non defuit. Here, Cicero must have employed the word Academia in the sense usual to him, forgetting that he has put them in the mouth of an opponent, or even making his 'Lucullus' admit that the Academy proper died with Philo.

104

In 13, Varrò accuses Cicero of having abandoned the O l d Academy' and of expounding now the doctrines of the 'New'. The precise nature of Varro's accusation should not detain us here. 30 But Cicero's answer is instructive: 'Quid ergo, ' inquarti; 'Antiocho id magis licuerit nostro familiari, remigrare in domum veterem a nova, quam nobis in novam a vetere? certe enim recentissima quaeque sunt correcta et emendata maxime, quamquam Antiochi magister Philo, magnus vir ut tu existimas ipse, + negaret in libris, quod coram etiam ex ipso audiebamus, duas Academias esse, erroremque eorum qui ita putarent coarguit. ' Cicero begins in a humorous vein: 'if Antiochus could leave a new house for an old one, why should I be prevented from leaving an old house for a new one — and in better condition?' His words recentissima quaeque sunt correda et emendata maxime are an ironical response to Antiochus' claim (Acad. 1,35— 43) that the Stoics were a correctio veteris Academiae. He implies that, even if this were the case, the 'New Academy,' which has refuted many of the Stoics' arguments, is clearly both recentior and correctior than Antiochus' own medley of 'Old Academic' and Stoic doctrines. But he now changes to a more serious mood, reminding Varrò that, according to Philo, there had always been only one Academy, not two. In 46, he returns to the same point, emphasizing again that there is no place for such phrases as 'New' Academy, and declares that he will use these terms only as a concession to Varro's terminology: sed tarnen illa quam exposuisti vetus, haec nova nominetur. Where Cicero has no Varrò or Piso to accommodate himself to, he can and does use the term Academia (and Academicus) only for the proper school and the proper successors of Socrates and Plato — almost invariably the sceptical Academics. Especially typical is N. D. 1,11: haec in philosophia ratio contra omnia disserendi nullamque rem aperte iudicandi profecía a Socrate repetita ab Arcesila confirmata a Cameade usque ad nostram viguit aetatem; quam nunc prope modum orbam esse in ipsa Graecia intellego. quod non Academiae vitio sed tarditate hominum arbitror contigisse. Here, Academia is clearly the one continuous sceptical school, from Socrates onwards, and it is of this school that he has just said: nec vero desertarum relictarumque rerum patrocinium suscepimus; non enim hominum interitu sententiae quoque occidunt, sed lucem auctoris fortasse desiderant. Similar sentiments are put by Cicero even in Lucullus' mouth (Luc. 17): Philone autem vivo patrocinium Academiae non defuit. With Philo's death, 'the Academy' pure and simple — has been deserted. But if it now has no official exponent in the person of a proper scholarch, it can still have its literary advocates. Cicero, like Philo in his last years in Rome, can offer it his patrocinium — albeit only a literary one. It is, perhaps, in this light that we should consider the mockcontest for the allegiance of young Lucius in Fin V,6—8 and 75. Cicero has come to Athens and he is studying under Antiochus. It is, after all, the duty of the sceptical Academic to make himself thoroughly familiar with all the 30

This, too, will have to be deferred to the philosophical sequel to this book.

105

'dogmatic' systems of philosophy (Cic.N.D. 1 , 1 1 - 1 2 ; 59). But he has remained faithful to the sceptical Academy and its teachings, and in his spare time, he expounds them to his young cousin. 31 What conclusions can we draw from Cicero's evidence, both implicit and explicit? I believe that one conclusion only is legitimate: Antiochus was never the properly elected scholarch of the Academy. He held his own school, which his brother Aristus inherited after his death. He called it the O l d Academy', a term which Cicero is occasionally prepared, for convenience's sake, to employ. But the members of the Academy proper — the school headed by Philo before his exile to Rome — never elected Antiochus as their scholarch in succession to Philo. 32 What we have already seen in the last chapter would only serve to confirm such a conclusion. For by the time he returned to Athens, Antiochus had already held his own school there, expounding doctrines which were extremely close to those of the Stoics, the traditional enemies of the Academy. Not satisfied with this, he had published a book in Alexandria, attacking his old teacher and scholarch and advocating an acceptance of the Stoic criterion. No member of the school of Philo would have voted such a renegade into the scholarchate. But what was the fate of the Academy itself? We have seen that in 45, Cicero can speak of the sceptical tradition of the school as prope modum orba in Graecia ipsa (N.D. 1,11). But when Philo died in Rome some forty years earlier, were there no members of the sceptical Academy in Athens to elect a successor? As happens all too often, our sources desert us here, and we can only resort to conjecture and to a combination of the scattered hints we can find in them. 31 I see no reason to doubt the historicity of the statements to this effect made in those passages of Fin. V. Lucius was very close to Cicero, who regarded him as a brother (Fin. V,l;Att. 1,5,1). They must have spent much of their time in Athens in each other's company, and Antiochus, whose courses they attended, was a natural topic for conversation. Cicero would have been inhuman had he abstained from criticizing Antiochus and expressing his preference for the sceptical Academy. In Fin. V he tells us plainly that he did just that. 32 Gigon, Gesch. p. 62 speaks of 'eine Art von Revolution und Überrumpelung'. But a man could become a scholarch only by election or appointment by existing members of the school. On this we hear nothing in our sources, and the likelihood that any pupils of Philo remaining in Athens would elect the renegade pupil whose attacks had embittered the life of the last scholarch is extremely remote. Lynch p. 181 n. 19 is right in maintaining that Antiochus never succeeded Philo, but wrong in doubting that his school in the Ptolemaeum was a philosophical community modelled on the Academy. The last three columns of the Acad.Ind. make it clear that Antiochus and Aristus tried to give the impression of holding an organized school, with proper master-pupil relationships and a 'succession'. It is, of course, very doubtful whether they had any school property. Since Antiochus never succeeded Philo, he could not have inherited whatever property may still have been in the hands of the school - on which, see below, pp. 2 2 6 - 2 3 7 Lynch also claims, on the basis of Luc. 61, that 'Antiochus is known to have travelled and lectured in other cities beside Athens.' But all we are told there is about his travels in Lucullus' train in the East.

106

When Philo became scholarch, the school had already begun to show signs of disintegration. Carneades had been the most brilliant philosopher of his age. But despite his broad-minded and potentially creative conception of probability, his teaching had been essentially negative. Even his pupil and successors' successor Clitomachus had found it difficult to determine which of the conflicting views he had expounded, defended and rejected on various occasions with all his brilliance and ingenuity had won the Master's approval (Cic.Luc. 139). While he was still alive, Carneades the son of Polemarchus succeeded him for six years {Acad.Ind. XXV, 3 6 - 4 3 ; XXIX,39-XXX,1). This younger Carneades was succeeded in turn by another (to us) unknown quantity, Crates of Tarsus (ibid. XXXV,44—XXXVI,4; XXIX,4-6). Crates was succeeded after four (ibid. XXVI, 3ff.) or two (ibid. XXIV,29ff.; XXX,6ff.) years 33 by Clitomachus, who held the school until 110 B.C. Clitomachus was a man of some character and learning. He wrote many books (Cie.Luc. 16) - according to Diogenes Laertius (IV,67), more than four hundred of them — and, as Diogenes proceeds to tell us, he was at home in the Stoic and Peripatetic philosophies as well as in the philosophy of the Academy. Some of his books were known in Rome, and are mentioned by Cicero {Luc. 98ff.; 102ff.). Others are mentioned by Sextus {Math. 11,20; IX,1). Carneades himself had maintained that Clitomachus was a faithful recorder of his own teachings (Cie. Or. 51). And yet, such a distinguished pupil of Carneades had to wait eight years (or ten) before he could become the head of the school. Between the death of Carneades and his own election, Clitomachus held his own school in the Palladium {Acad.Ind. XXIV,35—7). Another distinguished pupil of Carneades was Metrodorus of Stratonicea. Metrodorus had defected to the Academy of Carneades from the Epicurean school (Diog.Laert. X,9; AcadJnd. XXIV,9-16). He had his own interpretation of Carneades, maintaining that Carneades' concept of probability had been taken seriously by the Master, not just as a weapon against the Stoics (Cie.Luc. 78; Aug.C.Acad. 111,41), and claiming that he was the only one among the pupils of Carneades who had understood the Master properly {Acad.Ind. XXXV,33—5; XXXVI, 8 - 1 0 ) . But he did not teach in the Academy (Cic.De Or. 1,45\Acad. Ind. XXXII, 13—16?). Metrodorus' broad interpretation of Carneades' principle of 'probability' might have opened up the Academy to a more sympathetic study of the doctrines of the more 'dogmatic' schools. It might have led it towards a 'probabilistic eclecticism' not unlike what we find in some of Cicero's philosophical writings. But there was no place for a Metrodorus in the Academy. The school was directed by Clitomachus and his friends, some of whom had followed him into the Academy from the Palladium {Acad.Ind. XXIV,32ff.; XXX,8—12), and they remained faithful to a strict and barren sceptical tradition, 33

Zeller's interpretation of Col. XXX,6 (Zeller ΙΙΙ,Ι, p. 541 η. 1) - Crates was scholarch for four years, but during the last two he shared his scholarchate with Clitomachus - cannot be right. In X X I V , 3 0 - 3 2 , the word (έτ)ΐλ(ύτησί(ν) is as certain as any restoration can be.

107

with all its futile Spitzfindigkeiten. It was about this time — Carneades' last years and the period of his early successors — that Polybius must have written the famous passage (XII,26c), in which he accuses the Academics of excessive παραδοξολογία, a constant preoccupation with minute and imaginary problems of epistemology, through which they had brought down disgrace on their whole mode of doing philosophy (etc διαβολήρ ηχασι την ολην aïpeaLv). Pace Zeller, Polybius does not appear to be exaggerating, or to draw on a hostile source: at least one of the examples he adduces sounds authentic enough. 34 It was such a group of Clitomachus' faithful followers who elected Philo to succeed him. They knew that Philo was a weak man, elected to his exalted office late in life, 35 and that, out of gratitude to them, he would change nothing. Philo began by obliging them ( N u m . a p . E u s e b . X I V , 8 = Fr. 8 Leemans; 28 Des Places). As time went on - so we are told by Numenius (ibid.) — Philo himself grew weary of the strict scepticism he had been saddled with. As we have already seen, 36 the philosophical climate in Athens had already begun to show signs of change. Panaetius had already taken the first step towards eclecticism in the Stoic school, and his eclecticism was based on an acquaintance with the writings of Plato, Aristotle and their immediate pupils. One of Philo's own pupils, Antiochus, had studied under Panaetius' successors, and during Philo's last years in Athens, he was already holding his own school which taught positive dogmatic doctrines and gave these doctrines the stamp of the O l d Academy'. We do not know what was the state of Philo's school during his last years in Athens. In 110 B.C., Clitomachus' last year, we are told (Cic.De Or. 1,45) that the school was flourishing and that, beside the scholarch, it also had Aeschines and Charmadas teaching in it. In 91 B.C., Philo was still 'flourishing' in the Academy (ibid. 111,110). But he was already a man of seventy, and it was about that time, or even somewhat earlier, that Antiochus had seceded from him and established his rival school. 37 Three years later, Philo was in exile. In Rome, the head of Plato's school provided an attraction, and his lectures were wellattended. But we are not told what was the fate of his school in Athens and how flourishing (or otherwise) it was when Philo left it. It is, at least, a likely conjecture that, once the older generation of Clitomachus' friends began to die out, the number of pupils in Philo's Academy must have declined considerably. 34

Zeller I, p. 544 n. 1. The argument that 'while they are discussing those matters in the Academy, they are not awake, but uttering these things in their dreams and at home' (reading ούχ ina ρ, àXK 'όναρ - Naber's obvious emendation), is typical of the sceptical Academy's preoccupation with dreams as an argument in support of άπαραλλαξία - see e.g. Cic.Luc. 51 ff.; 88ff. On the state of the Academy between Carneades and Clitomachus, and the possible reasons for the succession of scholarchs who are unknown quantities to us like Carneades the younger and Crates of Tarsus - see below, pp. 303-304. 35 Philo was born in 161/60 B.C., and was elected scholarch in 110/09, when he was already fifty - see K. v. Fritz, RE XIX, p. 2535. 36 See above, pp. 2 7 - 3 1 . 37 See above, pp. 1 5 - 2 1 .

108

Nor is it unlikely that the bitterness reflected in Cicero's Lucullus 69—70 is due, in no small measure, to a defection of many of Philo's pupils to the younger, vigorous and more positive Antiochus. Others, like Philo himself, must have become tired of the purely analytical and negative character of the Academy's sceptical preoccupations. Antiochus was expounding doctrines which gave one a certain — albeit Stoic — criterion of knowledge and a useful doctrine of moral philosophy, based on an attractive (even if somewhat inconsistent) synthesis between Stoic righteousness and Peripatetic realism. It is not unlikely that, when Philo escaped to Rome, he had seen his position as Plato's successor undermined not only by the recent vogue of the new eclectic doctrines, but also in the most tangible manner. The once flourishing Academy had dwindled into a small and insignificant institution, magni nominis umbra. Such an assumption would do much to explain the vehemence with which Philo, in his Roman books, upheld his rightful position as Plato's heir, and the desperate subterfuges he employed in them to reconcile the scepticism to which he owed his exalted position with a more positive conception of Platonism. But Philo never returned to Athens, and we hear only of two other sceptical Academics who may have outlived him. Heraclitus of Tyre, who had studied with Clitomachus before he became Philo's pupil, left Athens for Alexandria before the arrival there of Lucullus and Antiochus (Cic.Luc. 11). Although a friend of Antiochus, he remained faithful to the scepticism of his masters (ibid. 11 — 12). It is unlikely that he ever became a pupil of Antiochus, and we are nowhere told that he returned to Athens. That he ever became Philo's successor as scholarch of the Academy is inconceivable, and flatly contradicted by Cicero's statement in Luc. 17. 38 The other member of the sceptical Academy who may have carried on his teaching activities during Philo's last years in Athens is Charmadas. He had been praised by Carneades as the man who reproduced his views most faithfully and in the same style. 39 After eight years as Carneades' pupil, he left for Asia, where he became very successful; but he returned to Athens, obtained Athenian citizenship, and opened his own school in the Ptolemaeum (Acad.Ind. XXXI,32ff.). 38

The name in Acad.Ind. XXXIV,16 may be Heraclitus, but from what we know of him in Cic .Luc. 1 1 - 1 2 , it is extremely unlikely that this is Heraclitus of Tyre. E. Pappenheim, 'Der Sitz der Schule der pyrrhoneischen Skeptiker', AGP 1, 1888, pp. 3 7 - 5 2 , esp. pp. 4 1 - 2 , has made the attractive suggestion that Heraclitus of Tyre is the Heraclides listed by Diog. Laert. IX,116 as Aenesidemus' predecessor as head of a 'Pynhonian school' in Alexandria. For other, less convincing identifications, see Brochard p. 23Iff. and literature quoted there; Zeller 111,2, p. 3 η. 1 (who does not mention Pappenheim's article). K. Deichgräber, Die griechische Empirikerschule, Berlin 1930, pp. 1 7 2 - 3 , opts for the Empiricist Heraclides of Taxentum as Aenesidemus' teacher, but I find no reference or answers in his discussion there or on p. 258ff. to the chronological objections raised by Brochard pp. 2 3 2 - 3 . For modern attempts to make Heraclitus the successor of Philo as scholarch of the Academy, see n. 11 above. 3 ® Cic. Or. 51 - see Sandys ad loc.; Luc. 16.

109

In 110 B.C., we find him teaching in the Academy (CicDe Or. 1,45). Sextus (RH. 1,220) and Eusebius (P.E. XIV,4,16), designate him, together with Philo, as a leader of the 'Fourth Academy', and he is mentioned in the AcadJnd. (XXXV,3 5ff.) as having many pupils, perhaps in the last years of the school. We shall return to this passage in the Index presently. It is probably to this Charmadas that Cicero refers in the famous passage, Fin. V,4. Madvig's prestige has done much to make editors retain there the MSS reading Carneadis as against Valesius' emendation Charmadas.40 But Madvig's explanation of modo is rather forced, and Cicero's words a sedeque ipsa, tanta ingenti magnitudine orbata, desiderati ilìam vocem puto, would sound very strange if they were to refer to Carneades, who had been dead for fifty years. They are, however, strangely reminiscent of Cicero's expressions in N.D. 1,11: haec in philosophia ratio ... usque ad nostram viguit aetatem; quam nunc prope modum orbam in ipsa Graecia intelligo, especially if we bear in mind that orbam has been explained earlier in this passage by hominum interitu. In Rome, Philo was dead. In Athens, in 79 B.C., Charmadas had recently died. He was the last exponent, within the Academy itself, of the sceptical tradition to which Cicero remained faithful, and it is no accident that, on the ancient site of the school which is now no longer used by any Academic teacher, Cicero is reminded of him and appears to be hearing his voice — the last true voice of the sceptical Academy — still reverberating from his 'exhedra'.41 40

Madvig, Fin. pp. 6 1 0 - 1 1 (note on modo enim fuit Carneadis). It is true that in Tusc. 1,59, written more than thirty years after Charmadas' death, we find the words nuper Charmadas - but this is clearly to distinguish him from the people mentioned immediately before him, the last of whom, Cineas, had lived 200 years before Charmadas. Modo, with the vivid expressions that follow, can only refer to a recent loss - not to a man who was dead long before Cicero and his friends were born. Madvig makes little of the other three mentions of Charmadas in Cicero. But in the Tusc. passage he is described as endowed with singular powers of memory (= De Or. 11,360, not mentioned by Madvig); in Luc. 16 as a man of great eloquence, and in Or. 51 as the most faithful representative of Carneades' views. His great learning and practical wisdom are added to these qualities in Acad.Ind. XXXII,2-6. The last exponent of the views of the sceptical Academy in Athens was thus a man of outstanding and impressive personality, and Cicero's words in our passage of Fin. V would gain an added dimension if we took them to be a tribute to this last of the sceptics, only recently dead. Madvig finds it difficult t o believe that, where others have referred to Plato, Sophocles and Epicurus, Cicero would choose to name the obscure Charmadas rather than the more famous Carneades. But Cicero appears here as an exponent and patron of a school which has petered out. His mention of Charmadas would also constitute an appropriate sequel to Atticus' vivorum memini of the last paragraph. Atticus prefers to remember the living; Cicero prefers to remember a man who has just passed away, and who was the last exponent of the school whose patrocinium Cicero is undertaking here. 41 The Acad.Ind. XXXII,10, mentions ¿ξέδραν soon after reporting that Charmadas taught in the Ptolemaeum (if this is the right reading in lines 8 - 9 ) . Much of this, and the following lines, is hopelessly corrupt. Could this exhedra be the same as the one in the Academy mentioned by Cicero? On the exhedra in the Academy, see below, pp. 2 3 5 - 6 . If the use of this exhedra went together with the headship of the school, we can see why some of the

110

But in 79 B.C., Charmadas, like Philo, was dead. The Academy had been deserted for some time during Sulla's siege of Athens (Phit.Su/iz 12). Although the gymnasium was most probably once again in use, we are nowhere told that any Academic philosopher was carrying on any teaching activities in the area: Cicero would have been certain to report such a fact somewhere in the course of Fin. V. Antiochus had his school in a fashionable gymnasium in town, where Charmadas had taught before him, and he was popular. If there were still any pupils of Philo and Charmadas left in Athens, we hear nothing of them, and they seem to have constituted no danger to Antiochus* supremacy. Antiochus was, indeed, the undisputed head of his own Old Academy', the most influential school in Athens at the time. He claimed that his school, rather than the defunct — or, in the best case, moribund — sceptical Academy, was the true heir to the Platonic tradition. He was respected in Athens, and at some time was sent on an embassy to Rome (Acad.Ind. XXXIV,36-9), an honour allotted, before him, to the elected heads of the Stoic, Peripatetic and Academic schools in 155 B.C., including the great Carneades himself. As far as Antiochus was concerned, all this - rather than an official election to head a school which, to his mind, had abandoned the true spirit of Plato and his immediate successors — was all that mattered. 42 During Antiochus' lifetime, things seemed to go well. He had an attractive personality, was mild in his manner, eloquent, persuasive and intelligent,43 and even an Epicurean like Atticus is made by Cicero to confess that Antiochus' friendship had almost made him desert his own school and join the Old Academy'.44 Besides, there was no serious competition. We hear of no outstanding Stoic or Peripatetic teacher in Athens during Antiochus' heyday as head of his own Academy.45 As for a sceptical Academic - Cicero would later sources speak of 'the Fourth Academy of Philo and Charmadas' (see pp. 3 4 4 - 6 below). Did Charmadas hold the exhedra during Philo 's years in Rome as a 'caretaker successor', or as Philo's co-scholarch? We do not know. But from Cie. Luc. 17, it seems clear that he was never officially elected and never succeeded Philo. 42 I have not discussed here the evidence, such as it is, of Sextus, P.H. 1,235; Num.ap. Euseb. P.E. XIV.8,3 (Fr. 8 Leemans; 28 Des Places); Ps.-Galen, Hist.Philos. 3, p. 227 K. (Diels, Doxogr. p. 600). What they say of Antiochus applies only to that later invention, the 'Fifth Academy' - that is, to Antiochus' own school. On the 'Fifth Academy', see below, pp. 3 4 4 - 6 Augustine, C.Acad. 111,41 is more accurate: in Academiam veterem quasi vacuarti defensoribus et quasi nullo hoste securam velut adiutor et civis inrepserat. It is the Old Academy, deserted by now, that Antiochus invaded. By introducing into it Stoic ideas, continues Augustine, Platonis adyta violaret — not, of course, in the literal sense of the ancient site of the Academy with its shrine to the Muses - Antiochus never taught there, but the figurative 'holy of holies' - on which see below, pp. 312ff. 43 Plu t.Luc. 42,3; Cie. 4 , 1 - 2 ; Ci c.Brut. 315 ;Luc. 4; 11; Zee? 1,54. 44 Cic.Legg. 1,54. 45 On the contemporary Stoic Apollodorus, see Chapter 1, n. 19. On the Peripatetics after the Mithridatic Wars see Lynch pp. 2 0 1 - 7 . Cratippus arrived in Athens many years after Antiochus' death - see end of this chapter.

Ill

surely have advised the young Lucius to attend his lectures if such a man had been available. The only outstanding teachers of philosophy in Athens, apart from Antiochus, appear to have been Zeno and Phaedrus the Epicureans,46 and not everyone was willing to become an Epicurean. When Antiochus died, not long after the battle of Tigranocerta in 69 B.C.,47 his school was inherited by Aristus. Aristus, as Plutarch tells us {Brut. 2,2—3), was far from being a profound or an impressive philosopher, but he had a kind and gentle disposition and was adopted by Brutus as his 'camp-philosopher' in the East. We do not know how long Aristus held his school. In 45 B.C., when Brutus was once more in Athens, he attended the lectures of Cratippus the Peripatetic and Theomnestus the Academic (Plut.Brut. 24,1), and in the same year, Cicero sent his son Marcus to Athens to study with Cratippus only. 48 The last we hear of Aristus is that some time in 51 B.C., when Cicero was on his way home from his governorship of Cilicia, he stayed in his house in Athens and held a dispute with him on ethical problems (Cic.Tusc. V,21— 2',Att. V,10,5). The text of the relevant passage in Cicero's letter to Atticus is corrupt, but the words philosophia, sursum deorsum, and Aristum, apud quern eram are clearly there, and the clause begins with sed, a contrast to what preceded. It is obvious that Cicero was extremely pleased with his visit to Athens and with his reception there as imperator, but that he was worried about the state of philosophy there, and this anxiety had something to do with Aristus.49 What exactly happened to Aristus' school we do not know, but we have a few scattered hints in our sources. At some unknown date, Brutus made him his Greek φίλος και συμβιωτής.50 Aristus, we are told in the Acad.lnd. (XXXV,6) was ασχολούμενος, and his pressing engagements do not seem, from what we are told of his character, to be of a purely academic nature. It is quite probable 48

See n. 19 above. Acad.lnd. XXXlV,39ff.; Plut.lue. 28,8. See Luck p. 18. 48 See below, pp. 1 1 5 - 1 2 0 . 49 On the text of this passage see W. S. Watt, Mnemosyne 16, 1963, pp. 3 6 7 - 8 . Some form of this name Aristus, followed by apud quern eram, is warranted by Tusc. V,22, not cited by Watt. Victorius' 'si quid est, est in Aristo' is most unlikely: Cicero never praises Aristus as a great philosopher, and Plutarch expressly states that he was a rather insignificant one. 50 Plutarch, Brut. 2, says of Brutus ϋαυμάζων μεν Άντίοχον τον Άσκαλωι>ίτημ, φίλου Se και σνμβιωτην τον ίδίΧψον αύτοϋ ποιησάμεοος "Αριστον — as if this 'friendship' sprang up within the lifetime of Antiochus. But this is only another example of Plutarch's muddled chronology. Brutus was born no earlier than 85 B.C. - if we accept the MSS reading in Cic .Brut. 324 - and quite possibly as late as 78 B.C. - if we read there Nipperdey's emendation sedecim. For arguments in support of the later date, see A. E. Douglas (ed.), Cicero, Brutus, Oxford 1966, pp. 2 2 9 - 3 0 (note on sedecim). For other possible dates: M. Gelzer, RE 1 0 , 9 7 3 - 4 (Junius 53). Even the earlier dating would still make Brutus only sixteen on Antiochus' death. His 'friendship' with Aristus may have begun during some period of studies in Athens in the sixties, of which we are not told by the sources, or even as late as his first trip to the East in 58 B.C. 47

112

that he accompanied Bmtus to Cyprus in 58 and assisted him during his quaestorship in Cilicia in 53. He had many pupils, we are told (ibid. 4 - 7 ) , but we are only given three names (ibid. 7—10): Dio, Aristo and Cratippus — and we soon find out that something strange happened to each of them. We have already encountered Dio and Aristo in Alexandria. Dio, we have seen, 51 must have returned to his native Alexandria some time before 57 B.C. He thus leaves the Athenian stage some time before we last hear of Aristus himself. Aristo, like Dio, became a Peripatetic, and we have seen that he most probably returned to Alexandria in his old age. 52 We are left with Cratippus. We know a little more about this pupil of Aristus, and we shall presently return to him. Suffice it to say, for the moment, that he, too, became a Peripatetic like Dio and Aristo {Acad.Ind. XXXV, 10—16). Thus, of the three pupils of Aristus' school mentioned by name in the Index, not a single one remained in Athens as a member of the school. The Index breaks off after the story of Cratippus' and Aristo's defection to the Peripatos. The gap of some 15 lines (18—33, according to Mekler), may have contained the names of a few other pupils of Aristus: we simply do not know. When the text starts again, we hear of someone who 'was also a pupil of Metrodorus of Stratonicea.' We do not know who this person was. 5 3 But Metrodorus is, of course, the famous pupil of Carneades we have already met with more than once. Carneades retired as scholarch in 137 B.C., and Metrodorus, who had been his pupil and claimed to have understood him better than all his other pupils, must have been born some considerable time before 157 B.C. He must have been in his nineties when Aristus inherited the school in 69 B.C. — that is, if he was still alive. 54 His heyday as a teacher was around 110 B.C. (Cie. De Or. 1,45), and anyone who had been his pupil was unlikely, if only on chronological grounds, to become a pupil of Aristus as well. It is most likely that the lacuna in the middle of Col. XXXV of the Index contained no more names of famous pupils of Aristus, but dealt with pupils of the 'unofficial' Academic schools like those of Metrodorus.

See above, p. 96. See above, pp. 9 5 - 9 6 . 53 Acad.Ind. XXXV, 3 3 - 5 . Mekler, in his index, p. 124, assumes that this is Metrodorus of Pitane, and he is followed by Zeller ΙΙΙ,Ι, p. 543 η. 2, and Susemihl 1,133. But his name in line 33 is in the accusative. It is most likely that the man's name was mentioned in the lacuna just before line 33, in the nominative, and that his relation to Metrodorus that of a teacher or a pupil - was explained there. 54 Metrodorus had been a member of the Epicurean school before he joined the Academy under Carneades (Diog. Laert. X,9; Acad.Ind. XXIV,9ff.). He claimed that he was the only pupil of Carneades who understood him rightly, and that all the others misunderstood him (Acad.Ind. XXVI,8ff.), and he could hardly have said that if he had only been his pupil for a brief period before his retirement. He must have been, at least, in his middle twenties in 137 B.C., and the date of his birth is quite likely to have been some time in the sixties of the second century. 51 Λ

8

Glucker ( H y p . 5 6 )

113

This suspicion is somewhat confirmed when we read on. The story of the mysterious student of Metrodorus is followed by the words: Χαρμάδου δ ( έ . . κ)αί των πλανωμέ(νων πά)νπολλοι φα{ίνονταχ) άκουσταί (jeyo)vevai, and the rest of the column seems to be dedicated to pupils of Charmadas. The next column speaks mainly of a certain Apollonius, pupil of Carneades and Metrodorus of Cyzicus, a pupil of Metrodorus of Stratonicea (11.5-12). It appears that here we have a list of those pupils of Carneades who held their own schools in Athens, and perhaps not only in Athens. We cannot tell who oi πλανώμβνοι are. We have a compound of this verb, -nepm\avàaûai, attested of Persaeus the Stoic (Stoic.IndXIII,5). This is often interpreted in some sense like 'being led astray from the school' - and it does follow on the words χωρισϋήναι Ζήνωνος (ibid. 2—3). But Persaeus' separation from Zeno was simple and physical; it occurred at the instigation of Zeno himself (Diog.Laert. VII,6ff.) and was occasioned by no 'doctrinal' differences. The verb may well merely refer to the wanderings of Persaeus in Antigonus' train. s s A similarly physical meaning may be given to our participle πλανώμενοι, — those pupils of the Academy who, literally and physically, left the school premises and 'translated themselves' elsewhere as teachers in their own right. This would apply to Charmadas, who had left for Asia and had taught in the Ptolemaeum {Acad.Ind. XXXI,33ff.) as well as teaching at some stage in the Academy (CicDe Or. I,45); 56 to Metrodorus of Stratonicea, who probably never taught at the Academy itself, since his interpretation of Carneades' views was somewhat heretical, 57 but who certainly taught and had pupils in Athens {Acad.Ind. XXXV, 3 4 - 5 ; XXXVI,8-10; Cic.De Or. 1,45); and to the orator Metrodorus of Scepsis, an Academic, whom Crassus heard in Asia in 110 B.C. (Cie..De Or. III,75). S8 Be that as it may, the list of Aristus' pupils as we have it contains three names. None of them remained in the school. We are not told who — if anyone — succeeded Aristus, but the title has been claimed for the mysterious Theomnestus the Academic, whom Brutus heard in Athens in 44 B.C. (Plut.Brut. 24,1). He has even been identified with Theomnestus of the Egyptian Naucratis, mentioned once by Philostratus ( V.S. 1,6, p. 486), who describes him as a philosopher but says nothing of his affiliations to any of the schools, or indeed of any connection with Athens. 59 We have no evidence that this Theomnestus — the one whom Brutus heard — was a

" Traversa, Stoic.Ind. XIII,5, translates 'et una se conferre', but I cannot see how this could give any sense of περιπλανάσόαί. LSJ (περιπλανάομαι 2) seem to take it in the metaphorical sense of 'being in a state of uncertainty'. But it could well refer to his Corinthian adventure - SVF 1,442-446. This is the only 'wandering' of Persaeus we hear of, but life in the 'court' of Antigonus Gonatas was hardly a sedentary affair. 54 See above, pp. 1 0 9 - 1 1 1 . 57 See above, pp. 1 0 7 - 1 0 8 . 58 Zeller ΙΙΙ,Ι, p. 545 η. 2. 59 Zumpt p. 69; Zeller ΙΙΙ,Ι, p. 630 η. 4.

114

scholarch, even of Antiochus' and Aristus' school. We have already seen that one was not required to be elected as a scholarch in order to give courses in philosophy. But it is, perhaps, more significant that Brutus heard also the lectures of Cratippus the Peripatetic, and that only a year earlier, when Cicero sent his son to Athens, he sent him to study under Cratippus, not under Theomnestus. If Antiochus were alive, Cicero would certainly have sent young Marcus to him. Even when Aristus was alive, it was in his house in Athens that Cicero stayed on his way home from Cilicia. But now he was sending his son to study with a man who had defected from Aristus' school, while another philosopher who called himself an Academic — and who was now a friend of Brutus, who had known Aristus — was still available. Cicero may have done this partly because of his friendship with Cratippus and his obvious admiration for Cratippus' learning. He calls him ( O f f . 1,2) princeps huius aetatis philosophorum. And after all, despite his friendship with Antiochus and Aristus, Cicero never fully committed himself to their philosophy. 60 But it is most unlikely that, had Theomnestus been the official head of a school which called itself the Academy — even if only the 'Old Academy' of Antiochus — Cicero would not have encouraged his son, if only out of loyalty to an old teacher, to attend his lectures as well. We hear no such exhortations in the dedicatory prooemium to Book I of Cicero's De Officiis, and Theomnestus is never once mentioned in Cicero's writings. One of the episodes related of Cratippus may help us venture a guess as to what may have happened to the school about this time. Some time during Caesar's dictatorship, we are told by Plutarch (Cie. 24), Cicero persuaded Caesar to grant Cratippus Roman citizenship. He also persuaded the Areopagus to issue a psephisma, whose words are thus summed up by Plutarch (ibid.): ψηφίσασόαι και δεη&ηναι μένεα> αυτόν έν Άάήναις και διαλέγεσύαι τοϊς νέοις ώς κοσμούντα την πάλιν. Some time earlier — not before 69 B.C., when Aristus 'inherited' the school — Cratippus was one of his pupils. At some unspecified date, he became a Peripatetic. When Cicero was in Ephesus in July 51, on his way to his province, Cratippus came to greet him from Mytilene (Cic.7Ym. 1), and two years later, in 49, Pompey met him still there (Plut.Pomp. 75). A year later, when M. Marcellus escaped to Mytilene after the battle of Pharsalus, Cratippus was still there, and Marcellus was taught by him (Cie.Brut. 250). Four years later, we find Cicero obtaining for him both Roman citizenship and a special invitation from the Areopagus, to make it quite certain that he could stay in Athens. No doubt, Cicero did it because of his friendship with Cratippus, his admiration for his philosophy, and his love of Athens. But all these facts seem also to indicate that Cratippus may not have left for Mytilene entirely of his own free will, and that permission for him to stay in Athens, even as late as 44 B.C., was still a matter of some delicacy which required some energetic 60 A discussion of Cicero's philosophical affiliations must be postponed to the philosophical sequel to this book.

115

handling. The words SiaXéyeaôai τοις νέοις have an all too familiar ring about them. Why was it so difficult for 'the greatest philosopher of his age' to settle in Athens without Roman patronage and special legislation? One possible explanation — it is, of course, only an attractive hypothesis — is that Cratippus had been driven out of Athens by philosophical opponents, who had slandered him to the authorities ώ ς διαφΰείροντα τους νέους. The most obvious opponents would naturally be members of his own former school of which he became a deserter — the Old Academy' of Aristus, where, as we have seen, things were not going well by 50 B.C. It is more than likely that, on leaving that school, Cratippus drew away with him some of its members, and that he became more successful as a free-lance Peripatetic teacher (we have no evidence that he ever became the head of the Peripatetic school) 61 than his former teacher and present rival Aristus. That Cratippus was willing to return to Athens and teach there cannot be doubted. When permission was given and the invitation issued, he returned at once. Cratippus was not the only member of the school who defected from it. We have already seen that Aristo of Alexandria, a pupil of Antiochus and Aristus, also became a Peripatetic, and it has been suggested that Heraclitus of Tyre, a former pupil of Clitomachus and Philo, may have defected to Pyrrhonism. 62 Another likely deserter — although, as we shall see presently, somewhat earlier in date — was Aenesidemus. Our sources give us no incontrovertible evidence as to the date of Aenesidemus, but it is almost universally accepted today that he lived about the middle of the first century B.C., and that the Lucius Tubero to whom he dedicated his Pyrrhonian books (Photius Cod. 212, p. 169b) is Cicero's contemporary and friend L. Aelius Tubero. 63 Zeller's attempt to date him in the second century A.D. has been refuted more than once. 64 One of the most compelling philo61

Zumpt p. 95 makes him the head of the Peripatetic school in succession to Andronicus. The Acad.Ind. was not yet available when Zumpt wrote, and he assumed that Cratippus was a Mytilenean who taught in his native city before he came to Athens as scholarch. But none of our sources ever identifies him as the head of a school (Cic.Tim. 1 is no exception; facile princeps has no technical connotations there). It would be strange if the elected head of a school had to obtain permission to live in Athens. See Lynch pp. 2 0 4 - 5 . " See n. 38 above. 63 The latest discussion known to me: J. M. Rist, 'The Heraclitism of Aenesidemus', Phoenix 24, 1970, pp. 309-319, esp. pp. 310-11. Most of the modern discussions of Aenesidemus are listed in the various footnotes to Rist's article, and in Fraser II, p. 712, n. 123. 64 Zeller 111,2, pp. 1 4 - 1 6 ; Brochard pp. 2 4 4 - 6 ; Rist op.cit. last note. H. v. Arnim, Quellenstudien zu Philo von Alexandria II: Philo und Aenesidem, Berlin 1888, tried to detect echoes of Aenesidemus in some of the writings of Philo. For the latest discussion of this issue, see Fraser, p. 713 n. 125. S. Sepp, Pyrrhoneische Studien, Freising 1893, pp. 1 3 3 141, believes that even Cicero made use of some of Aenesidemus' writings - but see on this A. Schmekel, 'Aenesidem und Cicero', Festgabe für F. Susemihl, Leipzig 1898, pp.

116

sophical arguments for the earlier dating was advanced by Brochard: 65 from Photius' description of Aenesidemus' arguments against the Academy, the general impression one gets is that he is criticizing a school which is nominally sceptical, attempting to show that in its practice it is a dogmatic school and hardly differs from the Stoics. 66 Since Philo was the last of the sceptical Academics, Aenesidemus must have been writing while Philo's position was still officially that of the school as a whole. 6 7 He could not have written much 3 2 - 4 5 . Zeller (III,2, p. 16 η. 3) objects that Cicero claims in a number of places that the Pyrrhonian philosophy is extinct. His first three references - Fin. 11,35; 43; V,23 are irrelevant: they come from the Carneadea divisto, and merely state, as Cicero explains in Fin. V,23, that Pyrrho's view of the Highest Good was excluded from this divisio by its first premises. So is O f f . 1,6, not mentioned by Zeller, which repeats the same information, probably from the same source. The other passage, De Or. 111,62, does constitute a more serious objection. Rist, p. 311, suggests 'that Aenesidemus, who lived in Alexandria was not known to Cicero, even though he was his contemporary.' But Tubero, to whom Aenesidemus dedicated his book, was a friend of Cicero. Praechter p. 582 follows other scholars in suggesting that the book must have been written after Cicero's death. If, as we have shown, the Fin. passages do not necessarily imply that Pyrrhonism in general is now extinct as a philosophy, all one would have to assume is that when Cicero wrote his De Oratore in 55 B.C., he did not yet know of Aenesidemus and his pupils. But if, as we shall soon see, Aenesidemus' book was written in Philo's lifetime, we must assume either that, despite his friendship with Tubero, Cicero never saw the book - or perhaps that he did not wish to report its contents in any of his works, perhaps because they constituted an attack on Philo - see our discussion of the 'suppression' passage in Augustine, pp. 8 4 - 8 8 above. 65

Brochard pp. 2 4 5 - 6 . This point is entirely missed by Zeller 111,2, p. 13 n. 1; Susemihl II, p. 341 n. 496; Goedeckemeyer p. 211 n. 1. Aenesidemus tries to demonstrate that the Academy is dogmatic and Stoic precisely because his contemporary Academics maintain that they are neither dogmatic nor Stoic. 67 See Hirzel III, p. 230, for additional arguments in favour of a Philonian date. The passage in Photius 170a, άρετήν re καί άφροσύνην elaàyovai ... μόνης της καταληκτικής φαντασίας, could apply to the school of Carneades even before Philo. They too accepted various positive views and definitions, provided that they were taken as probabilia (Sextus, P.H. 1,226; Cic.Luc. 43). But this would be too early a date, and the last sentence of Photius' passage is very reminiscent of Sextus, P.H. 1,235, as Hirzel has pointed out. P. Schwenke, reviewing Hirzel III in Philol. Rundschau IV, 1884, 8 7 6 - 7 , objects that, at 66

the time of the Sosus affair, Tubero was in his twenties, but that he is described by Photius - who is most likely to be summing up the dedication of the original work - as πολιτικός αρχάς où τάς τυχούσας μβτιόντι. It is true that this is a more suitable description of his later career (Cie. Quint.Fr. 1,1,10). But μετώντι cannot refer to the past, and it can be used in a future sense: 'destined for a distinguished cursus honorum'. This is how it is translated by R. Henry (ed. and transi.), Photius, Bibliothèque tome III, Collection Byzantine, Paris 1962, p. 119. It is true that μέτβιμι with acc. in a Roman political context can mean 'canvass for an office, Lat. 'ambire', as LSJ s.v. lie (quoting Plut.PuW. 11, p. 109E and Cie. I, p. 861 B). But Photius' source speaks of πολιτικός ίιρχάς in the plural, and is therefore most likely to refer to the whole future prospect of a cursus honorum. In the sentence of Photius just following the passage we have quoted, Hirzel suggests to emend κοινώς ύπάρχαν καταληπτά to κοινώς ύπάρχαν ακατάληπτα. But this would make 117

earlier than Philo, for it would have been impossible for him to dedicate the book to Tubero. He could not have written at the time of Antiochus or Aristus, for then he would not have been able to claim that his contemporary Academics reject the Stoic criterion. To these considerations of Brochard, we could add another argument, anticipating some of our conclusions in the following chapters.68 After the age of Philo and Antiochus, one no longer hears of a living school of philosophy called the Academy or of contemporary philosophers described as Academics. Aenesidemus does speak of such a school and of such philosophers in terms which clearly refer to a living, active society. He could not do this much later than the middle of the first century ß.C. 69 Why did Aenesidemus leave the Academy to become a stricter Pyrrhonian sceptic? His Pyrrhonian books were addressed to a contemporary fellow-student of the Academy, L. Tubero (Photius ibid.), and the first of these eight books, the one which discusses the views of the contemporary Academics in some detail (ibid. p. 170a—b), may well have constituted Aenesidemus' 'apologia pro vita sua'. Writing as a deserter from the Academy for the doctrines of Pyrrho, Aenesidemus justifies himself by showing that the Academy had allowed its original scepticism to go into abeyance and that, by now, it has reached the stage in which it hardly differs from the Stoics. Far from attempting to return to the purer scepticism of an Arcesilaus or a Carneades,70 Aenesidemus most probably came to realize what modern scholarship had not quite grasped before Couissin pointed in out: 71 that the sceptical Academy had always moved within the orbit of Stoicism, and that even Arcesilaus and his pupils — not to speak of Carneades — had taken much of their vocabulary and of the philosophical materials they dealt with 'de Stoicorum cineribus'.72 Philo, with his theoretical surrender to dogmatism, as long as this did not entail an acceptance of the Stoic criterion, was the direct and legitimate result of the latent Stoicism of the nonsense of the argument from änapαλλαξία, which is what Photius proceeds to refute. The third hand in the MS A of Photius adds in the margin και μη ύπ&ρχειν, sensing the difficulty. I propose: κοινώς μβν υπάρχβιν καταληπτά, Ιδίως 6' έκαστα άκατάληπτα. This would account for all the details of the refutation which follows, largely of the same nature as Antiochus' argument in Cic.Luc. 111. Both the Academics' position and its refutation, as presented by Photius, could have applied at the time of Carneades and his school, if it were not for the word καταληπτά. This would suggest that Aenesidemus' book was written after the publication of Philo's Roman books, but before it became widely known that, with Philo's death, the Academy was virtually extinct. 68 See below, pp. 2 0 6 - 2 2 5 . 69 If Pappenheim's conjecture (see n. 38 above) that Aenesidemus' teacher of Pyrrhonism in Alexandria was Heraclitus of Tyre were more than a mere probability, this would establish his date even more firmly. As things stand, it is the other arguments for the date of Aenesidemus which might lend some credence to Pappenheim's hypothesis. ,0 As maintained by Dal Pra p. 279. 11 Couissin, Stoicisme, esp. pp. 2 4 1 - 2 , where Couissin uses Aenesidemus' statement as his starting-point. 72 But see our reservations, Chapter 1 n. 78.

118

Academy in the earlier generations. Antiochus, we can add, merely closed the circle by turning from an anti-Stoicism to a sort of Stoicism. Brought up in the school when it had still professed a strict scepticism — most probably in Philo's earlier, Clitomachean stage —73 Aenesidemus saw this scepticism being gradually eroded, and the school becoming more and more Stoic. Antiochus' activities, even before Philo's exile and the Alexandrian episode, may well have strengthened him in his resolve to leave the sinking ship and to adopt a purer and more consistent form of scepticism. 74 One can only guess what was the motive behind the later desertion, by Aristo and Cratippus, of Aristus' Academy for the doctrines of the Peripatos. But their desertion has one feature in common with that of Aenesidemus. Aenesidemus had left a school which, in its epistemology, claimed to be sceptical, but was not, as he found out, sceptical enough. He left it because he claimed that too much Stoicism was allowed to contaminate the original scepticism of the school. Aristo and Cratippus left a school which maintained that, in moral philosophy, it followed the early Academy and the Peripatos (claiming that these were in essence one and the same school), but which, in practice, introduced more than a few Stoic elements into its teachings, even in moral philosophy. Aenesidemus preferred the sceptical tendency of the school in which he had been brought up, and adopted a philosophy which was more consistently sceptical. Could it be that Aristo and Cratippus preferred the O l d Academic' elements in the system of Antiochus, and that they left a school which intermingled such elements with Stoic doctrines for a philosophy which was more faithful to the historic 73 As we have shown, he wrote his Pyrrhonian books, with their criticisms of the sceptical Academy, while Philo's school still existed - at least nominally - but before Philo's death. He must have been a pupil there a good many years earlier, during Philo's stricter period - on which see above, pp. 75ff. If Pappenheim 's theory is right, he may have left for Alexandria together with Heraclitus, perhaps at the same time when Philo left for Rome, and for similar reasons. 74 I have not touched here on the problem of the Heracliteanism of Aenesidemus. The older positions taken by P. Natorp, 'Untersuchungen Uber die Skepsis im Altertum', RhM 38, 1883, pp. 2 8 - 9 1 , esp. p. 63ff., and Praechter p. 582ff., that Aenesidemus' Heracliteanism involved him in no concessions to dogmatism, are supported in a modified form by G. Capone Braga, 'L'eraclitismo di Enesidemo', Riv.di Filos. 22, 1931, pp. 3 3 - 4 7 (with extensive references to modern studies). J. M. Rist, op.cit. n. 63 above, attempts to revert to the older view of Saisset that Aenesidemus' Heraclitean stage came between his Academic and his Pyrrhonian periods. But Sextus' statement (P.H. 1,210) could hardly bear this interpretation. Sextus states that the school of Aenesidemus maintain that scepticism leads to Heracliteanism. Sextus speaks of ή σκεπτικ-η ά γ ω γ ή as leading to the philosophy of Heraclitus, and to Sextus (cf. P.H. 1,7 et al.), this phrase means Pyrrhonian scepticism. Rist's philosophical arguments are extremely attractive, and demonstrate the similarity between the views of Aenesidemus and those of the Roman Philo. Could it be that in his Pyrrhonian books, written, as we have shown, when Philo's Roman books were already known, Aenesidemus reacted against Philo, but that, as time went on, he adopted his own interpretation of Heraclitus, partly under the influence of Philo's new insight?

119

Old Academy? In both cases, this would be a revolt against the growing Stoicization of the school and a reversal to an older and purer tradition. Such a return to a more authentic ancient position — rather than the synthetic antiquity of Antiochus' system — was more in line with the new and emerging trends in the philosophy of the early Empire. Be that as it may, by 44 B.C., we have seen that the Academy had become a shadow of its former self. Philo had left no successor, and thus there was now, to the best of our knowledge, no official successor of Plato. Aristus may have left Theomnestus as his very own, and strictly private, successor, although our sources do not say even that. But when Cicero sends his son to Athens, it is to the renegade O l d Academic' Cratippus, whom he himself had helped to return to Athens, that he sends him. In the whole of the dedicatory prooemium to his De Officiis, Cicero never says a word about any contemporary Academic. The only Academic antidote he can offer the young Marcus ( O f f 1,2) is a recommendation to read his father's philosophical works, written in Rome and in Latin by a Roman statesman and orator, who has never held an official position in any of the Athenian philosophical schools.

120

CHAPTER 3

The Successors

It is a well-known fact (or, at least, it deserves to be well-known), that between Theomnestus' lectures attended by Brutus in 44 B.C. (?\ul.Brut. 24,1) and Ammonius the teacher of Plutarch, some hundred years later, we meet with no philosopher living in Athens and described in our sources as an 'Academic' or a 'Platonist'. It is, perhaps, less well known — to the best of my knowledge, it has not been noticed so far — that Theomnestus is the last philosopher living and teaching in Athens who is described by any of our sources as an Academic. 1 K. G. Z u m p t , whose name has appeared and will continue to appear frequently on these pages, and whose extremely influential and pioneering work on the unbroken continuity of the Athenian schools will be discussed later, 2 acknowledges the first and better-known of these facts: 'Mit Theomnestos hört die Reihenfolge Akademiker Philosophen auf, insoweit sie sich aus den Erwähnungen der uns erhaltenen Autoren herstellen läßt.' But he hastens to add: 'Ich zweifle nicht daß die Schule fortdauerte.' 3 Zumpt himself can find no mention of any scholarch of the Academy between Theomnestus (who, as we have already seen, is nowhere described as scholarch) and Ammonius the teacher of Plutarch, whose claim to that title will be discussed presently. Zeller acknowledges this gap in our ancient evidence, but attempts to bridge it with the names of 'other Academics of the age of Augustus and Tiberius'. 4 His list includes Eudorus of Alexandria, Nestor of Tarsus, L. Aelius Tubero, Dercyllides and Thrasyllus. None of these, it is understood, can be regarded as scholarch of the Academy of Athens — least of all the Roman Tubero. Zeller's main aim, I take it, (apart from the mere recording of the names of ancient students of philosophy), is to show that all these men can be presumed to be Academics in the technical sense of this word — that is, students of the Academy of Athens and that we can conclude from this list that the school continued to exist well into the age of Tiberius, thus narrowing the gap by some forty years. 1

On the 'Academicism' of Plutarch, Favorinus and theii circle, see below, pp. 2 5 6 - 2 9 5 . None of them is an exception, since none ever taught philosophy in Athens. Nor is Ammonius ever called an Academic, as we shall presently see. 2 See below, pp. 2 0 6 - 2 2 5 . 3 Zumpt p. 69. 4 Zeller ΙΙΙ,Ι, p. 6 3 2 η. 2; p. 6 3 3 η. 4 .

121

The only way we can test this hypothesis (which Zeller, taking Zumpt's theory for granted, does not, of course, treat as a mere hypothesis) is by checking the credentials of each of these philosophers as provided by our sources. Eudorus of Alexandria is called 'Ακαδημαϊκός φιλόσοφος by Stobaeus (11,46, p. 42,7 Wachsmuth). His exact dates are not given by any of our sources, but he is generally assumed to have flourished between the middle and the third quarter of the first century B.C.5 Even if Strabo's description of Eudorus as a contemporary author (790) does mean that he knew him during his stay in Alexandria in and after 24 B.C.,6 this need not imply that, at that date, Eudorus had just returned from his studies in the Academy. If, as a young man, he had studied under Aristus in Athens in the fifties, he would be only in his late forties or fifties by 24 B.C. All that the title 'Academic philosopher' implies is 'a philosopher who has studied at the Academy' - and who, presumably, used this epithet as something similar to our M. A. (Oxon.) or Ph. D. (Lond.) What else could it imply? Surely not a scholarch of the Academy or a head of his own school in Alexandria — we have no evidence, and no reason to believe, that Eudorus was ever either of these things. The epithet 'philosopher' need not mean more here than 'an author of philosophical works' (which Eudorus was), and it often means just that. 7 Nestor of Tarsus is called by Strabo (675) 'Ακαδημαϊκός. Strabo also tells us that he was the teacher of Marcellus, Augustus' nephew, who died in 23 B.C. at the age of nineteen. Nestor, as we are also told by Strabo, became head of the government of his native Tarsus, and carried on his duties for the rest of his life (διετέλεσε) with distinction. This must have happened after his return from Rome. 8 We hear of no philosophical activities on his part after what must 5

This was deduced by Brandis from references to him in relation to Andronicus of Rhodes in Simplicius' commentary on the Categories. See Zeller ΙΙΙ,Ι, p. 633 η. 3; Fraser II, p. 708 η. 97. 6 But see Fraser I, p. 489; II p. 708 n. 96. ' E.g. Plutarch, Rom. 12, p. 24a (of Varrò); Cie.Fem. IX,26,1; (of Dio of Alexandria, author of a book of 'table-talk': Plut.Quaest.Conv. 612E - but who did not, as far as we know, teach philosophy); IG 14,1149,1 (of another Dio - of Ephesus?) 8 He succeeded Athenodorus, the son of Sandon, to the government of Tarsus (Strabo 675). Athenodorus, who had been Augustus' tutor, returned to Tarsus and took up the government of his native city with Augustus* support (Strabo 674; Dio Chrys. 33,48; Plut. Apophth.August. 7,207C). Nestor must have succeeded him as house-tutor - this time to the young Marcellus - before he succeeded him to the government of Tarsus, when Athenodorus died at the age of 82 (Ps.-Lucian, Macrob. 21,223). Strabo's expression διετέλεσε seems to indicate that he never returned to Rome, but died in office. Ps.-Lucian must be right in making the Stoic Nestor of Tarsus (Strabo 674) Tiberius' tutor, pace Bowersock, Augustus p. 34 n. 5; A. Modrze, RE 17,124 (Nestor 5). Zellcr 111,1, p. 591n., thinks that Nestor the Stoic was a pupil of Panaetius or of Diogenes of Seleucia. But Strabo p. 674 may well mention him before the two Athenodori not foi reasons of chronology, but because he tells their stories at greater length, and he continues naturally with

122

have been a short term as tutor to Marcellus - if, indeed, it was philosophy that he taught him. Nestor was most probably just another 'graduate' of the Academy like Eudorus, and like him, he was most likely to have attended the school, and acquired his title, during Aristus' last years as scholarch of the O l d Academy'. 9 L. Aelius Tubero is almost certainly the friend of Cicero and Aenesidemus. He was Aenesidemus' fellow-student at the Academy, and his date depends on that of the former. We have shown that Aenesidemus could not have flourished later than the second half of the first century B.C. Zeller's invention of a grandson of the same name is now generally rejected. We have seen that Aenesidemus was, most probably, a pupil of Philo of Larissa. 10 Tubero would be, in that case, another pupil of Philo, and his title to the epithet 'Academic' cannot be contested. Dercyllides was probably a contemporary of Varrò, and his division of the Platonic dialogues probably preceded the better known one of Thrasyllus, a contemporary of Tiberius. 11 I do not know of any source which calls him an Academic or a Platonist, nor is there any evidence that he ever lived in Athens. He wrote a work in eleven books at least on Plato's philosophy, but all we know of it is that in Book XI he quoted Hermodorus' interpretation of Plato's concept of matter (Simpl./w Phys. pp. 247, 31 ff.; 256,31ff. Diels). This large work on Plato may, for all we know, have also contained his division of the dialogues. All these indications constitute no evidence for any connection with the Academy: their 'setting in life' is far more likely to have been the Museum of Alexandria, the Attalids' Library in Pergamum, or another philological foundation of the same nature. Thrasyllus was, perhaps, a native of Rhodes, where he met the Emperor Tiberius, became his personal astrologer, and remained with him for the rest of his life. He is famous for his division of the Platonic dialogues into tetralogies, which has come down to us in the MS tradition. He was equally — if not more Nestor the Academic who succeeded Athenodorus. The so-called Epitoma Biogenis - on which sec below, pp. 349ff. - need not be referring to Nestor of Tarsus, or be strictly chronological, or either. ' On this Nestor, see A. Modrze, RE 17,124 (Nestor 4). Both Nestor and Eudorus could, of course, have studied under Antiochus. In that case, they would have been in their sixties in the twenties. That they are called 'Academics' and not Old Academics' is immaterial. Whatever the validity of the title, Antiochus called his school 'Academy', and it was a respectable enough title to be used by 'graduates' of his school without quibbling over qualifying epithets or the legitimacy of the title. They could also have studied in the forties under Theomnestus, who called himself an Academic and taught in Athens. Even that would suffice to 'qualify' a pupil as 'an Academic philosopher' for external consumption in Alexandria or Mytilene. A valid degree certificate or an official quotation in the University Gazette would hardly be required. 10 See above, pp. 1 1 6 - 1 1 9 . 11 Zeller ΙΙΙ,Ι, p. 632 η. 2; W. Kroll, RE 5, p. 242 (Derkyìlides 2); Susemihl II, p. 292

123

— famous in antiquity as a polymath and astronomer.12 The scholiast on Juvenal VI,576, tells us: Thrasyllus multarum artium scientiam professas postremo se dédit Platonicae sectae ac deinde Mathesi, qua praecipue viguit apud Tiberium. But we have no evidence that he ever was in Athens, and none of our sources ever relates him to the Academy or calls him an Academic. The phrase Platonica secta is a false alarm. We shall see in the next chapter that it does not imply in any way membership of the Academy or of any philosophical school.13 We are thus left with three attested Academics, none of whom could be adduced as evidence for the existence of the school much later than the middle of the first century B.C.; and with two Platonists (in our sense of 'Platonic scholars') who flourished under Augustus and Tiberius, but who, to the best of our knowledge, had no relation whatsoever to the Academy, or even to Athens. The gap between Theomnestus and Ammonius has not been bridged. We can now proceed to the age of Nero and to our next pretender to the scholarchate. Plutarch's teacher Ammonius 14 appears to answer to all the necessary qualifications. He is a teacher of philosophy, residing in Athens, where he is held in great honour and is three times elected strategus, and where his descendants continue to live and to play an active part in civic affairs. His philosophy, as we gather from his speeches in some of Plutarch's dialogues, is essentially eclectic. 15 But to judge by his influence on Plutarch, whose chief, or only, philosophical tutor he was, he must have been essentially a follower of Plato in what is nowadays usually called a Middle-Platonist fashion. Plutarch (Quom.Adul. 70E) calls him ó ημέτερος κα&ττγητής, which is more often than not translated as 'our professor'. Plutarch himself, it is generally taken for granted, studied philosophy at the Academy. If only by combining all this information, the case for Ammonius seems to be as compelling as one could hope for in the state n. 288 (who admits that we do not know whether he was taught by Antiochus); Praechter p. 530. 12 Zeller ibid., Susemihl ibid, and notes 2 8 9 - 9 0 ; W. Gundel, RE 2 R. 6, pp. 5 8 1 - 4 (:Thrasyllus 7); PIR\ 137. 13 See below, pp. 193-206. 14 Jones, Ammonius, esp. p. 212, n. 3. 15 In De E Delph., he refers with approval to Heraclitus (392Bff.), but soon changes to more Platonic notes (392Eff.). In De Def.Orac., he approves, with qualifications, of a view of Theophrastus (420C). In Quaest.Conv. VII,720D-E, he refers with approval to an 'Aristotelian' view (Probi. 903B) on the carrying of the voice, and quotes Empedocles, and in the sequel (722Bff.) he warns against too facile triumphs over Democritus and Anaxagoras. In Book X, he quotes Xenophanes (746B). The dialogues, of course, are not verbatim reports or documentaries. But Ammonius' portrayal is convincing. He is urbane, witty and somewhat patronizing to his young friends, but always endearingly so. Whatever his views on a philosophical issue, he is never a fanatic. His conversation contains more literary, historical and mythological allusions than philosophical arguments proper, but this is probably dictated by the dramatic setting and the topics expounded. He is, however, noticeably absent from Plutarch's more strictly philosophical works.

124

of our evidence. He has therefore been universally acclaimed as scholarch of the Academy ever since Zumpt, if not before, 16 and von Arnim, in what is perhaps not his most fortunate contribution to Pauly's Realencyclopädie, can even assure us that he died as head of the Academy. 17 But all that the latest — and by far the most competent — study of Ammonius' life and career can tell us on this point is that 'the philosopher Ammonius . . . arrived from Egypt in Athens and gathered about him a group of pupils socially respectable', and that 'there is no evidence that he became scholarch of the Academy'. 1 8 Professor Jones does not discuss in his study the circumstantial evidence from Plutarch's alleged membership of the Academy, and we shall deal with the problem of Plutarch's relation to the Academy in a later chapter. 19 But even assuming for the moment that Plutarch did, at some stage, become a member of a school of philosophy at the Academy, it should still be most instructive to examine the manner in which Ammonius is introduced in Plutarch's dialogues and the expressions used to describe him. In Quom.Adul. 70E, we are told an anecdote of an afternoon lecture or seminar by Ammonius, where he perceives 'some of his circle of friends' (των 'γνωρίμων τινάς) nodding to sleep after a heavy lunch. We are not told where this happened, nor is it clear whether there were any others present except Ammonius' γνώριμοι. He is the chief speaker in De E Delph., the others being mostly younger men and probably his pupils. 20 This time, we have the dramatic date of the dialogue — Nero's visit to Greece in A.D. 66/7 (385B), but not its setting. He is again a speaker in De Def.Or., the dramatic date of which is presumed to be somewhat later. 21 Again, we are not told where the dialogue takes place. But since Ammonius is introduced as 'Ammonius the philosopher, who was also present' (410F), it is not likely to be on his territory. He is one of the speakers in Quaest.Conv. 111,1—2 (645Dff.), at a party given in Athens by his friend Erato the musician to celebrate his sacrifice to the Muses. Again, no venue is mentioned — Erato's house is the most likely setting. In Book VII,3 (720Cff.), Plutarch and some of his friends are dining with Ammonius at Ammonius' house. The whole of Book IX (736Cff.) records the conversation at a party in Ammonius' house when he was strategus. 16

Jones, Ammonius p. 213 n. 35 refers only to P. Graindor's Athènes de Tibère à Trajan and to v. Arnim's RE entry (see next note). One can add Zumpt p. 69; p. 117; Zeller 111,1, p. 832 n. 1; Praechter p. 665 (both more cautious); Ziegler pp. 1 5 - 1 8 (= RE pp. 6 5 1 - 4 ) ; R. H. Barrow, Plutarch and his Times, London 1967, p. 16; F. H. Sandbach (ed.), Plutarch, Moralia vol. IX Loeb p. 215. P. Merlan, CHLGP p. 58, doubts if he ever was scholarch, apparently because he was an Egyptian. 17 H. v. Arnim, RE I, p. 1862 ( A m m o n i u s 12), probably deducing this from the statement of Eunapius p. 454, that Ammonius died at Athens. 18 Jones, Ammonius p. 211; p. 213 n. 35. lv See below,pp. 2 5 6 - 2 8 0 . 20 Jones, Ammonius p. 205. 21 Jones, Ammonius p. 206 and p. 212, n. 5.

125

He had just watched a demonstration in the Diogeneion by ephebes who were studying literature, geometry, rhetoric and music, and had invited all the 'successful teachers', many other 'men of letters' (φιλόλογοι) and his circle of friends to his house. This takes place 'during the festival of the Muses' (èi> τοίς Μουσβίοις); and since no such public festival is known to us, it has been conjectured by the latest editor that 'the reference must be to some private celebration in the Academy, which was formally an association for their worship.' 22 It is, however, significant that not a single mention of the Academy is made throughout this book. Ammonius spends his day at the famous ephebic college, the Diogeneion, examining the ephebes. 23 His guests at a dinner in his own house are teachers of that school, literary men and his own pupils, described as συνήϋεις rather than as μα&ηταί or άκουσταt. The Academy is strangely absent from all these transactions, and if one can venture a guess, the 'festival of the Muses' may well have more to do with Ammonius' civic position as strategus, which is mentioned (736D) virtually as the reason for his visit to the school, and the literary and educational activities of the Athenian youth teachers and men of letters at large, than with the Academy. It may well have been an ephebic festival, when the ephebes or their teachers made a demonstration of the more 'liberal' aspects of their education and sacrificed to the Muses. It is significant that the only other sacrifice to the Muses mentioned by Plutarch is, as we have just seen, performed by Erato, a musician, who celebrates it most probably at his home. We are not told anywhere that Ammonius, too, ever sacrificed to the Muses: he may have done so as strategus 'in the festival of the Muses'. Nor are we told that any such sacrifice took place in the Academy. The Academy is just as significantly absent from the epithets used by Plutarch to describe Ammonius as it is from his descriptions of Ammonius' activities. Plutarch can, when he wishes, describe a contemporary as a Peripatetic (741 A; 745C), a Stoic (626E; 710B), or an Epicurean (635A; 673C), and he can speak of Epicurean friends (674A) and of contemporary self-styled philosophers who are Epicureans and Stoics (532B). It is all the more significant that, never in his writings, do we find Ammonius described as an Academic or as a Platonic philosopher. He is twice called ó φιλόσοφος (410F; Themist. 32,4, p. 128E), and at the end of Book IX of the Quaest.Conv., where he has been the heart and soul of a dinner party set in his house during the 'festival of the Muses', he is 'the good Ammonius' (παρ' 'Αμμωνίω τω áyadcú: 748D). Although Plu-

" F. Η. Sandbach, op.cit. η. 16 above, p. 218 η. a. J. H. Oliver, 'The ΜΟΤΣΕΙΟΝ in late Attic Inscriptions', Hesperia 3, 1934, pp. 1 9 1 - 6 , esp. p. 193, takes èv τοις Μουσεώις in 737D (and, by implication, 736C) to apply to 'universities', but quotes no ancient source in support of this interpretation. One notes that the ephebes in this context had been studying letters, geometry, rhetoric, music - but not philosophy. The Muses were not only - indeed, not chiefly - concerned with philosophy. 23 On the Diogeneion, see pp. 2 7 3 - 4 below.

126

tarch calls him 'our teacher' (κα&ιγγητής: 70E), Plutarch and his fellow-pupils of Ammonius are described merely as γνώριμοι (ibid.) or συνήθεις (736D). Talking of his fellow-student Themistocles, a descendant of the great Themistocles, Plutarch describes him significantly enough as ημέτερος συνήόης και φίλος -παρ' 'Αμμωνίφ τω φιλοσοφώ "γενόμενος (Plut. Themis t. ibid.). The technical terminology of an established school with its name, locality, scholarchs and students is entirely absent from all these descriptions. The word κα&φ/ητής, I fear, has been chiefly responsible for the optical illusion from which we have suffered for so long, and despite all these clues. In present-day Greek, this word is the equivalent of the Continental 'Professor', the title bestowed on a teacher of some distinction — usually the head of a department or an institute — in an established school, college or university. It is all too often taken for granted that this must have been its meaning in antiquity as well. Many scholars, I suspect, have been consciously or subconsciously helped to this exalted notion of the ancient καότγγητής by the fact that this noun is applied to no less a person than Jesus of Nazareth in the one and only place where the word appears in the New Testament: Matthew 23,1ο. 24 This may, perhaps, have also been one of the causes for the enhanced prestige of καθηγητής in the modern language. But in ancient Greek, the word καΰτηητής invariably means 'a personal teacher' — even on the rare occasions where it is applied to someone who, in practice, also happens to be a public teacher or even a scholarch. 25 More often than not, it means very strictly 'a private tutor', with no official standing whatsoever. The word is post-classical. The earliest datable author who uses it - or rather the verb καϋτγγούμαι in this sense — is, as far as I can find out, Strabo. But a 24 A. Carr, St. Matthew, Cambridge Greek Testament, Cambridge 1901, p. 259, more carefully quotes ancient evidence before mentioning the Modern Greek sense - although his two ancient sources happen (?) to occur in honourable contexts. On this passage of Matthew, see Excursus 3. 25 The only clear early example I know of is Dion.Halic.Thuc. 3,4: 'Αριστοτέλης re yàp ούχ άπαντα κατά τό κράτιστον ΐίρησόαχ veíOeTox τ ψ καόηγητή ΠλάτωιΊ, where Plato is described as Aristotle's own tutor, not just the head of a school, for the sake of the emphasis required in this particular context. Diog.Laert. 1,13 has Πυϋα·γάρου i'e Φιρίκύδης κα&τγγήσατο and Θαλής . . . κα&ηγήσατο Άναξψάνδρου - but in both cases the masterpupil relationship is personal, not institutional: Pherecydes and Thaïes were no heads of schools. The verb διακούω of Anaximander, here and in 1,122, and r/Kouae of Pythagoras are merely trite technical terms, and mean no more than 'was a pupil o f . In 1,22, the MSS reading της Ιωνικής φιλοσοφίας, ής καύηγήσατο Θαλής, makes no sense. One should read either ην είσηγήσατο (cf. Diog.Laert. 1,14; Ps.-Galen, Hist.Philos. 3; Diels, Doxogr. p. 598,18 and 599,1), or, more probably, ής κατήρξατο (cf. Diog.Laert. 11,144; IV,28; 59; VI,14; IX,71 et al.). Simplicius' description of Anaximander as Thaïes' διάδοχος κ al μαθητής (In Phys., CAG 9, p. 24,14; Diels, Doxogr. p. 476,4) is already a later amplification, in later terms, of this earlier piece of information. Diels does not, of course, print these words as part of the original text of Theophrastus.

127

number of parallel passages in Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Plutarch and a pseudo-Plutarchean work suggest that both the verb καύτγγούμαι and the noun καϋηγητής may well have begun to acquire the connotations of personal and private teaching not much later than the end of the fourth century B.C. The entries for καϋιγγούμαι and καϋ-ηγητής in most of our dictionaries do no justice to what appears to be an important technical term in Hellenistic-Roman education. Since the precise status of men like Ammonius happens to be of some importance to our argument, I shall make no excuses for offering a fuller discussion. Strabo uses the verb κ α0 ηγούμαι of Athenodorus the son of Sandon, who taught Augustus (674), and of Nestor of Tarsus, whom we have already met as Marcellus' teacher (675) — in both cases clearly in the sense of 'private tutoring', not public or institutional courses. The pseudo-Plutarchean Life of Isaeus (839F) says of him: καόηγήοατο Αημοσâéuei,

άποστάς

της σχολής,

έττί δραχμαίς

μυρίαις.

δέ

This obviously means

that he left the school of Isocrates, to which he belonged, to become a private tutor to Demosthenes at a lucrative fee. Similar expressions, ό καάηγούμ€ΐ>ος Αημοσάένους

a n d κα&ηγήσατο

δ έ Αημοσθένεί,

a p p e a r in D i o n . H a l . I s a e u s 1,

which presents us merely with a slightly different version of the same source utilized by the author of the pseudo-Plutarchean Life. Plutarch himself describes Aristotle as Alexander's καύηγητής {Fort.Alex. 327E) — and once more, we find Dionysius (Amm. 5) speaking of the same Aristotle as καύηγούμενος 'Αλεξάνδρου. These parallel passages appear to indicate that both authors are drawing, in each case, on an early source (most probably not all that much later than Demosthenes and Aristotle themselves), in which the verb καάηγοϋμαι — if not also the noun κα&ηγητής — was already employed to depict the teaching activities of a private tutor. Plutarch tells us (Cie. 26,874B) of Metellus Nepos burying his καθηγητής Philagrus — once more, not a public professor but his own private tutor — most probably a house-tutor. 26 If we wish to find out more clearly what κα&ηγητής meant for Plutarch, we should look at some passages where the context makes this word somewhat more concrete. Alexander, we are told in his Life (Alex. V,667A), had many people in charge of his upbringing; they were called τραφείς και παιδαγωγοί και διδάσκαλοι. At 26 This custom of providing a burial for one's καΛιγητής is attested in two Imperial Greek inscriptions from Italy and Gaul. IG 14,1751, found in Rome: Τι. Κλαυδύν Άλκιμω ίατρω Καίσαρος έποίηαε 'Ρεατιτούτα πάτρωνι καϊ κα&η-γτίτχι άγαθφ κ al άξιψ. e fr) (τη πβ'. IG 14,2454, found in Marseilles: Τίτος Πομπήϊος Άπολλονίδης Τιτψ Φλαουίψ Νεικοστράτω τω καόιγγητχι μνήμης χάριν. This custom should confirm the impression that, in Rome, a καθηγητής was a member of the familia, a household tutor, like Diodotus in Cicero's house and T. Pomponius Dionysius in Atticus' house. In Greece, as we shall presently see, the καϋηγητής was usually far more independent.

128

the head of t h e m all stood his austere relative Leonidas, ' w h o did not disdain the reputable name of παιδαγωγός, b u t was called b y the others, on account of his status and his family relationship, τροφβυς και καάηγητής.' This was when Alexander was t o o young to have a proper teaching t u t o r like Aristotle (ibid. VII) - the παιδαγωγός, an a t t e n d a n t w h o is m o r e o f t e n than not a slave, comes before the proper teachers (De Lib.Educ. 4,A—C). Leonidas did the work of such an a t t e n d a n t , but since he was far f r o m being a slave — he was a relative of the Queen — he was given the h o n o r a r y title of ' t u t o r ' o u t of courtesy. If we are still in d o u b t , we should turn t o Prof. Virt. 8 5 D . A young m a n , at the early stages of his progress towards virtue, has b e c o m e a respectable householder, husband and father. He invites his respectable (καλοί κάγαϋοι) friends to show o f f t o them (έγκαΧλωπίσασόω.) and to parade before t h e m his house, his table, his wife, his children, his interests, his conversation and his writings. In the process, he becomes pained to recall his dead father and κα&ηγητής, w h o can n o longer observe him in his present state of incipient bliss. He wishes he could pray to the gods for their speedy resurrection (a favour, alas, not generally granted to mortals in Plutarch's time), so that they, t o o , might b e c o m e spectators of his progress in virtue. The c o n t e x t , surely, is social and domestic. The καϋηγητής is not an austere professor, whose lectures in the A c a d e m y or the P t o l e m a e u m our y o u n g m a n , one amongst h u n d r e d s of such 'auditors', a t t e n d e d . He is clearly part of the domestic scene. Most probably, he is the private t u t o r hired for him b y his father, and through whose e f f o r t s he has become, not a doctor of philosophy or a m e m b e r of a great philosophical school, b u t a respected and prosperous m e m b e r of the social élite. A confirmation of this sense of κα&ηγητής comes f r o m three Egyptian papyri, ranging f r o m the first t o the second or third centuries A.D. POxy 9 3 0 , dated second or third century A.D., 2 7 is described b y the editors as 'an interesting letter f r o m a m o t h e r to her son, whose teacher (καύηγητής) has just left h i m , and w h o is now in charge of his παιδαγωγός. T h e writer with evident anxiety urges him t o find another teacher.' The b o y is away f r o m h o m e , probably in Alexandria, under the guardianship of his παιδαγωγός. His m o t h e r has heard f r o m the daughter of his last καϋηγητής, Diogenes, that her father h a d sailed away (lines 3—8). She h a d formerly inquired what her son had been reading and was told it was το ζήτα — most probably of the Iliad, since n o f u r t h e r specification is given. It is clear that this καθηγητής is n o professor of philoso p h y — indeed, n o professor at all. He is a private tutor, attached to n o institution, w h o can leave t o w n and sail away in the midst of teaching his pupil some H o m e r . The Homeric text taught t o this pupil is n o t unlike the Homeric syllabus which Aristotle taught Alexander when h e was his tutor. The b o y is clearly quite young, if he is still doing his H o m e r and still needs a παιδαγωγός with him. His m o t h e r can write — presumably to the καθηγητής himself

" POxy vol. VI, cd. Grenfell and Hunt, Oxford 1908, pp. 295-6. 9

G l u c k « (Hyp. 56)

129

— to demand a report on her son's progress. When the καϋττγητής has left town, his daughter feels obliged to answer the mother's letter - presumably addressed to her father. We clearly have to do with a strictly private teacher, paid for by the boy's family. The boy is now asked by his mother to attach himself (παραβάλλει^) to another suitable καΛ?γητής (lines 18—21). If we are still in doubt, we should glance at our next document — Pap.Giessen 80. 28 It is part of the correspondence of Apollonius, an Egyptian Greek general taking part in Hadrian's campaign against some Jewish insurrections in Egypt, and his family and friends. Our papyrus is mutilated, and we do not know its author or its recipient; but from the allusions in it, it is clear that they could not be Apollonius himself or his wife Aline. Be that as it may, the recipient is asked to send any pigeons or chickens, which he himself is not accustomed to eating, to the καϋττγητής of Heraidus, Apollonius' favourite daughter, and to send any food the author himself has not eaten in his house to the καθηγητής of the author's own daughter, ϊνα φιλοπονήση eïç αυτήν. Heraidus, we are told in another papyrus of the same collection, goes to school, 29 away from home. 3 0 She is described as ή μεικρά Ήραϊδούς, and what she requires is a βυβλιον εις άναγινώσκew,31 and it has been rightly suggested that she is most likely to be attending a private school in the house of her κα&ττγητής .32 Once again, we are clearly dealing not with professors or heads of official institutions, but with private tutors, teaching for a fee, who have to be bribed with food presents (food may be somewhat scarce at a time when a whole army has to be kept on the move) in order to give value for money. Our third papyrus confirms these impressions. POxy 2190, dating from the late first century A.D., 33 is a letter written by Nilus(?) to his father Theon, probably from Alexandria, where the writer and young Diogas (perhaps his brother) are studying. The writer has been searching for Φιλόλογοι' και Χαιρήμονα

τον καϋ[τγγητην

και Αίδ]υμον

τον τού 'Αριστοκλέους

nap' οίς [έλπίς

ήν κ ai έμ]έ τι κατοράώσαι - but has not found any of them in town (lines 6—10). The expressions are typical. The purpose of this particular — and most 28

Griechische Papyri im Museum des oberhessischen Geschichtsvereins in Gießen, 1,3, 1912, No. 80, pp. 7 2 - 4 , ed. Kornemann. An excellent discussion of this, and some related papyri: Claire Préaux, 'Lettres privées grecques d'Êgypte relatives à l'éducation', Rev.Belge 8 ; 1929, pp. 757-800. The Gießen papyri are discussed on pp. 7 7 2 - 8 0 , and POxy 930 on pp. 780-785. All these κα&ηγητής papyri are listed and briefly discussed by M.-H. Ibrahim, Ή ελληνορωμαϊκή παιδεία èv Α1-γύπτιψ ... κατά τούς παπύρους, Diss. Athens 1971, Athens, Myrtidi, 1972, pp. 2 6 1 - 2 6 3 and notes 4, p. 261 and 4, p. 263. Ibrahim discusses only the papyrological sources. Préaux refers to modern studies as well. Neither of them goes beyond the papyri to the epigraphic and literary evidence. " Pap. Giessen 1,3, No. 85, lines 12-14. 30 Ibid. No. 77, line 3 and editor's comments. 31 Ibid. No. 85, lines 10; 14-15. 32 M.-H. Ibrahim, op.cit. n. 28 above, p. 261 n. 4. 33 POxy vol. XVIII, ed. Grenfell and Hunt, Oxford 1941, No. 2190, pp. 145-149.

130

probably quite expensive - private education is success in life. 34 The καϋιγγητής, like the ones we have met with in the other papyri, is not the head of an established institution, but a free-lance teacher who can leave town whenever he feels like it. Of one of these teachers, Didymus, the writer tells us that he has his own σχολή (line 21), and that before he came to town, èm της χώρας καϋτγγείτο - he was a country tutor (line 29). The writer complains of the uselessness of these teachers, especially Didymus, and of 'throwing away large sums of money on a tutor who is good-for-nothing' (μάτην μισΰούς

πλείονας

τελειν

α π ό κα{Ηγγητοϋ

ούδεν όφελος

— lines 3 0 — 3 1 ) . H e h a s

been searching for a more competent tutor (δεξιώτερον κα&ηγητήν), but has found none since the death of Philologus (lines 2 3 - 5 ) . At the moment, he is awaiting his father's advice (line 32). He has been on his own (lines 3 1 - 2 ) , and has not attached himself (παρέβαλλον, line 25 - see editors' note on 23) to any tutor, and he is attending the courses of public lecturers (των έπώει.κνυμένων), especially those of Posidonius, and hopes to make some progress this way (lines 34—6). Once more, it is clear that the καύτπηταΐ mentioned in this letter are no heads or functionaries of any established educational institutions. They are not even public lecturers like oi έπώεικνύμενοι, but private tutors, to whom one pays high fees for the privilege of studying with them. We are not told in this letter what sort of instruction the writer seeks from them, 3 5 but the style and manner of the letter betray a mature and intelligent young man, living on his own in the great city, old enough to look after Diogas and to criticize the various teachers available to him. Whether he is at the stage of what we would call secondary or higher education cannot be determined. But we have already seen that a καϋηγητής can function on various levels, from teaching a small girl to read to teaching Homer to an older boy, or teaching rhetoric to a young aspirant to political and forensic glory. The one distinguishing mark of the καθηγητής is that he is a private tutor, attached to no official or permanent establishment, and usually teaching for a fee. There is no a-priori reason why we should not come across philosophical καϋτυηταί — and, indeed, we do meet with such persons. An important Herculaneum papyrus published by W. Crönert contains large sections of a life of the second century B.C. Epicurean and friend of Antiochus Epiphanes, Philonides. 36 In Col. 33, lines 6—10, we read: δτι ήχαρίστησεν 34

See the remaiks of C. Préaux, op.cit. n. 28 above, pp. 7 8 8 - 9 . M.-H. Ibrahim, op.cit. p. 261 n. 4 states - but without any evidence or argument that this letter refers to teachers in higher education. 16 W. Crönert, 'Der Epikureer Philonides', Sìtz.Berlin 1900, pp. 9 4 9 - 9 5 2 . Our passage: p. 954. On Philonides see R. Philippson, RE 20,1, pp. 6 3 - 7 3 (Philonides 5). He studied in his native Laodicea and in various places in Asia Minor. Philippson's suggestion, p. 65, that the rivalry with Artemon occurred in Caunus is based on his own rather forced restoration of our passage. The honorary inscriptions from Athens and Delphi (p. 64) include Philonides' sons: they cannot refer to his youth. They are, in any case, no proof 35

131

Άρτέμωνι τώ καϋψ/ητή κα(ί) σ(υι>εσ)τήσατο — (έν αυτή τή) πόλ(ει σχολήν έ)πί κ(α)ταλν(σει τον) καύτγγητού. This takes place not in Athens, but in Seleucid Syria or Asia Minor. The two Epicurean καθηγηταί are obviously freelance teachers of philosophy, and Philonides is setting up his own private school, in competition with the no less private school of his old tutor. Within the Epicurean school itself, we find Philodemns employing the words καϋτπητής (Περί παρρησίας 31,11 ; 45,5; 52,6-7; 80,2-3; Vila,2; XXa,3-4; De Ira XIX, 14), κ α λ ο ύ μ ε ν ο ς (Περί παρρ. 39,2-3; 42,5; 46,3-4; 70,4; 75, 3 - 4 ; 76,1-2; 85,7) and various forms of Ka&q-yeiadai (ibid. Va,9-10; V b , l - 2 ) for teachers connected with the school. It has been rightly observed by Norman De Witt that these various epithets apply to teachers in charge of small groups.37 Philodemus in one place (Περί παρρ. VII,1-3) lists καόηγητής together with πρεσβύτερος and -πατήρ: this should suggest that the κα&ιγγηταί in such contexts are just as much private teachers as they are elsewhere — perhaps under some form of supervision from the school. In the same contexts, we also find συνήθεις (Περί παρρ. 42,1-2; 52,11-12; 54,10-11; Crönert, Kolotes u. Menedemus p. 82, VII, line 19) - the term we have found in Plutarch for students of the καϋιγγητής Ammonius. There is no need to take them (as De Witt has done) to be 'ranking members of the group'. 38 They are merely the private 'tutorial students' of the καϋιγγητής. The Epicurean καϋιγγητής is a private teacher, whether in Athens and in the vicinity of the school, or in Syria, teaching in the privacy of his own school. We have already met in a previous chapter with such a καύη-γητής — and a contemporary of Philodemus — in the person of Atticus' friend and teacher Phaedrus.39 We have seen that there is no evidence that Phaedrus was ever elected to be the Epicurean scholarch. The Roman pupil who dedicated the statue of Phaedrus describes him merely as his κα&ηη/ητής-40 of residence in Athens or studies there. The Artemon episode certainly took place in the East. 37 Ν. E. De Witt, Organization and Procedure in Epicurean Groups', Cl.Phil. 32, 1936, pp. 2 0 5 - 1 1 , esp. p. 206. 38 Ibid. p. 208. 39 See above, p. 103 n. 19. 40 Crönert, Kolotes p. 83, Col. Villa 1 and 7, has κα&ττγονμενοι as 'leaders of the school'. A later and far more complex term - used, as far as I can discover, mostly by NeoPlatonic authors - is κα&η·γημών. It is applied invariably to someone who is in practice a founder or a leader of a school or sect, but not strictly in that sense. Anon.Proleg. VII, p. 202 Hermann, 15 Westerink, lists Orpheus, Homer, Musaeus and Hesiod as καϋηΎημόνες of the ποιητική αϊρεσις - the 'founding fathers' (corresponding to προκατάρξας of the next sentence) of the 'poetic school of thought'. Proclus, Theol.Plat. 1,1, p. 6 line 18 Saffrey-Westerink, speaks of Plotinus and his pupils as being similar in their natures τω σφετέρω καΟη-γΐμόνι — that is, Plato. In his Commentary on Plato's Republic (vol. II, p. 64, lines 6 - 7 Kroll), he calls Plutarch of Athens ό καάηγεμώι» ημών re καΙ τώιι ημετέρων διδασκάλων. Photius (Cod. 181, p. 127a2-3) says of Damascius: της re φιλοσόφου óeiopiac o re Ζηνόδοτος αύτφ κα&ηγημών Άϋήνηαι καΙ αυτός èyeyòvei. His source is Damascius himself. In these last contexts, the καδττγημών, although in practice 132

We meet with κα&τγγηταί in other areas of higher education as well. In a Trajanic or Hadrianic inscription, OGIS 408, lines 5 - 6 , we have a Julia Pasiclea, της Π ton του ρήτορος τ(ον) Άχαρίοτον και9ηγητοϋ. 41 We also encounter a number of medical κα&η^ηταί. Oribasius tells us of Marcus the καθηγητής, and Philumenus remarks in one of his discussions: ò 6è καθηγητής èvepyéarepov ποιών καί σκόροδα aweXéaweν — clearly a medical instructor demonstrating to his pupils a more effective cure. 42 These examples should suffice to show that private tutors, κα&η^ηταί, were an extremely common species of teachers in the Hellenistic-Roman world. The term is already in use as early as the second century B.C. - if not a century earlier - and by the time of Cicero, it has become a common and accepted phenomenon in places as far apart as Egypt and Italy. We are reminded of Cratippus, the Peripatetic teacher whom Cicero helped to return to Athens. Cratippus taught Marcus Cicero the Younger and his friends as his convictores (Cie.Fam. XVI,21,5) — that is, συνήϋβις — and from the young Marcus' letters, we can see that he was very much of a private tutor to the sons of the rich. He was — in deed, if not in name — already a κα&τγγητής. Ammonius, as all our evidence indicates, was just another such κα&τγγητής — and in name as well. His wealthy pupils were his owrjiîeiç, living on terms of personal familiarity with him. As tutor to the sons of the rich, he became a respectable and respected member of society and an Athenian citizen, and honours were heaped on him. For a foreigner wishing to gain his entry into Athenian life, this was probably a far more practical, lucrative and honourable way of fulfilling his ambition than being scholarch of the Academy — that is, if the Academy was still extant at the time as a philosophical school. Ammonius most probably started on his career as a private tutor as soon as he arrived in Athens. Whatever philosophy he knew he had already learnt in Egypt. In Alexandria, the writings of the 'classical' philosophers were readily available to all interested, and they were not required to matriculate at a philosophical school in order to be initiated into the mysteries. Thus, when Plutarch speaks of Ammonius and of his fellow-pupils under Ammonius, he is using well-defined terms which clearly refer to private education. 4 3 the head or founder of a school, is also someone's καθτγγημών. The word probably shares the meanings of καδηγούμενος as 'leader' and καθηγητής as 'tutor'. 'Master', perhaps, would come near enough to rendering b o t h senses. But I can find no such ambiguities where the noun καϋη·γητήαοι, the 'Chrysippeans', and also attended Peripatetic and Epicurean lectures, although at the end he preferred Pythagoreanism, despite the incompetence of his Pythagorean teacher. Epistle 42 ascribed to Apollonius is addressed in our MSS to Πλατωνικούς, who are unfavourably compared with Apollonius in respect of their

57

PIR'

counts Alexander Peloplaton as No. 365, and Alexander the Platonist o f Marcus

Aurelius 1,1,12 as N o . 364. PIR2

has only Alexander Peloplaton, N o . 503, and no refer-

ence to the passage o f Marcus Aurelius. Zeller pp. 8 3 2 - 3 η. 1 assumes that it is the same person. Since Alexander became Marcus' companion on his Pannonian campaign and his Greek secretary (Philostr. V.S. p. 571), this is a likely conjecture. 58

References to his life and activities: Zeller 111,2, p. 219 n. 1; W. Kroll-Η. Hobein,

RE 14,2555-2562 (Maximus 37); PIR1, 59

322.

The scanty evidence for his date and life is collected, with references to recent studies,

in Des Places' edition, pp. 7 - 8 . Testimonia for his life: Leemans' edition, pp. 1 1 - 1 6 ; 85-88. 60

Frs. 1 - 8 Leemans; 2 4 - 2 8 Des Places.

61

Zeller 111,2, p. 241 n. 5; p. 242 n. 1; K. Praechter, RE 11, pp. 1 9 7 8 - 8 2 .

137

practice of claiming financial reward for their philosophy.62 The context of most of these letters is Asian, and the Πλατωνικοί in the title of this particular letter (if that title is genuine) are most likely to belong to the same milieu. In the long description of Apollonius' visit to Athens (ibid. IV,17-22), the only philosophers mentioned are the crowd of students of philosophy on their way to Phalerum on a hot summer day (ibid. 17). Fact and fiction are notoriously intermingled in Philostratus' Life of Apollonius. The story of Apollonius' 'respectable' education in the four classical sects of philosophy may well be a commonplace embellishment, and may well tell us more about the age of Philostratus than that of Apollonius. As for Letter 42, there is nothing in its contents to suggest Platonists rather than any other teachers of philosophy, even if the letter is early and genuine. Be that as it may, Apollonius' Platonists, like all others of that description we have met with in the East, show no connection with a school at Athens. We meet with another anonymous Platonist in the East in the early second century in Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho (2, p. 219C). In his search for a satisfying truth, Justin had studied philosophy with a Stoic (218E219A) and a Peripatetic (219A—C), and became disappointed with both. Then he met with 'a new arrival in our city' (either Justin's birthplace, Flavia Neapolis in Palestine, or his place of residence at the dramatic date of the dialogue, Ephesus)63, avverà) άνδρι και προϋχοντι èv τοίς Πλατωνικοϊς, who taught him 'the whole of Plato's philosophy' in a very short time. Again, we are not told the provenance of this man, who is described in the most neutral terms — virtually just as an 'expert on Plato's philosophy'. No mention is made of any connection with Athens, the Academy or any philosophical school. To sum up. The second century A.D. sees a flowering of Platonic studies in Asia Minor and Syria. We meet with a number of men called in our sources Πλατωνικοί 64 , some of whom are active teaching Platonic philosophy and writ" The Πλατωνικοί appear only in the title of the letter, and may well be a later addition, even if one were to assume that the 'letter' was likely to be a genuine 'Iogion' of Apollonius. 63 J. C. T. Otto in his commentary on this passage (S. Justini Philosophi et Martyris Opera 1,2, Jena 1848, p. 9) leaves the issue open. J. C. M. van Winden, An Early Christian Philosopher, Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, chs. 1-9, Introd., text and comm., Leiden 1971, p. 49ff. does not touch on this matter. Lynch p. 171 n. 10 takes it for granted that Justin 'studied with representatives of the four sects at Ephesus.' But no clear evidence exists even on the place of Justin's conversion to Christianity. On Justin see J. Lietzmann, RE 10, pp. 1332-1337 (Justinus 1 );PIR\ 580. 64 I have omitted from my list Daphnus the doctor of Ephesus, one of Athenacus' deipnosophists. All that Athenaeus (I,IE) says of him is that he was των 'Ακαδημαϊκών λόίων ού τταρερ7ως άπτόμευος - 'no amateur in grasp of the doctrines of the Academy', as the Loeb translation has it. On the few occasions he speaks (51 A - B ; 79 A - E ; 116Fff.; 120Bff.; 276 D - Ε ; perhaps 277Eff. - see Loeb text, vol. 3, p. 247 n.e; 355Aff.), his subjects are food,

138

ing works on Plato. Of none of them are we told that he studied in Athens or had any connection whatsoever with an Athenian philosophical school. We return to Athens with Apuleius, who had some of his early education in that city. First impressions appear to be promising. He calls himself a Platonicus philosophus (Apol. 10,407); describes himself as belonging to a Platonica secta (ibid. 22,242) or familia (64,536); speaks of his relation to Platonica scola (ibid. 39,483); calls Socrates maior meus {Fl. 2,1); and even tells us that he had been 'adopted into Plato's name by his teachers' and learnt both to speak fluently and to keep his peace when necessary meditationibus academicis (ibid. 15,60—61). Here we have, then, someone who had joined the Academy of Athens and acquired his title of Platonicus by rightful membership of an institution founded by Plato — or so it appears. But Apuleius is extremely reticent when it comes to his actual period of studies in Athens. In the Apology, where one would expect any such formal studies in Plato's own school to be bandied about with Apuleius' customary bravado, we hear of his period in Athens only once, and only incidentally, when he speaks of Pontianus, whose acquaintance he had first made in Athens througji common friends (72,546). Not a word is said about studies in the Academy or 'the Platonic school'. Something equally strange happens in the Florida. However much Apuleius can boast, in other contexts, of his membership of a Platonic secta, scola or familia, he becomes rather oblique when he touches on his years in Athens. Addressing the people of Carthage {Fl. 18,86), he says: et pueritia apud vos et magistri et secta, licet Athenis Atticis confirmata, tarnen hic inchoata est. In the same chapter (18,92), he mentions once more quendam ex his, qui mihi Athenis condidicerunt. A few pages later (20,97-8), he mentions his education in Athens again. It was an education worthy of the future votary of all nine Muses: ego et alias creteras Athenis bibi: poeticae comptam, geometriae limpidam, musicae dulcem, dialecticae austerulam, iam vero universae philosophiae inexplebilem scilicet et nectaream. He is clearly not being all that laconic, but again, not a single word is said of the Academy or the Platonic school, unless the names of Plato, Socrates and Xenocrates(?) 6s which follow should be taken to indicate such a coneating habits and medicine, and the few pieces of information on the Academy we find in Athenaeus occur in other people's speeches. Zeller III,1 p. 833n. takes him to be a historical person - and, of course, a member of the Academy. Kaibel in the preface to his Teubner text, vol. I, Leipzig 1887, p. VI, suggests that Daphnus of Ephesus and Rufinus of Nicea stand for the famous contemporary physician Rufus of Ephesus - on whom see Gossen, RE 2R I, pp. 1207-12 ( R u f u s 18). " Xenocrates satiras is the reading of all MSS. Casaubon emends to Xenophanes. We do not know from any other source that Xenocrates wrote anything which could count as satires. But a scribe was not very likely to substitute the virtually unknown name of Xenocrates even for an equally obscure name like that of Xenophanes. Rohde's Crates is palaeographically more likely, but would still not explain such a coincidence. Apuleius may have heard some apocryphal (or genuine?) tradition which has not reached us.

139

nection. But these men are listed here merely as authors excelling in one kind of literary production or another, and they appear in the company of Empedocles, Epicharmus and Xenophon. These few oblique passages are the sum total of the references made by Apuleius to his studies in Athens - unless we take the first few sentences of the Metamorphoses to allude to Apuleius himself as well as to his hero Lucius.66 Why such reticence? The little we know of Apuleius' early life is based on the combination of allusions made in his later writings with any firm historical data known from other sources.67 It is generally taken for granted, following Rohde's arguments,68 that Apuleius' longa peregrinatio et diutina studia (Apol. 23,443) are a reference to his time in Athens, and that he spent five years there, some time around the middle of the century. This he may have done, although longa peregrinatio may well refer to the whole of his Wanderjahre. We have seen that, during his period at Athens, he devoted himself to a very wide curriculum of studies (Fl. 20,97), and he himself admits (ibid. 98) that, even in his maturar years, he was dedicated to all these multifarious pursuits maiore scilicet volúntate quam facúltate. His Platonic studies could not have occupied too much of his time in Athens. It has been argued with much plausibility by Rohde that the Metamorphoses is Apuleius' earliest work, published in Rome, and Rohde has rightly pointed out that his later philosophical interests are conspicuous in their absence from this earlier work. 69 Rohde explains this on the assumption that during his Roman period, fresh from his years in Athens, Apuleius' philosophical interests, which were to flourish in his later years, had not yet been sufficiently aroused. This, of course, is not to deny Apuleius' own statement (Fl. 18,86) that he had already been initiated into what was to remain his philosophical secta before he left for Athens. The picture which emerges seems more complicated than that. During his early studies in Carthage, Apuleius joined a Platonic school there (Fl. 18,86). It was there that he was

64

On this point see Rohde, op.cit. n. 67 below, p. 53ff. This is not the view of many scholars - see discussion and literature in P. G. Walsh's article cited n. 69 below. Even if that were the case, this would only confirm what we already know, that Apuleius studied in Athens. 67 E. Rohde, 'Zu Apuleius', RhM 40, 1885, pp. 6 6 - 9 5 (= his Kleine Schriften, J. C. B. Mohi 1901, vol. II, pp. 4 3 - 7 4 ) ; L. von Schwabe, RE 2 , 2 4 5 - 2 5 8 (Apuleius 9): H. E. Butler and A. S. Owen, Apulei Apologia, Oxford 1914, pp. VII-XIX. 68

E. Rohde, op.cit. p. 74ff. (= Kl.Schr. p. 5Iff.). Ibid. p. 86ff. (= Kl.Schr. p. 64ff.). Rohde's dating is by no means universally accepted, but I find most of his arguments, especially the philosophical one, extremely convincing. For the latest discussion of this issue, with references to recent literature, see P. G. Walsh, 'Lucius Madaurensis', Phoenix 22, 1968, pp. 1 4 3 - 1 5 7 . Walsh suggests that the last book was added, as a piece of anti-Christian writing, by the older Apuleius to the rest of the book, written in his younger days. His arguments are extremely ingenious and attractive; but could his theory explain why, if Book XI is late, there is still no hint in it of Apuleius' philosophical interests, of which he makes such a display in his other African books? 69

140

'adopted into Plato's name' by his magistri (ibid. 15,60; cf. 18,86: et magistri vos et secta), and the meditationes Academícete of the same passage are not 'courses of lectures in the Academy', but merely an expression, in Apuleius' florid language, for 'Platonic studies' he pursued while still in Carthage, under those Platonist teachers. By being 'adopted' into a Platonic school, in Carthage, he could call himself a member of a Platonica familia (Apol. 64,536), qui se Platonicae sectae meminerit (ibid. 39,483). 70 This latter phrase is significant. Apuleius does not call himself a member of Plato's school: he merely relates himself to the tradition of Plato and his school; as others relate themselves to the philosophy of the Cynics (ibid.), in the tradition founded by Diogenes and Antisthenes {Apol. 22,442). In an important passage, which is possibly based on some statement of Apuleius himself, Augustine (Civ. 8,12) speaks of the Platonists of his own and recent generations as philosophi nobilissimi, quibus Plato sectandus placuit, and mentions Apuleius among them. 71 The precise meaning of such expressions, and of this passage of Augustine, will become clearer in the next chapter. They do not refer to membership of an organized school going back to Plato.72 I suggest that, in his Carthaginian period, Apuleius became a member of a local Platonic school. During his Athenian period, he probably studied some philosophy among the many other subjects that occupied his attention — including his own Platonic secta into which he had been initiated while still in Carthage, but which was Athenis Atticis confirmata (Fl. 18,86). But in the years that followed, other interests were foremost in his mind. It was only in his maturer years that philosophy became more prominent among his literary activities, and his affiliations were determined, as a matter of course, by the Platonism of his first Carthaginian teachers, who had initiated him into philosophy. If he had been a member of Plato's own school in Athens, he would have mentioned it more than once in works otherwise so full of self-glorification as the Apology and the Florida, where he is often all too eager to point out his Platonic ancestry as a philosopher. If he never alludes to membership of a Platonic school in his references to his years at Athens, this is surely because, during his Athenian period, he was never a member of such a school. His Attic magistri of Platonic philosophy (Fl. 18,86) were most probably private teachers, καδιγγηται, like Plutarch's Ammonius.

70

See below, pp. 1 8 9 - 1 9 1 ; 1 9 3 - 2 2 5 . On this passage, sec below, pp. 2 2 0 - 2 2 2 . 72 The inscription in which Apuleius is described as φιλόσοφος Πλατωνικός (Ann.Epigr. 1919, No. 36) adds nothing to the information supplied by Apuleius himself. This epithet is quite common after the middle of the second century, both in our literary and cpigraphical sources, and is often applied to philosophers who had no connection whatsoever with Athens. See below, pp. 2 0 6 - 2 2 5 esp. pp. 2 1 1 - 2 1 2 and note 133 for the epigraphical evidence. 71

141

We meet precisely with such a private tutor, active in Athens around the time when Apuleius studied there as a teacher of Platonic philosophy, in the person of Calvisius, or Calvenus, Taurus, Gellius' teacher. Taurus is taken by Zumpt 'mit Sicherheit' to be a Platonic διάδοχος, and in this, Zumpt is followed by Zeller and others.73 But it has recently been pointed out that 'despite Taurus' reputation as a Platonist at Athens, he did not teach as a scholarch of a philosophical community at the Academy, but as an isolated individual in his own house.' 74 A close examination of Gellius' stories and expressions may yield an even more precise picture of the man and his activities. The fullest title bestowed on Taurus by Gellius is (VII,10,1) vir memoria nostra in disciplina Platonica celebratus. Not a word is ever said by Gellius or by any other of our sources of Taurus being a scholarch, and the nearest we appear to come to anything which sounds like a school is Gellius' own story (XVII ,20,4) of himself when he was recens in diatribam acceptus. But diatriba, in this late period, means 'a seminar' or 'a course', as we shall see in our next chapter, and as the context of this passage of Gellius makes reasonably clear. Of the nature of Taurus' 'school' we catch a few glimpses on the pages of Gellius. His pupils are never called auditores = άκουσταί, the traditional term for the pupils of a scholarch or a teacher in an established school, but sectatores (1,9,11 ; II, 2,2; X,19,4 et al.) or discipuli (XX,4,l). 75 On the one occasion where the locality of a lecture is indicated (11,2,2), Taurus has just dismissed his class and he is sitting and conversing with Gellius and others in front of his house. There, he is visited by the Roman governor of Crete and his father, and his ensuing conversation shows that he treats this as a private visit. Beside his sectatores, Taurus has his iunctiores (the συνήθεις of Plutarch, Quaest.Conv. IX,1, p. 736D?), who come to dinner at his house and hold a philosophical 'question and answer session' as soon as the meal is over (VII,13; XVII,8). Like Ammonius, Taurus feels responsible for his pupils' morals as well, and admonishes them on their private behaviour (X,19; XX,4). Perhaps the most instructive passages are those in which Taurus himself complains about the philosophical students of his own day. Unlike the students of old, who submitted themselves to a long and taxing apprenticeship in order to join an established philosophical community, the student of Gellius' day 'lays down the law', and tells his teacher what he wants to read with him and what he does not (1,9,8-11). In olden days, a student would risk his life in order to study under a great teacher like Socrates. Nowadays, the teachers have to come to the gates of rich young men and wait for their pupils, some73

Zumpt pp. 70; 118; Zeller ΙΙΙ,Ι, p. 832 η. 1; Praechter p. 665. Merlan CHLGP p. 63, is somewhat more cautious. 74 Lynch p. 183, citing Gellius 11,2; VII.13; XVII,20. The evidence of the sources is summarized in PIR1, 292 (Calvisius); PIR\ 339 (Calvenus). 75 For an analysis of diatriba and sectator in Gellius, see below, pp. 201 - 2 0 3 .

142

times until midday, when they have slept off the effects of last night's wine (VII,10). Both passages are meant as descriptions, not of Taurus' own private and exceptional circumstances, but of those of the ordinary teacher of philosophy in Athens at the time. The picture we obtain from all these passages is not that of organized and established philosophical schools with their elected heads and their assistants directing the research and educational activities, but of private teachers, completely at the mercy of their rich pupils — the same sort of κα&ττγηταί we have already met with in Plutarch's youth. It is no accident that Taurus came to Athens from Berytus (Suda s.v. Taurus, No. 166 Adler; SIG3, 868A), or from Tyre (Philostr. F.S. 11,564) - that is, from Syria, where we have already met with some Platonists. Pace Zeller, Gellius 1,26,4 is no evidence that Taurus was a pupil of Plutarch. It has also been suggested that Herodes Atticus may have been Taurus' pupil not in Athens, but somewhere in the East.76 Nor do we fare better with Atticus, groomed by Zumpt for the succession to Taurus.77 In his views on the relations between Platonism and Aristotelianism, Atticus is close to Taurus, and the name Atticus may well suggest an Athenian origin or a long period of residence in Athens by his family. But even Zumpt has to admit, at the end, that we do not know whether Atticus ever taught in Athens. Atticus' pupil Harpocration of Argos may have lived and taught in Rome for some time, and his philosophy was influenced by Numenius and Cronius. No Athenian connection is attested.78 In Rome, we also find Lucian's Platonist Nigrinus.79 Whether he is a historical figure or not is immaterial to our argument. What is significant is that here we have the one contemporary Platonist depicted by Lucian in some detail, and his theatre of operations is not Athens. Of other shadowy figures like Nicostratus and Hierax we know next to nothing. Nicostratus was an Athenian and a Platonic philosopher, but we are nowhere told that he taught in any organized school.80 Of Hierax we do not even know that he was an Athenian or had any connection 76

P. Graindor, Athènes sous Hadrien, Cairo 1934, p. 66. On Taurus the 'scholarch', see also n. 80 below. 77 Zumpt pp. 7 0 - 7 1 ; 118; Praechter p. 665 - both admitting doubt. J. Baudry, the editor of his fragments (Atticos, Fragments de son oeuvre, Paris 1931), pp. III—VIII assumes, with no ancient evidence, that 'il dut connaître probablement dans sa jeunesse le platonicien Taurus' and that 'il passa probablement sa vie à Athènes.' He also takes it for granted that all four schools of philosophy continued their prosperous existence at the time; that Taurus was the Platonic scholarch, and that Atticus was most probably his successor. 78 Zeller ΙΙΙ,Ι, p. 833 η.; Praechter p. 550. " ZeUer 111,1, p. 832 η. 1; Praechter pp. 5 4 7 - 8 . 80 K. Praechter, 'Nikostratos der Platoniker', Hermes 57, 1922, pp. 4 8 1 - 5 1 7 . It is significant that in the inscription cited by Praechter on p. 481, SIG3 868, both Taurus and Nicostratus are called only Πλατωνικοί φιλόσοφοι. If either of them had been a διάδοχος, such an honorary inscription would certainly have mentioned the fact. Could our Nicostratus be the same as T. Flavius Nicostratus, the κα&ηγητής of IG 14,2454 (above, n. 26)? But Nicostratus is far from an unusual name, in Athens or elsewhere.

143

with Athens. 81 They were 'Platonists' in their writings (and teaching?). The meaning of this epithet will become clearer in the course of the next chapter. But we have already seen a sufficient number of such people to realize that this has nothing to do with membership of an Athenian school. Celsus, the anti-Christian Platonist attacked by Origen in his famous work, is another unknown quantity, but most unlikely to have been an Athenian. 82 We know equally little concerning Severus, and there is no evidence that he had any connection with Athens. 83 Wherever we turn outside Athens, we find Platonists galore. In Athens, the one Platonist we find is a private tutor imported from Syria, and not a single Platonic scholarch is attested by any of our sources. One might have expected to fare better with the evidence of the Attic inscriptions. There are, after all, a few inscriptions of the second century A.D. where διάδοχοι of the Stoic and Epicurean persuasion are mentioned by name. 84 Yet no inscription in which the words 'Ακαδημαϊκός (or Πλατωνικός) διάδοχος appear has so far turned up. An attempt to identify such a Platonic scholarch has recently been made by Professor James H. Oliver.85 The inscription, which he dates A.D. 9 0 - 1 7 0 , reads, in Professor Oliver's restoration: •Τι· Ούάριος Κ[α]ιλιαι>ός διά[δ]οχος [λόγω]ρ Professor Oliver's reason for identifying Caelianus as a Platonist, 'because the school is not differentiated and the article is absent', seems to me far from compelling. In IG / / 2 3571,1.4, Coponius Maximus js called διάδοχοι' Στω [ίκόν] without an article. Nor have we any reason to assume that in secondcentury Athens, the Platonic 'successor', if there was such, would be called the διάδοχος (without the article) par excellence. The evidence we have ex-

81 Zeller ΙΙΙ,Ι, p. 833 n.; Praechter pp. 5 5 1 - 2 . K. Praechter, 'Hierax der Platoniker', Hermes 41, 1906, pp. 5 9 3 - 6 1 8 , esp. pp. 6 1 7 - 1 8 , maintains that Hierax was a member of the Academy in Athens and that his fragments represent lectures delivered at the school. He rejects Diels' epithet 'Mondscheinakademie' for the school in the second century. But our evidence so far has brought to light nothing better than moonshine. 82 His knowledge of, and interest in, Judaism and Gnostic Christianity point to an Egyptian, Eastern, or possibly Roman background. See K. J. Neumann, RE 3, pp. 1 8 8 4 - 6 (Celsus 20) - Egypt or the East; H. Chadwick, Origen, Contra Celsum, Cambridge 1953, pp. xxviii-xxix - Rome or, more probably, Alexandria. 83 Zeller ΙΙΙ,Ι, p. 84Iff.; Praechter pp. 5 5 3 - 4 ; K. Praechter, RE 2R 2, pp. 2 0 0 7 - 2 0 1 0 . None of the sources tells us where Severus lived. The name was quite common at the time throughout the Empire, and was used by Greeks and Romans alike. 84 For these Stoic and Epicurean inscriptions, see below, pp. 3 6 4 - 3 7 3 . 85 James H. Oliver, 'Philosophers and Procurators, Relatives of the Aemilius Juncus of Vita Commodi4,11', Hesperia 36, 1967, pp. 4 2 - 5 6 and Plate 17.

144

amined so far points in a rather different direction. Besides, Χ&γων, with no further specification, appears to be a strange word in such a context. The only other appearances of such an expression (IG II2 3801 and 11551) are διάδοχοι; τών άπό Ζήνωνος λόγων. A non-epigraphist, looking at the photograph of our inscription provided by Professor Oliver, would fail to find any traces of λ&γων, or even of its final v. One notes that the first three lines of the inscription consist of 9,9 and 8 letters, with the third line starting under the second and third letters of the first two. Could the fourth line have consisted of a longer word than Χ&γων — perhaps ΣτωϊκοςΊ Professor Oliver provides us with another inscription, and with a family tree connecting Caelianus, through the marriage of his daughter Varia Archelais, with the family of L. Aemilius Juncus, identified by him as the author of the work On Old Age, of which an extract has been preserved by Stobaeus (Anthol; IV, pp. 1060-1065 Hense). 86 But the evidence that this Juncus even if he is the same as the consul suffectus of 127 — was a Platonist is rather flimsy. 87 Even if Juncus was a Platonist, there is no compelling reason to believe that his wife had to be the daughter of a Platonic διάδοχος, or that he should not have been able to marry the daughter of a Stoic διάδοχος who was, like him, a Roman citizen and a man of some distinction in public life. Thus, in a period of intensive expansion in the study and interpretation of Plato, throughout the Roman Empire, from Asia Minor to North Africa, we find many a Platonist active in the East, in Rome, or even in Carthage, but only one Syrian Platonist in Athens. This geographical distribution is by no means unique to Platonism. When we turn to the other philosophical sects of this period — even those of them for which Athenian διάδοχοι are attested — we meet with the same phenomenon. The more famous exponents of their doctrines are Epictetus the Phrygian, teaching in Epirus, Arrian the Bithynian, Andronicus of Rhodes, Nicolaus of Damascus, Alexander of Aegae, Ptolemy Chennus of Alexandria, or Alexander of Aphrodisias. We shall return to this phenomenon later. 88 Suffice it to say, at present, that for the whole of this period, while Platonism was making great strides forward in the East, not a single head of the Academy or of a Platonic school in Athens is attested. Indeed, no single piece of evidence seems to point unambiguously to the existence of the Academy or of any established Platonic community in Athens between the age of Antiochus and his pupils and that of Marcus Aurelius. 86

Ibid. pp. 4 5 - 6 ; 5 3 - 4 . Oliver p. 53 n. 2 4 refers to the 1920 edition of Überweg-Praechter. All that Praechter says in the 1926 edition, p. 5 5 2 , is that 'die Schrift, für welche mancherlei ältere griechische Ausführungen des Topos vom Greisenalter, sowie Trostschriften und Florilegien aus solcher Literatur benutzt werden konnten, ist philosophisch farblos. Immerhin empfehlen zahlreiche Berührungen mit Piaton in Gedanken und Ausdruck, den Verfasser als Platoniker anzusprechen.' But all these Platonic echoes and reminiscences could well have been derived from the intermediate sources, of which Praechter has just spoken. 87

88

See below, pp. 3 7 4 - 3 7 8 .

10

Glucket (Hyp. 56)

145

It is in the third century that we meet for the first time with Πλατωνικοί no longer 'Ακαδημαϊκοί - διάδοχοι in Athens. In the prooemium to his book Περί τέλους, dedicated to Plotinus and his friend and pupil Gentilianus Ameláis, Longinus mentions among the Πλατωνικοί of his generation ot Άϋήνησι διάδοχοι Θεόδοτος και Εΰβουλος (Porphyry, Vita Plotini 20,36—40). Eubulus had already been mentioned by Porphyry as the Π λ ά τ ω ν ο ς διάδοχος in Athens (ibid. 15,18—19).89 The context is that of a letter Longinus sent to Porphyry while Porphyry was with Plotinus in Rome - that is, the sixties of the third century. The Athenian Neo-Platonists of the fifth and sixth centuries, Plutarch of Athens (?), Syrianus, Proclus, Marinus and their successors are notoriously known in our modern literature as 'the Successors of Plato', and most of them are called Πλατωνικοί διάδοχοι in the sources.90 Their property, which is usually believed to have included Plato's garden, is known as τα διαδοχικά. We shall discuss the matter of their property in a later chapter. 91 But one should note immediately that the epithet Πλατωνικός διάδοχος is not the same as 'scholarch of the Academy', and that it appears for the first time in our sources many years after the institution by Marcus Aurelius of the imperial chairs of philosophy in Athens. These chairs, as we are told by Philostratus (KS. II, p. 566), were in the Platonic, Stoic, Peripatetic and Epicurean philosophy. The same information is confirmed by Galen (De Ord.Libr.Suor. p. 50 K.; 80—81 M.), who also calls this new institution by the significant title διαδοχαί αιρέσεων. The latter word will be explored more fully in our next chapter. But one can already draw a number of conclusions from these two pieces of evidence: a. that the holders of the chairs instituted by Marcus Aurelius were called διάδοχοι; b. that these διάδοχοι were a matter of αιρέσεις, not of σχολαί or διατρφαΐ;92 c. that there were no Academic διάδοχοι - only Platonic ones - as confirmed by the titles borne by Theodotus and Eubulus and, later, by Proclus, and by the fact that no philosopher during this period, even if his διαδοχικά did include Plato's garden in the Academy, is anywhere described as an Academic philosopher. The precise nature of the διάδοχοι founded by Marcus Aurelius escapes us, and it is most unfortunate that, of the numerous inscriptions of this Emperor 89 Lynch p. 184 n. 21 would allow only Eubulus the title Πλατωνικός διάδοχος. But in our first Longinus passage, Πλατωνικοί of line 36 should be read with διάδοχοι of line 39 there was no need to repeat the word. 90 This notoriety is founded, in the last resort, on the epithet Πλατωνικός διάδοχος found in the title of most of Proclus' books: see Saffrey-Westerink p. XIX η. 1. Proclus' predecessors and successors are not usually known as Πλατωνικοί διάδοχοι, but are described in terms like Πλατωνικός φιλόσοφος and διάδοχος της Άιΐήνησι φιλοσοφικής σχολής. On these expressions, see below, pp. 1 5 4 - 1 5 8 . 91 See below, pp. 2 4 8 - 2 5 5 . 92 Lynch p. 170 deduces this fact from the Philostratus passage. But Philostratus says nothing concerning the nature of these chairs. It is Galen who uses the significant expression διαδοχαί cdp€0€LJv.

146

discovered in and around Athens, not a single inscription depicting the founding of these chairs has survived. We are thrown back on the allusions to this event in our literary sources. With his customary, and almost uncanny, grasp of the realities of the ancient world, Wilamowitz recognized nearly a hundred years ago that 'es war kein echtes leben, das nach Athen wieder einzog, als die kaiser es zur Universitätsstadt für die weit erkoren, und Marcus die lehrstühle der vier offiziellen philosophieen dotierte und besetzte; das lukianische pasquill Eunuchos gibt ein übles pendant zu dem heftigen wahlkampfe des jahres 339 >93 Wilamowitz, like everyone else until very recently, accepted Zumpt's general theory of the survival of the four philosophical schools in Athens well into the fourth century A.D., and his observation deserves all the greater credit in view of the rest of his passage, which proceeds to assert, in almost Zumptian terms, the material continuity of the Academy until the age of Justinian. Zumpt believed — as one would expect — that Marcus Aurelius founded the chairs of philosophy without interfering with the four existing schools and their scholarchs.94 His only 'evidence' for this particular 'fact' is his overall theory of continuity. More recently, it has been generally assumed — perhaps since W. W. Capes — that Marcus Aurelius founded a 'University of Athens'. 95 J. H. Oliver has suggested, on the evidence of his interpretation of an Acropolis inscription, that the name of this new institution was 'The ΜΟΥΣΕΙΟΝ'. 96 This particular suggestion has not won very wide acceptance, but even its one serious critic did not contest the assumption that there was such a thing as the University of Athens, founded by Marcus Aurelius. 97 93 Wilamowitz, Antigonos p. 2 8 7 . This sounds almost like a summary of Mr. Lynch's discussion. 94 Z u m p t pp. 5 0 - 5 1 . He explains t h e t w o chairs mentioned b y Lucian on t h e hypothesis that, when t h e official scholarch was self-supporting and had no need of Imperial munificence, t h e salary went to another philosopher of the same school. This hypothesis was adequately exploded b y Zeller 111,1, p. 709 n. 2. 95 W. W. Capes, University Life in Ancient Athens, L o n d o n 1877, p. 4 5 : 'The Antonines did even more for it in t h e interests of learning. With them began the system of endowments b y the State; some of t h e lecturers became recognized professors, and the University existed as by law established.' The word universitas (but in its Mediaeval Latin form!) had already been used for t h e Antonine chairs b y Z u m p t p. 52. But Capes transformed these chairs, and other details of higher education in Athens at t h e time, into something as similar as possible - 'other things being equal' - to his own University of O x f o r d .

"

J. H. Oliver, op.cit. n. 22 above. Paul Graindor in his p o s t h u m o u s article 'Le nom de L'Université d'Athènes sous l'Empire', Rev.Belge 17, 1938, pp. 2 0 7 - 2 1 2 . Oliver, Marcus Aurelius (.Hesperia Suppl. XIII), 1970, p. 84, has attempted to r e f u t e one of Graindor's objections. But Graindor (pp. 2 0 9 - 1 0 ) does not maintain that the signum Synesius did not exist in Athens - only that it was rare in comparison with Africans and other non-Athenians. He also pointed out the absence of t h e d e m o t i c in the relevant inscriptions, and this point has not been answered by Oliver. Why is Oliver 'unwilling to recognize any Panhellene as a Greek f r o m Egypt'? Plutarch's teacher Ammonius, an Egyptian Greek, was three times Athenian strategus. 97

147

It is only very recently that the whole conception of such a university has been seriously questioned, and it is a rare pleasure to refer the reader to the excellent discussion of this subject by John Patrick Lynch. His cogent and incisive arguments deserve the most serious consideration, and in what follows, I shall do little more than add some observations of my own. 98 Lynch is perfectly right in emphasizing that the conception of the four 'classic' philosophical sects was widespread in the Hellenistic world — and outside Athens — long before the establishment of the Antonine chairs. To his list of instances," one can add the story, genuine or apocryphal, of the education of Apollonius of Tyana in Asia Minor (Philostr. Vita Apoll. 1,7). The example of Galen - a man who studied the doctrines of all four sects in his youth in Asia Minor as a 'liberal education' and a preliminary to a non-philosophical career, is instructive. Such a knowledge of all sects seems to be the norm for students seeking a general philosophical background — as in the case of Hermogenes (Himerius 14,23—4), who added the philosophy of the Pyrrhonians to that of the four sects. It is, perhaps, not unreasonable to suggest that it was chiefly with a view to such non-philosophical students, seeking a general 'smattering' in the doctrines of all the classic 'sects', that the new chairs in philosophy were instituted in Athens in addition to the more popular and fashionable Sophistic chairs. It is obvious, of course, that the inclusion of the doctrines of these four particular sects in what appears to have become one of the conventional programmes of philosophical education was largely due to the prestige of the four Athenian schools in Hellenistic and Republican times. But this is not to say that the four schools necessarily continued their organized existence in Athens throughout this period. We shall deal with this problem, as well as the distinction between 'schools' and 'sects', in our next chapter. 100 Lynch quotes with approval H.-I. Marrou's interpretation of των Περιπατητικών ... τον ërepov in Lucían, Eun. 3 as 'the second in point of time'. 101 But 'έτερος does not usually mean that: it means 'one of the two'. It is true that 58 Lynch pp. 1 6 7 - 1 7 7 . I had reached my own conclusions on the history of the Academy as an institution and on the end of the diadochai long before Professor Lynch's book was published. As can only be expected of two workers in the same field, much of the ancient evidence I had used was the same as that drawn on by Lynch. The one important point on which Lynch has anticipated me in thought as well as in date of publication is his brilliant refutation (which he modestly calls 'an attempt at refutation') of Wilamowitz's theory of the legal status of the Athenian schools (pp. 1 1 2 - 1 2 7 ) . I was groping blindly towards such a refutation when Aristotle's School came into my hands and things fell into place. Far from proclaiming pereant qui ante nos . . . I was only delighted to see my own conclusions confirmed by a serious historian working in adjacent territory. Whenever I accept Mr. Lynch's conclusions - whether I have reached them independently or not - I shall simply refer to his discussions. " Lynch pp. 1 7 0 - 7 1 and n. 10, p. 171. 100 101

See below, pp. 1 5 9 - 2 0 6 and pp. 3 3 7 - 3 7 9 . Lynch p. 171 n. 11; Marrou, Add. Note 10, p. 611; E.T. p. 441; A.T. p. 568.

148

this is our only evidence for concurrent chairs in philosophy in Athens. When Longinus (ap. Porph. Vita Plot. 2 0 , 3 9 - 4 0 ) speaks of the Athenian διάδοχοι Theodotus and Eubulus, he may be referring to two successive holders of the Platonic chair, just as, a few lines earlier, he has mentioned Ammonius and Orígenes in the same breath, as if they had been active at the same time. When Eubulus writes to Porphyry (ibid. 15,18—19), he is 'the Platonic διάδοχος'. This may be merely his title, but it may be construed to imply that he is the one and only holder of the one and only chair. But Marrou is plainly wrong in maintaining that when, on the death of Julian of Cappadocia, six Sophists were elected in Athens as professors of rhetoric, this could not possibly imply that there were six concurrent chairs. Eunapius (p. 487) says expressly that when the Athenians were seized with an έρως της διάδοχης, six men passed muster and were elected (χειροτονούνται δοκιμασϋέντες), and continues, having listed their names: ëôei 7cip πολλούς eiναι, κατά τον νόμον τον ΎωμαΧκσν, Ά&ήνησι τους μεν λέγοντας, τούς δβ άκούοντας. This clearly means that the six were legally elected according to a special decree current at the time, 102 and it is most likely that many of the students of various ethnic origins who joined in the quarrel that ensued had also been brought to Athens with the encouragement and support of such a decree. 103 Had the electors been allowed to appoint only one διάδοχος on Julian's death, they would have done so, and Eunapius would not have felt obliged to explain why numerous διάδοχοι were chosen. Besides, we are told on the next page (488) that, when the other five succeeded in driving Prohaeresius into exile, την έπι λ&γοις βασιλείαν είχον αντοί — clearly, not just one of them — and βασιλεία, one notes, is not without its reminiscences of ΰρόνος, the most usual term for a Sophistic chair in Athens at the time — or, indeed, of the βασιλικός ΰρόνος, the Imperial Chair. Even during the contest before the Proconsul (ibid. p. 488ff.), there is no hint that it was a contest for one single chair. After that contest, the other Sophists remain in Athens and carry on their teaching activities. We are not told that any of them was removed from 'the' chair, or that Prohaeresius was reinstalled in it. All that Eunapius tells us (p. 490) is that 'Prohaeresius appeared to hold a tyranny, and the power of his eloquence appeared to be exceedingly successful', and that 'all sensible

102

That this was some ad hoc decrce is clear from Eunapius' expression, p. 489: 0vre ò άνΰύπατος èvraûôa τούς έαντον νόμους ίφύλαττεν. F. Schemmel, 'Die Hochschulen von Athen im IV. und V.Jahrhundert P. Ch. Ν N e u e Jahrb. 11,1908, pp. 4 9 4 - 5 1 3 , esp. p. 497, has forgotten Eunapius' summary of this law and την ini λόγοις βασιλείαν αύτοι ίίχον of the next page. He states that the six were 'dem Kaiser vorgeschlagen.' Prohaeresius' invitation to court is, for him, proof that he held the βασιλικός θρόνος. Eunapius never says anything of the sort. 103 This must be the plain meaning of Eunapius' summary of that particular 'Roman law'. It called for a large number of tcachers and students (άκούοντας = άκουστάς = auditores, students following a public course of instruction).

149

men chose him as their teacher, and those who attached themselves to him soon became wise as a consequence of their choice.' 104 It is thus perfectly possible that two chairs in each of the four philosophical sects were instituted by Marcus Aurelius, or soon after him. This, however, could hardly be construed to support Zumpt's theory that only one of the two chairs was a new creation, the other being merely the old scholarch's, whether or not he was also now endowed from the Imperial Treasury. Lynch has pointed out, in reference to Galen's statement (De Ord.Libr.Suor. p. 50 K.; 8 0 - 8 1 M.) νυνί δ' cup' ού και διαδοχαί αίρέσεών είσιν, that 'if a holder of a philosophical chair could be called a diadochos, then there must not have been a scholarch in the school at Athens to rival him for the title.' 10s Galen's expression vwi δ' αφ' ού implies even more than that: that all the διάδοχοι spoken of — that is, all the endowed chairs, must have been a new phenomenon at the time. The very fact that these terms, διάδοχος and διαδοχή, are sometimes used for the rhetorical chairs as well, should confirm this sense. In rhetoric, there had never been a proper succession like that of the older philosophical schools. Yet the terms διάδοχος and διαδοχή in their new sense were not a complete novelty. We have ample evidence to suggest that διάδοχος and διαδοχή had generally ceased, by this time, to denote any ordinary succession in one of the Athenian schools. Plutarch (De Exil. 605B = S VF III, p. 262, Archedemus Fr. 2) speaks of the Stoic Archedemus of Athens who εις την Πάρθων μεταστάς, èv Βαβυλώνι Στωϊκήν διαδοχήν άπέλιπε. A regular chair with replacement taken for granted? Perhaps. But only its first holder had anything to do with an Athenian school. Of Jason of Nysa we are told (Suda s.v. Jason, No. 52 Adler = Posidonius Τ 40 Edelstein-Kidd) that he was διάδοχος τής èv "Ρόδω διατριβής Ποσειδωνίου. Hardly surprising — he was Posidonius' grandson. But he was not a member of the school of Athens, nor was Posidonius ever its scholarch. Mr. Lynch aptly quotes Eusebius, H.E. VII,32,6, on Anatolius: ών evenα και τής έπ' 'Αλεξανδρείας 'Αριστοτέλους διαδοχής την διατρφήν λ&γος εχει προς των τήδε πολιτών συστήσασύαι αντόν άξιωάήναι. He translates: ' . . . establishing in the city the school in succession to Aristotle', and adds that 'Anatolius' claim to a diadoche of Aristotle could only be spiritual.' 106 But this would hardly remove the contradiction between 'establish' and 'succession' — nor would it explain the unusual expression διατριβή 'Αριστοτέλους διαδοχής. Not unless we take διαδοχή here to mean something not unlike αϊρεσις (in the sense we shall explore in 104

A combination of the evidence of Libanius 1,16; 25; 11,14 would suggest that there were three rhetorical dpávoí in Athens in his time. See A. F. Norman, Libanius' Autobiography, Hull and Oxford 1965, p. 154 (on 1,25). 105 Lynch p. 174. 106 Lynch p. 173. On Anatolius, see Η. I. Marrou, St. Augustin et la fin de la culture antique, vol. I, Paris 1938, p. 217 n. 8 ('la chaire de la philosophie aristotélicienne'); F. Hultsch, RE I, pp. 2 0 7 3 - 4 , Anatolius 15 ('Lehrer der aristotelischen Philosophie.')

150

the next chapter): a philosophical 'persuasion' or 'school of thought' espousing the views of Aristotle. Perhaps 'a school representing the Aristotelian tradition' would be an appropriate rendering in this context. This sense of διαδοχή is confirmed by Tatian (Or.Adv.Graecos 25, Migne PG 6, pp. 860—1 = 265): στασιώδεις δέ έχοντες τών δογμάτων τάς διαδοχάς, άσύμφωνοι προς τους σνμφώνονς έαντούς διαμάχεσi?e. This sentence occurs in a passage which is a severe diatribe against Tatian's contemporary philosophers, and which is well worth reading in full, if only for the freshness of its irony and satire. In the preceding few sentences, Tatian has spoken of philosophers who attempted to follow the dogmata of Plato, Epicurus, Aristotle, Democritus and Pythagoras. Not a word is said in the whole chapter of any σχολή or διατριβή, and the τις κατά τον Αημόκριτον could hardly be a member of a Democritean school at this late period. Tatian was a contemporary of Galen, and his phrase δογμάτων διάδοχοι sounds temptingly reminiscent of Galen's διάδοχοι τών αιρέσεων. But we do not know that Tatian's Oratio was written after the institution of the διάδοχοι' under Marcus Aurelius, and his expression seems to be merely a paraphrase of αιρέσεις, in the sense of 'schools of thought' following the views of this or that philosopher. It is in this sense that we must understand the expression used by Sozomen (Eccl.Hist. 1,5,1) of Sopater: Σωπάτρω τω φιλοσοφώ κατ' έκεϊνο καιρού προεστώτι της Πλωτίνου διαδοχής. Sopater was not a head of a Platonic school. Eunapius (pp. 461—2) tells us that 'when Iamblichus departed from his human condition', his pupils 'went each his own way, but none of them without fame or in obscurity.' He continues immediately: Σώπατρος δε ò πάντων δεινότερος, διά τε φύσεως ύφος και ψυχής μέ-γεϋος ... έπί τάς βασιλικός αύλάς εδραμεν όξύς. He had no time to become the head of a school. He did not wish to become one — even if a school did exist. He was merely 'the cleverest of them all'. Sozomen's phrase means no more than 'the most outstanding philosopher among the followers of Plotinus.' 107 Nearer to Anatolius' home, although some considerable time later, we find Hypatia, of whom Socrates (Hist.Eccl. VII,15, Migne PG 67,1, p. 768 = 3 6 0 - 1 ) , writes: τήν δε Πλατωνικήν από Πλωτίνου καταγομένην διατρφήν διαδέξαοόαι. Cassiodorus (Hist.Trip. XI,12, Migne PL 69, p. 1194 = 369) translates: et in Platonicam scholam a Plotino venientem suscepit ipsa successionem. This sentence has caused much bafflement to Valesius and Praechter, 108 who understood it to imply a succession to Plotinus in the literal sense - but Plotinus never taught in Alexandria. Valesius comes near enough to a solution when he adds cautiously: 'Nisi forte dicamus Alexandrinam scholam Plotinum sibi asOn Sopater see RE 2R 3, pp. 1006-7 (Sopater 11); Zeller 111,2, pp. 7 8 7 - 8 ; Praechter p. 618. 108 Valesii annotatio 6 in Migne PG 67, 1, p. 768; K. Praechter, RE 9, pp. 2 4 2 - 9 (Hypatia), esp. p. 245.

151

civisse, tamquam praecipuum magistrum atque institutorem Platonicae philosophiae.' Neither Hypatia nor her school claimed any institutional succession to Plotinus. She was merely a 'Professor of Platonic Philosophy' in a school which followed the Plotinian interpretation of Plato. One could, once more, translate: 'a Platonic school in the Plotinian tradition.' Διαδοχή is thus used in the sources to describe an established chair outside Athens, or even merely a philosophical tradition or 'school of thought', following the views of one of the more 'classical' philosophers of old (or of more recent fame, like Plotinus). When the Antonine διάδοχοι were established, this term, and its cognate διάδοχος, were at hand — not in the older sense employed in the Athenian schools of yore, but in these more recent senses. The new professors were, in practice, both διάδοχοι αιρέσεων or δοτγμάτων, professors of the philosophy of this or that sect, and διάδοχοι in the more literal sense, holders of an established chair, to which new elections were made on the death of the last incumbent. But on such occasions, no relation to any institution was required as one of the qualifications. These qualifications are described in some detail by Lucian (.Eun. 2—5), and Mr. Lynch has rightly emphasized that 'the Peripatetic school of Athens' is conspicuous in its absence from this description. 109 Apart from their salaries and their mode of election, we know next to nothing of the duties and privileges of these professors. But Lucian (Eun. 3) provides us with a glimpse of what might be expected of the successful candidate. 'He receives a salary of ten thousand a year,' writes Lucian — not, as one might expect, in order to be the head of the Peripatetic school, teach in it and propagate its doctrines, but έψ' ότω avveivai roîç νέοις. Once more, we are thrown back on Cicero's friend Cratippus, invited by the Areopagus to live in Athens και SiaXéyeadai τοίς νέοις. The holder of an Imperial chair is thus still a mere glorified na&qyrγτής, receiving his salary from the Imperial treasury rather than living on his pupils' fees. He undertakes, in exchange for this, to teach the young, presumably free of charge. 110 This would explain the large number of foreign students attracted to Athens during this period — a veritable collection of nationes by the time of the Prohaeresius affair. 111 The 'decree' mentioned by Eunapius in that context requires, as we have seen, a sufficient number of teachers and students in Athens. We can see now what happened when Marcus Aurelius 'gave teachers t o the whole of mankind', as Dio Cassius (LXII,31-3) has it. He made no attempt to restore to life the old philosophical schools - our sources give us no hint of such an intention. By instituting the Athenian chairs and by seeing to it that some, at least, of the teachers in Athens were in receipt of an Im109 110 111

Lynch pp. 172-3. Although probably not always - see Waiden p. 179ff. On these nationes (χοροί) and their organization, see Schemmel, op.cit. p. 501ff.

152

penal salary, he intended to make Athens a centre of learning to which students and teachers from other parts of the Empire would wish to come. In this, his policy proved to be successful. The holders of these imperial chairs — as Lynch is not the first to have pointed out — had no fixed locale or set of buildings where their teaching activities were carried out. Some of them taught, as Antiochus had done before, in a public building (such as the Odeon of Agrippa). But public buildings had always been open to any respectable teacher, with or without an official position. The Ptolemaeum, used by Antiochus (whose own position, as we have seen, was far from official), had also been used by Charmadas (Acad.Ind. XXXII,8), and the Palladium by Clitomachus before his election to the scholarchate of the Academy (ibid. XXIV,35-7; XXV,8-11 ; XXX,8-10). 1 1 2 Most of the new professors taught in their private houses, just like the καόττγηταί of old. 113 It is only when we come to the Platonic school of Athens in the fifth and sixth centuries that some of the older terminology begins to emerge again. Their school is called ή ev Άϋήναις φιλοσοφική σχολή or σχολή και διατριβή (Suda s.w. Marinas, No. 198 Adler; Plutarchus, No. 1794 Adler; Proclus, No. 2473 Adler; Syrianus, No. 1662 Adler; Photius Cod. 242, 346a38). The head of the school is the διάδοχος of his predecessor (Suda locc.citt.). The Suda says of Proclus (loc.cit.) προέστη τής èv Άϋήναις φιλοσοφικής σχολής, uses the same verb of Plutarch (loc.cit.), and of Syrianus (loc.cit.) it says: ήyησά• μένος τής èv Άϋήναις σχολής re και διατριβής. In more contemporary sources, the head of the school is often called καδηγεμών (Marinus, Vita Procli 15, p. 36; 26, p. 61; 36, p. 90; Photius cod. 242, p. 335bl5), a word we have met with as a semi-official term in the Epicurean school, where it is not quite synonymous with 'scholarch'. 114 Their pupils are called μαύηταί (Suda s.v. Proclus·, Photius p. 345b6), and of Hermias of Alexandria we hear (Photius p. 341al 1 — 12) that ήκροάσατο 8è και Συριανού συν Πρόκλω. But more recent terminology is by no means absent. Plutarch of Athens is called by Hierocles (ap.Phot.Cod. 214, p. 173a37-8) καδττγητής αύτού των τοιούτων

112

The older gymnasia were open to sophists for their discourses quite early on: see Alexis Fr. 25 Kock (= Ath. 8 , 3 3 6 d - e ) , lines 1 - 3 . For the possible reason why Clitomachus and Charmadas lectured in gymnasia other than the Academy, see below, pp. 303-4. 113 Lynch pp. 1 7 4 - 6 ; Schemmel p. 499. Eunapius p. 483, quoted there by Schemmel, would suggest that the usual practice was to lecture in public places, except in times of danger, when recourse was had to Ιδιωτικά ϋέατρα - presumably the lecture-theatre in the sophist's own home. Perhaps a sentence in Eunapius p. 487 might provide some answer: oi μ€ν ούν εύτeXearepoi το όνομα είχον, και μέχρι των σανίδων fjv τό κράτος καΐ τού βήματος «τις δ παρ-ήεσαν. The less successful taught in private theatres; the more successful, with a larger following of students, in public. 114

See above, pp. 1 3 1 - 2 .

153

... δογμάτων, and Marinus is described by the Suda (s.v. Marinus, No. 199 Adler) as 'Ισιδώρου τού φιλοσόφου των 'Αριστοτέλους λόγων καϋηΎησάμβνος — in both cases, a tutor in a certain field, but in both cases, a man who holds the headship of the school is described as tutor. It is most probable that in the Suda, s.v. Plutarch (No. 1794 Adler), one should read Συριανού τού Ύβνομένου καϋηγητού (Bernhardy's obvious emendation for the awkward έξηγητοϋ of the MSS) Πρόκλου τού Αυκίου. The word συμφοιτητής is used of their pupils (Marinus, Vita Proc. 9, p. 21; 11, p. 25; 17, p. 41), although αυσχολάξω is also attested (ibid. 26, p. 60; 38, p. 93) - but φοιτώ and φοιτητής never appear in such contexts, 115 perhaps because their 'tutorials' were usually organized in small groups. Their courses are called συνονσίαι (Marinus 11, p. 25; 22, p. 54 twice; Photius p. 345a35) - a familiar Socratic and Platonic term, used also by Porphyry (Vita Plot. 3,34; 4,4; 13,1 et al.) to describe the 'seminars' of Ammonius Saccas and Plotinus.116 Can the more traditional and ancient terms be taken as evidence for a continuous school tradition, from Plato to Damascius — or is their appearance in the writings of the latest 'successors of Plato' a deliberate antiquarianism, evidence only for their attempt to organize their school on the lines of Plato's Academy, an attempt based merely on whatever information they could obtain from their sources as to the nature and customs of that institution? Our discussions so far should have inclined us already towards the second of these answers, and we shall return to this topic later. 117 We shall also deal in a later chapter with the myth of the 'Golden Chain' current in that school, and substantiate Mr. Lynch's statement that 'this Neo-Platonic school was only a spiritual heir to Plato and took up the legacy after a void of five centuries' with the evidence of our texts. 118 Nor do Damascius' statements concerning Plato's garden and the property of these late διάδοχοι constitute sufficient evidence for a direct continuation of the school.119 It is more than likely that these διάδοχοι were not in receipt of Imperial salaries, but lived on their διαδοχικά.120 We are far from clear as to the manner in which the διάδοχοι of this late Platonic school were appointed. 121 One passage of Photius (Cod. 242, p. 349a36-8), 1,5 They d o twice in Marinus 8, p. 15 and 16, and 9, p. 19. In all these cases, t h e place is Alexandria, where we have f o u n d m a n y καϋιηγητai. 116 But the lectures in which they c o m m e n t e d o n a text were also called πράξεις (Marinus 22, p. 54), a title which b e c a m e widespread in the literature of the Byzantine commentaries written tarò φωνής: e.g. Elias, Proleg.Philos., CAG XVIII,1, passim; Olympiodorus, In Meteor., CAG XII,2, passim. On πράξεις in this sense, see t h e magisterial article by Marcel Richard, Ά Π Ο ΦΩΝΗΣ', Byzantion 20, 1950, pp. 1 9 1 - 2 2 2 , esp. p. 199. 117

See below, pp. 3 2 2 - 3 2 9 . See below, pp. 2 9 6 - 3 2 9 . 1,9 See below, pp. 2 4 8 - 2 5 5 . n o Waiden pp. 1 7 1 - 2 ; Lynch pp. 1 8 8 - 9 . 121 Lynch p. 189 maintains t h a t they were elected by the outgoing scholarch. But t h e Suda entries he cites in evidence say nothing of the m o d e of election. 118

154

based on Damascius, refers to a ψήφισμα during the life of the outgoing διάδοχος. Another passage o f the same Codex of Photius (p. 352b33—4) refers to the διάδοχοι οϋς eïXero Πρόκλος, 122 and Marinus ( V i t a Proc. 12, pp. 2 9 - 3 0 ) speaks of Syrianus considering Proclus τοιούτον ... οίον πάλαι έξήτει άκροατήν εχειν και διάδοχοι>. The ψήφισμα referred to may be real. It may be a mere anti-

122 This phrase seems to imply that in the school of Athens there were two persons called διάδοχοι (continuing the Antonine tradition of the two chairs?). I believe that this, indeed, is what is implied, provided that one of these διάδοχοι was the senior, or 'leader' of the school (προέστη της ... σχολής - Suda s.v. Proclus, No. 2473 Adler; ηγησάμενος της... σχολής - Suda s.v. Syrianus, No. 1662 Adler). This picture appears to be confirmed by Photius Cod. 181, p. 127a3-5 (summarizing Damascius' Vita Isidori): o re Ζηνόδοτος ... διάδοχος δέ και ούτος Πρόκλου, τά δεύτερα Μαρίνου φέρων. Zumpt pp. 8 5 - 6 accepted this statement in its simple sense. I do not see why it should be interpreted 'in a wider sense' (Zeller 111,2, p. 900 η. 1), or rejected as Photius' own 'combination' (H. Dönie, RE 2R 10A, pp. 5 1 - 2 , Zenodotos 12), or made to imply that Zenodotus was the successor after Isidore (Saffrey-Westerink p. LII). If we assume that Photius is reproducing Damascius' expressions faithfully (and what reason had he not to do so?), and that there were two διάδοχοι serving simultaneously, we shall also solve the riddle of Domninus, called by Marinus ( Vita Procli 26, p. 60) ó διάδοχος. Praechter p. 625 and η. 1 had made Domninus the scholarch between Syrianus and Proclus. But Proclus' epitaph written by himself makes it clear that Proclus inherited the school from Syrianus (ibid. 36, p. 91). Zumpt's suggestion, pp. 8 2 - 3 , that Domninus was διάδοχος only as 'Nachfolger in der Lehre' is surprising, coming as it does from Zumpt, but hardly convincing. Zumpt is followed by Zeller 111,2, p. 834 n. 2. F. Hultsch, RE 5, pp. 1521-5 (Domninus 4), esp. p. 1522, suggests that in Maiinus 26, p. 60 τ φ διαδοχή has been misplaced, and should come after αύτω - that is, Proclus. But Proclus was, at the time, not yet a διάδοχος, since Syrianus was alive. Hultsch's emendation is accepted in a long and detailed discussion by Saffrey-Westerink, pp. XVII-XIX, who seem to forget, however, that our testis unus is Marinus, Proclus' pupil, and therefore a younger contemporary, or near-contemporary, of Domninus himself, who had no vested interest in extolling a man who appears to have been something of an enemy of his master Proclus. On my (and Photius') version, Domninus was most probably already a διάδοχος in Syrianus' lifetime (which is the plain sense of Marinus 26, p. 60) - but the second διάδοχος. Proclus, not Domninus, was the man groomed by Syrianus to succeed him on his death (ibid. 12,2930) and so he did (ibid. 36, p. 91). Domninus may well have retained his 'second chair' after Proclus' accession to the headship of the school. Both in Syrianus' 'private seminar' for him and for Proclus (ibid. 26, p. 60) and probably later (Suda s.v. Domninus, No. 1355 Adler), Domninus is depicted as being not quite on the best of terms with Proclus - out of jealousy for 'the cuckoo in the nest'? That private seminar for Proclus and Domninus is interesting: a seminar for the 'second professor' and the 'heir apparent' to the 'first chair'? No wonder Syrianus did not survive the experience. It is tempting to suggest that, when Syrianus himself is already called διάδοχος while Plutarch is giving him final instructions on his deathbed (Marinus 12, p. 29), this is not merely because he is about to succeed Plutarch as leader of the school (which he did), but because he was already the second διάδοχος. If so, it is not unlikely that it was on Plutarch's death, and Syrianus' assumption of the first chair, that Domninus became the 'second professor'.

To return to the διάδοχοι οϋς eï\ero Πρόκλος. Is Photius = Damascius speaking merely of Marinus and Isidore, or is he including Zenodotus? Our information on the subject is rather hazy and confused, and the chaotic order of excerpts in Photius' Codex 242, combined

155

quarianism. But it seems clear, at least, that the outgoing διάδοχος had some say in the appointment of his successor, and most probably more than just that. In the Academy, between Plato and Philo of Larissa, a scholarch was more often than not elected by the members of the school after the death of his predecessor.123 What is, perhaps, of greater importance is that we have no information as to how this Platonic school of Athens came into being. Plutarch of Athens is nowhere described as anyone's pupil or successor. Zumpt believed that he was the with the atrocities of Damascius' style (censured by Photius himself, Cod. 181, pp. 126a 4 1 - b 3 3 ) , do not help. It is not improbable - as Saffrey-Westerink pp. XXIV-XXVI suggest (following previous reconstructions) - that Proclus, fearing for Marinus' health, did ask Asclepiodotus to recommend a candidate. But why, then, did Asclepiodotus send two candidates, his son-in-law and namesake as well as Isidore? On my assumption, because Proclus wished to have one candidate as his own successor to the leadership of the school, and another 'standby candidate' to succeed Marinus if he were to die an early death. The younger Asclepiodotus was apparently unfit for the task. Isidore was probably groomed for it, but found it above his powers to be a proper successor to Proclus (Photius p. 3 4 6 a l 4 - 1 7 ) , and finally withdrew to Alexandria. Marinus was probably already the 'second professor', and on Proclus' death he succeeded him. Isidore suddenly appears just before Proclus' burial (Photius pp. 347a34-5; 352a33-4). Did he wish to become 'second professor* now? Was he rejected because of the philosophical differences between his Platonism and that of Marinus (as suggested by O. Schissel, 'Das Ende des Piatonismus im AltertumPhilos.Jahrb. 1929, pp. 7 6 - 9 2 ; RE 14, pp. 1759-67, Marinos 1, esp. pp. 1759-60)? In any case, he was not elected - and I suspect that this is when Zenodotus was: he had been, after all, Proclus' 'beloved disciple' (Photius p. 346a23-6). The peripatetic Isidore left again. Later, he returned again. This time, he was persuaded by the ailing Marinus to accept the ψήφισμα electing him as Marinus' own διάδοχος (Photius p. 349a35-38). Because Zenodotus did not quite stand up to Proclus' high expectations? Nor did Isidore. He was elected err' άξιώματι μάλλον ft πράγματι της Πλατωνικής έξηγήσεως. We are not told. Every attempt to reconstruct a rational sequence from the chaotic excerpts of Photius and Damascius' own oracular Greek must, in the present state of our knowledge, remain hypothetical. The most fundamental piece of detective work is still J. R. Asmus, 'Zur Rekonstruktion von Damascius' Leben des Isidorus', BZ 18, 1909, pp. 4 2 4 - 4 8 0 ; 19, 1910, pp. 265-284. Asmus' own edition of the fragments (in German translation only), Das Leben des Philosophen Isidoros von Damaskios aus Damaskos, Meiner, Leipzig 1911, and C. Zintzen, Damascii Vitae Isidori Reliquiae, Olms, Hildesheim 1967, have done much to introduce order into chaos, but more work needs to be done. All I can claim for my hypothesis of the two διάδοχοι is that it does less violence to the texts of Photius and Marinus than other explanations, and that it seems to account for a number of otherwise inexplicable facts. Further work on details will show whether it should stand or fall. 123 Lynch pp. 8 0 - 8 1 . Carneades may have appointed Carneades the son of Polemarchus and Crates of Tarsus as his successors in his own lifetime. The Acad.lnd. (XXIV,25ff.; XXIX,38ff.) does not say so expressly. But Clitomachus became head of the school only in the year of Carneades' death (Mekler p. 120 of his edition oí Acad.lnd.), when he came to the school μετά πολλών γνωρίμων (Acad.lnd. ibid.) - probably to ensure his own election. Another γνώριμος of Carneades, Mentor, appears to have been groomed by him for the succession (Num.ap.Euseb. P.E. XIV,8,3 = Fr. 6 Leemans; 27 Des Places). Numenius' words ού μην διάδοχος suggest that he was originally meant by Carneades to be his 156

pupil or successor of Priscus, whom he considers as a Πλατωνικός διάδοχος — and, of course, as 'head of the Academy'. 124 But it has been recently shown, in a detailed and thorough examination of the evidence by É. Evrard, that there is no proof anywhere that Priscus ever resided in Athens — or, indeed, that he ever taught philosophy. Evrard has argued persuasively for rejecting all the previous theories as to who was Plutarch's teacher, and his own suggestion is that the early Neo-Platonic writings imported to Athens by Longinus may well have been preserved there until they fell into the hands of Plutarch and attained their full impact. 125 We are not told where these Platonic διάδοχοι held their courses. On the basis of a description of the location of their house (Marinus, Vita Proc. 29, pp. 7 4 - 5 ) , Mr. Lynch has offered archaeological evidence for identifying it with a structure found in the same location by Greek archaeologists, containing many of the features of a gymnasium and a teaching institute. 126 Marinus (ibid. 36, p. 89) mentions regular visits made by Proclus on certain days every year to the graves of philosophers and heroes of old and to the Academy. This, too, suggests that, even if one were to assume that Plato's garden was part of his property, the Academy was not his everyday milieu. If indeed these late 'Platonic Successors' taught in a private theatre in their own home like most of the other Athenian professors of the time, it appears that they, too, were merely glorified κα&ηγηταί like other teachers of that period. Indeed, we have no reason to assume that Theodotus and Eubulus held their title of Πλατωνικοί διάδοχοι in any different sense from the Stoic or Peripatetic ones of their age. Their title merely meant 'a salaried professor in the established chair of Plato-

successoi. Philo, as we have seen, was most probably elected by 'the Clitomacheans' in the school, see above, p. 75. 124 Zumpt pp. 7 7 - 8 ; 119. É. Évrard, 'Le maître de Plutarque d'Athènes', AC 29, I960, pp. 1 0 8 - 1 3 3 ; 3 9 1 - 4 0 6 . On Priscus: pp. 1 1 4 - 5 ; conclusions: pp. 4 0 5 - 6 . Évrard's article is not mentioned by Saffiey-Westerink pp. XXXVIII-XLVIII, who carry on the old quest for missing links in the 'Academy'. A. Cameron, 'Iamblichus at Athens', Athenaeum 45, 1967, pp. 1 4 3 - 1 5 3 , esp. pp. 1 5 0 - 1 5 3 , argues very persuasively for Iamblichus II, propagating the views of Iamblichus I in Athens during Plutarch's formative years. His hypothesis makes at least as much sense as Ëvrard's theory of Longinus and his library. But this would still leave the picture unchanged as far as the school of Athens is concerned: Plutarch had no predecessor we know of as 'leader of the school'. As far as I can discover, Plutarch himself is nowhere described as Πλατωνικός διάδοχος. That he was one is only a deduction from Proclus' description of him as ó κα&η-γΐμών ημών και των Ημετέρων διδασκάλων (In Rep. II, p. 64, 6 - 7 Kroll): καιίηγεμώυ is 'Master' or 'founder' of a school - see n. 36 above. Since leaders of the school after Plutarch were διάδοχοι, one assumes - but only assumes that he may have been called so too, in the Antonine sense. His successors, of course, were called διάδοχοι also because they were his (and their predecessor's) successors. If my hypothesis of the two διάδοχοι is correct, the 'second professor' was a διάδοχος only in the Antonine and second-century sense. 126 Lynch p. 188.

157

nie philosophy': indeed, one could call it virtually a 'Regius Chair of Platonic Philosophy'. With Plutarch of Athens and his successors, the term διάδοχος acquires a somewhat different connotation. The Platonic school of Athens does have its property and organization, and the Πλατωνικός διάδοχος is, against this background, no longer merely an established salaried professor, but a veritable successor to the school, to his predecessor, and to the school property which is called τα διαδοχικά — the property of the διάδοχος. But a successor to Plato he is not. 127 We have no evidence that these late Platonic διάδοχοι ever considered themselves the institutional heirs of Plato, or that they were in possession of Plato's property (as distinct from their own). Our discussions in the next few chapters will show that they never claimed to stand in direct succession to Plato's Academy, and that they probably never had anything to do with his property. 128 If they gave the title διάδοχος a new lease of life and made it resemble in some ways the title of Plato's successors, this was part and parcel of their general antiquarian policy. It was a deliberate attempt to recreate something like Plato's school, not the natural continuation of a living tradition. Our discussions have already brought out the value of the precise analysis of some key-concepts and the manner in which they are employed by the sources for the proper study of the philosophical communities and methods of education in late antiquity. The exalted καάττγητής had, upon examination, to relinquish his dignified throne for the privacy of his own 'seminar-room'. The διάδοχος, too, has ceased some time before the second century to be the successor in a direct line to Plato or Aristotle, and has become the more prosaic occupant of a chair endowed by the authorities — and, if new inscriptions from Tarsus or Pergamum or Tyre turn up, depicting some local teacher by that title, I shall be the last to be surprised. Even the Πλατωνικός διάδοχος was, so it seems, merely the heir to a private Platonic school, however distinguished it may have been. But there are still some concepts which require clarification, if we wish to feel more at home in the changed atmosphere of the philosophical world of the Roman Empire. 127

See n. 90 above. Proclus is the only one known to the sources in his full title of Πλατωνικός διάδοχος - but the others, we have seen, are also διάδοχοι of the school, or of their predecessors: Marinus as ô διάδοχος Πρόκλου Photius Cod. 242, p. 3 4 5 b l 8 ; Suda s.v. Marinus, No. 198 Adler; Proclus, No. 2473 Adler; Proclus as ô διάδοχος Συριανού Suda s.v. Syríanus No. 1662 Adler. It is only in Simplicius, De Cáelo 640,42 that Proclus is called Πλάτωνος διάδοχος. This is most likely to be an error in the manuscript tradition. 128 See below, pp. 2 4 8 - 2 5 5 .

158

CHAPTER 4

Platonica Secta

Calvisius — or Calvenus — Taurus, whom we have unmasked as a mere private tutor, is described in the sources as Πλατωνικός φιλόσοφος (Suda s.v. Taurus, No. 166 Adler; SIG3 868A); vir ... in disciplina Platonica celebratus (Gellius VII,10,1) and Platonicae sectae philosophus (Hie ron. CTìro«. Olymp. 231). Such expressions, as we have seen, have often caused the experts to regard men like Taurus as the attested scholarchs of the Academy. In the case of Taurus, and of Plutarch's teacher Ammonius (who is never called Academic or Platonic in the sources), we have sufficient circumstantial evidence in the form of glimpses into their daily life and their relations with their pupils to render such a picture improbable. We are not always so fortunate. It would be advisable to take up some of the concepts used in connection with philosophers and schools of philosophy — words such as Platonicus, schola or secta — examine their connotations whenever the context makes them clear enough, and draw some lessons from our analysis as to the general sense of expressions of this sort, which would help us to understand them where they appear in 'neutral' or 'indifferent' contexts.

Α. Σ χ ο λ ή , Διατριβή,

Αϊρεσις

Whenever our sources refer to a philosophical school in an institutional context — the headship of the school, the succession to the school, or 'somebody's school' - they invariably employ the terms σχολή or διατριβή. Our major sources for the history of the Athenian schools in the Hellenistic age are late, beginning with the Academicorum Index and the Stoicorum Index, and the various pieces of information preserved in Cicero's philosophical works - all dating from the last years of the Roman Republic. But much of the information contained in them, and in later sources like Diogenes Laertius, is derived, sometimes verbatim, from much earlier and sometimes contemporary sources such as testaments of scholarchs, contemporary epigrams and biographies, or early chronologies. In all our sources, as we shall soon see, the term σχολή is the commoner of the two - so much so that it has become trans159

cribed in Latin as schola. But διατριβή, we shall see, is most probably the older of the two to be used in a technical sense in such contexts. Following the usage of our sources, we shall start with what, for them — as well as for us (presumably under the influence of Latin) - is the more usual term for a philosophical school.

1. Σχολή Acad.Ind. X I I , 2 2 - 3 (the school of Xenocrates); XXV,8-9 (Clitomachus founding a σχολή Ιδία in the Palladium); XXVI,36-7 (Boethus, σχολής ηγούμενος); XXIX,40—41 (Carneades the son of Polemarchus παρέλαβε ν έξέδραν re και σχολήν). In the last of these three instances, σχολή could be interpreted virtually as a course of studies or a 'seminar' (in the Continental sense, covering both the course and the group of students participating in it), rather than 'the school' (referring to the whole company of teachers and pupils), and this could also apply to XXX,8-10 (Clitomachus in the Palladium again), XXXII,7-8 (Charmadas άνώξε σχολάς èv τω Πτολεμαΐω - clearly a reference to courses in the plural), and XXXII, 1 3 - 1 5 (those who held their σχολαί outside town). But we are on institutional grounds again in XXX,6 (Κράτης ... την σχόλήν διεδέξατο); XXXIII,15-16 (Philo ήρξατο δ' ή-yeïaôai της σχολής)·, and XXXIV, 2, if the reading σχόλήν is correct. 1 Stoic.Ind. X , 3 - 4 (Cleanthes ó και την σχολήν παραλαβών)·, XXIX,3—4 (Cleanthes again); XLVIII,7 (Diogenes of Babylon); L I I I , l - 3 (Panaetius); 5 - 7 (Dardanus) - in all these cases, the succession to someone's school. Diog.Laert. IV,3 (Xenocrates, την σχολήν διαδέξασύαι); IV,14 (Xenocrates, ώρηγήσατο της σχολής)', IV,16 (Polemo, διαδέξασύαι την σχολήν)', IV,21 (Crates, διεδέξατο την σχολήν αύτοΰ)', V,2 (quoting Hermippus: σχολάρχης èyévem τής èv 'Ακάδημεig, σχολής Ξενοκράτης)', ibid. (Aristotle: έΜόντα δή αύτόν και ΰεασάμενον ύπ' αλλω τήν σχολήν)', V,5 (Aristotle: τρία προς τοις δέκα τής σχολής άφηγησάμενος); V,36 (Theophrastus inheriting the school); V,58 (Strato inheriting the school of Theophrastus); V,68 (Lyco, όψηΎήσατο δε τής σχολής ... Στράτωνος σύτήν èv ταΐς διαϋήκαις καταλιπόντος); 2 VII,174 (Cleanthes inheriting the school). Cicero, Fin. 11,67 (Epicuri schola); N.D. 1,34 (Platonis schola)·, 111,77 (Zenonis schola)·, De Or. 1,56 {omnia gymnasia atque omnes philosophorum scholae).

1

But see above, pp. 9 9 - 1 0 0 . Αύτήν Long: αύτόν Codd. But Long is clearly right - see Strato's testament, V,62: καταλείπω 6è την μεν διατριβην Λύκωνι - probably the first explicit mention of a scholarch leaving the school in his will. 1

160

Seneca, Epist. 1,6,6 (schola Epicuri). Cicero's usage reminds us that, at least as late as his age, schola still retains its original meaning of 'a lecture' or 'disputation' (In Pis. 59; 60; Tusc. 1,7—8; 83; 113; 11,26; 111,81; V,25), and it can also be used in the expression σχολάς ανα-γράφειν, 'to take notes at lectures' (Acad.Ind. XX,43; O, 3 3 - 5 ; XXII ,38; XXIII,5). One should not forget that the original meaning of αχολή is merely 'leisure' or 'the use made of leisure', and that σχολάξειν means, in philosophical contexts, 'to study' (ibid. XVI,7; XXIV.16; XXV,5; XXXIII,7-8) - usually, 'study with someone' (also συσχολάξειν: ibid. VI,26; XXXI,7; Diog.Laert. IV,24), and occasionally it means 'to hold courses' (Acad.Ind. XXIV,35—7). But Cicero's usage shows also that, by his time, schola could be used in the more limited sense of 'a philosophical school'. The Acad.Ind. and the Stoic.Ind. — whether their author is Philodemus or another contemporary of Cicero — show clearly and repeatedly that it is in this sense that σχολή is used in contexts referring to the headship of a philosophical school. So does Diogenes Laertius. They all draw on the literature of the διάδοχοι, among other sources. The earliest writer of διαδοχαί τών φιλοσόφων was probably Sotion, whose date is usually put in the early second century B.C.3 By the time of Plutarch, σχολή can still be used for one of the classical schools of philosophy (Mor. 605A). The Suda still uses this term in diadochical contexts (e.g. s.v. Platon, No. 1707 Adler: the Academic succession), or when speaking of the founding of the schools (s.v. Socrates, No. 829 Adler). It is instructive that, when the Suda reaches the entry ΣΧΟΛΗ itself, it copies an Atticist source: ΣΧΟΛΗ: Ούχί ò τόπος èv ώ σχολάζουσι και διατρίβουσι περί παιδείαν, ούδε αύτη ή èv λόγοις εύμουσία και διατριβή, άλλα ήν οί πολλοί άκύρως καλούσιν εύκαιρίαν το δε εύκαιρεϊν, βάρβαρον. άλλ' cani μεν τού εύκαιρεϊν, σχολήν äyeiv λέγουοιν. ή δ' ευκαιρία βάρβαρον μεν ούκ εστιρ όνομα" τάττεται δε ούκ έπι σχολής, άλλ' έπι καιρού τίνος ευφυίας και αρετής. (No. 1802 Adler). That these are the words of an Atticist would have been clear from the very style of this entry, even if we did not possess precisely the same entry for the same word in Photius' Lexicon. An Atticist does not protest against imaginary "barbarisms', and the very fact that he uses the verb σχολάζω himself in a similar sense, shows how deeply rooted this connotation of σχολή is. By the time of our Atticist, as can be seen from his protests, the most widespread sense of σχολή was that of 'an educational institution', and the second popular connotation was that of 'an educational activity'. In the original sense of 'leisure', it was now fully supplanted by ευκαιρία. The Atticist's attempt to turn the clock back met only with partial success in Greek. 4 In Latin, of course, 3

See below, p. 347, n. 4 2 . The 'more barbaric' eÙKaipew still means 'to be at leisure' in present-day Greek. Εύκαιρία has come to mean 'opportunity'. This is probably the influence of Mt. 2 6 , 1 6 = Lk. 22,6; whereas εύκαιρώ in the New Testament does mean 'to be at leisure': Mt. 6 , 3 1 ; Acts 17,21; 4

11

Gluckcr ( H y p . 5 6 )

161

otium provided a perfect equivalent for σχολή in the original sense. But the very fact that Cicero uses schola in the two technical senses censured by the Atticists and never attempts to translate them into a Latin word shows that, even by his time, σχολή was already predominantly a technical term used mainly in educational contexts. By the time of Quintilian, it is used mainly to describe an educational institution - a philosophical school, a rhetorical school, or a school in our sense of the word - a 'grammar-school'. 5 It is from this later connotation of the word in Latin that our modern word was derived ; but it is the other connotation, that of a philosophical school, that gave rise to the Mediaeval scholastics or 'schoolmen'.

2.

Αιατρφή

Acad.lnd. V I , 2 8 - 3 0 : Σπε(ύσιππος) μεν ουν πα(ρ' α)ιπού διαδέ(ξ)ατο τήν δ(ιατρφή)ν, VII,8—10: ó δέ (Μενέδημ)ος ërepov περίπατον και (δι)ατρφήν κατε(σ)κευάσατο-, Q, 8—10: ό ( Κ ρ ά τ ) η ς δια(δ)εξάμενός ( r e ) τ(ήν δι)ατρφ(η)ν και κριϋε(ίς άξιος εΐ)ναι τ(ή)ς ήγεμονία(ς); X V I I I , 2 - 4 : έκχωρήσαντος αύτωι της διατρφήςΣωκρατίδουτινός-,Ν, 6 - 8 : διό τούτω μεν ού κ(ατέ)λιπε τελευ(τ)ών τη Ο ) διατρφήν, XXXV ,2: την δέ διατρφην αύτού δι εδέξατο ...

Diog.Laert. V,62: (Strato's testament: καταλείπω

δέ την διατρφήν

Λύκωνι).

Plutarch Mor. 605 Α: τάς σοφάς 'Αάήνησι

σχολας

και διατρφάς

(in the A c a d e m y , the

Stoa, the Palladium, the Odeon and the Peripatetic school); (Ps.-Pl.) 832C (Antiphon the Orator διατρφήν δέ συνέστησε); 837A—Β (Isocrates διατρφήν δέ ουοτησάμενος)', Cato 2 3 , 3 5 0 Β : τήν δ ' 'Ισοκράτους διατρφήν Ύηράν φηαι nap' αύτω τούς μαϋητάς.

èttiσκώπτων

Suda

No. 775 Adler: ΑΚΑΔΗΜΕΙΑ: ή των φιλοσόφων διατρφή (reading Aemilius Portus' φιλοσόφων for the MSS 'error of abbreviation' φίλων)·, No. 797 Adler: / Cor. 16,12. Σχολή, σχόλη or σκόλη is now 'leisure', and for 'school' one uses σχολεϊον. Our Atticist's imperfect success is thus due to the influence of New Testament usage and to the Modern Greek predilection for diminutives. That the barbarous use of σχολή and some of its cognates was an Atticist's bugbear can also be seen from the following entry of Phrynichus (p. 400 Lobeck): συσχολαστας έσχάτως άνάττικον χρή 6è συμφοιτητάς λέ*/ευ>. Both words are, of course, synonymous and interchangeable in Hellenistic educational terminology. 5 In this later sense: Quint. 1,2,1; 4; 8; 9; 16; 2,1,3, and other examples which can be easily gathered from Bonnell's Lexicon Quintilianum. Suetonius Gramm. 7; 8; 16; 17 et al.

162

ΔΙΑΤΡΙΒΗ: τόπος, έν ω τίνες μανϋάνουσα>. "Η καιρός, καϋ' òv περί τι. "Η δώλεξις φιλόσοφος.

άναστρεφόμεϋα

No Attirisi objection to any of these definitions — and, one notes that the very first of them is that of a place of study. This is no accident. For in the 'approved' (δόκιμοι) Attic writers which served as a model for the anonymous Atticist, σχολή is only beginning to acquire the semi-technical sense of 'leisure-time occupations' (e.g. Vl.Legg. 820c9; Arist.Pol. 1323b39), 6 while its normal sense is still that of 'leisure' itself. Διατριβή, on the other hand, must have acquired most of its technical senses within the period of 'approved' Attic usage. We have seen that it appears already in its technical sense in the testament of Strato, written some time before his death in 269 B.C. But we also happen to know that Theopompus, a contemporary of Demosthenes and Aristotle, wrote a book entitled Καταδρομή τής Πλάτωνος διατριβής.1 In the one attested fragment of this book, Theopompus declares that most of Plato's dialogues are plagiarisms, οντάς έκ των 'Αρίστιππου διατριβών, ένίους de κάκ των Άντισύένους κτε. He is probably using διατριβαί here in the sense of 'conversations'. Διατριβαί is, after all, the word employed by Plato himself to describe the 'conversations' of Socrates (e.g. Apol. 37c—d; Gorg. 484e). But the διατριβαί, 'conversations' of Aristippus or Antisthenes must have been written dialogues if Plato could be accused of plagiarizing them, while Πλάτωιχχ διατριβή, in the singular, must refer to something even more institutional — if not a 'school' in the full sense, at least an established 'seminar'. It may be no accident that Gellius, in his rendering of an anecdote about Diogenes, speaks of Platonis diatriba (XVIII,13,7). Gellius is drawing on a Greek source, 8 quite probably contemporary with Diogenes himself. That διατριβή may have meant something of this sort in Plato's time appears likely from another source, Plutarch, Dio 22,967: . . . άνδρα μάντιν και μετεσχηκότα τής έν Άκαδημείφ διατριβής — 'participating in the διατριβή at the Academy'. Whatever Plutarch's sources for this biography, this expression is most likely to be derived from a source not much later than Plato and Dio themselves.9 A glimpse of what went on in such 6

Alexis Fr. 158 Kock (= Diog.Laert. 111,28), line 3: ταύτα ού σχολή Πλάτωνος, cannot, in the context, mean quite 'Plato's school', and is far more likely to mean 'a lecture by Plato'. This is what the Suda defines as αύτη ή iv λόγοις ΐύμουαία καΐ διατριβή. Our Atticist (n. 4 above) would have been fighting a losing battle if it had not been for the prevalence of neuter diminutives in the modern language. 7 Jacoby, FGH B115, T . 4 8 (inscription, c. 100 B.C.); F. 259 (= Athen. XI,508 C - D ) . The title emerges from combining these two pieces of evidence. * Using in the same anecdote also the rare Latin transcription sophisma. See also below, p. 201. * The sources of Plutarch's Dio are usually taken to be Ephorus, Theopompus, Timaeus and Plato's Epistles - all mentioned in that biography. See A. H. L. Heeren, De Fontibus et Auctoritate Vitarum Parallelarum Plutarchi... Tübingen 1820, pp. 5 3 - 4 ; M. Haug, Die Quellen Plutarchs in den Lebensbeschreibungen der Griechen, Tiibingen 1854, pp. 60-63.

163

a διατριβή while Plato was still alive is provided by the famous fragment of a comedy of Epicrates (Kock Fr. 11 = Ath. 2,59cff.)· To the question τι Πλάτων και Σπεύσιππος και Μενέδημος ; προς τίσι νυνί διατρίβουσιν, the answer given is a description of a 'class' on διαίρεσις, in which a question is posed to the participants, and the first answer is rejected by Plato, who bids them to think again. 10 This sense of διατριβή as a 'class', or a 'seminar' survives throughout antiquity. It is quite common in Plutarch's Moralia (e.g. 43E twice; 58F; 70E; 71E; 135D; 796D), and Porphyry (Vit.Plot. 3,11.34-8) uses it, virtually as a synonym of συνουσία, for the 'classes' of Ammonius Saccas and Plotinus. If there is any distinction between σχολή and διατριβή in this sense, it is probably that σχολή was a more formal lecture, διατριβή a 'class' or 'seminar'. We have already noted the expression σχολάς àvaypàpeιν. No similar expression exists for διατριβή or συνουσία and when Porphyry (ibid, lines 4 6 - 8 ) speaks of someone who took notes of such meetings, he says: σχόλια 5è έκ των συνουσιών ποιούμενος (cf. also 4, line 5). Gellius' description (1,26,Iff.) of Taurus' diatriba reminds us of a 'tutorial' or a 'class': texts and commentaries are read, followed by 'question time'. A confirmation of this sense of the διατριβή comes from Athenaeus V, 186D: προβάλλει ζητήματα καϋάπερ èv διατριβή λέ-γων. This is, after all, precisely what Plato is described as doing in his διατριβή by Epicrates. It is more than likely that this sense of the διατριβή continued to be part of its meaning even in more formal and institutional contexts. In Mor. 605A, Plutarch speaks of the classical σχολαί και διατριβαί in Athens, counting among his examples, beside the Academy, Lyceum and Stoa, also the Odeion (where Chiysippus sometimes lectured: Diog.Laert. VII,184), and the Palladium, where Clitomachus held his private 'school'. It is true that Clitomachus is described in the Acad.Ind. as holding his σχολάς, or even ιδίαν σχολήv.n But Plutarch, speaking of established schools and private courses, may well be making this distinction, if only subconsciously. The vagaries of language never fail to surprise. Both σχολή and διατριβή acquired their institutional sense when they had already been used for a long time for depicting leisure-time activities. The first of these two words to become synonymous with a philosophical community or school was διατριβή, 10

Cherniss' sceptical assessment of this fragment (Riddle pp. 62—3) does not prove that such 'seminars' or 'discussion groups' did not take place in the Academy - only that we have no right to call them 'seminars in Botany and Zoology' in the modern sense. Aristophanes' phrontisterion is totally imaginary - the Academy is not. Nor is the method of diaeresis. Kock, in the final note in his apparatus on this fragment (CA F II, p. 288) rightly remarks: 'totam eclogam plenam esse vestigiorum dictionis Platonicae . . . Meineckius adnotavit V , 8 1 \ Middle and New Comedy are notoriously more lifelike and less imaginative and imaginary than Aristophanes. 11 See above, p. 107.

164

as we have seen. While both words continued, naturally enough, to retain their older sense, one would have expected διατριβή to become the more ordinary concept for a philosophical school; this, indeed, is the first of the three senses of this word in the Suda entry. The opposite of this has happened. While σχολή became the more usual term for a school — and in Latin and our Western languages, not only, or chiefly, for a philosophical school — διατριβή appears to have kept its original sense of an activity very much to the foreground. At the end, it was this sense that won the day. The institutional sense was soon to disappear, and out of the connotation of διατριβή as an activity arose its modern connotation of the end-product of such an activity. 12 This, however, is beyond our scope. Nor is it our task here to delineate in full detail all the various technical, semi-technical and neutral connotations and shades of meaning of these two words, or to provide comprehensive or lengthy catalogues of all their appearances even in the more institutional sense. The purpose of our inquiry has been merely to show that, whenever a philosophical school is spoken of as a community or institution — especially in such contexts as those of the scholarch, his activities as head of the school, and the succession — it is invariably the words σχολή or διατριβή which are used. The only notable exception is a passage of Diogenes Laertius (IX,115) dealing with the Pyrrhonian 'succession' after Timon: τούτον δε διάδοχος, ώς μεν Μηνόδοτός φησι, yéyovev ούδείς, άλλα διέλιπεν ή ά γ ω γ ή βως αύτήν Πτολεμαίος ò Κ ν ρ η ν α ί ο ς άνεκτήσατο. We shall have more to say on this passage and its meaning and sources in our final chapter. Suffice it to say at present that ά γ ω γ ή is a far less institutional term than σχολή or διατριβή and is more likely to have been an early contender to the sense later acquired by οχρεοις.13 12 Our modern word 'diatribe' has always had only this sense of an activity, never that of an institution. Since this word is virtually unknown in Classical Latin (see n. 101 below), and I can find no evidence for its use in Mediaeval Latin (apart from the isolated definition o f diatribae, in the plural, as conflictus, dissensiones, or disputationes in the Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum V , 3 5 6 , 1 4 ; 4 0 8 , 5 ; 4 1 7 , 2 1 ) , it must have come to English and French from the vocabulary of Renaissance Humanism, which discovered this word probably in the Greek sources, not only in Gellius. The Oxford English Dictionary records its first appearance in English in 1581, and in French in the fifteenth century. Robert's French Dictionary records its first appearance in French in 1558. In both cases, in the broader sense o f 'discourse; disquisition'. 'Diatribe' in the sense of 'invective' is first recorded in English in a letter of Sir Walter Scott, dated 1804. In French, Robert reports its use in this sense in the entry Libelle in Voltaire's Dictionnaire philosophique (1764), but he also records: Ί 7 3 4 , Volt.' (Lettres philosophiques?) as its first appearance in this 'Cynic' sense. As far as I remember, Voltaire and his contemporaries are very fond o f this word in this particular sense - which is probably what has earned it its modern vogue. As the designation of a philosophical school, διατριβή in Greek was the serious rival of σχολή only for a brief period, while the older philosophical schools were still in existence. It lost its institutional sense quite early. In Modern Greek it means 'article, study, controversial pamphlet, dissertation'. The institutional sense has not, to my knowledge, been revived in Modern Greek academic or literary usage. 13

See below, pp. 1 9 1 - 2 ; 196.

165

As we shall see later, the Pyrrhonian 'school' was no 'normal' institution like the other schools of philosophy. Timon, Pyrrho's 'successor', lived much of his life in Chalcedon and Athens, where he died (Diog.Laert. IX,110). His 'successor's successor' Eubulus was an Alexandrian (ibid. 116), and it has been argued that, at least since the time of Aenesidemus, if not before, the seat of the school and its 'scholarchs' was in Alexandria. 14 Among the later 'successors', Diogenes (ibid.) counts Sextus Empiricus, who probably lived in Athens, Alexandria and Rome. 1 5 The Pyrrhonian school is clearly not a permanent σχολή or διατριβή. We shall return to it towards the end of this book.

3. Αίρεσις Another term for a philosophical 'school' is αχρεσις. This is translated sometimes as 'school' and sometimes as 'sect'. 16 As we shall see later, 'sect' is nearer the standard Latin translation of this term; but its modern English connotations may hinder our understanding of the meaning of αϊρεσις rather than advance it. Our first task is to determine whether, in the sources themselves, axpeaκ is used as the precise equivalent of σχολή and διατριβή in their institutional senses. That αϊρεσις is not the equivalent of such an organized school of philosophy can be seen from a number of passages: Acad.Ind. X V I I I , 7 - 1 2 : και το μεν πρώτον τωνός

τε και Σττευσίππου

ehr(eiv)

(δ ιχϊ)μείνασαν

ϋέαα> έπεχείρει εως

κατά την ànò

Π ο λ έ μ ( ω ρ ο ) ς aïpeaw.

Πλ(ά)

Clearly n o t

against the school in an institutional sense, of which Arcesilaus himself was now the scholarch. Ibid. 4 0 - 4 1 : δόγμα δ' ουδέν ούδ' aï(peaiv ovve)ridei. Clearly not ' h e d i d n o t e s t a b l i s h a d o c t r i n e or a school'.

O, 1—3: δύσταντο

κατά τα ήϋη

και

τας αιρέσεις αλλήλων κτε. Clearly 'their characters and views', not 'their characters and schools'. XXXVI,16-19: και (τ)ών ά(πό Πλά)τω^ος, eri (δ)έ των (τούντεύ)ϋεν

(èm)-yeyo

(ν)υιών

α(ίρέ)σεών

τ ( ε ) κα(ί δια)δοχ(ώ)ν

συναγωγή)

—

in summing up the history of the school. The αιρέσεις referred to are thus within the school.

14 E. Pappenheim, 'Der Sitz der Schule der pyrrhoneischen Skeptiker', AGP I, 1888, pp. 37-52. 15 Zeller 111,2, p. 49 η. 1. Sextus (e.g. PH. 1,7; 21; 22; 25) normally speaks of η σκεπτική άγίο-γή. On the Pyrrhonian 'succession' see below, pp. 3 4 9 - 3 5 4 . 16 E.g. R. D. Hicks in his Loeb translation of Diogenes Laertius 1,18-19 (both 'school' and 'sect'); VI,103 ('a philosophy'). But he translates the title of Hippobotus' work (1,19; 11,88) as On the Sects. G. Giannantoni, / Cirenaici, Florence 1958, p. 71, rightly translates aipeaις as 'un indirizzo filosofico'.

166

Stoic.Ind. LXXIX,5-7: oi με(ν) ούν aitò Ζ(ή)νωνος (Σ)τωίκοί aip)éoe{ις) — again, clearly within the school.

διά(δοχοι απ)αν(τες αϊ ΰ'

Dion.Halicarn. Ad Amm. 7 (speaking of Aristotle): ó δέ κατά τούς αύτούς χρόνους έτι συνήν ΠλάτωΜ, καί διέτριψεν έως έτών έπτά καί τριάκοντα, oöre σχολής νοούμενος, ούτ' ίδίαρ πεποιηκώς αΐρεσιν — where 'producing his own capeoις' is clearly distinguished from 'leading a school'. One can translate: 'he had not yet become leader of his own school, and had not yet created his own philosophical system'. Diogenes Laertius I,18ff.: τού δ' ήϋυίον -γε-γόνασιν αιρέσεις δέκα. But a philosophical school is not just a 'school of ethics'. IV,67: άνηρ έν ταίς ταίς τρισίν αίρέσεσι διαπρέφας (Cobet: διατρίφας MSS), έν re τή 'Ακαδημαϊκή καί Περιπατητική και Στωική. But Clitomachus was never a pupil or a member of any organized school except the Academy. Examples could easily be multiplied, but I shall reserve the other specimens, as well as the proper analysis of some of the present ones, for the more detailed historical discussion of αίρεαις as a philosophical term which will follow shortly. Our present examples have already shown us two things: a. that at least in a number of significant cases, αϊρεσις cannot possibly refer to a philosophical school in its institutional sense; b. that, in such contexts, it usually refers to something much more abstract, which we can provisionally translate as 'school of thought', or 'persuasion'. We shall soon see that, in our philosophical contexts, this is invariably the meaning of this term. But how did it come to acquire such a sense? Κιρεαις has been somewhat more fortunate than σχολή or διατριβή. It appears in the New Testament, and it became, in Christian parlance, the usual term for designating any theological view which rejected any of the doctrines of the 'Ecumenical Church' as laid down by its councils. It has therefore been studied more intensively — in some Pagan contexts as well as in the Christian ones — by students of the New Testament and early Christian literature. G. Kittel's Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament17 divides the 'objective' senses of this word into: a. Lehre, b. Schule, and proceeds to explain the etymology of both senses of this word on the basis of 'die Wahl eines bestimmten βίος' — that is, βίου αϊρεσις. That βίου αϊρεοις does appear in some

17

Vol. I, 1 9 4 9 , p. 180 ('α'ιρεσις in der klassischen Gräzität u n d im Hellenismus').

167

philosophical texts is undeniable, 1 8 and it is only natural that such an expression would appeal t o theologians. I doubt, however, whether this was what gave aipeaiq its more specific philosophical sense. For there exists an extensive group of civil and pölitical documents, beginning in the third century B.C., in which αϊρεσις is used in senses very similar to the philosophical one, and virtually leading t o it, and in a manner which is already firmly established and formulaic. This field has not, as far as I k n o w , been seriously explored by the theologians 1 9 or the historians o f philosophy, and a glance at Liddell and Scott's L e x i c o n 2 0 would hardly indicate the richness and variety o f such expressions or the formulaic and established manner in which some o f them are used. My evidence will be taken chiefly from inscriptions o f the last three centuries B.C., and from Polybius, whose usage is o f t e n quite close to that o f the inscriptions, but also supplements them in a number o f senses, as could only be expected from the more flexible idiom o f a literary source. Needless t o say, there are n o clear cut lines o f demarcation between the various senses, and some of the examples belong to more than one category. My division o f 18 E.g. Maiinus, Vita Procli 12, p. 27; 30, p. 75; Olympiodorus, In Plat.Alc.I, ed. L. G. Westerink, Amsterdam 1956, 4 5 , 1 - 2 (p. 30); 49,23 (p. 33); 104,11 (p. 69). One notes that all these examples are late and Neo-Platonic, and that by the time these works were written, αϊρεσις was already well established as the word for a philosophical sect. For a completely fanciful etymology of αϊρεσις in the theological sense, see J. H. Blunt, Dictionary of Sects and Heresies, London 1903, p. 188; 'Heretics are, therefore, those who break the "one faith" by making a selection (α'ιρεσκ) of some parts of it for acceptance and belief and of others for rejection and disbelief.' Blunt is most probably following Isidore, Etymol. V i l i , 1 - 3 and similar 'authorities'. The notion that axpeoις, even in late and technical contexts, denotes 'a choice, an election, whether of good or evil' can be traced back to a work still frequently mentioned in English theological dictionaries and works of reference as 'Burton, Bamp.Lect. 1829'. The reference is to Edward Burton, An Inquiry into the Heresies of the Apostolic Age, Oxford 1829 (the Bampton Lectures, 1829), pp. 8 - 1 3 . Burton's discussion of the connotations of αϊρβσις in Greek philosophical usage, although based on a small selection of examples, is extremely sensible and far in advance of his times. But his evidence for the original connotation of this word (p. 8 n.d.) rests chiefly on a passage of Diogenes Laertius which has nothing to do with the word αϊρεσις and its sense, or with a choice of good and evil; on a number of Patristic passages whose etymological explanation ex post factum is suspect; and on one of Casaubon's notes to Polybius, which explains αϊρεσκ as 'omne Studium, quod semel amplexi deinceps tenemus', but says nothing about a choice of good and evil, or of a way of life. That aïpeoK may have acquired its more technical or formulaic connotations we find in Polybius and the inscriptions ultimately from this basic sense of 'choice' is more than likely. But we shall presently see that, by the time of Polybius, its new senses are already stereotyped, and it is well on its way to acquiring the more technical connotations, in such contexts where the sense of 'choice' has been quite forgotten and will simply not do. 19 With the one exception known to me: J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, London 1930, pp. 13-14 (s.v. αϊρεσις), who produce a few select examples from inscriptions and papyri. In the papyri, axpeoK appears to mean almost invariably 'election' or 'choice', but never in a philosophical or religious sense. 20 S.v. αίρεσις B, 3. No additions in the Supplement.

168

these specimens into groups will attempt to do some justice to the various formulae as well as to the various senses of this word, before reaching more general conclusions. 21 In the case of a recurrent formula, one or two examples and a list of references should be sufficient. For the analysis of senses and shades of meaning, I shall supply fuller quotations. My lists are not exhaustive — more examples could be cited. But I have tried to supply a sufficient number of specimens, and those which appear to be the least ambiguous, for each formula or connotation.

FORMULAIC EXPRESSIONS aïpeaiv 2

'έχειν 3

IG II ,682 = S/G , 409 (dated 315/4 B.C. in IG, 275/4 B.C. by Dittenberger), lines 18—20: και ούτος δέ Φαιδρός την αυτήν aXpeaw 'έχων τοις προγόνοις διατετέλεκεν. Cf. IG II 2 844 (SIG3 535), 22. SIG3 4 3 8 , 1 4 - 1 5 ; 559,25; 591,52; 598 D 10; 721,18-19; 1068,19; 1107,23. OGIS 219,18; 237,8; 244,18. Polyb. 2,50,5; 4,72,6; 9,23,7; 18,37,4. Plutarch, Galba VI,1055C. μένειν έπί της αίρέσεως, την αυτήν aïpeaiv διαφυλάττειν, διατηpeiv, and similar verbs IG II 2 908 = OGIS 117 (dated 1 8 1 - 1 7 0 B%.C.), lines 1 6 - 1 8 : και εις το λοιπόν δέ τήν αύτήν aïpeaiv διατηρούντι προς τον δήμον και άλλο àyaâôv eùpéaûai ότου àv ei άξιος. Cf. IG II 2 908 (= OGIS 117),5-6; 909 (OGIS 118),18-19. OGIS 229,5. Polyb. 9,37,2; 18,48,6; 28,9,2; 31,11,10. aïpeaiv 2

άποδεικνύναι,

and similar verbs.

3

IG II 844 = SIG 535 (dated 217/6 B.C.), lines 2 0 - 2 2 : σπως cw ούν και ό δήμος φαίνηται τιμών τούς άποδε ικννμένονς ην εχουσιν axpeaw έμ π αντί καιρ ώ t. Cf. IG II 2 6 9 3 , 2 - 4 ; 8 4 4 , 6 8 - 7 0 (= SIG3 537,69-71). SIG3 559,25-6. OGIS 244,18-19; 315,25. Polyb. 3,31,8; 3,98,9. έπαινε'ιν

έπί τή

aipéoei

3

SIG 1107 (dated c. 200 B.C.), lines 2 0 - 2 5 : δεδόχύαι Νίκαγόραι^ μέν και Αύκαιόον επαινέσω έπι' τε τάι αίρέσει και εύσεβείαι αν έχοντι ποτί τός ϋεός και τός δαμότας. 21

For other attempts to map out the meanings of this word in Polybius, see J. L. StrachanDavidson, Selections from Polybius, Oxford 1888, pp. 7 - 8 ; A. Maucrsberger, Polybius-Lexicon 1,1, Berlin 1956, s.v. (pp. 2 6 - 7 ) . Both restrict themselves to Polybius, and StrachanDavidson's discussion is part of a section called 'Some Peculiar Uses of Words in Polybius'.

169

Cf. SIG3 598 D,9—12; 1068,18-19. άποδέχεσΰαι

την

αιρεοιν

OGIS 315,34-5 (dated 159-156 B.C.): άποδεζάμενος ούν την παρά αού aïpeaiv δια TÒ ϋεωρεϊν έμ παντι καιρώ ι ae πρόϋυμον 'όντα προς τα ημέτερα πράγματα Cf. OGIS 227,15; 326,10-11. Polyb. 2,39,5; 31,3,3.

ë χ ε ι ν την αύτην

aïpeaiv

τοις

προγόνοις,

and similar expressions

2

IG II 908, lines 16—18 — see above under μένενν έπί της 2

αιρέοεως.

Cf. IG II 6 9 3 , 2 - 4 ; 909 (= OGIS 118),17-18; 1225 (SIG 454),15-16. SIG3 4 3 8 , 1 4 - 1 5 ; 582,16-17; 5 9 1 , 5 5 9 8 D , 1 0 ; 721,18-19; 1 1 0 7 , 2 2 ^ . OGIS 244,18-19; 326,11-12. Polyb. 2,50,5; 3,98,9; 4,72,6; 7,13,1.

αΐρεαις

και εύνοια,

3

or similar nouns

3

SIG 591 (dated after 196 B.C.), lines 5 2 - 5 4 : ήκονσε δηλωσάντων την ευνοιαν Kai την αϊρεοιν ην εχοντες διατελούσι προς αυτούς και άνανεωααμένων την υπάρχου aap συμμαχίαρ προς αύτούς. Cf. SIG3 559,25-6. OGIS 326,10-12. Polyb. 1,14,3; 3,98,9; 4,72,6; 7,11,8; 18,48,6; 30,31,17. So much for some of the commonest formulaic expressions. Even the examples I have quoted at some length should be sufficient to show (and this impression will be fully confirmed by the passages I have only cited), that αχρεοις in such standard expressions refers to something which we could conveniently translate as an attitude or disposition. One 'has' such an attitude, 'keeps the same disposition on all occasions', 'manifests' such a disposition or 'makes it clear'. It is sometimes 'a disposition similar to that of one's ancestors', and is very frequently 'a disposition towards someone' — usually a city, an institution, a patron or an ally. Our inscriptions are mostly honorary decrees or alliances, and many of the passages of Polybius listed so far are found in the contexts of alliances and similar political relationships. It is therefore not surprising that αϊρεοις is often coupled with εύνοια', that allies, patrons or benefactors are 'praised for their αϊρεοις' (most often 'towards someone') and that their αϊρεσις is 'accepted' by the other side. The advantage of such formulae is that they are simple and repetitive. They demonstrate that, from the third century onwards, the word αϊρεοις in civic and political contexts becomes virtually a cliché, and in the general sense we have indicated. But one would hardly turn to inscriptions and formulae to discover the finer shades of meaning: here, we require a literary source. In what follows, I shall 170

reverse the order followed so far. Polybius will serve as my basis for detecting the various connotations of our word, and the evidence of the inscriptions will only be cited where it supports such connotations.

CONNOTATIONS Attitude

of mind,

Polyb. 3,31,8:

conception τα δε παρεληλυΰότα των έργων, έξ αυτών των πραγμάτων λαμβάνοντα την δοκιμασΐαν, άληύινώς εμφαίνει τάς εκάστων αιρέσεις και διαλήφεις.

5,56,5—6: ό μεν Άπολλοφάνης σdai της αίρέσεως Practical disposition Polyb. 9,23,7:

9,37,2:

or inclination

εύάαρσης έγένετο τω δοκείν μή δια ψeöκαι διαλήψεως της τον βασιλέως.

(in a given

situation)

Λακεδαιμονίων δ' ηγουμένων της ' Ελλάδος boa μεν δια Κλεομβρότου τού βασιλέως πράττοιτο, πάντα συμμαχικήν είχεν την αϊρεσιν, όσα δε δι' 'Αγησιλάου, τουναντίον. eï μεν ομοια ε'ίη τα πράγματα νύν και καύ' ους καιρούς έποιeiade την προς τούτους συμμαχίαν, διότι δει μένειν και την ύμετέραν αϊρεσιν έπί των ύποκειμένων.

This practical sense of αϊρεσις as 'disposition' or 'inclination' in practical matters is attested also in the inscriptions — e.g. SIG3 675,29; 721,19—20. It covers many of the passages quoted above under αϊρεσιν εχειν, μένειν έπί της αίρέσεως and αϊρεσιρ άποδεικνύναι. It leads naturally to the following senses. Character (or disposition)

of a person or a group of persons

This sense of αϊρεσις abounds in Polybius: 1,14,2: 1,20,11 : 2,56,9: 2,70,7: 5.40.1 : 5.81.2 : 10,2,1 : 12,24,1: 13,3,7: 15,21,1:

εκόντας ούν έψεύσϋαι τους άνδρας ούχ ύπολαμβάνω, στοχαξόμενος έκ τού βίου και της αίρέσεως αύτών. το μεγαλόψυχον και παράβολον της 'Ρωμαίων αιρέσεως. το μεν ούν άγεννες και γυναικώδες της αίρέσεως αύτού. κατά την δλην αϊρεσιν και καλοκαγαύίαν. τα μεν καταφρονήσας τού βασιλέως διά την ασελγείαν τού βίου και της όλης αίρέσεως. την τού βασιλέως αϊρεσιν και δίαιταν ποία τις ην. έπί την αϊρεσιν και φύσιν τάνδρός. οτι ού διαπορείν έστι περί της αίρέσεως Τιμαίου. βραχύ δέ τι λείπεται παρά 'Ρωμαώις ίχνος 'έτι της αρχαίας αϊρέσεως περί τα πολεμικά. άνηρ και λέγειν και πράττειν ικανός, κατά δέ την αϊρεσιν δημαγωγικός και πλεονέκτης. 171

22,19,3:

πολύ yàp δή τι μοι δοκεϊ κεχωρίσύαι κατά την αϊρεσιν ò πραγματικός άνηρ του κακσπpayμονος και παραπλησίαν έχειν διαφοραν τ φ κακεντρεχεϊ προς τον έντρεχή.

Disposition (usually favourable) towards someone To this class belong most of the examples listed in the last section under axpeσις προς τινα and αϊρεσις και εύνοια. Political view, political programme, policy As could only be expected, a sense quite usual in a work of political history like that of Polybius: 2,39,5:

ού μόνον δέ κατά τούτους τούς καιρούς άπεδέξαντο την alpeaw των 'Αχαιών, άλλα και μετά τινας χρόνους όλοσχερώς ώρμησαν έπί τό μιμητοί yevéoôai της πολιτείας αυτών. 2,44,3: διότι μία τις àei των 'Αχαιών αϊρεσις υπήρχε, καϋ' ην προτείνοντες μεν την παρ'· αυτοίς ίσηγορίαν και παρρησίαν κτε. 4,35,10: οί κοινωνούντες έφοροι της αίρέσεως τοις στασιώταις. 4,51,5 : ού μην άλλα προσκλίνων τοις 'Ροδίοις ò Πτολεμαίος κατά την δλην aïpeow. 5,106,7: άκολουΰούντες δε την τών προεστώτων αΧρεοιν. 20,6,7: αύΰις απένευσαν προς τούς 'Αχαιούς και την έκείνων αχρεσιν. 28,3,7—8: και παραδείξειν άλλοτρίους ύπάρχοντας της τών 'Ρωμαίων αίρέσεως και ήουχίαν ατ/οντας κατά τό παρόν. 28,9,2: διά τό τον Γένΰων μένειν έπί της αυτής αίρέσεως όντα μεν έτοιμον τ φ Πέρσει κοινωνείν κτε. 31,11,10: εμεινεν ή σύγκλητος έπί τής αύτής αίρέσεως ώαπερ εικός ην. 33,16,2-3: έρρεπον ταϊς γνώμαις οί πολλοί μάλλον έπί τούς 'Ροδίους, έντρεπόμενοι και την τής πόλεως αξίωμα και την δλην αχρεσιν τής πολιτείας και τών ανδρών. Plutarch, Galba VI,1055C: où την αύτήν αχρεσιν έχοντες (from the context: 'not sharing the same political ambitions'.) To this category belong the few cases of αίρετιστής in Polybius: 1,79,9; 2,38,7; 55,8; 21,23,11. Only the first of these instances has αίρετιστής τίνος with a person's name in the genitive — 'the follower of Sardo's policies' — which could be rendered as 'partisan'. 'Philosophical sect'? Two specimens are usually adduced, both from Polybius, and both rather doubtful: 5,93,8:

172

μάλιστα τε τών νόμων ύπό Πρυτάνώος y eyραμμένων προς αλλήλους έφιλονείκουν, δν έδωκε μεν αύτόίς νομοάέτην 'Αντίγονος, ην δε τών έπιψανών ανδρών εκ τού Περιπάτου και ταύτης τής αίρέσεως.

The word και shows clearly that ταύτης της αίρέσεως does not refer to his Peripatetic connection: 'he was one of the most distinguished men of the Peripatetic school, and a supporter of that policy' — the one delineated in the preceding sections. 12,26c,3:

εις διαβολήν ήχασι την ολην

αϊρεσιν.

This appears to be a more relevant passage, since its context is a criticism of the dialectic of the sceptical Academy. By their arguments, says Polybius, they have brought disrepute on the whole αϊρεσις. And he continues: ώστε καί τα καλώς άπορούμενα napa τοις ανύρώποις εις άπιστίαν ήχασι — 'so that even their valid puzzlements have met with disbelief.' 'jEven their valid puzzlements' — which must therefore be understood as part of their όλη αίρεσις. Clearly, ούίρεσις here is no school, sect or any other type of community or institution, but rather 'the whole of their philosophy', or 'philosophical outlook' or 'persuasion'. A similarly attractive, and equally misleading, occurrence of αϊρεσις in connection with a group of philosophers appears in a more properly philosophical text, somewhat earlier than Polybius. I refer to a book by the Epicurean Polystratus, who succeeded Hermarchus to the headship of the Epicurean school in the early years of the second half of the second century B.C. In his Περί άλογου καταφρονήσεως (Col. XIIa,7-10 Witke), Polystratus speaks of ή τών άπαύεϊς και κυνικούς αντούς ·προσαγορευοάντ[ων]αίρεαις. I have deliberately quoted these words out of context, to show what sort of expression could give rise to the later sense of αΧρεσις as 'school of thought'. The full context will show that this is not yet the case here (ibid, lines 6—12): ώς δηλούσιν οϊ re προειρημένοι (that is: λόγοι — see 1.5) και ή τών άπαιίεϊς καί κυνικούς αντούς προσαγορευσάντ[ων]αϊρεσις, καχ τα λεγόμενα καί πραττόμενα υπ' αύτ[ώ]ν . Αϊρεοις is still used in the same context, and in the same field of connotations, as λόγοι, τα λεγόμενα και πραττόμενα. It still means 'a point of view' or a 'disposition'. While phrases like this may point the way to future connotations, they still belong firmly among those senses of the word which we have met with in Polybius and the inscriptions. Those who wish to find a third or second century example of αϊρεσις referring to a group of philosophers rather than to views or 'persuasions', would do better to search elsewhere.

CONCLUSIONS To sum up. Polybius, like the inscriptions we have surveyed, uses αϊρεσις in the senses of 'disposition, inclination, persuasion', with the more specific meanings of'attitude or disposition towards someone'; 'favourable attitude'; 'good will'; 'practical attitude or disposition'; 'character or disposition of a person or a group of persons'; and 'political disposition, persuasion or policy' What is common to all these senses, and to all the formulaic expressions we 173

have met with, is that unlike σχολή or διατριβή, which, from the very beginning, designate some form of activity or occupation, αϊρβσις is distinctly abstract. It is an attitude of mind, a disposition, a character, a policy, which one has to reveal in actions or can deduce from them. Unlike σχολή or διατριβή, axpeoις is thus far less likely to develop into a concept denoting an activity or an institution. Even in the two philosophical contexts where we have encountered it, it refers to a sect's philosophical 'policy' or 'persuasion', rather than to the sect itself as a group of people. The importance of Polybius and the inscriptions we have selected cannot be exaggerated. They belong to the period in which the Athenian schools flourished and in which much of the terminology connected with these schools was being fashioned. At the same time, since they are not philosophical sources, they allow us to control the meanings and usages or a word like αϊρβσις from an Archimedean point outside the main scope of our enquiry. The one example from the work of a philosopher of that period — Polystratus the Epicurean — seems to confirm their usage. We can now turn to the uses of this word in the other philosophical sources.

4. Philosophical aïpeaiç When was αϊρβσις first used as a term designating a philosophical 'sect' or its doctrines? Kittel's Theologisches Wörterbuch refers us to the title of a book by Chrysippus, Αϊρεοις προς ΓορΎΐτπτίδην. This is a most unlikely candidate. Apart from the oddness of such a title if it were to bear this meaning - 'sect, dedicated to Gorgippides' - this title appears in Diogenes Laertius' catalogue of Chrysippus' works (VII,191) among the logical works (λογικού τόπον περί τα πράγματα, σύνταξις δευτέρα) and in the company of three other works addressed to the same Gorgippides, two of which at least are clearly of a logical nature. R. D. Hicks, in his Loeb edition, translated this title as 'Choosing from Alternatives, addressed to Gorgippides'. Other explanations are possible.22 It is most unlikely that the book had anything to do with the philosophical sects and their doctrines. Other presumed writers 'on the philosophical sects' are Epicurus, Theodorus the Cyrenaic, Eratosthenes, Panaetius, Clitomachus and Hippobotus. 23 But we know of no book by Epicurus beside the one listed by Diogenes Laertius (X,

22 In early Stoic terminology, αϊρβσις invariably means 'a moral choice' - see Adler's Index, SVF IV, p. 8, s.v. This particular book may have been ethical, included here because of Gorgippides, to whom three other works in this section arc dedicated. Or it may have had διαίρεσις in its title. Was it, perhaps, the same as ne pi διαιρέσεων of 200, which follows immediately on a book dedicated to Gorgippides? 23 Pohlenz, Stoa II, p. 10 η. 1.

174

2 7 ) as περί

αιρέσεων

και φυ^ών,

w h i c h w a s clearly an ethical treatise. 2 4 T h e

T h e o d o r u s m e n t i o n e d in Diog.Laert. 11,65 is m o s t likely t o b e t h e Cyrenaic p h i l o s o p h e r : h e is m e n t i o n e d a m o n g o t h e r c o n t e m p o r a r i e s o f Aristippus w h o d e n o u n c e d h i m . B u t this is the o n l y m e n t i o n a n y w h e r e o f a b o o k o f his called •περί αιρέσεων,25

and w e have n o e v i d e n c e that this work w a s c o n c e r n e d w i t h

the p h i l o s o p h i c a l 'sects' rather than w i t h αιρέσεις

καί φιτγαί as w a s Epicurus'

w o r k . 2 6 X e n o p h o n is m a d e b y D i o g e n e s in t h e same passage t o criticize Aristippus f o r his views o n

pleasure.

That E r a t o s t h e n e s w r o t e a w o r k περί t o l d o n l y b y t h e Suda

(s.v. Eratosthenes,

των κατά φιλσσοφίαν

αιρέσεων

w e are

N o . 2 9 8 9 Adler). This t e s t i m o n y is

treated w i t h suspicion b y Bernhardy, Martini and J a c o b y ; 2 7 f o r the b o o k is n o t cited or referred t o a n y w h e r e else. This is i n d e e d surprising, in view o f the n u m b e r o f references t o E r a t o s t h e n e s in D i o g e n e s Laertius a l o n e . 2 8 It is at 14

Pohlenz loc.cit. aiguës that in Fr. 2 Usener (= Diog.Laert. X,136), two books are mentioned: ηερϊ αίρέσεως καί ψυ^ης and nepl αιρέσεων, and that the argument against the Cyrenaic τέλος in Fragments 4 5 0 - 4 5 3 , which resembles the argument from nepl αιρέσεων in Fr. 2, may have come from the same work. But: 1. The first half of Fr. 2 contains a similar argument against the Cyrenaics ascribed to ηερι αίρέσεως και φυγής, nepl τέλους, and nepl βίων. 2. AU the other works mentioned in this passage of Diogenes are also listed in his catalogue of Epicurus' writings (X,27 - 8 ) , where only one work, nepl αφέσεων και φυγών, is mentioned. 3. It is therefore most likely that despite the consensus of the MSS, one should read in X,136 as well nepl αΙρέσεων καί φυγών in the plural. 4. The words έν rc¡> nepl αιρέσεων are omitted by F, and may be a gloss. If genuine, they must refer to the one work attested elsewhere. " No reference to this book in K. v. Fritz, RE 2R 5, pp. 1 8 2 5 - 3 1 (Theodoros 32). Praechter p. 24 ascribes this book to 'einem sonst nicht bekannten Theodoros', and claims - with no evidence whatsoever - that Ps.-Galen, Hist.Philos. p. 603ff. Diels, Diog.Laert. 1,18, and even Aug.Civ. XIX,2 and Varro's satire ηερι αιρέσεων should be taken as derived from this unknown Theodorus. G. Giannantoni, I Cirenaici, Florence 1958, p. 71 n. 3, also believes that the author of this work is not Theodorus the Cyrenaic, but his argument is unconvincing. Diog.Laert. 11,97 (or his source) does not maintain that περί ϋεώρ was Theodorus' only book: he merely states that he has come across this book while he is speaking of Theodorus' atheism. If we had no information concerning any other of Cicero's philosophical works, Plutarch Lucullus 42,4 would still be no evidence that Cicero wrote only one philosophical work called Lucullus. 26 Pohlenz, loc.cit. η. 23 above, claims that this was, perhaps, Diogenes' ultimate source for the differences between the various Cyrenaic 'sects' (II,85ff.). But, as Pohlenz points out, Diogenes refers in that section to Panaetius, Clitomachus and Hippobotus. He does not refer in that section to Theodorus, whose evidence would have been primary and likely to be quoted as such by his sources.

" E. Martini, RE 6, p. 385; Jacoby FGH 241,1 comm. (IIB, p. 706). G. Bernhardy, Eratosthenica, Berlin 1822, p. 196: 'Sed aliam ab eodem memoratam commentationem, nepl των κατα φιλσσοφίαν αΙρέσεων, sine haesitatione inter Lexicographi mendacia referendam censeo, ea praecipue ratione adductus, quod gravissimum opus ab eruditissimo eodemque perspicacissimo viro perscriptam ñeque alii vetustorum hominum, neque is qui aliquoties ad Eratosthenem provocai auctorem, Diogenes Laertius, silentio plane praeterire debuerunt.' 28 1,119; IV,52; VI,88; VII,5; VIII,47; 51; 89; IX,66. 175

least very likely that, if such a book by Eratosthenes existed at all, it was a περί αιρέσεων in the more traditional, ethical sense. In the Suda entry, this title is followed by an equally suspect περί άλνπίας. We are left with Clitomachus, Panaetius and Hippobotus. Clitomachus' περί αιρέσεων is referred to once by Diogenes Laertius (11,92), in the same context as Meleager's nepi δοξών. It is therefore likely to have been concerned with the views of the various philosophical sects. It also seems most likely that Panaetius' περί αιρέσεων mentioned by Diogenes a few paragraphs earlier (II, 87), was concerned with the doctrines of the various philosophical sects.29 Thus it seems that, in the second half of the second century B.C., aïpeaις already appears in the titles of books concerned with the views of various philosophers and philosophical sects. Is Hippobotus, our third author of a work περί αιρέσεων in that sense, much earlier than these two authors? In the eighteenth century, he was included by Jonsius in his pioneering De Scriptoribus Historiae Philosophiae among the incognitae aetatis script ores.30 A more scientific age has tried to pin him down to a more definite date, and von Arnim's suggestion that he lived towards the end of the third century B.C. is usually reproduced now without more ado.31 Arnim offeis this dating for a number of reasons, but his two major arguments are: a. Hippobotus speaks of the Annicerians and Theodoreans as distinct from the main Cyrenaic school, while Sotion had settled the matter in his διάδοχοι: Hippobotus must, therefore, be earlier than Sotion; b. Hippobotus speaks only of the Old Academy as a sect with distinct views on ethics: he must have lived at a time when the official Academy had no such positive views — that is, after Arcesilaus. Much depends on determining how much of the discussion of αιρέσεις τον ήάικσύ in Diog.Laert. 1,18-21 is derived from Hippobotus. The passage begins with a list of ten ethical αιρέσεις and their founders (1,18-19). It then quotes Hippobotus' list of nine such αιρέσεις, adding that Hippobotus does not count the Cynics, the Eleans and the Pyrrhonians as sects, but gives only his reason for rejecting the Pyrrhonians. Having summed up the subjects of the last few paragraphs in the last sentence of 1,20, Diogenes adds a description of the more recent 'sect', the Eclectic one of Potamo of Alexandria (1,21). It is clear that this last paragraph is an addition to Diogenes Laertius' source, which he has been following since 1,13: άρχοι, διάδοχοι, μέρη and αιρέσεις, as summed up in 1,20. It seems also that Diogenes' source regarded the list of ten αιρέσεις which preceded that of Hippobotus as the standard list. But are the comments on Hippobotus' omissions derived from Diogenes' source, 29

See discussion and literature in Van Straaten, Panétius pp. 3 6 - 7 . Joannes Jonsius, De Scriptoribus Historiae Philosophiae, 2nd. ed., Jena 1 7 1 6 , Lib. IV n. 27, pp. 2 5 6 - 7 . On Jonsius' book, see below, pp. 3 3 4 - 5 . 31 H. v. Arnim, RE 8, pp. 1 7 2 2 - 3 ; Praechter p. 19; Oxford Classical Dictionary1970, p. 5 1 8 , et al. 30

176

or from that source's source for the ten aipéoeις - or could it be derived from Hippobotus himself? No absolute certainty can be reached on a point of this nature. But it is not unlikely that Hippobotus' modifications and the reasons for them are his, and that it was the list of ten αιρέσεις which precedes his in Diogenes' account that Hippobotus knew and was reacting against.32 Nor is it unlikely that the arguments for and against calling the Pyrrhonians a sect are taken by Diogenes from Hippobotus himself. 33 One might even suggest that the whole discussion of αιρέσεις, from the list of ten in 1,18 to the end of 1,20 (except the last sentence) was taken by Diogenes' source from Hippobotus. It is not unusual for an author to give 'the standard list' first, and then provide his own list and explain his reasons for the differences. Besides, Hippobotus is frequently referred to by name in Diogenes Laertius, 34 and it is most likely that one of Diogenes' chief sources — perhaps his source for the whole section, 1,13—20 — drew largely on Hippobotus' work. Fortunately, it is not quite essential to our discussion to determine whether Hippobotus knew the alternative list of ten aipéoeις or not, since that list does not contain any names later than those in Hippobotus' list. 35 Nor is Arnim's argument from the appearance of various Cyrenaic aipéoeις in 1,19 of much weight. Diogenes' source for II,85ff. also takes it for granted that there were a number of such aipéoeις, including those listed by Hippobotus. And Diogenes' source for this section cannot be Hippobotus himself, since he is quoted in it (11,88). It is not unlikely to have been the same source drawn on in 1,13—20 (whether it is Sotion or not. The mere mention of Sotion's

33

As suggested by Ed. Schwarz, RE 9, p. 756. The Suda s.v. Hippobotus (No. 554 Adler) merely refers the reader to the entry ΑΙΡΕΣΙΣ (No. 286 Adler), where it gives a slightly different and shorter version of the section in Diog.Laert. 1,19 (from Ίππόβοτος 6è)-21, including the section on Potamo and omitting the last sentence of 20. But it is most probable that the Suda's source excerpted this section from Diogenes, rather than from Hippobotus or from Diogenes' source. In either of these cases, one would have expected to find more significant variations between Diogenes and the Suda. 34 See R. D. Hicks' Index Fontium in the second volume of his Loeb text, p. 702; H. S. Long's Index Nominum in the second volume of his Oxford Text, p. 582. For a full list of references to Hippobotus, see v. Arnim, loc.cit. η. 31 above. Jonsius, loc.cit. η. 30 above, argues that Hippobotus' η τών φιλοσόφων άναΎραφή was probably part of his περί αιρέσεων. 35 Ed. Schwarz, loc.cit. n. 32 above, p. 757, is clearly right in excising της μέσης ... Αακύδης from 1,19, as inserted there from 1,14. In that case, we should also delete την άρχαίαν in the same sentence: the list in 1,18 mentions only one Academic αίρβσις. Schwarz also correctly indicates that Diogenes' version has Κλειτόμαχος (and added à Καρχηδόνιος) where Suda = Hesychius has the right reading KXeiνόμαχος, the pupil of Euclides of Megara, whose a'ipeaις was called διαλεκτική (Suda s.v. Socrates, No. 829, p. 404 line 13 Adler). 33

12

Glucker (Hyp.

56)

177

name earlier in 11,85 as Diogenes' source for the list of books is no evidence that the new section, which starts with the words ημείς δ', is also derived from him). The crux of the matter appears to be Hippobotus' treatment of the Academy as an ethical αιρεσις. One of his nine αιρέσεις, the eighth, is 'Ακαδημαϊκή, and the words την άρχαίαν in Diogenes' version are clearly a gloss.36 Hippobotus counts the 'Zenonians or Stoics' as one of his nine sects, and so does the compiler of the other list. Neither of them could thus be much earlier than Arcesilaus, Zeno's contemporary and fellow-student. Yet nothing is said by either about the sceptical Academy. 37 Had Hippobotus, or the author of the other list, been a contemporary of any of the exponents of the sceptical Academy, one would have expected such a flourishing Athenian school to be mentioned, or its exclusion from the list to be made explicit and commented on — as Hippobotus does in the case of the Pyrrhonians. The Pyrrhonians are discussed at some length, with references to some previous opinions on the problem whether they are a proper sect or not, 38 surely because, by the time of Hippobotus, they had been in existence for some time and were still 'a going concern'. And the Pyrrhonians were hardly likely to be 'a going concern' much before the age of Aenesidemus, the 'restorer' of Pyrrhonism, who was an older contemporary of Antiochus. 39 The sceptical Academy, I suggest, is not mentioned in Hippobotus' list because, by the time of Hippobotus (and the compiler of the other list) it had ceased to be a 'going concern'. It is the one school of philosophy omitted from both lists — because both were composed when it was already extinct, and when a compiler like Hippobotus would consider only the early Academy of Plato and his immediate successors as representing the school. This could happen only after the sceptical school came to an end with Philo's exile and Chaimadas' death, and when Antiochus and his followers had established themselves, claiming to be the true representatives of the genuine Academic tradition. Hippobotus and the compiler of the other list in Diogenes Laertius 1,13—18 lived in the late first century B.C. Two objections may be raised: a. Antiochus and his school made no distinction between the Old Academy and the Peripatetics; both Hippobotus and the 36

The Suda (s.v. Α Ι Ρ Ε Σ Ι Σ - see n. 33 above) does not have these words. They crept in from 1,14, like similar phrases discussed in the last note. 37 See n. 35 above. It could be argued that Stoicism was established by Zeno before Arcesilaus became scholarch and 'founded the New Academy'. But one must allow some time between the founding of a school and a reputation large enough to put it on a 'league-table'. By such a time, the Academy would have been sceptical for long enough and a change in the orientation of the Academy must have achieved notoriety very soon after it occurred. Indeed, Arcesilaus' critics provided 'free advertisment' for his scepticism during his own tenure as scholarch of the Academy. 38 3

Diog.Laert. 1,20: oi πλείους . . . '¿νιοι - see below, n. 41. ' See below, pp. 3 4 9 - 3 5 6 . On Aenesidemus' date, see above, p. 1 1 6 - 1 1 9 .

178

other compiler do; b. the Cyrenaic school, too, must have ceased to be 'a going concern' by the first century B.C. But, a., I do not claim that Hippobotus and the other compiler were followers of Antiochus and his school. All I have assumed is that they must have lived after the sceptical Academy had ceased to exist, while a Pyrihonian school of some sort was flourishing. If they lived in the first century B.C. and in Alexandria, this would account for both facts. The sceptical Academy was no longer a force in Greek philosophical life, and the image of the early Academy as the sole representative of the Platonic tradition had been gaining ground ever since Panaetius. At the same time, Pyrrhonism was once more flourishing under the guidance of Aenesidemus, most probably in Alexandria itself, 40 and the question as to whether they were a proper αϊρεοις or not was probably being discussed at the time. 41 b. It is probably true that, whatever διαδοχή one could speak of among the Cyrenaic sects, it ceased soon after the third generation. 42 But there is no reason to assume that some followers of the Cyrenaic 'persuasion' did not linger on into the first century B.C. What is perhaps more probable is that Hippobotus and the anonymous compiler obtained enough information about the ethical views of the Cyrenaic 'sects' from earlier sources — enough information to make them include those Cyrenaic αιρέσεις among their other αιρέσεις τού r¡ δικού. Of the ethical views of the sceptical Academy they found no such information in their sources, for the simple reason that the sceptical Academy had no 'dogmatic' views on ethics. Since the school itself - unlike the Pyrrhonian school of Aenesidemus — was no longer extant, there was no need whatsoever to refer to it. 40

See Pappenheim's article cited n. 14 above. The passage in Diog.Laert. 1,20, recording the controversy as to whether the Pyrrhonians are a αϊρεσις or not, appears in a mutilated form in the Suda s.v. Α Ι Ρ Ε Σ Ι Σ (see n. 33 above) and in a slightly different form in Sextus, P.H. 1,16-17, and is echoed in a mutilated and Stoicized form in Clem.S/r. Vili, IV,16,2. The whole passage of Clement, 1 5 , 2 - 1 6 , 3 , is taken by v. Arnim (SVF II, pp. 3 6 - 7 ) to be a fragment of Chrysippus (Fr.Log. 121). Arnim is following his 'panchrysippean' method, on which see the caveat of J. B. Gould, The Philosophy of Chrysippus, Albany, N. Y „ 1970, pp. 1 - 3 . But the Clement passage contains an attack on the έποχή, which was most probably not used by the Pyrrhonians before Aenesidemus (P. Couissin, 'L'oigine et l'évolution de Ι'ΕΠΟΧΗ', REG 42, 1929, pp. 3 7 3 - 3 9 7 ) . It seems more likely - although one cannot prove it that Sextus' report is derived from Aenesidemus, and that the Diogenes, Suda and Clement versions are derived from a similar source, perhaps partly dependent on Aenesidemus as well, but treating it from different angles. For a renovator of Pyrrhonism like Aenesidemus, who lived in an age when the problem of αφέσεις was already 'in the air', the issue of whether the Pyrrhonians were a αϊρβσις or not would acquire new prominence. 41

42

See E. Mannebach, Aristippi et Cyrenaicorum Fragmenta, Leiden/Köln 1961, pp. S S SS; G. Giannantoni, I Cirenaici, Florence 1958, pp. 2 7 7 - 8 , Fragments 1 7 1 - 2 . Giannantoni pp. 5 5 - 7 3 , esp. pp. 7 0 - 7 3 , does not believe that one can speak of a proper 'school' with its 'succession' even in the first two or three generations. That the Cyrenaics were not considered as an extinct philosophical aïpeoiç even in Cicero's time is clear from such passages as Fin. 1,23; II,39ff.; 114; Tusc. 111,28; 31; 52 et al.

179

If this dating of Hippobotus is correct, 43 we can conclude that the type of book entitled περί αιρέσεων and dealing with the views of the various philosophical 'sects' made its first appearances about the age of Panaetius and Clitomachus, and was further developed, probably in Alexandria, in the following century. The earlier Stoics, Epicureans and Academics were too involved in their own contemporary issues and controversies to show much interest in the comparative study of the various views involved in such issues and their historical origins. In the first two generations of.the Peripatetic school, its members showed some interest in the history of philosophy; but this interest was restricted to the philosophy of nature, and to the earlier period, especially the Pre-Socratics. Aristotle has no 'doxographical' introduction to any of his ethical or political treatises, nor did Theophrastus compose any Ήι?ικαί (or Ήϋικών) δόξαι. By the time of Strato and Lyco, the school had lost all interest in such matters. It was Carneades who, in his Carneadea divisto, was the first (as far as we know) to produce virtually a table of αιρέσεις τού ήάικού, and it is hardly surprising that such a study was carried on by his successor Clitomachus and by Clitomachus' contemporary Panaetius, whose interest in the history of the various schools is amply attested. 44 From the start, these αιρέσεις are decidedly not identical with the philosophical schools as institutions. One cannot speak of ten, or nine, 'schools of ethics' as institutions, even if, in practice, some of those ethical αιρέσεις are expounded by institutional schools of philosophy. Some are not — the Theodoreans and Annicerians were no proper schools with their διάδοχοι'.45 Nor were the Cynics; and, when Diogenes Laertius (11,103) proceeds to sum up their doctrines, he explains that he does so since he (that is, his source) considers them not as a αϊρεσις, but as an έντααις βίουΖ*6 The moral is clear: in order to be a αϊρεσις, one need not be an organized school with its διαδοχή : all one needs is some doctrines, άρέσκοντα47 or δόγματα — or, at least, to make an attempt to follow 43

Even if Arnim's dating were right, this would still not prove that the word αίρβσις was used by Hippobotus himself. Diogenes Laert. 1,19 says: Ίππόβοτος S' èv τ φ itepi αιρέσεων έννέα φησιν a'tpêaeK καί άγωγας elvai. If Hippobotus were indeed a contemporary of Zeno and Arcesilaus, this phrase would indicate that he used the earlier term αγωγή, and that the title of the work was later standardized in the Alexandrian Library catalogue, when nepl αιρέσεων became the regular title for books of this nature (not unlike the title περί ρύσεως, ascribed in our doxographical sources to most of the Pre-Socratic φυσωλό7ς και Σωκράτους 'έτι α(ιρούμενος) will do. By the fourth century, άίρεσις had long lost whatever connection it may have originally had with the verb αίρεομαι in the sense of 'choose'. 134 LSJ s.w. Άκαδημιακός, Άκαδημεικός, 'Ακαδημαϊκός, Άκαδημικός, cite no source earlier than Philodemus and Cicero. But for Πλατωνικός, the same Lexicon (s.v.) cites no source earlier than a third century A.D. inscription. The earliest contemporary mention of 'Ακαδημαϊκοί I can trace is a verse of Timón, Diog.Laert. IV,67 = Diels, PPF 35. One cannot tell whether Timon wrote it of the Academy before or after the accession of Arcesilaus. But since the school was connected with the area of the Academy from its very foundation, the question as to when precisely the adjective, in this particular form, began to be used seems to be of purely academic interest. Ephippus Fr. 14 Kock (= Athen. XI,509c), lines 1 - 2 , speaks of εύστοχος νεανΐας των έξ Άκαδημεΐας τις ύπά Πλάτωνα. 135 Later sources very occasionally refer to a pupil of Plato, or to an Academic philosopher of the last three centuries of the Republic, as Πλατωνικός: Diog.Laert. 1,2 (Hermo212

and all our diadochical sources,136 the one and only epithet applied to a member of Plato's school from Speusippus to the age of Antiochus is Academicus. The same, of course, is true of authors who wrote before the epithet Platónicas came to be used. Seneca, as we have seen earlier in this section, knows of Academics, Academici veteres and minores.137 Tacitus, who never mentions a Platonicus or Platonici, has {Dial. 31) dabunt Academici pugnacitatem - referring clearly to the sceptical Academy, of whose skill in dialectical word-fights he has read in his Cicero. He knows also of Xenophon and Plato — and, of course, of the Stoics - but not oì Platonici. Nor does Quintilian, to whom Platonicus as the epithet of a philosopher or a philosophical sect is unknown, but who remembers the sceptical Academy and the story of Carneades in Rome (12,1,35) — most probably from his readings of Cicero. Even Plutarch's usage is instructive. As we have seen, he never uses Πλατωνικός or Πλατωνικοί to describe any philosophers — not even his own teacher Ammonius. The epithet 'Ακαδημαϊκός does exist in his writings, but it is usually restricted to members of the Academy before the age of Antiochus (Mor. 102D: Crantor; 62IF: Agamestor;138 791A: Aeschines; 1057A: Academic contemporaries of Chrysippus and Antipater; 1059B: Arcesilaus and Carneades; 1120C and 1122A: Arcesilaus; 1036C and 1077C: the sceptical Academy in general). Only in one place does he appear to refer to contemporary Academics: Quaest.Conv. IX, 12/741C. The passage is mutilated, and we only have the tail end of the discussion. But even from that fragment, and the title of the 'problem', we can see that the discussion was concerned not with Academic scepticism or with Platonic doctrine or exegesis, but with the number of stars — odd or even. We shall return to this passage in our discussion of Plutarch's own relations to the Academy. 139 Lucian knows of Platonici both as one of the major αιρέσεις of his age (Herrn. \b,Pisc. 43; 49,Eun. 3,Icar. 29), and as contemporary individuals (Nigr. 2, of Nigrinus; Philops. 6 and Conv. 7, of Ion, described in the last of these passages as a Πλατωνικός and a διδάσκαλος and in the first as ò έπί τοις Πλάτωνος λόγοις ΰαυμάξεσόαι αξιών κτε ). The only person called by him Platonicus who is not his contemporary is ό Πλατωνικός Δημήτριος, who lived under Ptolemy Dionysus, probably Cleopatra's father, and to whom we shall soon

dorus); 11,135 (Menedemus 'in his doctrines'); X,14 (Pamphilus of Samos); Num. ap. Euseb. P.E. XIV,5,2 (Fr. 2 Leemans; 25,15-16 Des Places - of Crantor). It is difficult to determine whether they follow the language of their sources or apply anachronistically a concept current in their own time, but the cumulative force of the evidence on the use of this epithet should incline us towards the second of these alternatives. 136 On the diadochical sources, see below, pp. 344-356. Above, p. 208. 138 See Professor P. A. Clement's note b on p. 59 of his Loeb text, vol. VIII. Add to this A cad.Ind. XXVII,32 and XXXVIII,4ff. 139 Below, pp. 258; 266-7.

213

return {Cal. 16). The meaning of Platónicas in this context will be discussed shortly. 140 On the other hand, Lucian is quite aware of the distinction between Πλατωνικός and 'Ακαδημαϊκός. Both appear as separate entities in Pise. 43, where the 'Academic' is clearly representing the sceptical Academy. In a number of other places, that epithet clearly refers to the sceptical Academy and its adherents (Bis Acc. 15; Vera Hist. 2,18; Icar. 25; Macrob. 20 - if genuine). Especially instructive is the passage Bis Acc. 15—16. 'The Academy' — tout court — is depicted by its characteristic readiness in utramque partem disputare'. clearly the sceptical Academy. But when it delivers its speech, it includes among its members Polemo, the only one, indeed, who is mentioned by name in this passage. Lucian's knowledge of the history of the Academy is already hazy. He knows that the school was once sceptical, and he remembers some anecdotes about Polemo, who was, he knows, an Academic. Beyond this, Lucian can only use his fantasy, and Polemo, Antiochus' model representative of the dogmatic 'Old Academy', is now turned into a sceptic. The only second-century text which appears to treat the Academics as if they were contemporaries is Athenaeus XI,509A: τοιούτοι δ' είσί και νύν ol τών 'Ακαδημαϊκών τίνες, άνοσίως καί άδόξως βιούντες κτε, This passage appears towards the end of a long series of accusations against Plato, beginning in 504B and ending with the end of this book. In the course of this section, a large number of earlier sources are quoted. One of these quotations, in 508C, comes from Theopompus. It was preceded by the words εχει γάρ ης καί παρ' ετέρων ταύτα λαβείν ή βέλτων λεχάεντα ή μη χείρον, which suggest that much in the following passages is taken from a common source, quoting earlier sources. There follow quotations from Carystius (508E) and Demochares (508F). Earlier on, we had another reference to the 'Υπομνήματα of Carystius (506E) and of Hegesander of Delphi (507A), and to the Απομνημονεύματα of Dioscurides (507D). It is not absolutely impossible that all these little-known sources were read and excerpted by Athenaeus himself. It is far more likely that the whole diatribe against Plato and the early Academics was 'lifted' by Athenaeus from an intermediate source. Perhaps this source is what Athenaeus himself refers to at the end of this section (509E) as ή συνα-γω-γή. In the whole of this diatribe, no Academic is mentioned who is later than Xenocrates, and soon after our passage, with its reference to 'contemporary Academics', the example produced is that of 'Chaero of Pellene, who studied not only under Plato, but under Xenocrates as well'. The author of the whole diatribe is not Athenaeus himself, but someone who lived not long after the age of Plato's immediate successors. The 'contemporary Academics' are not Academics of the second century A.D., but of the third century B.C.141 140

Below, pp. 2 1 7 - 1 8 . F. Rudolph, op.cit. n. 130 above, is still cited in most works of reference as the authoritative study of the sources of Athenaeus. Readers of that work will soon discover that it attempts to demonstrate that Favorinus' Παντοδαπη ιστορία was the one and only 141

214

It would be tedious and unnecessary to trail through lists of later authors mentioning 'Academics', only to show that the reference is always to the Academy between Plato and Antiochus. But one famous example must be added to the list. Numenius' book which describes the 'defection' o f the sceptical Academy from true Platonism was entitled Περί της τών 'Ακαδημαϊκών προς Πλάτωνα διαστάσεως - O f the Academics" - pure and simple - 'Defection from Plato'. Thus, from the second century onwards, the norm appears to be: Platonicus a contemporary Platonist; Academicus - a member of the classical Academy from Plato to Philo, especially a member of the sceptical Academy. Gellius ( X I , 5 , 6 - 8 ) and Galen {De Opt.Doctr.) are our t w o sources for Favorinus' view of 'the Academy' - which will be discussed later in greater detail. 142 Gellius uses the epithet Academicus twice elsewhere (XVII, 15,1; 2 1 , 4 8 ) - in both cases speaking of Carneades. In later doxographical sources, the reminiscences o f the Academy become more and more blurred and confused as the term recedes into the distant past. Hippolytus (Philos. 1,23, Diels, Doxogr. p. 572, lines 2 0 - 2 3 ) gives a fairly accurate description o f the origin of the epithet 'Academic' and the methods o f the sceptical Academy, but maintains that source drawn on (with some rearrangement of materials) by Athenaeus: see, for example, pp. 116-7 (with reference to the author's similar work on Aelian, Leipziger Studien 7, 1884, pp. 1-137). This rests on the hypothesis that Favorinus' book was an encyclopedia arranged in alphabetical order of items. For a refutation of this view see Barigazzi pp. 208-211. Rudolph noticed that chapters 112-120 of Book XI form a unity (p. 113), to which he gives the title κακοήόεια φιλοσόφων (pp. 148-9). By comparing the episode of the rivalry between Plato and Xenophon in Athen. XI,112 and Gellius XIV,3, Rudolph concludes that the common source is likely to be a man well versed in his Plato and a member of the 'New Academy' - who better than Gellius' teacher Favorinus (pp. 122 — 4)? But Favorinus could not have written the harsh words in Athen. 509a against 'some of the contemporary Academics'. Besides, the whole of this section of Book XI of Athenaeus is, as we have seen, a diatribe against Plato and his immediate followers, and the latest of these 'contemporary Academics' to be mentioned by name are Chaero of Pellene and Xenocrates. Any similarities between Athenaeus and Favorinus in reporting some of the details of this diatribe (and the closest similarity detected by Rudolph, p. 123, is between Athen. 505 b - c and Favorinus ap. Diog.Laert. 111,48 = Fr. 47 Barigazzi: see the comments of Barigazzi, pp. 204-5. Diogenes' quotation is from Favorinus' 'Απομνημονεύματα, not from his Πωτοδαπή ιστορία) can be better explained on the assumption that both of them drew on a common source dealing with the κακοήθεια of Plato and his successors. The latest source mentioned by Athenaeus (505b) is Sotion, who lived between the age of Chrysippus and that of Ptolemy Philometor (Diels, Doxogr. p. 147 and below, pp. 347-8). If Athenaeus has 'lifted' the whole diatribe verbally from his source, that source had already made use of Sotion and was thus somewhat later. But since that source gives no examples later than Xenocrates and Chaero, it would appear that his source for most of his anecdotes was a contemporary of these men, and that he merely embellished the earlier diatribe with learned references to later sources. The passage in 505b quite clearly takes Chaero as an example of the loose living and argyromania of its author's 'contemporary Academics': it must have been written while Chaero's scandalous behaviour was still a matter of recent, and virtually contemporary, history. 142 Below, pp. 280-293. 215

Pyrrho (!) was the founder of this sect, and that they were called Pyrrhonians after him. The very origin of the names 'Academic' and 'Peripatetic' becomes utterly confused in the (Proclean?) haeresiography preserved in five of the commentators on Aristotle's Categories, and we are told the fantastic tale that all the disciples of Plato were first called 'Peripatetic' since it was Plato's (!) custom to teach while he was taking a walk to exercise his body; that later, Aristotle's followers came to be called 'Lycean Peripatetics', while the pupils of Xenocrates in the Academy were 'Academic Peripatetics'; and that only at a later stage did the former leave out the word 'Lycean' and the latter the word 'Peripatetic'. 143 All these later sources refer to Platonici as well as Academici. It is clear from Hippolytus' confusion between Academics and Pyrrhonians and from his discussion of the Platonici (Philos. 1,19, Diels, Doxogr. pp. 567-570) that these Platonici were the later, and still extant, αϊρβσις the Middle or Neo-Platonists as we would call them in our modern jargon — while the Academici were a thing of the past, only dimly recalled as Plato's immediate successors, or as sceptics, or as both. If we wish to see what the term Πλατωνικός meant to the late Neo-Platonists, we could do worse than examine its use in a work where this word often makes its appearance: Proclus' commentary on Plato's Timaeus}AA The names of people he refers to as Πλατωνικοί are almost always those of Middle-Platonists or Neo-Platonists: Longinus, Orígenes, Porphyry (1,162,15; 27; 33), Plutarch of Athens, Plotinus, Porphyry and Iamblichus (1,276,31; 277,10—11); Albinus and Gaius and their pupils (1,340,14); Porphyry, Amelius, Numenius, Iamblichus (111,33,30-34,1; 34,6) and Theodore of Asine (111,226,7). When Proclus refers to Crantor and his school (1,277,8), he calls them oí nepì Κράντορα Πλάτωνος έξηγηταί. But they are also included by implication among the Πλατωνικοί mentioned at the beginning of this discussion, 1,276,30—277,1. The one earlier and somewhat surprising reference is (1,162,12—13) to Π αναίτιος μεν Kai άλλοι τινές των Πλατωνικών. This has been explained by Zeller as 'Panaetius, and some others who were Platonists'. 145 But this will not do. For Proclus speaks also (1,276,31—277,1) of Πλούταρχος μέν και 'Αττικός και άλλοι πολλοί των Πλατωνικών, where his expression is almost word for word the same as the one used of Panaetius, and where Plutarch and Atticus are

143 On this 'Proclean' haeresiography, see n. 67 above. The story of the origin of the two names is given in a garbled version by Ammonius, CAG IV,4, p. 3, lines 5 - 1 6 . A fuller version is found in Olympiodorus, CAG XII,1, p. 5, lines 1 9 - 2 8 . As in all other details, Elias, CAG XVIII,1, p. 112 line 17 - p. 113 line 4, gives a fuller and more 'reasonable' aetiology, probably nearer to Proclus. The origin of the name 'Peripatos' is admirably discussed by A. Busse, 'Peripatos und Peripatetiker', Hermes 61, 1926, pp. 3 3 5 - 3 4 2 - who does not, however, deal with the Proclean myth. 144 Quoting volume, page and line number of E. Diehl's Teubner text, 1 9 0 3 - 1 9 0 6 (photo, repr. 1965). 145 ZeUer 111,1, p. 581 η. 1.

216

clearly included. Zeller, as we have already noted, was labouring under Zumpt's theory, according to which Platonicus was interchangeable with Academicus, since both referred in practice to members of the school founded by Plato at the Academy, the uninterrupted existence of which was only terminated by Justinian. We have already seen enough to know that Platonicus does not imply membership of the Academy or any other relation to Athens, and that it is certainly not interchangeable with Academicus. Those designated by this epithet by Proclus include Orígenes, Porphyry, Amelius, Numenius, Albinus and Gaius, who were no members of any Athenian school. In order to find out what Proclus means by Πλατωνικός, there is no need to examine all those passages where he refers to such philosophers. 146 A few of his more explicit statements should be sufficient: Aoyywoq μεν εν τούτοις ώράίξεσϋαι τον Πλάτωνα φησι, δια των παραβολών κ ai της των ονομάτων χάριτος καλλώπισαν τα τον λάγον, ένδεικνύμενος εις τινας Πλατωνικούς αυτοφυή την ερμηνείαν ταντην, άλλ' ούκ έκ τέχνης πεπορισμένην τω φιλοσοφώ λέ-γοντας. είναι μεν yàp την έκλογην των όνομάτων νεφροιπιομένην τω Πλάτωνι, και οι) κατά το επιτυχόν έκαστα λαμβάνειν αντόν. άλλα τούτο μεν εϊποι αν τις άπό της κοινής της τότε και συνή&ονς ερμηνείας ηκεw και εις αυτόν. (1,59,10-18). I have quoted this passage in full in order to show that here, the Platonici are clearly taken to mean commentators on Plato, whose task is the proper έρμηνεία of his writings — including stylistic and semantic ερμηνεία. In two other places (1,275,21; 277,1), Proclus speaks of ot πολλοί των Πλατωνικών who interpreted a certain expression of Plato in this or that sense. The word I translate as 'interpreted' is ηκουσαν — a verb quite common in commentators and scholiasts in this 'hermeneutic' sense. 147 This is a sense of Πλατωνικός quite common in Proclus — and not only in Proclus. His teacher Syrianus writes {In Arist.Metaph., CAG VI,1, p. 109): . . . τοις άρίστοις των Πλατωνικών. Νουμενίω μεν ούν και Κρονίω και Ά μ ε λ ί φ κτε., where the context is clearly that of Platonic exegesis. It is, perhaps, in this sense that Crantor is called Πλατωνικός by Numenius (ap.Euseb. P.E. XIV,5,12 = Fr. 2 Leemans; 25 Des Places): after all, Crantor was the first to write a proper commentary on the Timaeus. We have just seen that Proclus himself (1,277,8) also speaks of oí περί Κράντορα Πλάτωνος έξηγηταί. It may not be an accident that Suetonius, who lived and wrote before the Platonici became an everyday phenomenon, speaks of oi τού Πλάτωνος ύπομνηματισταί, where he clearly refers to philological commentators, 148 or that Lucian's Platonicus Ion prides himself on being the only one 146

They are conveniently listed in the Index Auctorum, vol. Ill of Diehl's edition, p. 376, s.v. Platonici. 147 LSJ s.v. άκούω IV supply a few specimens. One can add at random Schol.Eurip. Med. 40; Anon.Comm. on Plato's Theaetetus (below, n. 152), Col. 5 4 , 3 1 - 2 ; Olympiodorus In Plat.Alcib. I 4,9; 33,23; 67,29 et al. 148 See above, p. 209.

217

who understood the meaning of Plato's λόγοι (Phil. 6). It is most likely that Demetrius the Πλατωνικός, who, as Lucían (Cal. 16) tells us, lived in Alexandria under Ptolemy Dionysus - presumably Auletes, who died in 51 B.C. was another of these Platonic scholars and commentators. No 'Platonic philosopher', as we have seen, is attested for another hundred years or so, nor was Demetrius likely be called Platonicus in his own time if he had been a 'graduate' of the Academy.149 This sense of Πλατωνικός as a Platonic scholar and commentator is, of course, not the only sense used by Proclus. In Tim. 11,88,12—13, he has των δέ νεωτέρων oí άπό Πλωτίνου πάντες Πλατωνικοί, where the epithet clearly designates people who were Πλατωνικοί by άίρεσις, having studied under Plotinus or his disciples. (A similar expression is used later on by Simplicius, De Cáelo, CAG VII, p. 564, where Iamblichus is compared with οι νεώτεροι των Πλατωνικών φιλοσόφων). In 11,278,27—30, we have τάς 'Αριστοτέλους άντιρρήσεις . . . τάς προς την ψυχιτγονίαν γεγραμμβνας και τάς των Πλατωνικών προς αύτάς έπενενηγμένας λύσεις, where the Πλατωνικοί need not be commentators on Plato, but they certainly are followers of the Platonic αχρεαις, defending the Master's view against the objections of Aristotle. This, of course, is quite a usual meaning of Πλατωνικός from the second century A.D. onwards — and especially after the rise of what we call Neo-Platonism; and Proclus himself, like most Neo-Platonists, was a Πλατωνικός in both senses of the word: a commentator on Plato and a follower of the Platonic αιρεοις. Proclus may, therefore, have been aware of the possibility that the two senses could be separated in practice, and that one could be a 'Platonist' as a scholar without adhering to Platonism as a philosophical αίρεσις. Most commentators on Aristotle during those centuries were exactly in that position in relation to 'the other philosopher'. They were 'Aristotelian scholars', but Platonists in their philosophical views. It is most likely that this sense of Platonicus as a Platonic scholar and commentator, still preserved and employed by Proclus, was earlier than the other, 'haeretical' connotation. Platonic commentators existed before the epithet Platonicus came to designate a αϊρεσις, as we can see from Suetonius' reference to writers of hypomnemata. If Lucian draws on an earlier source for his Demetrius (and this must be the case, since the man is too obscure for an anecdote about him to circulate widely) — and if Numenius is dependent on an earlier source for his description of Crantor as ó Πλατωνικός, it is most likely that this epithet, before it came to designate a follower of a sect, was first applied to a man merely for his expertise in the writings of Plato and his contributions to their exegesis.

149

Lucían, o f course, may have found 'Ακαδημαϊκός in his source - but his usage elsewhere suggests that he would have preserved this term if that were the case. On this Demetrius, see Fraser II, p. 3 4 4 n. 112; p. 715 n. 140 - w h o settles for Philopator or Auletes. In either case, one should understand Platonicus in the sense already current in Lucian's time - a writer and commentator o n Plato.

218

It is most probably in this sense that Panaetius is included among the Πλατωνικοί. His great admiration for Plato and his immediate successors is well attested.150 But Proclus was not likely to know much about that. We do not know where he obtained the piece of information which he ascribes to 'Panaetius and some others among the Platonists', nor do we know which work of Panaetius this passage (= Fr. 76 Van Straaten) is ultimately derived from. But the fact that Panaetius is here commenting on a Platonic expression suggests that, whatever the ultimate source, Proclus was most likely to have found this piece of Platonic exegesis not in the original work of Panaetius, but in a Middle-Platonic, or an early Neo-Platonic, work of exegesis — most probably in a commentary by Longinus.151 In that case, it was not Proclus, but an earlier source, which included Panaetius among the Platonici. If it is indeed Longinus, who lived in Athens and had access to its libraries and traditions, he must have realized (even if Proclus, as is most likely, did not) that Panaetius was no Πλατωνικός κατά την aïpeoiv. If Panaetius is called by that epithet, it is because, by the time of Proclus' source, it still meant more often than not a 'Platonist' in our modern sense, a Platonic scholar, whatever his own philosophical affiliations may be. There is, however, no need to assume that Proclus merely 'lifted' this piece of information from his source and is using this epithet of Panaetius in a sense which is already becoming obsolete. Far from being obsolete, we have already seen that 'Platonic scholar' is still one of the major connotations of Πλατωνικός in Proclus' own usage — if not the major connotation. We can add another passage, from Proclus' Commentary on Plato's Republic (vol. II, p. 96 lines 10-15 Kroll), in which he lists as των Πλατωνικών οί κορυφαίοι Numenius, Albinus, Harpocration, Euclides and Porphyry — the τέλεος έξηγητής on this particular issue. The context - as the epithet εξηγητής in itself would have been enough to show — is that of Platonic scholarship, as we would call it. Each of these men had written some work or works on Plato. The list does not include among the των Πλατωνικών κορυφαίοι Platonic philosophers like Iamblichus, Longinus, Proclus' own teachers Plutarch and Syrianus — or, indeed, Plotinus himself. We obtain some confirmation for this earlier sense of Πλατωνικός from the anonymous commentary on Plato's Theaetetus published by Diels and Schubart from the Berlin Papyrus 9782 and dated by them to the third century A.D. - that is, the age of Longinus.152 In one passage (2,1 Iff.), the author 150

Panaetius Frs. 5 5 - 5 8 Van Straaten. Immediately after the short summary of the views of 'Panaetius and the other Platonists', we read: Aoy-γϊνος Se ànopei μεν προς τούτους κ re. Longinus' work was read and excerpted by Proclus (I,59,10ff. - another passage where Longinus criticizes other Platonists). It is thus most likely that Longinus is his source here as well. Anonymer Kommentar zu Platos Theaetetus (Papyrus 9 7 8 2 ) , ed. Η. Diels and W. Schubart ('Berliner Klassikertexte' II), Berlin 1905. On date and background see edi151

219

speaks of των Πλατωνικών Ttveç, where the context clearly indicates that he has in mind the earlier writers of commentaries and other works of exegesis. In another passage, dealing with Socrates' notorious refusal to offer positive answers to questions posed in the dialogue (Pl.Thtt. 150C), our commentator (54,38ff.) writes: έκ τοιούτων λέξεων τίνες οϊονται 'ΑκαδημαΧκόν τον Πλάτωνα ώς ουδέν {χτγματίξοντα. By his time, the epithet 'Academic', without qualification, is already firmly limited to the sceptical Academy and its adherents. When, in an earlier passage (6,29ff.), he had spoken of oi έξ Άκαδημείας, the context is that of a refutation of the Stoic and Epicurean views of justice, an exercise typical of the sceptical Academy. At the time of the school of Gaius, Academicus was already a thing of the past. The emerging Platonicus was still chiefly restricted to writers of commentaries and handbooks on Plato, like Gaius himself and his pupils and followers. It was only later - and mainly in the new climate of Neo-Platonism - that it came to apply also to people who were Platonists in their own philosophical convictions as well. In either or both of these senses, Platonicus has nothing to do with the Academy of Athens. We are now in a position to attempt to answer the question which emerges naturally from the use of Academicus and Platonicus in our sources. Why did the epithet Academicus cease to apply to contemporary philosophers after the age of Antiochus, until it finally crystallized in the later sources into an epithet for the 'Academics' from Plato (or Speusippus) to Philo (or Antiochus), or into a synonym for 'sceptical Academic'? Why, from the second century A.D. on, are the followers of Plato - even those of them who lived and taught in Athens — invariably called Platonicil The first serious attempt to answer this question was made by Augustine. The relevant passage, Civ. VIII,12, should be quoted in full: Ideo quippe hos potissimum elegi, quoniam de uno Deo qui fecit caelum et terram, quanto melius senserunt, tanto ceteris gloriosiores et inlustriores habentur, in tantum aliis praelati iudicio posteriorum ut, cum Aristoteles Platonis discipulus, vir excellentis ingenii et eloquio Piatoni quidem impar, sed multos facile superans, sectam Peripateticam condidisset, quod deambulans disputare consueverat, plurimosque discípulos praeclara fama excellens vivo adhuc praeceptore in suam haeresim congregasset, post mortem vero Piatonis Speusippus, sororis eius filius, et Xenocrates, dilectus eius discipulus, in scholam eius, quae Academia vocabatur, eidem successerunt atque ob hoc et ipsi et eorum successores Academici appellarentur, recentiores tarnen philosophi nobilissimi quibus Plato sectandus placuit, noluerint se dici Peripatéticos aut Académicos, sed Platónicos. Ex quibus sunt valde nobilitati Graeci Plotinus,

tors' introducion, pp. XXIV-XXXVII, which ascribes this commentary to the school of Gaius.

220

Iamblichus, Porphyrius; in utraque autem lingua, id est et Graeca et Latina, Apuleius Afer exstitit Platonicus nobilis. Sed hi omnes et celeri eius modi et ipse Plato diis plurimis esse sacra facienda puteverunt.153 Like many similar passages of the same sort in Augustine, this is a fascinating medley of facts obtained at second-hand, speculation and theology. A few points should be noted: 1. Augustine takes most of his facts about Plato and his immediate disciples from a Greek source. His transcription of haeresis in one place and translation into secta in another may suggest an intermediate Latin source, where alpeoiv still appeared in Greek characters. 154 2. Augustine's terminology is quite accurate in describing the Academy o f the immediate pupils o f Plato as schola, while Aristotle's 'secessionist' school is described as haeresis. His description of the Platonici of the last two centuries as philosophi... quibus Plato sectandus placuit is also quite accurate. 3. But the whole story is put into a framework of an aetiology — and a theological aetiology at that. Augustine is trying to explain why most philosophers o f his age 1 5 5 are known as Platonists. His explanation rests on the theological assumption — a commonplace idea throughout his De Civitate Dei and some of his other theological and philosophical works — that Plato was the one pagan philosopher w h o came nearest the Christian conception of the creator-God. (Although even Augustine cannot refrain from adding, at the end of our passage, that even Plato still advocated the practice of polytheism and was followed in this by most Platonists). The survival o f Platonism is thus implicitly conceived of as an act of divine providence and part 153

A slightly different account is given by Augustine in his earlier C.Acad. 111,42, and in his later Epistle CXVIII to Dioscorus. His main source for the 'haeresiographic' information may well have been Cornelius Celsus' doxographic manual - on which see n. 67 above. But Augustine, as usual, reshapes his source. He includes a reference to Apuleius, for which he had no need to consult secondary sources. The more speculative part of his account, with its aetiology of the term Platonicus, could very well be his own speculation. It fits his own theological scheme, and would be out of place in the work of a pagan like Celsus. Augustine is usually too original and intelligent to be a mere copier or epitomizer of his sources — see A. Solignac, 'Doxographie et manuels dans la formation philosophique de saint Augustin', Recherches augustiniennes 1, 1958, pp. 113-148, esp. 114-5 (with references to earlier literature). 154 On the possible Greek source, see last note. The story of Aristotle opening his own school while Plato was still alive is quite popular in the ancient sources. I. Düring, Aristotle in the Ancient Biographical Tradition, Göteborg 1957, p. 321ff. (No. 39), quotes a number of sources for this story, including our passage of Augustine (but not Diog.Laert. V,2: άπιστη δέ Πλάτωκκ en πβριόιηος κτε.) See his comments on the authenticity of this story. 155 Not all philosophers: Augustine (C.Acad. 111,42,1-2) knows that some philosophers in his time were still Cynics and Peripatetics. This fact is quietly 'swept under the carpct' in our passage. 221

of the triumph of Christianity — itself an act of divine providence for Augustine. Whether the triumph of Platonism in late antiquity was an act of divine providence or not is a problem better left to the Christian theologian to debate. The historian of philosophy may be allowed to point out that the victory of Platonism was far from final and total. Other, 'less Christian', Greek systems of philosophy continued to be studied and to wield their influence in the Middle Ages and in modern times. The triumph of Platonism was achieved — as Augustine himself has to admit — largely in pagan circles, some of whom were decidedly anti-Christian. Indeed, the Platonic school of Athens, and many other streams of Eastern Platonism, were among the last strongholds of paganism in the early Christian Empire. Fortunately, our enquiry is of a somewhat more mundane nature than the inscrutable designs of divine providence. Augustine's aetiology would not account for the fact that in his time, there were no longer any Stoics worthy of the name. His story presupposes a conscious decision on the part of all philosophi nobilissimi, quibus Plato sectandus placuit to merge their differences, forget the older titles of Academics and Peripatetics, and have 'Platonici of all haereses unite'. Such a thing, as we have seen, never happened. First, there were the Academici: then there is a gap of over a century, after which the new Platonici begin to emerge, and Academicus is now restricted to those who had been so depicted in their lifetime. Throughout Middle Platonism, there is a constant tension between those Platonists who believe in the essential harmony between Platonism and Aristotelianism, and those 'pure' Platonists who stress the differences. It was only under the influence of NeoPlatonism that Aristotle began to be considered more and more as a member — albeit a somewhat unorthodox one — of the Platonic 'sect'; and even the Neo-Platonists never forgot the differences. How could they, being also commentators on Aristotle?156 A 'merging of the sects' never occurred. If, by Augustine's time, Platonism was the one major philosophical sect, this is because the rival sects had petered out and left the stage free for. the one major αιρεσις of late antiquity. This happened long after the epithet Academicus had gone into desuetude and long after Platonicus had become the ordinary name for Platonic scholars or for followers of the Platonic αίρεσις. A more recent, and considerably more serious, attempt to explain this phenomenon was made in 1955 by Professor Olof Gigon.157 Gigon sees in this 154 That Peripatetic dogmata were somewhat alien to Platonism was realized even by the earliest 'Neo'-Platonists: Porphyry, Vita Plot. 1 4 , 4 - 7 . For a Platonic commentator on Aristotle explaining his position see, e.g., Olympiodorus In Categ., CAG XII,1, pp. 1 4 - 1 8 . See also Ammonius In Isagog., CAG IV, pp. 1 0 3 - 6 , for a 'justification' for Porphyry the Platonist following Peripatetic exegesis. 157 Gigon, Erneuerung pp. 4 2 - 3 . My arguments against Gigon's solution should not detract from the value of his remarks. It was this article of his which first put me on the track of the whole problem of 'Academics and Platonics'.

222

reversal from 'Academics' to 'Platonics' part of a trend, beginning at the age of Cicero, to return to the authority of the 'Old Masters' and founders of the classic philosophical schools: 'Die Erben Piatons heißen bis auf die Zeit Ciceros Akademiker; später drängt sich fiir die Bekenner des erneuerten klassischen Platonismus der Name "Platonikoi" vor, so daß es schließlich zu der ebenso absurden wie bezeichnenden Situation kommt, daß etwa ein Augustin die Platoniker den Akademikern entgegenstellen kann.' Apart from the last statement, 1 5 8 this is not an inaccurate presentation of the facts. But Gigon's overall theory would hardly explain some of the facts. The Peripatetics of the last generation of the Roman Republic rediscovered Aristotle's acroamatic writings, and followers of the Peripatetic αιρβσις from then on 1 5 9 become Aristotelians — in the best case, admitting some of the more orthodox doctrines of Theophrastus. The doxography and the 'succession' preserved in Cie.Fin. V,9—14 may well express the view of these 'new Peripatetics', who rejected Aristotle's successors in favour of Aristotle himself. Yet no Peripatetic we know of ever dreamt of calling himself an Aristotelian, and as long as followers of the Peripatetic αΐρβσις continued to exist, they were known as Περιπατητικοί or o£ άπό ταυ Περιπάτου. The Stoicism of the early Roman Empire was to a large extent a return to the positions of the founders of the Stoic αϊρεσις, especially Zeno and Chrysippus, as against the 'deviationist' doctrines of Antipater, Panaetius and Posidonius. It is probably against such a background that one should explain the Διcryeνισταί,

Άντιπατρισται,

Παναιτιασταΐ

of Athenaeus 186A, and perhaps the

Χρυσίππειοι of Philostratus' Vita Apollonii 1,7. There probably was thus a period when Stoicism was divided into aipéaeις, following the various streams which had appeared in the history of the school. 160 But if an attempt was made by the more orthodox Stoics to rename the sect after Zeno or Chrysippus, it was soon forgotten, and Stoics continued to be called Stoics. A return to the

158 Augustine does not exactly contrast the Academics with the Platonici. For him the Academici - the followers of the sceptical Academy - were ciypto-Platonists, but Platonists none the less: see especially Epist. CXVIII,33, where the sceptical Academics aie expressly called Platonici. On the whole issue of Augustine and the sceptical Academy, see below, pp. 3 1 5 - 3 2 2 . 159 Of a Peripatetic school after Sulla's siege of Athens one can no longer speak with impunity, as Lynch's excellent book has shown. 160 That Antipater was not considered later on as representative of the Stoic αϊρεσις proper is attested by Plutarch, Comm.Not. 1072F. It is significant that we never hear of 'Posidonians'. Posidonius was the 'secessionist' Stoic who was never elected scholarch, and held his own school at Rhodes. Although he had a 'successor' (Suda s.v. Ιάσων, No. 52 Adler = Pos. T. 40 Edelstein-Kidd), he apparently did not succeed in creating a άίρβσις within the main stream of Greek philosophical life. Hippobotus (Diog.Laert. 1,19 = Suda s.v. ΑΙΡΕΣΙΣ) calls the Stoic 'sect' Ζηνώνειάν re και Στωϊκήν. If our arguments for Hippobotus' date are valid, there must have been an attempt made at the same period to revert to the old name of the 'sect', probably for the reason indicated by Gigon. But in that case, this attempt too was not very successful.

223

doctrines of the founder cannot, therefore, explain the change from Academics to Platonics. Gigon recalls the fact that in the early history of the philosophical schools, the followers of a philosopher were often called by his name: Democriteans, Socratics, Antisthenians, Theodoreans, Hegesiacs — not to mention the Pythagoreans, and perhaps the Heracliteans and Anaxagoreans. One could add to this list the Pyrrhonians and the Epicureans — the latter, of course, having a special reason for adopting this appellation (and a similar one to that of the Pythagoreans). Gigon also notes that, in or around the age of Cicero, the custom of calling a school (or a 'sect', as we can say now) after the teacher who founded it, was revived. Beside the Αι&γενισταί, Άντιπατριοταί, Παναιτιασταί, we have the statement of Cicero, Luc. 70, that Antiochus at first wished his followers to be called Antiochii. Even if this were taken to be merely a fanciful incrimination by Cicero's source, it is evidence enough for the existence of this custom at the time. This, however, should be distinguished from the renaming of the school (or 'sect') like the Academy after its original founder. It appears to be just another of those short-lived fashions of calling a particular αϊρβσις or a private διατριβή after the immediate teacher who conducted it. After the age of Cicero, we hear no more of such private appellations. There are no Gaians, Albinians, Taurians or Nicostratians.161 But there is much more that Gigon's theory will not explain. It is not just that the Platonic 'sect' is the one major atpeaiç in which a radical change of name came to be universally accepted, while the official name of the school almost from its very foundation 162 became ancient history. As we have also noted, there is a long gap between the period in which Academicus is used for the last time for a contemporary philosopher teaching in Athens, and the time when Platonicus first became the customary epithet for a teacher of Platonic philosophy, a commentator on Plato, or a follower of the Platonic aïpeaiq. Gigon's theory is still based on the Zumptian hypothesis that 'die Schule fortdauerte', although in the passage we have quoted from his brilliant paper, he comes extremely close to realizing that this was not the case.163

161 The only exception being the Πλουτάρχειοι of Synesius, Epistles 54 and 135. But since this name never appears in sources originating in Plutarch's own school - or in any other sources I know of - one can take it that this is a deliberate derogatory epithet used by Synesius himself of the pagan school of Athens, for whom he shows little sympathy in the rest of these two letters. 162 See n. 134 above. 163 He spoke of the continuity of the Academy until Proclus and his school in Geschichte p. 62, and still implied this continuity in his review of Luck, DLZ 76,3, 1955, p. 169, printed in the same year as Erneuerung. But in the passage we have quoted on p. 223. above, he distinguishes between 'die Erben Piatons bis auf die Zeit Ciceros' and 'die Bekenner des Erneuerten klassischen Piatonismus' (virtually philosophi quibus Plato sectandus placuit).

224

One might suggest, with a little more plausibility, that the change of epithet could be explained as a consequence of the strong reaction on the part of the new Platonici against the scepticism of the Academy from Arcesilaus to Philo, and their refusal to be called by a name which, to them, must have signified a radical deviation from the doctrines of the founder. But this would still not explain why, from the second century on, not a single contemporary philosopher is ever designated as Academic by any of our sources — not even by a non-Platonist source: the word 'Academic' has simply disappeared from contemporary usage. Had the school continued its orderly existence, with its proper succession and an unbroken possession of Plato's property in the Academy, it is unimaginable that such would have been the case. After all, Plato's immediate and 'dogmatic' successors had also been known as Academics. Sooner or later, the attractiveness of using the historic name of the school was bound to assert itself again. It never did — not even in the Neo-Platonic school of Athens, which claimed some sort of spiritual succession to Plato and possessed — so we are told — his property in the area of the Academy. The evidence we have so far examined should be sufficient to suggest a different conclusion. Soon after the age of Antiochus, it appears, the Academy ceased to exist as an organized school in Athens. The Platonism that we encounter in the second century A.D. had its roots in a philosophical movement which arose in the East — mainly in Asia Minor and Syria — and had nothing to do, for its first hundred years or so, with any school, institution or movement in Athens. Even its Athenian practitioners were mostly 'imported' from elsewhere — as were Ammonius (if indeed one can call him a proper Platonist) or Taurus. Middle Platonism arose in the East. Neo-Platonism originated in Alexandria and Rome, and some considerable time was to elapse before it was introduced into Athens. And it is precisely in this new atmosphere of Middle and Neo-Platonism that the epithet Platonicus came to be used. The Academy was dead long before Platonica secta became an established phenomenon. Naturally enough, the name of the old school and that of the new αϊρεσις have nothing to do with each other. This hypothesis will, I believe, best explain the historical and linguistic facts investigated in the last two chapters. Our discussions in the following chapters may confirm it even further from different angles.

15 Glucker (Hyp. 56)

225

CHAPTER 5

The School Property

We know that Plato had a garden near the gymnasium called 'Academy'. We are apparently told by Damascius that this garden later belonged t o Proclus and his successors as part of the διαδοχικά. The most widely accepted explanation of these t w o facts is that the school, with an unbroken chain of scholarchs, continued t o exist from Plato to the successors of Proclus, and that Plato's property was handed down from successor t o successor for the best part of a thousand years. This is the view taken by Z u m p t 1 and followed, in all essentials, by the majority of scholars since. 2 This 'argument from the school property' forms one link in a chain of proofs brought forth by Zumpt to support his general theory of the continuity of the four major philosophical schools in Athens from their foundation in the fourth or third centuries B.C. well into the Imperial age, and of the Academy from Plato to Justinian. We have already tested some of the weaker links in this chain, and we have found that they did not always stand u p to a close scrutiny. A fresh examination of the problem of the Academy's property appears t o be called for.

A. Plato and his Immediate Successors After the death of Socrates — so we are told by an ancient tradition which is now generally accepted in its outlines — Plato travelled widely in the Mediterranean world. We are told that he spent some time in Magna Graecia, Cyrene and Egypt, and that, on his return t o Greece, he began t o teach in the gymnasium called 'Academy' after the prehistoric hero Hecademus, whose cult had been established there long before Plato's time. 3 Later, he bought 1

Zumpt pp. 3 2 - 5 . Again, with the exception of Lynch, whose arguments will be mentioned below in our more detailed discussions. 3 Diog.Laert. 111,6—8; AnoruProleg. 4, pp. 1 9 9 - 2 0 0 Hermann; 9 Wcsterink; Acad.Ind. Col. X. The other ancient testimonia are printed by Mekler on pp. 6 - 7 of his edition of the Acadlnd. On the antiquity of the Academy and the cult of Hecademus, as confirmed by the excavations, see below, pp. 2 3 7 - 2 4 2 . 1

226

himself a garden near the g y m n a s i u m grounds and established his school there. 4 S o m e sources drawn o n b y D i o g e n e s Laertius ( 1 1 1 , 1 9 - 2 0 ) , present us even with a m o r e detailed story. On his return from his first visit t o Sicily, Plato was brought t o Aegina b y Pollis the L a c e d a e m o n i a n and was about t o b e sold into slavery. Anniceris the Cyrenaic, w h o happened t o be there, ransomed him. A refund for his ransom m o n e y was sent t o Anniceris b y Plato's friends, or b y D i o , Plato's Sicilian protégé. Anniceris refused t o k e e p the m o n e y , and h e bought with it a garden near the A c a d e m y , which h e presented t o Plato. This story, or some version o f it, must have been k n o w n t o Plutarch (De Exilio 6 0 3 B ) , and there is n o prima

facie

10,

case for d o u b t i n g its historicity — or, at

least, that o f s o m e o f its details. 5 Plato's l o n g c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the A c a d e m y is well attested -

for example, in the famous fragment o f his c o n t e m p o r a r y c o m i c

poet Epicrates (Fr. 11 K o c k ) — and Diogenes Laertius 111,41, tells us that Plato ετάφη

èv rf? 'Ακαδημείο.,

και 'Ακαδημαϊκή

ενϋα

προσηγορενάη

τον πλείστον ή ά π ' αύτού

χρόνον αΧρεσις.

διετέλεσε

φιλοσοφώ

ν.

δάεν

His grave near the gymna-

sium was still a tourist attraction at the time o f Pausanias (1,30,3). This proves nothing in itself: the A c a d e m y and its area, as we shall presently see, 6 was a 4

Diog.Laert. 111,5. (Lynch p. 54 n. 28 is obviously right in assuming a chronological confusion in this passage, due, perhaps, to a change of sources). I take it that the κήπος παρά τον Κολωνού is not 'a garden at Colonus', which would not quite border on the gymnasium and its vicinity, but a garden (near the Academy) facing in the direction of Colonus. Colonus was near the Academy: see Pausanias 1,30,4, who places it near the tower of Timon the misanthrope, next to which Plato's school was situated (AnoruProleg. ibid.; Olympiodorus, Vita Platonis 4, p. 194 Hermann = Comm. on Alcib. I, ed. L. G. Westerink, Amsterdam 1956, pp. 5 - 6 ) . That Plato's garden was near the gymnasium is confirmed by Cie. Fin. V,2: cuius etiam Uli hortuli propinqui eqs., and when Quintus (ibid. 3) refers to Coloneus ille locus, he is most probably pointing to it from where he is standing near the gymnasium. Later sources speak of it simply as κηπίδων ... èv Άκαδημβίφ (Diog. Laert. 111,20); ό èv Άκα&ημίφ κήπος (Damascius, Vita Isid., ap. Photius Cod. 242,158, p. 3 4 6 a 3 4 - 5 = Suda s.v. Platon, No. 1709 Adler), or merely as ή 'Ακαδημία (Plutarch, De Exilio 10.603B). He established his δφασκαλβίον there, as we are told by the Anon. Proleg. and by Olympiodorus (locc.citt.). Olympiodorus' version is: διδασκαλείου èv Άκαδημίφ σννεοτήσατο, μέρος τι τούτου τού -γυμνασίου τέμενος άφορίσας ταίς Μούσακ, καΐ μορω τ ω Πλάτωρι èvravda Ύίμων ó μίσάνϋρωπος συνήν- But Olympiodorus is obviously speculating on the basis of what existed in his own time, when Plato's house and estate had already been long forgotten. See our discussion of Pausanias and the other late literary sources, below, pp. 2 4 2 - 2 5 5 . 5 Plutarch speaks of η 'Ακαδημία ... τρισχιλιων δραχμών χωρίδιορ έωνημένον. Diogenes gives the sum of the ransom money as 'twenty minae - some say thirty' - that is, 2000 or 3000 drachmae. How much of the rest of the story told by Diogenes Laertius was also known to Plutarch can only be guessed - but it is a fair conjecture that he knew more than just the price. In itself, the sum of 2000 or 3000 drachmae for a plot of land bought in fourth-century Athens is not unrealistic. Landed estates were sold at anything between 800 and 15000 drachmae, and the average was below 2100 - see G. Glotz, Ancient Greece at Work, English Transi. New York 1967, pp. 2 4 7 - 8 . Plutarch most probably quotes the sum of money traditionally assumed to have been paid by Plato, but considers the property as a χωρίδιον by the standards of his own time. 6 See below, pp. 2 3 7 - 2 4 2 . 227

famous burial place from time immemorial, and many men w h o had distinguished themselves in various walks of life were buried there. But Pausanias appears to give Plato's tomb a separate and special treatment, apart from the graves of other distinguished personages, which he had listed in his previous chapter. That Plato possessed a garden near the Academy is, in any case, a fact attested by more than one ancient source. 7 Things become somewhat more puzzling when we turn to Plato's successors. The full passage in Plutarch's De Exilio 10 reads: ή δ' 'Ακαδημία, τρισχιλίων δραχμών χωρίδων εωνημένον, οίκητήριον ην Πλάτωνος και Ξενοκράτους καί Πολέμωνος, αύτόάι σχολαξόντων και καταβιούντων τον άπαντα χρόνον, πλην μίαν ήμέραν èv fi Ξενοκράτης καά' 'έκαοτον 'έτος εις άστυ κατήει, Διονυσίων καινοϊς τρατγωδοίς, έπυωσμών, ώς εφασαν, την έορτήν. Speusippus is not unknown to Plutarch, yet his name does not appear in this passage. As Plato's nephew, and a man crippled by paralysis in his last years, one might have expected him to have lived in the house which had belonged to his uncle during his eight years as scholarch. Yet we find him being driven to the Academy in a small carriage (Diog.Laert. IV,3). Zumpt's explanation of this strange fact, 9 that 'his bodily weakness may have been so great that he could not even walk a short distance', will not do. For, as Plutarch tells us, it was Plato's residence (οίκητήριον)10 where Xenocrates and Polemo, as well as Plato himself, lived and taught. Diogenes Laertius himself (IV,6) confirms Plutarch's information about Xenocrates: διή·γε δ' èv 'Ακάδημεiçt τα πλείστα'καί et ποτέ μέλλοι εις 7

See η. 4 above. Moralia (lOD); 70A; 71E; 491F; 612D; 1108A; Dio 17; 22; 35. In most of these contexts, he appears together with Plato, and in Mor. 7 IE, together with Xenocrates and Polemo. It is obvious that Plutarch knew that Speusippus was Plato's immediate successor and head of the Academy before Xenocrates, even if he never says it tantis verbis. ' Zumpt p. 33. 10 In literary texts, οίκητήριον is rare in comparison with οίκος, ο'ίκησις and the far more common οικία. It is generally used in the abstract sense of 'place of residence', and can apply to a town and to a whole country: Eurip,ßr. 1114; II Macc. 11,2; III Macc. 2,15 (κα7Όΐκ.); Aquilas Ps. 67(68),6; Symmachus and Theodotion Ps. 90(91),9 (in both cases for Hebrew rnaon = 'place of dwelling'); Jude 6 - and quite often in Patristic texts: see Lampe's Patristic Greek Dictionary s.v. But it is also the etymological ancestor of Mod. Greek κτήρι/κτίρι = 'building', rather than the unlikely εύκτήρων proposed by George Hatzidakis - see Κ. I. Amantos, Γλωσσικά Μελετήματα, Athens 1964, p. 432 n. 3. Beside the one inscription quoted by Amantos, one can cite the following instances: BGU 4,1115 (c. 13 B.C.), lines 4 8 - 9 , where οίκητήρια appear to be apartments or small dwellings; ibid. 1167 (c. 12 B.C.), lines 32—4: κατά (του) ύ(πά)ρχ(οιτος) αύ(τφ) èv τχι τετραγώ(ρψ) OToq. οΙκητηρίο(υ) πρ(ό)τερο(ν) οντος τραπέζης - where the reference is clearly to a small building; POxy 11,281 (20-50 A.D.), lines 9 - 1 2 : έγώ μεν ούν έπιδεξαμένη αύτόν ek τα τύν -γονέων μου οίκητήρια. The plural is well illustrated in PTaur 11,3 (127 B.C.), lines 20—24: oi ενκαλούμενοι έμβατεύσαντες ek την σημαινομένην οΐκίαν και περιοικοδομησαΐ'τες εαντοϊς οίκητήρια ένοικούσιν βιαίως κτε. — where οΙκία must be the area of the original house, not the building itself, and the οίκητήρια are small buildings constructed around the original, ancestral residence of lines 13-14. An inscription of 76/5 B.C., published by 8

228

άστυ àviévai, φασι τούς ύορυβώδεις πάπας και προυνίκους ύποστέλλειν αύτού τη παρόδω. Of Polemo he tells us (IV,19): ού μην άλλα και έκπεπατηκώς ην διατριβών έν τω κήπω, παρ' δν οί μαΰηταί μικρά κολύβια ποιησάμενοι κατώκουν πλησίον τού μουσείου και της εξέδρας. The Acad.Ind. (XIV,35—41), drawing on the same source, Antigonus of Carystus, 11 gives us a fuller version of what is virtually the same story: το δε πόλ(εως) δ(ια)μένειν εξω (κάλ)λιον ενόμ(ιξεν, ώσ)τ€ και τώ(ν γ)νωρίμων πολλούς οί(κοδομ)ησαμέ(νους) èv τφι κήπ(ωι κ)αλύβια μένειν αύτού (κ)ατά το πλείστον. Speusippus is listed by Cicero (Fin. V,2) among those scholarchs who taught at the Academy: Plato, Speusippus, Xenocrates and Polemo. 1 2 Speusippus was an old man of about sixty when he succeeded Plato. He had his own house in town (perhaps on the estate which Dio presented him with when he left for Sicily: Plutarch, Dio 17,964E), and preferred to continue to live in it, coming to the Academy only for his teaching. 13 But since Plato's property seems to have been later in the hands of Xenocrates and Polemo, we must still ask ourselves who owned it, and who lived in it, during Speusippus' scholarchate. An obvious answer — obvious to anyone familiar with Zumpt and with Wilamowitz's Antigonos von Karystos - would be that the property was owned by the school in its capacity as a ύίααος, a corporate body with its own legal personality. This answer is no longer acceptable. Recent research has shown that there was no such legal concept of a corporate body as a juristic person in Greece before Roman times; and Lynch's detailed refutation of Wilamowitz's

G. Plaumann, Ptolemäis in Oberaegypten, 1910, p. 35, has a temple of Isis (ΊσίδβιοιΟ erected συν τοις nepi αυτό κατωκο&ομημένοις οίκητηρίοις - again, small residence houses around a central building. Pollux 1,73, lists οίκος, οίκία, οϊκησις, οίκητήρων, ένοικητήρων κτε. New Testament usage generally has οίκος and οίκία for 'house', but in II Cor. 5,2, οϊκητήριομ may well be a variant on οικία of the last verse. It is just possible that Plutarch is using οίκητήριον in the sense we have found in some of the papyri and inscriptions - a small residence near a central building - or even simply in the sense of 'house'. As a writer of literary Greek, he is far more likely to be using it in t h e sense current in literary texts. In any case, his statement would imply that Plato and some of his early successors lived in the area of the Academy and taught just where they lived. We have no evidence for lectures at the exhedra of the gymnasium earlier than Carneades. Ordinary healthy people would normally walk from town to the Academy (Diog.Laert. IV,6; Cic.Fin. V , l ) . The area of the Academy excavations today is about fifteen minutes' walk from Omonia Square, and about the same distance from the Agora excavations. " Diog.Laert. IV,17 expressly mentions Antigonus as his source, and there are numerous similarities - often verbal - between his Life of Polemo and the Acad.Ind. - see Wilamowitz, Antigonos pp. 6 3 - 6 . Our passage is quoted in its fuller form from Mekler's edition, not available to Wilamowitz at the time. 12 Hie Speusippus, hie Xenocrates, hie eius auditor Polemo, cuius ilia ipsa sessio fuit, quam videmus. Hic, of course, referes back to the last sentence, on Plato quem accepimus primum hie disputare solitum, and implies only that the next three scholarchs also taught there - not that they all lived there. 13 See P. Natorp, RE 1, pp. 1 1 3 4 - 7 (Akademia 2), esp. p. 1134.

229

thesis that the Academy and the Peripatos were corporate bodies masquerading as cultic societies appears to m e to be very convincing - especially so his argument from the testaments of the Peripatetic philosophers, w h o always leave their property, including what is commonly taken to be the school property, to one or more private individuals. 14 If Plato's garden and house had been passed on to his successors, we should have expected them to be bequeathed, in the first place, to Speusippus. 14

Lynch Ch. IV, 'Legal Status of the Peripatetic School', pp. 106-134. On the problem of legal person and property ownership see esp. p. 113 n. 11 and pp. 123-7. Lynch refers to much of the modern literature on the subject. H. B. Gottschalk, 'Notes on the Wills of the Peripatetic Scholarchs', Hermes 100, 1972, pp. 314-342, esp. pp. 328-333 (with references to modern literature supplementing those of Lynch), distinguishes between 'assets newly acquired by the scholarch', of which he could dispose as he wished, and the school property, which he was expected to pass on to the κοινωνοϋντες or -γνώριμοι (whom Gottschalk calls 'Fellows') to hold as a trust. It is extremely likely that such a distinction existed in practice - but not legally. It is always the scholarch - not 'the Fellows' - who, at the end, disposes in his will of both categories of property; and his exhortation to the κοινωνοϋντες to permit other members of the school to use the facilities (Diog.Laert. V,52-3; 70) shows that even this was no institutional ownership. Thus when Strato left the school to Lyco alone (ibid, V,62), he was acting within his legal rights. If he goes on to apologize for what Gottschalk (p. 330) calls 'infringing the collegiate principle', this principle should be understood merely as a custom of the school, not as a legal matter. The myth of the Academy containing a 'school library', or even acting as a publishing house for propagating the works of Plato and his successors (Wilamowitz, Antigonos pp. 285-6) was adequately exploded by Th. Gomperz, 'Platonische Aufsätze II, Die angebliche platonische Schulbibliothek und die Testamente der Philosophen', Sitz. Wien, Philos.-Hist.Cl. 141, 1899, Abhandl. VII. Gomperz points out that, on the two occasions where we can control the evidence (Diog.Laert. V,62; X,21), the outgoing scholarch leaves his books and the school to the new scholarch as his property. One can add that Theophrastus left 'all the books' (ibid. V,52) to Neleus, who was not his successor. Whether, as Gottschalk pp. 333 and 342 conjectures, these books never left Athens and the school in practice is immaterial: what matters is that Theophrastus was legally entitled to pass them on to a man who did not succeed him, and with no riders or restrictions. It is true that Lyco bequeaths to two of his freedmen only his own writings (ibid. 73), and says nothing in the will of 'the school library'. Is this because it is 'simply included in the school property' (Gottschalk p. 333)? Surely this is not generally taken for granted - or there would have been no need for Theophrastus (ibid. 52) and Strato (ibid. 62) to specify. Gomperz maintains that we hear of no transfer of books in the Academy, since the scholarch there was always elected. This is not strictly true of Speusippus (Lynch p. 80 and reff.), Telecles and Evander (Diog.Laert. IV,60) or Carneades the son of Polemarchus (Acad.lnd. XXIX,39-42). Unlike the Peripatos, we have only Plato's will to represent the Academy, and it is too sketchy (Diog. Laert. 111,41-3), and probably contains a lacuna in the sentence about σκεύη (ibid. 43), which may have included his books. But the evidence of all the extant wills suggests that books, like 'the school property', were legally regarded as the scholarch's own property. Lynch p. 125 gives Gomperz the credit for being the only scholar to contest Wilamowitz's theory of the sòhool's corporate legal entity. But Gomperz (pp. 9 - 1 0 ) has pointed out that some observations to this effect had already been made by Bruns (op.cit. n. 20 below, p. 39) and Dareste (op.cit. n. 17 below, p. 11). As jurists, Bruns and Dareste na-

230

F o r t u n a t e l y , w e possess Plato's t e s t a m e n t ( D i o g . L a e r t . 1 1 1 , 4 1 - 4 3 ) . U n f o r t u n a t e ly, n o t a w o r d is said in it e x p l i c i t l y a b o u t an estate near t h e A c a d e m y or a b o u t any p r o p e r t y b e q u e a t h e d directly t o S p e u s i p p u s . T w o p i e c e s o f landed p r o p e r t y are m e n t i o n e d in the will. T h e first (111,41) is in Iphistiadae, near a sanctuary at Cephisia, w h i c h is t o be the inalienable p r o p e r t y o f the b o y A d i m a n t u s . T h e o t h e r (111,42) is b o u n d e d o n t h e w e s t b y the river Cephisus. A s far as t o p o g r a p h y is c o n c e r n e d , this is m o s t likely t o b e the estate near t h e A c a d e m y . 1 5 T h e o t h e r three b o u n d a r i e s o f this estate are t h e properties o f private individuals, b u t this w o u l d o n l y i m p l y that Plato's estate did n o t , as a piece o f p r o p e r t y , have a c o m m o n b o u n d a r y w i t h the public grounds o f the g y m n a s i u m . Moreover, P l a t o d o e s n o t appear t o m a k e this s e c o n d estate the inalienable p r o p e r t y o f A d i m a n t u s — and S p e u s i p p u s is m e n t i o n e d as o n e o f the e x e c u t o r s o f this will (111,43). It is, perhaps, surprising that Plato s h o u l d n o t m e n t i o n its vicinity t o the A c a d e m y — but in a legal d o c u m e n t , o n l y the boundaries o f t h e p r o p e r t y h a d t o b e described. It is m o r e surprising, perhaps, that Plato, w h o appears t o have had s o m e say in t h e e l e c t i o n o f his successor, 1 6 did n o t m a k e it q u i t e clear in his will that the p r o p e r t y near the A c a d e m y w a s t o pass i n t o the h a n d s o f Speusippus. T h e answer is, o f course, that P l a t o h a d n o c h o i c e , u n d e r the A t h e n i a n law o f prop e r t y , but t o leave his estates t o his nearest male agnate relative, and that relative w a s n o t S p e u s i p p u s but the b o y A d i m a n t u s . 1 7 This, h o w e v e r , w o u l d n o t turally noticed the absence of any express reference to such a corporate identity in the Peripatetic wills. Dareste even comments that only religious corporations existed, and that one could not apply this description to a school of philosophy. But the credit for combining most of the relevant arguments against Wilamowitz's thesis rests with Lynch. 15 Th. Gomperz, 'Beiträge zur Kritik und Erklärung griechischer Schriftsteller', Sitz. Wien, Philos.-Hist.Cl. 143, 1901. Abh. 3, pp. 9 - 1 3 , argues that it was the first of these two properties which contained the school. His parallels from Diog.Laert. V,53 and X,17 are no real parallels: there, the scholarch makes sure that his heirs, who are members of the school, should keep the property for the use of the school without alienating it. But why should Plato pass the grounds of the school to the boy Adimantus without the right to alienate? Topography too militates against Gomperz. In IG II 2 2776, lines 8 5 - 9 , an estate near the Academy is facing the river Cephisus, just like the estate at Eiresidae in Diog.Laert. 111,42. Besides, this is the estate Plato says he had bought - and he did buy the estate near the Academy with the ransom money of Anniceris. Other indications like the vicinity of Colonus and Timon's tower (see n. 4 above), as well as the archaeological excavations and the horos inscription (see below, pp. 2 3 7 - 2 4 2 ) , support this location. For the topography, see the old - but still generally accepted - plan by Barbié de Boccage, reprinted in J. Travlos, Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens, London 1971, p. 45. " Acad.Ind. VI,28ff. and the sources quoted in Mekler's note ad loc. (p. 37); Jacoby FGH 328 (Philochorus), Fr. 224 and Jacoby's note ad loc. 11 R. Dareste, 'Les testaments des philosophes grecs', Annuaire de l'association pour l'encouragement des études grecques en France, 16, 1882, pp. 1 - 2 1 , esp. p. 4: 'Platon avait eu deux frères, Adimante et Glaucon, et une soeur Pothone, mère de Speusippe. Le jeune Adimante, qui est nommé comme devant receuillir les biens, est sans doute un fils de Glaucon ou un petit-fils d'Adimante; comme neveu par le père, il exclut Speusippe qui est neveu par la mère.' This must be right. A.-H. Chroust, Aristotle, London 1973, vol. I, 231

explain how we find Plato's property near the Academy later on in the hands of Xenocrates and Polemo. One answer to this legal impasse was provided by Arnold Hug: Plato's testament contains no reference to the school, since he must have bequeathed the estate near the Academy to the school already in his lifetime. 18 This is an ingenious solution, but it will not do. Plato could not have bequeathed his property to the school since the school had no corporate legal identity. He could, of course, have given this piece of property to Speusippus during his own lifetime, and Speusippus could have put it at the disposal of some other member or members of the school while remaining in his house in Athens. But in that case, we would have to assume that Plato possessed not two, but three estates, and that the estate at Eiresidae bordering on the river Cephisus - which he had bought from a certain Callimachus (Diog.Laert. 111,42) - was not the same as his estarte near the Academy, which must have been in the same region, and which he had also bought with Anniceris' money. And, although Plato's testament shows that he was not as poor as Damascius19 took him to be, it certainly does not present him as exceedingly wealthy. K. G. Bruns has concluded that 'the garden (since Plato does not appear to say anything definite about it) must have been included (in the first place at least) among the legacy of Adimantus, but with no prohibition as to its alienation. When and how it reverted to the school is an open question.' 20 This is possible. Another possibility is to emphasize — as Bruns does by implication and as Dareste has done explicitly 21 — that the second estate was not put under any prohibition as the first one was, and the executors were thus free to alienate it. On this assumption, Speusippus and the other executors would have handed over the inalienable estate at Iphistiadae to Adimantus, while alienating the estate at Eiresidae near the Academy — which was, after all, not a piece of family property inherited by Plato, but an estate acquired by him. They had this estate transferred into the ownership of Speusippus for use by the school. But the p. 353 n. 5 (= 'Aristotle leaves the Academy', G&R XIV,1, 1967, p. 39 n. 5), maintains that 'under the existing Athenian law of succession, Plato had little choice but appoint Speusippus, the son of his sister Potone and hence his nearest male agnate relative, his successor to the scholarchate of the Academy as well as heir to his estate which included the Academy.' But if Adimantus was not Plato's nearest male agnate relative (and the name itself is enough to suggest that Dareste was right), how could Plato leave one of his estates to him as inalienable? As to the succession to the school, there was no Athenian law concerning that. 18

A. Hug, 'Zu den Testamenten der griechischen Philosophen', Festschr. zur Begrüßung der... XXXIX Versammlung deutscher Philologen Zurich 1887, pp. 1 - 2 2 , esp. p. 14. " Below, pp. 2 4 8 - 2 5 5 . 20 Κ. G. Bruns, 'Die Testamente der griechischen Philosophen', Zeitschr. Savigny-Stiftung 1, 1880, pp. 1 - 5 0 , esp. p. 10. 21 R. Dareste, loc.cit. n. 17 above, pp. 3 - 4 .

232

former of the two possibilities seems more likely. Apart f r o m Speusippus, the b o y Adimantus must have been Plato's only male relative, and his only agnate male relative. 22 In that case, the whole of Plato's property, including the estate near the Academy, was inherited by Adimantus, most probably with a stipulation m a d e by the executors that the δώασκαλεϊον, while the property of Adimantus, should be continued to be used for the school. All one has to assume, in this case, is that at some later stage, Adimantus died without heirs, and Plato's garden came into the possession of one of the scholarchs. He may have died without issue during Speusippus' lifetime. In that case, the p r o p e r t y would revert t o Speusippus as his nearest relative. He m a y have died later on, and bequeathed the property which was, in any case, used by the school, to Xenocrates. It is not impossible that during his own lifetime, while the b o y Adimantus was most likely t o be still alive, Speusippus was allowed t o use the property for teaching purposes, but not as his private residence. This would explain why he continued to live in town and to be driven t o the Academy even during his final illness. It is, however, a fact that Xenocrates lived in Plato's house; and Diogenes Laertius' description of the students building their huts near the shrine of the Muses and the exhedra suggests that, by the time of Polemo, the garden was already the property of the scholarch. That m u c h , at least, seems certain. The students could hardly build their huts on someone else's property, or on the public gardens of the gymnasium. We also k n o w f r o m t h e evidence of Antigonus of Carystus, quoted by Diogenes Laertius and the Acad.Ind,23, that Polemo spent most of his time in 'the garden' - presumably Plato's garden near the Academy. Whether, as Plutarch tells us, Polemo also lived all his life — that is, I take it, all his active life as scholarch — in Plato's house is somewhat m o r e dubious. The same Antigonus of Carystus supplies us with another piece of information, once more presented by Diogenes L a e r t i u s ( I V , 2 2 ) : συσσίτων όμονόως

συμβιούντων

μεν 'έχειν μετά

τούτων

δέ φασιν

αύτω

ò Αντίγονος

r e και Άρκεοιλάου.

Κ ρ ά ι τ ω ρ ο ς , Πολέμωνα

είναι παρά

την δ έ οϊκησιν

δέ συν Κράτητι

μετά

Κράντωρι, Άρκεσιλαον

Λυσικλέονς

τινός

των πολιτών. We are not told where the house of this Lysicles was. It m a y have been outside t o w n and near the Academy. But if Antiogonus is right — and he is, after all, one of our most reliable sources and a c o n t e m p o r a r y of Arcesilaus — Polemo appears to have spent at least some of his time in the last few years of his life, when Arcesilaus was already a m e m b e r of the school, living with Crates in the house of a private citizen, not in Plato's house. 2 4 22 K. G. Bruns, loc.cit. n. 20 above: 'Natürlich muli man dann weiter annehmen, daß der andere' (that is, Glaueon) 'bereits ohne Kinder verstorben war, denn sonst hätte er notwendig ab intestato Miterbe sein müssen.' 23 Above, p. 229. 24 Polemo also had a chair in the Academy, which was still shown to visitors in Cicero's time. It appears that this sessio was nearer the Academy, or perhaps even part of the gymnasium (Cic.Fin. V,2: ilia ipsa sessio ... quam videmus, as against Plato's illi hortuli

233

What happened to Plato's house at the time, we are not told. Nor are we told where Crates lived as a scholarch after the death of Polemo. Of his successor Arcesilaus we are told (Diog.Laert. IV,39): το -new δή δίέτρφβν èv 'Ακαδημείςι, τον πολιτισμοί έκτοπΐξων. But this is evidence only for his everyday preoccupations, not for his place of residence or his property. We are told (ibid. 38) that he had property in his native city of Pitane; that his brother Pylades sent him some of the income of that property, and that he was also supported by King Eumenes. His will has not been preserved, but Diogenes Laertius (IV,43 —4) tells us that he made three copies of it, sent one to a friend in Eretria, kept another with some Athenian friends, and sent the third copy to his relative Thaumasias in Pitane. The accompanying letter to Thaumasias (ibid. 44) makes it clear that it was this man, not any of Arcesilaus' friends in Athens or Eretria, who was made executor of his will. It appears most likely, therefore, that Arcesilaus' property was wholly or chiefly limited to his paternal estate at Pitane. It is, at least, probable that he was no longer in possession of Plato's estate near the Academy, and that when we are told that he spent all his time there, we are merely to understand that the school continued to carry on its teaching activities in that area, to which it had by now been accustomed by a long tradition, perhaps using the gymnasium facilities. There was, after all, no objection to a philosopher opening his school in a public place. Zeno had already done it with considerable success; and when Crantor was ill and retired to the temple of Asclepius, we are told by Diogenes Laertius (IV,24) that he was followed there by a large crowd who mistook his intention and believed that he had gone over there to establish a school.25 Of Arcesilaus' successor Lacydes we are told (Diog.Laert. IV,59; Suda s.v. Lacydes, No. 72 Adler) that he was ò της νέας 'Ακαδημίας κατάρξας26 — an astonishing statement if we take 'New Academy' to mean what it means in all propinqui). For all one knows, this sessio may have been part of the exhedra of V,4, where Carneades and his successors lectured - see below, n. 29 and text. An exhedra is mentioned by Diog.Laert. IV,19 (= Antigonus) in connection with Polemo. 25 It is at least a possibility worth speculating about that on Crates' death, whatever property he may have had at his disposal was left to Socratides, who was first elected to succeed him by the younger members of the school as being the oldest (Acad.Ind. XVIII, 1 - 7 ; Diog.Laert. IV,32). If Socratides was then deposed in favour of Arcesilaus in something like a coup d'état, he may well have decided to retain his property - especially since Arcesilaus had already been living in Crantor's house. 26 This story is related in Diogenes Laertius 1,14: ου Άρκεσίλαος ò την μέσην Άκαδημείαν είση-γησάμενος, ου Λακύδης ò την véav Άκαδεμείαν φιλοοοφήοας (where φιλοσοφήσας is impossible, and must be a corruption of κατάρξας or σχολαρχήσας). In Diog. Laert. 1,19, the words της άρχαίας and της μέσης .. . Λακύδης are an insertion from 1,14, see p. 177 n. 35. Another διαδοχή reproduced by Sext.P.H. 1,220 and Ps.-Galen, Hist.Philos. 3, Diels, Doxogr. pp. 5 2 9 - 6 0 0 , makes Arcesilaus founder of the Middle Academy and Carneades of the New. This, at least, has something to do with changes in the philosophical orientation of the school. We are nowhere told that Lacydes gave the school's teachings a new slant or orientation, and the Academic tradition cited by

234

the later sources — the sceptical school, either that of Arcesilaus and his followers or that of Carneades and his successors. We are also told by Diogenes Laertius (IV,60): ό yoùv Αακύδης έσχόλαοεν èv τ φ κατασκενασύέντι κήπω υπό Άτταλου τού βασιλέως, και Αακύδειον άπ' αύτού προσιγγορεύετο. Even Zumpt has to admit that we cannot tell whether this was part of the public grounds of the gymnasium, or a private property of the scholarch, like Plato's garden. 27 It would be surprising, however, if this garden was the same as Plato's estate, and yet it came to be named after Lacydes merely because it was reequipped for him by King Attalus. A more plausible explanation is that by the time of Lacydes' scholarchate — and quite probably by the time of Arcesilaus — Plato's estate, whatever its formal status under the Athenian law of property and succession, had ceased to be in the hands of Plato's successors; that perhaps even Arcesilaus had already taught only in the gymnasium, and that Lacydes was provided with the new garden by Attalus precisely because he already had no private teaching place at his disposal in the traditional venue of the school. If this is the case I suggest that the source utilized by Diogenes and the Suda and interpreted by them to imply that Lacydes was the founder of the 'New Academy' was misunderstood by them, and that the original version merely referred to Lacydes moving the school to a new piece of property — after it had lost Plato's original estate. We do not know what happened to this Lacydeum — if indeed it was Lacydes' property, and not merely a part of the public grounds equipped for him by Attalus — during the scholarchate of Telecles and Evander, or of Hegesinus. Of Hegesinus' successor Carneades, we are told by Diogenes Laertius (IV,63): ήν δέ και μεγαλοφωνότατος, ώστε τον γυμνασίαρχοι προπέμψαι αύτφ μή οϋτω βοάι>. The story is also told, in a slightly different version, by Plutarch, De Garr. 513C. This may be merely a quarrel between neighbours, for Carneades' facetious answer does not seem to have had any serious consequences. But Zumpt may well be right in interpreting this episode to imply that Carneades taught on the Gymnasium grounds. 28 We are also told by the Acad.Ind. (XXIX,39^*2) that Carneades the son of Polemarchus inherited Carneades' έ(ξέδ)ραν και σχολήν. This exhedra must have been part of the structure of the gymnasium. 29 This Cicero, Acad. I, 4 6 , would flatly contradict any such hypothesis. The whole idea of a 'Middle Academy' as well as a 'New Academy' is later than the age of Cicero, w h o knows only of O l d ' and 'New' Academies and refuses to admit even the legitimacy of that distinction (ibid. 13 and 4 6 - both representing Philo). On these various diadochical traditions, see below, pp. 3 4 4 - 6 . " Zumpt p. 34 - w h o also calls Lacydes Plato's fifth successor: he was the sixth. " Zumpt ibid. " Beside Cicero's expression ilia moveor exhedra (Fin. V,4), implying that the exhedra is there in front of the Roman visitors, like the rest of the gymnasium (whereas Plato's garden is itti hortuli propinqui), it is well known that the exhedra was the lecture room of the gymnasium, where, at the time of Carneades and later, the intellectual part o f the education of the ephebes took place. See the archaeological and epigraphical evidence in

235

would also explain h o w the gymnasiarch could be in a position to send instructions to Carneades to lower his voice. When Cicero describes the afternoon visit he and his friends made t o the Academy, he mentions an exhedra, which appears to be nearby, as having been used quite recently b y Charmadas. 30 Plato's gardens are illi hortuli propinqui (Fin. V,2). This should imply that visitors were still shown the garden which had once been Plato's — not a word, one notes, is said o f Plato's house.31 As a follower o f the sceptical Academy, it is the exhedra and the grounds o f the gymnasium which Cicero finds most appealing, since they are related t o the more recent history o f the school. But as an antiquarian, w h o did not enter his host's house in Metapontum before he visited the place where Pythagoras died, Cicero would surely have told us o f Plato's house if it were still to be seen in these 'neighbouring gardens'. J. Delorme, Gymnasion, Paris 1960, pp. 3 2 5 - 9 . It is from the time of Carneades that we have the earliest inscriptions testifying to the ephebes' attendance at the lectures of the philosophers in the gymnasia - see M. N. Tod, 'Sidelights on Greek Philosophers', JHS 77, 1957, pp. 132-141, esp. p. 141, where the more relevant inscriptions are cited. It is not unlikely that philosophers were by that time reduced to lecturing to the ephebes in public partly because the schools could no longer support their scholarchs. In the case of Carneades and his successors, the reason may well be that they were no longer in possession of Plato's estate, or even of the Lacydeum (if it had ever been their property). Our passages show that the exhedra, together with the right to lecture in public to the ephebes, was handed down from one head of the school to another. This would explain why Clitomachus had to lecture in the Palladium before his election as scholarch (Acad. Ind. XXIV,35-7; XXV,8-11; XXX,8-10) and why Charmadas lectured, at least for some time, in the Ptolemaeum (ibid. XXXII,8): the exhedra at the original locale of the school was reserved for the scholarch. If, as I have argued above, pp. 109-111, one should read Charmadae in Fin. V,4, this would suggest that when Philo went into exile, Charmadas 'inherited' his exhedra at the Academy as a 'caretaker scholarch'. 30 There is no good reason to accept the view of Madvig and later editors in reading Carneadis in Cic.Fin. V,4. For arguments in favour of Valesius' emendation Charmadae, see above, pp. 110-111. If the exhedra was inherited by Carneades' immediate successors, it was probably also handed on to his later successors, including Philo and Charmadas who, as I have argued, may well have acted as Philo's locum tenens when Philo left for Rome. 31 J. Schwartz, 'Le fantôme de l'Académie', Hommage à Marcel Renard, Brussels 1969, vol. I, pp. 6 7 1 - 6 , attempts to show that the famous 'haunted house' in the story told by Pliny (Ep. VII,27) was Plato's house in the Academy, and that it was exorcised by Athenodorus of Tarsus - either the friend of Cato of Utica or the tutor of the young Octavian. This is most ingenious and most unlikely. The solitudo of Cie. Fin. V,l, refers not to the area being deserted, but to the afternoon siesta - see n. 66 below and context. If Plato's house was still standing on his old estate at the time, Piso would certainly have referred to it in Fin. V,2 - not just to Plato's garden. None of the sources quoted by Schwartz refers to the haunted house as Plato's - which would be surprising if it were. Porphyry and Jerome can still tell the unlikely story of the insalubrious nature of Plato's estate (Schwartz p. 672 and nn. 4 - 6 , to which add Basil, De Legendis 7, Migne PC, XXXI, p. 584), but not a single source connects it with ghost-stories. That many such stories are located in Athens and that some of their features are similar, as shown by Schwartz, would only prove that such stories were more current there than elsewhere, and that, like most stories of the sort, they tended to follow a similar pattern.

236

Cicero's testimony is our last piece of evidence, before the age of Proclus, for an Academic or Platonic philosopher having anything to do with the historic area of the Academy. Before we examine the negative evidence o f the intervening centuries, we may be well advised to obtain a clearer picture of the locality and its place in Athenian public life in general.

B. The Area of the Academy Anyone who is not a professional archaeologist must approach with trepidation the various reports o f archaeological finds in the area of the Academy. N o exhaustive and detailed monograph on these excavations and their results has been published so far, and much of what has been found has been tentatively or variously interpreted by the experts. 3 2 The first attempt at excavation was conducted by P. Kastriotis in 1908. It lasted twenty days and led to no significant results. 33 T w o more successful projects of excavation have so far been carried out, one before the Second World War and one in more recent years. In 1929, the Alexandrian architect, philanthropist and admirer of Plato's philosophy P. Z. Aristophron donated money to the Athenian Academy for excavating the site of Plato's school. Aristophron had a grandiose scheme in mind: Plato's school 32

The two most concise general accounts are: article 'Ακαδημία ( Π λ ά τ ω ν ο ς ) by Ph. Staviopoullos, Μεγάλη ' Ε λ λ η ν ι κ ή ' Ε γ κ υ κ λ ο π α ί δ ε ι α Suppl. 22, pp. 340-344, and J. Travlos, Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens, London 1971, pp. 4 2 - 5 1 . P. Z. Aristophron's Plato's Academy, The Birth of the Idea of its Rediscovery, Oxford 1934 and 1938 (and the identical Greek-French version, Paris 1933), deals with Mr. Aristophron's experiences and personal motives for the excavations, not with their results. Some of the archaeological information is summarized by R. E. Wycherley, 'Peripatos: The Athenian Philosophical Scene II', G&R IX,1, 1962, pp. 2 - 2 1 , esp. pp. 2 - 1 0 , with a plan of the Academy-Dipylon area on p. 7. Year-by-year accounts of the findings: Y. Béquignon, BCH 54, 1930, 459-60; 55, 1931, 466; 57, 1933, 250-51; P. Lemerle, BCH 59, 1935, 251; 60, 1936, 4 5 8 - 9 ; 61, 1937, 449; G. Daux, BCH 80, 1956, 240; 81, 1957, 5 0 7 - 9 ; 83, 1959, 576-82; 84, 1960, 6 4 4 - 6 ; 85, 1961, 618; 86, 1962, 6 5 4 - 7 ; 87, 1963, 6 9 3 - 4 ; 88, 1964, 682-91; 92, 1968, 733. G. Karo, AA 45, 1930, 9 0 - 9 4 ; 46, 1931, 218-19; 47, 1932, 124; 48, 1933, 208-11; 49, 1934, 136-40; 50, 1935, 171; 51, 1936, 115; H. Riemann, AA 52, 1937, 118; O. Walter, AA 55, 1940, 164-5. Ph. D. Stavropoullos, Πρακτικά της èv Άόήναικ 'Αρχαιολογικής ' Ε τ α ι ρ ί α ς 1955, 5 3 - 6 1 ; 1956, 4 5 - 5 4 ; 1958, 5 - 1 3 ; 1959, 8 - 1 1 ; 1961, 5 - 1 3 ; 1962, 5 - 1 1 ; 1963, 5 - 2 8 . Very brief summaries in JHS: 51, 1931, 186; 53, 1933, 272-3; 54, 1934, 188-9; 55, 1935, 153 (all by H. G. G. Payne); in JHS Archaeological Report 1956, 3; 1958, 3; 1959-60, 5; 1960-61, 4; 19612, 5 (M. S. F. Hood); 1962-3, 5 - 6 ; 1963-4, 4; 1964-5, 5 (A. H. S. Megaw); 1968-9, 5 (P. M. Fraser); and in AJA 37, 1933, 491; 38, 1934, 602; 41, 1937, 139-40; 42, 1938, 151 (all by E. P. Biegen); 61, 1957, 282; 63, 1959, 279-80; 68, 1964, 293 (all by E. Vanderpool). Most of these reports contain plates. I shall refer to them in the following notes by short title of periodicals only. 33 A. A. Papayanopoulos-Paleos, 'Ακαδημαϊκά, Πολβμωκ 5, 1952/3, σελλ. 74-8. 237

was to be excavated, restored to its pristine glory, and made into an international academic centre for the exchange of views and the development of civilization. 34 The excavations were soon started under the supervision of Professors D. G. Koumaniotis and P. Kastriotis of Athens. They continued, with mounting difficulties — especially of the financial and legal variety — until 1939, and were finally interrupted by wartime conditions and the German and Italian occupation of Greece. It was only in 1955 that the excavations on the site of the Academy were renewed by the Athenian Academy, this time under the direction of Professor Ph. D. Stavropoullos, who had previously taken part in Mr. Aristophron's pre-war excavations. Mr. Stavropoullos carried on his excavations for some years — the latest report I could lay my hands on dates from 1969 — and his discoveries have added much to our knowledge of the site, especially in prehistoric times. In the absence of an exhaustive final (or interim) report by the experts embodying the detailed results of these excavations and their historical significance, one can only draw on the scattered reports and brief summaries available. One event which has attracted deserved publicity was the discovery by Mr. Stavropoullos in 1968 of a sixth-century B.C. inscription reading: Μρος τές /ΐβκαδεμεύζς,35 dispelling once and for all the doubts frequently cast on the old story that the original name of the place was 'hekademeia', after the hero Hecademus, and establishing, at least broadly, the identity of the area of the excavations with the territory of the Academy.36 Somewhat less fortunate was the speculation surrounding the marble fragment discovered in the 1933/4 season. It reads: XAP .• =.. | APIC . . . . | ΜΕΝΕΚ(Σ?)... | KPITON. Stavropoullos believed that these are the titles of Platonic dialogues37 — but we have no dialogue whose title begins with APIC. G. Karo, in his report of the excavations, dated the fragment to the fifth century B.C. and restored it to read: Χαρ(μίδες) I Ά ρ ί σ ( τ ο ν ) I Άξί(οχος) | Κρίτον. At the time, his restoration found its way into SEG as 'Nomina discipulorum Socratis, S.V a .' 38 Now that photographic reproductions of this inscription are available,39 it is clear that Karo misread 34

See Aristophron's book cited n. 32 above. BCH 92, 1968, 733; JHS Arch.Rep. 1 9 6 8 - 9 , p. 5 and fig. 4; Travlos, Pict.Dict. p. 42 and fig. 57, p. 47 - who also refers (p. 42) to a sherd discovered in the Agora and restored by Sii John Beazley to read ΗΕΚΑ(ΔΗΜΟΣ). 36 Diog.Laert. 111,7-8. For other ancient sources see K. Wachsmuth, RE 1, pp. 1 1 3 2 - 4 (Akademia). The inscription also dispels most doubts as to the identification of the area of the excavation with that of the Academy, like those expressed by PapayanopoulosPaleos in the article cited n. 33 above. Ch. Pelekidis, Histoire de Véphébw attigue, Paris 1962, p. 262 η. 1, refers to that article as if no /¡oros-inscription had ever been discovered, and makes no reference to any other report of the excavations. On this issue see R. E. Wycherley, op. cit. η. 32 above, p. 8 η. 1. 35

37 38 39

Ph. D. Stavropoullos, Encyclopedia article cited n. 32 above, p. 343. AA 49, 1934, 40; SEG XIII, 1956, 28. Stavropoullos, Encyclop. art. p. 343.

238

(or miscopied?) the third line. The forms of some of the letters point to a Hellenistic rather than fifth-century date. 40 A correction published in a later issue of SEG presents the inscription as: Χαρ I Άρια i Μεν€κρ[άτης] 41 I Κρίτων —? I Another 'inscription' which has won some notoriety is a schoolboy's slate, dated to the fifth century B.C., and containing the names of the gods ΑΘΙΝΑ, ΑΡΙΣ, ΑΡΤΕΜΙΣ and the name of the pupil ΔΙΜΟΣΘΕΝΙΣ. This is only one of about a hundred such slates discovered in the excavation of 1959. 42 According to a report published in 1935, about thirty-five fragments of inscriptions dating from various periods were found in the excavations of 1934/5 4 3 Mr. Travlos informs us that 'seventy small fragments of honorary decrees dating from the fourth century B.C. to Roman times were found scattered throughout the whole area of the building.' 44 To the best of my knowledge, only the two inscriptions and the schoolboy slate have been published so far. 45 The excavations have shown that the area was already used as a cemetery and cultic centre in prehistoric times. In the 1934/5 excavations, two groups of graves were found to the south of the Academy area, one dating from Classical and Hellenistic times and the other from the Geometric period. 46 Excavations during the following year established that the place was frequented in prehistoric times, and an archaic skull found there was taken by Mr. Aristophron to prove that the place had been used as a sanctuary since prehistoric times. 47 More Geometric remains were found in the excavations of 1936/7. 48 These impressions were amply confirmed by the later excavations of Mr. Stavropoullos, who had joined Mr. Aristophron's excavations as eariy as 1933, and took over the direction of work on the Academy site after the war. In 1956, Mr. Stavropoullos found near the Academy area 'a section of a natural mound, which was used as a cemetery in the Geometric period.' 4 9 More Geometric graves of the 8th—6th centuries B.C. and the remains of a Geometric building near 'Hipparchus' Wall' were discovered in 1959, 50 and in 1961, Mr. Stavropoullos claimed to have established that the 40 Wycherley, op. cit. η. 32 above, p. 8 n. 2. Professor Eugene Vanderpool has suggested to me in a private letter that the open-bottomed omega in the fourth line should date the inscription t o the second century B.C. 41 SEG XXI, 1965, 638. 42 SEG XIX, 1963, 37. See the excellent detailed account by E. Vanderpool, AJA 63, 1959, pp. 2 7 9 - 8 0 . Reproduction: Travlos, Pict.Dicl. p. 51, fig. 64. 43 BCH 59, 1935, p. 251. 44 Travlos, Pict.Dict. p. 43. 45 Professor Eugene Vanderpool kindly confirmed to me in two letters written in March 1972 that he knew of no other inscription from the Academy excavations published to date. I have seen none published since. 46 BCH 59, 1935, 251. 47 BCH 60, 1963, 4 5 8 - 9 . 48 AA 52, 1937, 118. 49 Stavropoullos, Pract. 1956, 47. 50 Ibid. 1959, 8 - 1 1 .

239

area near that wall was clearly used as a regular burial place since the Geometric period. 51 In 1955, Stavropoullos found the remains of an aspidal house, which he identified as the residence of Hecademus. 52 In 1957/8, he found near that house the relics of a 'sacred house' with remains of ancient sacrifices, which he believed to have been a cult centre associated with this mythical hero. 53 The violent rainstorms and floodings which damaged the site in 1961 opened some holes in the floor of the sacred house, and in 1961/2, remains of sacrifices and pottery found under that floor convinced Stavropoullos that the place had been used as a cult centre long before the sacred house was built. 54 The connection between the area of the Academy and an ancient cult explains its continuous use as a burial ground throughout Classical, Hellenistic and Roman times. This was well known even before the excavations began. A number of inscriptions found 'in regione Academiae Platonis' are gravestones, dating from the fourth century B.C. to the second century A.D. 55 Pausanias (1,29, 4ff.) refers to the Athenian custom to bury those who fell in the various battles on the road from the Dipylon Gate to the Academy, and he also adds a list of famous statesmen and philosophers whose graves were still extant in that region. This custom of burying distinguished men and war heroes on the road to the Academy is also attested by Philostratus (KS1. 604), who also tells us (ibid. 623) of the funeral games in honour of those who died in battle which were held every year by the Polemarch. 56 More graves of Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine times were found in the various excavations in the area of the Academy itself. 57 Numerous other remains of pottery and coins, found throughout the excavations, provide ample evidence for the continuous use of the area from prehistoric to Byzantine times. We reach more slippery ground when we begin to search for the philosophical school and its remains. In 1930/31, the remains of a building were found in the excavations, and Aristophron believed that this was the original gymnasium. This view was upheld by Döipfeld in the following year, and P. Lemerle compared this gymnasium building and its peristyle with a building on a Naples mosaic

51

Ibid. 1961, 5. Ibid. 1955, 57; 1956, 47, Travlos, Pict.Dict. p. 42 and p. 44, fig. 52. 53 Stavropoullos, Pract. 1958, 8 - 9 . 54 Ibid. 1962, 6 - 7 ; JHS Arch.Rep. 1 9 6 2 - 3 , 5 - 6 . 55 IG II2 6043; 6514; 6899; 7646; 8264; 9034; 9464; 9549; 9645. 56 Cf. Heliodorus 1,17. Aristotle, Ath.Pol. 58 mentions these games as one of the duties of the Polemarch, but does not connect them expressly with the Academy. 57 BCH 57, 1933, 2 5 0 - 1 (graves from the first century B.C.); 59, 1935, 251 (graves of the Geometric, Classical and Hellenistic a g e s P r a c t . 1963, 8 (fourth century B.C. sarcophagus); 8 - 9 (Roman graves of the second century A.D.); 2 1 - 3 (a grave with many valuable ornaments, third century A.D.); BCH 87, 1963, 6 9 3 - 4 (graves of Classical, Roman and Byzantine times); 88, 1964, 682 (a gravestone of the fourth century B.C.). 52

240

called 'Plato's Academy'. 58 Near this gymnasium, remains of reconstruction work in Roman style were found. According to one account, this was probably reconstruction carried out after the destruction of the area by Sulla. 59 In another account, we are told that the whole gymnasium and peristyle date from Roman times. 60 But the same author tells us, only a year later, that this gymnasium building is extremely ancient — probably more ancient than all other gymnasia found so far. 61 Travlos informs us more cautiously that 'the gymnasium is dated to the end of the Hellenistic period or the beginning of Roman times; many poros architectural blocks from Classical buildings were used in its construction.' 6 2 But in an earlier work, Travlos believed that the gymnasium dated from the fifth century A.D. 63 Those of us who are not professional archaeologists could hardly be expected to decide between such conflicting views, and we can only await further examination (and, perhaps, more definite conclusions?) on the part of the experts. The gymnasium, however, was not Plato's house. In 1963, Stavropoullos found on the Veneta estate, near the Academy, the remains of a large Hellenistic building. Quoting Pausanias 1,29,2 (of all things), he identified it with Plato's Academy. 64 This conjecture does not appear to have won the conviction of the authors of other annual reports on these excavations or of Travlos — and for a very good reason. Pausanias does not speak of 'Plato's Academy': he only speaks of the gymnasium. And the gymnasium — whatever its date — had already been discovered by Aristophron in 1930/31. It is certain that houses continued to be built in the region of the Academy in Hellenistic times, and we need more compelling evidence before we can determine that a Hellenistic building whose remains were found near the Academy was Plato's house. So far, the excavations appear to have revealed little that we had not known before, apart from the great antiquity of the area as a cultic centre and burial ground. The Academy continued to be a burial ground well into Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine times. It also had a gymnasium which was already in use by the fifth century B.C.,65 and continued to be used at the time of Pausanias. The one subject on which the excavations have not so far shed any new light is precisely the issue

58 G. Karo, AA 46, 1931, 2 1 8 - 1 9 ; 47, 1932, 124; Y. Béquignon, BCH 57, 1933, 2 5 0 51; P. Lemeile, BCH 59, 1935, 251. 59 Y. Béquignon, BCH 57, 1933, 2 5 0 - 5 1 . 60 G. Κ aio, AA 48, 1933, 2 0 8 - 2 1 1 . 61 G. Karo, AA 49, 1934, 1 3 6 - 4 0 . 62 Travlos, Pici.Diet. pp. 4 2 - 3 . 63 I. N. Travlos, Π ο λ ε ο δ ο μ ι κ ή Έ ξ ε λ ι ξ ι ς τ ω ν Ά ί η κ ώ μ , Athens 1960, p. 134. 64 Stavropoullos, Pract. 1963, 1 7 - 1 8 . 65 Aristoph.yVuè. 1005 and Dover's note ad loc.; P l . ( ? ) / l x 3 6 6 e 4 - 3 6 7 a 2 . On the basis of spelling and the forms of some letters on fragments of schoolboys' inscriptions found in 1957/8, Stavropoullos (Pract. 1958, 13) believed that here we have the earliest known •γραμματοδώ ι.σκά XeLov.

16 G l u c k e r ( H y p . 5 6 )

241

which Mr. Aristophron hoped to clear up with the aid of these excavations: the connection between the Academy and the school of philosophy established in that area by Plato. Stavropoullos' excavations have established much that is of considerable value concerning the antiquity of the Academy and its use in prehistoric times. As to the history of Plato's school, we are at present still largely at the mercy of our literary sources. And the literary sources hold their peace. Or rather, they behave as though any connection between the Academy and the philosophical school founded by Plato was restricted to the 'Classical' period of the school, between Plato and the pupils of Carneades and Clitomachus. Cicero {Fin. V , l - 4 ) , as we have seen, provides us with a description of some of the monuments of the area of the Academy. Despite the destruction of the groves by Sulla only a few years earlier (Plut.Su//a XII; Appian, Mithr. 30), the gymnasium itself does not appear to have been entirely demolished. The solitudo which Cicero speaks of (ibid. 1) need not mean more than what we are told by Cicero himself: quod is locus ab omni turba id temporis vacuus esset. In the early afternoon, the Athenians had their customary siesta, and only 'mad dogs and Romans' would stroll in the midday sun.66 Not a word is said of the gymnasium lying in ruins and Piso can even point to the chair of Polemo (2), just as Cicero can point to the exhedra used by Charmadas (4) 6 7 . One can even speak of Plato's garden, as if the trees in it had not been cut down by Sulla: perhaps they had not, or they may have begun to grow again. But not a word is said of the garden or the exhedra being in the hands of the philosophical school — indeed, of any present connection between the school and any property in the region. The last member of the school to teach in the Academy was Charmadas — and he taught in the exhedra, which is part of the gymnasium complex as it stands before the Roman visitors (4). Antiochus, we know, is at the time teaching at the Ptolemaeum (1), and does not appear to have any connection with the area of the Academy. Piso would have been sure to mention such a fact if it were a fact. This is as much as we are told by Cicero. About two generations later, Strabo mentions the Academy among the places in Athens which have μυάοποιίας σνχνάς και ιστορίας (IX,1,17, p. 396). His whole description of the central parts of Athens is rather brief, and the Academy merely appears as one item on a list of such places: ομοίως δβ και ή 'Ακαδημία, και οί κήποι των φιλοσόφων, και το 'ílSeiov, κάί ή ποικίλη Στοά,

6 6 For a similar episode, see I. Psichari, T ò Τ α ξ ί δ ι μου, Oí 'Αρχαίοι (Vrettakos' edition, p. 1 5 3 ) : Κόντεβε μεσημέρι. η/\ήρορα τ/λήη/ορα 'έτρεχε ò καϋένας από τη ζέστη να χωϋη μέσα σε κανένα κελλάρι· "Ετσι κρυβηκανε ολοι και στους δρόμους δέ φαινότανε πια ψυχή

. . . 'Ησυχία δεν έχω στο ταξίδι, πρέπει πάντα να είμαι στό ποδάρι. Σηκώθηκα λοιπό να πάω στην 'Ακρόπολη. Most visitors to Athens in the summer months would have had some similar experiences. 6 7 See above, nn. 2 4 ; 2 8 - 3 0 and references.

242

καί τα κατά την πάλιν ιερά, 'έχοντα πάντα epya τεχνιτών μνήμης άξια. None of these places is related to the philosophical schools which flourished there in the past — as Strabo has done (to quote but one example) in the case of Megara and the various Socratic schools (IX, 1,8, Ρ· 393) — and we cannot tell whether any philosophical school still existed in Athens in Strabo's time from his brief account of that city. About a century and a half later, we find a detailed account of the locality in Pausanias (1,29—30). Pausanias begins his description with the words έγγυτάτω 8è 'Ακαδημία, χωρίον ποτέ ανδρός ίδυώτου, γυμνάσιον δέ έπ' έμού (I, 29,2). There is nothing surprising in such a statement. The gymnasium, after all, had been there long before Plato and Socrates. Demosthenes, a younger contemporary of Plato, born about the time when Plato is traditionally assumed to have founded his school, mentions a law of Solon imposing the death penalty for stealing even the smallest object from one of the three gymnasia, the Lyceum, the Academy and the Cynosarges (Dem. XXIV,114). This law may not, it has been argued, go back to Solon himself.68 But if in 353, when Demosthenes delivered his speech against Timocrates, such a claim could be made in public, this surely demonstrates the antiquity of the law and of the Academy itself as a gymnasium. And the stories of Pisistratus' lover Charmus dedicating a statue of Eros in the Academy do not appear to prove that it was a Pisistratean foundation 69 — on the contrary, they seem to indicate that the gymnasium already existed. A younger contemporary of Demosthenes, Hyperides, speaks of one Aristomachus who became έπιστάτης της Άκαδημείας and was prosectued for removing a spade from the palaestra of the gymnasium to his own private garden nearby. The fragment (Hyper. V,26) breaks off here, and we are not told what happened in the trial and what laws were quoted in it. The speech, Against Demosthenes, was delivered in 324/3 B.C., only about 24 years after Plato's death. The έπιστάτης appears to be the superintendent in charge of a public building, its property and all the public works done on its area — a public appointment recorded elsewhere in the literary and epigraphical sources.70 Exactly a hundred years before Hyperides delivered his speech, Aristophanes (Nub. 1005) referred to the Academy as the most natural example of

68 J. Deloime, Gymnasion, Paris 1960, pp. 3 6 - 7 . But Plutarch, Mor. 763 E - F , seems to relate Solon somehow to the Academy. He cannot be referring to the statue of Eros, since this was erected by Pisistratus for another lover, Charmus (Plut.So/on I,79B), or by Charmus himself (Paus. 1,30,1; Ath. XIII,609d). A law imposing the death penalty for the smallest theft is not likely to be very late. It sounds more Draconian than Solonian. " As argued by Delorme, op.cit. pp. 3 7 - 8 . All that the evidence proves is that, by the time of the Pisistratids, the Academy was already a public place. The archaeological evidence - especially that of Mr. Stavropoullos' excavations - has shown, as we have just seen, that the whole region was used as a cult centre and a place of burial from prehistoric times. 70 LSJ s.v. έπιστάτης 111,2.

243

a gymnasium. One of the sources of Diogenes Laertius for his life of Plato (111,7-8) found it necessary, in recounting the story of Plato beginning to teach in the Academy, to add immediately that 'this is a gymnasium in a grove outside town, called after a hero Hecademus', and to add the story of its old name 'Hekademeia'; and we remember Diogenes' other story (IV,63) of the Gymnasiarch of the Academy requesting Carneades to lower his voice. In 45 B.C., when M. Marcellus was mysteriously assassinated in the Piraeus on his way back to Rome, his Roman friends buried him in the grounds of the Academy. Writing to Cicero about these events, S. Sulpicius, who had been in charge of the burial arrangements, tells him how the Athenians objected to burial inside the city on religious grounds. He continues (Cie.Farn. IV,12,3): quod proximum fuit, uti in quo vellemus gymnasio eum sepeliremus, nobis permiserunt. nos in nobilissimo orbi terrarum gymnasio Academiae locum de· legimus eqs. For Cicero himself, Academiae non sine causa nobilitata spatia (Fin. V,l; Or. 12) may well be cherished for its memories and relics of Plato and his successors. For the ordinary educated Roman of his age, the place is just what it appears to be to a visitor to Athens — a gymnasium.71 To us, influenced as we are by the Platonic tradition, the word 'Academy' has come to mean an institution of learning, a learned society, or at least a place of theoretical ('academic') education. In ancient Athens, the Academy was first and foremost a public park dominated by its gymnasium, and the connection between it and Plato's school was only one of the numerous historical reminiscences in an area rich in history. (In order to obtain the right perspective, one can add that the excavations in the area of the Academy have not proved to be a tourist attraction in our own times, although they are mentioned in most guidebooks to Greece). It is in such a light that Pausanias, in what is essentially a tourist guide, describes the area.72 He proceeds to describe in detail monuments like the enclosure to Artemis nearby and the small shrine of Dionysus Eleutherus, to which his statue is carried every year in the festival 71 Servius is speaking of the Academy as nobilissimum orbi terrarum gymnasium. There is no evidence that Servius ever was a pupil or follower of the Academy. Marcellus had been briefly a pupil of the 'renegade' Academic Cratippus in Mytilene (Cic.Brut. 250). The most likely reason for the choice of the Academy for his burial is the nobilitas of the place as a burial-ground for distinguished personages of the past, and its great antiquity as a gymnasium. 72 When Pausanias describes the gymnasium as χωρίον itorè ανδρός ίδιώτου, one may feel tempted to conclude that he is already confusing the public grounds of the gymnasium with the story of Plato's purchase of the χωρίδων as narrated by Plutarch, De Exil. 10,603B. But χωρίον is merely the technical term for a piece of landed property for sale or for rent, as attested by the numerous occurrences of the abbreviation ΧΩΡ in IG II2 2776. It is also used in Plato's will, Diog.Laert. 111,41-3, for both of Plato's estates. Pausanias is far more likely to be referring to the tradition that the place was once the residence of Hecademus. Since the cult of Hecademus had long been forgotten, he does not refer to him by name. He may have found it somewhat embarrassing to refer by name to a hero of whose cult he could find no visible trace.

244

of Anthesteria. 73 He lists the graves of the various war heroes and of distinguished statesmen and philosophers buried in the region of the Academy and on the way to the Academy, adding some of the legends and traditions related to these men and their burial. This occupies him for the rest of the chapter. In the next chapter, he returns to the Academy, describing the altar to Eros built by Charmus and some of the stories related to it (1,30,1); the altar of Prometheus in the Academy itself; the altar to the Muses — most probably the one dedicated by Plato and decorated by Speusippus (Diog.Laert. IV.l), 7 4 an altar to Athena and an olive tree (1,30,2). It is only then (ibid. 3) that he mentions 'Ακαδημίας δέ ού πόρρω Πλάτωνος μνήμα, in a place where a god indicated to Socrates in a dream that Plato was to be the greatest of philosophers. 75 Pausanias narrates the dream in great detail, but says nothing to the effect that Plato was buried on what was his own estate near the Academy (if that was the case), or of the very existence of such an estate. He passes on immediately (ibid. 4) to a description of the tower of Timon the misanthrope, whose property, as we know from other sources, was near Plato's school. 76 In case we object that Pausanias is only interested in architectural monuments like graves, altars and temples, he passes on immediately to a description of 'a place called Kolonos Hippios', the place where, according to tradition, Oedipus arrived in Attica — and in the direction of which, as we are told in Plato's will (Diog. Laert. 111,5), Plato's estate near the Academy faced. In all these descriptions, not a word is said by Pausanias of Plato's estate, house, garden or of his διδασKaXeiov. By the time of Pausanias, it appears, Plato's property in this area was a little-known historical fact, confined to obscure manuals of the history of philosophy and the biography of philosophers of the sort drawn on by Diogenes Laertius. The traveller in Attica was shown Plato's grave, but he was not told of the connection between the Academy and Plato himself or his school. 77 Thus our literary and archaeological evidence is unanimous in presenting us with a picture of a whole area outside the city, used as a place of public worship and burial from time immemorial, full of sanctuaries and altars and monuments of various kinds, amongst which Plato's grave and the altar of the Muses are only two of the more interesting ones, and dominated throughout its history — from the time of Pisistratus, if not earlier, at least until the middle of the second

73 Paus. 1,29,2 and Frazer's note ad loc. (Pausanias' Description of Greece, transi, with comm. by J. G. Fiazer, vol. II, London 1913, pp. 3 7 9 - 8 0 ) ; Philostr. V.S. 549. 74 Frazer ad loc., pp. 389; 393. 75

Sec below, n. 89. See n. 4 above. 77 For another discussion of the gymnasium in the classical and Hellenistic period, see Delorme, Gymnasion 3 6 - 4 2 ; 5 1 - 5 4 . Delorme seems to know only of Aiistophion's excavations in 1 9 3 2 - 4 : see his p. 37 n. 3. 76

245

century A.D. - by the gymnasium. There is nothing surprising in finding out that in the age of Hadrian, some pieces of landed property kv 'Ακαδημβίφ are in the hands of private individuals with Roman names and citizenship (IG II 2 2776, lines 8 8 - 9 ; 1 4 7 - 9 ; 185-6). 7 8 Mr. Lynch suggests that 'apparently this selling of land in state-owned sanctuaries was a measure taken by Athenians to raise money.' 7 9 A more innocent explanation would be that these properties were simply in the region of the Academy. After all, Plato's garden is described — admittedly by a later source - as ó èv Άκαδημΐς. κήπος80 and the έπιστάτης of the Academy mentioned by Hyperides (V,26) possessed, as we have seen, his own garden near the gymnasium grounds. Properties in the area of the Academy must have changed hands as often as any other landed property outside town. It is extremely unlikely that Plato's property remained in the hands of his successors for very long. We have seen that, as far as the evidence of our sources goes, we lose sight of it soon after Polemo.

C. The Later Literary Sources We have already noted in the last chapter 8 1 that, whenever Plutarch refers to 'an Academic' or 'Academics' — with one or two exceptions — he is speaking of members of the school before the age of Antiochus. A similar picture emerges from his use of the word 'Academy'. In three places in the Moralia (387F; 431 A; 549F) he refers to some connection between the Academy and himself. In one place (33B—C) he even speaks of 'going down to the Academy' as if it were one of his own everyday occupations. We shall soon deal with this and similar passages.82 Nowhere does he refer to the Academy clearly and unambiguously as a piece of property bearing any relation to a school or a scholarch in his own time. His numerous references to the locality in any relation to philosopheis or to a school of philosophy are largely confined to Plato and his immediate successors, and never go beyond the age of Cicero. 83 In a con-

78 For a discussion of this inscription and its interpretation see J. Day, An Economic History of Athens under Roman Domination, New York 1942, pp. 2 2 1 - 2 3 5 , with numerous references to modern works. 79 Lynch p. 26 - who refers only to lines 1 4 6 - 8 of this inscription. 80 See below, pp. 248ff. 81 See above, p. 213. 82 See below, pp. 2 5 7 - 2 8 0 . 83 Moralia 52F (Plato); 70A (Plato and Speusippus); 127B (Plato entertaining to dinner at the Academy); 328A (ôéaeK in the Academy at the time of Alexander the Great. On these, see Diog.Laert. IV,19 = Antigonus; Acad.Ind. XVIII,8; XXV,38. From XVIII,8, it appears that the reference is to the Arcesilean disputatio in utramque partem) ·, 406E (the Academy, with its shrine of the Muses erected by Plato, as a symbol of philosophi-

246

text like that of De Exilio 603B, where Plutarch speaks of Plato's house as the residence of Xenocrates and Polemo, one would have expected some mention of the connection between it — or at least between the area of the Academy — and the school later than the age of Polemo, if not in Plutarch's own time. Plutarch apparently knows of no such connection. Nor, for that matter, does Athenaeus. Whenever he refers to the Academy as a locality, it is always in relation to Plato and his school, often quoting a contemporary comic poet. 84 The same is true of Lucían. He appears to know something about the topography of the Academy and the way to it from the Dipylon Gate.85 But on those few occasions when he refers to it as a school of philosophy, it is always a thing of the past.86 Dio Chrysostom mentions the Academy twice: once as a tourist attraction of no special distinction (XXXI, 163), and once as one of the haunts of Socrates (LVII,11). Gellius, who spent some time in Athens studying philosophy with his Platonist tutor Taurus, tells us of an evening stroll he took with friends in the Lyceum (VII, 16,1). But he uses the word Academia only three times, always for the school of philosophy from Plato to Carneades.87 These are only some of the most obvious authors one would naturally turn to for such information. We have already seen that Philostratus, in his Lives of the Sophists, speaks of the Academy of his own age: but it is always in connection with public festivals or with the burial of the dead (F.5. 549; 604; 623). Another late author who is also one of our major sources for Athenian

cal retirement from the storms of public life); 526F (Academy and Lyceum as gymnasia); 603B (De Exilio 10 - see beginning of this chapter); 612E (Dio of Alexandria); 686A (Plato dining in the Academy); 717D (Carneades); 7 6 3 E - F (Plato); 922F ('a dialectical trick derived from the Academy' - see below, pp. 2 6 8 - 9 ) ; 1059Aff. (the sceptical Academy - as all other reference in Comm.Not. - on the background of which see below, pp. 278-80);1126C (Chabrias and Phocion). Lives: Thes. 32 (the area and the hero in antiquity); Solon I (statue of Eros); Cimon 13 (the grounds of the gymnasium improved by Cimon); Luc. 42 (See above, p. 17, and Excursus 1); Luc. and Cie. 1 (Xenocrates' school); 14 (a fellow-student of Phocion); Cicero 3 - 4 (the 'two Academies' of Cicero's time); Anthony 80 (a pretender to the title 'Academic' in Caesar's time); Dio 1 (Dio and Brutus were both 'alumni' of the Academy); 14; 17; 20; 22; 47; 52 (Dio and the Academy in Plato's time); Brut. 2 (Brutus and Aristus); Aratus 34 (Aratus advancing with his army as far as the area of the Academy). 84

Athenaeus 59D (Epicrates); 137F; 186B (dinners in the Academy and Lyceum at the time of Plato and his immediate successors); 336E (Alexis); 419C-D (Plato in the Academy); 545A (Antiphanes); 609D (statue of Eros); 610E (Alexis). 85 Scyth. 2; DialMeretr. 10,2. 84 Pise. 13 (Plato); 52 (together with the Lyceum and Stoa, in the same context and dramatic date); Bis Ace. 8; 13; 15; 16; 32 (the fictitious case of 'The Academy vs. Polemo' - on which see above, p. 214. 87 111,13,1 (Plato); VI,14,9 (Carneades ex Academia)·, IX,5,4 (Speusippus vetusque omnis Academia).

247

intellectual and academic life is Eunapius. To the best of my knowledge, the Academy is not once mentioned in his Lives of the Philosophers and Sophists. It would be tedious and futile to multiply the list of authors whose evidence is purely negative.88 No author I know of presents us with any solid piece of evidence for any relation between the area of the Academy and the school of philosophy established by Plato — or any Platonic school of philosophy — later than the age of Philo and Charmadas. By the time of Pausanias - only a few decades before the establishment of the διάδοχοι by Marcus Aurelius - the connection between Plato's school and the flourishing gymnasium area of the Academy with its numerous historic monuments had become so much a thing of the past, that the very existence of Plato's grave near the gymnasium has to be explained to the ordinary tourist by means of a legendary dream of Socrates, for which our earliest sources are Pausanias himself and his contemporary Apuleius.89 Our one single piece of evidence for any connection between Plato's estate near the Academy and a Platonic school later than the age of Philo and Charmadas consists of one long fragment of Damascius, preserved, with some variations, by Photius and the Suda.90 Damascius appears to be claiming that Plato's garden was part of the διαδοχικά of Proclus and his successors. This, together with the evidence for the use of Plato's house by Xenocrates and Polemo, was sufficient proof for Zumpt that Plato's garden had been handed down from 88 One can add, for good measure, the following: Basil, De Legg. 7 (Migne PG XXI, p. 584) - Plato's Academy; John Chrysostom, Adv.Oppugn. 11,5 (Migne PG XL VII, p. 339) - Plato's garden in the Academy; id. Homil. IV in Acta Apost. (Migne PG LX, p. 47) - a reference to 'the crowd of philosophers rotting away in the Academy and the peripatof which is clearly historical and not contemporary, as the references to the Apostles in this sentence (in whose age the whole scene is set) and to Plato a few lines later should be sufficient to demonstrate: Academy and Lyceum are merely used as convenient symbols for the 'conventicles' of the philosophers. On Synesius of Cyrene's account of Athens and the philosophical schools there, see discussion and literature in Lynch pp. 1 9 5 - 6 . One should add that in both of the epistles discussed by Mr. Lynch, Synesius refers to the pupils of Plutarch of Athens as oi Πλούταρχε««. Not only are they not 'Academics': they are not even ordinary 'Platonists'. 89 Pausanias 1,30,3; Apuleius, De Plat. 1,1. The other sources - Diog.Laert. 111,5; Olympiodorus, Vita Plat. 4, p. 192 Hermann; 389 Westermann (= In Alcib. I, ed. L. G. Westerink, Amsterdam 1956, 2,83ff., p. 2); Suda s.v. Platon, No. 1707 Adler - give a shorter version of the same story, almost in the same words, but without mentioning the Academy. Apuleius (or whoever is the author of De Platone et eius Dogmate) and Pausanias may well be drawing on a local aetiological myth, explaining the connection between Plato and the Academy at a time when no Platonic school had been extant there for some time. Olympiodorus op.cit. 6, pp. 194-5 Hermann; 6 Westermann, has a similar dream, in which Plato, before his own death, sees himself as a swan flying from tree to tree. Westermk, Anon.Proleg. p. XXXIII, considers this to be the original version. 90 Photius Cod. 242,158, p. 346a; Suda s.v. Platon, No. 1709 Adler. Both versions are printed on facing pages by CI. Zintzen, Damascii Vitae Isidori Reliquiae, Hildesheim 1967, p. 212 No. 158 and p. 213 No. 265.

248

successor to successor until it reached the hands of Proclus and his school. 91 The more recent discussion of Damascius' evidence by Mr. Lynch, and his acute observations on some of its details, should be enough to put the reader on his guard. 92 But before we attempt to draw any firm conclusions from Damascius' evidence, we should first ascertain what we can take to be Damascius' own statements. In order to do this, I shall present the full texts of the passage in Photius and the Suda side by side, spacing those words and phrases which they share: PHOTIUS

SUDA

Π λ ά τ ω ν ò φιλόσοφος πένης ήν κ α ϊ Ή τ ω ν διαδόχων ovaia ούχ ώ ς ot πολλοί μόνον τον έν Άκαδημίφ. έκέκτητο νομίξουσι Πλάτωνος ήν τό ανέκαθεν, κήπον, 'ός μέρος έλάχιοτον ήν των πένης yàp ην ò Π λ ά τ ω ν , καϊ μόνον διαδοχικών, ò μεν yàp κήπος εγγύς τι τόν έν Άκαδημίφ è κέκτητο κήπον, χρυσών τριών νομισμάτων άπεδίοΰ ή πρόσοδος νομισμάτων τριών, δου, ή δε ο λ η πρόσοδος ύστερον ή δε της ουσίας ολης χιλίων ή και f¡ και πλειόνων όλιγων. 'έτι π λ ε ι ό ν ω ν ύ π ή ρ χ ε ν έ π ΐ Π ρ ό κ λ ο υχιλίων , ηϋξηΰη δε αΰτη κατά τούς νεωτέρους πολλών των αποθνησκόντων κτήματα χρόνους, άνϋρώπων Ιερών τε και φιλοτη σχολή καταλιμπανόντων. λόγων άλλοτε ά λ λ ω ν άποΟνησκόντων και κατά διαϋήκας άπολειπόντων τοϊς φιλοσοφοϋσιν άφορμήν τής έπί τφ φιλοσοφώ βίιψ σχολής και γαλήνης.

The only statements shared by our two sources for Damascius' testimony are: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Plato was a poor man. He possessed only the garden in the Academy. This garden was worth (? or: yielded?) three golden nomismata. Later on (Suda), at the time of Proclus (Photius), the whole estate of the διάδοχοι yielded a thousand or more golden nomismata. 5. (This large estate was created through) numerous bequests made to the school by benefactors on their death.

It is clear that in these statements, which are the only ones we can ascribe with certainty to Damascius himself, nothing is said to the effect that the διαδοχικά grew out of a nucleus which contained Plato's garden in the Academy. Indeed, nothing in these statements common to both sources suggests with absolute certainty that Damascius maintained that Plato's garden was part of the διαδοχικά at the time of Proclus. The statements that Plato's garden formed a part of the διαδοχικά, and that the estate was later 'expanded' (ηύζή&η) — presumably between the time of Plato and that of the school of Proclus — are peculiar to the Suda. The Suda's vorepou is not related, one notes,

91

"

Zumpt pp. 3 4 - 5 . Lynch pp. 1 8 5 - 6 .

249

to ηύξή&η: it is parallelled by Photius' έπί Πρόκλου, and both may have figured in the original text. Photius' statement is virtually 'minimal'. It sets out to dispel the popular view that the διαδοχι/cá went back to Plato. From his expressions μόνον and της où οίας όλης one might conclude that Plato's garden did form part of the διαδοχικά — and this is precisely the conclusion the Suda version seems to have drawn from it, adding statements to this effect which are not found in Photius' minimal version and were most probably not in Damascus'. Photius, who is usually more reliable than the Suda, and who is drawing on Damascius' original text — not, like the Suda, already on an intermediate source (Hesychius?) — does not say this explicitly. His expressions imply little more than that Plato only owned one small estate in the Academy, whereas the property of the diadochs at the time of Proclus consisted of numerous estates bequeathed to them in the course of the years by the various benefactors on their death; and that, naturally enough, the income from this whole agglomeration of estates far exceeded Plato's income from his one small garden. Photius, like the Suda, quotes the sum of three golden nomismata — the Byzantine currency of Damascius' age — in relation to Plato's estate, and this has done much to create the illusion that that sum was the annual income obtained by Proclus' school from its ownership of Plato's garden.93 But Damascius appears to have said something quite different. In Photius' version, it is only the income of a thousand nomismata from the whole estate which is dated to the time of Proclus; and in the Suda version, the income from the whole estate was later a thousand golden nomismata. In both versions, the implication is that the other sum, that of three golden nomismata, is related to some period earlier than the age of Proclus. Since the main point of the whole passage is to compare Plato's poverty with the relative affluence of Proclus and his school, it is most likely that what Damascius originally wrote was that it was Plato's property in Plato's own time which had yielded three golden nomismata. For the sake of comparison, one had, of course, to give this sum in the currency of Proclus' — or Damascius' — own time. How did Damascius obtain his figure? I suggest that the only figure he was likely to have is the one we possess as well, through the information supplied to us by Diogenes Laertius and Plutarch as to the price Plato paid for purchasing his estate at the Academy. It is no accident that the sum given by Plutarch — and in one version of the story as related by Diogenes — is three thousand drachmae, and the sum given by Damascius is three golden nomismata. Damascius knew, of course, that three golden nomismata were not the equivalent of three thousand drachmae in his own day - even we know this - but he also knew that the value of the drachma had depreciated considerably since Plato's time. It is quite likely that the Suda's words έγγύς τι, although they do not appear in Photius' version, are original. Damascius assumed that three

93 See Saffrey-Wcsterink p. XIV n. 3 - with calculations of the value of this sum of money in terms of the cost of living at the time.

250

thousand drachmae in Plato's time was roughly the equivalent of three golden nomismata in his own time - a sum, as Saffrey and Westerink have pointed out, which was only half the annual stipend paid at the time of Damascius to a poor monk in Palestine. 93 For all one knows, Damascius may also have originally said that this was the value of the whole of Plato's property, rather than its annual income. Although Photius clearly has the words ού ή πρόσοδος, the Suda has only άπβδίδου, as distinct from ή ολη πρόσοδος of the διαδοχικά, and once again, the Suda may well have preserved an original expression. As an economic historian, Damascius was wrong in his calculation 94 — and we do not know, of course, on what he based it, except that he was hardly in the position to base it on proper economic data. But Damascius was not very likely to possess figures of the income from Plato's garden in Plato's own time — or at any time before the age of Proclus and his school — which have not reached us. The temptation to 'round up' the sum of three thousand drachmae into 'roughly three golden nomismata'' seems to be the most likely explanation. Another assumption would be, of course, that the Suda version is right; that Plato's garden did form part of the property of the school of Proclus, and that it had always formed part of the property of Plato's successors, from the time of Plato to that of Proclus. But this hypothesis would go against everything we have found out so far about the successors, about the history of the school, Plato's estate, and the location and way of life of Proclus' school. We have already seen that, after the age of Antiochus, the epithet 'Academic' ceases to be applied to contemporary philosophers, and is used only of those philosophers in times past, between the ages of Plato and the school of Carneades, who taught in the Academy, or of their pupils and followers. We have seen in the present chapter the material counterpart of this fact, which is most probably also its reason: that we have no evidence for the possession, by the scholarch of the school founded by Plato, of Plato's own garden in the area of the Academy later than the age of Polemo; that the last scholarch of whom we are told that he had his own pied-à-terre in the Academy is Lacydes; and that the last member of the Academic school to teach on the grounds of the Academy was Charmadas. We can now reasonably conclude that the reason why no Platonic philosopher after the age of Antiochus is ever called 'Academic' is that

94

A single man lived comfortably on 120 drachmae a year at the time of Pericles, and could subsist, although not very comfortably, on 540 a year in the fourth century B.C. - see G. Glotz, Ancient Greece at Work, Eng. transi. New York 1967, p. 286. A single man could live as a monk in Palestine at the time of Damascius on six golden nomismata, and in Athens standards were higher - see Saffrey-Westerink's calculations cited in the last note. The salary of rhetors and grammarians at Carthage at the same time was 70 golden nomismata a year: see Cod.Just. 1,27,1,42. According to A Cameron, 'The Last Days of the Academy at Athens', Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 195, 1969, pp. 7 - 2 9 , esp. p. 21 and n. 3, this is 'the only figure we have for academic salaries in Justinian's reign'.

251

it was at that age that the connection between Plato's school and the locality of the Academy was finally severed. None of the Platonists from the second century A.D. onwards is ever mentioned in any relation to the grounds of the Academy — not even those of them who, like Ammonius, Taurus or Nicostratus, lived in Athens, and not even in such contexts as the descriptions of such philosophers with various titles and epithets in the literary sources or in formal dedicatory inscriptions, where any connection with the Academy would be certain to have been mentioned. As a place-name connected with a school of philosophy, 'the Academy' ceases to exist soon after the age of Antiochus. But this is not all. We have seen that, from the age of Antiochus on, any attempt to unearth a scholarch of the Academy or the Platonic school of Athens has come to nothing — that we cannot find any reference in the sources to an organized Platonic school or community in Athens. This applies, once more, also to such Athenian residents as Ammonius, Taurus and Nicostratus. In the various texts describing them formally with their various epithets and titles, we encounter only such expressions as 'Platonic philosopher', 'a philosopher of the Platonic persuasion', and the like, and two of them at least are clearly private tutors. We have also seen that the διάδοχοι appointed at the time of Marcus Aurelius and for some time later had no attested connection with any established schools of philosophy — indeed, that some of the sources which tell us of the establishment of such public professorships virtually preclude the possibility that they existed alongside the ancient schools. Putting these facts together, we can conclude that, as far as our evidence goes, there seems to have existed no Platonic school and no Platonic scholarchs in Athens between the ages of Antiochus and of Plutarch of Athens and his successors — no one, that is, who would have been capable of inheriting and transmitting Plato's property near the Academy from generation to generation until it reached the safe hands of Proclus. Nor, as we shall soon see, did Proclus and his school ever lay any claim to a direct institutional descent from Plato's Academy. They did use the metaphor of 'the Golden Chain', but this metaphor had nothing to do with a direct institutional continuity between the Platonic Academy and their own school.95 We can now remind ourselves of some facts concerning Proclus and his school which we have already considered in an earlier chapter.96 We have noted there that Plutarch of Athens, Proclus and their school used a number of technical terms - such as σχολή, διατριβή, άκροάσόαι, μαάητής - which had been virtually absent from the language of higher education for centuries, and that they were most likely to have done so in imitation of Plato's classic school. Such an antiquarian attitude would have naturally induced them to call their school 'the Academy' — and indeed, to establish the school in the area of the Academy — if it was still their property. Yet the school is usually described in phrases 95 96

See below, pp. 306-315. See above, pp. 153-8.

252

such as ή èv Ά&ήναις σχολή, and it is quite likely that the location of the school was in a large house within the city walls, as suggested by Lynch. 97 We have also referred to Marinus' account of Proclus' visit, on certain dates every year, to the graves of heroes and philosophers of old. This visit, Marinus tells us (Vita Proc. 36, p. 89) included the Academy, where he 'placated the souls of his ancestors and relatives' (presumably in the philosophical sense, since he was not of Athenian origin), and then, moving on to another section of the Academy, he would 'pour a libation to the souls of all those who had occupied themselves with philosophy'. From this description it appears that to Proclus, the Academy was not his everyday environment or his property. It was to him what it was to any other resident of Athens: a region outside the city walls full of historic memories, whose graves and shrines were to be visited at certain fixed times by certain categories of people for the performance of rituals to the gods or to the souls of the dead who were buried there. Proclus pays his visits to the Academy just like any other Athenian resident, with the difference that he is a foreigner, and his own 'ancestors and relatives' are the Platonists of old and all other philosophers who died in Athens and were buried in the Academy, as was the custom. Nothing is said, in this or in any other context, of the Academy or any part of it being Proclus' place of residence, property, or the location of his school. Lynch 9 8 reminds us that according to the same Life of Proclus by his pupil Marinus (36, p. 90), both Proclus and his teacher Syrianus were buried to the east of Athens in the direction of Mount Lycabettus — an astonishing fact if one were to assume that Plato's garden in the Academy was their property, or that they had any special relation to the territory of the Academy. All these considerations, taken together, would render most of the Suda version of Damascius' story highly improbable. It is extremely unlikely that Proclus and his school possessed any territory in the Academy, and it is even more unlikely that Plato's original estate in the Academy could have been handed down from generation to generation in a school which, on all the evidence we have examined, seems to have been extinct for centuries." Apart from one 97

Lynch p. 188. Ibid. n. 26. 99 The single ancient testimony apparently to this effect is Olympiodorus, In Ale. I, 141, p. 92 Westeiink: ίσως δέ ό Πλάτων ώς εύπορων άμισϋίαν ènerfìSevoev' δώ και μέχρι τού παρόντος σώζονται τα διαδοχικά, και ταύτα πολλών δημοσιεύσεων -γινομένων. Westerink, Anon.Proleg. p. XIV, remarks: Olympiodorus' argument had been put forward before, and had been answered by Damascius, who explains that, contrary to current opinion, the estate of the Academy did not come from Plato's private fortune, but from the legacies of its friends and benefactors in the course of the centuries.' We know now that Olympiodorus wrote his commentary not earlier than 560 A.D. - see A. Cameron, op.cit. η. 94 above, pp. 1 1 - 1 2 . He was quite familiar with Damascius' commentary on Plato's Alcibiades - see Westcrink's Index I to his edition of Olympiodorus' commentary, p. 145. But apparently, he did not know his Life of Isidore. His story of the διαδοχικά, as Westerink, Anon.Proleg. ibid, suggests, may have arisen from the rivalry between the Platonic schools of Athens and Alexandria. Its meaning, however, is far 98

253

or two expressions, where the Suda's language sounds authentic (as έγγύ; τι, or the distinction between άπεδίδου and πρόσοδος, merged into one by Photius), Photius' version as we have understood it is far more likely to be correct. One final, and rather pedestrian, consideration. Assume, for a moment, that Plato's estate was the property of Proclus and his school; that the income from it, in Proclus' own time, was three golden nomismata, and that the income from their whole property was a thousand nomismata . This would render the whole property of Proclus and his successors about 333 times as large as Plato's estate. Plato's estate near the Academy was large enough for him to have his residence there and live on it comfortably, and even to entertain guests. It must have been a house of some magnitude — not a mansion, but certainly not just a shack - with its garden around it. We shall then have to conclude that Proclus and his school were veritable millionaires: that they owned property in Athens which amounted to 333 houses and gardens — or their equivalent in property value. But this, after all, is what Damascius says - or is it? It is, in fact, only what one possible reading of the Suda and Photius makes him say. What Damascius did undoubtedly say is that the income from the property in Proclus' time was 1000 nomismata a year. This would be the equivalent of the salaries of 14—15 teachers of grammar or rhetoric at the time of Justinian 100 — enough to keep the scholarch(s?) and a few close relatives and pupils alive in conditions of moderate affluence — and Damascius never says or implies that they were rich. As for Plato, Damascius merely deduced, probably in the manner we have explained, that his property (and he knows only of one of his two estates) was worth (or yielded) three nomismata — a sum not large enough to provide for a poor monk in Palestine for one year. Damascius had no choice but to conclude that Plato was a poor man. In the biographical tradition, Plato is not represented as exceedingly rich, but he is hardly a pauper. On his death he leaves two estates and no debts. He could — and did — live on his property and spend all his time teaching, writing and dabbling in Sicilian politics. All this could not have been known to Damascius, nor could he or Proclus have possessed Plato's estate on the Academy, whose annual yield in their time must have been far more than three golden nomismata. The area may have been somewhat insalubrious in Plato's time. By the time of Hadrian, as we have seen, it was already a desirable residential area, where properties were bought and sold by prosperous citizens who held Roman na-

from certain. Even if Olympiodorus is maintaining that the διαδοχικά consisted of Plato's property, the Athenian version of Damascius is to be preferred to his. But I shall argue in a later chapter (below, pp. 3 2 2 - 9 ) for an alternative interpretation, according to which Olympiodorus did not maintain even that. 100 See n. 94 above.

254

tionality. Damascius knew nothing at first hand of Plato's estate. Plato's poverty, as well as the meagre value of his 'small garden', existed only in Damascius' speculations. The evidence we have examined in this chapter, combined with that of the earlier chapters, points in one direction: no connection between the school founded by Plato and the area of the Academy can be traced later than the last references in our sources to that school itself — that is, later than the age of Philo and Antiochus. As for Plato's estate in that area, we lose sight of it long before we lose sight of the school itself — a century, if not two centuries, earlier. 101 101 Caineades became scholaich some time before 159/8 B.C. The Lacydeum was established about 230 B.C. See the Fasti Academici in Mekler's edition of Acad.lnd., pp. 118-9.

255

CHAPTER 6

Interlude: Plutarch, Favorinus, Epictetus

After the age of Antiochus and his school, the only two philosophers who describe themselves, or are described by contemporaries, as 'Academics' are Plutarch and Favorinus.1 The only philosophical writer who appears to be speaking of 'the Academics' as if they were a contemporary phenomenon is Epictetus.2 I have postponed the discussion of these three figures to this late stage, not without a reason. Much of what has been written so far on Plutarch and Favorinus as 'Academics' pure and simple is based on assumptions which we have examined, and found reasons for rejecting, in the last few chapters; assumptions such as that the Academy as an organized school of philosophy continued to exist throughout the first six centuries of the Roman Empire; that it was in continuous possession of Plato's estate near the Academy throughout this period; that Platonicus and Academicus, or schola, diatriba and secta, are mere synonyms; and that every conceivable Platonicus who lived and taught in Athens during these centuries — such as Taurus, Nicostratus or Ammonius — can be taken ipso facto to be a scholarch of the Academy. We have seen, in our detailed enquiries in the last few chapters, that not a single one

1

The myth of L. Licinius Sura 'the Academic sceptic' was piobably invented by Zeller (111,2, p. 81 n. 4), and is still found in works on Greek scepticism (e.g. Brochaid p. 328; Goedeckemeyer p. 247, n. 7; Robin p. 230; Dal Pia p. 372). Historians are usually more cautious and make no reference to Sura's philosophical affiliations. The myth rests on one phrase in Pliny's second letter to Sura, Ep. VII,27,16: licet etiam utramque in partem, ut soles, disputes etc., which Zellcr describes as a practice peculiar to the Academy. He has forgotten Lact .Inst. 5,14,4 (summarizing Cicero); quasi oratorio exercitii genere in utramque partem disserendi, and Cicero's own ascription of this invention to Aristotle and his description of it as essentially rhetorical in origin - see Or. 46 with Sandys' note (p. 55, in utramque partem). Sura is nowhere depicted as a man of any philosophical interests, but Martial (VII,47) addresses him as a practitioner of the 'classic' style of rhetoric. Pliny's two letters to him appeal to his great erudition (IV,30,1; VII,27,15), not to his knowledge of philosophy. His habit of arguing in utramque partem may have been part of his practice as an orator and lawyer, or merely the result of an 'academic habit of mind' not unknown in later ages. On Sura's life and career, see E. Groag, RE 13, pp. 4 7 1 - 4 8 5 (Licinius 167); A. N. Sherwin-White, The Letters of Pliny, Oxford 1966, pp. 3 0 9 - 1 0 ; C. P. Jones, 'Sura and Senecio', JRS LX, 1970, pp. 9 8 - 1 0 4 . 2 Galen's reference is restricted to this one work of Favorinus, and he shows no awareness of contemporary Academics elsewhere. The reasons for this will become clearer later in this chapter.

256

of these presuppositions can any longer be sustained with anything like the certainty, or even the plausibility, with which they have so far been held. Against the background of these enquiries, the Academic affiliations of Plutarch and Favorinus become acutely problematic: our two 'Academics' are shown to be working in something of a vacuum. When we further observe that the 'Academic' preoccupations of Plutarch and Favorinus are closely interrelated at more than one point, and that Epictetus' criticisms of 'the Academics' drew out a reaction on the part of Favorinus and no one else we know of, we may well begin to suspect that things are not, perhaps, as simple as they have hitherto been taken to be. We have no evidence that Favorinus ever had anything to do with the Athenian gymnasium called the Academy, or that Epictetus ever visited it. Plutarch is the one member of our circle who sometimes speaks of himself as standing in some relation to that historic locality. Before we pass on to problems of a more literary and philosophical nature, it would be advisable to examine those few passages in which Plutarch speaks of himself as an Academic. Only such passages in which Plutarch or a member of his circle of friends appears in the context of the Academy, or in some relation to the epithet 'Academic', will be included in my collection of testimonia. It would be a petitio principii as our discussion so far has already shown — to include here any reference to Plutarch's tutor Ammonius or to Plutarch's Platonic predilections. Any connection between such aspects of Plutarch's life and philosophy and his relations to the Academy could only be considered after we have established, as precisely as our more explicit evidence will allow us, the nature of these relations. All the testimonia come from Plutarch's Moralia, and are presented in the traditional order.

A. Plutarch and the Academy I. De Aud.Poet.

33B-C:

Et yap εκείνος ονδέν ένόμιξεν ποιήσειν κακών τερπωλάς και ϋαλίας έφέπων, πώς ήμίν τα παρόντα χείρον βξει ψίλοσοφούσι και πολιτενομένοις και προωύσιρ εις àyopàv και καταβαίνουαα> είς Άκαδήμειαν και γεωργία^ έφέπουοιν; II. De E Delph. 387F (Plutarchus loquitur)·. Ταύτα έπειδάν τις τι άποκρίνηται, έγρωκώς τούτο, δτι ρφον έρωτάν ή άποκρίνβσϋαι, άλλα και αύτός άπόκριναι και eine τί φης είναι το δίκαιον. (Cf. 337a5—7). A similar accusation is levelled against Socrates by Critias in Charmides 166b7—c6, ending with the words: έμέ γαρ επιχειρείς ελέγχεις, έάσας περί ου ò λόγος έοτιν. We are again on familiar territory, and once more it is Socratic and Platonic: the very verb ελέγχω, Attic, Classical and not often to be found in descriptions of the practices of the sceptical Academy, testifies to this. Plutarch's expression should be translated: 'they do not offer an opportunity for a cross-examination of what they themselves say'. One final observation. In our passage, Pharnaces is referring back to Lamprias' refutation of the Stoic view, which has preceded his words. In that refutation, Lamprias referred rather casually (922D) to the κοιλώματα της γης. But to anyone familiar with his Plato, this expression cannot but call to mind the κοίλα της γης of Phaedo 109b4ff. A mere reminiscence, perhaps. No one would contend that Lamprias — or Plutarch — in this dialogue is expounding a strictly Platonic view.44 But for Plutarch and his circle of friends, verbal reminiscences 41

A few of the more striking examples will suffice. Andocides 1,30: ελέγχοντα τους τών κατ ηγόρωυ λόγους. 11,4: φοβούμενοι έλεγχον διδόναι. Lysias VII,34: τον eXcyxov ισχυρό repop yevéadai τών τούτου λόγων και τών 'έργων τών έμών. XVI,1: εις 'έλεγχον τών αύτοΐς βεβαιωμένων καταοτήναι. Aeschincs 3,99: αόριστα και ασαφή ηειρώιται λέγειν, φοβούμενοι τόν 'έλβγχον. Lycurgus 29 : τον napa τών συνειδότων eXeyxov φυγών. Cf. Lyc. 30; Lysias ΧΙΙ.31, and numerous other places where έλεγχος is conducted through βάσανος of the slaves. I have not found instances of παρέχειν eXeyxov - this particular combination may be Plutarch's own. But some of our examples come near enough to it. 42 Cherniss p. 53 n. c: Xen.Mem. IV,4,9; PI .Rep. 336C. 43 Laches 187e6ff (βασανίζω); Gorg. 471e2ff. (legal terms, including μάρτυρας παρέχεCTiSat); 4 7 4 a 2 - 5 ; Thtt. 166a2ff. ('Protagoras' giving his own description of the Socratic έλεγχος). 44 Görgemanns (op.cit. n. 34 above), pp. 34ff.; 74ff. and elsewhere in his work, tends to emphasize Plutarch's originality in relation to the various sources he uses (including Middle Platonic and Pythagorean ones also utilized by Proclus and Macrobius: see esp. p. 74 n. 99). But on the form of the dialogue and much else in it, Cherniss' words (p. 25) are very appropriate: 'Plato was Plutarch's inspiration throughout the dialogue'. Cher-

269

are not a matter of pure accident — especially not verbal reminiscences of well-known passages in the Platonic Corpus. Plutarch is thus not associating his — or Lamprias' — relation to the Academy with the scepticism of the 'New Academy', of which he shows such a good knowledge in the philosophical writings of his later years.45 What they have learnt at the Academy is the practice of caution and moderation in thought and argument, and the maxims and practices associated with the Academy in the relevant testimonia appear to be derived from no 'living tradition' of scepticism, but from familiar principles and ideas of Plato which we all know from his dialogues. 'Having been to the Academy', Plutarch seems to imply, places a special responsibility on one's shoulders to walk in the steps of his 'ancestors' in this historic locality - such as Plato. Noblesse oblige. This may well be the key to Plutarch's and Lamprias' relation to the Academy. For their knowledge of Plato, they need not have gone there. Their Platonic teacher, as Plutarch and his 'Lamprias' tell us often enough, was Ammonius — and Ammonius was available to them as their private tutor long before they 'entered the Academy'. It is significant that Plutarch never refers to his own personal connection with the Academy precisely where one would have expected him to do so: in those philosophical works of his older years, written against the Stoics and Epicureans.46 It is precisely in these writings that he draws most heavily on materials derived from the sceptical Academy. The references to a connection between the Academy and Plutarch or Lamprias appear mostly in dialogues set in their youth or early middle age. In his own private school in Chaeronea, it appears, Plutarch utilized the writings and arguments of the Academic sceptics on a large scale — yet he never mentions, in these works, any relations between him and the Academy of Athens where those sceptics had taught. These memories belong to his past — to his early

niss adds, of course, that 'Plutarch is himself the true author of the whole work and . . . while there is in it a distillation of his wide and varied scientific and philosophical reading, he cannot possibly have composed it by copying out any source or combination of sources.' 45 De E Delph. was written after 95 (Jones, Chronology p. 72); De Sera Num. Vind. after 81 and before 107 (ibid. p. 71; De Lacy and Einarson, Moralia vol. 7 Loeb, pp. 1 7 3 - 4 ) . We do not know the date of De Def.Orac., but being an 'Ammonius dialogue', it is not likely to be very late. Most of Plutarch's writing was done after 96: Jones ibid. p. 73. Thus, these Delphic dialogues appear to be among his earliest writings. Of the philosophical dialogues influenced by the sceptical Academy, Adv.Col. is later than 97 (Jones ibid, p. 72). On the works against the Stoics, the view of M. Pohlenz, op.cit. n. 12 above, pp. 3 2 - 3 , that they belong to Plutarch's old age, is generally accepted. Schröter'* suggestion (pp. 1 - 3 ) that the writings against the Stoics and Epicureans, as well as some physical works like De Primo Frig., are early, is based on his own rather arbitrary and dubious interpretation (p. 1 n. 2) of De Prof. in Virt. 78D. Even in the 'eighties', Plutarch was hardly φιλοσοφβίν αρχόμενος. 46

Comm.Not.

270

is no real exception - sec below, pp. 2 7 6 - 2 8 0 .

years in Athens — and even then, they have nothing to do with Ammonius. In our testimonium III, Lamprias appears to be waving his membership-card of the Academy at Ammonius, as if to say: 'You, Ammonius, are entitled to your acceptance of Plato's view. We, who have been to the Academy, should know better and show greater circumspection.' 47 What, then, was the nature of Plutarch's and Lamprias' relation to the Academy? Our discussion so far has shown that it was most unlikely to be that of students of a philosophical school, either of the sceptical or of the Middle Platonic variety. A more promising solution would be easier to reach if we knew more about what went on inside the Academy at the time of Plutarch. Our sources for this period — including Plutarch himself — never lead us inside the gymnasium. We can only start, therefore, with the one fact we have established in the last chapter. The Academy had always been a gymnasium. It was still a gymnasium at the time of Cicero and at the time of Pausanias. There is no reason to doubt that it was a gymnasium also at the time of Plutarch, whose years in Athens fall virtually half-way between the death of M. Marcellus and his burial in nobilissimo orbi terrarum gymnasio Academiae and Pausanias' floruit. If Plutarch and Lamprias did not join the Academy as pupils of a philosophical school, the alternative that springs to mind is that they joined it for some other educational purpose related to a famous gymnasium. Could they have joined it as ephebes? It is not without compunction that I offer this hypothesis - and in our present state of knowledge of the Athenian epheby at the time of Plutarch, this cannot be more than a hypothesis for further investigation by someone more competent in this field than myself. Difficulties exist. They are chiefly due, not to positive evidence to the contrary, but to the lack of any sufficient evidence, or sufficient studies of some of the details of what little evidence we possess. I shall indicate some of these difficulties, in the hope that further research by expert historians and epigraphists may help us to reach some clearer verdict.48 Both Plutarch and Lamprias were aliens, and Plutarch, at least, was probably in his twenties, and certainly over eighteen, at the dramatic date of De E Delph. - that is, before he joined the Academy.49 By Plutarch's time, of course, the Athenian epheby had long shed its original military and patriotic character 47

Whether 01 not Lamprias' views in this dialogue represent Plutarch's, his behaviour is in character - cf. De E Delph. 3 8 5 D - 3 8 6 B . Plutarch could haidly make him speak of a connection with the Academy if this were not a fact. 48 The chief difficulty was indicated to me in a private letter by Professor Sterling Dow: we need new and more accurate texts of the ephebic inscriptions, and new studies based on such reliable texts. 49 Jones, Plutarch pp. 1 3 - 1 4 .

271

and was now mainly a 'finishing school'. The inscriptions listing brothers serving together show clearly that the original age-limit of eighteen was no longer operative.50 Foreigners were admitted into the Athenian epheby probably as early as 128/7 B.C. — certainly as early as 119/8 B.C.51 Among those foreign ephebes whose provenance is noted in the inscriptions, we have a number of Boeotians52 — although, apparently, none from Chaeronea, which had its own ephebic college.53 By the time of Plutarch, for all we know, a pair of brothers from Chaeronea, even if they were well over eighteen, could enlist in the Athenian 'finishing-school' which still went by the name of epheby. Or could they? Let us start with the age-limit. The presence of two, three, or occasionally four brothers in numbers which preclude the possibility that they were all twins (or triplets or quadruplets) has long ago been noticed. The conclusion that the rigid age-limit of eighteen recorded by Aristotle (Ath.Pol. 42,1—2), was no longer functioning, has been drawn long ago. But to someone who is not an expert epigraphist, it appears that much of the research done on this issue for the last hundred years or so has been far too preoccupied with the problem of the so-called 'pre-ephebi'. It is only quite recently that the whole of this hypothesis of the 'pre-ephebi' or 'mellephebi' has been exploded in a masterly article by Sterling Dow.54 Since this theory of the 'pre-ephebi' — with its implication that when the age-limit was removed, it was younger men who were allowed in — appears to go back to A. Dumont's famous Essai sur l'éphébie attigue of 1875/6, one of the earliest comprehensive studies of the whole field,55 one can see why the other possibility does not appear to have been considered seriously by the experts so far. Aristotle himself (ibid. 42,2) seems to imply only that youths under eighteen were not allowed to register. It is clear (ibid. 1) that the custom was to register at eighteen. But since the only offence appears to be registration before the minimum age, it is not entirely unlikely that when 'the age limit was removed' and brothers were allowed to serve together, no real change in the law was effected. Once the

50 See, e.g., inscriptions cited by P. Girard, article Ephebi in Daremberg and Saglio's Dictionnaire, vol. 3, p. 624. Girard concludes that some of these brothers could be under or over eighteen. 51 O. W. Reinmuth, The Foreigners in the Athenian Ephebeia, Lincoln, Nebraska 1929 (Univ. of Nebraska Studies in Language and Literature No. 9), pp. 1 2 - 1 3 ; Ch. Pélékidis, Histoire de l'éphébie attigue, Paris 1962, p. 186ff. " Reinmuth pp. 2 1 - 2 (Coronea, Plataea, Tanagra, Thebes, Thespiae); p. 25 (the same figures, arranged by region). 53 Reinmuth p. 52; Pélékidis p. 167. 54 S. Dow, 'The Athenian Epheboi; Other Staffs, and the Staff of the Diogeneion', TAPA 91, 1960, pp. 3 8 1 - 4 0 9 , esp. pp. 3 8 5 - 3 9 4 . See also his article Ό ΐ ΠΕΡΙ T O ΔΙΟΓΕΝΕΙΟΝ', HSCP 63, 1958, pp. 4 2 3 - 4 3 6 . 55 S. Dow, TAPA 1960, p. 382.

272

epheby ceased to be strictly a matter of military training — which should, of course, be undertaken as early as possible within the terms of the law — the old law was merely reinterpreted to imply that two, three or four brothers over the minimum age could now serve together. If this could be shown t o be the case, the presence of four brothers would imply that the oldest of them could well be twenty-two or older. Plutarch may not have been much older than twenty-two when he 'joined the Academy' in A.D. 66 or 67. 5 6 The matter should be left for further investigation by competent epigraphists. The other difficulty seems to be somewhat more formidable. We know that in the second century B.C. and later, some of the ancient gymnasia in Athens were used by the ephebes for the more philosophical and rhetorical parts of their curriculum, as well as for their gymnastic exercises. The Ptolemaeum, in which the 'ephebic library' appears to have been housed, may have been a favourite. 5 7 There is even a class (or two classes?) of men, appearing in two inscriptions as οί νεάνισκοι èy Λυκείου and οί άνδρες èy Λυκείου, who have sometimes been construed to mean 'ephebes' - or 'ex-ephebes' — 'of the Lyceum'. 5 8 All this, however, does not seem to apply any longer in Imperial times. There, it is the Diogeneion, and the Diogeneion alone, which appears both in the inscriptions and in the literary sources in connection with the ephebes. 5 9 The time-honoured theory according to which the Diogeneion was merely a centre for the education of the 'pre-ephebes' has been convincingly exploded, at least for the time being, by Sterling Dow. 6 0 In default of contemporary evidence, could one maintain that the Academy — or any gymnasium other than the Diogeneion — was still being used at the time of Plutarch for the education of the ephebes? Yet doubts remain. Is it likely that ancient and classical gymnasia like the Academy or the Ptolemaeum ceased altogether in Imperial times to be used for the education of the ephebes? Were the old exhedras, built especially for public lectures, no longer used for what must have been the most popular of their original purposes? Was the library at the Ptolemaeum, to which the ephebes of the second and first centuries B.C. were made to donate books,

56

Jones, Plutarch p. 13 n. 2. Girard, op.cit. n. 50 above, p. 631; Pélékidis p. 260ff.; M. N. Tod, 'Sidelights on Greek Philosophers', JHS 77, 1957, pp. 1 3 2 - 1 4 1 , esp. pp. 1 3 7 - 8 ; Marrou pp. 2 8 0 - 8 1 (E.T. p. 186; A.T. pp. 2 5 6 - 7 ) . 58 IG II 2 956,67; 958,65; 960,31; 961,31; 9 5 7 , 5 1 - 2 ; Girard p. 633. Pélékidis p. 261 beüeves that these groups were distinct from the ephebes. But Dittenberger and Dumont, quoted by Pélékidis ibid. n. 9, seem to consider them part of the epheby. 59 Girard p. 631; Pélékidis pp. 2 6 4 - 5 . The epigraphic and literary testimonia have been assembled by P. Graindor, 'Études sur l'éphébie attique sous l'empire', Musée Belge 26, 1922, pp. 1 6 5 - 2 2 8 , esp. pp. 2 2 0 - 2 2 4 . A supplement to Graindor's list: S. Dow, HSCP 63, 1958, p. 426. 60 Sec articles citcd n. 54 above. 57

18

Gluckcr (Hyp. 56)

273

no longer used by the ephebes? That the Diogeneion was now the 'headquarters' of the Athenian epheby, where all the officials functioned and all the documents were deposited, seems to be clear from the present state of the evidence of our inscriptions. That an examination of the ephebes took place in the Diogeneion is clear from the story of Plutarch himself about Ammonius {Quaest.Conv. IX,1,736D) - and Plutarch speaks unambiguously of ephebes. not 'pre-epheboi' or 'mellepheboi'. What is not quite certain in the present state of our evidence is that ephebic exercises and studies did not go on in some of the other gymnasia as well. Evidence for this may be forthcoming. It may even now be available for the expert epigraphist to interpret — or, perhaps, waiting to be produced from as yet unpublished inscriptions? I have not been able to find any. I have thrown out this suggestion — as I have already indicated — as a more viable alternative to the old assumption which seems to me entirely untenable in the face of our evidence, that Plutarch and Lamprias joined the Academy as pupils of a philosophical school. If their 'membership' of the Academy cannot be construed to be part of their ephebic training, the problem will have to be left open until a better solution is found. New evidence, or some new ingenious interpretation of extant evidence, may yet offer such a new solution. If, however, their relation can be construed as part of the Athenian epheby, a number of issues will fall into place. This would apply, not only to the puzzles galore which have already emerged from the discussion of our testimonia. It might explain also why Ammonius appears to have been considered insufficient for Plutarch's and Lamprias' education. Membership of the Athenian epheby might have conferred on them Athenian citizenship, 61 which mere studies under a private tutor, even a distinguished tutor who had been three times strategus, would not. Plutarch, in any case, was not averse to 'collecting honours' and 'adding letters to his name'. Although a Chaeronean patriot, he acquired both Roman and Athenian citizenship; became a priest of Apollo at Delphi; was a member of the Aphictyonic Council; received the ornamenta consularía, and towards the end of his life, became a Procurator Achaeae.62 Membership of any sort of the Academy would supply him with more honours and 'letters to his name'. If this was indeed part of the Athenian epheby, it would constitute an important stepping-stone in his public career. What, as we have seen, the Academy did not confer on Plutarch or Lamprias was either membership of an organized philosophical school or a new philosophical orientation. The 61

This is the contention of O. W. Reinmuth, 'The Ephebes and Citizenship in Attica', TAPA 79, 1948, pp. 2 1 1 - 2 1 3 . See also the short summary of his paper 'The Ephebate and Citizenship in Attica and Egypt', TAPA 78, 1947, pp. 4 3 3 - 4 , where Egyptian parallels are cited. But Dow's criticisms of Reinmuth's methods of deducing facts from inscriptions (TAPA 91, 1960, pp. 381ff., esp. p. 385 n. 4) would tend to put the non-epigraphist on his guard. Plutarch was, of course, an Athenian citizen: Quaest.Conv. I,10,628A. " Jones, Plutarch pp. 1 3 5 - 7 , and references to main text; Index p. 155, s.v. Plutarch.

274

need to be cautious and moderate in all things was — as we have seen — a matter of noblesse, not of philosophy. The reminiscences of Plato would be natural to anyone who 'has been at the Academy' — especially if such a person was also philosophically inclined. They do not imply membership of a philosophical school. If Plutarch's membership of the Academy was part of his ephebic training, one could, perhaps, explain why he went there after he had spent some time as Ammonius' pupil. There was, as far as we know, no 'probation period' in any of the classic schools of philosophy, except the Pythagorean sect, which had its own 'novitiate'. 63 Indeed, in earlier times, it was not unusual for one teacher or scholarch to draw away promising pupils from rival schools and to boast of his success in doing so. 64 Nor was there any need for Plutarch to study philosophy privately under Ammonius in order to prepare himself for harder courses of his more demanding future professors in the Academy (Who? Why do we never hear of them?). But it is at least possible that the number of places in the ancient gymnasia for foreign ephebes — or indeed, for any ephebes — may have been restricted. In that case, Plutarch and Lamprias may have studied under Ammonius while waiting to enter the Academy as ephebes. They remained his friends afterwards and continued to acknowledge him as their one teacher of philosophy worth mentioning — because he was the only one. They could also boast of their social superiority to him as 'graduates' of the Academy — which is exactly what Plutarch makes Lamprias do in our testimonium III. I now take my final leave of this hypothesis: further research by more competent epigraphists with more access to the relevant materials will confirm or invalidate it. 65 But where, then, did Plutarch learn his Academic - or indeed, his Pyrrhonian — scepticism? Our evidence does not seem to suggest that Ammonius had any interest in this particular brand of philosophy. If he had ever had any such predilections, Plutarch would have been sure to put them in his mouth more than once. As things stand, we never hear of such interests on the part of Ammonius. Even the mild notes of caution in the 'Ammonian' dialogues are usually introduced by Plutarch or Lamprias in their arguments against Ammonius. But Plu-

63

Gellius 1,9. For the latest discussion see Burkert, Weisheit u. Wiss. p. 187ff., E.T. p. 192ff. 64 E.g. Diog.Laert. 1 1 , 1 1 3 - 4 ; I V . 2 9 - 3 0 . Cicero refers jokingly to this practice in Fin. V,75: quem discipulum cupio o te abducere. 65 If this interpretation is correct, Protogenes (see above, pp. 2 6 6 - 7 ) - especially if he is the Protogenes w h o m Plutarch knew as a friend before his marriage - may well have been his συνέφηβος at the Academy, and may well be included among the 'Academics' in our testimonium VII. Perhaps this problem of the odd or even number of stars was a topic discussed in some mathematical course at the Academy, when Plutarch, Lamprias and Protogenes had been ephebes there? Unlike philosophy, geometry was part o f the ephebic curriculum in Plutarch's time (Quaest.Conv. 7 3 6 D ) .

275

tarch was no mere blind disciple. He was intelligent and erudite enough to launch, in his later years, a private philosophical school of his own in Chaeronea, and to compose his own philosophical works, which are no mere reproductions of what he studied under Ammonius. His omnivorous curiosity in matters of philosophy and its history is attested on almost every page of his Moralia. Some of the works of the exponents of the sceptical Academy — especially Clitomachus and his school — must have been available to Plutarch in the Athens of his age, if they were still available to Sextus {Math. IX, 1) and to Galen (De Ord.Libr. p. 44K.; 120M.; De Opt.Doct. 2, p. 45K.; 86M. = Favorinus Fr. 28, p. 181 Barigazzi), in later ages and places. It is even conceivable that some works of the sceptical Academy were available in the library of the Academy of Athens - not the mythical 'school library',66 but the library of the gymnasium in which Carneades and his successors had lectured. 67 Plutarch's 'membership' of the Academy may have contributed indirectly to his interest in the sceptical scholarchs who had taught in that gymnasium more than a century and a half before his time. But we have already noted that he makes most use of materials derived from the sceptical Academy in works against the Stoics and Epicureans written in the last years of his life, and mostly set in his own school at Chaeronea. We shall soon find this impression further confirmed by our discussion of Favorinus. It is more than likely that Plutarch's serious preoccupation with the writings and teachings of the sceptical Academy belongs to a period much later than his studies with Ammonius or his period at the Academy. Plutarch was quite capable of absorbing these doctrines and digesting them without the aid of tutors or scholarchs. After all, he did compose a work on the Pyrrhonian ten tropes (Catal.Lampr. No. 158). He was never a member of any Pyrrhonian school: there was none at Athens.68 We are left with the one work of Plutarch in which it appears that the Academy is a contemporary institution: De Communibus Notitiis. We have already mentioned von Amim's theory, that Plutarch 'lifted' most of the ar66

See above, p. 230 n. 14. But our information concerning the libraries of the gymnasia is rather scanty, and does not include details about the Academy: see J. Delorme, Gymnasion, Paris 1960, pp. 3 3 1 - 2 . The suggestion by H. Dörrie, 'Die Erneuerung des Piatonismus im ersten Jahrhundert vor Christus', Le Néoplatonisme, 'Colloques internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche scientifique', Paris 1971, pp. 1 7 - 2 8 , that there was a library at the Academy and that it was destroyed by Sulla, is purely speculative: see the discussion of Professor Dörrie's paper, ibid. p. 29ff.; esp. Dr. Walzer's objections, pp. 2 9 - 3 0 . Athens in Plutarch's time was, in any case, not entirely destitute of books: De E Delph. 384E. 68 If Schröter p. 46ff. is right, Plutarch may have been influenced in his Offenbarungsphilosophie' by some works of Philo of Alexandria, perhaps acquired during his visit to that city. He may have obtained some of his knowledge of Pyrrhonism from books bought during that visit, or even through meeting some 'live' followers of Pyrrhonism in Alexandria. 67

276

guments of this work - and of Stoic.Rep. - from a work of Clitomachus, and the counter-theory of Pohlenz, that Plutarch's source was the living tradition of the Academy. 6 9 Pohlenz rests his argument mainly on the passage in 1 0 7 2 F : ά λ λ α τούτο

μέν

eiow

oi προς

'Αντίπατρου

οίόμενοι

Xéyeoûai,

μη

προς την aípeow κτ€. This, he argues, 70 would tend t o show that Plutarch's source is later, much later, than the age of Antipater and Carneades, and was written at a time when the details of the debates between them were only vaguely remembered, but when the opposition to Stoicism was still a living tradition in the extant Academy; if so, why not at the time of Plutarch himself? The vivid style of the dialogue, with its references to what appear to be contemporary disputes, must refer to the 'Schulbetrieb' of the Academy of Plutarch's own time. 7 1 But is this necessarily the case? All that Plutarch's source seems to be doing in that passage is to dismiss the more specific controversies between Carneades and Antipater, and to concentrate on the larger issues between the Academy and the more traditional Stoic persuasion (αίρεσις). Cicero does a similar thing when, in Luc. 12, he dismisses the specific arguments against Philo in order to return to the more traditional views of the school of Carneades. 72 By Pohlenz's argument, we could have claimed, if we had not known the author and date of the Lucullus, that it was composed long after the details of the controversy between Philo and Antiochus had been forgotten. Furthermore, on Pohlenz's own admission, the views of Antipater were long forgotten by Plutarch's time. Why, then, should 'the Academy' continue to pay them even the slightest attention, when the Stoics themselves had discarded them? If Plutarch's source was a work of Clitomachus, 7 3 it is not unlikely that here we catch a glimpse of Clitomachus and his school responding to the censures of their contemporary Stoics. Such 69

See above, pp. 2 6 0 - 2 6 1 . M. Pohlenz, op.cit. η. 12 above, p. 26ff. 11 One can only enter very briefly into the problem of whether Plutarch knew his Stoic sources at first-hand or not. Von Arnim's arguments, S VF I, Praef., pp. XIII-XIV, still seem to me to be essentially valid. His view is accepted by Pohlenz, op.cit. η. 12 above, and by F. H. Sandbach, 'Plutarch and the Stoics', CQ 34, 1940, pp. 2 0 - 2 5 , who suggests (p. 23) that Plutarch's source was a 'collection of inconsistencies in Stoic doctrine'. More recently, an attempt to show that Plutarch had a good first-hand knowledge of Stoic sources, and especially of Chrysippus, has been made by D. Babut, Plutarque et le stoïcisme, Paris 1969. His arguments are not always compelling. For example, the statement in 1 0 7 0 D - E that 'Chrysippus' book On Justice can be procured everywhere' may well not be Plutarch's own statement (as Babut pp. 3 2 - 3 ) but his source's. Babut has not explained why Plutarch always restricts himself to the same limited range of passages from Chrysippus' works - and that is precisely Arnim's most convincing argument for an intermediate source. 7! Although his motives were probably more complex than those of Plutarch or his sources: see above, pp. 8 4 - 8 8 . 73 Which is not to maintain, with v. Arnim, that Plutarch also followed the order of his source: see Sandbach, op.cit. n. 71 above, pp. 2 1 - 2 . 70

277

contemporaries could well have claimed - if some of Clitomachus' arguments were still directed against views peculiar to Antipater — that Antipater was now dead and buried, and so was Carneades. If the Academics were to refute the Stoa, they should direct their attack on the more traditional body of Stoic doctrines. Nor are the vivid and 'contemporary' references to details of 'Schulbetrieb', found here and there in the course of this work, any evidence for the existence of the Academy at the time of Plutarch. Plutarch may have 'lifted' them out of his source, intentionally or unintentionally; after all, he does not tell us in this particular work what the setting or dramatic date of the dialogue are again, a rather unusual procedure for Plutarch, to which we shall soon return. What is, perhaps, of greater significance than Pohlenz's argument is that, in the first few sections of this work, Diadumenus and his 'companion' are speaking in terms which make it perfectly clear that for them, it is contemporary Stoics who attack the Academy (e.g. 1059A—C), and that it is 'us' whom they attack (1060A). Does this prove that, despite all our evidence to the contrary, the sceptical Academy was still alive? De Communibus Notitiis is now generally accepted as a genuine work of Plutarch. 74 This, however, is not to say that it is without its puzzles, and the greatest of them, perhaps, is Plutarch's choice of speakers. Diadumenus' 'companion' is left completely nameless, and Diadumenus himself does not appear to be faring all that much better. The name is rare. Pape and Benseler can find only one other occurrence of this name,75 and the editors of Prosopographia Imperii Romani can offer us five, all from Italy.76 Pohlenz calls him 'ein sonst bei ihm nicht genannter Akademiker Diadumenos' 77 - but Pohlenz, we remember, believed that the dialogue is based on 'live' discussions in Plutarch's contemporary Academy. Sandbach admits that Diadumenus 'seems to be an imaginary figure.'78 What is very strange is that Plutarch would select, for this dialogue, a chief speaker who is never heard of elsewhere, and who is never introduced in any detail here, and a second speaker who is utterly anonymous. In all his other dialogues, most of the speakers are Plutarch and his own known friends, who are often introduced and described in some detail. None of Plutarch's extant dialogues consists entirely of fictitious speakers, and in all of them, the chief speaker or two are historic - mostly Plutarch, Lamprias, Ammonius or a member of Plutarch's circle of friends, pupils and admirers. This is the one way in which an author like Plutarch, to whom friendship meant 74 Its authenticity was doubted by C. Glessen, De Plutarchi contra Stoicos Disputationibus, Diss. Münster 1889. Arguments for its authenticity were offered by O. Kolfhaus, Plutarchi De Comm. Not. librum genuinum esse demonstratur, Diss. Marburg 1907, and they have since been generally accepted. 75 Pape-Benseler, Gr. Eigennamen p. 296, s.v. 76 PIR\ 5 7 - 8 ; PIR1, 6 4 - 7 . 77 Pohlenz p. 18. 78 Sandbach p. 23.

278

so much, could express his feelings of gratitude towards some of his close friends. Plutarch's two Epicurean dialogues are set in his own school in Chaeronea, and the speakers, as we have seen, are two of his pupils and his friend Zeuxippus. Yet here, in one of his most ambitious philosophical dialogues, Plutarch seems to have thrown away his opportunity of immortalizing two of his friends. Diadumenus, we are sometimes told, stands for Plutarch himself. 79 But why, then, this sudden modesty? Plutarch is never wary of introducing himself into his own dialogues, often as a chief speaker, except on those occasions where he makes his brother, or Ammonius, or a very close friend or pupil, the chief speaker. 80 Even in some of those dialogues, Plutarch is still often one of the secondary characters. And why lose the golden opportunity of immortalizing in the 'companion' a real person, one of his own promising pupils — someone, say, like Aristodemus of Aegium? 81 Pohlenz has very perceptively pointed out that the form of this dialogue, in which the pupil's questions usually serve only to prompt the master's more extensive expositions, is extremely similar to that of Cicero's Tusculans.62 We can add to this another observation. One of Plutarch's lost works — No. 134 in the Catalogue of Lamprias — is entitled σχολαί 'Ακαδημαϊκοί. Sandbach translates this title as 'Academic Lectures'. 83 But we remember that the structure of Cicero's Tusculans is described by Cicero himself as scholae, Graecorum more (Tusc. 1,7—8). This is precisely the structure of Comm.Not. - so much so that one is tempted to think that the σχολαί 'Ακαδημαϊκοί were a work of the same nature and type. And yet Cicero, who has a much weaker claim to being considered as a philosopher and a teacher of philosophy in his own right than Plutarch, shows little hesitation in presenting himself as the teacher who argues with the anonymous pupil. Plutarch prefers to use the obscure and almost certainly fictitious Diadumenus. Why? No definite answer can be given, and the discovery of some sections of the σχολαί 'Ακαδημαϊκοί in a hitherto undetected manuscript or a new papyrus roll would do more to solve this problem than any kind of conjecture. But in "

Ziegler p. 120 (= RE pp. 7 5 6 - 7 ) . E.g. De Def.Orac. (Lamprias); Praec.San. (Zeuxippus); Amatorius (Flavian and Plutaich's son Autobulus). 81 Anonymous persons do appear here and there in the Quaest.Conv., and sometimes they are even speakers in the odd (and usually brief) quaestio·, see Görgemanns, op.cit. n. 34 above, pp. 6 7 - 8 . It is also most likely that Apollonides, Aristotle and Pharnaces of De Facie are fictitious characters (see Cherniss' Introduction to his Loeb ed., pp. 5 - 6 ) . But these are not the chief speakers - or the only two persons of the dialogue - as Diadumenus and his anonymous 'companion' are. The έταίρος iv rfi διατρφη of De Facie may or may not be Plutarch himself - see n. 34 above — but his name may well have been mentioned in the lost first part of the dialogue. Again, he is not the only - or the chief - speaker in this dialogue. 82 Pohlenz p. 18. 83 F. H. Sandbach, Plutarch, Moralia vol. XV Loeb, p. 21. 80

279

default of such evidence, conjecture is our only weapon, and as long as our conjecture fits the rest of our evidence, it may not be too far off the mark. We have noticed that, beside being the only 'anonymous' dialogue among Plutarch's extant works, Comm.Not. is also the only complete dialogue which lacks a proper dramatic setting. I suggest that the setting of this dialogue is not in Plutarch's own time, but in the final years of the sceptical Academy in the first, or towards the end of the second, century B.C. Indeed, it may not be too fanciful to suggest that this dialogue was closely related to σχολαί Άκαδημαϊκαί, or even that it formed a part of them; that these two works shared the same setting, and perhaps even the same persons, and that all this was described in the lost part of the whole work. We shall soon see that in his late years, Plutarch probably came very close to advocating a mild version of Academic scepticism not unlike that of Philo's Roman books. Had this scepticism been part of a living tradition of an institution in which Plutarch and some of his friends had been brought up, he would have followed his usual practice and made some of his own teachers, friends or pupils the speakers. If he has not done so, this is most probably because his Academic scepticism was part of no living tradition, but a lonely experiment to revive old doctrines, carried out in the void by Plutarch himself and a small group of friends and pupils. Plutarch could not set a dialogue in which the sceptical Academy appears as a living, contemporary institution in his own age for the simple reason that the sceptical Academy had been dead for nearly two hundred years.

B. Favorinus the Academic One of those friends of Plutarch who shared the Academic scepticism of his later years was Favorinus. 84 Lucían (.Eun. 7 = Test. 4) speaks of him as 'Ακαδημαϊκός ευνούχος έκ Κελτών, ολίγου προ ημών εύδοκψήσας èv Έλλησιι>. The description is in bad taste, 85 but it establishes the fact that as a philosopher, Favorinus was considered to be an Academic. His friend Sextus Caecilius is made by Gellius (XX,1,21 = Test. 47, p. 130) to refer to Favorinus' arguments

84 Testimonia and fragments will be cited by their number - and when necessary, page number - in Barigazzi's edition. His edition contains concordances with the earlier edition of Marres, with vol. I of Mensching's edition, and with the historical fragments in Müller's FHG, on pp. 559-563. For biographical details of Favorinus in the ancient sources, see Ρ IR* No. 123. 85 Lucían was himself a provincial - most probably a Syrian - who had 'made good' in the Greek world by dint of his facility with words and style. Only such a parvenu could be so scathing about the success of a Celt, at the same time presenting himself, by implication, as a Greek of the Greeks. The phenomenon is not unknown in other times and places.

280

as disputationes Academicae, and this comes after a speech by Favorinus preceded by the warning: scis enim solitum esse me pro disciplina sectae, quam colo, inquirere potius quam decernere. None of Favorinus' philosophical works are extant, but Galen's summary of some of them {De Opt.Doct. 1—2 = Fr. 28, pp. 179—182) appears to place him firmly within the orbit of Academic scepticism. Despite all this, one still finds him presented in the standard histories of ancient philosophy and Greek scepticism as more of a Pyrrhonian than an Academic. Much of this is probably due to a misunderstanding of the theory of Leander Haas, who maintained that there was a time (but much earlier) when Academic and Pyrrhonian scepticism became merged together and almost indistinguishable — a theory with which we shall deal in detail in a later chapter, 86 and which is still widely accepted and made to apply to a later period as well by the latest editor of the fragments of Favorinus. 87 Haas himself, reading the evidence of Galen and Gellius quite correctly, refused to identify Favorinus as a Pyrrhonian. 88 He was attacked by Hirzel, whose chief argument for considering Favorinus as a Pyrrhonian (as well as an Academic!) sceptic was that, not only did he write a work in ten books of Πυρ pòpe tot τρόποι, but that in it he rearranged the tropes in a different order from that of Aenesidemus before him and Sextus after him (Diog.Laert. IX,87 = Barigazzi p. 172). Such a rearrangement, Hirzel claimed, was a freedom which no disinterested historian would allow himself; only a committed Pyrrhonian would feel free to take such liberties. 89 Few people will be convinced by such an argument. Indeed, the correct order of the ten tropes is precisely the sort of antiquarian and philological problem which would appeal to the encyclopedic mind of the author of πωτοδαπή ιστορία.90 Whatever substance there is in some of Hirzel's other arguments — 86 See below, pp. 35 1 - 2 . Haas himself believed that the two schools became identical only between the death o f Timon and the age of Aenesidemus. He was quite aware that Favorinus was not a Pyrrhonian - see reff, in n. 88 below. 87 Barigazzi, Introduzione, pp. 2 2 - 4 , and in his introductory comments to the various Academic and Pyrrhonian fragments - see esp. pp. 1 7 2 - 3 . 88 Haas pp. 8 1 - 4 , esp. 83. 89 Hirzel III, p. 130ff. 90 Sec, e.g., Fis. 5 5 ; 57 Barigazzi. The rest of Hirzel's discussion is even more speculative. Diog.Laert. 1 , 1 1 5 - 6 is not the only passage of the sort where Favorinus' name is missing (and it is missing there because nobody has ever maintained that Favorinus, who held his o w n school at Rome and was not a physician, was a Pyrrhonian scholarch or an Empiricist). Sextus, whose first distinction between the sceptical Academics and the Pyrrhonians (P.H. 1,226) is the same as that of Favorinus (Gell. XI,5,8 = Fr. 26, p. 174), and who also rearranged the last three tropes differently from Aenesidemus (Diog.Laert. IX,87 = Barigazzi p. 172), never mentions Favorinus in his works. It is true that he also never mentions Agrippa by name. This, t o Hirzel, would amount to a proof that Agrippa was an Academic - or at least, that he was not a Pyrrhonian. But the five modes of Agrippa and his school in Diog. Laert. I X , 8 8 - 9 are precisely the same as those ascribed by Sextus, P.H. 1 , 1 6 4 - 1 7 7 to oi νεώτεροι σκεπτικοί. See also Goedeckemeyer p. 241 n. 3.

281

and I shall not enter into all of them here - they would rather tend to demonstrate that Favorinus considered himself an Academic, not a Pyrrhonian, sceptic. Yet the custom of including Favorinus among the Pyrrhonian sceptics persists. Zeller smuggles him into a chapter on the sceptical school after Aenesidemus, 91 on the pretext that he serves as an example for the influence of Pyrrhonian scepticism outside the Pyrrhonian school itself. 92 In the course of his discussion, Zeller admits that Favorinus 'appears to have counted himself as a member of the Academic school' — only to add that he must have also wished to be considered as a Pyrrhonian, as 'demonstrated' by the title of his 'chief philosophical work'. 93 Zeller's evidence for this exalted view of Favorinus' Pyrrhonian books as his 'philosophisches Hauptwerk' is the statement of Philostratus (K.5. 1,8,6, p. 491 = Test. 6, p. 93): . . . τούς φιλοσοφουμένους αυτού

των

\&γων,

ών άριστοι

οί Πυρρώνειοι

— the only one of Favorinus'

philosophical works mentioned by (and known to?) Philostratus. Goedeckemeyer realized that Favorinus affiliated himself to Academic scepticism, to which he was related through Plutarch, and he even makes the perceptive suggestion that his Academic affiliations are closer to those of Cicero and Philo than to the Platonism of Plutarch. 94 But his discussion of Favorinus, although carefully called 'Exkurs', forms part of the section on Agrippa, Menodotus and their followers. 95 Brochard argues briefly but convincingly in favour of classifying him as an Academic. 96 But his discussion is part of a chapter on Menodotus and Sextus Empiricus. Robin leaves the question of Favorinus' Academic affiliations open — but at the end of a chapter on scepticism and medicine. 97 Dal Pra adopts a position similar to that of Brochard, if somewhat more traditional and cautious. 98 His discussion is part of a chapter on Menodotus and his followers. 99 What lies at the root of this procedure could perhaps be described as a species of mauvaise foi. All the evidence shows clearly that Favorinus regarded himself as an Academic sceptic. But placing him within the history of the Academy in the second century A.D. would hardly square with the general image of the school at that time, whose chief exponents are usually taken to be dogmatics like Ammonius and Taurus. Even Plutarch, if we take his philosophical corpus as a consistent and homogeneous, if somewhat eclec91

Zeller 111,2, pp. 7 6 - 8 1 . Ibid. p. 76. 93 Ibid. p. 79. 94 Goedeckemeyer pp. 2 4 8 - 2 5 7 , esp. 2 4 9 - 2 5 1 . 95 Ibid. pp. 2 3 8 - 2 6 5 . 96 Brochard pp. 3 2 8 - 3 3 0 . 97 Robin p. 230. 98 Dal Pra pp. 3 7 2 - 4 . 99 The one honourable exception to this prevailing fashion is the extremely sensible discussion of Th. Colardeau, De Favorirli Arelatensis Studiis et Scriptis, Grenoble 1903, pp. 58-9. 92

282

tic, body of doctrine (as is usually taken for granted), is more of a Platonic dogmatic than a sceptical Academic. Favorinus does not seem to fit into this reconstructed model of the Academy of his age. Despite all evidence to the contrary, he is therefore squeezed into the history of Pyrrhonian scepticism. We hear of no Pyrrhonian sceptic with whom 'the ubiquitous Favorinus' 100 was ever in contact. He probably knew Epictetus and may have been his pupil. 101 He was a pupil of Dio of Pnisa, 102 and knew the Cynic Demonax. 103 But he was certainly no follower of Epictetus, against whom he later wrote one of his most acrimonious philosophical works. Nor was he a Cynic. The one philosophical figure to whom he is closely related by our sources is Plutarch. The Suda (s.v. Favorinus, No. 4 Adler, Test. 1 Barigazzi) says of him: ώπιφίλοτιμείτο yoöv και ξήλον et'xe προς Πλούταρχου τον Χειρωνέα βίς το των σννταττομένων βιβλίων άπειρον.104 This image of Favorinus Plutarchi aemulus is borne out even by a superficial comparison of the titles and subject-matter of some of their works. I present Plutarch's titles in their order in the Catalogue of Lamprias, with their number in that Catalogue, and refer to Barigazzi's collection of fragments for the corresponding title of a work of Favorinus:

PLUTARCH

FAVORINUS

45.

περί της είς έκάτερον βιβλία e '.

έπιχείρησιν

64.

περί της δι αφοράς τώκ και 'Ακαδημαϊκών.

Πυρροινβίων

67.

πού ε'ισιν ai Ιδέαι;

68.

π ώ ς ή υλη τών Ιδεών οτι τα πρώτα σώματα

Πλούταρχος f) wept Γης Ακαδημαϊκής διαόεσεως (Fr. 28, pp. 1 7 5 - 9 0 ) . 1 0 5 Fr. 26, pp. 1 7 2 - 4 . 1 0 6 περί Ιδεών (Fr. 25, p. 171). 1 0 7

μετείληφεν', ποιεί.

100

In the excellent phrase of C. P. Jones, Plutarch p. 36. Gell. XVII,19,1; 5 = Test. 43, p. 124 - see Barigazzi pp. 4 - 5 ; Th. Colardeau, Étude sur Êpictète, Paris 1903, p. 10 n. 4, and his work cited n. 99 above, p. 5. 102 Philostr. V.S. 1,8,3; 7 (p. 491) = Test. 6. 103 Lucian, Dem. 12 = Test. 5. 104 It may not be a pure coincidence that one of the few occurrences of άιπιφιλστιμέομαι recorded in LSJ is Plutarch, Pericles 14, 161A, and that we have met with ίήλον 'έχειν in Plutarch, Luc. 42,2. 10s See p. 179 Bar., lines 1 - 2 : την είς εκάτερα έπιχείρησιν κτε. 104 The whole passage of Gellius may or may not be derived from the Πυρρώνεωι τρόποι - as Barigazzi p. 174. But the subject-matter of sections 6 - 8 is clearly the same as that of Plutarch's lost work. 107 Is it an accident that the one word attested of this lost work - σύμπτωμα - is quite common in Aristotle, as Barigazzi points out? Favorinus was a great admirer of Aristotle; Plut.Quaest.Conv. 7 3 4 F = Test. 21. On this more presently. 101

283

101.

nepi φυγής (extant).

περί ψυγης (extant but mutilated, Fr. 96, pp. 3 4 7 - 5 2 1 ) .

125.

απομνημονεύματα.

απομνημονεύματα

(Frs. 3 2 - 5 1 , pp. 1 9 4 -

207). 158.

•nepl τών Πύρρωνος

δέκα

τρόπων.

Πυρρωνείων

τρόπων

I ' (Frs. 26—7, pp.

172-5). 184.

περί τών πρώτων καΐ τών άπ'

188.

φιλοσοφησάντων

C f . Frs. 3 2 - 5 1 ; 55; 5 7 - 7 7 ; 9 1 - 3 . 1 0 8

αύτών

περί ΚυρηναΧκών.

C f . Fr. 117. 1 0 8

This is not to say, of course, that Favorinus merely pillaged Plutarch's works and turned them to his own use, sometimes plagiarizing even the titles. Favorinus was a friend of Plutarch, and an author in his own right, and in the one case where the two works bearing the same title — nepi φυγής — are extant, a comparison shows that they are entirely different. But Favorinus is clearly following in Plutarch's footsteps in his choice of a large number of titles for his own books and in his treatment of subjects similar to those covered by some of the works of Plutarch. Besides, a work like nepi φυγής is more of a sophistic έπίδειξις than other works. Here, Favorinus is in his element as a distinguished representative of the Second Sophistic. The subject was a literary and rhetorical commonplace, and what was expected of an author of such a treatise was originality in reshaping old arguments; in furnishing new literary quotations and anecdotes; and in putting the stamp of his own literary personality over the whole work. The same would apply to works of encyclopedic knowledge such as απομνημονεύματα or παντοδαπή Ιστορία. Many of the fragments of these two works of Favorinus have reached us through Diogenes Laertius, and this explains their preoccupation with the history of philosophy. But the well-read and well-travelled Favorinus was enough of an independent scholar to collect many of his facts without Plutarch's help — although he may have derived much of his knowledge of the more philosophical parts of these works from Plutarch's works and conversation. The situation is somewhat different when we come to Favorinus' more strictly philosophical works. Not one of those whose title has come down to us deals with subjects which are outside the orbit of Plutarch's philosophical interests — with the possible exception of -nepi της διαίτης τών φιλοσόφων (Fr. 23, p. 170) — concerning which, beside the title attested in the Suda, we know nothing. Even Favorinus' Pyrrhonian work has, as we have seen, virtually the same title as a lost work of Plutarch, and the one long fragment of his concerning the Pyrrhonians (Fr. 26) deals with the difference between them and the sceptical

108

N o t implying that Plutarch is Favorinus' source, but merely that the topics dealt with

in such fragments o f Favorinus could c o m e under the heading o f Plutarch's lost w o r k .

284

Academics — the title of another lost work by Plutarch. If on the evidence of such a title and such a fragment one could count Favorinus as a Pyrrhonian — then surely, Plutarch should be regarded as a Pyrrhonian as well. 109 Our one solid piece of evidence concerning Favorinus' 'Academic' works is Galen's treatise περί άριστης διδασκαλίας and especially its first three chapters.110 From Galen's evidence, it appears that Favorinus first wrote a book called Πλούταρχος, ή περί της 'Ακαδημαϊκής διαιρέσεως. This was followed by another work called προς Έττίκτητον, a dialogue between Plutarch's slave Onesimus and Epictetus.111 Later on, he wrote another book on the same subject, possibly called Alcibiades.112 At a later stage, he wrote three more books, all entitled περί της καταληκτικής φαντασίας, one addressed to the Emperor Hadrian, one to Dryson and one to Aristarchus.113 In all these works, Favorinus defended the attitude of the sceptical Academy to the problem of knowledge and their practice in utramque partem disputare, and in the last three, as well as in the book against Epictetus, he also attacked the Stoic concept of καταληκτική φαντασία. So far, so good. But this is not all. For we are also told by Galen that Favorinus' scepticism underwent a change between the composition of his Plutarch and the book 109 After all, we do not know that Favorinus' rearrangement of the last three tropes, considered by Hirzel as a work of such great originalty, was not derived from Plutarch. Nor do we know the contents of Favorinus' works on Plato and the Ideas or on Socrates' Art of Love (pp. 1 6 1 - 9 ; 1 7 0 - 1 Bar.). If extant, they might have added a Platonic dimension to his philosophy. 1.0 Fr. 28, pp. 1 7 9 - 1 8 6 , esp. 1 7 9 - 1 8 3 (pp. 4 0 - 5 2 K . , esp. 4 0 - 4 8 ; 8 2 - 9 2 M . , esp. 8 2 - 8 8 ) . 1.1 P. 179 Bar.; 4 0 - 4 1 K . ; 8 2 - 3 M . We are not told expressly that this book was later than Plutarch. But all the other works of Favorinus are listed here by Galen in what appears to be their chronological order. 112 Fr. 31, pp. 1 9 2 - 4 Bar. Our only evidence for the title is a sentence of Galen which may be corrupt. Kühn p. 41 reads: κάν τ φ μβτά ταύτα ·γραφέντι βιβλιί^ Άλκιβιάδην και τούς άλλους τους Ακαδημαϊκούς inalvei κτβ., and translates: 'ac certe eo in libro, quem postea scripsit, Alcibiadem et caeteros Académicos laudat, disputantes quidem inter se' etc. Marquardt's readings and apparatus are reproduced in Barigazzi's edition. The manuscript L reads τ φ 'Αλκιβιάδη, but τ ψ is omitted by the Aldine and Nicolaus Rheginus, the latter reading (τόν) Αλκιβιάδης. The second τούς is deleted by most recent editors. On the strength of this dubious passage, we are told that the work's title was Alcibiades, and that it was called, not after Socrates' friend, but after a contemporary praetorian, to whom Phlegon of Trallcs dedicated his historical work: see Barigazzi p. 192. But who are 'the other Academics' praised in that book, and how do they hang together syntactically with the assumed 'title'? Perhaps we should read τον Καρνεάδη» (or Άρκεσίλαον - or both Arcesilaus and Carneados, which would explain 'Alcibiades' by a species of haplography) καΐ τούς άλλους 'Ακαδημαϊκούς? We have no evidence that the praetorian Alcibiades had anything to do with the philosophy of the sceptical Academy or with the circle of Plutarch and Favorinus and their friends. 113

Fr. 29, pp. 1 9 0 - 1 Bar. We are not given the dates of these three books. But they belong to the reign of Hadrian, and Plutarch died before, or soon after Hadrian's accession (Jones, Chronology p. 66). They are therefore later than Plutarch and Against Epictetus - and most probably later than 'Alcibiades'. 285

called Alcibiades. In his Plutarch, says Galen, συγχωρείν εοικεν ewax τι βεβαίως γνωστόν. In the 'Alcibiades', he is quoted as saying: πιϋανόν έαντώ φαίνεοΰαι μηδέν eivai καταληπτό». What could be the meaning of this distinction? After all, even Plutarch is subtitled περί της 'Ακαδημαϊκής διαόέσεως, and is written in defence of Academic scepticism. The answer is, perhaps, to be sought in Galen's remark following the words βεβαίως γνωστόν: άμεινον yàp ούτως όνομάξειν το καταληπτού άποχωρούντας όνόματος Στωικού. And Galen proceeds to upbraid Favorinus, usually a scrupulous writer, for using such nonAttic terms as καταληπτόν, κατάληφις and καταληκτική φαντασία — the latter even in the subtitle of three of his books. It is clear that Galen has substituted here the 'proper', Attic phrase βεβαίως γνωστόν for Favorinus' own 'barbarism' καταληπτόν.114 And yet Favorinus did use this Stoic concept in a book which expounds and defends the views of the sceptical Academy. Galen, as much of this treatise shows, is far from being a profound connoisseur of the doctrines of the sceptical Academy: indeed, whatever he knows of their theory of knowledge in this treatise appears to be derived wholly from a superficial reading of a few works of Favorinus, followed by a swift condemnation.115 To us, it seems fairly clear that such an epistemological position of 'having one's cake and eating it' could only be derived by Favorinus from a doctrine like that expressed by Philo of Larissa in his Roman books: όσον μεν έπί τω Στωϊκώ κριτηρίω, τουτέστι τη καταληπτικη φαντασίφ, ακατάληπτα είναι τα πράγματα, όσον δε έπί τη φύσει των πραγμάτων, καταληπτά (Sextus, P.Η. 1,235). Where did Favorinus obtain his information about such an obsolete doctrine, a doctrine which, as we have seen in an earlier chapter, was only briefly held even by Philo himself? 116 One possibility, as we have already noted, is to be precluded. Favorinus could not have learnt this attitude from a living school tradition which carried on the teachings of the sceptical Academy — or, what is even less likely, the doctrines of Philo's Roman books. The most probable answer is suggested by the title of the book: Plutarch. At the time of composition of this early work, Favorinus was still clearly under the influence of Plutarch, who was still alive, and in the later stage of his philosophical development. We have already seen that in his later years, Plutarch came increasingly under the influence of the sceptical 114 See the discussion of Baiigazzi, p. 177. Th. Colardcau, op.cit. n. 99 above, pp. 6 8 - 9 , denies that Favorinus could have used such expressions as βεβαίως γνωστόν, but his argument is rather weak - and, in any case, it is superfluous, since Galen tells us explicitly that this is his own more Attic expression. 115 In De Libris Suis XI, p. 44K.; 120 M., Galen mentions a book nepi Κλειτομάχου κ ai των της άττοδείξεως αύτού λύσεων, as coming before περί άριστης διδασκαλίας. But the latter work shows no marks of a first-hand knowledge of any work other than Favorinus' and the title of the first, as well as the subject-matter of most other books listed in this section, appears to place it in the realm of logic rather than that of cpistemology. 116 On the whole of this issue, see above, pp. 8 3 - 8 .

286

Academy and incorporated materials derived from the writings of some of its exponents into his own works against the Stoics and the Epicureans. Von Arnim, we recall, suggested some of the writings of Clitomachus as a possible source. It is not unlikely that Plutarch had access to Philo's Roman books as well. In his hands, the position expressed in that work — whose philosophical subtleties, which were so much part of a controversy long forgotten, he was most probably unable to follow — was exactly what he required. It maintained that the sceptical Academy constituted no break in the Platonic tradition — a position upheld by Plutarch himself, as can be seen from the title of one of his lost books. 1 1 7 At the same time, it also conceded — again, in a manner which must have been too subtle and too contemporary for Plutarch to follow up to its full implications — that in themselves, things were καταληπτά, thus leaving room for accepting, with caution, the more positive views of less sceptical philosophers. This would allow Plutarch in his later years to espouse the views of the sceptical Academy without abandoning altogether the more positive aspects of his Platonism. It also allowed Favorinus to do something slightly different: to adopt, as mdavà, the doctrines of another school. In Question 10 of Book VIII of the Quaest. Conv. (734F = Test. 21), whose dramatic date is some time in the 90's, after Florus' retirement to Greece, and the date of composition later than 99, 118 Plutarch writes: ò ôè Φαβωρϊνος αύτός τα μέν άλλα δαψονιώτατος 'Αριστοτέλους έραστής έστι και τώ Περιπατώ νέμει μβρίδα τον πιύανον πλείστην. This is written, in a somewhat patronizing mood, at a time when Favorinus was still a young friend — and quite probably a pupil of sorts — of Plutarch. Some seven or eight years later, 119 Plutarch addressed to Favorinus his treatise De Primo Frigido. It has been noted that this short treatise contains much that is based on a Stoic source, 120 and that the only explicit references to Aristotle in this work are not quite complimentary. 121 What has not been noticed is that Plutarch attempts, in this treatise, to use as much Aristotelian terminology as he can, and conducts his arguments in a way reminiscent of Aristotle's procedure in his acroamatic works. The Aristotelian practice of presenting a number of alternative possibilities and discussing the pros and cons of each of them in 117 Catal. Lampi. 63: π e pi τον μίαν elvai àjrò τού Πλάτωνος Άκαδήμειαν. Ci. also Adv. Col. 1122A: im hp μίν ού ν τούτου Κ ω λ ώ τ π χάρις και παντι τ ψ τον Άκα&ημαΧκόν λόγο ν avcjôev r¡Keiv elç 'Apneaίλαον άποφαίνοντι. For a reconstruction of Plutarch's possible attitude to the sceptical Academy which can be accepted in broad outlines, but should be revised on grounds of chronology and development, see Miller Jones p. 18. 1.8 See notes 2 3 - 2 4 above. 1.9 After 107: Jones, Chronology p. 73; W. C. Helmbold, Plutarch, Moralia vol. 12 Loeb, p. 252 n. a. This is far from being 'die erste Periode der Plutaicheischen Philosophie' (as Schröter p. 2). By that date, many of Plutarch's philosophical and religious works had long been published; see Jones, ibid. pp. 7 0 - 7 3 . 120 F. H. Sandbach, op.cit. n. 71 above, p. 25. 121 W. C. Helmbold, op.cit. n. 119 above, p. 228.

287

turn is apparent from the very first lines of the treatise, and the reader need not be a δαιμονιώτατος 'Αριστοτέλους εραστής to notice how different this treatise is in the structure of its arguments from most other works of Plutarch. What may require some demonstration is the concentrated use of Aristotelian terminology in this treatise. Here is a collection of some of the most outstanding Aristotelian (or mock-Aristotelian) expressions in the first twelve chapters: 945 F δύναμις ... πρώτη καί ούσία. στέρησις ... ώσπερ τού φωτός το σκότος Xeyovoi καί της κινήσεως την στάσιν 946Α ποιότητας, εξεις. στερήσεις, ών έκαστον έκάστω πέφυκεν άντικείσόαι κατά δύναμιν, ούχ ώς έξει στέρησις. έκστάσεις yάρ εισιν ειδών και αναιρέσεις ουσιών, ού φύσεις τίνες σύδ' ούσίαι κα&' έαντάς. C οΰεν ή μεν στέρησις έκλειψις γίνεται καί ύποχώρησις της αντικείμενης δυνάμεως. D ετι στέρησις μεν ούδεμία δέχεται το μάλλον καί το ήττον κτε. την ΰλην ... πάσχουσαν ύπό τών έναντίων δυνάμεων 'έτερα μάλλον ετέρων, καί 'γαρ εξεως μεν ούκ έστι μϊξις προς στέρησιν κτε. Ε ούσίαι> άατέρου την ϋατέρου φύοράν έχοντος, τή δ è F κατά τάς εναντίας δυνάμεις καιρού τυχούση πολλά μεν ai τέχναι χρώνται, πλείστα δ' ή φύσις εν τε ταις αλλαις yeveaeaiv κτε. 947Α καί μην ψυχρού μεν αϊσϋησις εστίν, ώσπερ καί ύερμού κτε. στέρησις, ούσίας άπόφασις ούσα.122 ούτε γαρ κενού δι'άψης αΧσϋησις εστίν κτε. 948C τώ δέ φυσικώ ΰεωρίας ένεκα μετιόντι τάληΰές ή τών έσχάτων yvúσις ού τέλος εστίν αλλ' αρχή τής έπί τά πρώτα καί άνωτάτω πορείας. 948D πρότερον δέ τά εκείνων σκοπώμεν. F έπεί δ 'ή φΰορά μεταβολή τις έστι τών

φΰειρομένων

949Α εις τουναντίον εκάστη, σκοπώμεν εί καλώς εϊρηται κτε. 949Β ώς φύσει προς το πύρ άντικείμενον. This is only a brief list of the most outstanding expressions found in the first half of this treatise which show the unmistakable mark of the language and terminology of Aristotle. A similar list could be compiled without effort from the rest of the treatise. It is true, and obvious, that Plutarch is not writing this treatise quite in the spirit of Aristotle. Not only does he refer to postAristotelian philosophers like Theophrastus, Strato, Chrysippus and Posidonius, 122

A good example of the superficialness of Plutarch's knowledge of Aristotle: στερησις is the absence of εξις, not of an ούσία: Cat. 12a26ff.; Met. 1022b22ff. Plutarch himself refers to the correct antithesis in 946B; D.

288

but his own comprehension of the Aristotelian terminology he employs is far from profound. Even the style is often mock-Aristotelian, and full of words and expressions from the language of Plutarch's own age. A modern Aristotelian could easily compose a treatise whose language and arguments would appear much closer to those of Aristotle's acroamatic writings (to some extent, perhaps, because a modern Aristotelian is not a Greek author in his own right). The point is, however, that for the sake of the 'Aristotelian' Favorinus, Plutarch did make the effort to give his treatise at least the semblance of an Aristotelian

μέθοδος. But Favorinus was no 'dogmatic' Aristotelian. He was a great admirer of Aristotle, but, in Plutarch's own words, he only 'allotted to the Peripatos the greatest part of the πιΰανόν' — and πιθανόν, we remember, was an Academic term coined by Carneades. Plutarch himself echoes the same sentiment, carefully using the same term, twice in De Pr. Frig.: 949F, ö μεν ow ... ώ Φαβωρίνε, λόγος èv

τοιαύταις έστί πιϋανότησιν, 955Α, καν μήτε λείπηται τχι πιθανότητι μήύ' ύπερέXXÌ πολύ, χαίρειν εα τάς δόξας, το έπέχειν èv τοις ¿ώήλοις τον ονγκατατίϋεσϋαι φιλοοοφώτερον ηγούμενος. The Academic terminology of this last passage — the very last sentence of this work — hardly needs to be pointed out. This sceptical note is sounded so firmly at the end not, I believe, 'in virtue of Favorinus' youth', 1 2 3 but merely as a reminder that both Plutarch and Favorinus, however much they may favour this or that 'dogmatic' system, should remember to practise their έποχή in true Academic fashion and treat eve:: their favourite philosophies as πιθανά,1M This, however, is still not the whole story. For Plutarch is using here the concept of πι θανόν in a larger sense than that originally attributed to Carneades by his more conservative followers. Carneades established this concept mainly as a criterion to guide the actions of the Academic sceptic in practical situations. Plutarch is employing it in a context where a whole philosophical system — or at least a large section of it — is accepted as 'probable' by someone who professes to be a sceptical Academic. One is reminded of Cicero, who (Fin. V,76) approves of the 'Peripatetic' doctrine of the Highest Good, despite its contradictions, as consisting of probabiliora.125 The clues lead once more to Philo of Larissa. Thus in his earlier years, when he was under the influence of Plutarch, Favorinus appears to have professed an Academic scepticism of the milder variety of

123

As suggested by Helmbold, loc.cit. n. 121 above. A l t h o u g h Plutarch's words xaipew ea τάς δόξας, w i t h their u n m i s t a k a b l e Platonic ring, may well be a subtle hint t o Favorinus t h a t Plato's p h i l o s o p h y , seen t h r o u g h a somewhat sceptical eye, is m o r e πιΰανόν t h a n Aristotle's. 125 A fuller discussion of Cicero's philosophical affiliations - as I have already indicated will f o r m part of t h e philosophical sequel to this b o o k . But one should not forget t h e significant ' s t a t e m e n t of policy' in O f f . 111,20. 124

19

Gluckcr (Hyp. 56)

289

Philo in his Roman books. He was, in many ways, more of a hard-headed polymath than Plutarch, and his natural inclinations at the time led him to Aristotle. But he was enough of a 'sceptical Academic' to admit that his preference for Aristotle was no dogmatic acceptance of his doctrines, but merely an admission that they were more 'probable' than those of other 'sects'. It is most likely that Favorinus discovered Aristotle by his own efforts, or under the influence of some friend or teacher other than Plutarch. We have seen that Plutarch's grasp of Aristotle, as reflected in De Pr.Frig., is rather superficial. But we have no reason to assume that Favorinus' source for his Academic scepticism was anyone other than Plutarch himself. His first Academic work, subtitled Plutarch, should belie this; and, as far as Galen's summary, combined with Plutarch's statements, allow us to judge, it was in full accord with the Academic scepticism espoused by Plutarch himself at the time. Later on, we hear no longer of Favorinus' preference for Aristotle. In his three books περί της καταληκτικής φαντασίας, he merely argued against the Stoic concept and tried to show that there was no such thing as 'cataleptic perception'. In the book generally assumed to have been entitled Alcibiades, he claimed, in Galen's words, πιdavòv έαυτω φαΐνεσϋαι μηδέν είναι καταληπτόν. This, as Galen notes, is a more extreme sceptical stance than the one adopted during his earlier, Plutarchean period. Now it is no longer the system of Aristotle which appears to him to be πιθανόν, but the very central tenet of Academic scepticism, the principle of άκαταληψία. What brought about this change? At some unspecified date,126 Favorinus occupied himself with the composition of a work on the Pyrrhonian ten tropes. In the one extensive account of Pyrrhonism transmitted to us by Gellius as representative of some of Favorinus' views (Gell. XI,5 = Fr. 26), Favorinus draws a distinction between Academic and Pyrrhonian scepticism (8): quod Academici quidem ipsum illud nihil posse comprehendi quasi comprehendunt et nihil posse decemi quasi decernunt, Pyrrhonii ne id quidem ullo pacto verum videri dicunt quod nihil esse verum videtur. This distinction is far from being an original invention of Favorinus. A similar account is given by Sextus (P.H. 1,226): ot δέ από της νέας 'Ακαδημίας, et Kai άκατάληπτα είναι πάντα φασί, δωφέρουσι των σκεπτικών ϊσως μεν κατ' avrò το λέγειν πάντα είναι άκατάληπτα (διαβεβαωύνται γαρ περί τούτου, ò δε σκεπτικός ένδέχεσάαι και καταληψόηναί τινα προσδοκά)· Sextus' source is probably Aenesidemus.127 It is not likely to be Favorinus. Both are most probably drawing on a Pyrrhonian tradition, a tradition which is obviously critical of the sceptical Academy: it presents its central principle of άκαταληψία as nothing short of a disguised dogma. We have it from an Academic source (Cie. Acad.I, 45) that this was not the way the sceptical Academy itself 126

But quite probably still during his 'Plutarchean' period. Plutarch himself also wrote a work o n the ten Pyrrhonian tropes - see above, pp. 2 8 4 - 5 . 127 See above, p. 32 n. 76.

290

understood its principal tenet: Arcesilaus negabat esse quicquam quod sciri posset, ne illud quidem ipsum quod Socrates sibi reliquisset, ut nihil scire se sciret. Arcesilaus did not possess the useful concept of πιϋανόv. When this new tool was forged and introduced into the debate by Carneades, it is most likely that he, or one of his pupils, employed it among other things to counter the criticism of their principle of άκαταληφία itself as dogmatic. Even this principle, they now maintained, was not to be regarded as absolute truth, but as a mere πι&ανόν. In the present state of our evidence, we have no proof that this particular type of argument was actually used by any member of the school of Carneades, and the possibility that this ingenious answer to the Pyrrhonian attack on the sceptical credentials of the central concept of Academic scepticism may have been the invention of Favorinus himself cannot be ruled out. What matters is that it is only against this background of the dispute with Pyrrhonian scepticism that Favorinus' new position can be understood. In his Pyrrhonian work, he repeated the traditional Pyrrhonian distinction between the two brands of scepticism. But far from accepting this distinction, and the accusation of inconsistency against the sceptical Academics that goes with it, Favorinus now adopted a reformulation of the principle of άκαταληψία which saved him, as a 'sceptical Academic', from the contradiction pointed out by the Pyrrhonians. Can all this activity be described as mere antiquarianism, completely detached from the living tradition of a philosophical school? Galen's evidence appears, at first sight, to provide a negative answer. His treatise is entitled περί άριστης διδασκαλίας, and his title echoes the words of Favorinus summarized in its first sentence: τη ν εις εκάτερα επιχειρήσω άρίστην είναι διδασκαλία» ò Φαβωρίνος φησιν. This sort of 'teaching' is ascribed to the Academics, and Galen proceeds to distinguish between οί παλαιότεροι and oi νεώτεροι, ού μόνον ò Φ αβωρίνος — implying, so it appears, that οί νεώτεροι are a contemporary movement to which Favorinus belongs. He continues throughout the treatise to speak of 'the Academic teacher' and 'his pupil' as if they were a contemporary phenomenon. In the second chapter (p. 180 1.22ff. Bar.), he says: ετι δέ ού δεησόμεάα την αρχήν ήμεϊς τοιούτων διδασκάλων — as if such teachers were available to himself and his contemporaries at the time of writing. His tone is unmistakably contemporary. But a harder look at his text will reveal that his references to contemporary practice are rather restricted. In the whole of this treatise, not a single Academic philosopher — except Favorinus himself — is mentioned, who is later than Carneades (p. 181, 1.14 Bar.) and οί μετ'αύτόν 'Ακαδημαϊκοί (p. 181,1.20 p. 182,1.1). Not a word is said of the Academy as a school. The νεώτεροι mentioned at the beginning (p. 179,1.6ff.) hold an extreme sceptical attitude not unlike that of Carneades (p. 181,1.14ff.), and rather reminiscent of the extreme scepticism ascribed to the same Carneades by Sextus {Math. VII, 159). Favorinus, it appears, made a distinction between the less sophisticated έποχή 291

of the school of Arcesilaus and the more extreme άκαταληψία of the 'later' Academic sceptics of the school of Carneades.128 Just as Galen's παλαιότεροι refers to the former, his νεώτεροι must refer to the latter. Galen, whose work does not reflect a profound expertise in the history of the sceptical Academy or a profound understanding of its teachings, may well have taken it for granted that these νεώτεροι were his 'contemporary Academics'. He could not have done this, of course, if he had not also deduced from some allusions in Favorinus' writings that there were, at the time, some philosophers who professed Academic scepticism and taught it to others, claiming that theirs was the best sort of philosophical instruction. The existence of such teachers is taken for granted throughout Galen's treatise, and especially in the passage (p. 43K.; 84M.; 180 1.22ff. Bar.) beginning ετι δε où δεησόμεϋα την αρχήν ημείς τοιούτων διδασκάλων.129 And such teachers there were. One of them was Plutarch in his later years. Another was Favorinus. It is, indeed, not unlikely that in his Plutarch, where the description of this 'best method of instruction' appears, Favorinus was paying homage to the teaching activities of his old friend and master, and at the same time advertising his own method of teaching philosophy as the best available. That there may have been one or two other pupils of Plutarch or Favorinus who, at the time, professed to be Academic teachers, is not unlikely. But we have no evidence that they belonged to an organized school, or, indeed, that such 'Academics' existed outside the circle of Plutarch, Favorinus and their friends. They espoused the doctrines of the old Academic sceptics as a αϊρεσις, and even their αΧρεσις did not out128

The concept of άκαταληψία - or at least the adjective άκατάΚηπτος - was almost certainly coined by Arcesilaus: Sextus, Math. VII, 1 5 0 - 1 5 8 . But in Sextus' account, Arcesilean scepticism culminates in the έποχή and in the conduct of practical life guided by TÒ εύλογοι*. Carneadean scepticism (ibid. 1 5 9 - 1 6 5 ) ends in a more wholesale denial of any kind of knowledge, and its guide to action is the mdavov (ibid. 166ff.), which, however more sophisticated it may be than the evXoyov, leaves no possibility of knowledge. Such an account, which presents Carneades as a more radical sceptic than Arcesilaus, appears to conflict with some of Cicero's statements (e.g. Luc. 6 6 - 7 ; 7 7 - 8 ) , which present Carneades as a milder type of sceptic. This apparent contradiction has not often been noted or discussed. The contradiction is not only between Sextus and Cicero, but between Sextus and Sextus (P.H. 1 , 2 2 6 - 2 3 1 ; 232ff.) - and this may, perhaps, be of some help in working towards a provisional answer. By perfecting his concept of πιϋανόν (the best account of which, one notes, comes from Sextus, Math. VII,166ff., who in 159 has described Carneadean scepticism as the most extreme), Carneades could allow his Wise Man a wide range of 'opinions', at the same time precluding any claim to knowledge. One consequence of this is the ingenious application of τό πιϋανόν to the very principle of Academic scepticism, α καταληψία itself. Sextus' source (or Math. VII,159ff. describes the essential approach of Carneades correctly as more sceptical. His source for P.H. I,226ff. took the πιϋανόν more 'dogmatically'. So did Cicero's source for most of his statements in the Lucullus - on which sec above, pp. 75 - 8 0 . 129 Marquardt doubted the authenticity of this passage, for no good reasons: see A. Barigazzi, 'Sul "De óptimo genere docendi" di Galeno', SI FC 27/8, 1956, pp. 2 3 - 3 8 , esp. 26-7.

292

live them. Galen is our chief source for the brief flowering of this brand of Academic scepticism, and his information about them and their activities appears to be derived wholly from Favorinus. In a work of his later years, De Ord.Libr.Suor., in a passage which discusses the philosophical αιρέσεις of the period after the founding of the διάδοχοι under Marcus Aurelius, 130 Galen lists the four classic αιρέσεις: Platonic, Peripatetic, Stoic and Epicurean. Not a word is said of an Academic axpeoις — not to speak of a sceptical Academy. The short-lived revival of Academic scepticism was now over. It died with the death of Plutarch, Favorinus and their friends and pupils. To close this circle, we shall consider the evidence of another contemporary of the older Plutarch and the younger Favorinus — the Stoic Epictetus.

C. Epictetus and his 'Academic' Enemies Epictetus' διατριβαί, as recorded and edited by Arrian, contain three passages which are directed against the Academic sceptics. 1,5 bears the title προς τούς 'Ακαδημαϊκούς, and, although the name 'Academics' is never mentioned in it, its arguments are directed against the more traditional Academic proofs of άκαταληφία (as, for example, the impossibility of distinguishing between the perceptions of a dream and those experienced in a state of wakefulness — 6ff.). I,27 is clearly a disputation against the σοφίσματα Πυρρώνεια και Ακαδημαϊκά mentioned in 2 and 15, and the discussion is once more directed against their scepticism in matters of knowledge and perception. II,20 is entitled προς Έπικσυρείους και 'Ακαδημαϊκούς. It is rather unevenly balanced. Epictetus dedicates only the first five paragraphs to the 'Academics' and their view that ούδέν έστι καϋολυιόν αληόές (2), while the remaining thirty-two paragraphs are directed against the Epicureans. What is of greater significance is that here, for the one and only time, Epictetus appears to be speaking of his contemporary Academics - and he describes them in the words (5) οι 'Ακαδημαϊκούς αυτούς λέγοντες. 131 No other philosophical αϊρεσις of his age is ever described by Epictetus in such condescending terms. The Epicureans appear a number of times in his 'Dissertations', 132 and the Peripatetics twice in the same passage.133 In all these contexts they appear as flourishing contemporary αιρέοας - indeed, in 11,19,20-22 they are depicted as the 130

See above, pp. 1 8 9 - 1 9 1 . Korais deletes 'Ακαδημαϊκούς αυτούς, but his reason is merely δβινώς σνγκέχυται ταύτα, and his emendation is offered merely as ί σ ω ς (Πàpepyov 'Ελληνικής Βιβλιοθήκης 9, Άρριανοϋ TCJV 'Επικτήτου Διατριβών Mépoç II, Paris 1827, p. 356, n. ad loc.). 132 11,19,20; 20, title; 11,7, title; 1; 19; 11,24,38. 133 11,19,20; 22. 131

293

serious rivals of Stoicism itself. Of Platonici one should not expect Epictetus to speak as yet: we have seen that in the first half of the second century, the Platonicus was a relatively new phenomenon. But it is significant that Epictetus seems to know only of 'self-styled Academics'. He could not have spoken in such a manner had there been in his time a flourishing sceptical school at the Academy of Athens.134 Nor was he likely to do so if 'the Academics' were a recognized and popular philosophical αιρεσις. His expression indicates that he is referring to what he takes to be a small and negligible group of 'pseudo-Academics'. Who are they? Epictetus' attacks on Academic scepticism provoked, as we have already noted, a book by Favorinus entitled προς Έπίκτητορ, defending the doctrines of Academic scepticism against these onslaughts (Fr. 30, pp. 191-2). The book was in dialogue form, and its staging was rather unkind to Favorinus' adversary: for Epictetus' interlocutor was a slave of Plutarch called Onesimus — to remind Epictetus that he, too, had been a slave. What is significant, however, is that it was a slave of Plutarch who was made by Favorinus to engage in the dispute with Epictetus. It is as if Favorinus were saying: 'Plutarch himself would regard it beneath his dignity to refute your uncouth criticism — any of his slaves could do that.' 135 This appears to show that the 'self-styled Academics' attacked by Epictetus were none others than Plutarch and his circle, and that Favorinus only too naturally regarded Epictetus' criticism of these 'Academics' as a personal assault on Plutarch — personal enough to be rebutted with an insult. Galen, more faithful to Epictetus than Favorinus who had known him and may have been his pupil, retorted with a book υπέρ Επικτήτου προς Φαβωpu>oi> (De Libr. Suis XI, p. 44K.; 120M.) - and there the matter rests. The controversy between Epictetus and the 'Academics' remains 'within the family' - just like the 'Academic' activities of Plutarch and Favorinus himself. No other 'Academics' gird themselves up for the attack on Epictetus, nor does Galen attack 'the Academics' in his defence. Epictetus knew what he was doing when he spoke of the 'self-styled Academics'. For he was arguing against a small circle of people attempting to revive a philosophy long extinct both as an institution and as a αϊρεσις. Favorinus remained faithful to this revived Academic scepticism until the age of Hadrian, and quite possibly for the rest of his

134

The only time he mentions the Academy (IV,4,21) is in reference to Socrates conversing with the young in the Academy and the Lyceum. The Lyceum itself is mentioned in 111,24,77-8 in a more contemporary setting - but merely as a place where the visitor to Athens can take a stroll. 135 Epictetus' words (1,27,15) ë-γώ ßiv yap τό έμον μέρος ούκ αγω σχολής πρός ταύτα κτε., and especially (15): e¿ και rrepì àypt&iov πρα·γμάτιον elxov, άλλον âv παρβκάλβσα τον avvnyopeoovra, may have been his own subtle retort to this insult, or it may have given Favorinus the idea for it - depending on the date of this particular Diatribe.

294

life. 1 3 6 A t the time o f the founding o f the A n t o n i n e διάδοχοι,

one n o longer

hears o f A c a d e m i c scepticism even as a αιρεσις. The circle — a rather private and artificial one — was closed. 136

It is not entirely impossible that in his later years Favorinus did become a Pyrrhonian. But in the preceding pages I have shown the extreme unlikelihood of describing him as such. It is true that in Gell. XI,5,8 (Fr. 26,8), he appears to accept the Pyrrhonians' own distinction between themselves and the Academic sceptics. I take this to be part of his Pyrrhonian work, in which he repeated views which he did not share - see pp. 2 9 0 - 1 above. Favorinus is often described as an Academic, but none of our sources ever calls him a Pyrrhonian.

295

CHAPTER 7

Catena Aurea

Two 'ancient traditions' have sometimes been cited as evidence for the continuity of the Academy as an institution from Plato to Justinian — an i n s t i t u tion in which the (dogmatic) teachings of Plato always took pride of place. The first of these is the story, told by a number of apparently independent sources, that even under the sceptical scholarchs from Arcesilaus to Cameades and his pupils, the dogmatic views of Plato were taught in the Academy to some of the more mature and reliable students in secret. The second of these 'traditions' is the claim generally ascribed to Proclus and his school that there was a 'golden chain' of true Platonism in Athens, a long and continuous tradition which Proclus was anxious not to see broken. These two traditions are combined, as we shall see, in sòme of Augustine's accounts of the history of the Academy and Platonism. In what follows, I shall try to isolate some of the elements which went into the making of these two stories and trace them back to their likely origins. A full and exhaustive account of the various sources and channels of transmission is outside the scope of our present inquiry: wherever possible, I shall refer to the wide modern literature already existing on these subjects, and provide some hints and indications for further research. Our own, more limited, aim will remain what it has been so far: to examine these traditions and see whether they throw any light on the history of the Academy as a school of philosophy and on the relations between it and the Neo-Platonic school of Athens.

A. The Sceptical Academy and Esoteric Platonism A number of ancient sources maintain, in various forms, that some dogmatic teaching was carried on in secret within the confines of the sceptical Academy itself. Much has been written on this subject, and the majority of modern scholars agree in rejecting these ancient testimonies. Professor H. J. Krämer has recently provided us with a most reliable list of ancient sources and modern literature. 1 Wherever possible, I shall refer the reader to previous discus1

Krämer, Platonismus p. 55 n. 2 1 2 . 1 hope to provide a full collection of the ancient testi-

296

sions rather than repeat the old and well-rehearsed arguments. My excuse for tackling some aspects of this problem yet again is that two more ancient passages cited by Krämer — perhaps for the first time in this context — have not yet been subjected to a full analysis; and that previous discussions have all too often made no attempt to isolate the testimonies expressly referring to Arcesilaus from those related to the later generations of Academic sceptics. Of our five chief witnesses to the existence of an esoteric dogmatism in the sceptical Academy, only two refer explicitly to Arcesilaus and his school. Diodes of Cnidus, cited by Numenius ( a p . E u s e b . X I V , 6 , 6 , = Fr. 2 Leemans; 25 Des Places) maintained that it was only for fear of the Theodoreans and Bion that Arcesilaus pretended not to reveal any dogmatic views, and that he employed his έποχή only as camouflage against them. He does not specify the nature of those dogmatic views. Our source, Numenius — who rejects the testimony of Diocles — does not appear to know more than what he reports. Had Diocles maintained that those esoteric doctrines were Platonic dogmata, we could have expected Numenius, in a book on the Academy's secession from Plato, to mention such a fact. But Diocles' 'information' appears to be no more than a piece of contemporary or near-contemporary hearsay, and it is regarded as such by most scholars. We shall examine the possible reasons for the rise of such rumours later on in this section. The evidence of Sextus, P.H. 1,234, is more intriguing. Sextus, too, quotes his story as τα nepi αύτού λεγόμενα and treats it with suspicion. But his story is more lifelike and more detailed. According to his version, Arcesilaus used to test his pupils with his aporetic method, thus appearing to the majority of people, even among members of this own school, to be a sceptic — τοις μέντοι εύφυέσι των εταίρων τα Πλάτωνος napeyxeípeiv. Of recent students of this subject, Gigon is the only one who has been prepared to lend some credence to these testimonies. 2 To the two passages we have just cited, Gigon adds Cic .Luc. 60 and Aug .C.Acad. 111,38. But in the first of these passages, no reference is made to Arcesilaus. The second is part and parcel of Augustine's own general theory, which has just been introduced (ibid. 111,37,1) as non quid sciam sed quid existimem, and for which his only evidence is his own reference (ibid. 43,1) to words of Cicero concerning 'the Academics' in general which we shall discuss shortly. 3 Of the modern refutamonia in my projected edition of the testimonia and fragments of the sceptical Academy from Arcesilaus to Antiochus. 2 Earlier arguments in favour of accepting this story of esoteric Platonismi Credaro II, pp. 1 7 7 - 2 1 3 . W. Theiler, Die Vorbereitung des Neuplatonismus, second edition, Berlin/Zürich 1964, 'Vorwort zum Nachdruck', accepts Gigon's view and seems to maintain that Plato's Theory of Forms was taught as an esoteric doctrine even by Antiochus. I hope to discuss this issue of Antiochus and the Platonic Forms in the philosophical sequel to this book 3 The same applies to Augustine's statement in his Epistle CXVIII,16 (not mentioned, to the best of my knowledge, in any discussion of this subject): Arcesilas enim, qui primus occultata sententia sua nihil aliud istos quam refellere statuii. The whole passage is a mere

297

tions of this theory of esoteric dogmatism in the school of Arcesilaus, the reader is referred especially to Brochard's judicious discussion and to the more recent discussion of Alfons Weische.4 Gigon, however, does not restrict himself to a mere acceptance of these testimonies. He accepts them as part of a larger theory expounded in his article - that is, that Academic scepticism was always directed only against other schools, most especially the Stoics, but that the Academy itself never rejected the positive doctrines of Plato. Arcesilaus, he believes, used his sceptical methods only in order to demolish the dogmatic theories of the Stoics and thus make room once more for Plato's Theory of Forms. 'Es darf aber nicht vergessen werden', he writes, 'daß diese έποχή nur dem stoischen Erkenntniswege gegenüber ausdrücklich gilt. Sie läßt durchaus den Raum frei für die Ideenschau Piatons. Oder soll man geradezu sagen: Arkesilaos verteidigt damit den platonischen Wahrheitsbegriff gegen die Stoa?' 5 The question that springs to mind on reading Gigon's original and brilliant theory is: quae sunt tandem ista my st erial None of the ancient sources whose testimony Gigon is willing to accept maintains that Arcesilaus' aim in propounding his sceptical teachings was to defend Plato's Theory of Forms. Even Augustine, who is somewhat more specific than the others, only assumes that the Platonic dogmata which Arcesilaus taught in secret were those of a more 'Christian' nature: the Creator-God; the immortality of the soul; life after death. But if, indeed, the whole objective of his scepticism was to secure, through an attack on Stoic epistemology, a more modern basis for Plato's positive views, why did Arcesilaus stop short of fulfilling his objective and expounding those positive views for the sake of which the whole 'infrastructure' of his scepticism had been mounted? Gigon's reference to Pythagorean and early Academic traditions (even if there were such traditions in the early Academy) of teaching the true doctrines of the school only to the few elect 6 will not do here. For we are not concerned here with some esoteric doctrines ascribed to Plato, but with the Theory of Forms, which Plato himself had never hesitated to expound in the most public of his utterances — his published dialogues. This is not all. According to Gigon's theory, Arcesilaus must have regarded Plato as a dogmatist. We have already seen in our first chapter that to Arcesilaus — postscript to the last few chapters of C.Acad. Ill, and the words occultata sententia sua aie sufficient to show that it is a variation on 111,43,1. The application of this to Arcesilaus, both here and in C.Acad., is Augustine's own speculation. 4 Brochard pp. 1 1 4 - 1 2 0 ; Weische pp. 2 0 - 2 6 . Kramer, loc.cit. n. 1 above, has pointed out that Brochard (pp. 1 1 7 - 9 ) explains this story chiefly on the basis of the sccptical Academy's later probabilism. Brochard himself rightly notes that this probabilism should be ascribed, not to Arcesilaus, but to Carneades and his school (pp. 1 1 8 - 9 ) . Thus, despite his many acute observations, Brochard has failed, in the last resort, to explain how such stories also arose in relation to Arcesilaus. 5 Gigon, Geschichte p. 49ff., csp. p. 53. 6 Ibid. p. 56 (Kl.Sehr. pp. 4 2 1 - 2 ) .

298

indeed, to the whole sceptical Academy — Plato himself was clearly a sceptic.7 Especially important in this context is the passage of Plutarch, Adv.Col. 112 IF— 1122A, in which contemporary sources are cited to the effect that Arcesilaus fathered his own έποχή and the 'doctrines related to it' (rà περί της εποχής δόγματα) on Socrates and Plato among others.8 T o conceal the true doctrines of Plato is one thing. It is quite another thing to lie in public - even for the best of motives — about the very nature of Plato's philosophy. In a passage we have often referred to, Cic.Luc. 45, we are told that Arcesilaus denied even the truth of illud quidem ipsum quod Socrates sibi reliquisset, ut nihil scire se sciret. This image of Arcesilaus as an all-out sceptic is confirmed by Sextus in a passage just preceding the one we have discussed — P.H. 1,232: ούτε yàp περί υπάρξεως η άνυπαρξίας τινός αποφαινόμενος εύρίοκεται ... άλλα περί πάντων επέχει. And if there is one thing we can say with some impunity about the Platonic Forms it is that they exist — indeed, that they are the only 'specific things' which truly exist.9 Our whole tradition concerning Arcesilaus leaves no room for an esoteric dogmatism at all. I shall be told, perhaps, that it is in the very nature of an esoteric tradition that one should hardly expect to hear much about it — indeed, that we should be grateful to the few sources which do 'leak out' this information to us. (This, in fact, is hardly true of the most ancient philosophical doctrines which start their life as esoteric: sooner or later, someone starts a leak, and the doctrine becomes common knowledge). But it is significant — as Brochard and Weische have rightly pointed out - that our sources for such an esoteric tradition are outsiders like Diocles, Sextus' source and Augustine. An 'insider' like Cicero knows nothing of a dogmatism — not to speak of a dogmatic Platonism - in Arcesilaus' school. Admittedly, Cicero was not a complete 'insider': he learnt his Academic scepticism from Philo in his Roman exile. But Cicero was also a pupil of Antiochus. Antiochus did maintain that Plato was a dogmatist and Antiochus, after all, didicit apud Philonem tarn diu ut constaret diutius didicisse neminem (Cic.Luc. 69). Yet Antiochus seems to know nothing of an esoteric teaching of Plato's Theory of Forms or of any other dogmatic theory in the school of Arcesilaus or in any other generation of the sceptical Academy. For him, Plato's Theory of Forms was refuted by Aristotle and replaced by Stoic epistemology (Cic.Acad.I, 33—42). His representatives in Cicero's Academic books, Varrò and Lucullus, regard Arcesilaus quite consistently as 'the complete sceptic'. They take quite seriously the sceptical Academy's claim that Plato himself was a sceptic, and try to refute it by referring to the famous

7

See above, pp. 3 1 - 6 4 .

8

See above, p. 36.

' Sextus uses terms o f his own age, υπαρξις and ανυπαρξία. T o a Hellenistic ear, they would be more acceptable than a> or μη öv (ovaia, o f course, means something else, and has no antonym). But I do not see any reason to believe that they mean anything other than 'being' and 'non-being', or 'existence' and 'non-existence'.

299

Socratic irony and to the various pupils of Plato who developed their dogmatic philosophy out of his teachings (Cic.Acad.I, 15-18; Luc. 15). Had Antiochus known, during his many years as Philo's pupil, of an esoteric Platonism in the school, this would have served as a far better refutation of the sceptical Academy's image of Plato. Once Antiochus had broken away from the sceptical Academy, he would be no longer bound by any promise of secrecy concerning such 'esoteric doctrines'. Indeed, as the self-styled restorer of true Platonism, Antiochus could have made his reputation by revealing to an astonished world that the rumours were, after all, true, and that even the sceptical Academy had always acknowledged in private that Plato and his immediate followers had been dogmatists. Antiochus, like Cicero and Plutarch, knows nothing of such mysteries. Why, then, did such ancient speculations arise? The simplest explanation is that the man in the street — and this includes a considerable number of professional or semi-professional philosophers — does not suffer sceptics gladly. When he meets with a genuine sceptic, he finds it difficult to believe that this man has really suspended his judgement and holds no positive views whatsoever; just as, when he comes across a philosophical discussion which ends on what may well be a genuine aporetic note, he would not for a moment believe that a distinguished philosopher could possibly have left a question unanswered. He would rather rack his brains, or pester his teachers and friends, in an attempt to find the positive answer behind the intolerable mystery. 10 This may, perhaps, do as a psychological explanation of the tendency to assume that 'behind every sceptic there is a concealed dogmatic waiting to get out'. It might even suffice to explain the vague and gossipy testimony of Diocles of Cnidus. It may not, however, be quite enough to explain the passage of Sextus, which claims more specifically that Arcesilaus taught some sort of dogmatic Platonism to a select circle of students whom he had tested and found that he could trust. This legend may have some basis in fact. It may well have been the case that in the school of Arcesilaus, as in the 'School of Pythagoras' of the late Hellenistic traditions and in the school of Aristotle, some courses were 'exoteric', intended for a wide general public, and some were 'esoteric', restrict10

In a tutorial on the first part of Plato's Parmenides some years ago, I defended the view that Plato may well have reached an impasse concerning his own Theory of Forms and that he was honest enough to raise all the difficulties which had occurred to him without providing solutions, which he may well not have had at the time. When I finished, an intelligent student asked me: 'But what, then, are the solutions?' A typical example of the general tendency to demand a positive answer to every problem is provided by the numerous attempts in ancient and modern times to square the circle. A colleague in a department of mathematics tells me that, whenever he presents his students with the modern proofs for the impossibility of squaring the circle, they usually can follow the logic of the proofs but often remain incredulous. 'Le coeur exige des raisons que la raison ne connaît pas'?

300

ed to members of the school as being more technical in nature. After all, it is in the school of Aristotle that our modern terms 'exoteric' and 'esoteric' originated. Just as in the school of Aristotle, there is no reason to assume that the 'esoteric' courses taught in the Academy were devoted to teachings essentially different from those expounded to a larger audience. The difference would have consisted in the professional and technical standards demanded. To an outsider, however, the very existence of such 'private seminars' within the sceptical Academy would suggest something far more ominous. With our natural reluctance to believe in the possibility of genuine scepticism, he would be only too ready to conclude that there, in the secrecy of Plato's house, or the Lacydeum, or Arcesilaus' private house, the true — and, needless to say, dogmatic — mysteries are being revealed. And if the subject of some of those 'esoteric' courses was the Platonic dialogues, such an outsider would conclude as a matter of course that there, the true - and, needless to say, dogmatic doctrines of Plato were expounded, where no Stoic or Theodorean was at hand to interfere. Arcesilaus, of course, made no secret of what he took Plato to be. In the words of his hostile contemporary Aristo, he was 'Plato in front'. And at the front of his doctrines stood his scepticism. That such a custom of holding private courses for select members of the school existed in the sceptical Academy may be confirmed by the rest of our ancient testimonies on this matter, which must refer to the school of Carneades and his followers. Two such passages, expressly referring to Carneades, have been recently pointed out by Krämer. 11 Both come from Numenius, and both deserve closer study: Num.ap.Euseb..P.¿r. XIV,8,12 (Fr. 2 Leemans; 27, p. 78 Des Places. The subject is Carneades): δμως δέ, καίτοι καυτός ùnò τής Στωικής φιλονεικίας εις το φαveρόμ κυκών, πρός ye τούς έαυτού έταίρους δι' απορρήτων ώμολ&γει τε και ήλήΰευε και άπβφαίνετο à καν άλλος των έπιτυχόντων. 14: ó δέ Καρνεάδης, οίον ανεστραμμένα φιλοοοφών τοις φεύμασιν έκαλλωπίξετο και ύπ' αύτοίς τάληϋή ήφάνιξε. παραπετάσμασιν ούν έχρήτο τοις φεύμασι και ήλήϋευεν ένδον λανϋάνων καπηλικώτερον. επασχεν ούν πά&ημα οσπρίων, ών, τα μεν κενά έπιπολάξει τε τφ ΰδατι και υπερέχει, τα χρηστά δ' αυτών έ σ π κάτω και èv άφανεί. Numenius draws on earlier sources - he must have done so, for by his time, little was known about the sceptical Academy and its various exponents. In the first of our two passages, he speaks of εταίροι to whom Cameades 'revealed the truth'. We have already encountered the same term, εταίροι, in Sextus' story concerning the esoteric teaching of Arcesilaus: there, it is Arcesilaus who is said to have tested his εταίροι and to have revealed his true 11

See n. 1 above. 301

doctrines τοις βύφυέσι των έταίρων. The term is not common in institutional contexts, where φίλοι and -γνώριμοι are far more frequent. It appears only once in the Acad.Ind. (Q 11) — if one can accept the restoration of this particular sentence.1? The context is that of Crates' election to the scholarchate, and at the time, he is still equal to other members of the school. A more promising source is Plutarch who — as we have seen — speaks of èraipoi and èraipoi èv rf¡ διατριβή as 'members of a seminar'.13 Plutarch is somewhat later than Arcesilaus and Carneades, and his διατριβαί are not institutions like the Academy of old. But Sextus and Numenius are nearer in time to Plutarch, and they may well have translated whatever concepts they have found in their sources into the educational jargon of their own time. Be that as it may, it does appear that Sextus and Numenius are representing some genuine tradition, according to which members of the Academy of long standing and proven reliability were favoured by the scholarch not only with his personal friendship, but also with special 'private seminars', in which he dealt with philosophical problems in greater depth than in his more public courses. Indeed, Sextus' description seems to imply that even some èraipoi were still not fully trusted by the scholarch, and only those who had stood his long scrutiny were admitted into his 'privatissimum'. Such, indeed, appears to be the meaning of the evidence of Cicero as cited by Augustine, C.Acad. 111,43,1 (Fr. 21 Müller; Piasberg p. 24, lines 5 - 7 ) : ait enim illis morem fuisse occultandi sententiam suam nec earn cuiquam, nisi qui secum ad senectutem usque vixissent, aperire consuesse. Augustine continues — and his words are most instructive: quae sit autem is ta, Deus vident; earn tarnen arbitror Piatonis fuisse. He is not sure himself — Cicero does not specify. It is only Augustine's own conjecture that their 'private views' were Platonic dogmata. Neither Numenius nor Cicero specify what were the 'private views', or 'personal opinions', expounded by the Academics to their select and trusted 'friends'. One notes that the subject of the statement ascribed by Augustine to Cicero — as is clear from Augustine's preceding sentences — is Academici in general. Since Cicero is made to speak of a custom, it is probably a custom known to him from his own experience (or rather, from the experience of people he knew who had still studied at the sceptical Academy in Athens: Philo? Crassus? the Elder Catulus?). It should be taken to refer to the Academics of Cicero's own age — that is, the pupils of Carneades and their pupils. Carneades could not have 'revealed the truth' to any of his pupils, since no Academic sceptic believed that the truth had been attained. When Numenius All completed by Meklei - see his apparatus ad loc., p. 59. In Gol. S, 14, the reading is even more dubious, since we cannot even guess the context. 13 See above, pp. 2 6 5 - 6 . 12

302

uses this phrase, he must be making the same error as did Galen, when he claimed that according to Favorinus there was something βεβαίως γνωστόν.1* Cicero's terms are far more precise: the Academics were careful not to reveal sententiam suam to the uninitiate. This is not unlike the question asked by 'Lucullus' and answered in Luc. 60, a passage which deals with the same problem as our 'fragment' from Augustine: 15 Restât illud quod dicunt veri inveniundi causa contra omnia dici oportere et pro omnibus, volo igitur videre quid invenerint. 'Non solemus, ' inquit, 'ostendere'. Quae sunt tandem ista mysteria, aut cur celatis quasi turpe aliquid sententiam vestram? 'Ut qui audient,' inquit, 'ratione potius quam auctoritate ducantur. ' As in Augustine's statement, so here, what the Academics are supposed to conceal is not their dogma (or its Latin equivalent decretum: Cie.Luc. 27), but sententiam suam, and this is equated with quid invenerint - 'what they have discovered' as a result of their arguments in utramque partem. What this implied in the school of Carneades we know only too well. Not the truth - although the final aim, never to be achieved in our sublunary world, was verum invenire.16 It was 'the art of the possible', the discovery of what is more probabile or veri simile in each case. The result of the investigation leads one to forming opinions as to such probabilia. Such opinions remain, of course, only likely and not certain, and this is why one has to be on one's guard against the average student — or even the average εταίρος — not to reveal to him even one's own probable opinions lest he may take them for the truth auctoritate potius quam ratione. Carneades, we know, took great pains not to reveal his 'probable' opinions even to some of his best pupils. Clitomachus, who was later to become his successors' successor to the scholarchate, adfirmabat numquam se intellegere potuisse quid Cameadi probaretur (Cic.Luc. 139): perhaps because he put pressure on Carneades to disclose to him his 'true opinions', thus showing by this very act that he was not yet 'mature' enough to be trusted : he was seeking auctoritatem potius quam rationem. It is not unlikely that when Metrodorus of Stratonicea claimed that all the rest of Carneades' pupils misunderstood him (Acad.Ind. XXVI,8ff.), he did so because he was one of the few 'friends' of Carneades to whom the Master had 'opened his heart'. Others there may have been, although we are left to conjecture concerning 14

See above, pp. 2 8 5 - 6 . Indeed, Augustine may well be quoting from a passage in the Academici parallel to Luc. 60 but somewhat amplified, in which Cicero may have added this detail to the information he gives in the Luc. passage. If we read Augustine's passage in the light of this interpretation, there is no need to regard it as pure fabrication - as done by Weische p. 25. O'Meara p. 158 n. 73 is right, of course, in maintaining that the statement ascribed to Cicero by Augustine does not prove that what 'the Academics' taught to the 'few elect' was dogmatic Platonism. But Augustine himself offers this particular detail merely as his own conjecture, and the very fact that he admits this makes his ascription of the previous statement to Cicero more trustworthy. 16 See above, pp. 5 8 - 6 0 . ls

303

them. It is not unlikely that Carneades the son of Polemarchus, who succeeded Carneades in his lifetime (Acad.Ind. XXV,36-43; XXIX,38ff.), and perhaps Crates of Tarsus, who was left by this younger Carneades as his own successor (ibid XXV,43—XXVI,4; XXX,2ff.), belonged to this 'inner circle'. This may explain why the obscure (to us) younger Carneades was appointed by the older Carneades to succeed him in his own lifetime; why he, in turn, left his own successor, and why Clitomachus left the school, taught for some time in the Palladium, and then εις Άκαδήμεία(ν) έπέβαλεν μετά πολλών γνωρίμων (ibid. XXIV,32-37) - language which almost suggests a coup d'état. Carneades, it is true, dicere solebat, Clitomachum eadem dicere, Charmadam autem eodem modo dicere (Cic.Or. 51). But coming from Carneades, this may well have been a back-handed compliment. The pupils of a sceptical Academic who faithfully reproduce ipsissima verba magistri are precisely those who auctoritate potius quam ratione ducuntur. The same may even apply to Metrodorus: he, too, claimed to be an authentic interpreter of the Master. It is no accident that Carneades left no writing?. After his death, the 'beloved disciples' emerged and began to peddle their wares as 'genuine Carneadism', and Cicero's statement (Luc. 16) concerning these epigons is probably taken from Philo, who would report such things in all seriousness. During Carneades' lifetime, however, his successors are unknown and silent. Like him, they leave no books. Be that as it may, there is no reason to distrust the testimony of Cicero and Numenius that Carneades disclosed his opinions - as mere opinions and probabilia — to a few of his veteran students whom he could trust to be selfstanding enough not to take them for 'the Absolute'; and that this was also the custom of other Academics. Indeed, the existence of 'private seminars' in the Academy may well go back to the time of Arcesilaus, and may explain the speculations of Diocles of Cnidus. Sextus' source most likely ascribed to Arcesilaus merely the custom of selecting the more trustworthy among the èraipoi and disclosing one's views to them, a custom which is later, and is attested only of Carneades and his school. Augustine provides us with an example of how such customs are then made to imply that in the privacy of their own homes Carneades and Arcesilaus taught the true — and, of course, dogmatic — doctrines of Plato. We have already seen that this could not have been the case with Arcesilaus. We have no more reason to believe that this was the case with Carneades and his successors. We are left with one more piece of evidence indicated for the first time by Krämer.17 It comes from the anonymous commentary on Plato's Theaetetus, dated by its editors H. Diels and W. Schubart to the third century A.D.,18 col. 54, line 14ff. The author discusses the famous passage, 150c, in which 'Socrates' justifies his 'Socratic method' on the ground that he has, indeed, 17 18

See n. 1 above. See above, p. 219 n. 152.

304

no positive answers to offer. Our anonymous commentator suggests two alternative interpetations of this statement, both of which limit Socrates' confession of ignorance to a specific διδασκαλία or σοφία (lines 23—37). He continues (line 38ff.):

'Εκ τοιούτων λέξεών τίνες οίοιναι 'Ακαδημαϊκός TOP Πλάτωνα ώς ουδέν δογματίζοντα. δείξει μεν ουν ò λόγος και τούς άλλους 'Ακαδημαϊκούς έξηρημένων •πάνυ όλίγω(ν καί) δογματίξοντας και μίαν ούσαν 'Ακαδήμβιαν κατά το κά(κ)€ίνους τα κυριώτατα τών δογμάτων ταύτα εχειν τώ Πλάτωμ(ι). ήδη μέι>τοι τον Πλάτωνα εχειν δόγματα και άπ(ο)φαίνεσϋαι πεπ(ο)ιι>ότως πάρ(εοτι) έξ α(ύ)τού λ(αμβάν)€ΐ(ν). The claim that the Theaetetus - and most probably such obvious passages as 150c — is evidence for Plato's scepticism was made — as we have seen in an earlier chapter — by the sceptical Academy, quite probably ever since Arcesilaus. 19 In citing such a claim, our author uses the epithet 'Ακαδημαϊκός in the specific sense current in his time of 'a sceptical Academic'. But he cannot be employing it in precisely the same sense in the following sentence, concerning 'the other Academics' and the unity of the Academy. For he is arguing roughly (although in his customary muddled fashion) on the following lines: Plato could not have been a sceptic — he had dogmata and expressed them in positive terms, as anyone can see from his writings (I take this t o be the sense of πάρεστι έξ αύτού λαμβάνειν). Now, many of the other Academics held as their own most central doctrines some positive dogmaia which are the same as those of Plato (that is, of Plato as 'anyone can see from his writings'). This must refer to the first few generations of the Academy — for our commentator uses it as a fact well-known enough to be a proof for the dogmatism of Plato himself. It could not, therefore, be a new revelation concerning the esoteric Platonism of the Academic sceptics. The situation, however, is somewhat embarrassing: for our commentator has just admitted that there had been sceptical Academics who considered Plato himself a sceptic, and has even called them, in the jargon of his times, plainly 'Academics'. The alleged unity of the Academy is thus somewhat incomplete. Fortunately enough, by the time our author wrote his commentary, ascribed by Diels and Schubart to the school of Gaius, hardly anything was known of the Academic sceptics — except, perhaps, their bare names and a few pieces of gossip of the sort available to a Numenius if he looked hard enough for it - whereas the writings of the more 'dogmatic' early Academics like Xenocrates, Crantor, and perhaps even Speusippus and Polemo, were still in circulation. Our author must have known next to nothing about the chronology of the school - or he would have realized that, for nearly half the period of its existence, it had been ruled and populated by sceptics. He can therefore conclude that most Academics 'worthy of the name' had held essentially the same dogmatic views " See above, p. 38ff. 20

Glucker I Hyp. 56)

305

as Plato, and that only a few — έξηρημένων πάνυ ολίγων — had been true sceptics. He does not deny that such sceptics had existed, nor does he ascribe to them any dogmatic views — Platonic or otherwise, esoteric or exoteric. It is 'the other Academics' only to whom he ascribes Platonic dogmata. His knowledge of the history of the Academy is as hazy as one could expect from the school of Gaius. His comments constitute no additional piece of evidence for the alleged esoteric Platonism of the sceptical Academy.

B. The Golden Chain In the school of Proclus, we are told, the Homeric metaphor of the Golden

Chain (σεφή χρυοείη - Iliad VIII,18ff.) stretching from heaven to earth, was employed in describing the unbroken history of the succession in the Academy, Plato to Proclus — and, one takes it, to the age of Justinian. 20 The most relevant passage is found in Photius' excerpts from Damascius' Life of Isidore (Bibl. cod. 242,151, p. 3 4 6 a l 7 - 1 9 ; p. 206 Zintzen): Δεδιώς δ' ό Πρόκλος

περί τη Πλάτωνος χρυσή τφ δντι σειρά, μη ημνν άπολατη την πάλιν της 'Αθηνάς. Photius' own context is 'dynastic' — for in the following paragraph, beginning with the same word δβδιώς, Proclus is anxious about the frail health of his 'heir apparent' Marinus. 21 But the sentence immediately preceding our passage (Photius ibid. 150, p. 3 6 4 a l 4 - 1 7 ; p. 204 Zintzen) should be enough to put us on our guard: Ά λ λ ' οσω ηΰξετο της διάδοχης το μέγεάος èv τφ λόγω, τοσούτος μάλλον ò Ίσιίδωρος προς την ireιάώ συνεστέλλετο κτε. What sort of διαδοχή, one asks, is it that it can be 'augmented in the λόγος?' Our suspicions are further confirmed by what we are told in the preceding section: Και ó Πρόκλος

έπεδίδου ταίς εις αντόν όρώσαις έλπίσι μηδέ το τον Πλάτωνος άτιμάξειν αξίωμα, μηδέ τήν Ίαμβλίχου κρίσιν μηδέ του Πλουτάρχου κατανωτΐξεοϋαι κτε. Whether Proclus and his school ever claimed an institutional descent from Plato is precisely the problem we are investigating. They were clearly successors of Plutarch of Athens. But of Iamblichus, who never held a public position in Athens or in any school there? We shall soon meet Iamblichus in a similar context, and in company which will make things more explicit. 20

Lynch p. 178 refers to the relevant passage of Photius and cites one other passage of Marinus. His general conclusion 'that the metaphor of the "Golden Chain" cannot be read as history' is right as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough in examining the available evidence. Nor is it quite clear - as we shall presently see - that the metaphor was indeed used by the school of Proclus for the continuity of the Academy as an institution - as Lynch takes for granted here and on p. 186 - or even that it was used for the historical continuity of Platonism. 21 On the problem of the succession to Proclus, see above, p. 155 n. 122.

306

Of Proclus himself, Marinus tells us that his arrival in Athens was plainly an act of divine providence: wa γαρ άνόάευτος και eikwpiνης σώξηται ή Πλάτωνος διαδοχή αγουσιν αντόν oi ôeoi προς την της φιλοσοφίας 'έφορον κτε. (Marinus, Vita Procli 10, p. 22). Πλάτωνος διαδοχή need not mean more than Anatolius' 'Αριστοτέλους διαδοχή which we have encountered elsewhere. 22 What is of greater importance: the gods are not concerned here merely, chiefly - or perhaps altogether - with keeping the διαδοχή going: they wish it to be pure and unadulterated. Just as Proclus himself, in a passage of Photius we have just seen, 'augmented the διαδοχή in his λόγος' and did not wish to put to shame 'the reputation of Plato and the judiciousness of Iamblichus and Plutarch'. The safeguarding and augmenting of the διαδοχή is thus hardly a matter of institutional continuity. Candidates for succession are always around at the school; what matters is to find a true and genuine Platonist as a successor. Both Proclus and the gods are concerned almost entirely with the purity and genuineness of the Platonic tradition. We shall soon find some confirmation for this in a longer and more explicit statement of Proclus, as well as in a shorter and somewhat more cryptic utterance by one of the gods. But before we pursue Proclus and the gods any further, we may as well follow some minor clues and see where they lead us. The Homeric metaphor of the Golden Chain seems to have enjoyed a certain vogue in Platonic and pagan circles of that age. Marinus himself, in the same Vita Procli (26, p. 64), speaks of the young Hegias, a fellow-student of Proclus under Plutarch of Athens (to whose family he belonged), and later a pupil of Proclus himself, 23 as δείγματα φέρων καί έκ μβφακίου εναργή πασών των προγονικών αρετών και της άπό Σόλωνος χρυσής όντως τού γένους σειράς. The context here appears to be plainly 'dynastic': descent from Solon. 24 Another testimony, coming from 22

See above, pp. 1 5 0 - 1 . Suda s.v. Ήγιας, No. 60 Adler = Damascius Fr. 351, pp. 2 8 5 - 6 Zintzen. Zintzcn p. 284, note on Photius 221, p. 384b21—24, e ¿ς τοσούτον yap άκηκόαμΐ ν φιλοοοφίαν κ αταφρονηϋεϊσαν oùS'e πώποτε 'Αόήιτησιν, οοον έωράκαμεν άτψαξομένην έπί Ήγώυ, remarks that Hegias appears to have occupied Proclus' chair. Zeller 111,2, p. 899 makes him Isidore's successor. K. Praechter, RE 7, pp. 2 6 1 4 - 5 (Hegias 5) makes him a 'diadochos' with no further specification. Why, then, does the Suda entry omit this, while speaking at some, length both of his studies with Proclus and his political involvements? The Suda usually mentions the fact that the man at the head of the entry was head of 'the philosophical school in Athens' (see Suda s.w. Plutarchus, No. 1794 Adler; Proclus, no. 2473 Adler; Syrianus, No. 1661 Adler). Saffrey-Westerink p. XXXIII and n. 2 are clearly right in concluding that he probably taught philosophy, but not as head of the school. Or could it 23

be that Damascius' words refer to something quite different - that Hegias became influential in local politics and treated philosophy with contempt as a politician? The words ΆΟήνησιν... έπί 'Hyíov would bear this meaning far more easily than any other. 24

As rightly interpreted by Boissonade in his edition of Marinus, n. on p. 64, pp. 1 2 0 121. Χρυσή τού yévouç oeipà does not mean 'the Golden Chain of philosophers originating with Solon' - as Lynch p. 178 (emphasis mine). It need not mean more than does Archiadas' διαδοχή τού yévov ξητείν άπό της του Ερμού μητρός Μαίας ταίς ψυχαϊς ένδίδοται, η δέ εϋρεσις άπό της Έρμαϊκής σειράς, και yàp τά οΚικώτερα yévr¡ των ΰεών και προ των μερικωτέρων èvepyei και μετ' αύτών και ύστερον, διό και άτελής ή ξήτησις και ώς ειπείν ϋλην προπαρασκευαξομένην όρώμεν εκ της των ύψηλοτέρων αιτιών διαδόσεως εις τά μετέχοντα οίον δέ μορφην και είδος έπνγινόμενον έκ τών υποδεεστέρων. In a later section (28, pp. 1 1 - 1 2 Boissonade; 10 Pasquali), we read: on της Έρμαϊκης δόσεως τά μέν èoTi νοερά και πρώτα àyaûà, τά δε δευτέρα και της διανοίας τελεσουργά, τά δε τρίτα και της άλσγίας καϋαρτικά κτε. Once more, Hermes and the 'Hermetic Chain' stand for a gift, or an emanation, of λογισμός. If Proclus, or Porphyry, had anything to do with a 'Hermetic Chain', the implication is in Proclus' own words — that each of them had a ψυχή πληρουμένη λ λαχόντες), ut simul eos vixisse, tantum autem interest temporis ut in hoc ille revixisse putandus sit. Augustine's next chapter (42) is taken up with a discussion of the philosophical sects of his own age and of the chief doctrines of 'true Platonism'. In chapter 43, Augustine presents his justification for forming his theory, citing Cicero's evidence concerning the Academics' custom to conceal their own views, which we have already discussed in the first section of this chapter. In drawing on this Ciceronian statement and interpreting it to imply the existence of an esoteric Platonism in the sceptical Academy itself, Augustine is giving the whole theory of the underground survival of true Platonism and its rediscovery in the School of Plotinus a new turn, by according the Academic sceptics the role of guardians of the Platonic mysteries — a role which, as we have seen, is entirely unwarranted. 37 But Augustine could hardly have given 36

More seriously, this implies that Augustine knew nothing of the writings - in Greek - of the Middle Platonists. When he speaks of reading Platonicorum libros before his conversion (Conf. VII,9; 13; 14; 20; 26; VIII,2; 3 et al.) he is, of course, referring to what we would call the Neo-Platonists. See n. 41 below. 37 On this point, O'Meara p. 158 n. 73 and p. 192 n. 53 is, of course, right. There is no evidence for such an esoteric Platonism in the sceptical Academy in Cicero, and no compelling evidence elsewhere. But O'Meara fails to quote the passages of Diocles of Cnidus as given by Numenius, and of Sextus, and he makes no comparison between Augustine's theory and that of Proclus. The present-day exponents of the theory of the unwritten doctrines of Plato would, of course, maintain that much in Middle - and Neo - Platonism sprang from the tradition of Plato's oral teachings - see esp. Kramer, Ursprung, passim. But even they would not claim that such doctrines were pro mysteriis custodita

317

Cicero's innocent statement such a new turn, had he not been already in possession of a general theory concerning the unbroken continuity of true Platonism which he had learnt elsewhere. When, in 37, he offers his theory as non quid sciam, sed quid existiman, this does not apply to the whole story of the continuity of Platonism: his caveat comes merely in answer to the question immediately preceding it: quid igitur placuit tantis viris perpetuis et pertinacibus contentionibus agere, ne in quemquam cadere veri scientia videretur? Nor can his caveat apply to Cicero's words in 43,1 — they are cited as a genuine statement of Cicero. What constitutes Augustine's own speculation — as he comes near enough to indicating in 43,1 — is the assumption that these 'opinions' which, according to Cicero, the sceptical Academics reserved only for the 'few elect', were the dogmatic doctrines of Plato. He arrived at his interpretation of this Ciceronian statement by grafting on to it the Neo-Platonic theory of the underground survival of true Platonism. The similarities in imagery and substance between Augustine's and Proclus' accounts of this process are too numerous to allow us to assume that each of them invented such a theory independently. The most likely explanation of these similarities is that Augustine and Proclus both found this theory in a common source — or, what is most likely, in two sources ultimately derived from a common source. Who was the origin and 'onlie begetter' of this theory? We can, of course, only guess. But a candidate at least as likely as any other would be Porphyry, Plotinus' pupil, literary executor and the first 'missionary' of Neo-Platonism. Of all Neo-Platonic authors, Porphyry was the one best known in the West, and especially to Augustine. He refers to him more than to any other Neo-Platonist except Plotinus himself. The second half of Book X of De Civitate Dei (chapters 24-32) is a detailed argument against Porphyry which is still one of our major sources for some of the philosophical views of Porphyry himself; and much else in Augustine's writings can be interpreted in reference to a good knowledge of some works of Porphyry. So much so that J. J. O'Meara, who has done much to investigate Augustine's relations to that Neo-Platonic writer,38 can simply state that 'while it is certain that Plotinus is the one Platonist whose name is mentioned in Epist. 118, it is equally certain that Porphyry is the Platonist meant above any other', 39 and that 'Porphyry played an important, if not actually a vital, part in his conversion.'40 Willi

for generations. They were already revealed, according to their view, in various written accounts by Plato's immediate pupils of the doctrines of his περί τά-γαϋού, and in much of the published work of Xenocrates and the early Aristotle. 38 See his 'Augustine and Neo-Platonism', Recherches augustiniennes 1, 1958, pp. 9 - 1 1 , and Porphyry's Philosophy from Oracles in Augustine, 1959. 39 O'Meara p. 195. 40 O'Meara p. 197. The whole of his excellent n. 61, pp. 1 9 3 - 7 , contains many references to echoes of Porphyry in Augustine. See also P. Hadot, 'Citations de Porphyre (à propos d'un livre récent)', Rév. des ét.Aug. VI,1960, pp. 2 0 5 - 2 4 4 .

318

Theiler, w h o s e w o r k o n A u g u s t i n e and P o r p h y r y is a landmark in the s t u d y o f early N e o - P l a t o n i s m , writes that 'fast alles p h i l o s o p h i s c h e bei A u g u s t i n als p o r p h y r i s c h betrachtet w e r d e n k a n n . ' 4 1 It w o u l d b e o n l y natural f o r the m a n w h o first spread t h e gospel o f t h e n e w P l a t o n i s m t o evolve a quasi-historical t h e o r y , according t o w h i c h the P l a t o n i s m o f his m a s t e r w a s n o t a new and original interpretation o f Platonism, b u t m e r e l y a rediscovery and a n e w revelation o f the true doctrines o f P l a t o h i m s e l f , h i d d e n a w a y and disclosed o n l y t o a f e w c h o s e n souls during the dark age o f S t o i c and Epicurean error, and n o w brought back t o light b y Plotinus. T h e P o r p h y r y o f Vita Plotini

(14,

5—14) is s o m e w h a t m o r e realistic, admitting that Plotinus' writings c o n t a i n e d also an a d m i x t u r e o f S t o i c and Peripatetic e l e m e n t s . But in that w o r k , Porp h y r y d o e s it m a i n l y t o s h o w the w i d e range o f Plotinus' k n o w l e d g e , n o t t o describe the e s s e n c e o f his p h i l o s o p h y . We have a n o t h e r p o s s i b l e clue, w h i c h I have k e p t t o this late stage m a i n l y because o f its c o n n e c t i o n w i t h P o r p h y r y . In the D e l p h i c oracle c o n c e r n i n g the fate o f Plotinus' soul w h i c h w a s procured f o r A m e l i u s s o o n a f t e r P l o t i n u s ' death, w e read, a m o n g o t h e r things, that Plotinus' soul w a s n o w residing, a m o n g the blessed, w h e r e . . . και γλυκερή χρυσβίης Μίνως Αιακός,

yeverjç,

πνοιή

καί 'Ρα&άμανάυς ήχι

καί νήνεμος

αίΰήρ,

μ ε γ ά λ ο υ Δ ι ό ς ήχι

Πλάτων,

άδελφβοί, ιερή

νέμονται ήχι

Ις, ή χι re

δίκαιος καλός

41

W. Theiler, Porphyries und Augustin, 'Schriften der Königsberger gelehrten Gesellschaft, Geisteswiss. Kl.', 10, 1933, reprinted in his Forschungen zum Neuplatonismus, Berlin 1966, pp. 1 6 0 - 2 5 1 ; esp. p. 5 (1933 = p. 164, 1966). P. Henry, Plotin et l'occident, Louvain 1934, contests this view and maintains that in the period before his conversion, Augustine read much of Plotinus in translation and knew nothing of Porphyry. For a refutation of this thesis, see P. Courcelle, Les lettres grecques en occident, Paris 1948, pp. 1 5 9 - 1 7 6 , and O'Meara's works cited in the last three notes. Our present discussion should provide some further confirmation of Theiler's theory. C.Acad. 111,37-43 show too many similarities to Proclus' account of the underground survival of true Platonism and its rediscovery by Plotinus to be a mere accident. Plotinus is not the author of this theory - at least not as far as we can see from his extant writings. Porphyry, with whom Augustine shows close affinities elsewhere, is the most likely source. The similarity between Augustine's and Proclus' stories has been pointed out (for the first time?) by Saffrey-Westerink p. 131 n. 2. For Augustine's sources, they refer the reader to A. Solignac, 'Doxographie et manuels dans la formation spirituelle de Saint Augustin', Recherches augustiniennes I, 1958, pp. 1 1 3 - 1 4 8 and to pp. 1 7 9 - 1 8 1 of Courcelle's work. But while it is more than likely that Augustine derived much of his details about earlier philosophers from doxographie sources, he is most unlikely to have found in such sources a theory like that of the underground survival of Platonism. Our parallel source for this theory, Proclus, shows no familiarity with doxographie manuals or histories of philosophy, yet in its essentials his picture is strikingly similar to Augustine's. Where Augustine fills in this picture with doxographie details about the Academic sceptics, these details (but not the general theory) come from Cicero.

319

Πυΐ9αγόρης, δσσοι r e χορόν στήριξον

έρωτος

άϋάνατοι, οσσοι η/ενβήν ξυνην έλάχοι>το δαίμοσιρ όλβίστοις κτβ. ( P o r p h y r y , Vita Plot.

22,51-7)

At first sight, there may appear to be nothing peculiar about the expression χρυσέl'i? 7ever?. This, apparently, is merely a reference to the Hesiodic Golden Age. On a closer look, however, one finds hardly any similarities between. Works and Days 90ff. and our passage. What we have here is the Golden Age transformed beyond the boundaries of time and transplanted into Neo-Platonic terrain. The members of Porphyry's 'Golden Race' are Plato's favourite underworld judges, Plato himself, and the other major father-figure of NeoPlatonism, Pythagoras. Plotinus belongs to this 'Golden Race', and it may be no accident that Hierocles, as we have seen, 42 speaks of Ammonius Saccas, Plotinus and their pupils as members of a iepà -γενεά, a phrase which is also somewhat reminiscent of the language of the mysteries and their hierophants employed by Proclus. Whether all these phrases, including the 'Golden Chain' and the 'Hermetic Chain', were expressions of various aspects, both temporal and theological, of the same early Neo-Platonic myth, we cannot tell. The expression 'Hermetic Chain' was most probably already used by Porphyry himself, and Proclus, too, belonged t o such a chain. 43 Plotinus was declared after his death to belong to a 'Golden Race' including Plato and Pythagoras. Proclus believed on the strength of a dream that his soul was a reincarnation of that of a Pythagorean. Be that as it may, there can be little doubt that the myth of the underground survival and unbroken continuity — in our sublunary world of historical events — of the mysteries of true Platonism was formed very early in the history of the Neo-Platonic movement. A famous passage of Plotinus himself (and quite probably, similar utterances of his which have not reached us), may well have given this theory its first impetus. In Enn. V , 8 , l , Plotinus, having just fathered his theory of the three primary hypostases on the famous passage in the Platonic Second Epistle (which, for him, was quite obviously genuine), 312e, proceeds to say: και eipai τους λόγους τούσδε μή καινούς, μ η δ έ νύν άλλα πάλαι. μεν είρήσΰαιμη άναπεπταμένως, τούς δε νύν λόγους έ ξ η γ η τ ά ς έκεινων yeyovévai μαρτνρίοις τηστωσαμένονς τάς δόξας πάντας παλαιάς eívai τοίς αύτού τού Π λ ά τ ω ν ο ς Ύράμμασιν. Plotinus m a y not

mean by μη άναπεπταμένως more than 'not stressed' (MacKenna), or 'without being brought out in technical terms' (K. S. Guthrie), or 'sans être développées' (Bréhier) — or he may mean 'but not explicitly'. 44 He certainly does not appear 42

Sec above, pp. 311-2. See above, pp. 309-10. 44 J. M. Rist, Plotinus, the Road to Reality, Cambridge 1967, p. 181. Rist's discussion of the whole issue, pp. 180-187, is very illuminating, but he takes it for granted (p. 181) that Plotinus is referring in this sentence to 'his own views'. In fact, both in our passage and in the similar (but not quite as incisive) passages quoted by Rist, p. 263 n. 34, Plotinus is not claiming that the whole of his philosophy is a true interpretation of Plato, 43

320

to be claiming anything more than that this particular discussion, in this particular context, of the three hypostases is merely the correct exegesis of a Platonic passage dealing with the same issue. But the fact that both Plotinus in this passage and Proclus in his prooemium to Theol.Plat. (p. 6, line 16 Saffrey - Westerink) use the word έξηγητάς has not escaped the critical eyes of the latest editors of Proclus. 4 5 Verbal reminiscences are not t o be disparaged when we are dealing with the Neo-Platonists, and it may not be an accident that the most famous passage where the — not very common - form άναπβπταμένος is used by Plato is the very beginning of the Allegory of the Cave, Rep. VII, 5 1 4 a 3 ^ 4 : άναπ βπταμένην προς το φώς την ε'ίσοδον έχουσα. Plato's story, the light is outside, and the inhabitants of the cave emerge into it. In Proclus' story, the true mysteries of Platonism are guarded inside the innermost shrines until the time comes for them εις φως παρελôeiv. But the similarities may not be entirely accidental. And after all, it is precisely in issues like that discussed by Plotinus in the first chapter of the fifth Ennead — the nature of the three primary hypostases — that the 'true mysteries of Platonism' rediscovered by Plotinus consisted. Plotinus may have included, in his more detailed discussion of various issues, elements taken from the philosophy of the Stoics and Peripatetics and arguments which are his own contribution to philosophy. This is amply acknowledged by Porphyry, and taken for granted by most NeoPlatonic writers. But it is in his central vision that Plotinus claimed merely to have rediscovered and interpreted correctly the true mysteries of Plato himself. From such a claim — which may well be all that Plotinus implies in our passage — to the assumption that this is not merely a more precise or more explicit interpretation of the doctrines of Plato, but the revelation of an age-old mystery hitherto handed down only to the few elect, is a small step. Plotinus' pupils may have been helped to such an interpretation of the Master's statements by stories like that of the oath of secrecy sworn by Plotinus, Herennius and Orígenes regarding the doctrines they had learnt from Ammonius Saccas (Porph. Vita Plot. 3,24ff.). If the doctrines of Ammonius were handed down to his pupils pro mysteriis custodita, why not assume that they had been handed down in the same fashion to Ammonius himself and to his own teachers, generation after generation, reaching back to Plato? Augustine wrote his Contra Académicos in A.D. 386, only a little over a century after Plotinus' death. By this time, the m y t h of the underground survival of Platonism is already known to him in its main outlines, even if he does not use any metaphor like 'Golden Chain'. That metaphor, like that of the 'Hermetic Chain', may well have been coined in the Greek East — although the 'Golden Chain' metaphor with its Homeric reminiscences may well bear some relation

but m e r e l y that his discussions o f t h e s e particular p o i n t s are a true e x p l i c a t i o n o f Platonic views. 45

21

Saffrey-Westerink p. 1 3 0 , n. 3 t o p. 6 .

Gluckor ( H y p . 561

321

to the Hesiodic 'Golden Race' used by the Delphic Apollo in the oracle after Plotinus' death. On the other hand, it may still be true that the 'Golden Chain' has nothing to do with this underground survival of Platonism in the centuries before Plotinus. Even if it has, it is — as we have seen — only Augustine's own speculation, based on his Neo-Platonic interpretation of some statements of Cicero, that this 'Golden Chain' had ever passed through the hands of the sceptical scholarchs from Arcesilaus to Philo. Proclus and his followers, or Hierocles of Alexandria, would have utterly rejected such a claim, had they bothered to read the Latin work of a Christian bishop - and had they known anything about the sceptical Academy, even the little that Augustine could glean from his readings of Cicero. Even Augustine is rather hazy when he comes to the survival of Platonism in the generations between Antiochus and Plotinus. And, what is of far greater importance, both Augustine and Proclus (and, of course, the Alexandrian Hierocles) have no scruples in stating quite plainly that the tradition of true Platonism — 'Golden Chain' or not — includes as one of its central and most precious links Plotinus the Egyptian, his school in Rome, and those of his pupils who spread the gospel of true Platonism after his death to many parts of the Empire, but not — at least not in the first instance — to Athens. The metaphor of the 'Golden Chain' may have referred in some contexts to the continuity of genuine Platonism. It could not refer to the continuity of the Academy or any Athenian school.

D. Epilogue: Justinian It may not be inappropriate to end a chapter devoted to some ancient myths with a brief discussion of a modern myth, whose milieu is also the Platonic school of Athens. 'Even those who know nothing else of Justinian know that he closed the Academy of Athens in A.D. 529'. These words, which stand at the beginning of Professor Alan Cameron's article on 'The Last Days of the Academy at Athens',46 are as true now as they have probably been throughout the history of modern scholarship. Gibbon, in his classic description of these events, refers to Proclus and others of 'the surviving sect of Platonists, whom Plato would have blushed to acknowledge', as teaching 'in the philosophical chair of the Academy', and speaks of 'the edicts of Justinian, which imposed a perpetual silence on the schools of Athens.' Some years ago, I was dining with a professor of Latin, whose own specialty is Augustan poetry and its Alexandrian sources. The man was unashamedly a scholar, not afraid of 'talking shop', and since he regaled 46 Alan Cameron, 'The Last Days of the Academy of Athens', Proceedings of the Philological Society 195(15), 1969, pp. 7 - 2 9 .

322

Cambridge

me with news of his own recent researches, I felt justified in inflicting on him the results of my own inquiries, as they are now set out in this book. He was somewhat taken aback to hear that the Platonic school of Athens was no successor to the Academy. 'But we all know — do we not? — that Justinian closed the schools of Athens, including the Academy. Is this not what our sources tell us?' Alas, they never do. Not only do they never speak of the 'Academy': they never mention any 'closure' or any 'school'. The various episodes of A.D. 529 and after; the alleged closure of the schools; the exodus of the seven Athenian Platonists to the court of King Chosroes, where, in Gibbon's words, 'they were soon to be astonished by the natural discovery that Persia resembled the other countries of the globe', and the safeconduct allegedly obtained for them from Justinian by Chosroes — all this has often been studied and discussed with various degrees of accuracy and penetration. 47 Tannery 4 8 and Schiick 49 suggested that Simplicius, the most famous amopg those Platonists, returned to Alexandria, not to Athens. Professor Cameron has more recently produced arguments which I find entirely convincing to show that Simplicius returned to Athens, and that it was there that he wrote the most important works of his maturity, his great commentaries on Aristotle. 50 Cameron has even suggested that there may be some substance in the story that Theodore of Tarsus, later an Archbishop of Canterbury, studied philosophy in Athens in the late seventh century. 51 It is not our purpose here to discuss the various details involved in these events — if only because Professor Cameron's fascinating study has brought the generation of the aging Damascius, Simplicius, Olympiodorus and their contemporaries back to life as only a true historian can do. What I find significant is that, despite his excellent analysis of the sources, even Cameron can still speak of 'the Aca41

Of the previous specialized treatments of this subject one still reads P. Tannery, 'Sur la période finale de la philosophie grecque', Rev.Philos. XLII, 1 8 9 6 , pp. 2 6 6 - 2 8 7 , and J. Schiick, 'Die letzten heidnischen Philosophen unter Justinian', Jahrb. fiir Philosophie u. Pädagogik 1 8 8 2 , pp. 4 2 6 - 4 4 0 . Schiick's account is wholly derivative and almost entirely worthless, except as an illustration of what was taken for granted in the late nineteenth century. His one merit is that - most probably by instinct or oversight rather than deliberation or knowledge - he refrains from using the word 'Academy' and refers throughout to the 'Neo-Platonic school of Athens'. Tannery's article, despite its somewhat cavalier attitude to sources and exact references, is still worth reading for some of its insights. 48

Loc.cit. last note, pp. 2 8 4 - 7 . Loc.cit. n. 47 above, pp. 4 3 9 - 4 0 . 50 A. Cameron, loc.cit. n. 4 6 above, pp. 2 1 - 2 5 . 51 Ibid. p. 25 and n. 6. Of course, we are not told that the philosophy he studied was Platonic - but what other philosophy was likely to be available? Nor are we told where he studied it - which is far more important. Individual teachers of Platonism may well have existed in Athens long after the school of Plutarch and Proclus, with its scholarchs and property, was a thing of the past. 49

323

demy of Athens', of 'a tradition of almost a millenium', of 'the greatest and most historic institution in the Empire', and of 'Justinian's closure of the Academy'. 52 To begin with the 'closure' of the 'Academy'. Tannery had maintained long ago that Justinian 'ne parait pas avoir interdit l'enseignement privée',53 and we now know that the school of Proclus and his successors — however much it attempted in its form and terms of instruction to emulate Platonic examples — was a rather private affair, conducted in the scholarch's private house.54 It is extremely difficult to determine how far one can follow Tannery's reading of the sources on such points, since our sources appear to be rather ambiguous. The two decrees which include the prohibition on teaching activities carried out by heretics and pagans (Cod.Just. 1,5,18,4; 1,11,10,2), couple this prohibition on teaching the young and leading their souls astray from true Orthodoxy with an exclusion of transgressors from the receipt of public funds (αίτησις δημοσία or έκ τού δημοσίου). This exclusion may be merely a further expedient for the enforcement of the law. But if — as Professor Cameron has shown 55 — Justinian was chiefly concerned about the philosophers of Athens, whose school was much more of a community of militant pagans than the Alexandrian school, he must have realized that the Athenian school was in possession of landed property quite sufficient to allow its leaders to live in some comfort without the slightest dependence on imperial munificence.56 It is more likely that the two prohibitions were intended to have separate application. Indeed, the words of the second of these decrees seem to indicate this: πάν δε μάύημα παρά τών νοσούντων την ανοσιών Ελλήνων μανίαν δώάσκεσΰαι κωλύομεν, ώστε μή κατά τούτο προσποιείσΰαι αύτούς παιδεύειν τους εις αυτούς άάλίως φοιτώντας — the last phrase highly reminiscent of the private schools and teachers and their φοιτηταί.57 Only then does the decree proceed to say: άλλα μηδέ (clearly an added prohibition) έκ τού δημοσίου αιτήσεως άπολαΰειν αύτούς κτε. The second of these prohibitions obviously aimed at those teachers in receipt of imperial salaries who continued to profess their paganism. There, the Emperor had some control over the matter. The first, and more general, of these prohibitions — which must have had the Platonic school of Athens as one of its main targets — was more in the nature of an indication that 'the abuse which it was intended to remove was known to the central government.' 58 Justinian, it appears, was not quite satisfied with issuing this general decree, soon to be included in his Code. Malalas (Chron. XVIII, p. 451 Bonn Corpus) tells us that 52

Ibid, title; pp. 9; 29. Loc.cit. n. 47 above, pp. 2 8 3 - 4 . 54 Sec above, pp. 153-8. " Loc.cit., pp. 9 - 1 1 . 56 Above, pp. 248-55; Cameron p. 21; Lynch p. 189. 57 E.g. Marinus, Vita Prodi 8 - 9 , pp. 15-21. 58 In the fortunate phrase of the late Α. Η. M. Jones, quoted by Cameron p. 9. 53

324

Justinian sent in the same year a special decree to Athens, forbidding the teaching of law and philosophy there. Malalas is one of those chroniclers whose testimony one tends to hold suspect. But Cameron has argued quite convincingly that this particular anecdote may well be founded on history. 59 Nor was Justinian content with this particular Privilegium. Realizing the wealth and independent means of the Athenian Platonists, he proceeded — so we are told — to confiscate parts of their property. Cameron has argued that these confiscations — or at least part of them — did not all take place in 529/30 as previously believed, but were still incomplete around 560, when Olympiodorus had his commentary on the First Alcibiades published. 60 Olympiodorus, however, does not necessarily refer to one intensive series of confiscations, and certainly not to confiscations of the property of the Platonic school. His words πολλών δημοσιεύσεων γινομένων do, of course, mean that a series of confiscations had taken place over the years. But we are not told what sort of confiscations, and of whose property. Olympiodorus does say also that, despite these confiscations, the διαδοχικά were still sufficient, at the time of writing, to support the διάδοχος (and some of his friends and pupils?). The whole succession of episodes raises a number of problems to which the sources give us no answer. It is not for us to ask the more general question, why did Justinian merely exclude pagans from teaching, without enforcing their baptism. This is plainly not the manner which the persecution of pagans assumed under Justinian. His half-hearted measures may be due to the weakness of the central government and to its lack of absolute control over the affairs of some of the cities of the Empire, or even to a reluctance on his own part to enforce the state religion on peaceful minorities, as long as they did not 'infect' others with their 'pernicious' views. As a shrewd statesmen, he must have realized that paganism — as distinct from Judaism in its more orthodox and in its Samaritan variety, or from heretics within the Christian community itself - was a dying creed, and all one had to do was control the possibility of its temporary spread and revival and leave it to die a natural death. Nor do we ask why, if the main obstacle to the final disintegration of the school of Athens was their continuous possession of the διαδοχικά, it was not decreed that the whole property of the Platonic scholarch should be confiscated forthwith. It is quite possible that the Emperor thought of this, but that, as suggested by Cameron 61 , 'the authorities at Athens were not very energetic in carrying out Justinian's orders' since 'no doubt Damascius had influential connections'. After all, a theurgy which can control earthquakes and the Athenian weather may well have been considered by the local authorities to be of greater importance than the Imperial religion. But we are con59 60 61

Cameron p. 8. Cameron pp. 1 1 - 1 2 . Cameron p. 12.

325

cerned with what our source, Olympiodorus, says and what he does not say. It is, I believe, far more likely that the many confiscations spoken of by Olympiodorus 62 were not confiscations of the διαδοχικά at all. Olympiodorus, we remember, begins by saying that Plato, since he had private means, did not charge his pupils any fees. He continues: διό καί μέχρι τού -παρόντος σώζονται τα διαδοχικά, καί ταύτα πολλών δημοσιεύσεων Ύΐρομένων. Because of what? Because Plato's property was so laige that, confiscate as much as you will, something will always remain? But Plato's property, as we have seen, was not all that large. Olympiodorus may not have known much about the extent of Plato's property (although I can see no reason why a document like Plato's testament, available to us through Diogenes Laertius, was not available to him in Alexandria as well). But he must have heard of 'a house in the Academy', and perhaps even of the story of Anniceris' ransom money. A house in the Academy was not very likely to assume the proportions of a castle in Spain even in the mind of an ignorant (?) Alexandrian. Could Olympiodorus mean, perhaps, something far simpler? It is because of Plato's custom (since he had private means) not to charge tuition fees — a custom followed by the Athenian Platonists as well (since they, too, have private means) that their διδοχικά have not been touched (which is the plain sense of σώζονται), despite the many confiscations taking place in Athens. They were forbidden to receive Imperial salaries (which they did not need anyway). They were forbidden to teach. But as long as they complied with these restrictions — or at least kept a facade of doing so — there were no grounds for a confiscation of their property. Other confiscations there were — presumably the confiscation of properties of pagans who did teach for a fee (the lawyers of Athens and Antioch?). The διαδοχικά remained untouched. And indeed, it appears that, for some time at least, these 'successors of Plato' did hold their peace. Simplicius' commentaries on Aristotle, written after his return from Persia, are couched in the style of proper, written works composed 'sibi et doctis', not taken down από φωνής. 'The obvious inference', writes Cameron, 'is that he did not need to do so much teaching.' 63 But is this the obvious inference? Proclus — if we accept the traditional interpretation of these 'confiscations' — had been far richer than Simplicius. Yet he and other members of the school considered it their almost religious (or literally religious) duty to teach as much as they could and preserve the 'Golden Chain' of Platonism in their school. Proclus, indeed, had such a heavy load of teaching that one wonders how he lived into a respectable old age and produced all his books. 64 Not all his works are άπό φωνής, and even those which are show the signs of careful editing, and may well be based on the lecture-notes of Proclus 62 63 64

For full text of this passage, see above, p. 253 n. 99. Cameron p. 25. Saffrey-Westerink pp. X I X - X X ; XXVI.

326

himself. A more likely inference may be that Simplicius was allowed to return to Athens on condition that he now complied with the edict of 529 and ceased to teach. Simplicius preferred to do this rather than lose the διαδοχικά, and with them the last foothold of Platonism in Athens. If he could not preserve the 'Golden Chain' by teaching, he could at least 'leave souvenirs' (υπομνήματα καταλineiv) of true Platonism - albeit not quite of the same stamp as Proclus' — in the form of published works. There was no Imperial edict against that. But these are, perhaps, side-issues. The main point is that in all those edicts and reports of special decrees and confiscations, not a word is said of the 'closure' of any 'school'. Although the Athenian Platonists did use the name σχολή for their school, the word is never mentioned in any of the sources. Nor does the word 'Academy' ever appear in this context — not only in the more general edicts, where one could not, perhaps, expect to find it (but why not, if the ancient Academy was still extant and the edict was directed mainly against it?). But Malalas' story of the special decree despatched to Athens merely speaks of a prohibition on pagans to teach law and philosophy. Nor does Agathias, in his story of the exodus of the seven Platonists to Persia (11,30—31), describe them as Academics, or even as Platonists, but merely as το άκρον άωτον, κατά την ποίησιν, των èv τω καϋ' ήμάς χρόνω φιλοσοφησάντων (11,30). All this, I shall be told, is merely an argumentum ex silentio. There was no need for any of our sources to mention the Academy. Everyone knew that these 'flowers of the philosophy of their age' were members of the Academy. What else could they be? Such objections, however, would only be valid if we did know from other sources that these men were commonly known as 'Academics' or had any connection with the Academy. We have already seen in our previous chapters that the sources present us with a very different picture. It is, of course, true that by the time of Justinian the Platonic school of Athens was the only school of philosophy extant there - so much so that the Suda (s.w. Plutarchus; Proclus; Syrianus Nos. 1794; 2473; 1662 Adler) calls it merely ή èv Ά&ήναις φιλόσοφος σχολή. But even such nomenclature is not without its significance. The Suda — or its source for such biographical matters, Hesychius — knows what the Academy was, and can identify a philosopher as an Academic when there is a call for it. 65 It is only against the persistent background of Zumpt's theory of the continuity of the philosophical schools that one could take it for granted that the Platonic school of Athens was, 'of course', the Academy. Cameron,66 and Schlick before him, 67 have already realized that there is no question of the closure of the schools 65

E.g., s.v. Carneades, No. 400 Adler, Didymus, No. 871 Adler; Lacydes, No. 72 Adler; Platon, No. 1707 Adler. 66 Cameron p. 7 and n. 3. 67 Schiick, op.cit. n. 47 above, p. 433. Even Zumpt, pp. 5 8 - 6 3 , realized that the other schools of philosophy were extinct by the time of Justinian. But the myth of 'the closure of the schools' persists in popular works and in the popular conscience. To take one example:

327

of Athens, since, by Justinian's time, there was only Damascius' school left. More recently, Professor Lynch has shown that there is no ground for speaking of the closure of any school by Justinian, not even the Platonic school.68 Yet Lynch can still write that 'this was certainly one of the schools at which Justinian's legislation of 529 A.D. was directed. The story of the effect of the laws on this school has already been told, and the account concerns this school and no other.' 69 But the simple fact is that none of our sources ever speaks of any school — not even of 'the philosophical school of Athens', as the Suda is so fond of calling it. The reason is not far to seek. For 'the school of Athens', despite its great prestige, was a private institution — or rather a private community — in which a scholarch living on his own property taught what he believed was his mission as a Platonist and a pagan to teach, and demanded no fee, private or public, for performing his duties. Besides, the inclusion of lawyers in Malalas' story show that Justinian's decrees were aimed not only at the Platonists (although they may well have been his main philosophical target), but at pagans teaching any disciplines. If the Academy had still existed as a school of philosophy, one or the other of our sources would have told us so. Modern scholarship has found the attraction of speaking of 'the Academy' with 'a tradition of almost a millenium behind it' utterly irresistible even in default of any express evidence in the sources. Could a contemporary Greek — not excluding the Emperor who 'closed the school' himself - have resisted such a temptation of recording for posterity the end of an institution which went back to the 'Divine Plato' (as those pagans called him) himself? Our sources are silent for the simple reason that modern scholarship has read into their testimonies things that never happened. The school of Proclus and his successors was almost certainly not in possession of Plato's estate near the Academy.70 It was never called 'the Academy'. No schools were closed. Justinian took the only measures he could take against the private institution which called itself a school. He forbade pagans to receive public salaries for' teaching appointments, or to take pupils even in private. As far as the legislation was concerned, this was all that the Emperor needed to do. He also attempted, soon after the edict was issued, to enforce the legislation in Athens. He may have succeeded in some measure. As I have suggested, it is not unlikely that he did extract a promise from Simplicius some years later to comply with the edict. Teaching was stopped (or, perhaps, went underground) — at least for a while. The property, for all we know, remained — as the scholarch's private property. A. H. Armstrong, An Introduction to Ancient Philosophy, 3rd ed., London 1957, pp. 34; 198; 203, knows that it was only the Platonic school (which he calls 'the Academy') which was 'closed' by Justinian. But in his index (p. 238) we still find 'Justinian, closing of schools of Athens by'. The story of the closing of 'the Academy' and 'the other schools of Athens' persists into some of the most recent popular books, published when Cameron's article and Lynch's book have been in circulation for some years. 68 Lynch pp. 1 6 3 - 2 0 7 . 69 Lynch p. 189. 70 Above, pp. 2 4 8 - 2 5 5 .

328

Who inherited the property in later ages, and when finally it left the hands of the Platonic philosophers, we are not told. The sources tell us very little, in any case, of the destinies of a private school that must have been moribund even b y the time of Damascius and Simplicius. A f t e r Justinian, the Platonic community of Athens must have dwindled into a mere shadow of what it had been under Proclus. Like paganism itself, it probably died out not very much later. But Justinian did not abolish it - nor did he close the Academy.

329

CHAPTER 8

The End of the Diadochai

A. Textus nunc ab omnibus receptus Karl Gottlob Zumpt (1792-1849) 1 belonged to the generation of giants which inaugurated the great era of German scholarship. He was only fourteen years younger than Niebuhr, whom he outlived by eighteen years. Before attending the new university of his native city of Berlin as one of its first students, he spent a year at Heidelberg, where he studied under the young August Boeckh, who became a close friend and one of the major influences on Zumpt's own work. 2 In Berlin, he came under the spell of the great F. A. Wolf, who had moved there as soon as the new university was founded in 1810. Although Wolf did no regular teaching there, he gave some lectures at the University during Zumpt's years as a student, and was the second formative influence on Zumpt's whole approach to Classical scholarship. 3 For many years, Zumpt had to earn his living by teaching in various schools. He took his duties there with the near-religious seriousness which characterized much of his life and activities, and most of the works he published during these years are related to the subjects he taught at school. It was only in 1827 that he was made Professor Extraordinarius at the University of Berlin, and only in 1836 that he became a full Ordinarius, as well as Fellow of the Royal Prussian Academy. Thus it was only for the last twenty-two of his fifty-seven years that Zumpt had sufficient leisure to pursue his own research interests. Even then, his over-conscientiousness in preparing his University lectures did not leave him much time for work on his publications. Yet, in a short and busy life, Zumpt made a number of contributions to various branches of scholarship which, if not all of lasting importance, opened up, at the time, a number of new avenues of research. 1 The charming (if occasionally somewhat long-winded) biography by his nephew and sonin-law (and a Latinist and Roman historian in his own right) August Wilhelm Zumpt, De Caroli Timothei Zumptii Vita et Studiis Narratio, Berlin 1851, is a document still worth reading. For a shorter notice see Sandys' Hist, of Class. Scholarship III, pp. 1 2 4 - 5 . A list of Zumpt's publications: W. Pökel, Philologisches Schriftsteller-Lexicon, Leipzig 1882, p. 312. 2 3

A. W. Zumpt, pp. 18; 23. Ibid. pp. 3 1 - 3 .

330

The work which first established his reputation was his Latin Grammar. First published in 1818, it went through nine editions in the original German by 1844, each edition thoroughly revised. An English translation by John Kenrick appeared in 1823, and a second English translation of the revised German edition was produced in 1845 by Leonhard Schmitz, a former pupil of Niebuhr who settled in Britain, became Rector of Edinburgh High School, and published his own version in English of Niebuhr's Lectures on the History of Rome in 1844, two years before the first German edition was produced by Meyer Isler. Pirated editions — sometimes without the author's name — were published in French, Dutch, Polish and Russian.4 According to Sandys, this Latin Grammar 'held its own in Germany until it was superseded in 1844 by that of Madvig'. But a new edition was still published in Germany as late as 1874. It was, perhaps, more a matter of luck than the fault of Zumpt himself that his Grammar became superseded. For while, in his last and most productive years, Zumpt spent most of his time in the study of Ancient History, few other fields were being subjected to such unprecedented and revolutionary developments as the comparative and historical study of the Indo-European languages. Zumpt was no Indo-European linguist; and, as early as 1831, a humbug like Thomas Hewitt Key, later to become the self-appointed first Professor of Comparative Grammar in Great Britain, could already indicate in a review some shortcomings of Zumpt's Grammar, with the aid of a few concepts he had hastily absorbed from his Sanskrit colleagues in University College, London. 5 A similar fate has since overtaken much of Zumpt's later work, mainly in the field of Roman History. His studies of such subjects as the Comitia Centuriata (1837), municipium, colonia and praefectura (1839), the Roman residential house (1844) or the iudicia repetundarum (1845) — to name but a few — were serious contributions to the historical scholarship of the time. But, like most of Zumpt's work, they were based almost entirely on literary sources. A century and a half of intensive work in this field, which has seen, among other things, the publication of the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinorum and a wealth of other epigraphical materials; the colossal achievements of Theodor Mommsen in all fields of Roman History, and the great strides forward in the study of archaeology and its application to history, has rendered most of these works obsolete. This was the good fortune of historical scholarship; but it is hardly the fault of Zumpt that he died at a relatively early age, just at a time when, at the hands of the young Mommsen and his collaborators, the study of Roman History was beginning to acquire a new shape. In one field of scholarship, Zumpt's original contribution has only recently been recognized and acknowledged. In 1831, Zumpt published a critical edi' Ibid. pp. 5 2 - 8 . 5 On Key, see my 'Professor Key and Doctor Wagner', Pegasus 12, 1969, pp. 2 1 - 4 1 ; on his review of Zumpt: p. 30ff.

331

tion of Cicero's Verrines. The story of the preparation of this work, begun despite the initial obstacles in obtaining dependable collations, and continued with the usual encroachments on Zumpt's time by his teaching duties, is told by his nephew in his biography.6 Despite this, his biographer, writing twenty years after the publication of this text, can still say: .. ut editio sua, emissa anno 1831, princeps esset ex tribus illis vel quattuor operum Ciceronianorum editionibus, quibus hoc tempore literae nostrae ornatae sunt.' It has, of course, been superseded since, both as a text and as a critical edition. It was only some years ago that Professor Sebastiano Timpanaro, in his brilliant little book on the rise of Lachmann's method, pointed out that this long-forgotten edition of the Verrines was the first to contain a proper stemma codicum, and that it was also the first occasion when the word stemma was used in this technical sense.7 Latin Grammar, Roman History and Textual Criticism have gone a long way since the first half of the last century, and Zumpt's works are hardly touched now by most experts in these fields. A scholar should not complain. Even the works of Lambinus, Turnebus, Casaubon and Scaliger, and of Zumpt's own greater contemporaries in Germany, Niebuhr, Wolf, Boeckh and Gottfried Hermann, are today usually left to gather dust in most libraries — or to be read occasionally by the few connoisseurs of that recondite and unpopular branch of learning, the History of Classical Scholarship. Zumpt was no colossus like Niebuhr, Madvig or Mommsen; not even such a great scholar as Boeckh, Hermann, Bernhardy, Cobet or Ritschl — to name but a few members of that great galaxy. He was an honest, industrious and thorough worker, with occasional flashes of originality, who did much to improve the knowledge of ancient civilization - especially that of Rome - in his own age, and whose place in the history of scholarship, if not quite as prominent as that of some of his contemporaries or near-contemporaries, is secure. There is, however, one field in which a contribution made by Zumpt more than five generations ago still continues to exercise an almost all-pervasive influence: the History of Ancient Philosophy. Few people today — not excluding most experts in the field — still read in its original form Zumpt's essay Über den Bestand der philosophischen Schulen in Athen und die Succession der Scholarchen, read to the Royal Prussian Academy in Berlin in two sittings, on June 30, 1842 and on April 27, 1843, and published by the Academy in 1844 among its Abhandlungen for the year 1842. But its influence is still all -pervasive. The table of the succession of scholarchs at Athens, printed by Zumpt at the end of this work (pp. 116—9), is reprinted with slight variations and corrections on pp. 663—6 of Karl Praechter's revised edition of the first volume of Überweg's Grundriß der Geschichte der Philosophie, Die Philosophie 6 7

A. W. Zumpt, pp. 1 0 5 - 9 . S. Timpanaro, La genesi del metodo del Lachmanrt, Florence 1963, pp. 4 5 - 7 .

332

des Altertums (Basel 1926) - a work which is still one of the most indispensable tools in the hands of every serious student of the history of ancient philosophy. Students of the history of ancient education, using H.-I. Marrou's celebrated work, are still referred to this table, as it appears in Praechter's book, as the standard list. 8 Praechter, one notes, prints his revised version of Zumpt's table beside a far more accurate and scientific chronological table based on Felix Jacoby's great work on Apollodorus' Chronicle (Praechter pp. 667—671). The obvious inference is that Calvisius Taurus' scholarchate of the Academy at the age of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius (ibid. p. 665) is as much a historical fact as, say, Aristotle's death at Chalcis in the archonship of Philocles, 322/1 B.C. (ibid. p. 669). Most readers draw such inferences. But Zumpt's influence is not restricted to this table. The table merely sums up the more detailed investigations which form the second part (originally the second paper) of Zumpt's Abhandlung. The first part of this woik, pp. 27—63, deals in general terms with the realia of the history of the Athenian schools: their organisation; methods of teaching; the successions; the manner of life of the scholarchs, teachers and students; the school property; the relations between the schools and the Imperial government - and the inevitable 'closure' of the 'Academy' under Justinian. The second part, pp. 63—116, deals, in chronological order, with the succession in the individual schools: Academy, Plato to Damascius (pp. 6 4 - 8 9 ) ; Peripatos, Aristotle to Ptolemaeus, described by Longinus (ap.Porph. Vita Plot. 20,49) as a Peripatetic (pp. 8 9 - 9 9 ) ; Stoics, Zeno to Calliethes, another contemporary of Longinus (pp. 99—109); Epicureans, Epicurus to Boethus the Epicurean friend of Plutarch: even Zumpt doubts whether he was a scholarch (pp. 109—116). It is only then, on pp. 116—9, that the chronological table sums up these more detailed disquisitions. It is, indeed, the whole conception of the work, far more than the various details related to this or that individual scholarch or pretender, or the impressive chronology at the end, that has wielded such a decisive influence on all subsequent studies of the history of the philosophical schools and of Greek philosophy in general. The overall picture presented by Zumpt — as we have had more than one occasion to note — is that of an unbroken continuity. All four great schools of Athens survived for many centuries - until the age of Longinus at least. The Academy survived, of course, until Justinian 'closed it'. Details of the structure of these schools changed in time, but even the Antonine διάδοχοι did not affect the main ancient element in that structure — the scholarchate with its regular succession. Other cities competed against Athens from time to time with their philosophical schools and Imperial or municipal chairs - Zumpt is not quite unaware of this - but at the end of

8 Marrou p. 5 7 9 n. 4 2 ; E.T. p. 4 1 5 n. 4 1 ; A.T. p. 5 3 8 n. 41. The English translator has decided, for some reason, that the English for 'scholarques' is 'scholiarchs' - perhaps o n the analogy of 'scholiast'.

333

the day, Athens emerges from Zumpt's picture almost as invincible and triumphant as it is depicted in Psichari's meditations on the Acropolis, or in Psichari's father-in-law Renan's Prière sur l'Acropole. It is Athens, and Athens alone, that continued to be the centre of philosophical studies through all the vicissitudes of the ancient world; it is only there that the tradition was carried on, in the form of age-old institutions, for all these centuries. It was only Justinian's edicts which dealt the death-blow to the first - and last — of these venerable institutions. Zumpt's work was a landmark in the study of the real, sublunary history of the philosophical schools and their organization. In order to obtain the full measure of the progress achieved by his little Abhandlung, one has only to compare it with Johannes Jonsius' De Scriptoribus Historiae Philosophiae, first published in Frankfurt in 1659, and reprinted with additions by J. C. Dorn in Jena in 1716 - a work of vast erudition for a schoolmaster in the seventeenth century, encompassing in 527 pages of the second edition a huge amount of information concerning all the known writers on philosophical subjects, and chiefly on the history of philosophy, from Thaïes of Miletus to Johann Albert Fabricius. Jonsius' work was still in circulation when Zumpt wrote, and he still refers to it in some of his notes. It is a typical product of the sort of παντοδαπή ιστορία after the fashion of Casaubon and of the Dutch Renaissance, which preceded the great age of German scholarship. It contains a wealth of biographical and bibliographical information partly in chronological order, but mostly in the order of the appropriate chapter-headings. Much of the information provided in it is still often helpful. But no attempt is made by Jonsius to place the results of his 'multifarious history' within the framework of the real history of the various philosophical schools or movements and their background. If it is a far better and more thorough work than Gerard Vossius' De Philosophia et Philosophorum Sectis of 1657, this is no great compliment to Vossius' posthumous work, and not a very heartening reflection on the study of this particular field before the beginning of the nineteenth century. 9

9

Vossius' work was published eight years after his death by his son Isaac, later Canon of Windsor. His own book is, at least, an honest attempt to convey some basic information about the principal sects of Greek philosophy, and his framework is essentially the same as that of Diogenes Laertius, although he adds facts and names from later periods not covered by Diogenes. Only his first two chapters, 'De Philosophia Barbarica Asiatica' and 'De Philosophia Barbarica Africana' are somewhat more fantastic. The second edition, Leipzig 1690, has a continuatio by Johannes Jacobus à Ryssel, which could have been written by Rhabanus Maurus. Its first two chapters are 'De Philosophia Antediluviana' (God, the Devil, Adam, Cain, Seth and others of the same ilk); and 'De Philosophia Postdiluviana' (Shcm, Ham, Heber, Nimrod - down to Varrò, Horace and Cicero, who did live - one must admit - some time after Noah's Flood). On p. 168 we are told that Simon Magus derived his heresy from Platonism. That such a work could still be printed thirty years after Jonsius is a sobering reflection on the state of research into the history of Greek Philosophy at the time.

334

With Zumpt we are in a different world. In his command of facts he is no inferior to his predecessors in the field; but he is far superior to them in marshalling these facts and subordinating them to the conscious design of drawing a historical picture. Reading him, we are face to face, at last, with a modern historian; a man who had studied with Boeckh and learnt something from his approach to Classical antiquity; who had read his Niebuhr and Ranke and understood what they were about (indeed, he was a great admirer of Niebuhr's historical methods, 10 although he was never his pupil); and whose own work, especially in his later years, consisted largely of various pieces of historical reconstruction. His erudition (insofar as the ancient world is concerned) is as great as that of Jonsius, but he never loses sight of the central aim of his quest, which is not merely gathering information. The faults of his work lie not in the collection and piecing together of ancient information, or in his treatment of the ancient witnesses, but in its very central core — its method of reconstruction. Reading it, one has the impression that Zumpt felt it his mission (probably not quite consciously) to fill the gaps in the picture which has reached us in such a scattered and fragmentary way. Like Niebuhr, he felt that Ί am an historian, for I can make a complete picture from separate fragments, and I know where the parts are missing and how to fill them up.' 1 1 The general and preconceived picture, into which he filled the various pieces of information, was that of the continuity of the schools and their successions. It is very likely that this general picture arose in his mind chiefly through an examination of the history of the Academy and the late Platonic school. That that Platonic school is nowhere called 'the Academy' in the sources never, perhaps, even occurred to him. It was, after all, called a school; it was in possession of Plato's property, and its leaders were called διάδοχοι — whose if not Plato's? Once we have conceived this general picture of 'Plato to Justinian' — a picture which, as far as the Platonic school is concerned, was already present in all essentials in Gibbon's relevant sections — we can proceed to fill in the gaps. Zumpt proceeded to do so. His methods were often somewhat violent. 'Any relatively major figure who was called "Akademikos" or "Platonikos" and who may have functioned in Athens was put into Zumpt's "Tabelle über die Succession 10

A. W. Zumpt, pp. 2 2 ; 81. Quoted by G. P. Gooch, History and Historians in the Nineteenth Century, 2nd. ed., London 1952, p. 19. On Mommsen's attitude to Niebuhr, see Mommsen and Wilamowitz, Briefwechsel, 1872-1903, p. 4 3 , and the editor's 'Erläuterungen', p. 5 4 1 , quoting Mommsen's doctoral dissertation: 'Niebuhrii cum splendorem tum errores in eo potius esse, ut historiam totam esse hypotheticam sive ignoraret sive negaret.' See also Mommsen's Die Römische Tribus in administrativer Beziehung, Altona 1844, p. VII: 'Ich kam zu der Untersuchung mit dem festen Glauben an Niebuhr's glänzende Phantasien, und wer möchte sich wünschen, nie mit Niebuhr geirrt zu haben? Was mich dennoch zwang, den bekannten und liebegewordenen Vorstellungen des großen Meisters zwar langsam und ungern, aber doch endlich fest und entschieden zu entsagen, das schien mir die Macht der Wahrheit.' (Somewhat less hypothetical). 11

335

der Scholarchen in Athen"' — as Lynch rightly observes.12 But one should not forget that Zumpt must have been fully convinced, from the very outset of his investigations, of the validity of his general 'Plato to Justinian' framework, with a steady succession of scholarchs. Where — as in the 'dark ages' between Antiochus and Plutarch of Athens - such scholarchs were not forthcoming, one had to take the second best: an Ammonius, a Taurus - perhaps even an Aristodemus — would do. For his own age, Zumpt's theory was a major achievement of historical reconstruction. That no such work of reconstruction could, by the very nature of historical research, remain a κτήμα èç aiei, should surprise no student of history. What is surprising is that Zumpt's work has, in fact, virtually achieved that position. It has been, for all these many years, the established orthodoxy. When that young maverick from Ritschl's school Friedrich Nitzsche dared to suggest (on the evidence of Seneca and Diogenes Laertius, to which we shall presently come) that the succession in all the schools except the Epicurean had ceased by the time of Augustus, it was enough for a great representative of the Berlin school, Hermann Diels, to wave Zumpt's Abhandlung at him and upbraid him for his ignorance. 13 Wilamowitz's work on the legal position of the philosophical schools, presenting them as one type of the 'associations religieuses' of Foucart's inscriptions, was merely filling a gap in Zumpt's picture. 14 That the philosophical schools are never depicted in the sources as άίασοι or their members as όργβώνβς did not appear to worry Wilamowitz all that much. The method of reconstruction introduced into this field by Zumpt appears to have reigned supreme here, even after similar methods had long been discarded in the study of other branches of Ancient History. Our detailed discussion of Zumpt's theory and its background has been called for for a number of reasons. However much we may claim that the theory is now largely obsolete, it is our duty to acknowledge the major contribution it made at the time to the proper historical study of the philosophical schools. And, if we are to overcome a theory which has outgrown its original usefulness, we may do this all the better for having understood its background, methods and presuppositions. The reader will be aware by now that many of our arguments in the preceding chapters were offered in the attempt to show that it is time Zumpt's general theory was, indeed, discarded — that there occurred, not merely a break in the successions, but an end to most of the Classic successions 12 Lynch p. 182. Zumpt's initials aie Κ. G., not H. 'Hrn.' (Zumpt p. 27) stands for 'Herrn'. 13 F. Nietzsche, 'De Laertii Diogenis Fontibus', RhM 23, 1868, pp. 6 3 2 - 6 5 3 , esp. 641; Diels, Doxogr. p. 245 n. 1, referring to Zumpt p. 53, 'cui multa possunt addi'. Why are they not added? 14 Wilamowitz, Antigonos, Excurs 2, 'Die rechtliche Stellung der philosophenschulen', pp. 2 6 3 - 2 9 1 . For a refutation (or 'an attempt at refutation', in the author's modest words), see Lynch pp. 1 0 8 - 1 2 7 .

336

about the age of Antiochus and his contemporaries. Our evidence for this has been so far largely negative and inferential — although the cumulative force of so much negative evidence coming from such a wide variety of sources is not to be despised. Some of the evidence and arguments about to be offered in the following sections will also be largely negative and inferential. But our sources provide us not merely with negative evidence. Before we descend into the details of the various lists of successions, compare them with similar traditions outside our limited field, and try to draw some final conclusions, it may be of some use to enter into those few unmistakably positive testimonies of our ancient sources.

B. Positive Evidence of some Ancient Sources Towards the end of A.D. 62, Afranius Burrus, Nero's praetorian prefect and, for the first eight years of his principate, his chief minister and adviser together with L. Annaeus Seneca the philosopher, died — incertum valetudine an veneno, as Tacitus {Ann. XIV,51) wryly remarks. The Emperor proceeded forthwith to appoint two new praetorian prefects, the honest but ineffectual Faenius Rufus and the notorious, corrupt and corrupting Ofonius Tigellinus, who became the chief influence on Nero for the remaining six years of his life. Seneca was no longer a young man. With Burrus dead and Tigellinus gaining influence, he felt that his time at the Imperial court had run out. Rumours against Seneca were beginning to circulate. They seemed to be spread by men who were intent on Seneca's downfall and the end of his influence on the Emperor and on the administration of the Empire (ibid. 52). It was the right time for the old philosopher to retire. He obtained an audience with the Emperor, in which he requested permission to leave his service after fourteen years as his teacher and eight as his minister (ibid. 53— 4). Nero replied with what Tacitus presents in the form of a fulsome speech, pretending to deplore Seneca's request, but 'reluctantly' allowing him to retire (ibid. 55—6). Seneca had three more years to live. In A.D. 65, after the detection of the Pisonian conspiracy, he became one of Nero's chief victims, and the story of his death by suicide at Nero's 'request' is told by Tacitus in chapters 6 0 - 6 4 of Annals XV. During those years of his retirement, Seneca altered his previous way of life and became a recluse. Instituía prions potentiae commutât, writes Tacitus (Ann. XIV,56), prohibet coetus salutantium, vitat comitantis, rarus per urbem, quasi valetudine infensa aut sapientiae studiis domi attineretur. Like Cicero during his forced retirement from politics, Seneca found consolation for the last years of his life in the feverish and energetic composition of philosophical works. It is during those years that he composed his famous Letters to Lucilius, and the most ambitious and disciplined 22

Glucker (Hyp. 56)

337

of his philosophical works, the Naturales Quaestiones. It appears that he completed that long and complex work in one year, by the autumn of 63. 15 The work is a surprising achievement for an old man in ailing health, living in constant danger for his life from a psychopathic emperor and his profligate companions. It is not a great original contribution to scientific knowledge, but it shows all the author's previous powers of vivid thought and a scintillating style to match it. If its mode of argument is somewhat more subdued than that of Seneca's other writings, this is not the result of diminishing vigour, for the lively and forceful Letters to Lucilius were written at the same time. It is only a concession to a more exact scientific subject. It has been pointed out more than once that this is one of the few documents to reach us from Classical antiquity which expresses unambiguously the idea of an almost infinite progress in scientific enquiry and discovery. Towards the end of Book VII (30,5), Seneca writes: multa venientis aevi populus ignota nobis seiet, multa saeculis tunc futuris, cum memoria nostri exoleverit, reservantur - a sentence which exercised a profound fascination on Seneca's readers in early modern times. But the final note of this work is far from optimistic. The last two chapters, VII,31-2, constitute a long and powerful diatribe in the best style of Seneca's moralistic writings against the vices and slothfulness of the age, in which the insane pursuit of luxury and profligacy has invaded every department of life, and even the philosophers, whose duty it is to engage in an uninterrupted search for the truth, do so only in the intervals between the games or on a rainy day. Miraris, he writes at the beginning of chapter 32, si nondum sapientia opus suum implevitl nondum tota se nequitia protulit. And he continues his diatribe with examples, ending on a note of utter dejection. It is in this context that he makes the statement which has only recently begun to be properly appreciated for what it implies: Itaque tot familiae philosophorum sine successore deficiunt: Academici et veteres et minores nullum antistitem reliquerunt; quis est qui tradat praecepta Pyrrhonis? Pythagorica ilia invidiosa turbae schola praeceptorem non invenit; Sextiorum nova et Romani roboris secta inter initia sua, cum magno ímpetu coepisset, extincta est. (32,2). This is the passage which is usually quoted — in whole or in part — in discussions of the problem of succession. The context of the whole diatribe is essentially Roman, and the vices described and castigated in it are those of contemporary Roman society. Seneca, after all, knew no other place very intimately. Apart from a brief visit to Alexandria in his youth, he spent all 15

L. Annaei Senecae Naturalium Quaestionum Libri Vili, ed. A. Gercke, Teubner, Leipzig 1907, Praefatio pp. V - V I (with references to the editor's Seneca-Studien, Leipzig 1895, and to the relevant passages in Seneca).

338

his life in Rome, and was as familiar with the life of its 'High Society' as he was with the writings of Chrysippus and Epicurus. In the sentences immediately following our passage, he extends the philosophical exempium in a typical Roman context: in contrast to the tradition of the philosophical schools, that of the Roman pantomime has been continuous and unbroken: Stat per successores Pyladis et Bathylli domus, harum artium multi discipuli sunt multique doctores, privatum urbe tota sonût pulpitum. (ibid. 3). It is clear that this should not be taken to be a fully realistic description. There was no organized succession in Rome to the founders of the pantomime under Augustus. All that Seneca implies is that the tradition of that vulgar variety of theatrical entertainment, once established, had never been allowed to die out. But does this Roman example - as well as the Roman context of the whole diatribe - imply that the passage concerning the philosophical successions and traditions should also apply only in Rome? This seems to be the opinion of Zeller, who must have felt that Seneca's statement, if taken literally to apply to the philosophical schools where successions had traditionally existed — in Athens — might have a rather deleterious effect on the magnificent piece of reconstruction produced by Zumpt and accepted in all its essentials by Zeller himself. He writes, rather incredulously: 'Seneca, dessen Zeugnis wenigstens für Rom Gültigkeit haben wird, sagt sogar . . . geradezu' - and proceeds to quote the sentence about the Academics.16 The implications are that Seneca was as ignorant of the names of his contemporary Academic scholarchs as we are — or, alternatively, that his evidence is only valid for Rome. A somewhat more cautious assessment is offered by Waiden, who quotes this passage of Seneca, as well as Diogenes Laertius X,9 (of which presently), and comments: 'The Seneca passage certainly, and probably the Diogenes passage also, dates from a time before the reorganization of the schools under Marcus Aurelius, and most of the schools may well have been languishing at this time.' 17 One notes, once more, the 'facts', not explicitly stated, which are taken for granted. Marcus Aurelius reorganized the schools. Before his time, the schools had not quite died out but were languishing. The implication is that Seneca's statement cannot possibly be wholly accurate. There must have been some 'hidden successors' lurking in the corner of some ghostridden house in Athens, of whom Seneca never heard. The schools continued to exist in some form or other — or else how could they be reorganized by Marcus Aurelius (as Zumpt has amply demonstrated)? Waiden, at least, does not suggest that Seneca's statement should be restricted to Rome. We may as well begin with this red herring. On the face of it, as we have seen, this may look like an attractive suggestion. The whole context is 16 Zeller 111,1, p. 831 n. 5. Cf. III,2, p. 16 η. 4; p. 17 η. 1. Zumpt does not refer to this statement of Seneca in his Abhandlung. 17 Waiden p. 102 η. 1.

339

Roman, and the expression successores is immediately taken up and used in the next example, in the context of Roman popular drama. But this will not do. Seneca's language is far too precise. In philosophical contexts, successores are διάδοχοι, and the διάδοχοι of the philosophical schools existed in Athens, and certainly never in Rome. One notes that Seneca's first example, following his general statement that tot familiae philosophorum sine successore deficiunt, are the two Academies, the Old and the 'New'. Antistes is Latin for προστάτης, a semi-official term for a leader or a man in charge (like the Athenian προστάται τών δημών or the προστάται των μβτοίκων), which is sometimes applied to the elected leader of a philosophical school.18 In Latin, the term antistes is most commonly used as the official title of a priest in charge of a temple. Seneca is clearly using the 'two Academies' as an example of a familia philosophorum which has now no official head. He can only refer to the one place where such official heads had existed in the past: Athens. His language continues to be precise. He does not (for reasons we shall soon discover)19 speak of the absence of a Pyrrhonian successor, or of a Pythagorean successor (when was there a Pythagorean successor?). The Pythagoreans merely lack a teacher of their original doctrines. The Pyrrhonians have no one to hand down the doctrines of Pyrrho: a Pyrrhonian tradition, it appears, had once existed, but it is now broken. It is only after he has mentioned these sects that Seneca ends his list with the Roman sect (and one notes that here we have secta) of the Sextians, which provides him with a smooth transition to the Roman example of the 'steady successions' of pantomime actors. Indeed, this list of familiae philosophorum is arranged with considerable care. It starts with a fullblooded Athenian school which had a regular succession in the past. It proceeds to a sect which had maintained a tradition - but mostly outside Athens — and for which some form of succession was claimed at some stage — but a rather problematic one. 19 It passes on from Alexandria, where Aenesidemus had revived Pyrrhonism and where Seneca was most likely to have heard of it in his youth as already extinct after the death of Aenesidemus and his pupils - to Magna Graecia and the Pythagoreans, who had constituted a schola, but whose school died out about the time when the other Classic schools began to be founded. 20 From Magna Graecia we return to Rome itself and to the one original Roman sect of philosophy, whose life was even shorter than that of the Pythagorean school. Seneca is far from careless in his choice of exam18 Acad.Ind. XVIII,5-6 (the verb, applied to the election of Socratides); Sextus, P.H. I, 232 (Aicesilaus, της μέσης 'Ακαδημίας προστάτης). Both verb and noun are often applied in late Neo-Platonic biography and in the Suda entries to the heads of the Platonic school of Athens. " Below, pp. 349-54. 20 Aristoxenus Fr. 19 Wehrli = Diog.Laert. VIII,46. Burkert, Weisheit u. Wiss. pp. 192-4; E.T. pp. 198-200, shows that at least one Pythagorean not named by Aristoxenus still existed after Aristotle.

340

pies - and, incidentally, his list, if we pay attention to this structure, does not lay any claim to being exhaustive. Schools or sects not included in it are not presumed, ipso facto, to be still flourishing: all one can say is that Seneca does not state expressly in this passage that the Stoics or Epicureans or Peripatetics 21 are extinct. He does, however, say quite explicitly that the Academy, both O l d ' and 'New', has left no successor. The implication is that both these sects, regarded as organized philosophical communities, have for some time been a thing of the past — to be remembered by the Roman reader mainly from the writings of Cicero. But could Seneca possibly be ignorant of some obscure Academic scholarch, languishing amidst the ruins of Plato's garden and waiting for Marcus Aurelius to reorganize his school? There is no a-priori reason for this assumption. Seneca, it is true, lived most of his life in Rome and never in Athens. But his life before his retirement was far from humble or obscure. He was minister and adviser to an Emperor whose Empire included the Province of Achaea, of which Athens was now a part. People from all over the Empire came to Nero's court, and Seneca was extremely unlikely not to have met many a Greek or an Athenian there almost every day. The philosophical teachers of his youth included Greeks like Sotion and Attalus. We do not know much about them: most of our information is derived from scattered references in the writings of Seneca himself, who speaks exclusively of their teaching activities in Rome. But one of Seneca's friends was Demetrius the Cynic. 22 Of Demetrius, we are told (Philostr. V.Apoll. IV,25) that he was in Corinth in A.D. 60 (cf. IV,24: seven years before Nero's visit). Yet in the same year - or a year later - he appears at Nero's new gymnasium in Rome (ibid. 42). After that episode, he lives in Athens until some time after Nero's visit (ibid. V,19). Yet he is in Rome in 66, present at the death of Thrasea Paetus (Jac.Ann. XVI,34-5). At the time of the composition of the Naturales Quaestiones, Seneca writes in one of his Letters to Lucilius (Ep. 62,3): Demetrium, virorum optimum, mecum circumfero et reiectis conchyliatis cum ilio seminudo loquor, ilium admiror. Demetrius was obviously a man who moved between Athens, Corinth and Rome at great speed during those days, and being a philosopher, he knew his Athenian philosophical scene. He is only one of Seneca's possible sources of information: we happen to know more about his travels at the time than about those of other Roman Greeks — or Greeks on a visit to Rome. Seneca would not have made his statement about the Academy without reliable evidence, and he was too well-placed not to be able to obtain such evidence. 21

Lynch p. 192 writes: 'Like the Academy, the Peripatos appears to have been included in the tot familiae philosophorum which, by Seneca's day, had died out sine successore.' But there is no evidence for this. Nor, of course, does Seneca's silence imply that there was a Peripatetic scholarch in his time: Lynch has amply demonstrated the unlikelihood of that. In the best case, it would imply that there were still people in his time qui traderent praecepta Aristotelis. 22 On whom see Zeller ΙΙΙ,Ι, p. 794 η. I , P/R2 No. 39.

341

Seneca, we remember, writes only a few years before Nero's visit to Greece, where we have already met the young Plutarch as a pupil of Ammonius the Egyptian. At a time when Zumpt's theory reigned supreme, and Ammonius — because he was a Platonicus of sorts and taught in Athens — was naturally taken to be scholarch of the Academy, it was possible for Zeller to protest that Seneca must have ignored this scholarch when he wrote what he wrote about the Academy.23 We have already seen in a previous chapter 24 that Ammonius was no scholarch of the Academy - or of any school - but a mere private tutor; and that Plutarch, who 'had been to the Academy', names no teacher — not to speak of scholarch — who taught him philosophy there. Plutarch's silence and Seneca's more positive assertion complement each other. In the last years of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, the Academy was one of those Athenian schools of philosophy which had, for some time, been defunct. Seneca's testimony can be dated, but the only Athenian school it mentions is the Academy. Another piece of testimony, which we cannot date, is far more general. In his Life of Epicurus, Diogenes Laertius (X,9) writes: ...ή re διαδοχή, πασών σχεδόν έκλιπουσών των άλλων, ές àéi διαμένουσα και νηρίόμαυς αρχάς άπολύουσα άλλη ν έξ άλλης των "γνωρίμων. Diogenes' ultimate source is obviously pro-Epicurean and most probably Epicurean. We have no clue as to its date, but it must be somewhat later than the age of Cicero, when the Stoic and Academic successions were still just functioning. To have its full force, it should be considerably later than the end of the other successions. But there can be no doubt that Diogenes' source does speak unambiguously of the succession in almost all other schools as having run out — as plainly as that. Which schools he is referring to we are not told. We can only conjecture - as we shall soon attempt to do - from other pieces of evidence in our possession.25 That the Academy is one of the defunct schools implied in this statement seems fairly clear even from the evidence we have examined so far.26 Our third piece of ancient evidence is, in the nature of things, somewhat more difficult and confused, and we can only touch on it at present. Eunapius' dis23

Zeller III,2, p. 17 η. 1. See above, pp. 1 2 4 - 3 4 . " Below, pp. 3 6 4 - 3 7 3 . " The Suda s.v. Epicurus, No. 2404 Adler, has: και 24

διέμεινεν

ή

αύτού

σχολή βως

Καίσα-

ρος του -πρώτου, irr) σκζ'. iv οίς διάδοχοι αύτής iyévovro ώ'. This statement, if taken literally, would conflict not only with that of Diogenes, but also with the Hadrianic inscription concerning the Epicurean diadoche - on which see below, pp. 3 6 5 - 6 . It was already noted by E. Howald, 'Das philosophiegeschichtliche Compendium des Areios Didymos', Hermes 55, 1920, pp. 6 8 - 9 8 , esp. p. 95 n. 1, that this cannot be the original statement of the Suda's source. It is most probable that the ultimate source drawn on by Hesychius was an Epicureorum Index by Philodemus. Being an Epicurean, Philodemus would be in the position to draw up a precise chronology of his own Athenian school and the number of

342

cussion of the tradition of philosophical biography and its main exponents, which forms the prooemium to his Lives of the Philosophers

and

Sophists

(452—5), will be discussed in its more appropriate context. 2 7 But one short passage should be quoted here. On p. 455, Eunapius writes: εσχε

μεν

δ' ανδρών

ουν διακοπήν èyévero

νής άνακεκήρυκται)

τίνα

φορά κατά

και ρήξιν

ò χρόνος

( ή μεν γ α ρ δευτέρα τούς

δια τάς κοινάς μετά

την

Κλαυδίου και Νέρωνος

συμφορά';·

τρίτη

Π λ ά τ ω ν ο ς πάσιν

εμφα-

κτε.

The editor of the Loeb text — one of the better Loebs, edited by an expert in this period - rightly remarks that 'Eunapius seems to distinguish three groups of philosophers, i.e. those up to Plato, those after Plato, and those from Claudius A.D. 41 to Severus, died A.D. 211.' 2 8 But Eunapius seems to be saying more than just that. He seems to know that between the post-Platonic age, for which the source he mentions (454) is Sotion, and the age of Claudius and Nero, there occurred a break in the tradition of philosophy, due to the 'common misfortunes' of the Graeco-Roman world. Sotion is, of course, the first major writer o f διαδοχαί

των φιλοσόφων.

The literary genre

most probably

created by him was expanded and developed until the age of Augustus - as we shall see in a later section. 29 We do not know that Eunapius had actually read his Sotion; in the passage just cited (454), he says that Σωτίων δε και καταβάς

φαίνεται

κτε., which m a y well mean 'Sotion appears

to go beyond

Plato'. In that case, it would imply that Eunapius' knowledge of Sotion and the contents of his work could have been obtained at second-hand. 30 Eunapius may not, therefore, have known how far the lives and successions of the

scholarchs down to his own time. 227 years from Epicurus' death in 270 B.C. would take us down to 43 B.C., the year after Julius Caesar's death. Fourteen successors is a reasonable number: the Academy had thirteen from Speusippus to Philo. Hesychius, one assumes, simply stated that this was the length of time the school existed until the age of his source. The Suda took it to mean simply that 'the school existed until the age of Caesar'. We do not, of course, have at present sufficient evidence for the existence of an Epicureorum Index as part of Philodemus' σιίκταξις TCJV φιλοσόφων. But it is hardly conccivable that an Epicurean who wrote on the διαδοχαι of the Pythagoreans, Eleatics, Socratics, Academics and Stoics (Crönert, Kolotes p. 133) would not have included in the same collection a similar list of his own school. Papyrus Here. 1780, discussed by Crönert p. 81ff., and the supplement t o it, p. 181, may well have formed part of such an Epicurean διαδοχή. Hesychius was quite probably familiar with sources derived from Philodemus - see n. 35 below. " Below, pp. 3 7 2 - 3 . " Wilmer Cave Wright (ed.), Philostratus and Eunapius, The Lives of the Sophists, Loeb text, 1921, p. 350 n. 1. 29 Below, pp. 3 4 7 - 8 ; 3 7 1 - 3 . 30 W. C. Wright, op.cit. n. 28 above, p. 320 and p. 344 n. 1, finds it strange that Eunapius ignored the work of Diogenes Laertius. The answer is most probably that he did not know it. The only ancient writer who knows of Diogenes is Sopater - and then there is silence until Stephanus of Byzantium (E. Schwarz, RE 5, pp. 7 3 8 - 6 3 , Diogenes 40, esp. pp. 738-9).

343

philosophers written by Sotion (and other representatives of the same tradition?) reached. But he does seem to have read or heard that there had been a break in the history of Greek philosophy, some 'dark age' which terminated at the time of Claudius and Nero, when 'a new crop of philosophers' came into being. These philosophers are no longer the successors of the classic schools of Athens and their disciples and followers, who were the main theme of Sotion and his tradition. Eunapius himself (on the same p. 454) tells us who they were: men like Ammonius the teacher of Plutarch; Dio of Prusa; Apollonius of Tyana; Carneades the Cynic (not known from any other source); Musonius, Menippus and Demetrius the Cynics, and Demonax, whose life was written by Lucían. The scene thus shifts from the old Athenian schools to the new cosmopolitan breed of philosophers of the age of Nero and later. Within the framework of the new world of 'sects' scattered around the Empire, which we have examined in previous chapters, Eunapius' words concerning a διακοπή και ρήξις during the first generation or two of the Roman Empire begin to acquire some sense.

C. The Literary Diadochai But it is time we turned to the successions as presented in our literary sources. Sufficient and exhaustive work has been done on this subject for over a century to render it a commonplace that none of the literary sources which have reached us carries the list of successions in the major Athenian schools beyond the age of Augustus.31 The lists of Academic successors form no exception to this rule. The evidence can be divided into two groups, but the difference between them is far from crucial. To the first of these groups belong Diogenes Laertius and Clement, who bring the Academic succession down to the age of Carneades and his pupils. In the list of successions in Diog.Laert. 1,14—15, the Academic succession ends decisively with Clitomachus: καταλήγει ή μεν εις Κλειτόμαχον και Χρύσιππος και Θεόφραστου (14). ού Αακύδης ó την νεαν Άκαδήμειαν ψιλοσοφήοας ,32 ου Καρνεάδης, ον Κλβιτόμαχος. και ώδε μεν εις Κλειτόμαχον (ibid.). Diogenes is faithful to his scheme, and he ends Book IV, which deals with the Academics from Speusippus to Clitomachus (with the one intruder, Bion the Cynic - 4 6 - 5 8 - who is introduced here as a pupil of Crates the Academic: 51), quite firmly with Clitomachus. The last sentences of the book are his summing up of the Academy. A similar tradition is preserved in

31

The lists o f Pyrrhonians and sceptics preserved in Diogenes Laertius form an apparent

exception. We shall deal with these lists presently. F o r a fairly full treatment o f the other lists o f successions, with useful 'visual stemmata', see E . Howald, op.cit. n. 2 6 above. 32

On the reading, see above, p. 2 3 4 n. 2 6 . On the possible sense, see above, pp. 2 3 4 - 5 .

344

the lists of succession presented by Clement, Strom. 1,62-64. He, too, knows only of three Academies: Old Academy, Plato to Crantor (!); Middle Academy, Arcesilaus to Hegesinus; and New Academy (although he does not use that name), Καρνεάδης καί οί εφεξής. Who οί έφεξής are is not made clear, but the phrase may well refer to Carneades the son of Polemarchus, Crates of Tarsus and Clitomachus, and need not have included Philo and Antiochus. The tradition behind these two lists is somewhat later than the age of Cicero, who only knows of a distinction between O l d ' and 'New' Academies {Acad.I, 13; 46). It is, however, earlier than the tradition behind the list presented by the rest of our sources. These sources add to the list of Old, Middle and New Academies two more Academies, one being Philo's school and the other Antiochus'. Perhaps the earliest form of this tradition is preserved by Numenius, whose source for his book On the Academy's Defection from Plato (ap.Euseb. P.E. XIV,5,1-9,3 = Frs. 1 - 8 Leemans; 2 4 - 2 7 Des Places) appears, on grounds of language and style, to be very much earlier than Numenius himself. Numenius knows of the division into three Academies (ibid. 7,15 = Fr. 3 Leemans; 26 Des Places), but he does not seem to know of a 'fourth Academy' of Philo, whom he seems to include in the third, despite his awareness of Philo's innovations (Fr. 8 Leemans; 28 Des Places). It is Antiochus who is described (ibid.) as ετέρας άρξας 'Ακαδημίας. Another list of Academic successors, most probably not derived from Numenius himself, 33 and prefaced by Eusebius to his excerpts from Numenius' book (Euseb.i'.ii. XIV,4,12-16), has the three Academies started by Plato, Arcesilaus and Carneades, the third ending with Clitomachus. He adds (16): evioi be καί τετάρτην προοτιύέαοι την των περί ΦίΚωνα καί Χαρμίδαν. τινές δέ κ ai πέμπτην καταλέ-γουσ ι την των περί τον Άντίοχον. This last sentence is repeated word for word by Sextus, P.H. 1,220, whose treatment of this list is far more rigid and methodical : 'Ακαδημία* δέ yeyóvaaw, ώς φασιν οί πλείους, τρεις, μία μεν καί άρχαιοτάτη ή των περί Πλάτωνα, δευτέρα δέ καί μέση ή των περί Άρκεσίλαον, τρίτη δέ καί νέα ή των περί Καρνεάδην και Κλειτόμαχον. ενιοι δέ κτε. The same division, with verbal variations, can be found in Ps.-Galen Hist.Philos. 3 (Diels, Doxogr. pp. 5 9 9 , 1 1 600,4), who mentions only Philo as representative of the 'fourth Academy'. A somewhat confused and garbled version of this tradition is found in the Quaestiones (Cuodlibetales of Ioannes Italus, a pupil of Michael Psellus, who lists Clitomachus, Philo and Antiochus, with no further remarks, after 'Carneades, the originator of the New Academy.' 34 Another Byzantine echo of 33 Numenius, as we have just noted, seems to be unaware o f the 'Fourth Academy' o f Philo and Charmadas. Eusebius uses the expressions ψασι and ώ ς φασι throughout this list, in which all facts are reported in indirect speech. 34 Ioannes Italos, (Quaestiones Quodlibetales, editio princeps von Perikles Ioannou, Ettal 1956, p. 137. An excerpt containing these διαδοχαί was published by Theodor Waitz in

345

this tradition has reached us in the first Suda entry on Plato (No. 1707 Adler). Here we no longer have three, four or five Academies, but the list of Plato's successors is divided into two groups: Speusippus to Crates, and (beginning with the words oi δ è) Socratides (who does not appear in other sources of this tradition), Arcesilaus, Lacydes and some of his pupils and successors (some of whom are known to us only from the Acad.Ind.35), ending with Ήγησιμους, Καρνεάδης, Άρμάδας. It is this later tradition of the 'Five Academies' which has found its way into so many of our modern textbooks and dictionaries, where these Academies are faithfully presented like the First, Second, Third or Fourth French Republic.36 Nothing, of course, could be further from the intentions of the 'founders' of these various 'Academies' than the very notion of founding a new school. Each of them, as we have had occasions to see in previous chapters, maintained that he and his school were the true Academy, and even Antiochus, who either coined the terms 'New' and Old Academy' himself or borrowed them from the school of Panaetius, did so only to emphasize his own return to the original doctrines of the school. 37 So much for the tradition — or the two traditions. Even the later of the two does not go beyond Philo, Antiochus and their schools — who are merely grafthis edition of the Organon, and is given in an abbreviated form by Diels, Doxogr. pp. 5 9 8 - 9 , apparatus. 35 Moschion = Acad.Ind.M, 17; XXVII,35; Evander of Athens = Acad.Ind.M, 19; Αάμων Αβοντεύς who appears in the Suda entry seems t o be a corruption of Aeovréa και Αήμονα Κυρηνάίον oi Acad.Ind.M, 1 1 - 1 2 . Did Hesychius draw on a list (or on a source based on a list) similar to Acad.Ind. or derived from it? 36 E.g. OCD2 pp. 73 ('Antiochus of Ascalon');,206 ('Caineades'); Everyman's Smaller Classical Dictionary, London 1910, pp. 49 ('Antiochus of Ascalon'); 61 ('Arcesilaus'); 128 ('Carneades'). This is the dictionary which tells us (p. 360) that Nonnus was 'a Latin writer of the 4th century A.D., wrote a "Miscellany" (De Compendiosa Doctrinay etc.; and refers us on the same page ('Nonius') to 'Marcellus' (p. 324), where no Nonius can be sighted - nor can the poet and bishop of Panopolis, either as Nonius or as Marcellus. 37 This is why I have consistently avoided, in the present work, the use of such terms. In referring to Plato and his immediate successors, I have used Chemiss' much more helpful 'Early Academy', which need not refer to anything more than priority in time. For the school from Arcesilaus to Philo, I have used 'sceptical Academy'. This, of course, is not what these philosophers called themselves. 'Sceptic' is a Pyrrhonian term, for which the Academics probably used 'ephectic'. In any case, Arcesilaus, Carneades and their pupils and successors were known simply as 'Academics'. But a more definite term was called for, and 'sceptic' would be distinct enough without bearing the implications attached to an expression like 'New Academy', coined by hostile sources. Nowadays, it seems to be taken for granted that Plato was, in ancient terms, a 'dogmatic'. But any student of that chameleon commonly called Platonism knows only too well how many 'Platos' there have been and how many could still come into being as Platonic exegesis marches on. The sceptical Academics - especially Arcesilaus and his school - brought out an important aspect of the Platonic manner of doing philosophy, and o f t e n made a good case for it. Personally, I find Arcesilaus' brand of Platonism (without endorsing it completely) far closer to the spirit of Plato than the spurious concoction labelled 'Old Academy' by Antiochus.

346

ed on, with some caution, to the 'three Academies' of the earlier tradition. The same applies to the similar lists of Stoic and Peripatetic successions. That these lists, as far as the 'successions' in our literary sources go, do not carry us beyond the age of Antiochus, was well known long before Zumpt. 3 8 Combining this trait of the literary tradition with the evidence of Seneca and Diogenes discussed in our last section, Nietzsche concluded that the successions in most schools, except the Epicurean, did indeed end where our lists end: at the age of Augustus. For this, as we have noted, he was taken to task by Diels, who sent him back to the School Library to read his Zumpt. 3 9 Diels, however, was not a mere blind follower of the Zumptian orthodoxy. His words are: 'omnis successionum propagatio in Tullianam aetatem desinit, ut ipsi eclectici tabularum quibus posted utebantur auctores fuisse videbantur.' 40 On the basis of a comparison between various traces of these διάδοχοι, 41 Diels inferred a common source, or a group of common sources, which did not reach beyond the age of Augustus. This hypothesis of a common tradition is certainly correct. We have just noted how, in the case of the Academic διαδοχή, the earlier division into Old, Middle and New Academy was later turned into three Academies, with a fourth and fifth added by some sources — and how these two traditions are repeated, with mere verbal variations, in all our literary sources. The reason for this is not far to seek. The literary form called διαδοχαί των φιλοοόφων flourished between the second century B.C. and the age of Augustus. The authors of such διαδοχαί whose names have reached us begin with Sotion of Alexandria, whose date falls between 200 and 170 B.C., and who was probably the ενρέτης of this particular γέι>ος.42 Other practitioners of this genre were Heraclides Lembos, c. 150 B.C., who made an epitome of Sotion's work which is often drawn on by Diogenes Laertius; 43 Alexander Polyhistor, 38 See the tables of succession in J. Jonsius, De Scriptoribus Historiae Philosophiae, 2nd. ed., Jena 1716, pp. 6 0 - 6 1 (Academy, ending with Antiochus); 6 8 - 6 9 (Peripatos, ending with Andronicus); 1 3 1 - 2 (Epicureans, ending with Patro); 1 3 7 - 8 (Stoics, ending with Jason). 35 See n. 13 above. 40 Diels, Doxogr. p. 245. 41 See especially Diels, Doxogr. pp. 176; 244. 42 Diels, Doxogr. p. 147; Praechter pp. 1 8 - 1 9 ; J. Stenzel, RE 3, pp. 1 2 3 5 - 1 2 3 7 (Sotion 1). O. Gigon, 'Das Prooemium des Diogenes Laertius: Struktur und Probleme', Horizonte der Humanitas, Festschr. Walter Wili, Bern/Stuttgart 1960, pp. 3 7 - 6 4 , has argued that Sotion could not have been the eùpéτης of the διαδοχαί. But what his arguments really amount to is that Sotion could not have been the direct source of much of the prologue of Diogenes Laertius (which nobody would dispute), and that he is not likely to have been the author of the division into 'Ionic' and 'Italian' philosophy (which is quite possible, but cannot be proved or disproved). Gigon's reasons (p. 59) for the ends of the lists of διαδοχαί are rather speculative. The Epicurean line ends with Epicurus, not because with him, Epicureanism ττ\ν έαυτής φύσα> 'έσχεν, but for reasons we shall explain later in this chapter. 43 Diels, Doxogr. p. 82 n. 2; p. 148ff.; Praechter p. 19 (with reff.); Daebritz, RE 8, pp. 4 8 8 - 4 9 1 (Herakleides 51).

347

a contemporary of Sulla; 44 Sosicrates, c. 130 B.C.; 45 Nicias of Nicea, whose date is uncertain;46 Jason of Nysa, Posidonius' successor in his private school in Rhodes;47 and Antisthenes. I have left Antisthenes to the end. He has been identified in the past with a number of other authors of the same name, and usually placed in the early second century B.C. But a recent study has made a very plausible case for placing him at the very end of the 'diadochographic' tradition, about the age of Augustus.48 Be that as it may, the latest datable writer of 'successions' is no later than the age of Augustus - and even if Nicias of Nicea lived under Nero, there is no compelling reason to believe that he was an original writer rather than the last representative of a fading literary form, reproducing what had been found by his predecessors, or at least keeping the traditional framework of the διαδοχαί which he found in their works. After all, Diogenes Laertius, who is considerably later than all these writers, kept to that original scheme.49 But this is not the whole story: it could not be. Why should a literary form of this kind, which flourished for two centuries, come to an abrupt end about the age of Augustus? Why — if the Athenian schools and their successions continued in their blissful, uninterrupted existence — why did not later authors arise to carry on the tradition and continue the lists from where Sotion, Heraclides, Antisthenes and Jason broke off? In the case of the Academic succession, we have seen how a later tradition added two Academies — and two or three philosophers - to the older list. The temptation to do this, and to carry on the list, must have been very great. Yet this is not done after the age of Augustus — or, at least, not done properly.

Praechter ibid.; Schmid-Stählin 11,1, pp. 4 0 0 - 4 0 1 . Praechter ibid.; R. Laqueur, RE 2R 3, pp. 1 1 6 0 - 1 1 6 5 (Sosikrates 3). 4 6 Praechter p. 19 suggests the age of Nero. H. Usenei, not in one of his moie fortunate moments, made this Nicias a contemporary of Diogenes Laertius and his single source ('Die Unterlage des Diogenes Laertios', Sitz. Berlin 1892, pp. 1 0 2 3 - 3 4 = Kl.Schr. Ill, 163-175). 47 Suda s.v. Iason, No. 52 Adler = Posidonius Τ 4 0 Edelstein-Kidd; Praechter ibid.; F. Jacoby, RE 9, pp. 7 8 0 - 1 (Iason 11). 4 8 J. Janda, 'D'Antisthcne, auteur des Successions des philosophes', Listy Filologiche 89,4, 1 9 6 6 , pp. 3 4 1 - 3 6 4 (with copious references and discussions of earlier literature). 4 9 Praechter p. 19 includes Hippobotus and Diocles of Magnesia among the successionwriters. But Hippobotus was the author of a work περί αιρέσεων which, by the very nature of its title, was more doxographical than diadochical. We do not know that Diocles' ¿πιδρομή των φιλοσόφων contained succession-lists: even Praechter is cautious here. On Hippobotus and 'haeresiography', see above, pp. 1 7 6 - 8 0 ; 187 n. 67. E. Howald, op. cit. η. 26 above, has argued for Arius Didymus as the common source of all extant διαδοχαί. The time and place fit - but can we assume one common source? We have seen that, for the Academic succession, there are two slightly different traditions, and that the earlier one survived the later and was still adopted by Diogenes Laertius. Besides, Arius was a younger contemporary of Cicero, and by Cicero's time, only 'New' and Old' Academies were known, and were still novel enough to be disputed by Cicero (Acad.1, 13; 4 6 ) . 44

45

348

For it was done in two cases — the Stoics and the Pyrrhonians. Diogenes Laertius' Stoic Lives break in the midst of a sentence in the Life of Chrysippus (VII,202). From the Stoic succession-list in 1,14, which ends with Chrysippus, we might have concluded that we have not lost much. Yet at least two MSS, Ρ and h in Mr. Long's notation, have a list, in their table of contents at the beginning of their texts, which adds twenty names to the list of Stoics discussed by Diogenes. The names are: Zeno of Tarsus, Diogenes (of Babylon), Apollodorus, Boethus, Mnesarchides, Mnesagoras, Nestor, Basilides, Dardanus, Antipater, Sosigenes, Panaetius, Hecato, Posidonius, Athenodorus, another Athenodorus, Antipater, Heraclides Arius, Cornutus. Some of the earlier names on this list are quite appropriate: some, like Diogenes, Panaetius or Dardanus, were even scholarchs. But can one assume that Diogenes dedicated a life to Arius Didymus of Alexandria or to the Roman freedman L. Annaeus Cornutus? In the first flash of the discovery of this additional list of Stoics, Valentin Rose assumed that this was the case, and that the Stoic Lives, interrupted in our texts in the midst of Chrysippus, were indeed carried on as far as the list goes.50 But this does not appear to be Diogenes' method. In almost all cases, he follows in the actual Lives the order sketched in 1,14—15, and ends each of the successions where it is there stated to end. The one exception he makes is in the case of the Peripatetics. There, we are told in 1,15 that the line ends with Theophrastus, while in V,58—94, we have the lives of Strato, Lyco, Demetrius of Phalerum and Heraclides Ponticus. But even there, Diogenes has not left Athens and has not gone beyond the age of Augustus. The list of 'additional Stoics', I believe, was not taken from the titles of lost Stoic Lives. It is far more likely to be similar in nature to the list of later Pyrrhonians in IX,115-116, except that in the case of the Stoic list, no attempt to established a continuous succession is attested. Like the Pyrrhonian list, the list of later Stoics, including as it does non-Athenians like the two Athenodori, Arius and Cornutus, was probably just a list of names, appended to the end of the last Stoic Life — whether it was that of Chrysippus or of some later Athenian Stoic. The Pyrrhonian list is in itself instructive. This is the one single case where Diogenes provides us with a 'succession' going beyond Athens and the age of Augustus to Alexandria — or Rome — and Sextus Empiricus. Even here, Diogenes has not broken his usual habit. He has added no Life to that of the 'followers of Democritus' mentioned in 1,15: Protagoras (IX,50), Diogenes of Apollonia (IX,57: he does constitute a problem), 51 Anaxarchus, a pupil of Democritus' pupil (IX,58); Pyrrho, Anaxarchus' pupil (IX,61), and Timon,

50

V. Rose, 'Die Lücke in Diogenes Laertius und der alte Übersetzer', Hermes I, 1866, pp. 3 6 7 - 3 9 7 , esp. 3 6 8 - 3 7 2 . H. S. Long's note in the apparatus to his Oxford Text of Diogenes Laertius VII,202, still accepts this hypothesis of the 'Epitome Diogenis'. 51 See R. D. Hicks' note c in vol. II of his Loeb text, p. 468.

349

Pyrrho's pupil (IX,109). In 1,15, we are promised that Epicurus was to follow the Democriteans. The Life of Epicurus follows that of Timon. The list in the last two sections of Book IX is just a list. It is most probably a list of Stoics — no more — that figured at the end of the Stoic Lives. Yet the two lists exist. The Pyrrhonian list is part of the text of Diogenes, and there is no reason to doubt that the Stoic one also figured somewhere in his text before the mutilation of the Stoic Lives. Does this imply that, whatever Diogenes knew about the biographies of post-Augustan philosophers, he knew that the successions continued — and that, in two cases, he had lists of names to corroborate this knowledge? Even a superficial glance at these lists will be enough to dispose of such assumptions. Of the names appearing in the Stoic list, Zeno of Tarsus, Diogenes of Babylon, Apollodorus, Mnesarchides (apparently Mnesarchus), Mnesagoras, Dardanus, Antipater of Tyre, Heraclides, Sosigenes, Panaetius and Antipater of Tarsus were all members of the Stoic school of Athens between the death of Chrysippus (whose successor Zeno of Tarsus was) and the last generation of the Roman Republic. They are all mentioned in the Stoicorum Index Herculanensis.52 Posidonius too had been a pupil of Panaetius. Of Nestor, Basilides, Hecato, the two Athenodori and Anus Didymus, we do not know whether they had been members of the Athenian school or not — although it is very likely that they had studied in it. In any case, they all lived during the final years of the Republic and the early Principate.53 Nineteen of the twenty names in this so-called 'Epitome Diogenis' consist of seven scholarchs (Zeno of Tarsus, Diogenes of Babylon, the two Antipaters, Panaetius, Mnesarchus and Dardanus) and twelve of their pupils in the period between Chrysippus and the school of Panaetius. (This proportion of pupils to scholarchs in itself speaks against the assumption that all these names stand for lost lives: it is not Diogenes' custom to dedicate too many lives to pupils of the school who did not become its leaders or scholarchs. Crantor, an important author and the friend of Crates, who was almost co-scholarch with him; Demetrius of Phalerum and Heraclides Ponticus are the exceptions. Posidonius might have formed an exception here: we do not know). L. Annaeus Cornutus, the Libyan freedman who lived in Rome, is the one exception to the Stoic list, being no scholarch or pupil of the school, and very clearly post-Augustan. One can only guess that he was included, perhaps, because of his teaching activities and influence 52 Zeno of Tarsus: XLVI,8; XL VIII,7; Diogenes of Babylon: XLVIII,4ff.; Apollodorus: LI,7; Boethus: LI,8; Mnesarchus: L I , 4 - 5 ; LXXVIII.5; Mnesagoras: see Traversa's note on XLIX,1, p. 7 0 ; Dardanus: LI,5; LIII,3; L X X V I I I , 4 - 5 ; Antipater of Tyre: LXXIX,3; Heraclides: XL VII,6; Sosigenes: LIV,1; Panaetius: passim; Antipater of Tarsus: LIII,2; LX,4.

" On Hecato, Nestor and Basilides: Zeller ΙΙΙ,Ι, p. 5 8 9 η. 3; on the two Athenodori: ibid. p. 6 0 6 η. 1; o n Arius: ibid. p. 6 3 5 n. 3; p. 6 3 6 nn. 1 - 2 . See also pp. 94n. 2 5 5 ; 1 2 2 - 3 above.

350

in Rome - or more probably, because he may have been (although our sources never tell us so) the pupil of one of the 'proper' Athenian Stoics figuring in the list. 54 Nobody — not even Zumpt — ever claimed that Cornutus was a Stoic scholarch. 55 The 'Epitome Diogenis', whatever its origin and nature, is no continuation of the Stoic διαδοχή and no proof that the Stoic succession — or the Stoic school itself — was carried on after the age of Augustus. It constitutes no exception to the rule we have observed before: the διάδοχοι in our literary sources break off at that age. The list of the Pyrrhonian succession in Diog.Laert. IX,115—6 is a somewhat different affair. Here we have clearly what purports to be a succession going down to Sextus Empiricus, whose date is not known for certain, but who must have lived at least a century after the death of Augustus. 56 Yet in the midst of this period of an apparently unbroken, vigorous succession, Seneca can still ask: quis est qui tradat praecepta Pyrrhonisl Seneca, as I have argued, was in the position to know such facts — and Alexandria, where the Pyrrhonian school is assumed to have been flourishing at the time, was no strange city to him. The Pyrrhonian succession reported by Diogenes Laertius is still taken by most historians quite literally as a proper succession to a proper school. Chronological difficulties abound. 57 Most scholars would hardly adopt the neat chronological table produced by Simon Sepp, in which each scholarch seems to have held the leadership of the school for an average of twenty-five years. 58 Some, at least, would maintain that there was a break in the succession. Leander Haas, whose work on this problem did much to bring many of these issues to the foreground, even maintained that there were two breaks in the Pyrrhonian succession. The first occurred after the death of Timon, when the Pyrrhonian school, he maintained, merged with the sceptical Academy until Ptolemy and Aenesidemus 'broke away' from the school of Carneades and 'renewed' the Pyrrhonian succession. 59 The other break occurred after Aenesidemus, who 54 For ancient evidence and some modern literature on Cornutus: Zeller ΙΙΙ,Ι, p. 711 η. 2; PIR1 No. 609 (Annaeus). 55 Zumpt died long before the 'epitome Diogenis' was first published by Rose. One wonders whether he would have claimed that Cornutus was Stoic scholarch at some stage (after his banishment from Rome by Nero?). " For the generally accepted date of Sextus, see Zeller 111,2 p. lOff.; Brochard pp. 3 1 4 - 3 1 5 . More recently, F. Kudlien, 'Die Datierung des Sextus Empiricus und des Diogenes Laertius', RhM 106, 1963, pp. 2 5 1 - 4 , has argued for a Trajanic date, c. 100 A.D. Diogenes also mentions Sextus' pupil Saturninus, whose date, of course, depends on that of Sextus. 57 See e.g., Zeller 111,2, p. 11 n. 3; Goedeckemeyer p. 236 η. 1. 58 S. Sepp, Pyrrhoneische Studien, Freising 1893, p. 124. 59 P. L. Haas, De Philosophorum Scepticorum Successionibus eorumque usque ad Sextum Empiricum Scriptis, Diss. Wiirzburg 1875, pp. 2 1 - 5 . No evidence is produced for this hypothesis: there is none. See the just criticisms of Brochard p. 230.

351

founded no school, and who defected, at the end, to Heracliteanism. The succession, thus virtually broken for the second time on his death, was finally restored by Zeuxippus, and then continued unbroken until Sextus and his school.60 A less imaginative view is taken by Brochard, who accepts the evidence of Menodotus of Nicomedia (ap.Diog.Laert. IX,115) - who was, after all, one of those later 'successors': the Pyrrhonian succession broke off after Timon's death, and was restored by Ptolemy of Cyrene.61 But Brochard still takes it for granted that from then on, the succession was a proper and an unbroken one. So did Zeller62 and Goedeckemeyer63. Hirzel did raise his lonely voice against this communis opinio, but most of his arguments on this particular point are not among his most convincing, and Zeller's answer to him, if not quite a complete refutation, was sufficient unto the day.64 That most of the Pyrrhonians on the list were not Athenians did not seem to matter: for it was argued long ago by Sextus' biographer and translator Eugen Pappenheim that the school, from the age of Timon's pupils onwards, was located in Alexandria.65 We have already noted in a previous chapter that the Pyrrhonian school is the only one for which the succession is described as that of an άγωγη, and that αγωγή is not the equivalent of σχολή or διατριβή, but an early contender for the sense later occupied by aïpeaiç — 'school of thought'. 66 We have no reason to believe that Pyrrho ever founded a school. Timon came to Elis, lived there for some time, and studied with Pyrrho (Diog.Laert. IX,109). This is all we are told. When Diogenes (IX,115, quoting Menodotus) says of Timon: τούτου διάδοχος . . . yéyovev οόδει'ς, the implication need not be that Timon was Pyrrho's successor, but merely that Timon himself, although he had pupils, founded no school. Menodotus did not necessarily deny (or ignore) the information supplied in the same paragraph of Diogenes in the names of Sotion and Hippobotus, that Timon had pupils. What he maintained is that the άγωγη did not outlive those pupils. As distinct from the names of Timon's pupils in IX, 115, which are supplied on the authority of Sotion and Hippobotus, it is extremely unlikely that the succession-list in IX,116 has anything to do with these authors. Sotion lived about 170 B.C.67 The communis opinio about the date of Hippobotus places 60

Ibid. p. 26ff.; p. 43ff.; p. 51. Brochard pp. 228-231. But on p. 91 he does say that 'les vrais continuateurs de Pyrrhon et de Timon furent les nouveaux académiciens'. 62 Zeller ΙΙΙ,Ι, p. 500 n. 1; 111,2, p. 5 n. 3. 63 Goedeckemeyer pp. 2 8 - 3 0 ; 2 3 5 - 6 (and notes). 64 Hirzel II, p. 133ff.; Zeller 111,2, p. 5 n. 3. 65 E. Pappenheim, 'Der Sitz der Schule der pyrrhoneischen Skeptiker', AGP I, 1888, pp. 37-52. 66 Above, pp. 165-6. 67 See n. 42 above. 61

352

him towards the end of the third century B.C. I have argued for dating him to the first century B.C., later than Antiochus. 68 But even on my later dating, Hippobotus could not have carried on the list of successors much beyond Aenesidemus. Sepp's suggestion that Sotion and Hippobotus carried on the list down to Eubulus 69 is extremely awkward. It would require us to take the first sentence out of 116 and tack it on to 115, whereas any reader can see that 116 is one monolithic succession-list. What is more likely to have happened is that Diogenes found two contrasting traditions. One was Menodotus' statement that Timon had no successor. The other was a list of successors, beginning with Eubulus of Alexandria, a pupil of Euphranor. At this point, Diogenes had the works of Sotion and Hippobotus — or an intermediary handbook — open before him. Sotion and Hippobotus listed Euphranor among Timon's pupils. For Diogenes, this was a sufficient refutation of Menodotus. Menodotus, however, did not claim that Eubulus was a pupil of Euphranor — or that Ptolemy was a pupil of Eubulus, for that matter: this belongs to the later tradition which already attempted to construct an unbroken Pyrrhonian succession, existing chiefly in Alexandria. For Menodotus, there was merely a gap between Timon and Ptolemy, and this was a gap in an αγωγή, not in a σχολή. We are not told whether Menodotus believed that Ptolemy established a school with a proper succession. We do not, indeed, know whether the succession listed by Diogenes in IX, 116 is a proper succession to a proper school. The editor of the fragments of the Greek Empirical schools 70 accepts the view of Wilamowitz that this was no proper succession to a school, but merely an attempt by a later Empirical sceptic to 'fabricate' for his sect a direct descent from their 'spiritual ancestor' Pyriho. 71 To Wilamowitz's arguments one can add another consideration. We have already seen in a previous chapter that for Galen, the medical cdpéaeiç, including that of the Empiricists, were merely 'schools of thought', defined by their approach to the nature of medicine and its methods and practice. 72 Galen seems to know nothing of the Pyrrhonian descent claimed by the Empiricists. Nor, for that matter, did his early contemporary Menodotus. Menodotus, I believe, only knew that the Empiricists, to whom he belonged, tended to follow the views of Pyrrho in their philosophy. His statement cited by Diogenes was probably to the effect that this was not due to a direct descent from Pyrrho, since Pyrrho's sect died out with Timon and his pupils. The Empirical sect, he maintained, was founded as a philosophical άγωγή (not, as Diogenes has already reformulated it in his succession-

68

See above, pp. 1 7 6 - 8 0 . S. Sepp, op.cit. n. 58 above, p. 95. 70 K. Deichgiäber, Die griechische Empirikerschule, Berlin 1930, p. 254 n. 1. 71 U. v. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Hellenistische Dichtung in der Zeit des Kallimachos, vol. I, Berlin 1924, p. 163 n. 2. 72 See above, pp. 1 8 8 - 9 1 . 69

23

Glucker ( H y p . 5 6 )

353

story, Vefounded') by Ptolemy of Cyrene.73 And, whatever the precise sense of Menodotus' statement about Ptolemy of Cyrene may have been in its original form, his other statement, that the original άγωγι? died out with Timon, is amply confirmed by Aristocles (ap.Euseb.F.f. XIV,18,29 = Mullach FPhG III, p. 213) — who, however, makes Aenesidemus the restorer of Pyrrhonism. The succession-list in Diog.Laert. IX,116, appears to be a fabrication of the school of Sextus Empiricus: it ends with Sex tus' pupil Saturninus Cythenas. Sextus was probably the most philosophically-minded of the Greek Empiricists and the most conscious among them of his Pyrrhonian άγωγή. Not content with this, he or his pupils forged themselves a pedigree. The names in this pedigree are, of course, those of real persons — most of them are to be found in Deichgraber's collection of fragments and testimonia of the Greek Empiricists. Some of them may well have held the master-pupil relationship ascribed to them in the list. But that they constituted a school with a proper succession of scholarchs is most unlikely; and that this school stood in direct succession to Pyrrho is inconceivable. We have the word of Menodotus, who has no axe to grind, against that of Sextus or his pupils, who have. The irony of it is that, in this late and fabricated succession, Menodotus himself was made into a link in the chain.74 But the fact remains that a succession, however tenuous, could be forged as late as the time of Sextus and his pupils, and that it could be made to continue far beyond the limits of the classic succession found in the literary sources. Yet Sextus, in whose school the unbroken Pyrrhonian succession was most probably produced, knows of no Academic succession later than Antiochus. Nor, for that matter does Diogenes Laertius, whose date is considerably later than that of the last succession-writers.75 Nor does Clement or Eusebius, 73 Οι rather, the connection between Empiricism and Pyrrhonianism was first established by Ptolemy. The founder of Empiricism was considered to be Philinus of Cos: see Deichgräber pp. 4 0 - 4 1 , Frs. 6 - 7 ; 163. Menodotus' statement concerning Ptolemy had probably nothing to do with the founding of any school or sect. All he claimed was that when Empiricism became affiliated to Pyrrhonian scepticism the original àyw-γή had been long dead - ever since Timon and his pupils. The 'diadochical' language is that of Diogenes, or of his Pyrrhonian source for the 'other' succession. 74 Zumpt p. 28 maintained that the sceptics (= Pyrrhonians), like the Cynics, 'nie zum wirklichen Bestand einer Schule gelangten' - without, however, referring to this passage of Diogenes. The theory of Simon Sepp, op.cit. n. 58 above, esp. pp. 9 3 - 1 2 3 , that the Pyrrhonians were a medical as well as a philosophical school from the very beginning, has not found general acceptance. Sepp himself (p. 98) admits that there is no evidence that Pyrrho was a physician - but infers it from his connection with Democritus and natural science. By this species of argument, Socrates, who was in his youth a keen student of the works of Anaxagoras, would qualify as a physician as well. Timon does appear to have been one (Diog.Laert. IX,109), among his numerous other occupations. So, for that matter, was Aristotle. But medicine does not appear to figure at all in the philosophy of Pyrrho or Timon. 75 For earlier discussions of the date of Diogenes Laertius, see E. Schwarz, op.cit. n. 30 above, p. 738, and the summary by R. Hope, The Book of Diogenes Laertius, New York

354

or Hesychius. Clement, Eusebius and Hesychius may not have had access to any sources other than the succession-writers. Diogenes had. Whatever his other sources may have been, he must have had access to some o f the writings of Favorinus — indeed, he is our source for numerous fragments o f Favorinus. 76 Favorinus, we remember, was a friend of Plutarch and a follower o f the

αίρεσις

of Academic scepticism - and yet, he refers in his surviving fragments to no Academic later than Carneades.77 Epictetus, we have seen, attacked the circle o f Plutarch and Favorinus, calling them 'self-styled Academics', and his attack provoked a book by Favorinus, defending the doctrines o f the sceptical Academy. 7 8 Had there been a continuous Academic succession from Plato to the age o f Plutarch, Favorinus would have been certain to bring up this succession in reply to Epictetus' insult. This would have been a far more potent and conclusive argument than making Epictetus hold a dialogue with a slave o f Plutarch. Diogenes, who quotes Favorinus more than fifty times in his work, mostly on matters o f 'curious information' concerning the lives and activities o f philosophers, and who is only too glad to append to his L i f e o f Timon the forged succession o f the Pyrrhonians and Empiricists, would surely have appended a similar succession-list to his Academic lives rather than end them abruptly with Clitomachus. He did not, because he did not find such a list in the writings o f Favorinus, or in any o f his other sources. N o r does Galen, w h o is our source for the controversy between Epictetus and Favorinus, ever refer to such an argument on Favorinus' part. Favorinus knew of no such list o f successors later than the age of Philo and Antiochus. 79 Unlike Sextus ur his pupils, Favorinus

1930, pp. 4 - 9 . F. Kudlien, op.cit. η. 56 above, dates Diogenes c. A.D. 100. This would imply that Diogenes must have used Favorinus' works before the ink had dried, or that he had access to 'prepublication copies'. Even this date would make him a good hundred years o i so later than the last succession-writers. 76

The study o f the sources o f Diogenes Laertius had ended up - as E. Howald, Philol.

74, 1917, p. 119, has rightly remarked - in a fiasco. Great scholars have been led in the past to o f f e r the most fantastic solutions. Howald's own answer is no more convincing than any o f the others - see n. 49 above. For earlier discussions, see E. Schwarz, op.cit. n. 30 above, passim, and the detailed summaries and discussion o f R. Hope, op.cit. last note, pp. 3 7 - 9 6 . A more recent summary: A . M. Frenkian, 'Analecta Laertiana', Studi Oassice III, 1961, pp. 3 9 5 - 4 0 3 - who argues for crediting Diogenes with direct acquaintance with more primary sources - or at least with more primary handbooks. There can be little doubt, in any case, that Diogenes read Favorinus not at second-hand

-

even if one can no longer accept the wilder speculations o f Nietzsche and Ernst Maas. On Diogenes' quotations from Favorinus, see E. Mensching (ed.), Favoriti der erste Teil der Fragmente, 77

von

Arelate,

Berlin 1963, p. 8ff.; 6 1 - 2 .

Above, pp. 2 8 5 - 2 9 3 .

78

Above, pp. 2 9 3 - 5 .

79

It is true, of course, that Diogenes only quotes Favorinus' άπομνημονεύματα

τοδαπή ιστορία.

and παν-

Working as he did from books strictly related to his own subject, Dioge-

nes was not very likely to have bothered to read Favorinus' Academic or Pyrrhonian works - he shows no knowledge o f them. But is it likely that, had Favorinus known o f a continuous Academic succession, this 'fact' would not have been recorded by him in one of

355

was too much of a proper antiquarian to fabricate such an unbroken succession. Besides, Favorinus, like Zumpt, had no names to draw on to fill such a list - and, unlike Sextus, he would have had to restrict himself to the names of Athenian teachers of philosophy. Our sources know of no Academic succession later than the age of Antiochus, not because the tradition of succession-writers died out about that time. It is the other way round: the tradition died out about the age of Augustus because there were no longer successions to write about. The names of Philo, Charmadas and Antiochus are added to the earlier list of Academic successors in a later tradition simply because they existed. The spurious list of Pyrrhonian successors produced in the school of Sextus shows that the temptation was always there. What was lacking was not ingenium par materiae but materia itself. When Seneca states that the Academy, both Old' and 'New', is dead, and that the Pyrrhonian tradition is defunct, he knows what he is doing. Some Empiricists in Alexandria or elsewhere may have begun, about the time of Seneca, to rediscover Pyrrhonian scepticism: but they were not yet as philosophically conscious as Sextus, and would probably still count, for most outsiders, merely as medical experts. Timon's school was dead, and so, to all intents and purposes, was traditional Pyrrhonism. Plutarch and his circle were about to start a short-lived flirtation with Academic scepticism — but the Academy as a school had long ceased to exist.

D. Interlude: The 'Pharisaic' Diadochai The Pyrrhonian succession-list in Diog.Laert. IX, 116 is a good illustration of the natural tendency to make pedigrees — provided one can draw on real names. An illustration of a similar tendency can be taken from the periphery of the Graeco-Roman world, and from about the same period. The title of the Mishnaic tractate Aboth is usually translated as 'Sayings of the Fathers' or 'Ethics of the Fathers'. The Hebrew aboth merely means 'fathers'. This tractate stands out among the other tractates of the Mishna. Each of the others deals with a certain area (or areas) of Jewish law or ritual, and reports

these two books, which deal with so many episodes concerning the lives and activities of philosophers, Academics and others? He can tell a story about Carneades (Fr. 67); and mention a work of Arcesilaus addressed to Lacydes (Fr. 92). His many anecdotes about Plato must have included more than one reference to the Academy, where he would have been sure to 'throw in' much more information about the school. Galen did know a number of Favorinus' Academic works - yet he never refers to a continuous succession, or to the existence of a contemporary Academic school or sect in Athens. It is no accident that the subtitle of Favorinus' Academic work Plutarch is περι της 'Ακαδημαϊκής διαθέσεως (Galen, De Opt.Doctr. 1 = Favorinus Fr. 28, p. 179 Barigazzi).

356

the rulings of various Palestinian sages on the various points of law, from the early beginnings of the 'rabbinic' tradition to the age of the editor of the Mishna himself, Rabbi Judah the Patriarch, towards the end of the second century of the Christian Era. Aboth alone does not deal with any matters of law or rite. It reports the sayings of various sages bn issues of faith, morals and everyday behaviour. In its contents, it is somewhat like a Greek gnomologium. But its arrangement is not simply that of a gnomologium. In part, at least, the authors of the various gnomai are arranged in what is clearly and fairly explicitly a succession-list. That this was a succession-list, carrying the Oral Tradition of the Torah from Moses to the age of the Palestinian sages themselves and thus providing a quasi-institutional confirmation for the unbroken tradition of the Oral Torah (as against the Sadducees' denial of the existence of such an oral tradition and its authority) was realized long ago. But the credit for placing this 'Pharisaic' διαδοχή within the Hellenistic context belongs to that man of many parts, a veteran in the fields of Greek and Roman History, Biblical Criticism and Hellenistic Judaism alike, Professor Elias J. Bickerman of New York. His article, published almost a generation ago, is already well-known to a growing number of Biblical and Rabbinic scholars. If it is still largely ignored by most Classical scholars, this is yet another indication of the increasing 'compartmentalization of knowledge', as the Social Scientist would call it. The article was published in the Revue Biblique.80 The succession list begins with Moses: 81 'Moses received the Torah from Sinai, and handed it down to Joshua; Joshua to the Elders; the Elders to the Pro80 E. Bickerman, 'La chaîne de la tradition pharisienne', Revue Biblique 59, 1952, pp. 4 4 - 5 4 . The most easily available editions oí Aboth with English translations are those of the late Chief Rabbi Joseph H. Hertz, first printed in London in 1945 and often reprinted in Britain and America (Hebrew text, facing English translation and commentary); and R. Travers Herford, Pirke Aboth, The Ethics of the Talmud, first printed in 1925 and reprinted many times (Hebrew text of each paragraph followed by English translation and a learned commentary, drawing on much of the work done by scholars before 1925). Another English version (without the Hebrew text) can be found in H. Danby's standard translation of the Mishna. Hebrew readers will find the original text in any edition of the Mishna (Nezikin) or of the Jewish Prayer-Book (following the Sabbath Afternoon Service). I shall use the Hertz translation in quoting Aboth, correcting it where it needs correction for the context of our discussion. 81 Whether this is not the beginning of the original document, which may have started with the 'Pharisaic credo' of Sanhédrin X (as suggested by L. Finkelstein, Mabo le-Masektot Abot ve-Abot d'Rabbi Nathan, New York 1950: Hebrew, followed by a short English summary; henceforth 'Finkelstein, Mabo', with page references to the fuller discussion in the Hebrew body of the work, pp. 2 1 2 - 2 3 8 ) , should not concern us here. Even if this were the case, it would still present an interesting similarity to the first few paragraphs of Diogenes Lacrtius, where Diogenes discusscs the problem of whether philosophy was invented by the Greeks or the Barbarians, coming down firmly on the Greek side, before he passes on to the succession-lists of 1,13-15.

357

p h e t s ; and the P r o p h e t s h a n d e d it d o w n t o the M e n o f t h e Great A s s e m b l y . T h e y said three things . . . ' (1,1) -

and here, t h e gnomai

b e g i n t o m a k e their

appearance, in the order o f s u c c e s s i o n . 8 2 T h e s u c c e s s i o n n o w assumes its proper f o r m : ' A n t i g o n u s o f S o c h o received the tradition f r o m S i m o n t h e Just' (1,3); 'Jose, t h e s o n o f Y o e z e r . . . and J o s e , t h e s o n o f Y o c h a n a n . . . received the tradition f r o m the preceding' (1,4), and s o o n -

w h e r e the H e b r e w f o r

w h a t is usually rendered as 'received t h e tradition' is m e r e l y qibel το.83

=

διεδέξα-

F r o m 1,4 t o 1,12, w e have this διαδοχή in pairs, and the traditional ex-

p l a n a t i o n for this is that o n e o f this pair w a s Nasi

= Patriarch, t h e 'temporal'

leader o f t h e c o m m u n i t y , and the o t h e r was Av Beth

Din

= President o f the

Court, the halachic leader. T h e succession is t h u s n o t o n l y a m a t t e r o f receiv-

82 It was suggested by N. Brüll, 'Entstehung und ursprünglicher Inhalt des Tractates Abot', Jahrb. fär jüdische Gesch. u. Lit. VIII,1885, pp. 1 - 1 7 , esp. p. 4, that the main purpose of the early sections was to present an unbroken list of bearers of the tradition, from Moses to the 'Pharisees' themselves; but that since many of the earlier sages were by the time of compilation mere names, various sayings were 'tacked on' to their names. But this would be to reduce the whole treatise into a mere succession-list, while most of its materials are sayings of the various sages, included for no other purpose than to preserve them. It is, of course, commonplace to the initiates that some of these sayings are variously attributed in Aboth and in the two recensions oî A both of R. Nathan. But this would only show that even 'rabbinic memory' was not always faultless in its ascriptions - a fact of which later Talmudic discussions are all too often fully conscious - not that sayings were intentionally invented or ascribed in bad faith. The succession-list in chapters I—II may well have originally existed independently as a mere list of names, and became fused with the 'apophthegmata' of those early sages in one of the recensions. An interesting, but only partial, parallel is Demetrius of Phalerum's collection of the apophthegms of the Seven Sages (Diels-Kranz, Vorsokr. 10,3). But Demetrius did not attempt to arrange them as a διαδοχή. Demetrius' introductory formula - e.g. Θαλής Έξαμύου Μιλήσιος '¿φ·η - occurs here and there in Aboth (e.g. 3,7: 'Rabbi Chalafta, the son of Dosa, of the village of Chanania, said'; 4,26: 'R. Jose, the son of Judah, of Kephar Babli, said'). But in Aboth, this 'patronymic and demotic' formula is usually applied to less-known figures, and in sections which are

not officially part of the early succession-list. 83 I am not, of course, denying that, in the context of Aboth as we have it, and most probably in the earlier versions (including Finkelstein's 'Pharisaic Creed' if it existed), the object of qibel is the Torah (meaning the Oral Torah), which 'Moses received (qibel) from Sinai'. But the whole point of the succession, f r o m the Great Assembly onwards, is that the Law was handed down through recognized holders of office. Only such a succession of recognized holders of office would constitute an answer to the Sadducees, who had a near monopoly on the office of the High Priest, a descendant of Moses' brother Aaron - see Finkelstein, Mabo, pp. 8 - 1 0 . There also appears to be a slight change of formula between 1 , 1 - 2 and I,3ff. From Moses to the Men of the Great Assembly, the formula is masar 'handed down'. With the successors of the Great Assembly, the formula is invariably qibel. L. Finkelstein, New Light from the Prophets, London 1969, pp. 8 5 - 6 , maintains that in the original version the formula was qibel throughout, and that the change to masar was affected by R. Akiba for 'doctrinal' reasons. But in that case, why did not Akiba change every qibel to masar? Finkelstein himself, in the whole of that chapter (pp. 7 7 - 9 0 ) argues that the first part of this succession-list, from Moses to the pre-Exilic prophets (as in Abboth of R. Nathan), is pre-Exilic. For myself, I would not be surprised if the first part of 358

ing the Oral Tradition of the Torah, but a proper διαδοχή to the offices of leadership. 84 This διαδοχή reaches down to Hillel and Shammai (1,12), some of whose sayings are quoted (1,12—15). One would expect now to have the successors of Hillel and Shammai introduced as those w h o 'received from them'. Instead, we have in 1,15—11,4 sayings ascribed to Rabban Gamaliel the Great (Gamaliel I), his son Simeon, Simeon's grandson Simeon, his son R. Judah (the editor of the Mishna), and his son Gamaliel III. It is only then (11,5) that we return to Hillel, and some additional sayings of his. Then, in 11,9, the 'succession' is resumed: 'Rabban Yochanan, the son of Zakkai, received from Hillel and Shammai'. One notes that here we are given only one successor. There follows (11,10—19) a list of his pupils, a 'question and answer session' between them, and some o f their sayings. The tractate itself has five chapters, and we are not even half way through it. But here, the official 'succession' formulae come to an end. From now on, nobody 'receives' from his predecessors - although we know that the offices of Patriarch and President of the Court continued to exist — indeed, Rabbi Judah the Patriarch was himself a Nasi, in a direct line of family descent from Hillel himself. The exact principle — or principles — or arrangement of the rest of this tractate are controversial, and should not detain us here: we are interested only in the succession-lists of the first t w o chapters. But it is generally agreed that the tractate in the form we have it is already a conflation of a number o f earlier versions, put together and rearranged by R. Judah. 85 What has not,

this succession-list was, indeed originally concerned with the 'handing down' of the Oral Torah from Moses to the Great Assembly (the παράδοσις rei ι» πρεσβυτέρων of the NT: Mt. 15,2 and parallels: it is significant that in Aboth 1,1, 'the Elders' form a link in the chain between Moses, Joshua and the Prophets); while the list of successions from Simeon the Just (or Antigonus) onwards was in its original form merely a διαδοχή of holders of office. Once embedded in the chain of transmission of the Oral Torah, the verb qibel would naturally acquire an added significance. This verb can be used for Βια&έχομαι (although not often) - see Daniel 6,1 (Aramaic). 84 See last note. Some of the more sceptical historians would maintain that this tradition of the 'pairs' serving in these two offices was a projection of the post-Jamnian organization of the community on to the earlier period (although why, then, should the tradition invariably preserve the names of two in each generation?). What concerns us, however, is only that, by the time the succession-list was formulated, it was already conceived as a succession to two offices. 85 On the problem of the various earlier versions, see Briill's article (n. 82 above), and D. Z. Hoffmann, Die Erste Mischnah und die Controverse der Tannaim, Berlin 1882 ('Jahres-Bericht des Rabbiner-Seminar zu Berlin pro 5642 (1881-2), pp. 26-37); Hebrew transi. Berlin 1913, pp. 28-40. Finkelstein's Mabo, incorporating S. Schechter's discovery of the two versions oí Aboth of R. Nathan, goes beyond all previous discussions of the formation of Aboth and its MS tradition, and should be studied carefully by readers of Hebrew. On the various recensions of the Mishna in general see H. Albeck, Einfihrung in die Mischna, Berlin/New York 1971, pp. 94-129; 145-170. On Aboth see also J. Goldin, Ene. Judaica 3, pp. 983-4. 359

to my knowledge, been noticed is that 1,16—11,5 is not merely an interpolation between Hillel and Shammai (1,12—15) and Hillel and his successor Rabban Yochanan (11,5ff.), but that in this interpolated section we have no succession-formulae. The various Gamaliels and Simeons, with R. Judah in their midst, do not 'receive' from each other - although we know from other sources that they do represent a line of succession of Patriarchs, from Rabban Gamaliel I of Jamnia to R. Judah himself and his son Gamaliel III. It is only when we reach 11,9 that we encounter once again - and for the last time - the formula 'Rabban Yochanan the son of Zakkai qibbel'. It has been known for some time to historians of the period that Rabban Yochanan's patriarchate was somewhat controversial. He was not a descendant of Hillel, who was himself believed to be a descendant of David, and whose descendants had been — and continued to be after the foundation of Jamnia — Patriarchs as a matter of course and of right. Rabban Yochanan's contemporary 'successor of Hillel' was Rabban Gamaliel I, Hillel's grandson. At the time of Vespasian's siege of Jerusalem, Rabban Yochanan 'defected' to the Imperator, prophesied to him that he was to become Emperor of Rome, and obtained his permission to found a centre of Jewish learning in Jamnia. After the destruction of Jerusalem, Jamnia became the administrative, as well as the academic, centre of the Jewish community in Palestine. Some time later, we find Gamaliel I installed there as Patriarch, and his descendants inheriting the office from him, while Rabban Yochanan is found, towards the end of his life, teaching elsewhere. All these facts are well-known to the Jewish historian of the period, and their significance has been explained in a brilliant article by the late Gedaliahu Alon.86 Alon has shown that Rabban Yochanan succeeded in founding Jamnia since he was prepared to compromise with the Roman régime. He draws the obvious inference that Gamaliel remained in Jerusalem and continued to oppose Roman rule. After the destruction of Jerusalem, Gamaliel, the true successor to Hillel (and David), could not immediately take office as Patriarch under the Roman government which he had opposed. For the time being, Yochanan was Patriarch in Jamnia. But he was not acknowledged as such by Gamaliel and his followers, who were biding their time. When the opportunity came — the exact circumstances, like much else in Jewish history of the period, are not known to us - Gamaliel came to Jamnia. By popular acclaim, Gamaliel, the descendant of Hillel and David, became Patriarch, and he handed down his office to his descendants, one of whom was the editor of the Mishna. Rabban Yochanan left Jamnia. But attempts were still made by his followers - and they included many, if not most, of the greatest sages of those generations - to oust out the Gamalielic Patriarch. It was only Rabbi Judah who finally succeeded in overcoming all 86 G. Alon, Studies in Jewish History (in Hebrew), vol. I, Tel-Aviv 1967, pp. 253-273, esp. pp. 267-273.

360

opposition and uniting the conflicting parties by the sheer force of his personality, which combined learning and sanctity with authority and a knowledge of the ways of the world and its rulers. Alon — and to some extent, Louis Finkelstein before him — have already noted that, in the first two chapters of Aboth, we have virtually two succession-lists: one leading from Hillel and Shammai to Rabban Yochanan and his pupils, and the other leading from Hillel, through his grandson Rabban Gamaliel I, to the editor of the Mishna and his son and successor. Alon has rightly pointed out that these two rival lists are an indication of the claims of the rival parties; and he has hinted that Rabbi Judah must have included the rival list in his version because he had no choice: so many of the sages whose rulings are embedded in the Mishna came from the school of Rabban Yochanan.87 What has not been noticed — as we have already remarked — is that the Gamalielic succession is interpolated without succession-formulae into the proper and formulaic succession from Simon the Just (or from Moses) to Rabban Yochanan. Why such a clumsy interpolation? Following the lead of Alon and Finkelstein, but bearing in mind our 'diadochical' observations, one can offer a tentative answer. The original succession was, one assumes, from Moses to Hillel and Shammai - they, after all, represent the last generation of sages of Temple times proper, when the dispute with the Sadducees was still going on. To this, the name of Rabbi Yochanan was added as 87 Ibid. pp. 2 7 2 - 3 . Much of this had already been noted by L. Finkelstein, 'Introduction to the Study of Piike Abot', JBL 57,1, 1938, pp. 1 2 - 5 0 (a less developed precursor of his Mabo) esp. pp. 2 6 - 7 . Finkelstein rightly ascribes the statement in 11,9 about R. Yochanan's succession to Hillel and Shammai to the earlier version of the Mishna compiled by Rabbi Akiba, a follower of Yochanan's school, and maintains - again, rightly, in my opinion that Rabbi Judah interpolated the sayings of his ancestors to stake a claim to his own title to the succession, and that he retained 11,9 in his text for the reasons we have just given. He continues (p. 27, n. 27): 'But in this manner, however, the statement became quite harmless; there was no indication in it that R. Johanan ben Zakkai was the bearer of the tradition of the "pairs"; it merely described him as a disciple of Hillel and Shammai.' But there is a perfectly clear indication: 'R. Jochanan the son of Zakkai received (qibel) from Hillel and Shammai' - while the same succession-formula is not applied to any member of the Gamalielic dynasty. In his Mabo (esp. pp. 8; 13; 39), Finkelstein takes a somewhat milder view of the whole affair. This may, perhaps, be explained by his hypothesis (pp. 6 1 - 3 ) that Rabban Jochanan returned to Jamnia after Gamaliel's death and served as A ν Beth Din with Gamaliel's son and Nasi Simeon. I know of no evidence for this, and Alon's view appears, in the state of our knowledge, to be far more likely. The followers of Jochanan claimed (11,9) that he 'received' from both his predecessors, Hillel and Shammai. Finkelstein himself points out (JBL article, p. 27) that R. Judah's interpolation also does away with the tradition of the "pairs" and concentrates on one single successor in each generation. We thus have to do with two rival and exclusive claims and factions, whose contending traditions are quietly amalgamated by R. Judah. In his more recent book, New Light from the Prophets, London 1969, p. 82 and pp. 134-5, Finkelstein comes far nearer to Alon's view, and presents some additional Talmudic evidence which would work in its favour.

361

the sole successor of this pair by members of Yochanan's school, thus disputing the rival claim of Gamaliel, and the succession in this extended form - Moses to Yochanan — was incorporated in the earlier versions of the Mishna, stemming from followers of the same school. When Rabbi Judah came to edit what was to become the final (and now the only extant) version of the Mishna", he found this succession as part of that version of Aboth which he included, with his own additions, in his Mishna.88 Being a man of peace, who strove to end the controversy between the two factions, he did nothing to change this list, including Rabban Yochanan's succession to both Hillel and Shammai. This was his concession to the other party. At the same time, he embodied in this list of succession the 'Gamalielic interpolation' - a collection of sayings of some of the more distinguished Gamalielic Patriarchs which were probably handed down in the family. He did not preface this collection with succession-formulae: this would be to contradict the claims of R. Yochanan to the succession to Hillel and Shammai and to rekindle the flames of controversy. But by interpolating these sayings, in a chronological order of the Gamalielic Patriarchs, between Hillel and Shammai (1,15) and the additional sayings of Hillel leading to Yochanan's succession (II,5ff.), he made his position clear. For everyone would realize that the sayings of Hillel's family successors — the present dynasty of Patriarchs — were made to follow on those of Hillel and Shammai not merely by accident. It was a very delicate and tactful compromise, which reveals Rabbi Judah at his best, quietly and peacefully — but not meekly — asserting his own authority and claims, without obliterating the tradition of the other side.89 This, however, is not the end of the story. For institutions of Jewish leadership continued after the compilation of the Mishna, both in Palestine and Babylon — and with these institutions, we find the succession-lists continued once more. A letter of Rav Sherira Gaon of Babylonia - one of the earliest and most important documents of Jewish chronology — is dated in the Paris

88 Again, this is not the place for providing a souice-criticism or an 'Entstehungsgeschichte' of our Aboth, or for indicating how much of it was added to earlier recensions by R. Judah. I am no expert Talmudist and have no theory of my own. For some of the classic views and discussions, see the works listed in n. 85 above and the literature cited in them. 89 The literature on Aboth, on Rabban Jochanan, and on the Gamalielic dynasty is evergrowing, and I do not claim to have followed all of it. The expert Talmudist or Jewish historian will hardly require my assistance to find other modern discussions, and he may discover that the solution I have offered here has been anticipated. It appears to me to be so obvious, that I cannot see why it has not been reached by Alon or Finkelstcin, or by someone else who has studied their work. One more observation: Aboth 11,2-4 includes sayings of R. Gamaliel, the son of R. Judah. This should not imply that it was R. Gamaliel who introduced the 'Gamalielic interpolation': such a bold and subtle strategem shows the hand of a great personality like the editor of the Mishna. It may have been R. Judah who included the sayings of his son and heir to strengthen his claim to succession to himself - or these sayings may have been added by a later generation out of respect to R. Judah and his house, as suggested by Finkelstein, Mabo p. 39.

362

manuscript to A.D. 987. In it, Sherira carries on the succession of Aboth, from Moses and the Palestinian sages, through the Babylonian Exilarchs and Gaonim, down to his own day.90 Another work of the same period, Seder Olam Zuta, variously dated by the experts between the seventh century and the middle of the eighth, carries on a succession - this time a succession to the House of David — from the last pre-Exilic, kings to the last Babylonian Exilarch of that dynasty, about A.D. 520. This, obviously, is a proper dynastic succession to the House of David — but this, of course, was also the claim of the Gamalielic dynasty of Hillel's descendants in Palestine.91 But a later Gaonic document, most probably compiled in Babylonia no later than the eleventh century, Seder Tannaim v'Amoraim, carries on the old succession once more. Starting with the very first words of Aboth, 'Moses received the Torah from Sinai' etc., it reproduces the Aboth list (excluding R. Yochanan) in the first chapter. The second chapter is a 'succession' of the Babylonian sages; but the third chapter returns to Palestine; repeats some of the details already fecorded in the first chapter; continues with R. Yochanan, and then carries on the succession among both Babylonian and Palestinian sages down to the compilation of the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmudim. The order is somewhat confused and repetitive; and, since no proper critical edition exists, we cannot tell whether this is the fault of the original compiler or of the transmission.92 But the intention — and its execution — are quite clear: to carry on the old succession down to the end of Talmudic times. All these late documents underline a tendency one could only expect to find here: as long as a steady succession existed to offices which could claim descent from earlier (and by now hallowed as part of the Mishna) succession-lists, these older lists were continuously revised and augmented in various places, down to the last holders of office or title. Beyond them one could not go. Maimonides, in the preface to Mishneh Torah, his great work of codification of Talmudic Law published in 1180, has a list of succession of forty generations, from Moses to the last generation of Babylonian sages before the final compilation of the Babylonian Talmud. He mentions cursorily the Gaonim who succeeded these sages. He does not go beyond this point. In a way, every later rabbi was a successor to the Palestinian or the Babylonian sages through his ordination by his teacher, ordained by his teacher — and so

90

The Letter of Rav Sherira Gaon, ed. D. B. Goldberg, Mainz 187 3 (original Hebrew and Aramaic), pp. 2 9 - 4 4 . On Sherira see M. Havazelet, Ene. Judaica 14, pp. 1 3 8 1 - 2 . " Seder Olam Zuta, ed. with notes by M. Grosberg, London 1910 (Hebrew), chs. 7 - 1 0 . On Seder Olam Zuta see J. M. Rosenthal, Ene. Judaica 14, 1 0 9 1 - 3 . On the various claims to Davidic succession on behalf of the Palestinian Patriarchs and the Babylonian Exilarchs (and of Jesus of Nazareth), see J. Liver, Ene. Judaica 5, pp. 1 3 4 4 - 5 . " I have used M. Grosberg's edition of Seder Olam Zuta (see last n.), which includes a text and commentary on Seder Tannaim v'Amoraim (p. 55ff.). For the dating, see his note on pp. 5 5 - 6 . A proper critical edition is, to the best of my knowledge, still a desideratum.

363

on back to Talmudic times. But once the old offices with their steady successions ceased to exist, the succession-lists came, quite naturally, to an end. The point is, however, that the original succession-list of Aboth I—II, itself already a revised and conflated list, was continually revised and updated as long as the various offices and their successions continued to exist. This is just what one would expect of a living tradition with an unbroken line of holders of office. We have seen something similar happening (albeit with far less justification) in the school of Sextus, where a steady succession of Empiricists was established, and then tacked on to a doubtful Pyrrhonian succession, leading back to the 'Giver of the Law', Pyrrho of Elis. The human craving for ancestors and genealogy is usually insatiable, and the only obstacle that can stand in the way is the simple fact that there is no genealogy to be unearthed. 'Academics' like Plutarch and Favorinus could have produced such a genealogy and brandished it at their adversaries if they had had the flimsiest materials to draw on. They would certainly have done so if there had been a steady Academic succession leading all the way from Plato to their own day - and, in that case, one or the other of our sources would have been sure to betray at least some traces of the existence of such an important claim. They did not do so because theirs was not a living tradition. The Academic succession had been dead for over a century and a half. 93

E. Traces of other Successions Much of our discussion in the previous chapters has been devoted to showing that, after the age of Antiochus, there is no teacher of philosophy in Athens who can be appropriately described, on the evidence of our sources, as an Academic scholarch. Mr. Lynch, in his Aristotle's School, has performed a similar operation on the Peripatos, and has shown that there is no reason to believe that the Peripatetic succession — or the school itself - outlasted the siege of Athens by Sulla. We have reached similar conclusions, earlier in this chapter, 93

Bickerman pp. 5 0 - 5 1 , finds another parallel in the 'Succession of Jurists' drawn by Sex. Pomponius, Dig. 1,2,35-53. But this is no proper succession-list. Even Capito and Labeo in 47 are only compared to founders of sects: 'hi duo primum velati diversas sectas fecerunt.' These sectae are immediately explained (as we could only expect now) by their different approaches to the nature of jurisprudence, and the verb successif in the following sentence is still covered by the initial l'eluti. Pomponius makes no attempt to present an institutional succession. His chronological order is just as natural as that followed by Cicero in his Brutus - or, for that matter, by Sandys in his History of Classical Scholarship. One requires no Sotion to conceive of the idea of following such an order. I should add that Bickerman's article deals only with the Pharisaic succession in Aboth, and does not go into revisions and continuations of it in later Talmudic and Gaonic times.

364

concerning the Pyrrhonians — whose succession, if one can call it by that name, did not outlast the third generation of the sect. But there are two Athenian schools for which we now have some evidence of διάδοχοι as late as the second century A.D. — the Stoics and the Epicureans. The evidence is epigraphical, and the names found in these inscriptions are unknown to the literary sources. Does this invalidate our hypothesis — supported by the express evidence of Diogenes Laertius and Seneca (and perhaps also by the more oblique statement of Eunapius) - that most of the Athenian schools went into abeyance not long after the age of Antiochus? The Epicurean evidence consists of two inscriptions, dated A.D. 121 and 125. The first of these has been known for much longer, and has already received considerable attention from the experts. It consists of two letters in Latin and one in Greek, discovered in Athens and first published by Stephanos Koumanoudis in 1890. The text is most easily available in IG II 2 1099. 94 The whole correspondence included in this inscription deals with the problem of succession to the Epicurean school in Athens and the need to change an existing regulation which allows the διάδοχος to make his testament only according to Roman law, thus restricting the choice of διάδοχοι to Roman citizens alone. The first letter, in Latin, is addressed to the Emperor Hadrian by the Dowager Empress Plotina. She asks the Emperor, in the name of the present diadochus, Popilius Theotimus, that permission should be given to him Graece testan, and that his successor could be a peregrine. The Emperor's reply grants this permission to Theotimus and deinceps ceteris [qui] diadochen habuerint his successors to the Epicurean διαδοχή (line 14). The third letter is in Greek, from Plotina to her Epicurean friends in Athens (Πλωτβι>α Σεβαστή iräai τοις ψίλοις — line 16), in which the Empress announces to them the news of Hadrian's concession. The Latin letters are official, brief and to the point. The Greek letter, more than twice as long as the two Latin ones put together (even in its present incomplete form), is private, relaxed and conversational. The legal aspects of the problem discussed in this correspondence should not detain us here. They have been studied more than once by the experts, although it would be misleading to claim that a final and satisfying conclusion has been reached. 95 What concerns us is that here, we are clearly in the con94 The Latin part only is printed by Dessau ILS 7 7 8 4 , and the whole inscription can be found in SIG3 834. It is also now reprinted in Ε. M. Smallwood, Documents Illustrating the Principales of Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian, Cambridge 1966, No. 4 4 2 , pp. 1 5 7 - 8 . For modern discussions, see P. Graindor, Athènes sous Hadrien, Cairo 1 9 3 4 , pp. 2 0 3 - 7 . On p. 207 Craindor deals with that part of the inscription of A.D. 125 which was available at the time, before the restoration of the whole inscription by Oliver - of which present-

ly' 5 Graindor, op.cit. last n., pp. 2 0 5 - 6 , accepts Mommsen's suggestion that after the Roman conqucst, the scholarchate in Athens became restricted to holders of Roman citizen-

365

text of a traditional διαδοχή, related to testamentary power — which must surely imply the transfer by one διάδοχος to his successor of a piece of property that goes with the office - quite probably the garden of Epicurus. 96 The same applies to our second inscription, pieced together by James H. Oliver from two Byzantine capitals in the Epigraphical Museum in Athens, formerly published as IG II 2 1097 and SEG 111,226, and shown by Oliver to be parts of the same inscription. 97 The date is fixed by the mention, in line 6, of the consuls of A.D. 125. The inscription is far from complete — there are missing letters at the beginning of each line and a wide gap in the middle, between the two columns — and the beginning and end of the whole inscription are missing. The precise nature of the document is thus far from certain, but there can be no doubt, as Graindor and Oliver have convincingly argued, that it is concerned with similar problems of succession and testamentary transfer of Epicurean property dealt with in the inscription of Plotina and Hadrian four years earlier. We have διετάξατο in line 4; [δι]αδοχής τών Έπι[κουρ . . . ] in line 8; [ά] ναύημάτων and οίκοδομιών in line 12; àpyvpeiòiou in line 21, and διαδοχής in line 23. It also mentions a Heliodorus (line 7), identified by Graindor with the philosopher mentioned as a friend of Hadrian in the Hist. Aug., Hadr. 16,10. 98 There, we are told that Hadrian held in summa familiarítate the philosophers Epictetus and Heliodorus. Epictetus is clearly 'our' Epictetus, the foremost Stoic of his age. It seems most likely that the other philosopher singled out by 'Spartianus' for mention by name, Heliodorus, would be an Epicurean, for good measure: quite probably the head of the Athenian school. It is not unlikely that our inscription deals with arrangements for Heliodorus' succession to Theotimus. The Stoic evidence is somewhat less conclusive. Three inscriptions with Stoic διάδοχοι survive. Only one of them has a clear terminus ante quem. The honorary inscription IG II 2 3571 is dated by the editors to the principate of Trajan, 'ante a. 117/8 p.' In it (line 4), T. Coponius Maximus is described, among his other and more civic titles, as διάδοχος Στω[ικός], The two other Stoic διάδοχοι are later, and are described in more circumspect language. Aurelius Heraclides Eupyrides is described in IG II 2 3801, lines 4—6, as ό διάδοχος τών ànò ship. But were all Athenian scholarchs in the last hundred years or so of the Republic Roman citizens? Panaetius may have been; perhaps also Clitomachus, who had Roman friends. Antiochus may have had it confened on him by Lucullus as imperator - we have no record of that. But Philo? Mnesaichus and Dardanus? The matter needs further investigation. It seems to me still likely that this particular rule applied only to the Epicurean school, probably because one of its scholarchs (Patro?) was a Roman citizen. 96 In t h e Latin sections of the inscription, the Epicureans arc secta Epicuri (line 4) and one hears of diadoche sectae Epicuri (line 9), and diadoche sectae Epicureae (lines 1 2 13). We shall return to these expressions presently. 97 James H. Oliver, 'An Inscription Concerning the Epicurean School at Athens', TAPA 69, 1938, pp. 4 9 4 - 4 9 9 . 98 Not 15,16 - as Oliver, p. 496.

366

Ζήνωνος λ&γων. Julius Zosimianus is described in exactly the same terms in IG II 2 11551, lines 2 - 6 . The first of these inscriptions is dated by its editors to the middle of the century, and the second is placed at the end of the centuryDo these titles imply that, in the second century A.D., from the age of Trajan onwards, an ordinary Stoic succession existed in Athens, and that this was a succession in direct and uninterrupted line, to the school founded by Zeno of Citium? This was the view of the historian of the Stoa, Max Pohlenz." It is also the view taken by Lynch, on the ground that, of the three διάδοχοι in our inscriptions, only Zosimianus postdates Marcus Aurelius.100 But the expression διάδοχος των άπό Ζήνωνος λότγων is odd. Not only does it make no reference to a succession to a school — it seems to be deliberately formulated to avoid any such implication. It is not merely a matter of space: τής Στωικής σχολής would be shorter; even τής Στωικής διατριβής would only be longer by one letter. It is as though the authors of these two inscriptions used a very precise formula, defining the exact position of this sort of διάδοχος. In the light of the evidence we have already examined concerning the sense of διάδοχος and διαδοχή from the second century onwards,101 it is tempting to think that this peculiar expression means simply 'a professor of Zenonian Philosophy'. I have already suggested earlier that the exact reference to 'the doctrines of Zeno' may represent a rejection of the less 'orthodox' Stoic doctrines of eclectics like Panaetius or Posidonius.102 Such a restriction is not very likely to have been instituted in a thriving, full-blooded Stoic school. The Stoics were not bound by an αυτός epa: they were at liberty to reformulate their philosophical positions, and many of them had done so often enough before the eclectic systems of Panaetius and Posidonius were devised. But a public professor of Stoic Philosophy is a different affair. It may have been part of the terms of his appointment that he should not expound the doctrines of later Stoics, or his own views, but that he should present his audience with an authentic exposition of the original doctrines of the Stoa, as formulated by Zeno. For the function of such a professor would be, not to help his pupils to find the truth, but to impart to them a body of knowledge which was considered to be part of their general education — in this particular case, knowledge of the original doctrines of one of the four classic schools. " Pohlenz, Stoa I, p. 288; II, p. 147. The other names of second-century Stoics cited by Pohlenz in this note have nothing to do with the problem of the succession. The first is not an Athenian. Pharnaces is most probably an imaginary character - see H. Cherniss' Introduction to his vol. 12 of the Loeb Moralia, p. 6. Plutarch's friend Themistocles and the two Stoics described in Moralia 710B, are no scholarchs. Plutarch's expressions there, άπό της Στοάς and άπό τής αύτη ς παλαίστρας suggest that they belonged to some Stoic circle, but does not guarantee an organized school or succession. 100 101 102

Lynch p. 190. See above, pp. 144-152. Above, pp. 223-4.

367

If this was the case, there is no reason to assume that Coponius Maximus, in the age of Trajan, was anything more exalted than an earlier specimen of such a public professor of Stoic Philosophy. The formula used in his case, διάδοχος Στωικός, is less precise, but need not imply more. And, if our earlier evidence for this sense of διάδοχος were insufficient, we would still have another Trajanic inscription, dated by its first editor, T. L. Shear, to 102 or earlier, in which another Athenian, Flavius Menander, is called simply a διάδοχος.103 That this man was the head of a school is inconceivable. The inscription is long enough to have afforded some space to a description of that school: only a few words would be required. I submit that Flavius Menander was no more than his title in the inscription suggests: a public professor. He was most probably a professor of philosophy: the title διάδοχος is still usually restricted in this period to teachers of philosophy. But his terms of contract may have been wider than those of Coponius Maximus, Eupyrides and Julius Zosimianus. He may have been appointed to teach the doctrines of the various classic schools, not just those of the early Stoa. 104 What, then, about Marcus Aurelius? And what about Galen's statement wvl Be αφ' ob και διαδοχαί τών αίρέοβών eiaivl105 There is — as we have already pointed out — no reason to assume that Galen's statement is restricted to the Athenian διαδοχαί or to the period after Marcus Aurelius. There were διάδοχοι elsewhere, before and after the Athenian chairs were established by Marcus. Antoninus Pius, as we are told in his biography {Hist.Aug., Anton.Pius 11,3): rhetoribus et philosophis per omnes provincias et honores et salaria detulit. This already implies the existence of public chairs in the provinces, not only in Athens. Of Hadrian, we are told {Hist.Aug., Hadr. 16,8): omnes professores et honoravit et divites fecit. Once more, the implication is that the Emperor merely improved the status and salaries of existing professors. We have already seen in an earlier chapter that some professors of philosophy outside Athens were called διάδοχοι.106 There is no reason to assume the Athenian διάδοχος Στωικός, or the two διάδοχοι τών άπό Ζήνωνος λόγων, were anything more exalted. We are left with the Epicurean διάδοχοι. They are clearly still in possession of some school property by the early years of Hadrian. Do they form an exception to the rule and invalidate the general impression we have of the meaning of 103 Hesperia 15, 1946, p. 233, No. 64. Lynch p. 190 includes him in the list of Stoic 'successors', although he admits that we do not know he was one. 104 The inscription of Varius Caelianus (above, p. 144ff.) is dated by Professor Oliver between A.D. 9 0 - 1 7 0 . We do not know what sort of διάδοχος he was, and I have suggested Στωϊκός as a possibility. In that case, he would be in a similar category to Coponius Maximus. But it is quite probable that the last line of the inscription had nothing to add to διάδοχος of the third line. 105 Above, pp. 189-91. 106 Above, pp. 150-152.

368

διάδοχος at that time? I doubt it. That the property they pass on to their successors is the original garden of Epicurus is most probable, and there is no reason to doubt that, in the school of Epicurus, the succession continued unbroken ever since the days of the founder. This, after all, is what we are told by Diogenes Laertius. But a hard look at Plotina's and Hadrian's letters will reveal that the talk is about a diadoche sectae Epicureae: not a word is said here of the school.107 In her Greek letter to her 'friends' in Athens, Plotina writes (lines 24—5): . . . τον άριστον aiei έκ των όμοδόξων ueipàaûcu. άντικαÛLOTtweiv εις τον έαυτού τόπον. Again, the question is not of appointing the best member of the school but the best among the holders of orthodox Epicurean views. For all we know, he could be an Epicurean from outside Athens who had never been a member of an Athenian Epicurean group. For all we know, there may not have been anything like a proper Epicurean school functioning properly in Athens at the time. Α διάδοχος there was, and he inherited the property and passed it on. But this 'successor' was appointed by his predecessor in a will, in which, as far as we can tell, the main (if not exclusive) item was the transfer of property. The φίλοι, exist in Athens - but they exist also elsewhere. The Empress Plotina, of whom we are nowhere told that she was educated at Athens, clearly sees herself as part of the secta Epicurea. From such a semi-private διάδοχος of the Epicurean αϊρεσις to the 'Professors of Epicurean Philosophy' of Marcus Aurelius' foundation is a small step. Popilus Theotimus — and Heliodorus? — are already far nearer the new category of a professor of the doctrines of a world-wide sect than to the older image of an Athenian scholarch - with the one difference, that they still inherit and pass on property in direct succession to Epicurus. It is, of course, hardly surprising that it was the fossilized and orthodox Epicurean sect which preserved the old school property, and a steady succession to a scholarchate of some sort, so much later than all other schools. Old institutions are usually best preserved where no change and development take place. Besides, the property of Epicurus — like all else connected with the Master — was obviously held in awe like a sacred relic, and it was important enough to have a 'successor', if only to ensure that the sacred property would remain in the hands of the faithful. But Theotimus and Heliodorus are the last Athenian Epicureans of whom we hear in connection with a succession. It is not unlikely that, once the salaried chairs were instituted by Marcus Aurelius, whatever had been left of the old Epicurean order (except, perhaps, the property) was allowed to go into abeyance. The Epicurean succession does present us, however, with one additional problem. We do know, from Diogenes Laertius' evidence, that the succession in this particular school went on longer than that of any (or most) of the other schools. This has now been confirmed by our two inscriptions, which supply 107

24

Above, pp. 3 6 5 - 6 . Gluckcr (Hyp. 56)

369

the names of one or two Epicurean 'successors' of the age of Hadrian still in possession of the school property. Yet Diogenes Laertius (X,26) brings the Epicurean succession only down to Basilides, and the rest of the fourteen successors before the age of Caesar, of which we are told by the Suda (s.v. Epicurus, No. 2404 Adler), had to be pieced together by Zumpt from other sources. 108 Does this imply that the names of successors in other schools, later than the age of Augustus and not mentioned in the sources now available to us, are still likely to turn up? I am no prophet. The discovery of new Neronian or Flavian inscriptions honouring Athenian philosophers with the title 'Ακαδημαϊκός διάδοχος would please me as an addition to our knowledge, even though it would invalidate my present hypothesis. (For what is offered in this book is not the absolute truth - no student of the ancient sceptics would dare to make such exaggerated claims for his own theories - but merely a hypothesis which claims to be πιόανή καί απερίσπαστος καί δίβζωδξυμένη in the present state of our evidence). But I believe that this is most unlikely to occur. The names of Epicurean scholarchs later than the first two or three generations are not mentioned by Diogenes, not because they did not exist. The Suda (= Hesychius) knew of fourteen of them before the age of Caesar, and his ultimate source most probably knew their names and the names of some of their pupils as well. 109 Diogenes himself (X,9) tells us that the Epicurean succession continued 'for ever'. Their names are not mentioned because they are not worthy of mention. Diogenes Laertius' book is not a work about the succession in this or that school — nor, for that matter, was Sotion's, whose order Diogenes almost certainly followed, 110 and whose work consisted at least of twenty-three books (Diog.Laert. 1,7). The successions served merely as a general framework for writing about the lives and doctrines of these philosophers. Members of other schools had interesting lives. They took part in public affairs, many of them meddled in politics — and, of course, they had their biographers. They also had new philosophical insights and doctrines to offer. Epicureans were different. They lived their quiet lives in Epicurus' garden, looking down with amused contempt on the toils and tribulations of public life that went on around them, only too happy e terra magnum alterius spedare laborem. Most of them do not appear to have found their biographers. The Herculanean life of Philonides, most of whose activities took place in Antioch, is an exception — and Philonides did become involved, through his tutorship to Antiochus Epiphanes, in the affairs of a royal court. For the ordinary Epicurean, there were only a few men to be celebrated — the great Colossus himself, who discovered the truth once for all, 108

Zumpt p. 11 Iff. Pracchter, in his revised Zumptian table of successions, p. 665, has included Coponius, Eupyrides and Zosimianus among the Stoic scholarchs, but not Theotimus or Heliodorus, although he refers to Plotina's letters on p. 579. 109 See n. 26 above. 110 A. M. Frenkian, op.cit. n. 76 above, pp. 3 9 7 - 8 .

370

and the fust generation of his apostles — especially Metrodorus of Lampsacus, the Simon Peter of Epicureanism. Atticus' amused and amusing remarks on the 'personality cult' of Epicurus among the sect (Cie.Fin. V,3), are amply borne out by the large number of portraits of Epicurus and Metrodorus which have reached us. Few other philosophers of antiquity have reached us in so many different portraits, and no portrait of any of Epicurus' later successors has been preserved. 111 Their lives were quiet and uneventful, and they offered no new doctrines or insights. Their function was to maintain the cult of Epicurus and to spread his gospel of salvation. Diogenes can tell us that their succession continued unbroken — and his statement is borne out by external evidence. But as far as Epicurean biography is concerned — it is essentially the biography of Epicurus and his friends. And Diogenes' Life of Epicurus is one of the three longest Lives in his whole compilation — almost as long as that of Zeno, and longer than that of the Divine Plato. 112 This is not the case with scholarchs of the other schools. Stoics, Peripatetics and Academics led an active life, advised Kings and potentates, became 'court philosophers' to Roman generals in the East, and went on embassies to Rome. It is, perhaps, not without its significance that in 156/5 B.C., the Athenian delegation to Rome consisted of a Stoic, an Academic and a Peripatetic scholarch — but no Epicurean; and that the one Epicurean 'household philosopher' we find in Rome is Philodemus, whose duty is not to accompany Piso to the East, but to sit in his villa in Herculaneum and write Epicurean books. He is a missionary, a one-man Bible Society or SPCK, at a time when Antiochus and Aristus accompany their Roman patrons and advise them. The Academic, Peripatetic or Stoic scholarch is also usually free to produce his own philosophy, and to engage in bitter controversy with other schools. There, we have meat for the biographer and the gossip-columnist — and they oblige. Where Diogenes Laertius leaves off, there is plenty of other information, albeit scattered and fragmentary, in other sources. Even Philodemus cannot help compiling biographical and diadochical materials on Stoic and Academic scholarchs and their pupils. But information becomes rare once we have passed beyond the age of Augustus. This is, no doubt, partly due to the decline of philosophical biography at the 111 Gisela Ν. M. Richter, The Portrait of the Greeks, vol. 2, London 1965, pp. 1 9 4 207 and figures 1149-1338 (Epicuius, Metrodorus and, perhaps, Colotes). A portrait found in Herculaneum of 'Zeno' has been identified by some as that of Zeno of Sidon, Cicero's contemporary Epicurean scholarch - on whom see above, p. 103 n. 19. But Professor Richter ascribes it to Zeno of Citium (pp. 188; 251), and a comparison of figures 1086-8 with others of Zeno of Citium appears to me to be utterly convincing. In this case, we have portraits only of Epicurus and one or two of his immediate disciples, and only Metrodorus is represented in as many portraits as Epicurus. 112 On Epicurus' school and on the spread of Epicureanism outside Athens, see N. W. De Witt, Epicurus and his Philosophy, Minneapolis 1954, pp. 328-358.

371

time. We find Eunapius ( V.S. 454) complaining of the scarcity of philosophical biography between Sotion and Porphyry : even the life of Ammonius was not written by Plutarch - it can, as Eunapius tells us, be pieced together from Plutarch's writings. The reasons for this are complex, and a complete analysis of this phenomenon (even if it were feasible on the basis of our scanty evidence) would lie outside our more limited scope. One can see why, with the rise of Neo-Platonism, philosophical biography, soon to develop into hagiography, was revived. But the popularity of the older philosophical biographies was not likely to pass away with the age of Augustus. Sotion, Heraclides Lembos and the other writers of this genre continued to be read and copied until they were 'codified' by Diogenes Laertius, and were probably still available for some time afterwards. If new biographies were not written, it is perhaps - at least to an extent — because there was little new to write about. From the age of Caesar to that of Nero, there was a dearth of philosophers in Athens. Plutarch's teacher Ammonius is the only teacher of philosophy at Athens at the age of Nero of whom we know anything as a person, and what we know of him is far from exciting. Plutarch's contemporary Stoics, Epicureans and Peripatetics, as we meet them in his works, seem to be usually faceless and are often nameless. Some interesting persons like Musonius and Cornutus lived in Rome - but the Romans had never learnt the art of philosophical biography. Philosophers in Rome were regarded as too banausic to be worthy of a biography like famous statesmen and nobiles. When we return to Athens in the next century, there is Taurus, whose life may have contained some interesting episodes — but who was there to write it? The Roman Gellius? Surely not Philostratus, who is interested only in Sophists (including Taurus' contemporary Herodes Atticus) and thaumaturgists. And, in any case, even Philostratus (who knew Taurus apparently only as Herodes' teacher: V.S. p. 564), would have required contemporary sources. The art of philosophical biography died with the age of Augustus. It was revived in the NeoPlatonic movement, where proper 'schools' with their 'successions' were being formed again, partly - as the school of Plutarch, Syrianus and Proclus in Athens - in conscious imitation of the classic schools. If this rebirth can serve as some indication of the causes of the earlier death, one could venture to suggest that philosophical biography died out at the age of Augustus because the classic schools became extinct. The framework of Sotion's and Diogenes' works suggests that philosophical biography was regarded as flesh to dress up the skeleton of the history of the successions in the schools. When schools and successions ceased to exist, so did philosophical biography. The Eastern Greeks (of whom presently) did not learn the Athenian and Alexandrian art of biography until the age of Philostratus. As for Eunapius, the more philosophical sections of his Lives are already part of the Neo-Platonic hagiographical tradition; and his confession of ignorance in his prooemium is ample proof that men like Gaius, Albinus and their pupils and contemporaries in the East had not found their biographers. As for Athens - who was there to write the lives of private

372

tutors, when the lives of eminent Greeks and Romans could provide far more exciting stories, and a superior collection of moral and patriotic exemplal

F. Quae Causa Leti? It appears, then, that the Academic, Peripatetic and, most probably, Stoic successions — and schools — came to an end during the last years of the Roman Republic and were virtually extinct by the early years of the Principate. Why? We have already noted what appears to be the answer known to Eunapius (445): διά τάς KOUÙÇ συμφοράς. This appears to be also the answer of Mr. Lynch — perhaps with a slight difference. For Eunapius — whose context, as even a superficial glance at the passage will show, is the history of the Roman Empire — the 'common misfortunes' are most likely to include the Civil Wars. For Lynch, the watershed appears to be the Mithridatic Wars, and especially Sulla's siege of Athens, which interrupted the constant supply of students to Athens from Rome and other cities of the Empire. 113 It is true, of course, that the last attested scholarchs of the Academy proper and the Peripatos cease to function about that time. Yet it is too easy to blame 'common misfortunes' — or, in our modem jargon, 'circumstances beyond our control' — for what may well have come about even without their helpful intervention. It is true that Antiochus was no properly elected scholarch of the Academy: we have seen the evidence of our sources on this point. But he did make a courageous attempt to form a proper school with all its traditional trappings: scholarch, pupils, succession. He made his attempt after the siege of Athens was over and danger had moved away from Athens to the East, and he did draw to Athens at least one group of Roman students whom we meet in the fifth book of Cicero's De Finibus. If his experiment proved unsuccessful, this could not have been entirely due to external circumstances. Nor was it due to the 'loss' of the Academy. Antiochus was never in possession of the old property, and we have seen that this property was most probably lost to the school long before his time. 114 The gymnasium was soon rebuilt, but the school was not revived. Altogether, the story of the utter devastation and desolation of Athens during and after the Mithridatic and Civil Wars appears to have been greatly exaggerated in our literary sources as it increasingly became a literary topos. Some years ago, the historian of the economy of Roman Athens opened the case for reinvestigation. By weighing the archaeological and epigraphical evidence as against the 1,3 114

Lynch pp. 1 6 0 - 1 6 2 ; 2 0 4 - 2 0 7 . Above, pp. 2 2 6 - 2 3 7 .

373

testimony of the literary sources, John Day reached the conclusion that, despite the strain of these years of war, the story of utter devastation can no longer be accepted. Some hardship there was, and some destruction, as is only inevitable during a war. But the suffering was no cataclysm, and the economic recovery was relatively swift and effective. It did not take long after the battle of Actium for the Athenian economy to be back to normal.115 The reasons for the decline of the schools are to be sought elsewhere. Lynch 116 quotes the statement which Cicero puts in the mouth of L. Crassus in De Oratore 111,43: Athenis iam diu doctrina ipsorum Atheniensium interiit, domicilium tantum in ilia urbe remanet studiorum, quibus vacant cives, peregrini fruuntur capti quodam modo nomine urbis et auctoritate. He relates this statement chiefly to Roman students. But Crassus continues: Tamen eruditissimos homines Asiáticos quivis Atheniensis indoctus non verbis, sed sono vocis nec tam bene quam suaviter loquendo facile superabit. The Athenians, that is, have kept their 'Queen's English' and Oxford accent'. But we notice that the contrast is not between Athenian residents and Roman peregrines, but between Athenians and eruditissimi homines Asiatici. The Greek East had been, for some time, a serious potential rival to Athens in the study of philosophy. So far, it had usually been content to acknowledge the superiority of Athens and to supply the Athenian schools with a steady flow of students. One has only to think of the many Easterners, from Zeno of Citium and Diogenes of Babylon to Panaetius of Rhodes and Antipater of Tarsus, who became Stoic scholarchs; of Theophrastus of Eresus; Strato of Lampsacus; Lyco of Troas; Critolaus of Phaselis; Arcesilaus of Pitane in Aeolis; Antiochus and Aristus of Ascalon and Cratippus of Pergamum — to name but a few of these Asians who came to Athens and achieved prominence there. Asia Minor was, of course, philosophy's native home, and the demand for philosophy did not cease there even during all those years when the Athenian schools led the Greek world and Asians with philosophical interest had to go there. More than a generation before the Mithridatic Wars, Charmadas went to Asia for a while after seven years of studies under Cameades at Athens, and his sojourn there was a great success (Acad.Ind. XXXI,38ff.). Charmadas returned to Athens, perhaps because of the impending danger of war. Earlier on in the same century, the Epicurean Philonides founded his school in the Seleucid Kingdom, in competition with an Epicurean school already established there by his own former tutor, and converted Antiochus Epiphanes to Epicureanism. Philonides himself, to the best of our knowledge, received his philosophical training entire115

J. Day, An Economic History of Athens under Roman Domination, pp. 1 2 0 - 1 7 6 . 116 Lynch p. 60.

374

New York 1942,

ly in the East. The demand for philosophy in Asia was continuous, but the Mithridatic Wars most probably interfered with the flow of students to Athens. It is, perhaps, about this time that the Asian Greeks begin more seriously to look nearer home for philosophical instruction, and it is probably no mere accident that Cratippus teaches for some years in Mytilene, and has to be recalled to Athens by a special decree of the Areopagus and the personal intervention of Cicero and Caesar;117 and that the foremost Stoic of his age, Posidonius (of Apamea!) opens his school in Rhodes, and is succeeded to it by his grandson Jason (of Nysa!). This takes place almost at the exact time when Cicero, on his way back from his province, can report to Atticus that in Athens, things are sursum deorsum in philosophy {Qic.Att. V,10,5). As a philathenian, Cicero succeeded in attracting Cratippus back to Athens and sent his son to study with him. But philosophy and philosophical instruction have, in the meantime, made their first move East. Some years later, Strabo (673) can tell us that the schools of philosophy and of any other branch of general erudition in Tarsus have already surpassed those of Athens and Alexandria. True - as Strabo tells us in Tarsus the students are all local. But this implies at least that by now, they had as good an education offered them at home as they could obtain elsewhere, and they no longer needed to supply Athens with their Antipaters and Zenos. It is in Asia, as we have seen in a previous chapter, that we find what appear to be the first glimmerings of the new Platonism which we now call Middle Platonism, when the mist begins to lift in the second century A.D.118 And not merely Platonism. Galen received his philosophical schooling in the doctrines of all four classic sects in philosophical schools in his native Asia Minor — and it is significant that only his Epicurean teacher came from Athens. 119 Epicureans, as we have just seen, continued to have a school and a succession there. By the middle of the century, it is Calvisius (or Calvenus) Taurus the Syrian who is the foremost Platonic tutor in Athens. At about the same time, the new Platonism had already spread as far west as Carthage, and Apuleius, whose Platonism is strongly influenced by the school of Gaius (in Asia Minor), had already been 'baptized' into the Platonic sect by his African teachers.120 Platonism and philosophy in general - had migrated from Athens back to Asia Minor, and it is mainly from there that the new Platonism spread to the rest of the Roman oikumene. As for the Romans, most of them had long ceased to go to Athens for their studies. Cicero's advice to his friends 'to go to Greece' for their philosophical studies (Acad.I, 8) appears to be already an indication that this custom is beginning to die out. Cicero himself - and his mouthpiece for this particular admonition, Marcus Varrò — had studied under Antiochus in

1,8

120

Above, Above, Above, Above,

pp. pp. pp. pp.

115-6. 134-9. 135-6; 190-91. 139-141. 375

Athens. But they already admit that 'going to the Greeks' is tantamount to going to Greece. 121 At that time, Staseas of Naples had already been teaching philosophy in that city for some time (Cic fin. V,8), and Philo had been lecturing in his last years in exile in Rome. Only a few years later, we find Athenodorus of Tarsus acting as tutor to the young Octavian (Strabo 674) and Nestor of Tarsus acting as tutor to the young Marcellus (Strabo 675). Both had probably studied at the Athenian schools — but they were both Asians, and after their short careers at Rome, they returned to their native city, if only to take an active part in its government. 122 Another competitor for the attention of Roman students — if only for a brief period in the late Republic and early Principate, was Massilia. Strabo (181) can tell us that the most serious-minded Roman students went there for their Greek studies in preference to Athens. From the JulioClaudian period onwards, there is no dearth of teachers of philosophy in Rome itself (most of them from the Greek East), and it is then that the only original Roman sect — the Sextians — has its brief career. A Gellius or an Apuleius who would go to Athens as part of his studies still exists. But Gellius continued his studies under Favorinus, who chose to teach in Rome, and Apuleius studied many things in Athens, but he had already been imbued with his Platonism from his Platonist teachers in Carthage. The only great original philosopher of the Imperial era, Plotinus, was educated in Alexandria and taught in Rome; and the only Roman philosophical writer of the early Empire, Seneca, received the whole of his philosophical training in Rome. Once the Romans realized that Athens had become a philosophical backwater, they ceased to go there. But they only ceased to do so some time after the Athenian philosophical scene had been desolate. What did the Athenians do about all this? Precisely what they had done all along. The average Athenian bourgeois had never cared all that much about philosophy. If a philosopher was too troublesome, he could be given hemlock or driven out of town. If he kept his peace, he could continue to teach and hold his school. Apart from the embittered Athenian Plato and his ailing nephew Speusippus, or the peaceful and harmless Epicurus, most of the Athenian scholarchs and the majority of their pupils whose names have reached us were aliens, and the greatest proportion of these aliens were Eastern Greeks. When Cicero's Crassus makes the statement we have just quoted, he is not revealing anything new, but merely describing a situation which had existed all along. Students of philosophy were drawn to Athens for three centuries because of the fame of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Zeno and Epicurus, their pupils and successors, and the schools they founded. Once there, many of the best of them stayed and carried on the tradition of the schools. The natives looked at this phenomenon with incredulous superiority,and an Athenian like

121 122

On the eailier attempts to excise id est, ad Graecos ire iubeo, see Reid ad loc. On Nestor the Academic, see above, pp. 1 2 2 - 3 .

376

Mnesarchus or Dardanus must have been regarded by his fellow-citizens as an oddity. When some of the schools were pro-Macedonian, a Sophocles of Sunium would endeavour to pass a decree closing them. When the uncouth Roman masters were to be imposed on, scholarchs could conveniently be sent on an embassy to Rome. For some time, philosophical lectures even formed part of the training of the ephebes: it may be no accident that this occurred about the same time when aliens were beginning to be admitted into the epheby. Provided, that is, that the lecturer did not raise his voice too much and disturb the good citizens in their leisure-time activities in other parts of the gymnasium. When a Carneades did this, his embassy to Rome was forgotten, and he was reprimanded by that torch-bearer of Athenian democracy, the gymnasiarch. If a philosopher happened to hold a civic office, or to benefit the city in a material way, his name, like that of any other benefactor, would appear in an honorary inscription, and his titles would include 'Platonic philosopher' or the like — probably at his own request. But being a philosopher in itself would entitle one to no honourable mention — except in statues and inscriptions put up by his pupils. It was only at the instigation of two Roman imperatores — one of whom happened to hold absolute sway over the Roman world at the time - that the Areopagus condescended to invite Cratippus back to Athens. The philosophers and their schools were as much a part of the Athenian scene as the artist colonies are of the Parisian, and they were just as much an alien body to the large majority of Athenian citizens. When the schools declined and died out about the age of Antiochus, the ordinary Athenian could not care less. By the time of Plutarch (and probably long before his time: Cratippus is already one of the first signs), the dominant figure in Athenian secondary and higher education is the private καθηγητής, waiting on his rich pupils' doorstep until they have slept off the effects of last night's wine; and Ammonius the philosopher, in his capacity as Strategus, is present at an άπόδειξις of the ephebes, who were studying letters, geometry, rhetoric, music — but not philosophy (Plut.Afor. 736 D - Ε ) . By the time of Antiochus and his contemporaries, the Easterners had discovered that they could do at home what they had been doing in Athens all these generations, and the teaching of philosophy was reestablished in the East. It took all the enthusiasm and patriotism of Herodes Atticus and the full support of (Trajan?), Hadrian and the Antonines to establish new public chairs in philosophy in Athens two centuries later. The holders of these chairs were mostly nonentities, and their names have reached us mostly through honorary inscriptions or a long quotation from Longinus in the first Neo-Platonic biography, composed by the Syrian Porphyry at the school in Rome. It is significant that our sources for this late period — Philostratus, Eunapius, Himerius, Libanius, the Cappadocians — supply us with very vivid pictures of the professors of rhetoric at Athens, their pupils, their manner of life and their squabbles, but hardly with any pictures of the teachers of philosophy and 377

their circles. That a cosmopolitan multitude of students was constantly arriving at the Piraeus during that period is quite clear from all these sources. But most of them, it appears, came to study rhetoric — and, one assumes, to 'pick up an Attic accent'. When such a student arrives, he meets with delegations from the schools of the various sophists, and is often 'shanghaied' like Libanius. But the young Proclus can safely walk to town and search for the house of the philosopher Syrianus. It is only when we reach the Neo-Platonic hagiography that we come face to face once more with living Athenian philosophers. It was only the religious devotion to philosophy and to paganism of the school founded by Plutarch of Athens (and, one suspects, also the theurgic powers of some of its members), that made Athens once more, for a brief period, a centre of philosophical studies. Even then, it was rivalled by the Platonic school of Alexandria, where work on a similar scale — and sometimes of a higher standard — was produced. In the larger perspective of Athenian history from Plato to Justinian, the four classic schools, far from carrying on a glorious and unbroken tradition for a thousand years, were merely an eccentric, if brilliant, episode, lasting (apart from the peaceful and fossilized garden of Epicurus) only for three centuries. Few of the ordinary Athenians of those centuries would have believed their ears if they were to be told that these bands of eccentric foreigners in the Academy or the Lyceum were to constitute one of the glories of Athens for ages to come. If these three centuries became for the whole of posterity the Classical Age of Greek Philosophy, this was due, not to the good offices of the Athenian demos, but to the genius and devotion of all those philosophers — almost exclusively metics — who made Athens their home. After three centuries, and in the more cosmopolitan atmosphere of the Pax Romana, they ceased to do so. The Athenians went back to their slumbers, the schools collapsed, and philosophy soon found new centres. Antiochus of Ascalon was one of the last of those Eastern Greeks to make Athens his home. His attachment to Athens is unquestionable. He never returned to his native city of Ascalon (Cie. Tusc. V,107) - an old Philistine township where philosophy was probably never greatly appreciated. But it also appears that he never contemplated settling in Rome: as Lucullus' client, he could have done that with no effort - and, for all we know, Lucullus may well have made him the offer. Apart from his travels on Lucullus' Eastern campaigns and on an embassy to Rome, Antiochus stayed in Athens all his adult life, and became its most famous living philosopher (but who else was there?). At a time when schools were collapsing, he attempted to found a school, which proved, in the event, to be short-lived. He did not revive the Academy, and the old school did not continue as an institution in his heyday or after his death. He could not have 'exercised a decisive influence on the whole subsequent course of Greek philosophy' by 'changing the orientation of future generations of Academics', because there were no future generations of Academics. Antiochus' Old Academy' was a bold experiment which de378

pended for its success chiefly on the personality of its founder. At the hands of an Aristus, it was already crumbling down as Cicero was making his way home from his Cilician province. By the time Seneca was writing his Naturales Quaestiones, it was the private tutor Ammonius who was teaching some variety of Platonism in Athens, and the 'Academies, both Old and New', were a thing of the past. If Antiochus did exercise a decisive influence — or any influence — on future generations of Greek philosophers, he could have done so only through his published work, most of our legitimate evidence for which is derived from Cicero. Had Antiochus been the major force — or one of the major forces — behind the new movement now called Middle Platonism, which was beginning to rise in the East (and independently of any Athenian institutions), one could have expected this new philosophy to include a far larger measure of Stoic epistemology; to be far less concerned with the writings of Plato and their exegesis; and to be far more preoccupied with the writings and teachings of the early Academics and Peripatetics. Only a few of the more superficial features of Middle Platonism bear any resemblance to the teaching? of Antiochus as we know them from the works of his pupil Cicero; and Augustine, who was familiar with some aspects of Middle Platonism through the works of its Latin exponent Apuleius, and with the teachings of Antiochus through the writings of Cicero, may well have been justified in calling Antiochus faeneus ille Platonicus. This, however, is a matter for another inquiry.

379

EXCURSUS I

Plutarch, Lucullus

42,3—4

The passage is quoted in full in Chapter 1,1 and we have pointed out there somewhat cursorily some of the contradictions which would result from treating it as a 'synchronic' description of the first contacts between Lucullus and Antiochus. It would be helpful to set out the individual facts narrated in this passage: 1. Lucullus loved philosophy and was well-disposed towards it; 2. From the start, he showed a passion and zeal for the Academy; 3. Not the so-called 'New Academy', although it was still flourishing at the hands of Philo, who taught the views of Carneades; 4. But of the 'Old Academy', which could already boast of a very eloquent head in Antiochus of Ascalon; 5. Lucullus made him his φίλος και συμβιωτής; 6. He 'set him up' against all pupils of Philo; 7. Among whom was Cicero; 8. Who also wrote an excellent book 'about' that school, in which Lucullus defends κατάληφίς and Cicero himself opposes it. Of these 'facts', 1 should not concern us too much: it is merely part of a conventional laudatio. 2 is obviously correct as far as it goes: Lucullus' first contact with philosophy was made through his 'friendship' with Antiochus — but when? And in what relation to Philo? This — our 'facts' 3ff. — is where the difficulties begin. Lucullus could not have met Philo in Athens — by the time he arrived there, Philo was already in exile. But Philo's school can only be described as 'flourishing' (the same phrase used by Cicero, De Or. 1,45) in Athens, and while he was still there as scholarch in deed, not only in name as he was in his Roman exile. 4 could have happened at the same time as the fact about Philo narrated in 3 — we have shown that Antiochus founded his own private school in Athens while Philo was still there as scholarch of the Academy proper. 2 But Lucullus could not have met Antiochus in Greece before Philo went into exile. When he did meet him, he made him his φιΚος και συμβιωτής, and we have seen the meaning of this phrase. 3 But what is the meaning of 'set him 1 2 3

Above, p. 16. Above, pp. 1 8 - 2 0 . Above, pp. 2 1 - 2 7 .

380

up against' all Philo's pupils? When they met, Philo was in exile, and if any of his pupils were still in Athens, they were being besieged by Sulla and out of reach of Lucullus. Lucullus and Antiochus did not meet in Rome, 4 and Lucullus could not 'set Antiochus up against' any pupils who may have followed Philo there. They did not meet inside Athens, or in Alexandria. They probably met elsewhere in Greece s . It is not unlikely that Antiochus escaped to Sulla's camp and met Lucullus there. 6 Thus, wherever they met, there was no question of 'setting up' Antiochus against former pupils of Philo. Lucullus' one concern was to find a Greek — preferably with some knowledge of the East — to accompany him. It was only at the time of the Alexandrian episode that Lucullus discovered the astonishing fact that Antiochus was at variance with the views of the more traditional Academics, as represented by his master Philo. Nor was an obscure young Roman lawyer like Cicero a serious competitor, against whom Lucullus had to exert his influence to 'set up' Antiochus. Nor was Cicero's Lucullus composed until some forty years later. Nor is it a book about Antiochus' 'sect' — Cicero's speech, which lends the dialogue its final and conclusive note, is an attack on it. Nor was a Roman like Lucullus — however distinguished he may have been in his own sphere of influence — likely to exert any force or persuasion on Athenian philosophers if he had indeed attempted to 'set up' Antiochus against the rest of Philo's pupils. A literal acceptance of this passage of Plutarch at the 'synchronic' level can only lead to phantasies such as those conjured up by an early nineteenth-century scholar 7 : 'Plutarchs Wörter, Luc. 42, άντέταττβ κτε. ... können nicht gut anders verstanden werden als von einem längerem Aufenthalt in Rom. Philo . . . hatte hier bereits mehrere Jahre gewirkt . . . Luculi, der seinen Ansichten nicht huldigte, vermochte dennoch seinem Freund eine Art von Gegenschule eröffnen, in der er mit seinem berühmten Gegner wetteiferte.' Grysar places this Roman phantasy after the Alexandrian episode, thus bringing both Antiochus and Lucullus to Rome during the years of Lucullus' quaestorship in Asia, to compete with Philo who had been dead for some time, by opening nothing less than a second school of philosophy there (did Philo ever open a 4

Above, pp. 2 0 - 2 1 . Above, pp. 2 0 - 2 1 . 6 I have, of course, no evidence in support of this suggestion. But since Athens, Rome and Alexandria axe all excluded, this - rather than 'somewhere in Greece, Crete or C y r e n e ' seems to be the most reasonable hypothesis. Antiochus did not leave Athens for Rome together with Philo - we have seen that. Why should he, since he had already seceded from Philo's school? He may even have stayed on in Athens for a while, claiming that he was now no longer a friend of Philo and shared none of his political opinions. But when Athens was besieged by Sulla, opposition to aliens would probably mount up - as happened all too often in Athenian history - and Sulla's camp, where an Eastern Greek could hope for some patronage (bearing in mind the examples of Panaetius, to whose school Antiochus had belonged), would be a natural place to turn to. 7 Grysar pp. 9 - 1 0 . 5

381

first one?), at a time when most Romans had nothing better to do than attend both schools and choose between them. But enough of such hallucinations. It is thus already clear that Plutarch is 'telescoping' into this passage the events of many years. He can do this because, for him, the chronology of all these events is already far from clear.8 But in this case, one could assume that these episodes were, at least, presented in their correct order in Plutarch's source, and that we have here Plutarch's rather careless and hasty summary of them. In the light of what we have already learnt from the other sources, I suggest that the original sequence of events in Plutarch's source was roughly as follows: 1. Lucullus attached himself, from his very first contacts with philosophy, to the Academy; 2. Not, however, to the so-called 'New Academy', but to the Old Academy', which already had a persuasive and eloquent head in Antiochus; (3. Antiochus had already left the so-called 'New Academy' of Philo while it was still flourishing under the headship of Philo in Athens. See Plut.C/c. 4,1, p. 862C-D.) 4. Lucullus made Antiochus his 'companion'. 5. He 'set him up against' (?) all the other pupils of Philo. (6. Philo had many pupils, both in Athens and, after his exile, in Rome.) 7. One of Philo's pupils (in Rome) was Cicero. 9. (Many years later), Cicero wrote the Lucullus, etc. I have put in parentheses those facts which, I suspect, Plutarch found in his source but either omitted or altered in his summary. This will make the sequence of events somewhat more intelligible. But it would still leave us with problems of interpretation, like that of the sense of άντβτάττετο. In the original sequence as I have tried to reconstruct it, this comes after the 'friendship' between Lucullus and Antiochus has been formed - or, perhaps, as an explanation of that fact? Could it imply that, on Antiochus' return to Athens after Sulla's victory, Lucullus set him up against all rivals for the leadership of the school? This would be a reasonable assumption if we knew two things: that Antiochus did become a scholarch as a result of some competition between him and the other pupils of Philo; and that Lucullus came to Athens and had some influence on its internal affairs. We have already seen that Antiochus' school was his own private institution, and arose in no competition with any other pupils of Philo who may have been still in Athens at the time. Nor do we know that Lucullus ever came to Athens and settled anything there. During the years 86—80, he spent all his time in the East, mainly in Asia Minor, helping in the conduct of the Mithridatic War. After Sulla's return to Italy in 85, he reorganized the economy of the Province of Asia and arranged a punitive expedition against Mytilene.9 It is possible — but far 8

For another example of muddled chronology in Plutarch, see above, p. 112 n. 50. Van Ooteghem pp. 2 8 - 3 9 ; M. Gelzer, RE 13, pp. 3 7 8 - 3 8 0 ; Broughton MRR 2, pp. 5 5 - 6 ; 58; 61; 64; 69; 71; 81. 9

382

from certain — that on his way back to Rome in 80/79 B.C. Lucullus passed through Greece, and that the Chaeronean episode narrated by Plutarch (Cimon 1) took place then. 10 It is thus not improbable that Lucullus passed through Athens at the time. But, even if it was a question of establishing Antiochus against opposition from other pupils of Philo, would the other pupils of Philo have obeyed the ruling of Lucullus on what was after all an internal issue of their school? And, would other sources have kept their silence about such a 'fact' - especially Cicero in his laudatio LucullP. Establishing 'Philo's most outstanding pupil' (Cic.Luc. 4) at the head of a school would be as important a fact to record in such a laudatio as any of the other facts about Lucullus and Antiochus. But Cicero is rather 'disappointing' on this issue. We have seen that for him, Antiochus was never anything more than the self-appointed head of his own school, lecturing in the Ptolemaeum — as any freelance teacher of philosophy was at liberty to do. 11 Be that as it may, άντιτάττομαι only means 'set up against' or 'in opposition to'. 12 We have no evidence that it can have a stronger sense — as, for example, 'appoint' or 'establish in opposition to'. But Antiochus had already set himself up in opposition to Philo and his school long before Philo had left for Rome, and long before he met Lucullus. The answer, I suggest, is simpler. Plutarch's source was Latin, and the original verb was anteposuit, 'preferred'. 13 The source probably had something like quem Philonis auditoribus anteposuit. Plutarch did not quite understand this verb. He translated it etymologically into Greek: ante = άντί,ροηο = τάττω, using the Middle to express the sense in which he understood it. 14 All that his source implied was that Lucullus preferred Antiochus to other pupils of Philo available to him. We have seen that this is not what Lucullus was likely to have done: his reasons for adopting Antiochus were far more mundane. But this is, 10

M. Gelzer, loc.cit. pp. 3 8 0 - 8 1 , accepted as probable by Van Ooteghem pp. 3 7 - 3 8 . But see Van Ooteghem p. 37 n. 3 for M. Villoresi's arguments for placing this episode in 87/6. These arguments seem to me to be at least as compelling as Gelzer's. 11 See Chapter 2 passim, especially pp. 1 0 2 - 6 . 12 LSJ s.v. άντιτάσσω I have two examples of the transitive use of the Middle, both from Thucydides. In our passage, the verb must be transitive, since its subject is Lucullus, not Antiochus. Plutarch's younger contemporary and friend Favorinus (De Exil. 13,6) has the Middle of this verb in a Middle sense, but in a sentence with one unmistakable subject. 13 Cic.ße Or. 1,98; De Legg. 1,15: Platonem ... quem omnibus anteponisi Luc. 73: quis hune philosophum non anteponit Cleanthi Chrysippo eqs. 14 Reiske's emendation άιηέταττβ is recorded in the apparatus of most modern editions. Reiske's reason for it is given in his edition, Plutarchi Vitarum Parallelorum vol. Ill, Lipsiae MDCCLXXV, p. 906: 'malim à ηέταττβ (in activo), quem Antiochum Lucullus opponebat. non, id quod vulgata lectio subiicit, quo fretus amico Lucullus ipse sese Philonis famäiaribus opponebat. ' But see above, n. 12, for the transitive use of this verb in the Middle. What matters, however, is that Lucullus did not 'set up' either Antiochus or himself in opposition to any pupils of Philo.

383

after all, also what Cicero claims in his laudatio: cum autem a philosophis ingenio scientiaque putaretur Antiochus Philonis auditor excellere, eum secum ... habuit - and it is not an accident that both Cicero and Plutarch begin their account of the first contacts between Lucullus and Antiochus with a statement concerning Lucullus' devotion to philosophy. Cicero's words (Luc. 4) maiore enim studio ... philosophiae deditus est are echoed by Plutarch's φιλοσοφίαν δέ πάσαν μεν ή απ άξero .. . έρωτα και ξήλον βσχβν. Plutarch's source thus appears to be very close to Cicero — and we shall return to this presently. That the source was Latin can be illustrated by another phrase of Plutarch. Καί σύγγραμμα re πάγκαλοι έποΐηοεν εις την αΐρεσιν, says Plutarch of Cicero's Lucullus. But the expression εις την αϊρεσιν is awkward. The 'Dryden' translation, 'in defence of this sect' is impossible Greek and impossible sense in the context. Cicero's Lucullus, far from being a defence of Antiochus' school, ends up with an attack on it by Cicero himself. Most current translations take this expression to be the equivalent of περί της αίρέσεως — 'concerning that school'.15 But again, Cicero's Lucullus is not just an informative book about Antiochus and his school. The final note is sounded by the speech for the 'prosecution', delivered by Cicero himself on behalf of Philo, and the dialogue is composed — in the words of Cicero himself (Att. XIII, 19,4) Άριστοτελείω more ... in quo ita sermo inducitur ceterorum ut penes ipsum sit principatus. The dialogue is thus chiefly written against Antiochus' school. Plutarch's source had something like in illam sectam elegantissimum librum confecit.16 Plutarch took in to mean something like 'dedicated to', and translated it accordingly.17 One notes that Plutarch's passage contains a number of other possible echoes of Cicero. His άν&ούσης τότε is very reminiscent of De Or. 1,45, fiorente Academia etc. His precision in speaking of the 'so-called New Academy', both in our passage and in Cie. 4,2, may be Plutarch's own. After all, he did write a book, now lost, to demonstrate that 'there had been only one Academy since Plato' (Catal.Lampr. No. 63), and he did record and support the view that Arcesilaus and his school constituted no break in the Academic tradition (Adv. Col. 1122A).18 But the same precision in the use of terminology and the same 15 Doehner in the Didot edition, vol. I, Paris 1846, p. 621: 'de Académica secta'; Β. Perrin in the Loeb text, vol. II, 1914, p. 617: 'on the doctrines of this sect'; Flacelière and Chambry in the Budé edition, vol. VII, Paris 1972, p. 118: 'sur sa doctrine'. These translations, or at least some of them, may be based on Reiske's note (loc.cit. n. 14 above): 'ek non magis pro secta, quam adversus earn, sed universe de secta.' Reiske produces no evidence for this peculiar sense of ek. 16 For phraseology see Cic.Att. XII,19,3; 25,3. It is an attractive speculation that, if the Latin source had 'in illam sectam', Plutarch would take ilia to be the Latin equivalent of the definite article. This is, after all, what ille came to be in the Romance languages, and must have been in vulgar Latin - see C. H. Grandgent, An Introduction to Vulgar Latin, London, n.d., p. 36; W. M. Lindsay, Syntax of Plautus, Oxford 1907, p. 46. 17 Perhaps in a sense similar to ek in the title of the Homeric Hymns. 18 See above, pp. 36; 261.

384

refusal to call the sceptical Academy 'New' is also observed by Cicero. 19 What is more significant is that Cicero and his Lucullus are given a disproportionate place in our passage which belongs, after all, to the biography of Lucullus, not of Cicero. On the other hand, we are not informed in this passage, which deals with the relations between Antiochus and Lucullus, of any of the facts which are more relevant t o the life of Lucullus himself — such as Antiochus' travels in the train of Lucullus in the East. It is only by accident that we hear in another passage (28,8) that Antiochus was present at the battle of Tigranocerta. Of his death on the same campaign we learn only from the Acad.Ind. (XXXIV,36ff.). Plutarch's source for our passage is obviously closer to Cicero than to Lucullus or Antiochus. What is this source? H. Peter argued long ago that for the last section of his Lucullus (37ff.), Plutarch may have excerpted from a multiplicity of sources — or that, in the best (or worst) case, his source may have been Nepos, mentioned in 43,2. 2 0 More recent views tend to favour the first of these hypotheses, 21 and the Budé editors of Plutarch's Lucullus find it 'incontestable' that Plutarch 'consulted directly' various writings of Cicero, 22 as well as other sources, and that he read his Lucullus 'with attention.' 2 3 I find this hypothesis unnecessary. Plutarch shows no intimate knowledge of Cicero's Lucullus, and his source for our passage appears to be a biographical account rather than any writings of Cicero himself. 24 Plutarch's chief, but by no means only, source for his Cicero was the Greek biography by Cicero's freedman and literary executor M. Tullius Tiro. 25 But Tiro could hardly be his source for our passage. For Tiro was a Roman citizen, a member, for many years, of a distinguished Roman household, and the letters addressed to him in Book XVI of Cicero's Ad Familiares would in themselves constitute a proof — if we needed one — of his fluency in Latin. He could not have mistranslated such expressions as anteposuit and in illam sectam. Nepos' lost life of Cicero (Gell. X V , 2 8 , 1 - 2 ) is a more likely candidate. Nepos was a close friend of Atticus (Nep./lrr. 13,7) and of Cicero himself (Nep.Fr. 5 Winstedt = Lact .Inst. 111,15,10). In Atticus' house, Nepos had access to Cicero's letters before their publication (Nep./lrr. 16,3—4).26 He was thus most likely to echo Cicero's own expressions, and in speaking of Lucullus, to treat him largely from a Ciceronian angle. It is not " Cie.Acad.I, 13; 46. Sec above, pp. 1 0 3 - 6 . H. Peter, Die Quellen Plutarchs in den Biographien der Römer, Halle 1865, pp. 1 0 8 - 9 . 21 Van Ooteghem pp. 2 1 7 - 8 (with reff, to modern literature). 22 Flacelicre and Chambry (see n. 15 above), p. 49. 23 Ibid. p. 118 n. 1. 24 See H. Peter, op.cit. n. 20 above, pp. 1 2 9 - 1 3 0 . 25 Ibid. pp. 1 2 9 - 1 3 5 . 26 L. Ross Taylor, 'Cornelius Nepos and the Publication of Cicero's Letters to Atticus', Hommages à Jean Bayet ('Collection Latomus' LXX), Brussels 1964, pp. 6 7 8 - 6 8 1 , has argued that Cicero's letters to Atticus were published after Atticus' death by Cornelius Nepos. 20

25

Gluckcr ( H y p . 56)

385

unlikely that Plutarch consulted Nepos' life of Cicero and that, having found there a section concerning Lucullus, in whom as a Chaeronean he had some vested interest, he excerpted it, in the process abbreviating and 'telescoping' the events described in it and mistranslating a few Latin expressions. In a famous passage in his Demosthenes (2,3), Plutarch states quite plainly that he had a working knowledge of Latin, but that he had acquired it through reading, not through an accurate study of the language. Ever since Hermann Peter published his work on the sources of Plutarch's Roman lives, if not before, this has been generally taken to imply that Plutarch did consult and excerpt Latin texts, but that he was capable of mistranslating some phrases and expressions in these Latin sources.27 This view has been recently challenged by Professor C. P. Jones. 28 His arguments can be summed up under the following headings: 1. Plutarch shows no extensive knowledge of Latin literature; his quotations amount to a few select passages; 2. He had no need to learn Latin: most of his Roman friends were fluent in Greek; 3. It was common practice in his time to use learned slaves as 'research assistants' — and slaves with a knowledge of Latin must have been available to Plutarch. No one would deny the validity of the first two points. Plutarch himself admits, in the same passage of his Demosthenes that he only had a working knowledge of Latin, and one could hardly expect him to be widely read in a literature which he — like most Greeks of his time — must have considered as greatly inferior to his own. He also implies that his Roman friends were fluent in Greek when he tells us, in the same passage, that on his early visits to Rome he had been too busy to learn any Latin. This, of course, is only to be expected. Plutarch's friends were educated Romans, at a time when most educated Romans still knew Greek as a matter of course. The point, surely, is that he does claim to have leamt Latin 'late in life', and to be able to read it with some fluency and understand the gist of what he read, if not the accurate sense of each idiom and phrase. What would be the purpose of learning Latin, if not for the sake of reading Roman materials available only in Latin? That Plutarch had slaves is certain, and that he used some of them in his literary workshop is likely. But was he likely also to have slaves who were more fluent in Latin than himself, and to use them for research on Latin sources? If so, why should he tell us of his own knowledge of Latin, and admit its limitations and imperfections? To protect the honour of his literary slaves? The passage quoted by Jones, Pliny Ep. Ill, 5,10-17, does not speak of slaves working independently of their master. Pliny's slaves read to him. They excerpt and anno27

H. Peter p. 61 n. Later literature: below, notes 2 9 - 3 1 . C. P. Jones, Plutarch and Rome, Oxford 1971, pp. 8 1 - 7 . In his Harvard dissertation, Plutarch and his Relations with Rome, 1965, Professor Jones still held the more traditional view; but he has indicated to me in a letter that, wherever there are any discrepancies between the dissertation and the printed book, he would prefer the book alone to be regarded as expressing his considered opinion. See also his article in RhM 113, 1970, p. 191. 28

386

tate at his command and dictation, and in his presence. But even if Pliny did use slaves as 'research assistants', this would be no evidence for the practice of another author in different circumstances. It certainly would not constitute a sufficient argument for discarding the statement of Plutarch concerning his own knowledge and use of Latin. But the strongest argument against Professor Jones's thesis is that Plutarch's Lives contain numerous phrases and expressions which can only be understood as misapprehensions of some of the finer points in Latin morphology, grammar, syntax and vocabulary. These passages present us with the exact practical counterpart of Plutarch's own statement in his Demosthenes. They show us a man whose knowledge of Latin is good enough to grasp the main points of a narrative, but not accurate enough to understand every single phrase or expression he meets with in his Latin sources. Even the 'slaves-hypothesis' would only place the same evidence at one remove: what Plutarch says of his own imperfect command of Latin would have to be applied to his literary slaves. But why multiply entities when Plutarch's own confession tallies so well with the practice of his Roman Lives? A considerable body of evidence for such mistranslations has been collected in the last hundred years, especially in the works of A. Sickinger,29 C. Theander,30 W. Vornefeld,31 and H. J. Rose.32 The cumulative evidence of the materials collected by these scholars could, perhaps, be given some added support by the following examples:

29 A. Sickinger, De Linguae Latirme apud Plutarchum et Reliquiis et Vestigiis, Diss. Heidelberg, Freiburg i.Bi. 1883, pp. 6 4 - 8 7 . 30 C. Theander, Plutarch und die Geschichte, Lund 1951, pp. 6 8 - 8 6 ; 'Plutarchs Forschungen in Rom', Eranos 57, 1969, pp. 9 9 - 1 3 1 . 31 Guilelmus Vornefeld, De Scriptorum Latinorum Locis a Plutarcho Citatis, Diss. Münster 1901. Vornefeld (pp. 5 - 6 ) believes that the passage in the Life of Demosthenes should be divided in two. Its first half, όψέ ποτέ . . . όνόμασι. should refer to Plutarch's first attempts to study Latin, and the rest of the sentence to the time of writing, when Plutarch already had a good, accurate knowledge of Latin and was only admitting that it was not sufficient for judgements on style. This hypothesis is then tacitly extended throughout his dissertation (see his conclusions, pp. 7 0 - 7 1 ) to include all passages discussed - as if they were all written at the same period as the Life of Demosthenes - and whenever Plutarch departs from his Latin source in any details, Vornefeld ascribes this to his tendency to free paraphrase and speculation. The results of this approach are not always entirely fortunate - see notes 35; 38; 39 below and our own treatment of the same passages. Other passages, discussed in a similar fashion by Vornefeld himself, could be properly employed to yield further proofs of Plutarch's mistranslation from Latin. But this is not the place for a full refutation of Vornefeld's thesis. 32 H. J. Rose, The Roman Questions of Plutarch, Oxford 1924, pp. 11-19. Van Ooteghem p. 218 and notes 1 - 2 there (referring only to Theander's book), takes it for granted that the older objections to Plutarch's direct use of Latin sources arc no longer tenable. His relevant passage is quoted in full in the Budé edition (see n. 15 above), p. 50 η. 1.

387

Camillus 6,2: Plutarch is quoting Livy V,22,5. Among other things he has TOP Κάμίλλον άπτόμενον της âeoù. Barrow 33 and Theander 34 find no evidence for this phrase in Livy. Let us compare the two passages: Livy V,22,5:

Plutarch, Camillus 6,2:

Dein cum quidam seu spiritu divino tactus seu iuvenali ioco, 'Visne Romam ire, Iuno?' dixisset, admisse ceteri deam conclamaverunt.

Αιουϊος δέ ψησιν ενχεσϋαι μεν τον Κάμιλλον άπτόμενον της ôeoù και παρακαλεί», άποκρίνασύαι δέ τινας των παρόντων ön και βούλεται και συγκαταινεί και σννακολουϋεϊ προόύμως.

It is clear that Plutarch takes τινας = quidam (and not just ceteri) as the subject of the answer. Where Livy uses one verb in that answer, adnuisse, Plutarch has three. Συγκαταινεί is obviously his rendering of adnuisse. But the other two verbs can also be found in Livy, if we search for them hard enough. Βονλεται is visne and συνακολουΰεί is ire. It is even possible that παρακαλείν is Plutarch's rendering of conclamaverunt. It is, however, clear that for Plutarch, the subject of the first half of the sentence is not quidam (which he has understood as the subject of the answer), but Camillus himself. I suggest that άπτόμενον της ύεού translates spiritu divino tactus. Misunderstanding the passive participle for an active or middle is what one could only expect of a man who acquired a working knowledge of Latin without learning its grammar. Plutarch does also evidently confuse the subject of the first part of our question. Livy's iuvenali ioco refers back to the Roman iuvenes of the last sentence who purified themselves in order to bear the statue, which had been hitherto touchable only by a certain category of priests. Plutarch, I believe, understood little of that sentence except that it had something to do with touching the goddess, and, perhaps, that venerandi had something to do with prayer to her. When he came to spiritu divino tactus, he continued to think in terms of touching the goddess, and ascribed this act - including the 'act of veneration' - the prayer - to Camillus.35

33

R. H. Barrow, Plutarch and his Times, London 1967, p. 191 n. 4. Theander, Plutarch und die Geschichte (above, n. 30), p. 74. 35 Vornefeld pp. 37 - 8 explains this passage of Plutarch as a conflation - from memory - of Livy V,22,5 and 21,3. His hypothesis would perhaps explain why Plutarch takes Camillus to be the subject of the sentence; but in most other details, including the 'touching of the goddess', my hypothesis would explain them far better without assuming too much memory work on Plutarch's part. Why not assume that Plutarch excerpted Livy V , 2 1 - 2 , and kept the same subject - Camillus - throughout his Greek account? 34

388

Quaestiones Romanae 25,269E. Plutarch's misapprehension of Livy (VI ,1,11 — 12) has been discussed by Rose 36 and Theander. 37 One can add that Plutarch renders quidam ... putant as o£ πλείστοι νομίξονσιν, obiectus hosti exercitum Romanum esset as έκρατή&ησαν, and transfers cum exitio urbis foede pugnatum (την πόλιν άπώλεσαν) from Livy's paragraph 11 — that is, the first version as against that of quidam — to the second, quidam version. Marcellus 11. Plutarch mistranslates the first figure, given by Livy XXIII,16, 15, duo milia et octingentos, as πεντακισχιλίους, but renders correctly the second number, non plus quingentis. Numerals are notoriously misleading, especially when written in the old Roman characters. But even more significant is the last sentence. Livy has: non vinci enim a Hannibale vincentibus difficilius fuit quam postea vincere — a clause which would fox many an intelligent student. Plutarch seems to render non vinci as ούχ ώς προς αμαχον ούδβ άήτ· τητον, vincentibus as διαγωνίξομένοις, and, perhaps, difficilius fuit quam postea vincere as άλλά τι καί naâeiv Òwàjievov. This is not mere paraphrasing, as suggested by Theander. 38 In the same passage, Plutarch also renders ingens ... res as κλέος δέ μέγα and ilio bello gesta sit as άπό της μάχης έκείιτης ύπάρξω.· In each case, one part of the Latin phrase is translated accurately. Flamininus 17,4. έλϋόιτα μετά παώών καί γυναικός, where Valerius Antias, ap. Liv. XXXIX,43 - which is obviously Plutarch's source - has merely cum liberis. Did Plutarch misunderstand the exact meaning of liberi (= 'free members of his household' — that is, wife and children)? 39 These are only a few additional specimens. Now that we possess, at last, an indispensable tool for identifying many of Plutarch's quotations — especially the explicit ones 40 — more systematic work can be done on his manner of translating Latin passages. Much more, I suspect, is likely to be detected in the 'hidden quotations'. 4 1 Our purpose here has only been to show that Plutarch 36

H. J. Rose, p p . 2 2 - 3 . C. T h e a n d e r , Plut. u. die Gesch., p. 73. 38 Ibid. pp. 7 4 - 6 . V o r n c f e l d p p . 3 8 - 9 suggests t h a t Plutarch is speculating o n t h e basis of Livy's passage and adding details which h e did not find in it. 39 T r u e to his principles, V o r n e f e l d p. 4 3 explains this a d d i t i o n : ' q u o n i a m c u m liberis muliercm adfuisse c o n s e n t a n e u m erat (ita enim in supplicationibus fieri solebat)'. 40 W. C. Helmbold and E. N. O'Neill, Plutarch's Quotations, A m e r i c a n Philological Association ('Philological M o n o g r a p h s ' N o . XIX), 1959. 41 This, of course, is not t o imply t h a t every time Plutarch echoes ( w i t h o u t express reference) a passage o f , say, Livy, one should regard t h a t passage of Livy as his only possible source. Even if t h e older t h e o r y of ' i n t e r m e d i a t e ' biographies as Plutarch's chief source is no longer tenable, it is still possible that he and Livy could have used t h e same source. Where, however, Plutarch expressly refers t o a Latin source or is obviously paraphrasing an e x t a n t passage of an e x t a n t a u t h o r to w h o m he refers elsewhere, t h e p r e s u m p t i o n in favour of direct use of that Latin a u t h o r should be stronger. Even if o n e should always m a k e allowance for t h e possibility of older, or ' i n t e r m e d i a t e ' , sources, Greek or Latin, this should not a p p l y w h e r e a n u m b e r of misapprehensions can be s h o w n to be misread37

389

is condensing and 'telescoping' the information of his source in one particular passage of his Life of Lucullus ·, that this passage should not, therefore, by regarded as a 'synchronic' account of the beginning of the 'friendship' between Lucullus and Antiochus; that Plutarch's source was most probably Latin, and on some crucial points Plutarch misunderstood it; and that that source was most probably Ciceronian. Thus, his information in this passage adds nothing substantial to what we already know, and should not be used as evidence against any details supplied by more reliable sources, which are discussed more fully in the main body of this work. Plutarch's Lucullus 4 2 , 3 - 4 teaches us more about Plutarch's methods of research towards the composition of his Roman lives than about Antiochus and Lucullus. ings of an extant Latin passage. For the theory of biographies as Plutarch's 'intermediate' sources, see R. E. Smith, 'Plutarch's Biographical Sources in the Roman Lives', CQ 34, 1940, pp. 1 - 1 0 and the literature quoted there. For arguments against it, see Philip A. Städter, Plutarch's Historical Methods: An Analysis of the Mulierum Virtutes, Cambridge Mass. 1965, p. 125ff. For an attempt to establish some criteria for authors likely to be known to Plutarch at first-hand or only at second-hand, see Ziegler pp. 2 7 3 - 7 (RE pp. 9 1 1 - 9 1 4 ) , with extensive bibliography. See also Helmbold and O'Neill, op.cit. last note, Preface (pp. vii-x).

390

EXCURSUS II

Sources for Cicero's Lucullus

There is hardly a philosophical work in the Ciceronian corpus in which the influence of Antiochus as a source — for the whole work or for sections of it — has not been upheld by some modern scholar or scholars at some time or other. A fuller discussion of the extent of Antiochus' contribution to the composition of some of Cicero's major philosophical works must be postponed to the philosophical sequel to this book. There, I hope to discuss it in the wider, and more natural, context of Antiochus' possible influence as a philosopher and as an author on several of his contemporary and later philosophical writers. For the moment, it should be sufficient to point out that 'panantiochism' appears to be on the decline among scholars today. To take one example, Hoyer's ascription of all extant versions of the Carneadea divisio to Antiochus has been rejected by Giusta, and we have given some further reasons for this rejection. 1 Giusta himself has even gone further than anyone else in his rejection of the ascription of Piso's speech in De Finibus V to an Antiochian source (if only to ascribe it to his own far more hypothetical epitome of Arius Didymus). 2 The reaction is healthy, if somewhat overdone. It is now no longer heresy to maintain that Cicero was quite capable of employing sources other than the writings of his immediate teachers and some standard handbooks - indeed, that he was quite capable at times of using his own talents and excellent memory. 3 But proper discussion must await the more appropriate context. We cannot, however, postpone the discussion of the sources of Cicero's Academic books, and especially of the Lucullus. Much of what has been said in the main body of this work concerning Philo's philosophical development and his Roman innovations, and much of our discussion of the views of various members of the Academy during its sceptical period — especially those of Carneades and his pupils — depends directly on a proper determination of the

1

See above, pp. 5 2 - 6 2 . See above, p. 55 n. 148. 3 On this point, see especially the vigorous arguments of P. Boyancé, 'Les méthodes de l'histoire littéraire, Cicéron et son oeuvre philosophique', REL 14, 1936, pp. 2 8 8 - 3 0 9 , which has by now almost attained the status of a manifesto and a programme for further research, especially in the French-speaking world. 2

391

sources o f the various sections of Cicero's Lucullus his Academicus Primus.

and of the extant part of

As can only be expected, scholars have not been unanimous in their suggestions as to the possible sources of these works. But, instead of following the 'normal' procedure and providing, at the outset, a 'doxography' of the various modern solutions to this problem, I shall follow a different route. The doxography, with the present author's own inevitable attempt at a solution, will appear in the last section of this Excursus, and the reader w h o is only eager to find out the results of m y own inquiry, without the arguments leading to these results, is well advised to read that section alone. In the following two sections, I propose to repay a debt long overdue and examine in detail the most thorough, ambitious and ingenious theory of the sources o f the Lucullus expounded so far - that of Rudolf Hirzel. 4 My excuse for doing so is plain enough. Hirzel has gone to great lengths to prove his theory in copious detail. N o refutation of his theory has so far attempted to deal thoroughly, step by step, with the full complexity of his arguments. 5 It is time this task was discharged.

4

Hirzel III, pp. 251-341. All further references to Hiizel in this Excursus, unless otherwise stated, axe to this volume. 5 P. Schwenke, Philol. Rundschau IV, 1884, pp. 878-9, made the pertinent point that the Sosus is called by Cicero (Luc. 12) liber, as against the libri or duo libri of Philo (Luc. 11-12; Acad.I, 13), and it could not therefore be the source of a dialogue in two books like Catulus-Lucullus. It is true that Hirzel (pp. 267; 2 7 2 - 3 ) maintained that the Sosus was divided into two books, just like the first version of Cicero's Academic books. Th. Birt, Das antike Buchwesen, Berlin 1882, pp. 12ff.; 30ff., may have gone too far in arguing that βιβλίον or liber can never apply to a work in more than one book - see E. Rohde, GGA 1882, pp. 1537-63, esp. 1541ff. (= his Kl.Schr., J. C. B. Möhr 1901, vol. II, pp. 428-448, esp. 431ff.). But E. Sprockhoff, De Libri Voluminis βίβλου sive βιβλίου apud Gellium Ciceronem Athenaeum Usurpatione, Diss. Marburg 1908 (supervised by Birt), has shown that the usage of the authors examined by him almost invariably supports Birt's rule. His lists are not exhaustive: in his discussion of Cicero (pp. 32-54), our Acad.I and Luc. passages are not mentioned. But out of nearly a thousand passages examined in his dissertation, only fourteen present an apparent exception (p. 99). In our case, Cicero is u m ^ a l l y precise in calling Philo's books libri (Acad.I, 13) and libri duo (Luc. 11), while the Sosus is called liber only a few lines later (Luc. 12). But one could abandon Hirzel's claim that the Sosus had two books, without renouncing his view (especially if it can be shown to be supported by other arguments) that it was the source of Lucullus' speech, or of part of it. Besides, even Hirzel does not maintain that Cicero's speech was based on the Sosus. More serious is the objection raised by Goedeckemeyer (p. 103 n. 12) that the Sosus was written by Antiochus contra suum doctorem, whereas in Lucullus' speech, Philo's innovations receive short shrift (12; 18), while most of the arguments are conducted expressly against the Clitomachean version of Carneades (12; 78). The first part of this objection is not very compelling. It is true that the Sosus was written against Philo, and must have contained some arguments against his Roman views as well. But from Cicero's narrative of the Alexandrian disputation it is clear that much more time

392

Hirzel's theory, in a nutshell, is that Lucullus' speech is based on Antiochus' speech in the Sosus, and that Cicero's speech — although it is officially an answer to Lucullus' — is in fact based on Philo's Roman books, the very books to which the Sosus (and, by its derivation from that work, Lucullus' speech) was an answer. His arguments can be divided into two groups: a. An analysis of Cicero's speech reveals a number of points which cannot be explained as part of the traditional philosophy of the Academic sceptics, even under Carneades and his pupils. They could only be understood if we took them to represent Philo's Roman innovations, b. Cicero's arguments in his refutation of Lucullus are usually weaker than Lucullus' own arguments, and have often the appearance of being the very same points refuted by Lucullus rather than fresh refutations of Lucullus' contentions. This strangely reversed order could only be explained if we were to assume that in his refutation of Lucullus' speech, Cicero drew on no better source than the very work which that speech (= Antiochus' Sosus) was meant to refute: Philo's Roman books.

A. 'Philonian Innovations' in Cicero's Speech (esp. Luc. 112—147) a. 'The Wise Man is not perturbed if his native city is destroyed' Carneades denied that the Wise Man suffers when his city is destroyed (Cie. Tuse. 111,54). Cicero (Luc. 135) maintains that this is only Zeno's view. Hirzel (pp. 282—5) argues that Carneades would never have defended the view of the Stoics — of all people — even as probabile, and hastens to produce as evidence Luc. 136—7, where Cicero is prepared to accept as 'probable' the Stoic paradox sapientes solos reges solos divites solos formosos, while Carneades would ascribe it to the Stoics alone. was spent by Antiochus and Heraclitus arguing for and against the more traditional Academic positions - especially since both agreed that Philo's Roman views were not typical o f the Academy and that they were easier to refute. The second part of Goedeckemeyer's objection can stand independently of the first. We are indeed told quite expressly in Luc. 12 and 78 that this part of the dialogue will not deal with Philo's Roman views. Hirzel anticipated such objections (e.g. p. 2 5 3 n. 1; 2 7 5 ; 3 3 8 - 9 ) , but his answers depend entirely o n his other theory, that Cicero's speech - or rather its second part {Luc. 112— 147) - represents Philo's innovations, and they stand and fall with it. If that theory can be refuted - and this is precisely what we shall attempt to do in the following pages Goedeckemeyer's second objection will be unanswerable. The o n l y attempt k n o w n to me to deal with Hirzel's theories in some detail is K. Bringmann, Untersuchungen zum späten Cicero ('Hypomnemata' 29), Göttingen 1971, pp. 2 6 1 - 5 . Bringmann replies only to three of Hirzel's detailed arguments concerning Cicero's spcech, which he takes as specimens of his whole approach. His arguments against Hirzel will be cited in their place in our notes.

393

But the fact is that in Hirzel's first example (Tusc. 111,54), it is precisely Carneades who defends the thesis that 'the Wise Man is not perturbed if his city is destroyed' (or rather, he refutes the opposite view), and this is exactly the thesis which is presented in his second passage (Luc. 135) as durum, sed Zenoni necessarium. As to the Stoic paradox of his third example - 'that only the Wise Men are kings' etc. — Carneades does not reject it outright: he merely does not accept it as a 'dogma' binding for him as it is for a Stoic. This is the whole point of the episode in Luc. 137. Nor does Cicero himself accept it wholesale. He is only prepared to defend it bono modo tantum quantum videbitur (ibid.), although it is a Socratic position (136). Because to him — and to Carneades — even a Socratic maxim is no fixed dogma which is tarn defendenda quam moenia. It is quite conceivable — it would not surprise me in the least if we were to find evidence for this - that, on another occasion, Carneades argued that the Wise Man does become perturbed when his city has been destroyed — or, if the occasion demanded, that Wise Men are, indeed, alone kings, alone rich, alone beautiful. Even this would constitute merely a disputatio in utramque partem, fully in character with that elusive philosopher. b. Stoic and Peripatetic ethics Carneades (Cic.Fin. 111,41; Tusc. V,120) denies any difference between Stoic and Peripatetic ethics, apart from insignificant verbal differences. Cicero (Luc. 132—4) maintains that there is an essential difference between them, and (119) knows of the differences between their philosophies of nature as well (Hirzel pp. 285-7). But differences between Stoics and Peripatetics are not unique to Cicero's speech in his Lucullus. Carneades the author of the Carneadea divisio is fully aware of the differences between Stoic and Peripatetic τέλη (Cic.Tusc. V,845; Fin. 11,34; V,20-21). Cicero himself in an earlier work (De Legg. 1,38; 5 3 - 5 ) accepts this view, ascribed there to Antiochus (54), that the difference between the Stoic τέλος and that of the early Academy (which, for Antiochus, includes the early Peripatetics) was non rerum sed verborum discordia. Yet the same Antiochus, in his version of the Carneadea divisio (Fin. V,16), accepts the difference between Stoic and Academic-Peripatetic τέλη. One remembers that Luc. 132-4 occurs in another discussion of the τέλη based on the same Carneadea divisio but independent of Antiochus, against whom the whole of Cicero's speech is directed. Thus neither Carneades nor Antiochus seems to be entirely consistent on this issue — nor, naturally enough, is Cicero. An attempted solution to this apparent contradiction has recently been offered by W. Görler.6 Görler accepts the view that the thesis non rerum sed verborum discordia was Antiochus' invention, and analyses its development in Cicero's 6

W. Görler, Untersuchungen

394

zu Ciceros Philosophie,

Heidelberg 1 9 7 4 , pp. 1 9 8 - 2 0 5 .

philosophy on the basis of his own general theory of Cicero's philosophical affiliations. A full discussion of Cicero's philosophical affiliations must, again, be postponed to the philosophical sequel to this book. But Görler provides in his excursus no satisfying answer to the problem of the contradiction between the 'non verborum' thesis and the differences in τέλη — a contradiction which appears to have originated with Carneades himself, not with Antiochus. There is, however, some method in Carneades' inconsistency. The passages where the difference between the τέλη is emphasized all come from various versions of the divisio. The two places where Carneades is reported as maintaining that the difference is merely verbal are derived from another disputation of his. In Tusc. V,120, we read: quorum controversiam solebat tamquam honorarius arbiter iudicare Carneades. This he clearly does not do in the divisio, where (e.g. Fin. V,20) he adopts a position which is neither Stoic nor Peripatetic in an argument against the Stoics of his age. In Fin. 111,41, the context of Carneades' 'ingenious and eloquent exercise in dialectic' is clearly indicated as omnis haec quaestio, quae de bonis et malis appellatur. This, as Giusta has shown, 7 is the question περί àyaôcov και κακών, which in his scheme of the typical order of an ethical doxography, is quite distinct from, and posterior to, the more fundamental question περί σκοπών και τελών. Independently of Giusta's assumption of a common source, which he identifies with his hypothetical epitome of Arius Didymus, 8 and even if Giusta's reconstructed order of an ethical discussion is not to be taken as binding on Carneades, it appears clear from all the indications in our texts that Carneades discussed the question of τέλη and the question of àyadà καΐ κακά in two separate lectures. In the former, he would naturally underline the differences in formulations of the τέλη - that, after all, was the whole object of the divisio. In the latter, he would employ all his dialectical acumen to show that, in the actual choice of goods and evils, the formal differences in τέλη become merely verbal. It is even possible that, in defending the prima naturae against the Stoic τέλος in his divisio (Fin. V,21; Tusc. V,84), Carneades tried to demonstrate that even the Stoics admitted in practice the importance of those prima naturae, only calling them by different names (as Piso argues in Fin. V,88—90). Be that as it may, there is nothing peculiar in Carneades defending two opposing points of view on two different occasions — nothing stranger than his Roman lectures or his patronage of two different views of the τέλος on two different occasions (Fin. V,21 = Tusc. V,84, as against Luc. 139). In any case, we have seen that the contradiction — whichever way we choose to interpret it — is not between Carneades and Cicero's speech in the Lucullus, but between Carneades and Carneades.

7 8

Giusta I, p. 156ff.; II, p. 80ff. See Chapter 1, n. 135.

395

c. Peripatetic epistemology Cicero (Luc. 112) seems to agree that Carneades accepted the 'Peripatetic' view, sapientem interdum opinan. But in Luc. 78, he ascribed this conception of Carneades' epistemology to Metrodorus and Philo and rejected it in favour of the stricter view of Clitomachus, and in 113, he rejects it once more, nec dico temporis causa, sed ita plane. His source for the milder view of Carneades is, therefore, the Roman Philo. (Hirzel pp. 288-290). But what, then, is his source for the whole of his speech, including 78 and 113? According to Hirzel, Philo as well. Besides, 112 does not ascribe to Carneades an all-out acceptance of the sapientem opinari maxim. The words are sapientem interdum opinari - 'sometimes'. Interdum appears in a similar context in 59 — this time, in Lucullus' speech: Carneadem autem etiam heri audiebamus solitum esse eo delabi ut diceret opinaturum id est peccaturum esse sapientem. In 67, we have the same view ascribed to Carneades, with two qualifying adverbs: Carneades non numquam secundum illud dabat, adsentari aliquando, ita sequebatur etiam opinari. In 112, the 'acceptance' of this maxim is expressed in weaker terms: ne Cameade quidem huic loco valde repugnante; and Cicero's own reaction to this 'Peripatetic' view is hardly complimentary: cum simplici homine simpliciter agerem nec magno opere contenderem. This is a far more cautious and reserved position than that of Philo and Metrodorus in 78, where the opinari sapientem proposition is, in their view, simply approved by Carneades without any qualifications. Cicero, it is true, rejects even this cautious position in favour of the stricter interpretation of Clitomachus (78; 113). But his source for the 'middle-of-the-road' interpretation of Carneades cannot be the Roman Philo. Cicero's source for his speech in the Lucullus thus knows of two interpretations of Carneades' attitude to sapientem opinari apart from the stricter one he adopts himself: a. all-out acceptance, as maintained by Metrodorus and Philo's Roman books; b. qualified acceptance on some occasion, as maintained by the non nulli of 59. 9 He rejects both in favour of the stricter version. Hirzel (pp. 290—292) continues his argument by maintaining that Catulus' view (Luc. 148), adsensurum ergo non percepto, hoc est opinaturum sapientem, sed ita ut intelligat se opinari sciatque nihil esse quod comprehendi et percipi possit, stands nearer to Philo's conception of Carneades than to that of Clitomachus, and reflects the words of Cicero (141): ego nihil eius modi esse arbitrer cui si adsensus sim non adsentiar saepe falso eqs. But Cicero, one notes, employs an unreal conditional clause and does not therefore commit himself to an adsensio. Catulus' view represents that of his father, who, on the first day of the dialogue (Luc. 18) reprehended Philo's Roman views. The text of 148 is somewhat corrupt, but there is no difficulty in Catulus' final statement: illi alteri

9

That is, almost certainly, Catulus the Elder - see Chapter 1, n. 218.

396

sententiae, nihil esse quod percipi possit, vehementer adsentior. This, put in such unqualified terms, is not Philo's Roman position.

d. Natural science and its value Cicero (Luc. 127) values theoretical knowledge very highly and includes in it the investigation of the whole field of natural science, as well as theology. The same ideal of the investigation of the truth which makes for happiness is attested also in various passages of Augustine which are derived from Cicero. The source is Academic, but it could not be Carneades: for it is nowhere attested that he or his school took any interest in such pursuits, and his πιύανόν, as we are told by Sextus, was only a guide to practical decisions. It must, therefore, be Philo, whom Hirzel characterizes as a 'Platonist', in contrast to the 'Socratic' Carneades. (Hirzel pp. 292-303). But, apart from Hirzel's rather speculative suggestions (pp. 301—3), we have no evidence that Philo was more interested in natural science than Carneades. We do, however, know from Sextus, Math. IX, 1, that oi περί τον Κλειτόμαχον και ò λοιπός τών 'Ακαδημαϊκών χορός did investigate natural problems at great length, examining the theories of others and accepting some of them. This is just the attitude we find in Luc. 116. As to Carneades' alleged lack of interest in theology, see Fragments 93 — 107 Wisniewski.

e. Stoic and Peripatetic dialectic Cicero ends Luc. 141 with the words praesertim cum iudicia ista dialecticae nulla sint. He proceeds (142—6) to reprimand Antiochus for following the dialectic of Zeno and Chrysippus rather than that of Xenocrates and Aristotle, yet at the same time calling himself an Academic. Surely, this appeal to Xenocrates and Aristotle must come from someone like Philo, not from a consistent Carneadean sceptic. (Hirzel pp. 3 0 3 - 6 ) . But why? It was, after all, Aristotle's dialectic of arguing in utramque partem which was adopted by Arcesilaus and his followers (Cic.Fin. V,10; Or. 46). If a similar dialectic had already been employed by Xenocrates — as Cicero tells us in 143 — then, by abandoning this tradition of the early Academy proper for Stoic dialectic, Antiochus was, indeed, showing himself in his true colours as a Stoic rather than the Old Academic' he claimed to be. Such an argument — that Antiochus does not follow in practice his alleged masters — appears also in 113 and 137. It implies only that Antiochus the dogmatic and self-styled Old Academic should follow the precepts of his 'masters' — not that his sceptical critic necessarily approves of them. As for iudicia ista dialecticae, the phrase refers not to the art of dialectic in general, but to the dialectical κριτήρια of the Stoics — see Reid ad loc. 397

f. Other arguments Hirzel's other arguments (pp. 3 0 6 - 3 1 8 ) stand or fall with the validity of the arguments presented so far. It is quite true that the last section of Cicero's speech deals with the three major departments of philosophy and attempts to show that, in each of them, Antiochus was more of a Stoic than an Academic. Should one begin this section, as Hirzel suggests, with 112? But 112 continues the discussion of the Stoic criterion and the Academics' attacks on it which started in 98, and the style of the second section of 98 (31, 38) may well suggest that it is here, rather than in 112, that one should look for the proper literary point of division in Cicero's speech. 10 From the point of view of the contents, the discussion of the three departments of philosophy starts properly at 116, with 114—5 serving as a bridge between it and the last section, 9 8 - 1 1 3 . Hirzel is compelled to include 112 in the second part of Cicero's speech since, to him, that second part is the only section of Cicero's Philonian source which fully represents Philo's Roman innovations — the earlier part, 66—111, being Philo drawing mainly on Clitomachus — and in 112 we have what Hirzel claims is a Philonian picture of Carneades. But we have seen that the picture of Carneades in 112 is no more Philonian than in 67 (or, for that matter, 59 — a part of Lucullus' speech), and that what Hirzel takes to be the second part of Cicero's speech presents no discrepancies with the 'first part' and no views which can be construed to conflict with those of the school of Carneades. If this is the case, the objection raised long ago by Goedeckemeyer 11 will regain its full force. Both Lucullus (12; 18) and Cicero (78) state quite categorically that their discussion is restricted to the more traditional views of the school of Carneades in their Clitomachean version — not to Philo's Roman views. If the traces of Philo's Roman views detected in Cicero's speech by Hirzel are (as we have shown) false traces, the express statements of the persons of the dialogue should be accepted. It is clear from all that we know of the Catulus12 and from the remains of the Academici that Philo's Roman views were discussed — whether at great length or not — on the 'first day' of the dialogue. 13 If, despite this, Cicero's source for his speech in the Lucullus is Philo, it could not be the Philo of the Roman books. In the final section of this chapter, I shall argue for Philo's answer to the Sosus as the more likely source. But here we encounter the second group of arguments advanced by Hirzel, and we must answer them first. 10 As suggested by M. Ruch, 'La "disputatio in utramque partem" dans le "Lucullus" et ses fondements philosophiques', REL 47, 1969, pp. 3 1 0 - 3 3 5 , esp. p. 320ff. 11 See η. 5 above. 12 The testimonia are collected by M. Plezia, 'De Ciceronis "Academicis" dissertationes tres', I, Eos 37, 1936, pp. 4 2 5 - 4 4 9 ; II, Eos 38, 1937, pp. 1 0 - 3 0 ; III, ibid. pp. 1 6 9 186 (henceforth: Plezia I, II, III), esp. I, pp. 4 2 6 - 4 3 3 . For a discussion of the order of the various parts of Catulus and possible sources, see below, pp. 4 1 3 - 4 2 0 . 13 Reid p. 43; Plezia I, 4 3 6 - 7 .

398

Β. Are Cicero's Arguments a Proper Refutation of those of Lucullus? a. The sceptical Academy's ancestry Lucullus ( 1 4 - 1 5 ) has argued that the Presocratics were essentially more dogmatic than sceptical, and that Socrates (who is only using his famous irony when he speaks of his own ignorance) and Plato (as his writings and those of his pupils show) were clearly dogmatists. Cicero (72—4) has no adequate refutation (Hirzel pp. 322—3). But Cicero does produce quotations from the Presocratics to show that they were sceptics. As for Plato, Cicero's words (74) ironeam enim alterius, perpetuarti praesertim, nulla fuit ratio persequi, are (from the sceptic's point of view) an adequate refutation of what Lucullus said, both of Plato and — by implication - of Socrates. True, Cicero does not refute in these paragraphs Lucullus' claim (15) that the early Academics and Peripatetics were dogmatists. But, a. Lucullus claims that their dogmatism was the same as Plato's, and Cicero does show that Plato was no dogmatist; b. in 112, Cicero returns to these veteres and presents them as simple-minded probabilists rather than the dogmatists Lucullus would make them out to be. Altogether, the generations between Plato and Arcesilaus must have caused a certain amount of embarrassment to the sceptical Academics, since their more direct and methodical writings were not as liable to a sceptical interpretation as the dramatic and elusive dialogues of Plato. But the sceptical Academic still denied the imputation of dogmatism to these veteres and regarded them as probabilists, although far less sophisticated in their probabilism than a Carneades. 14 b. Zeno and Arcesilaus Lucullus (16) claims that Arcesilaus opposed Zeno obtrectandi causa, to which Cicero (76—7) simply retorts that he did not do so obtrectandi causa but in his search for the truth. He proceeds to describe a dispute between Zeno and Arcesilaus, in which the latter plainly emerges as a sophist. Lucullus' main point, that even after the superiores, there is room for the discovery of new ideas, is nowhere answered by Cicero (Hirzel pp. 323—5). But Cicero's description of the dispute between Zeno and Arcesilaus opens with the words (77): visa est Arcesilae cum vera sententia tum honesta et digna sapienti. Only then, says Cicero, did Arcesilaus proceed to test this new discovery on Zeno. Having found no satisfactory refutation from that quarter, he continued to hold that view. His motive is described, not as a sheer destructive urge to refute Zeno, but as an attempt to test his own hypothesis — quite sincerely against Zeno's counter-arguments. 14

See above, pp. 4 8 - 6 4 . On Hirzel's arguments, see Bringmann (η. 5 above), pp. 2 6 2 - 3 .

399

As to the second point, Cicero does reply to it (76): quamquam ex me quaesieras, nonne putarem post illos veteres tot saeculis inveniri verum potuisse tot ingeniis tantisque studiis quaerentibus. quid inventum sit paulo post videro, te ipso quidem iudice. Plasberg refers in his apparatus to 116; Reid (ad loc.) to 9 I f f . Neither is very likely: Cicero says 'paulo post'. The very fact that they refer to different sections shows that there is no certainty here as regards Cicero's promised answer. It is most likely that Cicero forgot his promise: but this is not the same as Hirzel's claim (p. 325) that Lucullus' objection 'wird nicht einmal berücksichtigt.' What is more, if Cicero promises an answer, but does not supply it, he is most likely to have found both the promise and the proper answer in his source. He did make the promise, but when he came to the point where his source fulfils it, he had already forgotten the promise and omitted it. One remembers that Lucullus is part of the first version, which was never given the final polish. Lucullus, however, demands to know whether anything new had been achieved since the age of Zeno and Arcesilaus. Lucullus' source — on Hirzel's own admission - is the Sosus, directed against Philo's Roman books. The implication is that in Philo's Roman books there was no answer to this question. If Cicero — following his source — promises an answer, his source could not have been Philo's Roman books. c. Sense-perception Cicero (79—83) does not properly refute the defence of sense-perception offered by Lucullus (19—20). Moreover, he assumes (79) that Lucullus accepts Epicurus' view on this issue, while this had been denied (19) by Lucullus. (Hirzel pp. 3 2 5 - 8 ) . But Cicero's answer is a proper refutation. Lucullus maintains that the senses, with some exercitatio et ars, are as perfect as human nature can require. Cicero maintains that, far from it, our senses are only slightly less limited than those, say, of fish in a fish-pond: their sight is restricted by the thickness of water, ours by that of air. Moreover (80), ut enim vera videamus, quam longe videmusi Cicero's main argument, however, is that from άπαραλλαξΐα: once you admit that some impressions are false, you must have a higher criterion than the immediate impact of the impressions themselves to judge between true and false impressions. This admission, that some sense-perceptions are false, is the very point on which Lucullus claims (19) that he differs from the Epicureans. Cicero's references to the Epicureans (79—80) are difficult to interpret, since the text is corrupt in a number of crucial places. 15 But in 80, he does concede to Lucullus that tu vero ... visa sensibus alia vera dicas esse, alia falsa 15

The quotation from Epicurus in 79 is absent from Lucullus' speech, and Reitzenstein - as quoted in Plasberg's apparatus on 79 - is the one who supplies Epicurus after dicit (Orelli supplied it after causa). This is most probably right. Reitzenstein suggested that this quotation is an interruption of Cicero's speech by Lucullus. This is most unlikely it happens nowhere else in this speech. It is far more likely that Cicero is careless here:

400

- as distinct from the Epicureans he has just discussed. The rest of Cicero's arguments are directed against this position of Lucullus, not against the Epicureans, as claimed by Hirzel. 16 d. Identical twins Cicero (84ff.) does not really answer Lucullus' argument (56ff.). Hirzel maintains that Lucullus did not take the example of identical twins to prove the Stoic view that every phenomenon is different from every other, while Cicero refutes him as if he did; and that Cicero bases his argument on the difference between things in themselves (which may be as similar or as different as one chooses to make them) and their visa (which can sometimes look the same), whereas Lucullus had already refuted the assumption that there can be any difference between ipsae impressiones and species et quaedam formae eorum. (Hirzel pp. 3 2 8 - 3 3 0 ) . But Lucullus does appear to take this example to prove that things — even those which produce similar impressions — are not the same: num censes etiam eosdem fuisse? (56). This is a clear reference to the Carneadean sorites summarized by Lucullus in 50 — to which Lucullus gives a typical Stoic reply. Cicero's answer in 85, omnia dicis sui generis esse eqs., clearly refers back to these early arguments, as well as to 56ff. He is prepared, for the sake of argument, to concede even this (haec refelli possunt, sed pugnare nolo). Why? Because it makes no difference to his own argument that there are visa which are indistinguishable, or not easily distinguishable, from each other, and that therefore there can be false visa. On this issue, Lucullus himself (57) had already conceded to him that even the Stoic Wise Man would withold his judgement, and that one needed practice (usus, consuetudo). Cicero, we are told by Hirzel, should have seized on these admissions. If he does not do so immediately, it is because the first of these admisssions is nothing new — it is Zeno's old maxim μή δοζάξειν τον σοφόν and its various corollaries. 17 On this, we are told by Cicero himself (Luc. 66), there was full agreement between Zeno and Arcesilaus. As to ars et usus, Cicero does answer this part of Lucullus' defence in some detail in 86ff., to • which we shall return presently. This problem of ipsae impressiones and their species et formae is, as we have seen, a side-issue in a discussion chiefly concerned with άπαραλλαξία. But since Hirzel (p. 329 and η. 1) treats it at some length, one should note that this is

in his refutation of Lucullus, he refers to a quotation from Epicurus which was in his source for Lucullus' speech, but which he forgot to include in his Latin adaptation of that speech. Similar things happen to most authors who draw on other books in writing their own. I am sure that some astute readers or reviewers could find an example in the present work. 16 See Bringmann (above, n. 5), pp. 2 6 3 - 5 . 17 Sec the Greek quotations in S VF 1,54, and the more extensive version, ascribcd by v. 26

G l u c k e r ( H y p . 56)

401

most probably a reference to the Carneadean distinction between προς τό φανταοτόν and προς τό φαντασωύμενον (Sextus Math. VII, 168ff.) Carneades deals only with the second of these 'positions', and is prepared (ibid. 170) to write off a perception which appears false even if it may have come from an existent object. By sifting through our impressions as they appear to us (how else, anyway?), and using the methods of testing them devised by Carneades, we can come progressively nearer a certain amount of probability — to a higher degree of πιάανη φαντασία — but never to an absolutely accurate correspondence with the source of our impressions. The Carneadean solution to the problem of identical twins would be, in all probability, that the actual presentations are never identical προς τό φανταοτόν, although the way they appear to our imbecile senses (προς τό φαντασιούμενον, or eorum species et forma) may make some impressions look indistinguishable. If we apply the Carneadean criteria of probability to such impressions, we can get nearer the truth. But it is precisely the Carneadean sceptic who can do so by applying artem et usum. The Stoic, if he is to be consistent, ought to maintain that these impressions should be cataleptic from the start — especially if, like Lucullus, he denies any difference between things in. themselves and the impressions they make on our senses. Reid comments on natura tolletur (58): 'Lucullus begs the question; he assumes that our impressions of objects must exactly represent the objects themselves.' Hirzel (pp. 330—1) maintains that Cicero's refutation (86) of Lucullus' argument that the senses require artem et usum for their proper functioning is invalid, since Lucullus meant that 'die Sinne, die von Natur schon höchst zuverlässige Zeugen sind, würden dies in noch höherem Grade bei kunstmäßiger Ausbildung.' This is not quite what Lucullus says in 57, and certainly not what Cicero means in this context. The discussion is concerned with the immediate validity of sense-perception, and Lucullus' admission that the senses sometimes require art and practice in order to function properly invalidates his earlier statement about the senses (19): quorum ita clara iudicia et certa sunt, ut, si optio naturae detur ... non videam quid quaerant amplius. The Stoics did, of course, distinguish between κατάληφις and τέχνη.18 But it is one thing to have a τέχνη (which, in itself, is based on καταλήψεις): it is quite another matter — and something of a circular argument at that — to base some καταλήψεις on τέχνη. Nor do Lucullus' arguments in 31 provide any more convincing answer. 19 e. The obscurity of natural science Lucullus (30) has admitted that here, one is speaking de abditis rebus et obscuris — a clear concession to his sceptical adversary. Cicero (86) treats his arguments as if they were decidedly dogmatic. (Hirzel pp. 331—2). Arnim to Chrysippus, S VF 3, 548. 18 See, e.g., S VF 2 , 9 3 - 6 . 19 See the brief arguments by Bringmann (above, n. 5), p. 265.

402

But Lucullus' admission of the difficulty of natural investigation (which is not the same as an admission of the impossibility of reaching any certainty in it), is followed by the very dogmatic statement quanto artificio natura fabricata esset primum animal omne deinde hominem maxime - on which follow, in very quick succession, equally dogmatic statements concerning our senses, our mind, êwoiai, προλήψεις, κατάληψη — the whole Stoic epistemological wardrobe — with a rebuke, for good measure, for those who deny the possibility of perception. Cicero's answer is, naturally enough, sharp and angry (87): qualis ista fabrica est, ubi adhibita, quando cur quo modo? - a clear echo of Lucullus' words. f. Dreams and alcoholic hallucinations Cicero (88) replies to Lucullus (49ff.) by emphasizing that, whatever one may feel about these visa before or after the state of sleep or drunkenness, what matters is that, at the time, these impressions are as vivid and convincing as 'normal' ones. This answers 51. But in 52, Lucullus had already raised Cicero's very objection and replied to it by indicating that those perceptions are weaker and more confused even to the percipient himself. Cicero does nothing better than repeat the argument Lucullus has already disposed of. (Hirzel pp. 332—3). But can Cicero — or should he — do anything better? He would, of course, admit that in our 'normal' states, we conceive of these 'abnormal' impressions as weaker and more confused. As a Carneadean who has nothing to lose by claiming that some impressions are false, he can afford to do this. The Stoic cannot. For him, it is enough to admit that, at the time when we received those impressions, they felt real enough to us — even the Wise Man, at the time, gave his 'assent' to them - in order to prove that some perceptions which appear to have 'cataleptic force' are false. Hirzel p. 332 n. 2 should have started his quotation from Luc. 9 0 one sentence earlier: omnia autem

haec proferuntur ut illud efficiatur, quo certius nihil potest esse, inter visa

vera et falsa ad animi assensionem nihil interest. This is Cicero's main point: at the time of the dream or the drunken perception, even the Stoic Wise Man gave it his 'assent'. The Stoic sapiens can, perhaps, attempt never to become drunk. He will still have dreams. g. Stoic dialectic Lucullus (49ff.) has tried to reduce ad absurdum one type, at least, of the Carneadean sorites. Instead of refuting him, Cicero (92ff.) criticizes Chrysippus' reaction against the sorites which has not even been mentioned by Lucullus. (Hirzel pp. 3 3 3 - 3 3 4 ) . But Cicero's attack is directed not only against 49ff. It is an attack on Lucullus' — that is, Antiochus' and the Stoics' — dogmatic approach to the whole art of reasoning (e.g. 2 I f f . : the first sentence of 91, sed abeo a sensibus, is a verbal echo of the first sentence of 21). Cicero's purport can be summed up

403

as follows: 'You Stoics put a great value on logic — but it is that very logic which leads us, from relatively harmless beginnings, to the dreaded sorites. Now you, Lucullus, have said that the sorites is vitiosum interrogarteli genus (92, echoing 49). Fair enough — but why blame me? Blame nature. Even your great logician Chrysippus, whose logic was taken up, lock, stock and barrel, by Antiochus, could find no conclusive logical argument against the sorites.' Here follows the account of Chrysippus' various attempts to find a subterfuge, preceded by the words frangite igitur eos, sit potestis (93). Can there be a better defence of the sorites in this context than a demonstration that even the greatest Stoic logician (and Antiochus' master in such matters: 143) could not refute it? Cicero would not deny, of course, that the sorites is captious and offensive to common-sense. But for him, logic is not meant to represent nature or to correspond to common-sense. h. The Polyaenus episode Here, Hirzel admits that Cicero's argument (106) 20 does constitute an adequate answer to Lucullus (22). But he would deny that Cicero could have invented this answer himself, or that he could have found it in a source written in reply to Antiochus. Lucullus' argument, he maintains, is common to Antiochus and the Stoics, and the Polyaenus story must have been used earlier in Academic circles to refute the Stoic theory of memory. (Hirzel pp. 334-5). Perhaps. But the method is interesting. Where we find a place where Cicero's answer is undeniably adequate and undeniably an answer, we claim that here, for some unknown reason, Cicero awoke from his general Academic slumbers and did not copy out the argument in Philo's book to which Lucullus replies in 22. In any case, if the Polyaenus story had been such a topos in the sceptical Academy, why assume that Cicero had it at his fingertips, while princeps Academiae Philo made no use of it? i. Antiochus overlooks the Carneadean ριϋανόν Cicero (102ff.) accuses Antiochus of forgetting the Carneadean πιΰανόν when he claims that the sceptical Academy had denied all perception. But Lucullus (32—4) had admitted that there are all shades of Academic sceptics, including those who accept probabilitas or even persipicuitas, and had done his best to refute them as well. (Hirzel pp. 335—6). But Cicero does not accuse Antiochus of forgetting the Carneadean πιόανόν: only of misunderstanding it. Lucullus had argued that, in practice, all these fine shades are not much help — their exponents all simili errore versantur. For, as long as they accept the argument from άπαραλλαξία, they have no criterion in rerum natura for distinguishing the true from the false to any degree. Cicero î0

Not 166 - a misprint in Hirzel p. 334.

404

can do little more than try again to explain the Carneadean criterion and show how it can help us to verify sense-perceptions, even if not quite in a dogmatic, Stoic fashion. He proceeds (103—4), with the help of a quotation from Clitomachus, to show that the Academic rejection of distinguishability προς το φαντασυούμβνον does not entail a rejection of it — and of the possibility of truth in theory - προς το φανταστό v. This is coming dangerously near to Philo's Roman position, and it is significant that here, Cicero - or rather his source — makes sure that this argument is 'covered' by a verbatim quotation from a work of the conservative Clitomachus which is well-known in Rome. Whether the answer is fully convincing or not is a purely philosophical issue. This may be one of the points on which Cicero himself felt that Antiochus' position was more 'convincing' than his own {Att. XIII,19,5). But from the point of view of the dialogue itself, 103 is an answer to Lucullus' objection (34) ita ñeque color ñeque corpus nec Veritas nec argumentum nec sensus neque perspicuum ullum relinquitur. Hirzel's observation that in 102 the argument is expressly directed against Antiochus presents no great difficulty. Cicero does refute 'Lucullus' ' arguments — but Lucullus made no secret of it that their source was Antiochus (60). On this particular point, Cicero cannot accuse Lucullus — who is, after all, only an amateur and a mouthpiece — of simplifying the varieties of Academic scepticism. Such an accusation can be meaningful only if directed against a former Academic of long standing like Antiochus — precisely what Cicero does in 102. Cicero's refutation of Lucullus is thus far from being the 'anti-refutation' that Hirzel has tried to make it appear to be. He may, on occasion, be somewhat confused, refer to a quotation which he has not copied out in the appropriate place, or forget a promise here and a detail there. He was quite aware himself of the fact that Antiochus' arguments are often more 'probable' than his own refutation (Att. XIII,19,5). We shall deal with this admission of his in our next section. But even if that were the case — and on some of the points in this dispute I have tried to show that his replies are more than adequate within their context — his answers to Lucullus are undeniably answers to Lucullus. Cicero could hardly have been as foolish as Hirzel makes him out to be, and use in his refutation of Antiochus the very Roman books which Antiochus had tried to refute. Philo's Roman books were known to Varrò (Acad. 1,13), and most probably to a large number of Cicero's prospective readers, who would have detected such a 'howler' in no time. Hirzel has failed to prove his case on every point we have examined. No part of the Lucullus is derived from Philo's Roman books, except the few passages where Philo's innovations are referred to explicitly. These passage have been included among our testimonia in the discussion of Philo's Roman views. 21 21

See above, pp. 6 5 - 6 , testimonia Β, C, D, E.

405

C. The Sources What, then, are Cicero's sources for his speech? Krische settles for a multiplicity of sources mentioned in the speech itself: Clitomachus, Chrysippus, Crantor — even some influences of Antiochus and Lucretius — all shaped into the final product by Cicero himself. 22 Zeller argues mainly for Clitomachus, with possible elements taken from Philo. 23 Credaro specifies: Clitomachus, rtepi έποχής. He adds some work of Philo — we cannot quite determine which; and, for good measure - and no compelling reason — he also takes Metrodorus to be one of the sources. 24 Goedeckemeyer ascribes Cicero's speech (but Luc. 72ff. only) to Philo's reply to the Sosus, but proceeds to treat that reply as if it represented the same philosophical position as that of Philo's Roman books. 25 Lörcher ascribes 64—105 to Philo's Roman books, and 106ff. to a more traditional Carneadean source - most probably Clitomachus. 26 One recalls that, in Hirzel's view, it was the first part of Cicero's speech which came from a Clitomachean source, the second from Philo's Roman books. Plezia suggests — without, however, attaching too much importance or certainty to this suggestion — that the source is indeed a work of Philo, but a work written after the Sosus and in reply to it. 27 Philippson too ascribes most of Cicero's speech to Philo's 'Antikritik' of Antiochus. 28 This modern doxography could be extended over a few pages if one were to include every conjecture made by every modern author in any book, article or footnote. And if we were to deal with all the detailed arguments offered only by those authors whose views we have already cited, this excursus would become longer than it already is. Suffice it to say that the major serious candidates as sources for Cicero's speech are Clitomachus, Philo's Roman books, and Philo's response to the Sosus. I shall assume that the reader who wishes to do so will have acquainted himself with arguments advanced so far, and proceed to offer my own tentative solution. Before I do so, I should perhaps touch on one point which is crucial to a proper discussion of this issue. This is none other than the very large and fundamental problem of Cicero's originality or debt to his sources, with special reference to this particular work. A good conspectus of the progress and vicissitudes of research into Cicero's sources and his use of them (with special reference to his own particular theme) " Krische pp. 1 9 4 - 6 . " Zeller 111,1, p. 674 η. 1. 24 Credaro I, pp. 2 7 - 3 3 . 25 Goedeckemeyer p. I l l n. 3 - forgetting some of his own observations on p. 103 n. 12. 26 Lörcher pp. 2 5 8 - 2 8 4 . 27 Plezia II, pp. 2 9 - 3 0 ; III, pp. 1 6 9 - 7 0 . 28 R. Philippson, RE 117Al, pp. 1 1 3 2 - 4 . On p. 1133, we are told that Antiochus opened his own school at Antiocheia (!), and that in Alexandria he held a disputation with the Carneadean Herakleides (!).

406

is provided by A. J. Kleywegt in his woik on De Natura Deorum II—III.29 The days of the dissertation De M. Tulli Ciceronis Opens qui inscribitur X Fontibus, which attempted, often on the flimsy evidence of two or three uncertain clues, to ascribe a whole work or book to a lost original concerning which we know even less, are now gone for ever — or so it seems. Cicero's ability to reorganize old materials into new and original combinations is nowadays often underlined — especially in the case of an elusive work like the Tusculans, where previous research has brought up a large number of different and conflicting hypotheses, none of which has been properly substantiated. 30 That Cicero can draw on a multiplicity of sources and make his own considerable contribution to the final shaping of his books has been amply shown by Kleywegt's own work on De Natura Deorum mentioned above. Yet did not Cicero himself say of his philosophical writings: 'απόγραφα sunt, minore labore fiunt, verba tantum adfero, quibus abundo'? Are we to be allowed to ascribe to Cicero greater originality than he has claimed for himself? But when did Cicero make this statement, and in what context? The letter in which it appears, Att. XII,52,3, is dated by editors March 21, 45. 31 This is only a few days after XII,44,4 (45,1), in which what is generally taken to be the first reference to the first version of the Academic books (Catulus and Lucullus) is made. 32 In March of the same year, however, Cicero had already been working on the first part of what was to become De Finibus.33 A few days after the first reference to Catulus and Lucullus, Cicero had sent to Atticus that first part of De Finibus, still called by the provisional name Torquatos, and he confirms that he had already sent him earlier the Catulus and Lucullus - this time calling them expressly by their names. 34 Cicero was thus working on Catulus 29

A. J. Kleywegt, Ciceros Arbeitsweise im zweiten und dritten Buch der Schrift De Natura Deorum, Groningen 1961, pp. 1 - 9 . 30 See P. Boyancé's article, cited η. 3 above. 31 R. Y. Tynell and L. C. Purser, The Correspondence of Cicero vol. V, Dublin and London 1897 (henceforth: Tyrrell-Purser), No. DXCIX, p. 77; R. D. Shackleton Bailey, Cicero's Letters to Atticus, vol. 7, Cambridge 1966 (henceforth: Shackleton Bailey), No. 294, p. 160. 32 Ego hie duo magna συντάγματα absolví. See Reid pp. 30—31; Tyrrell-Purser p. 70 ad loc.; Shackleton Bailey p. 335 ad loc. T. J. Hunt, pp. 7 - 9 , has argued - with convincing evidence - that avirraγμα can refer to a composite work as well as to one book. More evidence: Birt, op.cit. n. 5 above, pp. 3 5 - 6 - apparently not consulted by Hunt. If this could be the meaning of συντάγματα in our passage, the reference might be both to Catulus-Lucullus and Torquatus, sent to Rome before May 29 (Att. XIII,32,3). But it is more likely that the reference is to Catulus and Lucullus, which are still counted as two when dispatched to Atticus (ibid.). Hunt himself, p. 11, settles for this as most likely· 33 Att. XII,12,2; Madvig De Fin. p. LIX and η. 1; Krische p. 127 η. 1 ; Tyrrell-Purser p. 23 ad loc.; Shackleton Bailey p. 316 ad loc. 34 Att. XIII,32,3. Tyrrell-Purser p. 88; Shackleton Bailey pp. 3 5 0 - 1 . But why should Torquatus not be the name of the whole Torquatus dialogue - books I and II of De Finibus! This was suggested by Krische, p. 127 n. 1, in 1845, and ignored by most

407

and Lucullus almost simultaneously with the first dialogue of De Fin. When he made the famous άττ&)·ραφα statement, it was only a week, at the most, before Torquatos was 'at the publishers'. Yet it is precisely there {Fin. 1,7) that he claims that he had not merely produced 'straight translations' of Greek originals — although he reserves himself the right to do so in the future. The implication is that, at least in this work, the Torquatos as it was then, Cicero is not copying blindly from one Greek source and merely 'supplying the words, of which he has no lack'. 35 Yet it is only a few days after (or before?) he had sent to Rome the Torquatos with its prooemium, 3 6 that he makes the other statement to Atticus, that his books are άπ&γραφα. We ask again: what does that statement refer to?

editors since. Lörcher pp. 92; 217ff., makes the plausible suggestion that the Epicurus of Att. XII, 12,2 was the provisional name of an earlier form of Torquatus, which was a first - and somewhat shorter - version of Fin. I and II. See also n. 39 below. The only objection is that in Att. XII,5b, now dated June 11 or 12 (Tyrrell-Purser p. 100; Shackleton Bailey pp. 194; 362), Cicero inquires about Tubulus - usually taken to be a reference to Fin. 11,54. But Cicero's video suggests that there had been some dispute about this story between him and Atticus, and that Cicero is now prepared to correct his information and add details. Correct what? The Tubulus story of Fin. 11,54 as it stood in the version sent to Atticus before May 29. Hunt p. 11 suggests that Fin. II was 'completed but for the chronological detail about Tubulus for which a space had been left until the last moment.' 35 This, of course, would not preclude the possibility that he did so for the two other dialogues of De Fin. His words at the end of V,8 are clearly meant to indicate that, for Piso's speech, he is following closely on Antiochian materials. Lörcher pp. 1 - 2 4 and 27ff. has shown that, in the first two books of Fin. (that is, essentially, Torquatus see notes 34 and 39), Cicero is far more original and ambitious in drawing on a multiplicity of sources and reshaping them. In Books III—IV, he was much more of a 'translator' of a small number of later sources - see Lörcher pp. 136-207 (esp. pp. 206-7 for a summary); M. Schäfer, Ein frühmittelstoisches System der Ethik bei Cicero, Munich 1934, esp. p. 276ff. - who argues for one single source for Fin. Ill (most probably Antipater). It is quite probably such later dialogues of what is now De Finibus that Cicero had in mind when, in the prooemium to Torquatus (Fin. 1,7), he left himself the liberty to produce άπά-γραψα in the future. 36 Of course, the prooemium to Fin. I as we have it now has been retouched - 1,12 is clearly meant as a preface to the whole work with its final Latin title. But has 1,7 been retouched? Both De Fin. and the second version of the Academici are being corrected and prepared for publication at the same time in July {Att. XIII,23,2). But could Cicero say then - as he does in Fin. 1,7 - that what he had written so far are not translations from the Greek? Including Piso's speech in Fin. V, where (8), a close rendering of Greek originals, is virtually admitted by Cicero himself - and the Academici, on which presently? If we assume that this statement was written while Cicero was still working on Torquatus in March or earlier, before Catulus and Lucullus were produced and Fin. V planned, things fall into shape. Then, his earlier works and Torquatus were clearly no mere adaptations, but he was already probably thinking of the Academic books and Fin. V, and leaving the possibility of closer adaptations open. When he revised Fin. I for publication, the statement in 7 was left in, probably through carelessness.

408

The passage begins with the sentence: de lingua Latina securi es animi. Shackleton Bailey has exposed the weakness of previous interpretations of this sentence, and has suggested a new interpretation (which had occurred to me some time before his commentary was published): the words de lingua Latina refer not to the Latin language in general but to Varro's work on this subject, which he had promised to dedicate to Cicero more than two years previously. 37 But if Varro's work is referred to in our passage in the same breath as Cicero's own philosophical works, may we not have here — rather than in XIII,12,3 (dated a month later) — the first reference to the possibility of dedicating the Academic books to Varrò? In that letter (XIII, 12), the problem is not whether Cicero should dedicate a work to Varrò: he had promised to do that two years previously. The question is which of his works now ready for publication should be reshaped so as to include Varrò as one of the speakers: this seems to be Varro's demand now. 38 Cicero now offers to rewrite his Academic books, so suitable to Varrò the 'Antiochian', and to include Varrò in them as a speaker. Could it be that about a month earlier, he was already thinking — and telling Atticus — of his plan to dedicate the earlier version of these books to Varrò? In the meantime, Varrò demanded not merely a dedication, but his own inclusion in the dialogue. The books which, in XII,52,3, are spoken of as απόγραφα are the books which Cicero was, even in May, about to dedicate to Varrò — none other than the Catulus and Lucullus.39 Why did Atticus need reassurance? Shackleton Bailey has successfully refuted previous suggestions, but his own solution, that Atticus is probably concerned about the slow progress of Cicero's work which was to be dedicated to Varrò — perhaps a work by Cicero himself on the Latin language — is hardly more con37

Shackleton Bailey pp. 3 4 1 - 2 . He had already made the same demand nine years earlier, and Cicero had explained why he could not comply with it then: Att. IV,16,2. " The contrast in Att. XIII,12,3 between Vano, who for two years cubitum nullum processerà, and Cicero himself (ego autem me parabam ad id quod ille mihi misisset ut αύτφ τφ βέτρψ και λώϊον) suggests that Cicero was already actively preparing to dedicate a completed work to Varrò as soon as he was to receive Varro's work (Farn. IX,8,1) which could be any time now. The obvious idea that the Academic books, containing a larger dose of Antiochia than any other completed work, should be the natural candidate for such a dedication when called for, must have occurred to him more than once. If the words de lingua Latina in XII,52,3 refer to the title of Varro's work now in progress and about to be dedicated to Cicero, the 'counter-dedication' to him of Catulus-Lucullus must have been constantly in Ciccro's mind. The laus Luculli at the beginning of the Lucullus would have constituted no objection to such a dedication: the Brutus begins with a similar laus Hortensil Nor would the fact that the persons did not include Varrò: De Finibus is dedicated to Brutus, who is not a speaker in any of its dialogues. What did not occur to Cicero until it came as a epßaiov from Atticus (Att. XIII,19,5) was the suggestion that Varrò himself could be a speaker. When he found Catulus and Lucullus unsuitable, he toyed with the idea of substituting Brutus and Cato (Att. XIII,16,2: this letter must be dated before XIII,12: see Additional Note to this chapter). Then, Atticus' sug38

409

vincing. A f t e r all, at the t i m e o f writing, t h e Catulus

and Lucullus

are virtually

c o m p l e t e d — and it is o n l y a w e e k or s o b e f o r e b o t h o f t h e m — and -

Torquatos

are already in R o m e . H e is right, o f c o u r s e , in m a i n t a i n i n g that minore

labore

fiunt

suggests a c o m p a r i s o n w i t h a n o t h e r w o r k o f Cicero. B u t a c o m p a r i s o n o f

what

w i t h what?

We have n o evidence w h a t s o e v e r that Cicero ever c o n t e m p l a t e d

writing his o w n b o o k de lingua Latina s a m e title -

as a r e p a y m e n t f o r Varro's b o o k o f the

or, i n d e e d , altogether. Would even a Cicero have dared t o w r i t e

a w o r k o n the Latin language w h e n h e k n e w that, at the same t i m e , a great opus

o n t h e same subject w a s b e i n g prepared b y Marcus Varrò, vir

Romanorum

eruditissimus? On m y interpretation, the c o m p a r i s o n w o u l d b e b e t w e e n Catulus-Lucullus Torquatus.

and

T h e latter w o r k h a d o c c u p i e d Cicero at least since March 16, w h e n

it w a s already m o s t p r o b a b l y in an advanced state o f preparation. 3 3 T h e first version o f the A c a d e m i c b o o k s d e s c e n d s o n u s unheralded and c o m p l e t e d o n M a y 13 ( A t t . X I I , 4 4 , 4 = 4 5 , 1 ) , 4 0 w h i l e t h e Torquatus

is sent t o R o m e o n l y o n

gestion came. Even a few days later (Att. XIII,18, of June 28), he still asks Atticus: qui intellexeris eum desiderare a me, cum ipse homo πολιτγραφώτατος numquam me lacesserit. This could not bear Tyrrel and Purser's interpretation (p. 112) '"challenge" me to a reprisal by dedicating one of his many works to me' - for Varrò had done exactly that by his solemn promise of a dedication two years earlier. In Att. 1,13,1 and Fam. XII,30,1, Cicero uses lacessere for 'bombarding' someone with letters. He must mean this in Att. XIII, 18 as well: Varrò, who had ample time to write volumes (see context of Fam. XII, 30,1 for a similar situation), could have managed to write one letter t o Cicero if he wished t o be included in a dialogue. (That he had done so nine years earlier - see last note — again through the mediation of Atticus — seems to be forgotten now). The question of a dedication t o Varrò was never disputed or forgotten - Cicero had been 'bracing himself for it for two years. What was new on June 23 was that Varrò could be a speaker. The cold and remote relations between Cicero and Varrò had made it unlikely so far that such an idea would occur to him in the context of his present style of dialogues, in which it is Cicero who has the final word. (In the earlier style of the fifties, the speakers were all deceased - Att. IV,16,2). Even when 'the deed was done', Cicero still apologizes to Varrò for the unlikely setting (Fam. IX,8,1), and the 'warm friendship' of Acad.I, 1 palls before the grim reality of Att. XIII,33a,1 = 33,4, which occurs exactly the day before the Varronian version is completed (Att. XIII,23,2). What 'clicked' on June 23 or a few days earlier was not the idea that the Academic books could be dedicated to V a n o , but that, since he insisted on being a speaker in a dialogue, what better than transfer to him Lucullus' Antiochian parts in the earlier version - a role which had already made Cicero lose some sleep? From now on, what worries him is not whether or not V a n o wanted a dedication - he had made that clear two years earlier; nor did Atticus' scruples as to the possibility that he might appear φιλένδοξος - which he rejects (Att. XIII,19,3) - but whether Varrò might be displeased with his own role (Att. XIII,25,3). Nec tamen αΐδέομαι Τ ρ ώ α ς of XIII,24,2, which has baffled Shackleton Bailey (p. 379), need not refer to more than the idea of the next line of Homer (II. 6,443): 'If you, Atticus, advise me to withdraw Varrò from the dialogue even at this late hour, I shall not feel ashamed like a deserter.' 40 Cicero's statement that, after the success of his Hortensias, plura suscepi (Fin. 1,2), does not imply that he immediately set out to compose the Academic works. His enquiries on March 19 (Att. XII,23,2) concerning Carneades' embassy to Rome are taken 410

May 29, after Catulus-Lucullus had already been dispatched. 41 Cicero appears to have spent far more time and thought on Torquatos than on Catulus-Lucullus: they were completed and announced 'in a flash', while Cicero was still working on the other dialogue. If, some time before Att. XII,52 of May 21, Cicero had announced to Atticus that he intended to dedicate to Varrò these two books, written so quickly and completed only a few days earlier, Atticus had good cause for concern. Were these books, written so much faster than Cicero's other works, worthy of dedication to a fastidious scholar like Varrò? Varrò, after all, had taken two years without yet completing the work he was to dedicate to Cicero. Cicero's answer is that, if they were written minore labore than the Torquatus, for example (and one notes the present fiunt: both they and the Torquatus are still being written, or at least polished up), this is because they are mere απόγραφα. The implication is that the Torquatus is a work of greater originality (as we are, indeed, told in Fin. 1,7), and has required greater effort. 42 If my interpretation is correct, perhaps the textual problem in the second sentence of our passage, dices + quia alia quae scribis, should be explained as the result of a lacuna, to be restored, e.g., as dices: maturius confecti sunt quam alia quae scribis. Atticus, apparently, was not quite satisfied with this reassurance. He probably wanted Cicero to dedicate to Varrò the more careful and polished Torquatus, which was soon to be expanded into De Finibus. But when the question next arises (Att. XIII,12,3, June 23), Cicero has already promised to dedicate that

by Philippson p. 1126; Tyrrell-Purser p. 29; Shackleton Bailey p. 320, and more cautiously by Plasberg p. VIII, as related to Luc. 137. But in Fin. 11,59, we have a famous dictum of Carneades, which Cicero himself places firmly in the context of his own De Re Publica - that is, Carneades' Roman embassy. As such, it is included by editors among the fragments of De Re P.: III,38 Müller and Zieglcr. (Wisniewski p. 80, quotes only parts of this passage as Fr. 130, and, apparently unaware of its context, does not place it where it should belong - among his Fragments 1 4 9 - 5 3 . But on Wisniewski's disposition of his fragments see Ch. 1, η. 119). Att. XII,23 is only three days later than XII, 12,2, in which we have the first reference to Torquatus. In XII,23,3, the enquiries include questions about the Epicurean scholarch, and the prominent Athenian politicians, at the time of Carneades' Roman visit. This would be far more appropriate to Fin. 11,59: the Epicurean scholarch would be out of place in Luc. 137. Cicero probably found the information supplied by Atticus (if it was supplied) rather useless for Torquatus. Of the consuls o f t h a t year he already knew from Atticus' chronological work (Att. XII.23,2), and he used this detail in Luc. 137, where it is relevant. If, as I have argued here, the enquiries of March 19 are related to Fin. 11,59, this would eonfirm Krische's suggestion that Torquatus was the name for what is now Fin. I - I I , not I alone - see n. 34 above. T. J. Hunt, pp. 4 - 5 , suggests that the enquiries of March 19 may be related to a lost passage of the Consolatio or Torquatus. But our arguments would make it more likely that Fin. 11,59 - in the Torquatus (or Epicurus - see Lörcher's suggestion, n. 34 above) version, was the passage in question. 41 42

Att. XIII,32,3: Catulum See n. 35 above.

et Lucullum,

ut opinor,

antea.

411

work to Brutus, and he now offers good reasons why the revised version of Catulus and Lucullus would be more suitable for Varrò. For the question is now not merely that of a dedication; Torquatos might have done for that. It is a question of finding a dialogue where Varrò could be one of the principal speakers. In De Fin., he would have had only what is now Piso's speech in Book V - and probably most of Book IV, if its source is Antiochian. He would have had no role whatsoever in the first three books. In the Academic books, on the other hand, sunt Antiochia quae iste valde probat {Att. XII,12,3), and they occupy a central place: the opening speech of the Catulus (= Acad.I 15— 42) and the long first speech of the Lucullus (13—60) could be transferred to Varrò. If my interpretation is right, the statement απόγραφα sunt eqs., generally taken to refer to the whole corpus of Cicero's later philosophical writings 43 (and in partial contradiction to his other statement in Fin. 1,7), should now be taken to apply only to his Academic books. This should not mean that all his other books are original and not àiτ&γραφα, but merely that of none of his other philosophical works are we expressly told that they are. The Torquatos, as Cicero himself tells us, is not. Scholarship will no doubt continue to pronounce various verdicts, based on more or less compelling evidence, on these other works — but one should no longer be bound by Cicero's own statement to regard them all as ànàypcupa. Wherever no evidence exists as to the 'apographic' nature of any of those works, our aim should be to determine, both by internal analysis and whatever external evidence we can find, what in each of these works is 'das Fremde und das Eigene' — to use Lörcher's useful expression. The Lucullus, however, is - on Cicero's own admission - an άπ&γραφον. What, then, of Cicero's speech? Clitomachus cannot be its direct source not only for the obvious reason that, had this been the case, Cicero would not need (or wish) to indicate in the speech, under Clitomachus' name, particular excerpts from, and summaries of, various arguments taken from various books by Clitomachus. 44 The real objection is that Cicero's speech - as we 43

No sane person would attempt to collect references to all the discussions of this notorious statement of Cicero in modern literature: there is hardly a book or article in this field which does not mention it and speculate about it. Suffice it to say that, in all I have read so far, I have found no suggestion that this statement should refer to the Academic books only. Lörcher p. 133 has rightly emphasized that this statement - coming as it does in a letter - should apply only to works being written at the time. He applies it also to Fin. IV, which is, indeed, quite likely to have been produced about that time. But our interpretation, based on a closer examination of the άτ άγραφα passage and its context and background, would make it far more specific and meaningful within this particular letter to Atticus. 44 98 (De sustinendis adsensionibus); 102 (the book dedicated to Lucilius); 108 (no title given); 139 (Clitomachus' version of the Cameadea divisio). Plezia II, pp. 1 9 - 2 5 , has collected a number of passages from Sextus, Plutarch and Porphyry which show verbal similarities to passages of Cicero's speech. Some of those parallel passages may well go back

412

have seen in our analysis of Hirzel's arguments — constitutes an answer to Lucullus' criticisms, and Lucullus' criticisms are based on Antiochus (Luc. 61 — of which presently). Clitomachus could not have written a book in answer to Antiochus' criticism of the sceptical Academy. He was dead long before Antiochus even joined the Academy as Philo's pupil. The obvious answer is one which has been given time and again: that Cicero's speech is based on Philo's reply to the Sosus. In this, I take side with Plezia and Philippson, but on what I believe to be stronger grounds. Hirzel had already anticipated this answer and retorted that we have no evidence that Philo wrote a book in reply to the Sosus.*5 It is true that the statements of Cicero (Luc. 17) and Augustine (C.Acad. 111,4l)46 do not say expressly that Philo wrote in reply to the Sosus. But this must be what they mean. How else could Philo fight back Antiochus' attacks, published in Greek, and provide an adequate 'patronage to the Academy' against them? By refuting them in his Roman lecture-hall, before an audience of foreigners, most of whom were mere amateurs or beginners in philosophy? Besides, the phraseology of Cicero's statement in Luc. 17, Philone autem vivo patrocinium Academiae non défait, is extremely reminiscent of the language of N.D. 1,11: nec vero desertarum relictarumque rerum patrocinium suscepimus; non enim hominum interitu sententiae quoque occidunt, sed lucem auctoris fortasse desiderant - where the patrocinium is clearly literary. 47 In his dedicatory epistle to Varrò (Farn. IX,8,1), Cicero writes: tibi dedi partis Antiochias ... mihi sumpsi Philonis. This should indicate that, at least in the second, Varronian, version, Cicero relies on Philonian materials for his own role. But the second version, wherever we can control it, is hardly different from the first. Most fragments which refer expressly to Acad. Ill and IV have - as a quick glance at Plasberg's text will show — an exact, or almost exact,

to Clitomachus, or to Carneades in Clitomachus' version. But this need not imply that Cicero drew directly on Clitomachus: his source could have done this. We should now keep bearing in mind that the Lucullus is an àiró-γραφον, not an original work drawing on a multiplicity of sources in different passages. 45 Hirzel p. 320ff. 46 Luck pp. 5 2 - 3 , seems to forget these two passages. Augustine's statement is his own Fr. 56. I cannot find Luc. 17 among his fragments - presumably because Antiochus is not mentioned there by name. His own solution, that Cicero's speech is based on Philo's Roman books, is hardly original. Hirzel p. 25Iff. - that is, his discussion of the sources of Lucullus' speech - is mentioned by Luck, p. 52 n. 2 - but not Hirzel's discussion of the sources of Cicero's speech (p. 279ff.). 47 Fraser I, p. 488; II, p. 706 n. 89, deduces from Augustine's words Philo restitit donee moreretur that ('pace Hirzel') 'Philon in his turn replied to Antiochus, not in one but in several polemical writings.' This is possible, but not absolutely necessary. Augustine is almost certainly paraphrasing a statement of Cicero, most probably similar to the one we have in Luc. 17 (Augustine, as far as we know, had only the second version - see Ch. 1, η. 234). The Sosus was written in Alexandria early in 86 B.C., and it must have taken

413

counterpart in the Lucullus. The few which do not are most likely to have come from the new prooemium to the new Book III, to which Cicero himself refers in Att. XVI,6,4. 4 8 Even if the second version was extended in size, 49 we have no reason to believe that the general pattern of the work, its order, its main arguments, or the sources drawn on, were all that different. Of the Antiochian parts of the second version, Cicero himself writes (Att. XIII, 19,5): acumen habent Antiochi, nitorem orationis nostrum. The words are almost an echo of the άπ&γραφα statement. Cicero transferred roles, 50 and probably ex-

some time before it reached Philo and before Philo had time to reply t o it. By that time - if our dating in Ch. 2, η. 11, is correct - Philo had only two years or so to live. Besides, once he had published a refutation of Antiochus, why should Philo bother to produce 'addenda' and 'addendis addenda'? Could Cicero (and Augustine) imply that Philo was engaged on writing his 'one and final' refutation of the Sosus virtually until his death? Since the issue between him and Antiochus was the only consuming ambition left to Philo in his Roman exile, it is most likely that the composition of his great and definite refutation of Antiochus and all his heresies would have absorbed all the energies of his final years. The book that ensued was his 'swan song' - and this is probably all that Augustine's source implied. 48

See their arrangement in Plasberg's edition, pp. 2 4 - 5 , and Plezia I, pp. 4 4 3 - 9 for a comparison of Lucullus passages with fragments of Acad. Ill—IV. 45 See Shackleton Bailey p. 367, s.v. grandiores. 50 It is clear that Varrò took over the Antiochian parts from Lucullus, and that Cicero replied to him in the final speech as he did in the second speech of Lucullus (Att. XIII,19,3). Atticus was the third person in this version - as indeed he is in the surviving section of Acad.I. He probably filled the same role as Hortensius. But who acted for Catulus? Not Varrò the Antiochian, and not Atticus, the minor person of the dialogue (and an Epicurean to boot). But could Cicero the Philonian undertake this role - including the refutation of Philo's Roman views and the reprehensio to him which formed part of Catulus' role (Luc. 18)? If the second version was not greatly reorganized, the first speech in Catulus could not have been Catulus' own speech, as generally accepted (Reid p. 41. Plezia I, p. 435, suggests, on the analogy of the second version, that the first proper speech was by Cicero, in defence of his own Academic scepticism. But this is not the first speech in the second version). It must have been an exposition of the doctrines of Antiochus - almost certainly by Lucullus like Varro's speech in Acad.I, 1 5 - 4 2 . In the second version, this is followed by the beginning of Cicero's exposition of Philo's views (Acad.I, 4 4 - 6 ) . This, I suggest, happened in the Catulus as well, and it is probably here that Cicero expounded Philo's Roman views. Catulus' speech followed, and in it he reprehended Philo, showed that his views were not those of the sceptical Academy proper (Luc. 18), and proceeded to expound and defend those traditional views (Luc. 12: quae sunt herí defensa). In the second version, Cicero could hardly represent both Philo's Roman views and Catulus' different and hostile position to them. If what I suggested in Ch. 1 (above, pp. 8 4 - 8 ) is right, Cicero tried, in the second version, to suppress Philo's Roman innovations. In that case, he could have 'censored o u t ' most of his own speech, and undertaken the part of Catulus in the first version as his own answer to Varrò, prefacing it with a 'censored' version of the history of the Academy, taken, it appears, from Philo (as Acad.I, 13 and 46 indicate), but in which only the continuity of scepticism in the Academy was emphasized. This solution is, perhaps somewhat forced - but how else could Cicero cope with the Philonian part and Catulus' role in the first version, with only himself and Varrò left in the second? It is significant that all

414

panded some of the passages and polished the language of some of the more hastily-written parts of the first version. He did not write a new work. He had no time to do that between June 23, when he first announces the recasting of the earlier version (Att. XIII,12,3), and July 11 or 12, the date of his dedicatory epistle to Varrò (Farti. IX,8). 51 His practice may well be described in his own words (Att. XIV,2): etsi nomina iam facta sunt; sed vel induci vel mutali possunt. Philo's answer to the Sosus was, as I have suggested in Chapter 1, based entirely on the traditional Carneadean and Clitomachean arguments against Antiochus' Stoic epistemology. Philo did not try to defend his Roman books any longer once he realized that the old arguments against the Stoics could serve just as well in an attack on Antiochus. 52 This is precisely what we find in Cicero's speech. The arguments are strictly those of the school of Carneades in Clitomachus' interpretation. Indeed, next to Carneades, Clitomachus is the name most frequently mentioned in it, and the author dissociates himself from the views of Metrodorus and of Philo (in his Roman books) - as Philo (in his answer to the Sosus) was most likely to have done. Indeed, if Philo's reply to the Sosus is the source, one could understand the severe and magisterial tones in which Antiochus is reprimanded in passages like 69—70; 98; 102; 132; 1 3 3 - 4 ; 143. In propria persona, Cicero is full of respect for Antiochus (4; 111 ; 113). The passages of reproof for Antiochus, especially 6 9 - 7 0 and 102, are those of a master who has recently been touched on the raw by the public defection of an old and favourite pupil. 53 But if this is Cicero's source, we must return to the old hypothesis that the source for Lucullus' speech must be - at least in part - the Sosus. After all, it is to that book that Philo replied. He did not live long after the Alexandrian affair and could hardly have replied to Antiochus' later objections against ακατάληφία. And yet Cicero's Lucullus tells us expressly (61): haec Antiochus fere et Alexandreae tum et multis annis post, multo etiam adseverantius, in the surviving fragments and testimonia foi Acad. I—II (Plasberg pp. 2 0 - 2 4 ) represent 'straight' sceptical arguments - not a trace here of Philo's Roman views. 51 This letter does not imply that the new version is already in Varro's hands by July 11 or 12: it is only on July 28 or so that we hear that Atticus had finally presented Varrò with his copy (Att. XIII,·44,2). But on July 11, Cicero writes to Atticus: quattuor διφϋέραι sunt in tua potestate (Att. XIII,24). The recasting thus took three weeks, during which Cicero was also working on Fin. III—IV, virtually completed in a first draft and in Atticus' hands by June 30 (Aft. XIII,21a,1 = 20,4), and given final shape around July 10 (Att. XIII,23,2). " See above, pp. 8 3 - 4 . 53 On 6 9 - 7 0 , Plezia's remark (II, p. 19) is excellent: 'Hunc locum, quo Antiochus acerrime reprehenditur, Ciceroni adscribí aegre ferrcm. Indignum enim mihi videtur humanissimo scriptore acerbissimis probris defunctum iam magistrum suum insectari, a quo prorsus numquam sit offensus. Potius igitur Philoni sunt haec tribuenda, cuius contra Antiochum.indignationis causae satis sunt perspicuae.'

415

Syria cum esset mecum paulo ante quam est mortuus. We are not meant, of course, to take this as literally true. Cicero was just as unlikely to possess lecture notes taken by Lucullus of Antiochus' conversation in Alexandria and in Syria as Lucullus himself was to take such notes. But we are, I believe, meant to understand that Lucullus' speech contains arguments taken both from the Alexandrian period - and its 'Streitschrift' the Sosus - and from Antiochus' later and more mature period - perhaps lecture notes taken by Cicero in Athens in 79. 54 Where would Cicero find answers to such later objections, delivered multo etiam adseverantiusl But Cicero does not make his Lucullus claim that, in his later years, Antiochus developed any new arguments. It is haec — the same arguments — which Antiochus employed, both in his Alexandrian period and later, only with more force and emphasis. It has been pointed out by Hirzel that Lucullus' speech falls into two parts: that Luc. 40 is not merely an extension of the earlier section of the same speech, but an attempt to answer fresh arguments on the sceptical side (quae contra ab his disputan soient : 40). 55 This seems to indicate that in his later years, Antiochus attempted to refute the arguments raised against his own position by the sceptical Academy - that is, by Philo in his last years.56 But there was nothing essentially new in such arguments: only more force. After all, how much that was really new could be said, on either side, in a controversy that had already been bled to death at the time of Carneades, Clitomachus and their school? On the issue of άκαταληψία Antiochus' views were essentially those of a Stoic. He may have been more forceful and eloquent than some of his contemporary Stoics. He could hardly be original. Cicero incorporated Antiochus' later objections in Lucullus' speech. He had no Greek source to answer them: by the time Antiochus produced these more forceful objections, Philo had long been dead. But Cicero realized that, in all essentials, these were only more powerful formulations of the old arguments of the 54 As suggested by Krische, pp. 1 9 2 - 3 . Süss p. 248 does not appear to pay any notice to Luc. 61. His main objection, that if the Sosus were the source, Cicero would have mentioned this fact, is absurd. Unlike, say, De Offlciis, a treatise where Cicero, speaking continuously in propria persona, can indicate his source, Lucullus is a dramatic dialogue, and it would have been inconceivable for Lucullus to say that he simply followed the Sosus ('which anyone who wishes can buy at the orchestra, for one drachma at the most'). His other objections are answered by our various arguments in this Excursus. Our interpretation of the απόγραφα passage, if correct, would dispose of most of them in any case. 55 Hirzel p. 254ff. This division of Lucullus' speech is accepted by Lörcher pp. 2 5 2 - 3 . Their solutions are somewhat different from each other. Ruch, op.cit. n. 10 above, p. 313, sees the point of division in Luc. 45. But the discussion there is a continuation of the former arguments beginning at 40. 56 Who else was left to reply? Philone autem vivo patrocinium Academiae non defuit (Cic.Luc. 17). Cicero himself took up this patrocinium only in the later period of his philosophical activities (N.D. 1,11), when Antiochus had been dead for a whole generation.

416

Sosus. He drew on Philo's answer to the Sosus (and on his own nitor orationis) to refute these new arguments as well. He realized that by adopting this procedure, he was lending more force and conviction to the Antiochian side — and this is probably the meaning of his confession to Atticus to that effect (Att. XIII,19,5). 57 But what was he to do? Catulus and Lucullus were composed in an exceptionally brief period, at the same time as the more polished and original Torquatos. They were απόγραφα. Cicero's only source for a refutation of Antiochus' refutations — earlier and later alike — was Philo's reply to the Sosus. If so, the Sosus must have served as a source only for a part of Lucullus' speech — a small section of the whole dialogue. Is that the only use Cicero made of it? A rather strange procedure for a man in a hurry, supplying only his own words for the Greek originals. Hirzel was not the first to suggest that the Sosus of Antiochus was a dialogue, based chiefly on the Alexandrian controversy. 58 He maintained that the dialogue took two days, like Cicero's Catulus and Lucullus,S9 and was conducted mainly between Antiochus and Heraclitus of Tyre. What, then, happened to Heraclitus' speech? Hirzel maintained that, in Cicero's source, Heraclitus' speech came between what are now Luc. 39 and 40. 60 But in that case, why omit this speech? After all, Heraclitus' speech must have been an answer to Antiochus on behalf of the sceptical Academy. If our previous suggestions are right, it is not the omission of Heraclitus' speech which breaks down Lucullus' speech into two sections, but rather the derivation of that speech from two Antiochian sources alluded to in 61. I suggest that Cicero did make use of Heraclitus' speech — but not where Hirzel expected him to have done so. It is significant that Heraclitus in Alexandria plays the same role in the Sosus affair as Catulus the Elder in Rome. Both accuse Philo of expressing novel views which are not those of the Academy under Carneades, and both defend a more traditional view of Carneades and his school (Cic.Luc. 11; 12; 18). Büttner has shown quite convincingly that the Catulus episode is most likely to be

57 This may explain why some of his answers to Lucullus - although, as we have shown, they invariably constitute proper answers - may be somewhat unsatisfying. Not because they are taken from Philo's Roman books, as Hirzel claimed, but because some of Lucullus' arguments are derived from later and more forceful formulations of Antiochus' arguments, which Cicero's source, Philo, was no longer alive to answer. 58 Hirzel p. 265ff. In a footnote in his Der Dialog (see ref. next note), Hirzel claims it as 'meine . . . Vermuthung'. But it had already been suggested by Eble p. 19ff. ; Krische p. 193. 59 On this, he had been adequately refuted by Schwenke - see n. 5 above. But this does not dispose of his thesis that the book was a dialogue. On this issue, his remark in Der Dialog, vol. I, Leipzig 1895, p. 420 η. 1, is still valid. 60 Hirzel pp. 254ff.; 264ff.

27

Gluckcr (Hyp. 56)

417

historical, and that Catulus may well have represented a genuine interpretation of Carneades, milder than that of Clitomachus, yet not as 'heretical' as that of Metrodorus or the Roman Philo.61 While accepting his arguments on this point, I find it more difficult to believe, as Büttner does, that Cicero drew on written materials, left by the Elder Catulus on his death, for Catulus' part in this dialogue.62 I suggest that, for Catulus' main speech - including the reprehensio to Philo on behalf of the school of Carneades, Cicero drew on Heraclitus' speech in the Sosus. Another difficulty remains. If Antiochus' book was a dialogue and its title was Sosus, Sosus himself, as well as Antiochus and Heraclitus, must have appeared in it. This is the invariable practice of ancient dialogues: the person in the title must be one of the speakers.63 Hirzel's argument, that the work was only dedicated to Sosus and that he may have figured largely in the prooemia,64 is far from convincing. This might do in a work like De Finibus, which is only dedicated and addressed to Brutus, but where Brutus' name does not appear in the title. In a dialogue entitled Brutus, Brutus must be — and he is — one of the speakers. The same should apply to a dialogue qui Sosus inscribitur (Luc. 12).6S Sosus, I suggest, did appear in that dialogue. We do not know, of course the order of that dialogue. But a good surmise is that it started — like Cicero's Acad.I — with Antiochus' own exposition of the doctrines of the 'Old Academy' and the Stoic 'corrections' to them, as against Philo's picture of the history of the Academy expressed in his Roman books in the light of his Roman views. This was followed by a speech of Heraclitus, delivering a reprehensio to Philo, and then proceeding to refute Antiochus according to his own version of Carneadean scepticism. The answer to this was, I suggest, a refutation of Heraclitus' defence of άκαταληψία — delivered, this time, not by Antiochus, but by Sosus. After all, even if Antiochus' views were not identical on all points with those of his Stoic masters (and in some areas, like that of moral philosophy, we know that they were not), his arguments against ¿ικαταληψΐα most probably were. This is, of course, a conjecture. But it would solve the problem of the title of the Sosus. It could also help us, perhaps, to fit the pieces of our jigsaw puzzle into a single scheme. I propose the following tentative scheme for the two " See Ch. 1 η. 218, and section Ac of this Excursus (above, pp. 3 9 6 - 7 ) . 62 Biittner's main argument, p. 144ff., is that, while in his De Or. Cicero gives us no details of Catulus' philosophical views, he does so quite distinctively in (Catulus and) Lucullus. But the reason may be, not that in the meantime he has come into a 'Nachlaß', but that in De Or. the form and subject-matter of the dialogue, as well as Catulus' relatively minor role, gave Cicero no reason and no occasion for such a detailed depiction of Catulus' philosophical views. 63 This point was made well and forcefully in 1846/7 by Eble p. 21. 64 Hirzel pp. 2 6 9 - 2 7 4 . 65 For this sense of inscribere see e.g. Cie.Fam. XV,20,1 ; N.D. 1,41 ; Div. 11,1.

418

versions of Cicero's Academic books and their relations to the Sosus and other sources (leaving out the prooemia and the connecting-links between the speeches):

sosus

CA TUL US-LUCULL

1. A speech by Antiochus, defending his theory of the 'Old Academy' and the Stoic 'corrections' to its doctrines.

1. A similar speech by Lucullus, derived from Antiochus' speech.

1. The same speech now transferred to Varrò (Acad. 1,15-42).

2. (Perhaps a short summary by Antiochus of Philo's Roman books but Cicero would not require this as his source.)

2. A speech by Cicero, expounding Philo's Roman view of the history of the one indivisible Academy, and based on the Roman books.

2. The same speech by

3. A speech by Heraclitus, reproving Philo for his innovations and refuting Antiochus from a more traditional Academic position.

The same speech, delivered by Catulus.

3. (Perhaps some parts of this speech incorporated into Cicero's speech)."

4. The first part of Lucullus' speech (Luc. 1 3 - 3 9 ) , based on Sosus' speech

4. The same speech, transferred to Varrò.

5. The second part of Lucullus' speech, derived from a later Antiochian source (Luc. 4 0 - 6 0 ) .

5. The same speech, transferred to Varrò.

4. A speech by Sosus, refuting Heraclitus' version of Academic scepticism.

US

ACADEMICI

Cicero (Acad. 1,44-46 and the lost parts), probably censored of its more extreme 'Roman' elements to suit Philo's position in his reply to the Sosus.

6. Cicero's speech, based on 6. The same speech deliPhilo's reply to the Sosus vered by Cicero. (Luc. 6 4 - 1 4 6 ) .

One could add that we have no evidence, and no reason to believe, that Sosus, too, was in Alexandria at the time of the Sosus affair. 67 Nor, for that matter,

66

An alternative suggestion is that Heraclitus' speech may also have started with a history of the school seen from his own, more sceptical, point of view. If so, Cicero may, in his second version, have skipped altogether Philo's Roman views and transferred Catulus' speech wholesale to himself. But the comparison of Acad.I, 13 and 46 suggests that 4 4 6 are Philonian. In that case, they would have been 'censored' to emphasize only the sceptical continuity in the history of the school. See n. 50 above. 67 Although Eble p. 22 suggests that he may be included among the docti complures of Cic.Luc. 12. But surely, Cicero would mention his name in his narrative.

419

was Varrò in Cicero's Cuman villa - sed nosti morem dialogorum (Cie.Fam. IX,8,1). My scheme is, of course, merely tentative, but it seems to me to suit the few scraps of evidence we possess — and our arguments based on this evidence — somewhat better than previous attempts at reconstruction.68 If my arguments hold, we must conclude that we are not entitled to search for traces of Philo's Roman views either in Cicero's speech in the Lucullus or in the remains of his speech in his Academicus Primus (44—6). Even if the latter had not (as I have suggested) been censored out, there is still nothing in the section of it that has reached us which would not have been endorsed by the most orthodox Clitomachean. The only passages we are entitled to treat as evidence for Philo's Roman books are those which clearly refer to them — in Cicero's works or elsewhere — and these passages have been presented as testimonia for these Roman books in our first chapter. 69 We are, however, fully entitled to draw on Cicero's speech in the Lucullus, and on the remains of his speech in the Academicus Primus, for the more traditional views of the school of Clitomachus.

Additional Note to Excursus II The Date of Att.

XIII,16

(See note 39 and its context) O. E. Schmidt, Der Briefwechsel des M. Tullius Cicero ... Leipzig 1893, pp. 429 (chronology); 5 Off. (texts). Tyrrell-Purser p. lOSff. Shackleton Bailey pp. 198ff. (text); 364 (chronology). 68 I am not, of course, claiming that every single section of Cicero's Academic works is derived, word for word, from his sources. The words of praise for Antiochus in 111 and 113, which stand in contrast to the magisterial reproofs of Philo, must be Cicero's own. So is his personal confession in 102 that Clitomachus' book dedicated to Lucilius was his first introduction to epistemology - and it is quite likely that the whole quotation from that book which follows was inserted by Cicero, since such a book was more likely to be known to a Roman audience (as maintained by Plezia III, p. 69) - although Philo would certainly have quoted a passage of Clitomachus, so close to his own Roman doctrines, in such a context, and he, too, may have chosen a passage from a book better known to his Roman audience at the time. One or two such slight additions and retouches by Cicero are most probable: Cicero's mind was too lively and original for a mere slavish adaptation. But for the main arguments, Cicero was too much in a hurry to do more than draw on his sources. 69

See above, pp. 6 5 - 7 .

420

Sjörgen = M. Tulli Ciceronis ad Atticum Epistularum Libri XIII-XVI, recc. H. Sjörgen, G. Thörnell, A. Önnerfors, Uppsala 1960, pp. 12ff. (text); 1 9 9 200 (chronology).

Letter

Schmidt (= Tyrrell-Purser)

Shackleton

11 12 13-14,2 14,2-15 17-18

June June June June June June

22 23 25 26 27 28

19 21,4-7 20 22

June June July July

29 30 or July 1 2 or 3 4

June 22 June 23 June 24 June 25 June 26 17 - June 27 18 - June 28 June 29 June 30 or July 1 c. July 2 July 4

16

Bailey

(Bailey explains his reason for the revised dates on p. 364. The chronological table on pp. 199—200 of Sjorgen's edition merely reproduces Schmidt's chronology and takes no account of Sjörgen's amalgamation of 13 and the whole of 14 into one letter, and of 15 — 16 into one). Letter 16 cannot be later than 12 for the following reasons: 1. Beginning with 12, all but three of the letters from Arpinum contain references to Attica's illness (12,1; 13-14,3; 14-15,2; 17; 19,1; 21a,3; 22,5). 12,1 is obviously Cicero's reaction to the first news of this illness. Only in 16,18 and 20 is there no mention of it. A complete silence on this issue in 16 is inconceivable, since only a day earlier (by the dating nowadays accepted), Cicero was extremely anxious about Atticus' silence (14—15,2). We have no evidence — on the present dating — that Cicero received an answer between 14—15 and 16. In 16, Cicero has time for enquiries about Servilia, Brutus and Piso — but not about Attica. By amalgamating 15 — 16 into one letter and following Schmidt in amalgamating 17—18 into one, Sjörgen (pp. 16—18) manages to have references to Attica in all the Arpinum letters except 20. This, however, would not solve the remaining difficulties. 2. The queries about Servilia, Brutus and Cato in 16,2 sound like reminders of the similar queries in 11,2. Meanwhile — on present dating - Atticus has written one letter, to which 12 is the answer. In it, he appears to have satisfied Cicero on the matter of Piso (12,4). If he had not answered his queries on Servilia and Brutus, 12,4 — not 16,2 - would be the proper place for a reminder. 421

(16,2, ego ad Nonas, quem ad modum dixi, need not be a reference back to 12,4. 11,2, si poteris, converties, already presupposes a meeting which had been arranged). 3. The 'weather report' in 16,1 sounds like the complaint of a man who has arrived some time — but not too long — ago. Four or five days of incessant rain in Arpinum in the last week of June are extremely unusual — but not a word is said about it being a freak. One day of thunderstorms would be a nuisance (which is just what Cicero appears to be complaining about), but not a weather-freak. 4. 16,1 has the only reference to Cicero's plan to transfer to Cato and Brutus the roles of Catulus and Lucullus. Elsewhere (12,3; 13-14,1, and especially 19,5), the impression is that the role of Lucullus was immediately transferred to Varrò, and Cicero and Atticus were 'worked in' soon after. Why mention this intermediate change of roles three or four days after Cicero has already written (12,3): ergo ilkm ΆκαΒημικήν .. . ad Varronem transferamus ... Catulo et Lucullo alibi reponemus. If 16 preceded 12, the reference to Cato and Brutus would represent merely a passing idea, which Cicero had no time to carry out before he received Atticus' letter with Varro's new request. Ecce tuae litterae de Varrone would represent an immediate reaction to a letter he has just received. In letters of the following days, Cato and Brutus are already forgotten — because they never got off the ground anyway. If Cicero had toyed with this idea until he received Atticus' letter about Varrò, and if 12 were his answer to that letter, he would have been sure to mention it there, while it was still fresh in his mind. 5. In 13—14,1, Cicero writes: Commotus tuis litteris ... totam Academiam ... transtuli ad nostrum sodalem et e duobus libris contuli in quattuor and he already describes the new version in some detail. In 14—15,1, he asks placeatne tibi mitti ad Varronem quod scripsimus, and can already tell Atticus that he had been adopted as the third person of the dialogue. In 16, we have no hint as to the four books, their length or style, or the other persons of the dialogues beside Varrò. Cicero asks Atticus (16,2): primum placeatne tibi aliquid ad ilium, deinde, si placebit, hocne potissimum - after he had already completed the second version, four books, revision, new speakers and all, and has already asked Atticus whether to send this version, already written, to Varrò? Letter 16 should be dated between 11 and 12. If we combine 17—18 (with Schmidt, Tyrrell-Purser and Sjörgen), we shall obtain the following chronology: 11 16 12 13-14 422

-

June June June June

22 23 24 25

14-15 - June 26 17-18 - June 27 This will dispense with problems a and b raised by Shackleton Bailey, p. 364. The amalgamation of 17 and 18 is far from forced. In 17, Cicero ends by complaining that Atticus' letters are already 'dated'. 18 begins with his complaint about the distance between them, which continues the same train of thought. This would leave us without a letter written on June 28; but Hilarus (19,1) may have left on that day with 17-18, written the day before. On the 27th, Cicero was expecting some letters from Rome (17,1). He may have delayed sending Hilarus with 17—18 until the next day. As often happens, it was only then, when he had given up hope and dispatched Hilarus at last, that Atticus' letter arrived. If so, 20 would be the only letter in this group with no reference to Attica. Should it be amalgamated with 21a? This would entail no duplication in subject-matter.

423

EXCURSUS III

Jesus of Nazareth as Kathege tes

The word καύιγγητής is found twice in the same verse, Matthew 23,10, and nowhere else in the New Testament. The life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth occupy a unique position in the hearts of most scholars who occupy themselves with New Testament texts, and epithets applied to him often acquire, in such contexts, a far more exalted significance than they possess when applied to lesser mortals. Recent interpretations of the epithet 'son of man' and the strong reactions aroused by them could serve as one example. Something similar has often happened to the one occurrence of καθηγητής in the New Testament. Yet I do not see why its meaning in that verse of Matthew should be different from what the same word means in the many other texts — literary sources, inscriptions and papyri - in which this noun appears. Verse 10 had been deleted by Blass, Wellhausen and Dalman among others as a mere variant on v.8.1 More recently, attempts have been made to attach new significance to it as a reference to a unique teacher, like the Teacher of Righteousness in the Dead Sea Scrolls.2 This new interpretation appears to be well on the way to becoming a communis opinio. A widely-used popular commentary written by the experts for the layman puts it thus: ' . . . but if 'master' (kathegetes) is the equivalent of Heb. moreh, the technical term of the Teacher of Righteousness at Qumran, then it is the proper climax, making Jesus Christ the 'teacher'.' 3 In the sublunary world of our imperfect texts things are, unfortunately, far from being as simple as that. We have, of course, no Septuagint for the Dead Sea Scrolls to tell us what the Greek for 'teacher of righteousness' was likely to have been. In its absence, we are reduced to our extant Septuagint and the Hebrew Scriptures. In Biblical Hebrew, moreh as a noun is either rare or non-

1 Arndt and Gingrich's Greek-English Lexicon of the NT, Cambridge and Chicago 1957, p. 389 s.v. καθηγητής. 2 C. Spicq, 'Une allusion au Docteur de Justice dans Matthieu 23, 10?', RB 66, 1959, pp. 387-396. 3 K. Stendahl in Peake's Commentary on the Bible, 2nd. ed. London 1962, p. 792. For an earlier attempt to turn this concept into something genuine, unique and Christological, see L. Saggin, 'Magister vester unus est, Christus', Verbum Domini 30, 1952, pp. 2 0 5 213. The list of proposed Hebrew and Aramaic originals of καθηγητής, pp. 2 1 1 - 1 2 , should be enough to demonstrate the futility of such attempts.

424

e x i s t e n t . Whenever this w o r d - f o r m d o e s appear in the H e b r e w Bible, it is unders t o o d b y the L X X translators as a participle and rendered b y a variety o f Greek verbs — b u t never b y κ α ^ γ ο ϋ μ α ι . 4 O n the o t h e r h a n d , διδάσκαλος is o n e o f the c o m m o n e s t e p i t h e t s for Jesus in the N T - m o r e than f o r t y instances are listed in the c o n c o r d a n c e s for t h e G o s p e l s — and the verb δ ι δ ά σ κ ω for his t e a c h i n g activities is f o u n d a b o u t a d o z e n t i m e s in e a c h o f t h e G o s p e l s . If w e were m e a n t t o c o n c e i v e o f Jesus as a Teacher o f R i g h t e o u s n e s s , and if the p r o p e r Greek w o r d f o r 'teacher' in s u c h e x a l t e d c o n t e x t s w e r e i n d e e d κα&τυητής, have e x p e c t e d that t e r m t o appear far m o r e o f t e n in the N T -

we should

at least as o f t e n

4

Καϋηγητής never appears in the LXX, nor does κα&ηγοϋμαι in any form. Ka&nyeßuiv in II Macc. 10,28 is merely a stronger form of ήρεμων = 'leader', and is attested in this sense in various Greek sources (see LSJ s.v.): 'making their passion their leader in the strife', as the R V has it. (This, incidentally, should render Dr. Weymouth's translation of our verse - 'And do not accept the name of "leaders", for your leader is one alone - the Christ' extremely unlikely. Καΰηητίμών is quite common Greek for 'leader', and can also be used for a 'leader or 'founder' of a philosophical school or sect - see Ch. 3, η. 40. Κα&ηγητής, if one can trust LSJ, has the meaning 'leader' only once, in a fragment of the third century B.C. poet Numenius Heracleota. In Hellenistic texts it invariably means 'tutor'.) Διδάσκαλος appears only twice in the LXX, Esth. 6,1 (where this word is not in the Hebrew, and there is a v. 1. διάκονος), and II Macc. 1,10. In both cases, we have no Heb. to control it. Διδάσκω is quite frequent, but most often translates Imd in piel (Hatch-Redpath 8). There are seven or eight cases where it translates yrh, the root of moreh, in hiphil (Hatch-Redpath 7): Jb. 6,24; 8,10; 34,32 (v. 1. for δείξου); Prov. 4,4; 11; 6,13; is. 9,14; Ezek. 44,23. Essentially the same verb, yrh in hiphil, is rendered in a variety of ways. The Ex. favourite is συμβιβάζω (4,12; 15; 35,34 προβιβάσαι), with νομοθΐτώ in 24,12 the exception (in the context of Torah). Συμβιβάζω also in Lev. 10,11 ; Ps. 31,8; Jud. 13,8 version B. In Ps. we usually have νομοθετώ (26,11; 83,7; 118,33; 102). Φ ω τ ί ζ ω appears twice in IV Reg. (12,3; 17,28) and once in Jud. (13,8 version Α). 'Ανατέλλω appears in Dt. 24,8 and in Is. 2,3, where the parallel, Mie. 4,2, has δείκνυμι - also found in I Reg. 12,23 (both translating 'show the way'), and in II Chr. 15,3 (άποδείκνυμι). Δ η λ ό ω is found in Dt. 33,10 and III Reg. 8,36 (= II Chr. 6,27); »αιδεύω once in Pr. 5,13. The only renderings that approach καθηγοϋμαι at all are Ps. 85,11, οδήγησαν με, Κύριε, rr¡ ό δ φ σου, where the context demands it, and Lev. 14,57, έξηγήσασΰαι, which is only an etymological cognate. All these verbs appear in the NT more than once. ΚαθηγοΟμαχ and its cognates are found nowhere in the NT except in our verse. Despite its vogue in Mediaeval and Modern Hebrew, moreh as a noun meaning 'teacher' is rare or non-existent in Talmudic Hebrew - see G. Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, Leipzig 1898, p. 276 (Ε. T. Edinburgh 1902, pp. 3 3 5 - 6 ) . In the Qumran scrolls it always appears in the construct moreh tzedek, usually rendered as 'teacher of righteousness'. Eleven instances are listed in the concordance to Mr. Haberman's edition. Even if moreh in these texts is clearly a noun (which is far from certain), it is noteworthy that in Is. 9,14, nabi moreh sheker ('the prophet who gives false instructions' - NEB), where the 'objective construct' structure is similar to that of moreh tzedek, the LXX has και προφήτην διδάσκοντα άνομα. In Pr. 6,13, A V's 'teacheth with his fingers' is simply LXX διδάσκει