Academica: Plato, Philip of Opus, and the pseudo-Platonic Epinomis 9780871691071, 0871691078

Citation preview

ACADEMICA: PLATO, PHILIP OF OPUS, AND THE PSEUDO-PLATONIC EPINOMIS

~MERI CAN PHILOSOPHICAL MEMOIRS OP THE

/

SOCIETY

Held at Philadelphia For Promoting Useful Know]edge Volume 107

ACADEMICA: PLATO, PHILIP OF OPUS, AND THE

PSEUDO-PLATONIC EPINOMIS

LEONARDO

TARAN

Professor of Greek and Lam, Columbia.U1'iversity

AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY lndependc,o(» Squate • Philadelphia

1975

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 74-78og2 Jnterna.tional Standard Book Number 0-87169-107-8

Printed in Germany at ] • J. Augustin,

Gluckstadt

FOREWORD The manuscript of this book was finished in May, 1971, but I have been able to take account of publications that reached me up to January, 1972; for some later publications the reader is referred to the addenda. The advantages of preserving the lines of Burnet's edition seemed obvious, and so in a few places the typographical elegance of my text of the Epinomis has been given up. I wish to thank those institutions that enabled me to pursue the research and study necessary for the writing of this book: the American Philosophical Society {Penrose Fund) for a grant during the summer of 1963; the Center for Hellenic Studies, Washington, D.C., for a fellowship in 1g631g64; the American Council of Learned Societies for a fellowship in rg66-1967; and the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, N.J., for a membership during Ig66-I967. I am also grateful to Miss Elizabeth Horton, of the staff of the Institute for Advanced Study, for her help in the preparation of the typescript. I owe my interest in Plato's later works, in the Epinomis, and in the Academy to Professor Rodolfo Mondolfo. The name of Professor Harold Cherniss appears often in this book, but that is only a meagre indication of what I owe to him. April, 1972

Leonardo Taran

CONTENTS PART

I

page

I. Plato and the Authorship of the EpiMfflis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 a) The Ancient Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 b) Byzantium and Modern Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 c) Arguments from Style . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 d) The E,p-inomisand the Dramatic End of the Laws . . . . . . . . . 19 e) Astronomy, Dialectic, and the Rejection of the Ideas . . . . . . 24 32 /) Piety, Contemplation, and Cosmic Religion............... g) The Five Simple Bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 h) The Scale of Living Beings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 II. Platonic to,poiand the Structure of the Epinomis . . . . . . . . . . . . a) Happiness and Wisdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) The Review of the Sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c) The ' 1Theogony" ................................. • •. d) The Course of Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e) Astronomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

48 51 69 79

III. Philip of Opus .......................................... a) Texts and Attribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) Chronology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c) Philip as Editor of the Laws ................••.......... d) Philip and the Authorship of the E,pinomis . . . . • . . . . . . . • . .

115 n5 127

IV. The Epinomis, Aristotle, and the Early Academy ........... a) Aristotle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

92

98

128

133 140 140 150

b) Speusippus .... . ... . .... .. .. .. . .. .. . .... .. .. ... .. .. . c) Xenocrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 d) Other Members of the Early Academy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

V. The Influence of the Epinomis on the Formation of a Platonic Dogma PART

..............................................

155

II

The Manuscripts of the Epinomis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 The Indirect Tradition ................................... 176 Modern Editions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 Sigla ....... , , . "'.......,............................. ,.... , . . . . ..... ..... I8I

CONTENTS

Vlll

page

Text ............. " Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix I : Repertory of conjectures on the E,pinomis . . . . . . Appendix II: On ~lS in Plato, Speusippus, and Aristotle. . . . . List of Abbreviations .................................... Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Addenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. Ancient passages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. Proper names ...................................... C. Grammatical and lexicographical ..................... Errata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,ji

..

•

•

•

•

•

..

•

•

•

...

...

•

•

..

..

..

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

..

..

•

•

•

182

203

354 360 362

364 378 386 386 47 413 417

PART I

I. PLATO AND THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE EPINOMIS It will readily be conceded that the Ef,inomis (E.) was meant by its author to complete the program of Plato's Laws. The work. however, is not a mere supplement to the Laws but rather a compendium of a special kind of Platonism. Since at the same time, and contrary to what is often asserted, it does contain important departures and differences both from the Laws and from his other works, 1 it is necessary to determine whether the E. was written by Plato or not.

a) The Ancient Evidence It seems best to begin our inquiry with an examination of the external evidence concerning the authorship of the E. We must try to determine two things: first, what value is to be attached to the Platonic canon that has come down to us; second, whether the ancient authors who cite the E. and refer to it as a work of Plato's or those who reject or express doubt concerning his authorship should be accepted as reliable and sufficient authority to settle the question. The inclusion of the E. in the manuscripts that contain Plato's works does not by itself create a strong case in favor of its being by Plato, because of the presence, and of the attribution to Plato, in primary manuscripts, of other works, e.g. Cleito,Phon,Lovus, Ht,p,pa,chus,which are generally recognized as spurious. Thus we must face the problem of the nature of the Platonic canon, with special reference to the E., and also of the value to be attached to the attestation of this work. Aristotle, whose testimony definitely settles the question of Plato's authorship of the Laws,• does not mention the E .• and, despite the assertions of Taylor and Harward to the contrary, does not seem to have been acquainted with this work. 8 The earliest extant reference to the E. in Greek literature may be a passage ofAristoxenus's work TTepl apiSpflTIKfjs; speaking about the discovery of number Aristoxenus says: Atylirrn01 6~ •Ep1,10v cpaatv wp11µa, l>v'KW!.OW1 0ooS· ol 6& a( TWVSE{wvmp1cpopwv hnVOT1.Sfivc11.' The notion that men owe the discovery of number to the observation of the movements of the heavenly bodies is developed at 1

C/. especially pp.

19ft. i11fra. Since he cites the Laws by title as Plato's work, c/. note 548 i,ifra. 1 C/. note 590 infra. 1 Aristoxenus, frag. 23 (Wehrli), ap. Stobaeus, Ed. I, i, 6 (I, ::zo, 8-9 [Wachsmuth]). 1

3

4

PLATO. PHILIP OF OPUS, AND THE EPINOMIS

length in the E., and it is likely that Aristoxenus had this work in mind when he wrote the words which I have underlined. 5 Be that as it may, this passage of Aristoxenus is not relevant to the question of the author• ship, and, since we do not know the exact dates of Aristoxenus's birth and death,• it cannot help us determine a definite terminus ante quem for the publication of the E. The first author known to us to have referred to the E. by title is Aristophanes of Byzantium (ea. 26o-184 B.c.), who, in classifying Plato's works in trilogies, included the E., together with the Minos and the Laws, in the third. 7 Since there is no evidence that Aristophanes had any predecessors, this classification may be dated not much earlier than 200 B,C. 8 Aristophanes included in his five trilogies works which are spurious, such as the Minos and some of the Epistles at least,• and consequently he should not be considered a reliable witness in so far as the authenticity of the Platonic canon is concerned. The very fact that he "forced."10 the dialogues into trilogies, whether or not he did this on the analogy of the tragic trilogies, 11 is sufficient to cast doubt on his authority 1 C/. E. 978 B 7-979 A 6. It is also possible, though less likely I think, that Aristoxenus had in mind Tim. 47 A 1-6. • Cf. Zeller, II, ii, p. 881, n. 2 7 On Aristophanes' classification cf. Diog. Laert. III, 61-62. On the E. cf. III. 6:i (I, 146, 12 [Long]) TPi-n\" (sc. Tp1Aoyiav) N61,1,01Mlw.,s "Em\l01,1,l5. 'Diogenes says nothing about the other authors who classified Plato's works in trilogies. Thece is no evidence to support the contention of Alline, Histoire, 97, that this classification goes back ultimately to Xenocrates. Moreover, it would be hard to account for Xenocrates' failure to include so many dialogues in the trilo~ gies (cf. note II inff'a) and for the apparent lack of influence of this classification. It is highly unlikely that Xenocrates made this classification in connection with his alleged edition of Plato's works and that he died (more than thirty years after Plato's death) before he had time to complete it. 1 On the spuriousness of the Minos cf. Heidel, 39-43, Taylor, Plato, 538-540, were included Shorey, Plato, 425-427, SouilM, Dialoguas StU/)ects, 81-85. 'ETnOTOAai by Aristophanes as the last work of the fifth trilogy. We are not told how many they were, though by Thrasyllus's time there were already thirteen (c/. note 14 it1/ra). I do not believe that any of the Epistles a.re by Plato (cf. Edelstein's recent treabnent of the question in his Plato's Sevnth L,tm, with whose interpretation of the "philosophical digression" in the seventh EpisU,, however, I disagree [cf. note 66o infrci]). 1• This seems to be implied in the word Diogenes uses (1>.Koucn), which "is the word employed by Aristotle for the forcing of facts into a possible or arbitrary classification"; so Shorey, PlaJo, 60. C/. Aristotle, Eth. Nie. I 159 B 15, Soph. Elan. 167 A 35. Contra Alline, Histoire, 84, n. 3. 11 That Aristophanes, or his source, had in mind the tragic trilogies seems to me to be the most likely explanation of the evidence: He arranged fifteen works in five trilogies in which, with a few exceptions, the criterion of arrangement seems to be the dramatic settings of the dialogues (n. b. the fourth trilogy, Tluaetetus, Euthyphro, Apology), while the rest were not classified (-ra 6' 6lla Ka.9' b xal aro• K"l'WS). The notion that Aristophanes arrived at his five trilogies by criticism of the first, second, eighth, and ninth tetralogies (c/. Wilamowitz, Plawn, II, 324, followed by Pfeiffer, Hist. of Glass. Schol., 196f.) should be rejected, since it is based on a. highly improbable hypothesis (c/. note 19 infra), and there is no evidence for it either in the text of Diogenes Laertius or in any other ancient source.

AUTHORSHIP OF THE EPINOMIS

5

for attributing the E. to Plato. So much is now generally admitted even by those who, like Taylor and Harward} 1 consider the E. to be a genuine Platonic work. Thus few scholars, if any, would subscribe today to Grote's attempt to prove that Aristophanes' catalog is based on a tradition that goes back to the days of the Old Academy immediately after Plato's death, an hypothesis which in any case was put to rest by Zeller. 13 In antiquity Plato's works were also classified in tetralogies, and the E. together with the Minos, the Laws. and the thirteen Epistles, was included in the ninth tetralogy. The details of the tetralogical classification have come down to us in Diogenes Laertius's life of Plato. Diogenes attributes this classification to Thrasyllus, the astrologer and friend of the Emperor Tiberius. u Thrasyllus thought that Plato himsell arranged his works in tetralogies in imitation of the tragic tetralogies of three tragedies and one satyr play. 15 Though we do not know how old this classification is, it seems that Thrasyllus himself did not invent it; Dercyllides also proposed this classi:fi.cation,18 but, since we do not know the latter's exact dates, we cannot give priority to the one or the other.n Alline, Histoira, 84£1., and others maintain that Aristophanes' classification was made in connection with his edition of Plato's works, but there is no evidence for such edition, and no need to postulate it. Cf. Pasquali, Swria della tradiziona, 1 264f., Pfeiffer, Hist. of Class. Schol., 197 and n. I. With more likelihood Nauck, Aristophanis Byzantii F,-ag.,250, included Diog. Laert. III, 61-62, among the fragments of Aristophanes' supplement to Callimachus's Pinakes. 11 C/. Taylor,• 46, Taylor, Pia.Jo, 10:fl., 521 ff., Harward, 28f. 11 C/. Grote, Plato, I, 272ff., and, against him, Zeller, II, i, pp. 444-447. 14 C/. Diog. Laert. III, 56-61, Clark, Tha Descenl of Manuscripts, 383. On the ninth tetralogy cf. III, 6o (I, 145, 31-146, 3 [Long)) Ti\SivaT'llS /i'(EITcnM(vc.>5i\ mpl 116~. 1r0Am1aV 8et1&v rnt Ta l\6yo1s av-rov syaavSp&rrrots cpaivon' &v 6Afya TOUTQ)Y d66a111.On the interpretation of 987 B 5-9 cJ.pp. 108110

infra.

111Cf.Aristotle,

Ds Caek 284 B 6-286 A 2, 287 B 22-288 A 12. C/. Taylor.• 49-54, Taylor, Comm. oa Tim. 15of., Harward, 32 and 132 f. Taylor's thesis of a change in Plato's astronomical views is discussed in chapter II, e. In Laws 76o D 1-2, movement hrl 6E(1a in a circle is defined as movement from West to East. Einarson,• 92, is mistaken when he atbibutes to Taylor the notion 11

10

PLATO, PHILIP OF OPUS, AND THE EPINOMIS

that the difference between the Timaeus and the E. is not a real one because in the former the observer is facing North, and Plato is thinking of the movement of the circle of the fixed stars as a whole: it moves hrl &~t&, because, starting from the right, it comes back to the rlght.' 6 In the E. the observer is supposed to be looking at the stars at an isola~ ted moment of their course, and consequently this movement will be "to the left" of the observer. The same thing is true of the planetary and the E. are really in agreement motions, and therefore the Ti11'UUus in regard to the planetary motions. But these several interpretations fail to "save the phenomena" in the case of the Timaeus, and the same is true of most of the other interpretations given to the passage of the Timaeus by its modem commentators. 11 We must notice. in the first place, that in the Timaeus hrl &~1&refers to movement from left to right, that is the circle of the Same moves clockwise.'7 Secondly, we must take into consideration the fact that for that in the Laws hrl &~1a means "counterclockwise," for Taylor takes it as "clockwise," c/. Taylor, The Laws, 142 and n. 1. Moreover, Taylor,• 5::z-54, insists on the relative position of the observer in determining whether the movement and he bases his a.rgumen t on the from East to West is hrl &f14 or ht' dp1a,-ep&., /annal agreement between the Laws and the E. in defining as hrl &(16: the movement from West to East. 14 Bockh, Untenuchungen, 28-32, Reuther, 63f., des Places., 102f.; Novotny, 174f.. finds acceptable either Bockh's or Taylor's different interpretations. 11 This is. as we saw. the meaning that Aristotle gives to hrl &fui, but there is no reason to attribute such a notion to Plato, especially in view of Laws 76o D 1-2. Bockh's interpretation is similar to that of Proclus, in spite of his finding Proclus "confusing." Proclus, In Tim. 11, 26o, 28-261, u (Diehl) thinks that hrl tle~ia refers to motion in a circle and means If.' & TO &f,ovK1vd, whereas 1ls TO 15E~Ov, which means "to the right, "refers to motion in a straight line. Proclus's interpretation is in accordance with his desire to bring the Timaeus into agreement with the Republic (617 C 5-D 1) and also with Aristotle, cf. In Tim. II, 258, 25ff. {Diehl), In Rem Puhl. II, 232, 24-233, 20, 244, 30-245, 2, 251, 18-23 (Kroll). Braunlich, A.J.P. 57 (1936), 251-256, follows Proclus and thinks that in the Laws and in the E. too hrl &f,a means "counterclockwise." Of other ancient critics who comment on Tim. 36 C 5-6, Calcidius, 146, 9-147. 10 (Waszink) reads into it Aristotle's notion of ml6,~a.and so does Aetius, Pla.c. II, 10, I (Diels, Dox., 339). AJbinus XIV, 5 (Louis) takes trrl &fux as "to the right" but does not state in relation to whom or what the cosmos moves hrl T6: &tta, and the same ma:y be said of Diog. Laert. III, 68. 11 I refer to Martin, Etud~s. II, 42-46, esp. 43, followed by Archer~Hind, The Timaeus, 112f., who thinks that the Timaeus refers to an observer facing South; to Heath, A,-islM'c/sus, 163, followed by Cornford, 74, who maintains that Plato calls the movement of the cosmos' 'to the right" because "right" is superior to "left" and better than it; and to Fraccaroli, JI Timeo, 191 f., who thinks that "right" in the Ti~us refers to the cosmos itself, that is what faces the left side of the observer. 17 This is the natural interpretation of movement mi &(ta in a circle, and Laws 76o D 1-2 shows not only that this was Plato's notion but also that for him it is essential to determine the point of reference. Aristotle's notion of trrl &(1a was different, as we saw. Nor should one equate the direction of astronomical motions in reference to an observer with the custom of passing the wine around the table hrl -ra:&~6. In this last case the resulting motion once the wine has gone full circle is counterclockwise, because the observer is placed in the circumference itself that the wine traverses, and he is facing the center.

AUTHORSHIP OF THE EPINOMIS

II

Plato there are no absolute directions in the universe,• and consequently "up" and ''down:• "right" and "left." etc. are characteristics which refer to an observer. In the narrative at Tim. 36 C "right" and "left" can refer only to the Demiurge, who is depicted as an artisan who has built an armil1ary sphere8' and is looking "down" at the universe with the northern pole opposite his eyes. Thus for the Demiurge the movement from East to West is rnl &~1a, i.e. toward his right side.'° The E. presupposes that the human observer is in exactly the opposite position, i.e. he facesNorth, 61 and sees the movements of the planets on the ecliptic from West to East as rnl Se9aand the daily rotation of the cosmos from East to West as hr' &ptIJOS fi 'Emll'Ol,llS, b ~ :MyoVTmKar' oopavov ,lvaa 1,10\IOV ol .9Eol.This passage refers to PhMdo III B-C, Tim. 40 B-C, E. 981 D 7-E 6 and 984 D 5-7. But this kind of argument would also be "valid'' against the Timaeus, since the earth must belong to the heavenly creature described in 39 E-40 A. In such contexts, moreover, "uranos" means the universe, and there is some evidence that the author of the E. considered the earth to be a cosmic god, c/. pp. 108-110 in/r(J. For the probability that commentaries B, C, and Don the P'luudo go back ultimately toDama.sciuscf. Westerink, Damascius, Lectures on the Phiubus, pp. IX-XX.

. q,l)0111

ff!"~"

AUTHORSHIP OF THE EPINOMIS

IJ

The question of the authorship of the E. cannot be settled by accepting the testimony of either side in the ancient evidence about it. The tradition that ascribes the work to Plato is not trustworthy; and, while the authors who reject the E. may have based their judgment on a genuine tradition going back to the Old Academy to the effect that the Laws was the last work of Plato's, we do not possess decisive evidence that this was indeed the case. Given the nature of the Platonic canon, however. it is significant that doubts about Plato's authorship of the E. were expressed in antiquity; and this is the more important in view of the fact that no such evidence has survived, if it ever existed. concerning the Minos, for example, a work which also belongs to the ninth tetralogy and which most modem scholars consider to be un-Platonic.

b) Byzantium and Modern Times I do not know of any discussion about the authorship of the E. in Byzantium. Suidas, s.v. cplAOC'OCp05. says that the thirteenth book of the Laws was added by that "philosopher" (surely Philip of Opus is meant) who divided the Laws into twelve books; but his source for this statement is ultimately Diogenes Laertius III, 37 or some other such text, as we shall see. Psellus" cites the E. by title but does not name its author, and while Pachymeres in his Quadrivium cites the E. as a work of Plato's he is dependent on Nicomachus's lnh'oducti-0Arithmetica." The E., cited and referred to as a work of Plato's, played an important role in the polemic between Nicephoros Choumnos and, presumably, Theodorus Metochites.ta In the sixteenth century the humanist Francesco Patrizzi rejected the Platonic authorship of the E. in his DiscussiOMS Peripatetic.ae,• and so, too, did the Abbe Claude $allier in the eighteenth century.lO The latter argued briefly that, because of its style, its superfluous character when compared to the twelfth book of the Laws, and its peculiar use of Platonic to-poi,the E. is on-Platonic. Though Sallier did not offer elaborate arguments and though his work is not free from misconceptions, it is interesting that he advanced three main lines of argument that scholars later brought against Plato's authorship of the E. "CJ. Psellus, Chronogr. VI, 39 (I, 136, 6-8 [Renault]). " CJ. G. Pachymeres, Quadrivium, 6, 24-7, 10 (Tannery-Stephanou), with Nicotnachus, lntr. Arilh. I, 3, 5 (7, 4-21 [Hoche)). 68 CJ. Sevtenko, La vie intellectuelk a Byzance. For specific references cf. the Index glnlral, s. "· Platen, p. 321, Epinomis. Several texts relating to this polemic are published in this book for the first time. For a rather curious interpretation of the E. c/. note 486 infra. u C/. F. Patrizzi, Discussionum Pnipautic""'m Tomi IV, 27, 225, 251 f. Patrizzi (27) rejected the E. because of the ancient testimony which ascribes the work to Philip of Opus, and because of the argument of Damascius (though Pamzzi cites it as Proclus's); cf. note 45 su,pra. ao C/. Hist-Oi,-, de l'acadhnie royau des Imcriptions et Bell,s Leltres, Tome Ve,. 98-103. For a list of modern critics who reject the E. cf. Stallbaum, 441.

14

PLATO, PHILIP

OF OPUS, AND THE EPINOMIS

During most of the nineteenth century, when so many works which are undoubtedly by Plato were considered to be spurious, it is not strange that most scholars rejected. the E., as it is not strange, either, that by and large no good arguments against Plato's authorship were put forward then. And this situation, perhaps, goes far to explain the acceptance of Plato's authorship of the E. by Grote and by Raeder (in his Platens ,Philoso,Phische E ntwickelung)and the influence this acceptance exercised on all subsequent editors and commentators of the dialogue, beginning with the publication of Reuther's dissertation in 1907. However this may be, the last part of the nineteenth century saw a return to a more reason• able attitude towards the Platonic corpus, and interest shifted then to the establishment of a relative chronology of Plato's works as a means of reconstructing his philosophical development. In the absence of any but a few external data, attempts were made to establish such a chro• nology on the basis of stylistic and stylometric criteria.

c) Arguments from Style The kind of studies referred to above are important for us only in so far as they touch on the E. and the Laws. In 1888 Ritter, 61 after a brief analysis of the style of the E., concluded that it is impossible on sty• listic grounds alone to condemn it as un•Platonic. In 1896, however, Heidel" argued that because of its prolixity. its vocabulary, and the way it uses dialogue, the E. is un-Platonic. But it was only in 1927, with the publication of F. Muller's dissertation, that the discussion of the style of the E. took a prominent place in the studies devoted to this work. F. Mtiller's arguments were immediately found convincing by Pasquali and by Ritter himself in their respective reviews of F. Muller's book. Yet in 1928 Harward, in his translation of the E. with introduction and notes, concluded that the style of the E. is so similar to that of the Laws that this by itself constitutes positive evidence of Platonic authorship. Harward's book appeared so soon after that of F. Muller's that he could not take the latter into consideration, but in 1929 Taylor devoted a whole monograph to a refutation of F. Mliller's dissertation point by point. Theiler, however, reviewing both F. Muller's and Taylor's books in 1931, sided with the former, though he recognized that several arguments advanced by him were not cogent. Since then. des Places, Post, Raeder, and Novotny among others have sided with Taylor, while F. Muller himself defended his earlier work when in 1940 he reviewed Raeder's monograph. and in 1g66 he sponsored Lier's dissertation, which is another attempt to prove, mainly on stylistic grounds, that the E. cannot be the work of Plato. In 1951, G. Miiller sided with F. Miiller and Theiler in contending that some stylistic characteristics of the E. are un•Platonic, but he argued nevertheless, following Taylor and Harward, that most of 11

H

Ritter, Unlet's. 91-93. Heidel, 72-73.

AUTHORSHIP OF THE EPINOMIS

15

them can be paralleled from the Laws. Their styles. the fundamental agreement he sees in the contents of both works, which show irreconcilable differences from the rest of Plato's literary production, and the impossibility of athetizing the Laws because of Aristotle's explicit testimony, appear to lead G. Muller to the conclusion that in the Laws Plato's conceptions have lost their deepest meaning. 58 I do not intend to review in this place the arguments advanced by either side in this controversy; in so far as they have any bearing on the understanding of individual passages of the E .• the Laws, or other Platonic works_,they are dealt with in the commentary. Only a few general remarks on the nature of such arguments seem appropriate here. Any attempt to prove by means of a stylistic comparison that acertain work does not belong to an author of whom we almost certainly possess all the literary production, as is the case with Plato,M should have two parts; one must first determine what are the differences and the similarities between the obviously authentic works and the presumed spurious work, while the second stage ought to consist in an evaluation of the evidence collected. One would therefore have expected that anyone who attempted to prove the style of the E. un-Platonic would have at his disposal the necessary evidence on which to pass judgment. And even though such data may prove nothing definite one way or the other, it would have been useful to possess such a collection of the stylistic evidence. Unfortunately. none of the authors who have athetized the E. because of its style have undertaken to collect the evidence by means of a statistical analysis. It is still more regrettable that even in the relatively simple matter of vocabulary we find critics relying on Ast's Lexicon, which, as any student of Plato ought to know, is deficient. 16 Instead of an objective analysis of the grammatical and stylistic characteristics of the Laws and the E. we find appeals to the feeling for Plato's language" or dogmatic assertions that a certain expression, 11

u For a thorough refutation of G. Muller's main contentions cj. Cherniss's review in G. 25 (1953), 367-379. The present work was written before a second edition (1968) of G. MUiler's book reached me. It differs from the first in that a postscript (191-210) was added. I ha.ve referred in a few places to this postscript, in which G. Muller, realizing that his thesis is destroyed by Aristotle's testimony concerning the Laws (cj. p. 30 with note 125, and note 548 infra). maintains without any good reason at all (210) that the second book of the Politics is not by Aristotle. His proneness to base interpretations on expressions which he isolates from their contexts b cro-r6 is also noticeable in the postscript; for example (198), Muller calls T6 KCXS' in E. 979 A 1 "das Prinzip der Einheit," whereas the phrase refers to the different faces of the moon taken one by one, c/. comm. ad lac. •• Cf. Zeller, II, i. p. 437 with nn. I and 2. 11 For example. the word ~. which we find in E. 987 B :z, is listed by Ast as occurring only in Timaeus Locrus 96 E. Reuther, 26, in drawing up a list of words which occur in the E. but not in Plato, corrects Ast's omission of the E.'s passage. F. Millier, 9 and 32, follows Reuther. Neither has been corrected by reviewers and commentators. Yet not only is lo-mpos used by Plato, but he uses it in Laws 821 C 3, a passage that the author of the E. must have had in mind when he employed the same word, since he intended to correct, tacitly, what Clinias says in the Laws, cf. comm. on g87 B :z-3 sub fin.

16

PLATO, PHILIP OF OPUS. AND THE EPINOMIS

which is being compared with a "normal" one chosen from Plato, is un-Platonic. As it is. the mistakes committedaresoseriousandsofrequent that this by itself would suffice to cast doubt on the "feeling for the language," of which there is so much talk.111 But even in cases where one has been unable to find Platonic parallels to the expressions in the E. singled out for criticism, it must be said that none of them separately nor all of them together constitute positive and objective proof that Plato could not be its author. For the fact that a word or an expression in the E.isnot to be found in Plato could not by itself prove it to be on-Platonic, unless we possessed, as we certainly do not, evidence that Plato followed until the very end of his life narrow rules in bis use of the Greek language. But we find him attacked rather for his freedom of expression, his poetical turns, his coinage of new words, etc.'1 I do not mean to say that these objections are justified but only that the phenomena on which they are based are real. And a moment's reflection on the fact that Plato repeatedly disclaims the use of strict and fixed technical terminology" ought to constitute sufficient warning against the temptation to "discover" his principles of composition. 111 In fact, even among the obviously spurious dialogues included in the Platonic corpus there is probably not one that could be proved spurious on stylistic grounds alone. In connec" This applies especially to the works of F. Muller and Lier. Their objections to the stylistic peculiarities of the E. are very often based on rather elementary misapprehensions of the Greek and of the thought. There is scarcely a passage, sentence, or word that they do not criticize, and it has been impossible either to list all their objections or to refute them beyond the general remarks given above in the text. I have tried in the commentary to answer specific objections only when doing so helps our understanding of the text itself or of the peculiarities of Plato's style. For the rest, it would also be possible to single out expressions in the Laws where Plato uses intensificatory language in referring to notions that in earlier works were expressed without intensification. CJ., for example, comm. on 973 C 8 and on 976 E 2-4. If it is "feeling for the language" that leads an author to declare un~Platonic the expression I( chr6:0"l}S avayK11~. one must surely conclude that such "feeling" is not a safe criterion in these studies. C/. comm. on 982 A 1-2. 17 On the discussions of Plato's style in antiquity cj. Walsdorff, Die anJilm• Urteil, ~ Plalotts Slil, the reviews of it by Schmid, G.G.A. (1929), 237-244, Sykutris, G. 6 (1930), 527-539, and Orth. Phil. Wach. 53 (1933), 1020-1023. CJ. also Nock, C(m. Neot. II (1947), 170-173, " Cf. R,p. 533 D 7-E 2, where n. b. ovm;pl 6110IJ(t1"0S 6:µcpu:rf3ftT11atS, Meno 87 B-C with Shorey, Plal-0, 516, Theael. 184 B--C, Polit. 261 E. Laws 864 A-B, Diog. Laert. III, 63 (], 147, 3-4 [Long]) XPfiTal (sc. IT.\6::,-(A)v) 8l l«Xlrnl 51Cl1!Ep0VT(l)5' OTJl,lal\lOl,lffl,)11 TOtS' avrots 6"6µaaw, Max. Tyr. XXI, 4 (259, 8-g (Hobein]) fycl.,yap TOI Ta TI 6-Mo, KCXl b TI 'T6>1161101JQT(,)II n.v.9Epi11"1, 11 The stylometrists assumed that they could detect the "unconscious" variations in Plato's style. Yet Vretska, W.S. 71 (1958). 30-45, has refuted such easy assumptions in the test case of the first book of the Republic. His demonstration that Plato's use of formulas of agreement is determined by the context, and is therefore not mechanical, should constitute a serious warning against the attempts to base an interpretation of Plato on such analyses. Nor do I find Thesleff's recent work Studies in the Styles of Plaw very illuminating. In so far as the E. is concerned (25 and n. 5), be considers it .. substantially Platonic," and like Taylor and Harward finds it bud to believe that anybody could imitate the Platonic style of the Laws without overdoing it or introducing personal mannerisms.

AUTHORSHIP OF THE EPINOMIS

17

tion w:ith the stylistic arguments that have been marshalled to prove the un-Platonic character of the E. it is amusing to see that many similar objections were first rehearsed by Zeller against the Laws when in his Platoniulse Studim he attempted to athetize this work. All this is said not in order to deny that there are some differences bew tween the language of the E. and that of the Laws. But most of the grammatical peculiarities of the E., such as repetitions, ellipses, hyperbata, periphrases, frequent instances of brachylogy and of asyndeton, parataxis rather than hypotaxis, long sentences loosely constrocted, µl,vsolitarium, and others, are typical of poetry. especially of tragedy, and occur frequently in Plato's later works. 80 Most of these phenomena occur more often in the E. than in the Laws, and undoubtedly it is this concentration of intensificatory devices that gives the impression that the author is not Plato; but after all if the E. were the very last work of an ageing Plato it would not be so strange to find in it an exaggeration of such "irregularities." In short, none of the three phenomena analyzed by F. Mfiller, vocabulary, sentence structure, and use of the dialogue can provide objective criteria to prove that the E. is un-Platonic. It is also important to call it to the attention of both sides in this controversy that useful and absolutely necessary as the comparison of the style of the E. with that of Plato's authentic works, and especially with the Laws, is, it will nevertheless oversimplify and somehow provide a false picture of the author of the E., unless we constantly keep in mind the fact that there is nothing but the Platonic corpus to provide a standard of comparison. We do not possess either any complete dialogue or extensive verbatim quotations from any dialogue of Aristotle, Speusippus, Xenocrates or any other member of the Old Academy or of the Early Peripatos. Aristotle's extant works are something quite different; and the same may be said, though for different reasons, of the rhetorical works of the fourth century B.c. Thus there is for us no way of knowing • On the stylistic characteristics of Plato's later dialogues cf. Campbell, TA, Sophistes, XXIV-XXXVII. Plato's works are to be divided into two groups, of which the later one (Sophist, Politicus, Phikbus, Tiffl41114s, C,itias, Laws) is characterized by Plato's purposeful avoidance of hiatus, cJ. Blass, Du aJUscl,a Beradsamk,il,111, 458fl., Janell, J.f.P., Suppl. 26 (1901), 263-336; for a recent discus~ion of what Plato's adoption of the lsocratean rule really proves, cf.Chemiss, A .J.P. 78 (1957), 230-233. Some characteristics of Plato's later style, e.g. the peculiar word order and the structure of the sentences, are in part due to avoidance of hiatus, and, since the author of the E. also avoids it, some of the oddities that strike its critics are to be ascribed to this same cause, though this is often neglected. For hiatus in the E. cf. Raeder, R.M. 61 (1go6), 442-443, Reuther, 25, Raeder, 12. In a few additional places hiatus is avoided by preserving the oldest readings of the manuscripts. But I do not believe that the statistics of hiatus or those of clausulae have any bearing on the question of the authorship of the E. Since the statistics on clausulae given by Billig, J.P. 35 (1920), 225-256, are cited by Harward, -47f.,Specchia, 15, and others, it should be mentioned that they are not reliable, since Billig disregards the length of the final syllable in contradiction with Aristotle's explicit statement, c/. Chemiss, op.cit. 227f., FriedlAnder, Plato Ill, 567, D. 87.

18

PLATO, PHILIP OF OPUS, AND THE EPINOMIS

how original may be the peculiarities of the E. that have provoked so much polemic. But if we cannot prove through a stylistic analysis that the E. is unPlatonic, even less can such an analysis support the conclusion that the style of the E. is so similar to that of the Laws that both works must have been written by one and the same person. For even apart from the differences between the E. and the Laws we must take into consideration the possibility that the author of the E. may have been a conscious imitator of Plato's style. Taylor and Harward, to be sure, try to dismiss this possibility when they argue that the style of the E. is that of an old man and that the work shows signs of being a first unrevised draft. The latter argument will not do, because the fact that our text may be corrupt in a few places is hardly sufficient to support the inference that these irregularities go back to the author himself.H Moreover, the defects of structure that Harward detects are all based on misinterpretation of the text. 11 The style of the E. may or may not be that of an old man; but, even if it is, surely Plato was not the only old man who could have written it. Grammatical and linguistic peculiarities are not identical with style; and, though most of those that occur in the E. may be paralleled with passages of the Laws, the respective styles of the two are not identical, forJ even apart from the differences which in this respect exist between the two works, there is scarcely a sentence in the E. that lacks intensmcatory devices. It is therefore more significant to notice that all the linguistic characteristics of the E. combine to produce a highly artificial and periphrastic language which conveys the impression that the author is ,pu,,poselywriting in a "high" and complex style. And this impression seems to find confirmation when one compares the style of the work with its content; since the author was writing on what seemed to him the most important subject, how to attain wisdom and with it happiness, since he treats this subject in the manner of a "protreptic" to the virtuous and purer life. and since he recommends the institution of a new public religion based on the cult of the cosmos and of the heavenly bodies, it is n None of the five passages singled out by Taylor,' 315f., as evidence that the E. is a first unrevised draft dictated by the author proves his point. The first, 976 D 6 8w~So0oa. is explained by the author's predilev, and the fifth, g88 C 2 6 µiv, a.re most probably corruptions due to scribes, not to the W5-n-6:VTIJ Tvtl..';11 ~CJTl'l 5uca16Ta-r'avAliyo1TO aoq,ia,) Moreover, Laws 967 E 2-3 would not make sense if it referred to music, which must be included among the propaedeutic sciences. In Laws 817 E:fl., music is not mentioned. because that part of it which is necessary for elementary education was dealt with earlier, c/. 816 C; and c/. also 7-46E 6-747 A 5. There is per-

28

PLATO, PHILIP OF OPUS, AND THE EPINOMIS

dialectic is completed when, referring once more to the specific 01V6\MXT6s (I 6o011CX1 T6v Myov. Compare with Rap. .531 E 4fi., where, after referring to the study of the propaedeutic mathematical sciences and of their kinship as a ,rpool1,110v,Socrates begins the description of dialectic proper with the words ctU.a 6TJ,••• , lli'i6vvcrrolotn~ 6o0val 'T1i Kai~~ Myov elaeaS.. It is this fact that dialectic is introduced as an additional discipline, yet to be followed by the -riAos(astronomy), that proves its ancillary character in the E., even apart from the fact that in the E. astronomy is declared to be wisdom. When des Places, 11 :z, says that Brochard's demonstration of the presence of the ideas in the LtJws could also be applied to the E., he disregards the supremacy of astronomy in the latter and the author's tacit denial of the separate existence of the ideas, cf. p. 32 infra. 191 C/. E. 991 C 2-6 and comm, on this passage. m C/. comm. on 991 C 6-D 5. m CJ. comm. on g8:z D 3--7 and g87 E 1-988 A 5. 111 iu

32

PLATO, PHILIP OF OPUS, AND THE EPINOMIS

not the science that provides the ~ desired in the E .• which is the unity of self in the contemplation of the unity of the cosmos. 118 The un-Platonic character of the role of dialectic in the E. is both corroborated and explained by the author's implicit though emphatic denial of the separate existence of ideas. For two passages in the E., g81 B 3--7 and g83 D 2-5, state that there are only two kinds of entities, soul and body; and while the former adds that only soul can be bodiless and absolutely deprived of color, the latter emphatically denies the existence of anykindof terlium qutd. 111 The implications of these two passages, though they more often than not have gone unnoticed, are nevertheless devastating for the presumed Platonic authorship of the E., since the tacit denial of the separate existence of ideas creates a gulf between the E. and Plato•s later works that no hypothesis of development can bridge if it wishes to do justice to the evidence. 1•

/) Piety, Contemplation, and Cosmic Religion It is quite in accordance both with the denial of the separate existence of ideas and with the identification of astronomy with wisdom that the author should postulate the cosmos as the object of knowledge and contemplation ;1u and, since the Seoyov(a ml l.'t)Oyovfa leads to the conclusion that the cosmos is a divine living being who purposely teaches us number. in order that man should apply this gift to acquire knowledge of the god himself, us the author concludes that the highest part of virtue, i.e. wisdom, is piety.Ha This piety, involving as it does a feeling of reverence towards the supreme divinity. leads to the postulation of a cult of the cosmos. 1" All these doctrines are not only foreign to Plato but definitely un-Platonic in that they are incompatible with essential tenets of Plato's philosophy as embodied in his uncontested authentic works. To begin with, the very identification of piety with the highest wisdom runs counter to Plato's conception of wisdom as the knowledge acquired 1N C/. comm. on 99x D 8-992 A I and pp. 68-6(} infra. C/. comm. on 98x B 4-7 and on 983 D 2-5. On the ideas in the Philebus and the Timaeus c/. note 145 i11/ra, and on the latter cf. also the next section o! this chapter. In the Laws the ideas are not openly mentioned but their existence is implied, as we have argued. Moreover, in the Laws 1•

1t1

the supremacy of dialectic is re-asserted. and there is nothing there to parallel the two passages of the E. which imply a tacit denial of them. It is only Harwa.rd's disregard of this and of the supremacy of astronomy in the E. that enables him («f.) to say that the E. is in agreement with the Phil~bus and the Laws in the form the theory of ideas takes when applied to Ethics and Politics. The tacit denial of the separate existence of the ideas in the E. should once for all end all attempts to use this work in the reconstruction of Plato's alleged theory of idea-numbers. Cf. comm. on 990 E 3-4. For the probable relative chronology of Plato's later works cf. Chemiss, A. J.P. 78 (1957). 225-266. Ul C/. E. 976 E 5-977 B 8, 986 C 5-D 4, 990 A 2-C 5, 99J B 6-C I, C 6-D 5, 991

E 1-992 A I. us C/. E. 976 E 5-977 B 8, 978 B 7-979 A 6, and 988 A 5-B 7 with note ad loc. tu C/. E. 989 B 1-2 with comm. on 989 A 6-B 2. II&C/. E. 977 A 2-6, 983 E 3-984 BI, g88 A 5.

985 D 4-986 A 3, 986 B 3-C 5, 987 E l-

AUTHORSHIP OF THE EPINOMIS

33

through dialectic, and also to his notion that the unchangeable ideas are the separate object of thought. 1" Plato does sometimes mention piety as a virtue, but he never considers it to be the most important one, nor does he identify it with wisdom as the author of the E. does.* Contrary to the belief of some scholars the Platonic distinction between knowledge and opinion is preserved in the E., and the author maintains that true knowledge is necessary for the acquisition of wisdom and happiness~147 yet he also makes it clear that he has substituted the cosmos for the ideas as the object of knowledge and contemplation, and it is knowledge of the visible universe that he considers to be wisdom.•&a Plato. however, never reduces the object of knowledge to sensible existence of any kind; and it will not do to argue, as is done by those who would deny that the E. is at variance with Plato, that the Timaeus and the Laws mark a shift in Plato's attitude towards the cosmos since in these works he considers the cosmos and the heavenly bodies as divine living beings that possess supreme intelligence. 1" For in earlier works too Plato admits the divinity of the heavenly bodies; 160 and, if he places more m On the separate existence of ideas and on the unchangeable ideas as the object of thought, c/. Phaedv1.6yoSwould not make sense (c/. also comm. on g81 B 3-4). If O"T&pai crwllCX'T(X were taken to mean simply solid bodies and no reference to the regular solids were intended, there would be no apparent reason for the limitation to five; there are more solid bodies than fire, ether, air, water, and earth. m Cf. Simplicius, Phys., u65, 27-39 (Diets); De Ctulo, 12, ::u-27 and 87, 17-26 (Heiberg). Simplicius mentions no oral teaching, nor does he say that Plato made a. change in the number of the simple bodies toward the end of his life; he is only arguing that Plato himself in the Timaeus postulates the ether as a fifth simple

40

PLATO, PHILIP

OF OPUS, AND THE EPINOMIS

notice the expression ax1\paro 1((1\ aWl,IQTQ} it also follows that Xenocrates too related the five" elements" to the five regular polyhedra. And even more significant, moreover, though it has too often gone unnoticed, perhaps because Heinze omitted to cite the contexts within which this fragment of Xenocrates occurs, is the fact that Simplicius, the only extant author who preserves this text, cites it three times and in all three instances makes it clear that he understood Xenocrates to have identified the ether with the dodecahedron and to have placed the latter outside or above the sphere of fire.1111Thus the dodecahedron according to Xenocrates' testimony retains the same relative position assigned to it in Timaeus55 C 4-6, whereas the E. locates the ether, and hence also the dodecahedron, between fire and air. 171 Since Xenocrates and the author of the E. are at variance both with one another and with the Timae.usand since they attribute their respective notions of the ether to Plato himself.1110it is possible that both may be wrong, as in fact I think they are; but they cannot both be right. Why Xenocrates and the author of the E. attempted to read a fifth simple body into the Timaeuscan be onlyamatterof conjecture. Undoubtedly they found some encouragement to do so in Timaeus's own admission 'that the account he gives of this matter is merely a "probable .. or a body out of which the outer cosmos is made. The evidence he cites is Tim. 55 C 4-6 and the fragment of Xenocrates. Hence there is no reason to ascribe this doctrine to Plato, as Zeller, II, i, p. 951 and n. :z, and others do. Xenocrates too seems to be interpreting the Ti11UU#s, c/. Chemiss, 37:z, n. 4: " ... In saying that Plato divided the [4>«X until he arrived at T0:1fcwrc,)Vv 6:Mf\VTOUovpavou Tf'lv ovafav ,rapa Ta Ttnapa OTOtXl!laTa wo mA'lVflVq,11aiv,dmp 'Tit)l,lAvoO:pa,,4>TO S~pov 6:,rol;~ C7Xi'j1J,a, T&SvSE'TE:"n'CXpC,)V IKaa-rov6'.MCfJ Kai 6XAr.,, Siel.wypa:fTlOlV axfiµan.ff'4l1"TIV oovKai wrosowtav fll" 'TOVoOpavoOq,11a1v·llAAflv yap ,rapaTa ThTapa TI!t vn6 CV1.t'iVfl" OTOt)(ETa, Etmp m1.11nov 1a-ri "TOSc:ooec&E:Spov axi'ilJ(], Kal OV01oo6'1 Ta axfi~6: fo-n11.h, m TQVTO aaq,M'T!pov ,mro(11u UVOls· «Ta ... 6:tpa· .. ~ 6 crl.9tip ,riµ,nov @.Ao T1a&µa mr>.oov laT1 ml av-rQ irap6: .,.t,,itnapa o-ro1xeta. 111 On the cosmic position of the ether cf. note 173 supra . .. Xenocrates does so in frag. 53; the E. implies it in so far as its author intended the work to be taken as an interpretation of Plato's philosophy, if not as the very work of Plato himself, cf. pp. 113-114 infra.

AUTHORSHIP OF THE EPINOMIS

41

''likely" one. 181 Moreover, the puzzling passage Tim. 55 C--D, on the propriety of the question as to whether there might not be five x6aµo1, and the relation that seems to exist between this question and the five regular polyhedra.us may have caused his associates at the Academy to wonder whether Plato himself was not indicating that, since there are five regular solids, there ought also to be five simple bodies and not just four.• Be that as it may, it is clear from that passage itself and from Aristotle's consistent attacks and attribution to Plato of the doctrine of the simple bodies found in the Timaeus, 1M that this was indeed Plato's doctrine until the end of his life. Since Aristotle indicates that of his predecessors who subscribed to the Empedoclean-Platonic doctrine of the elements none believed in more than four, 186 since he himself introduced the ether as an additional element that he calls the "first body," 181 and since neither that of Xenocrates nor that of the E. can be Plato's, it seems that the two latter were attempting to read into Plato an antecem Cf. Tim. 48 D, 53 D, 55 D, etc. m On Tim, 55 C-D cf. Cornford, 219-221,. who points out the main difficulties. C/. also Moraux, R.E. XXIV (1963), u85. 113 Similar interp.retations have been given in modem times. Cf. e.g. Mugler, R.E.G. 62 (1949), 38, who, accepting the E. as Plato's, contends that the author was led to ascribe the dodecahedron to the ether "par cette consid6ration a priori que la nature, econome dans ces moyens, mais ne rejetant aucune des formes priviMgiees pr6vues en nombre fini. ne saurait se contenter de n'utiliser que quatre des cinq corps r6guliers." But there were good reasons for Plato's ascription of the dodecahedron to the cosmos, cf. Pluudo 110 B with Wyttenbach's note; Heath, A History of Greek Mathematics, I. 159-162; Cornford, 219. More recently Mugler, La physiqtu de Platon, 62, contends that the introduction of a fifth simple body in the E. was due to Plato's desire to bring the dimen~ sions of the universe into line with the sizes and distances of the heavenly bodies according to the more recent astronomical discoveries. But for this there is no evidence at all, just as, not to mention the passages that are incompatible with it, there is neither evidence nor likelihood for Mugler's reconstruction of the dimensions of the universe according to Tim. 32 Bin R.E.G. 66 (t953), 56-88. Yet Lier, 63, thinks that Mugler has demonstrated that in the Timaeus the sun is smaller than the earth (!), whereas the reverse is stated in E. 983 A. 116 Aristotle's criticism of Plato's "Physics" has as its butt the Timaeus, cf. Cher• niss, I, 83-173, esp. 165f. Only once does Aristotle mention Plato's "unwritten doctrines," but he stresses their essential identity with the Timaew (et. Chemiss, op.cit .• uB-123). and it is in a matter unrelated to the point at issue here. ll5 Cf. Aristotle, De Gen. et CMr. 330 A 3off., esp. B 7-9. Lloyd, 212 and n. 2, prefers not to stress this and cites as a corrective 330 B 15-17 where, he thinks, Aristotle attributes three elements to Plato. But in this passage the words Ka~p ma-roo-v fv Tat~ 61atpEaE01v' -royap iwrov µIyµa noJEi are parenthetical; Aristotle is citing Plato only for the latter's construction of the µfoe, as a "mixture," and does not intend to attribute to him three elements. C/. Joachim, Aristotle, On Coming• To-Be, 214-217, and Cherniss. I, n. 33 with further references. Though I prefer to believe that the author of the E. in positing the ether as an additional simple body was partly dependent on Aristotle, the character of this doctrine in the E. would be no less un•Platonic even if there had been no such Aristotelian influence. m C/. De Caelo 270 B 1ff. In his extant works Aristotle calls the ether "first body" not "fifth" as ancient doxographers and many modem critics do. CJ.Moraux, R.E. XXlV (1963), n96ff. On the ether in the Tl&p\q,lAoaocplas c/. note 625 infra.

42

PLATO, PHILIP

OF OPUS, AND THE EPINOMIS

dent of Aristotle's doctrine of the ether. Of the two attempts that of the E. is the more unfortunate in that it unwittingly destroys the rationale behind Plato's identification of the simple bodies with the regular polyhedra.

h) The Scak of Living Beings and the Demonology If this is so, the author of the E. in introducing a fifth simple body was attempting to modify the doctrine of the Timaeus while still maintaining essential agreement with it. This is further substantiated by comparing the scale of living beings in the two works. As the existence of the five regular solids in the Timaeus led to the five simple bodies of the E., so the introduction of a fifth simple body required the modification of the scale of living beings in the Timaeus. In the latter in accordance with the existence of only four simple bodies there are said to be four kinds of animals: (a) the heavenly race of the gods, (b) the winged creatures of the air, ( c) the kind that lives in water, (d) all that goes on foot on dry land. 187 Each type of creature is composed predominantly of one of the simple bodies, but it possesses also an admixture of smaller portions of the other three. Though only an inference, this interpretation is certain, for it is implied in the case of the heavenly bodies, 188 and so we must draw the further inference that in each case the purpose of the inclusion of the other three simple bodies is to insure the kind of unity that the two mean proportionals provide, as they were said to provide it in the case of the universe. w Having introduced a fifth body the author of the E. postulates the existence of five kinds of living beings. 190 The fiery animal, just as in Plato, is the divine race of the stars ;111 but the terrestrial creature in the E. embraces the three other types of animals that we find in the Timaeus.in The author thus sets up three intermediate kinds of living beings in accordance with the three intermediate simple bodies that he places between fire and earth: the etherial, aerial, and aqueous creatu181 CJ. Tim. 39 E-40 A. That the three kinds of mortal creatures are birds, fishes, and land animals is to be seen in Tim. 91 D-92 C. On the ancient discussions of the scale of living beings in Plato and on the use of the E. in this connection c/. pp. 159-163 infra. m C/. Tim. 40 A :2-3 TOOl,liv ovv SEiovTtiv ,r?.l{O"TT)v 151:avhe nvpos &m,py6:lno. Cf. Aetius II, 13, 12 (Diels, Do.%.,342), Proclus, In Tim. III, 113, 14-114, 7 (Diehl). According to Plato the bodies of all animals and also that of the universe are constituted by the same four simple bodies. cf. note 165 supra. 1• Cf. Tim. 31 B-32 C with note 168 supra. Notice that the heavenly bodies are given the same shape as the universe ( Tim. 40 A 4) ; moreover, the argument of 32 A-B applies to all animals as "solids." On the composition and on the "bonds" of the bodies of the three kinds of mortal creatures cf. Tim. 42 E-43 A. 190 A living being is defined as the union of soul and body; and so, since there are five kinds of simple bodies, there are five kinds of living beings. Cf. 981 C 5-8 with 981 A 7-B 2. Cf. also note :204 in/ra. m Cf. E. 981 D 5-E 6. m Cf. E. g81 C 8-D 5.

AUTHORSHIP OF THE EPINOMIS

43

res. 118 The composition of the bodies of each kind of creature is partly similar to those of the Timaeus: each is composed mainly of that simple body in which the creature dwells; and each possesses also an admixture of the other four bodies. There is no need to infer this in the case of the E., for it is stated, first, of all the kinds of living beings in general and then applied specifically to the earthy, the fiery, and finally the etherial creature.we The same is also the case with the aerial and the aqueous animals, for, though in their case the author mentions only the predominant body,lN the general statement in g81 C 5-8 covers them too. But the E. is at variance with the Timaeus in that it introduces a fifth simple body, and in doing so it does away with the notion of the two geometrical means. 198 Yet the author of the E. does not appear to be aware of this lack of consistency with the doctrine of the Timaeus, since, even apart from the fact that the language he uses recalls that of the latter,m he specifically states in the case of the etherial creature that the admixture of smaller parts of the other four simple bodies is ~vS!oµov xaplV,an expression which he most probably meant to correspond to the 6eo-µ6sof the Timaeus. 118 Furthermore, the postulation of a fifth simple 193 lN

C/. E. 984 B 2-C 4, 984 D 5-985 C I. C/. E. 981 C 5-8, D 3-5, D 7-E I, g84 B 6-C

2.

116

Cf. E. 984 C 2-4.

1"

Cf. notes 168 and 189 supra with the corresponding remarks in the text. xapn1 in 984 C 2 cf. the following note. The notion of a prepon-

111On 9JV~'10V

derant body in the composition of living beings, is first stated in general, E. 981 C 7 -rov-rwv6' !11t))IIUvk:us, then of the earthy creature, 981 D 4-5 TO Sl ,ro>.v TOVTOV (i/. g84 C I TO1TOAV ~" TiiscnrroOq11.1mc.,s, said of the ethereal beings), and also of the heavenly bodies, 981 D 7 TO yap 1t>.i1crrovm,p6s' fx.EI,and should be compared with Tim. 40 A 2-3 '"'" 1t>.E(crrri11 l6!a.v he ,rup6s. In 981 D 5 yiis ... Kat Ti\S' c:ntpEIJ,vlCXS' jfU 61op1a6:1JE~)-These passages, despite the variations due to the differ• ent classifications in question, presuppose three kinds of animals: of water, land, and air. Cf. Cbemiss, I, 54f. (In Soph. 220 A 9 and B 1, VEVO"Tll\l1TACXVCJS, ir"'-1\.9Et µEVQJ.l11XO:Vct) Xpc..>J.&Evas, 1TE'ITOlKVi.µhas 61 .9avl,IO(M6')s·!o.1v 6' 6µc.:,sov6lv f}TTOVKC1Ta\!Ofiaa1 6vvcrrov ~ 6 ye~ apl.9µosXP6vov TOY'TO.eovivtcnrro\l ,r~11potT6Te, 6-rav at1CKTOO\I -rci>v6K-roo mp166oovTa1rpos ~111\a avµmpav~v-ra TQ){11axilKEcpa1\i\v T't) Toii TCXVTOV Kai 6µo(v Tvm(O:,((A)\I av6~v.

ICOVfV~. l((XlIJ,E'Ttc.,)f)OMYtlC(i)II µhi, try~V.oyiaµov 61:µE"TtXoVO"a Kal 6:p1,10vfas '+"'Xft• Once it is seen that Tim. 47 A-E is not to be taken literally, the role of sight is explained. As composites of soul and body human beings could not possess cplA~(a without the sight of the regular motions of the universe. Even according to the Pliaed.o we could not recollect the ideas without sight and the other senses {72 E-77 E). We should note that in the Timams, too, we find the doctrine of metempsychosis a.ud that we have an allusion to the myth of the Pluudf'fU in 41 D-41 D, cf. Cornford, 144-146. It is this last mentioned passage in fact that accounts for the interpretation of 47 A-Casa metaphorical treatment of recollec~ tion; since the souls of men are constituted in a similar way to the world-soul, in acquiring knowledge of the latter, which is possible because of sight, we recover our original "motions" which were deranged at birth (c/. 42 E-44 D). Sight is, then, a necessary condition of our knowledge of the invisible reality which is the object of knowledge: d l,liv ~ KeriSota &A,,.91'ssmov 6uo~"'l, -rraV"'l'lrmxcnvetvcn Ka.9' CXVTO: -ra0-ra, avmaSq-ra .:,q,•fipQ,,11 .rs,,,~\/Cl IJOVOV (51 D 3-5). But sight is not part of that knowledge, as it is in the E. 111 C/. E. 982 B 5-C 5 with comm. ad loc. and note 266 supra. m Cf. comm. on 978 C 1-2 and on C 5. ~

62

PLATO, PHILIP OF OPUS, AND THE EPINOMIS

only into the Timaeus but also into the La'IJJS by misinterpreting 82t A 2-3.• Thus he in his own work combines doctrines of these two Platonic dialogues as he interprets them. Yet in the E. wisdom is said to be piety, a piety which the author conceives as the combination of astronomy with the theodicy of the Laws and the E.: astronomy by itself is hardly sufficient to make a man truly wise, for he must also know that soul is older than body and rules it. • 1 Of this twofold purpose of the E., piety and astronomy, we find an indication in the very first paragraph of the work, where Clinias says that they have convened TOTfisq,povl\O"E©S hnaKE'+'6µsvo1 and (hncn yivet. A0:~1J,(2) 'M(fl TE~ (aTlV 1TpEaf}V-(2) 980 D 6-E 3 cmirpe~v-repovelfl TO'TOVaTt'O:VTOOV oaayovf\5 µeTE0.fl- 'M(TIaool,&O'ToS &7raaa iraVT6s, KTA.

&9&vcrr6u TE, 6:pXEl TE 61'J UOOl,IO:TOOUira:VToov,(3) TOV -re elpn1.a:bov b (3) 982 B 1-E 6, 986 C 4-5, 990 AC, 991 C 6-D 5. Tots c5:0'Tpo,s vovv TC>v6VToov. '6V,

* He did this perhaps because in 967 D 4-E 2 astronomy is not explicitly mentioned. The author of the E. could not see it included in E 1-2 {Ta TE1'1'poTOv &vayt«xla 1,1a.9til,la'Ta). since he considers that the mathematical sciences a.re to be studied for the sake of astronomy (cf. 990 A-C, esp. 990 C 5). Moreover, he saw astronomy mentioned in 967 A 2, while 967 A 7-D 2 connects atheism wjth knowledge of the accuracy of the celestial revolutions (i.e. with astronomy), which accuracy led some, even in past time, to suspect that it must be caused by YOU') (967 A 8-B 6). That the author of the E. confused the second proposition with astronomy is to be seen in the fact that, when in 980 C-E he comes back to book X of the Laws, he mentions only the first proposition (soul is older than body) but not the second. The latter is discussed in g82 B-E and is established by arguing that the heavenly bodies travel always on the same circular paths, which is proof of their being alive and intelligent. That they always travel on the same paths is proved by astronomy, specifically by knowledge of the planets, which knowledge was discovered by the barbarians (986 E-987 B). and the Greeks should not fear to accept it from them (987 D-E). In the Laws, however, the second proposition was proved in book X, with an argument which is different from that of E. 982 B-E, cf. note 470 infra. For this confusion of astronomy with the second proposition the author's failure to distinguish axial rotation from the psychical and spiritual motion of YOU')(cf. p. 58 and note 266 supra) is ultimately responsible. au C/. E. 991 C 6-D 5. Here ""'" &iq:nj3Elav TOOxp6vov designates the object of astronomy {c/. comm. on 991 C 6-D 5). He who has mastered it and who already believes that the soul is older than body, will comprehend the beauty of the saying that all is full of gods, namely the heavenly bodies.

64

PLATO, PHILIP OF OPUS, AND THE EPINOMIS

wv

(4} trrl st Tovroao,.Sfi, To elpfl(4) 990 C 5--991B 4 Sto J1a.Sru.1o:r'-'>v µhov 1TOAMDC1.S, .. TaTE11'po TOVTCOVStov a:v drr K'TA.991 B 8--C 1. 6:\IQ)'1CQla '1Q9{\µcrra Aa~, (5) Tpos,while aocpla requires 7\oyos.But that this is only a "low level" characterization is shown by the fact that no definition is given of either virtue~ that a true definition is the desideratum of g64 A r-B I, and that according to g65 B 7-10 and other passages a definition (Aoyos) requires us to discover first what is the common ele• ment of all virtues and, once this is firmly grasped, nposm:lro avvrcx~a.9ai iraVTa avropoovm. Though Plato indicates that his solution to the question of the unity of virtue is still the same as that given in the Republic. he does not develop it because of the specific dramatic situation of the Laws.• Had he done so. it would have become apparent that no man can be truly virtuous without knowledge of the good,1ta and hence knowledge and Aoyos are also necessary for the acquisition of the three lower virtues. The previous analysis goes far to explain why according to the E. the question left open in the Laws is "what is wisdom" and why the author does not even mention the question of the unity of virtue. In the E. the lower virtues have been cut off from wisdom; and, when in 988E 6-7 the author insists that the good man, i.e. the totally virtuous man, is the wise man (mpl 6i 51' TO 6oK1~l.61,1,evov ol6v n f!1,1ivarr1a-relv

oox

• Cf. E. 977 C 3-D 4, 978 B 1-6, and the author's insistence throughout that only the possession of wisdom will make a man truly virtuous. In 977 C 3-D 4 by implication and in 978 B 3 explicitly the author refers to "justice" or "the just." Bat this is only because justice presupposes the acquisition of wisdom, c/. comm. on 977 C 7-D 1. • Concerning wisdom the author of the E. himself must so have interpreted Laws 963 E, since he undertook to state what is wisdom. Strict consistency would have required him to see that no definition of courage was given either. But, being so preocuppied with the question of wisdom, he easily assumed that the other virtues do not need M,yos, i.e. definition. * Cf.pp. 28-30 supra. • Cf. esp. notes 120 and 123 sufwtJ.

66

PLATO, PHILIP OF OPUS, AND THE EPINOMIS

OU&t TOV )'E aya.9ov aocpovfiµasi')yeta.9a1),he continues to make a Platonic point without seeing that he has introduced havoc into Plato's conception of both virtue and wisdom. Assuming, then, that what remains to be done in order to complete the Laws is to solve the question of the highest virtue, wisdom, he identifies it with piety in 989 B 1-2, now that he has paved the way by means of his ''theogony and zoogony."* Some scholars maintain that the E. is really a protrepticand not what it pretends to be, namely a continuation of Plato's Laws. This protreptic character of the work, because it falls outside the framework of the construction of the state of the Laws, is taken as an indication of un-Platonic authorship, the more so because it is taken to reflect the influence of Aristotle's P,otrepticus.., The E. is undeniably a protreptic to the purer and happy life ;1118but whether this fact justifies the inferences drawn from it depends upon the character and the extent of the protreptic. Apart from the question of Aristotelian influence, which must be postponed to chapter IV, the protreptic nature of the E. is quite in agreement with Plato. That ru6a1µovia is the good, the end and ultimate purpose of all human endeavor, is, as has been said, a commonplace of Platonism; and it is with this in mind that we must return to 973 B 7-974 C 7 to discover the clue to the protreptic character of the E.: all men wish to be happy, but only wisdom will make us blessed, and wisdom is only for the few. The author implies that though all men wish to be happy only few search for wisdom. This implication explains why he thought it necessary to shift from wisdom to happiness in 973 B 7-C 5, for only so could he point to the paradox that escapes the many: that wisdom is necessary for happiness, and hence, as the former is only for the few best natures who can acquire it, so also is the latter.• For even the ignorant would agree that complicated and accurate mathematical and astronomical knowledge requires the ~

•• The analysis given above (pp. 64-66) shows that the position of the author of the E. is not that of the "later" Academic doctrine that positively asserted that of the virtues only lpp6"1la1sis knowledge (c/ . .lua1ptm,s •Ap1a-rcm).ous# 8 and Cherniss, I, 16-18). In E. 991 E 5 there is no reference to the doctrine of the unity of virtue, as Novotny, 223 thinks there is. Cf. comm. on 991 D 8-992 A 1 . .., CJ.especially Einarson, 278-280. F. Mtiller, 67-72, F. Muller,• 304-305 . .. The "protTeptic," as will be argued, is to be seen especially in 973 B 7-974 C 7. C/. also 992 A 3-D 3, 977 C 3-D 4, 978 B 1-6 (n.b. xal &l T00.9' OV1'(t)'5: 61a110ElaSa1 TOIiµ0-.AoVTCXw6aiµovo: TEAEVTT}O'elll'k'TA,),980 A 7-B 6, where n.b. El yap 0'01 TOVTO ~ dfl TC>11 v6µc.:,11, SrovsTfpoa,Taiaavr 1 Ka.9apc:,,npo11 6t 6u:ryay6VTITov P,1011 '"lS 6:1,1a TEAE\1Ti1S 6plo-rrisTI; Kal KetAAkrrqs-rvxrlll. • It is this paradox that happiness is possible but only for the few that is &roiros (c/. comm. on 973 B 7-8). This is our author's favorite word for introducing notions that he considers paradoxical. C/. 976 E 5, where the same antithesis of positive and negative is used to introduce the notion that Uranos is the supreme god who gives us number and wisdom, 990 A 2 where the equation astronomer ==-wise man is~Finally, and slightly different, the 6-rcmos 6vVCQ1,s of 976 B 5. There is no reason at all to see in this use of &ro~ the influence of Aristotle, since these doctrines are typical of the author of the E. (against Einarson, 279, n. 57, who sees in this the influence of Elh. Eva.1215 B 6-14, c/. also Festugiere, II, 199, n. 5).

STRUCTURE OF THE EPINOMIS

67

superior intelligence that only a few men possess. Yet, not understanding that wisdom is necessary for happiness, the ignorant many desire and assume that they can acquire the latter. 800 The protreptic in the E. is addressed to the best natures; it is an exhortation to the few to discover wisdom if they wish to live and die happy. So after 974 A 7 the author returns to Clinias's opening statement, and the rest of the work is a demonstration of what is wisdom, of the course of studies to be followed to attain it, and of why it is only for the few. If, for the sake of the argument here, we agree with the author that the final pages of the Laws promise a new conversation on the subject of the higher education, the protreptic nature of the E. is not incompatible with the Laws. For the E. is written within the dramatic framework of the Laws, and it is intended to be the preamble and the law concerning the education of the members of the Nocturnal Council.801 Moreover, the fact that wisdom, just as in Plato, is for the few refutes F. Mliller's exaggerated claim that in the E. the higher education is for the rulers and the ruled alike. ao1 The E. does not disregard the 1t6A1sas the scene for acquiring wisdom• and does not substitute the cosmos for the city, for the author proJX>Sesa public and not a private cult of the cosmos.3MThe author keeps the discussion within the framework of the city and the higher magistracies are promised to those who complete the course of studies. 806 It must be conceded to F. Muller, however, that the connection at the end of the work with the Nocturnal Council is rather perfunctory, and -vet sensible men, especially when they reach old age, will agree that in any case life is full of misery and hence not worth living. C/. comm. on 973 C 1-2 and on 973 D 1-974 A 7. 801 Cf. pp. 23-24 supra. JH C/. F. Mi.Iller,• 302, who bases his interpretation on 976 C 9-D 5 and on 992 B 8-C :z. Neither passage, however, implies that crocplais both for rulers and ruled alike. The former passage states that the wise man will be good as ruler and as ruled, not that every citizen must be wise. The second passage is in agreement with Plato, as we shall presently see. If the author of the E. goes beyond the question of the education of the members of the Nocturnal Council, it is because he is interested in wisdom as such and not exclusively in the Cretan colony of the Laws. But after all in the Republic Plato also has particularly in mind the higher education of the guardians. and yet snys: 1Ccrl6Tt 6d Ta\lT'llV(sc. Tl)V TOO6:ya.9ov16'av) E&lvTOVµi).).ona !µ'f'f)6~ ,rpa:~tv '116(q '1 611pocrl~(517 C 4-5). Cf. also comm. on 992 C I-2.

"'As Pavlu, 5 44, and others believe. Pavlo thinks that the author of the E. addresses himself to humanity in general and not to the citizens of a Greek city. But this is not the case, for lrrrcnrres:is misinterpreted by Pavlu (cf. comm. on 973 A 1-2), and the author does rela:te his doctrine of wisdom to the city, cf. notes 289 supra and 305 infra. Moreover. be speaks of wisdom in relation to the Greeks only,

cf. 987D 3-988 A 7. "' Cf. p. 88 f. infra. 111 Cj.

especially 989 C 3-D I and 992 D 3-7. Even apart from the fact that the author intends to complete the Laws, the E. moves within the framework of the city and its laws, c/. 973 A 1-B 6, 976 C 9-D 5, g8o A 1-B 6, 987 A 6-7, 987 D 3988A 5, 98g BI-DI, 992 D 3-7. And even though 992 A 3-4 goes beyond the Laws in mentioning unspecified cities (b ir6AWt1'), this is hardly un-Platonic.

68

PLATO, PHILIP OF OPUS. AND THE EPINOMIS

that the author clearly implies that his course of studies could be applied to any city, not only to the city of the Magnesians. To this extent it is true that he is more interested in the acquisition of wisdom as such in any ci.ty than he is merely in the Cretan colony of the Laws. This difference in emphasis is scarcely sufficient to athetize the E., however, for within the subject of the higher education itself there seems to be nothing that Plato would of necessity apply only to the state of the Laws. As such the protreptic nature of the work is not incompatible with Plato. The treatment of the protreptic in the E. has little in common, however, with that of the Euthydemus and other aporetic dialogues; and the same would be true regarding Aristotle's Protrepticus,if this work had the character attributed to it by Einarson. since the conclusion of the protreptic in the Euthydemus. namely that only wisdom will make us happy, is the point of departure for that of the E. The protreptic in the E. is rather an exhortation addressed to the few best natures to attain knowledge of the god cosmos because only by its contemplation will man become blessed and immortal. This protreptic is a result in part of a literal interpretation of Plato's Timaeus which the author combines with his misinterpretation of the last few pages of the Laws. What is happiness, then, according to the E.? The author deals with this subject in two passages, g86 C 5-D 4 and 99r E 1-992 D 3. Both in this life and in the next happiness consists in the contemplation of ultimate reality. And, since in the E. this ultimate reality is the cosmos, happiness consists in the knowledge and contemplation of its unity. The two states of happiness are connected by the unity both of the subject and of the object of contemplation. If we study the mathematical sciences and astronomy with the eye fixed on unity we will discover the single bond, number, that unites them all: and this single bond, unifying the whole of creation, will teach the student the unity of self in the contemplation of the unity of the cosmos that will make us blessed in this life and in the next. But, whereas in this life both our knowledge and our contemplation of the cosmic unity are imperfect because of our manifold sensations, in the next life the student will acquire a unity of vision by means of a single wisdom that will insure perfect happiness ... The author borrows imagery and terminology from eschatological passages in the Phaedrus. the Phaedo, and the Republic; but, having substituted the cosmos for the supra-sensible world of ideas as the object of contemplation, he takes literally what in Plato is merely mythical representation of the destiny of the soul.807 Such literal interpretation of Plato's eschatological myths, .. What is stated in the text is a result of combining 986 C 5-D 4 aod 991 E 1992 D 3. The former passage shows that the happy man contemplates the visible cosmic order in this life and also in the next and that only in the next life will he have the unity of self and the unity of wisdom that will make his contemplation as perfect as possible. The latter passage shows that by mastering the studies with bis mind looking for unity the student will discover the unity of the cosmos (991 E 1-992 A 1) and that by means of this knowledge be will acquire unity of seH in this life, a unity which will be perfect in the next life. _, Cf. comm. on g86 D 1-2, g86 D 2, D 3-4, 992 B 6, 992 B 6-7, 992 B 8-C I.

STRUCTURE OF THE EPINOMIS

6g

however, is a consequence of the author's reading into Tim. go A-D his own notion, as we saw, that it is by knowledge and contemplation of the cosmic revolutions that man will attain wisdom and happiness. This is the divine gift to man, the best life for all time. Though the words 6µo{c,,xns~ do not occur in the E., the notion of the imitation of god, understood as the wise man's knowledge and contemplation of the god cosmos, is the very kernel which unifies the whole work. In the Timaeus, too, such passages as 47 A-C and 90 A-Dare representations of the doctrine of the 6µof6X7Ls.9El;,.But the author of the E. understood literally what in Plato is only a symbolic representation within the limits imposed by the creation myth.

b) Tiu: Review of the Sciences Having in 973 A 1-974 D 2 posited the theme of wisdom in the framework within which he wishes to develop it, the author next proceeds to examine the claim of the sciences, which because of the very name and reputation attached to them• are said to make wise (aocpos)the man who possesses any of them. He first discusses and dismisses the false claimants to the reputation of being the wisdom that makes a man truly wise and then discovers in the science of number, which culminates in astronomy, the wisdom that will make us blessed. The procedure employed in this review of the sciences is that of the elenchus,808 which is used in accordance with the author's later characterization of cross-examination for the purpose of determining Ta l,lf\KQhOOS ~'ll~VTCIas 1ra:vrCA1S .•• KDAAlaTTl ml 1tpooT11 J;aoavosav.spc::rno1s 6p.9ct>s y{yvna1, 6aa Sao(nc owat 1rpoo,To1oiiVTC11, JJ,aTa16Ta-ros 1t6vosaitavroov.810 Both his characterization and his use of the elenchus here are quite in agreement with Plato. In the whole investigation, E. 974 D 3-977 B 8, the author distin· guishes and analyzes five different categories: ( a) the arts which provide for our necessities; (b) the arts which provide pleasure and recreation;8 11 ( c) the arts which are a defense against evils and dangers; ( d) an 6-roiros 6vva1,11s. which, because its effects are sometimes similar to those of wisdom, is by some confused with the latter; ( e) the science of number.

*

It is because, in addition to their specific names, the disciplines reviewed are called Tfxvo:1 or hncni\1,1a1 or aocplcn(cf. 974 B 3-5, D 3-4, etc.) that the author thinks they aspire to be wisdom. For allusions to this in the text cf. comm. on 974 B 5-6 and on 974 D 3-4. Moreover, some either had in the past (tf. comm. on 974 D 8975 A 5) or still have (cf. e.g. 976 B 5 ?.011r11 6' tn ,rpo;6o~v aocplas K"t~.) the reputation of being true wisdom. According to our author some disciplines are not even based on knowledge and therefore are not Tfxvat at all (c/. e.g. 975 B 5-7, D 2-9, 976 B 5-C 6, and the "defense" of 975 E 1-976 B 4). I use the word "art" here as equivalent to Ttx'"land without prejudging the point at issue, namely whether some of the disciplines are Tfx.vai at all. • CJ.comm. on 974 C 3, on C 4-5, and on 974 D 3-976 C 6. 111 C/. E. 991 C 3-6 and comm. on 991 C 3-4 and on C 4. 111 Cf. 975 D 2-9. These are what we would call the fine arts; their purpose is TlS'••• l.,}J,,,' ov6ai.rijairov6afa, pleasure and recreation, as the author calls them 1T"a1816: cf. comm. on 975 D 2-3 and on D 7-9.

70

PLATO, PHILIP

OF OPUS, AND THE EPINOMIS

Within the first three categories several arts are mentioned. characterized, and criticized; but before going into details we must try to determine what is the fundamentum divisionis on which the author bases his classification. It will be argued here that no single principle explains the differentiation of all five categories described above beyond the general one that all human undertakings mentioned in 974 D-g77 Bare in some way or other believed to constitute wisdom. 111 While the author opposes the belief that in any of the first four categories true wisdom is to be found, he claims as his own achievement the introduction of number as the fifth category, which he considers to lead to wisdom.Ill Nevertheless, what appears to be a purely systematic classification is merely the result of combining an established criterion based on the evolution of human culture (categories a. b, and e) with two others (c and d), which besides being unrelated to each other are not connected with the first. The order. necessary arts-"fine" arts-wisdom, is based, in part at least, upon reflection on the origin and evolution of human culture from primitivism to civilization. These three steps as well as the criterion used in distinguishing them from one another are also to be found in Plato, as we shall see. That the author of the E. is writing with the evolution of civilization in mind may be seen from the fact that he declares those sciences which provide for the elementary needs of human beings to be truly first in time ;31-1 this explains the subsequent reference to the change 311 In addition, the first of the necessary of meaning in the word aoq,6s. sciences is the knowledge that has for bidden us to feed on some living beings, a reference to the stage of cannibalism which is usually associated in ancient texts with the starting point of the development of civilized life.818 Finally, in passing from this first science to the knowledge of preparing meals with the produce of agriculture we can also see an allusion to the evolution of civilization. 117 The "fine" arts. being mostly imitative, are a kind of play, and are developed only after man has learned to satisfy his more elementary "needs." 818 The final step in this process, wisdom. comes when human beings reflect that without the gift of number they would have C/. note 308 supra. 111C/. 976 D 5-977 B 8 and n. b. 977 A 7--8 6ouva1 SE&µa Kai api.91,1011 -fi1,11:ts ye 6vrl,IEV ,r6).w• 'TTOli!iV KO"Td: ,ro}.f.µov6:yw\l(a)v, ol 6il 6pyavwv u Kai lpyCt)vanvnAOOVTES ~wow !µµlaSov. Heinimann, M. H. 18 (1961), u8 [n. 58] states that this division is different from "die Dreiteilung Epinom. 974 D-976 B. die auf die .zwei [demokritischen ?] Gruppen der lebens-und der dem Spiel notwendigen - Ackerbau, Hausbau, Handwerk und Jagddienenden, nachahmenden Kiinste als dritte eine Tetras von Hilfskilnsten folgen ULOt, die Kriegkunst, Medizin, Nautik und Rhetorik umfaOt." This description hardly does justice to the passage of the E. that Heinimann cites, even apart from the fact that he disregards the motivation of the whole passage 974 D-977 B. But, since the author of the E.'s introduction of the four arts of 975 E 1-976 B 4 as fx>'fl.9uais to be connected, as we shall argue, with his polemical attitude towards the treatment of strategy, medicine, and navigation in Laws 960 B 4ff. such a passage as Laws 920 D-E may very well have been his source for the distinction between the necessary and .. productive" arts and the arts of defense. Among the necessary arts even divination and interpretation provide products, namely the utterance and its interpretation. Mt CJ.Pavlo, +J, Eina.rson•. 94. Lier, 30.

STRUCTURE OF THE EPINOMIS

75

the O"K01iOS: of legislation, since it is this knowledge alone that can insure the O'WTI]pfaof the state.Mt The author of the E., however, wishing to restrict the notion of aca:m,p(a to the knowledge of number,Mabrands the arts of strategy, medicine, and navigation as different aspects of [,c11')$e1a, and, since he cannot include here the 1toA1T1K6sof the Laws. because he is the true legislator, he substitutes for him the rhetorician, i.e. the false claimant to the title of ,ro~1,.,K6s.* E. 975 E 1---976B 4 deserves closer scrutiny, however, since the analysis of the four arts described in it will also show that the author, in his eagerness to reduce their importance, goes a long way towards a position that is largely irreconcilable with that which we may fairly infer from Plato's several statements concerning them. It appears that in his attempt to brand strategy, medicine, navigation, and rhetoric as mere "defense" against evils or dangers the author implicitly denies not only that they are O'Ca)Tt'}pfa1 but even that they are ,ixvaa at an.mIn this connection, it is interesting to observe that the four arts are listed in descending order of importance, for at each successive step the author seems to indicate that each "defense" has less of a claim to be based on knowledge than the preceding one had. In fact, only the first two. strategy and medicine. receive a name and are treated as arts at all. a&e In the case of navigation, the author mentions only that its practitioners, captains and sailors, are fx)11.9o{; and finally, when he comes to rhetoric, he does not mention the name of the practitioners of this alleged art, but implies that they do not even deserve the name of "defenders" which they give to a.u:Cf. Laws 961 E-962 B. Like Einarson, and contrary to Pavlu and Lier (cl the previous note), I should think that V'n'f'lp&Ttlpla and were not taken as such by the author of the E., for they are applied only to the art of medicine, and it is in any case OOOTflplathat is declared to be the object of medicine. ua Cf. 976 D 5-E 4 and n.b. E 3-4 Seov 6' 61/'Tl ~XIKoS !O'EO'Sal,6'1TC.:,S 6£ KV~Epv-f}cnt ,~ Ti Tll/l"S'. j3ovAc.>ll'Tat M:v n IJT!,J.ITjTtTt)(VT]V TOVTOU µqTI µO.h-qv ololJiv 6vva-rovdlXll Ao~lv 6:µcxKot T1'jviruj3EPl'flTlia')v. KTA,If the author of the E.

~ws

was writing, as I believe, with this passage in mind we can see that he inferred from the subjects to be studied by the "true pilot" that he is the astronomer. The true pilot denies that it is possible to acquire the alleged art of seizing the helm along with the sci.ence of navigation. The author of the E. too easily concluded that actual captains and sailors do not undertake to study the true scienceofna• vigation, which is indistinguishable from astronomy. What is more, they actually deny that there is such a science of navigation and think that it is necessary only to seize the helm. But for our author they could never master astronomy. since this science is only for the few best natures. In short, the passage of the Republie cited above. if read out of context and without attention to the fact that it is merely a comparison, would explain the strange treatment of captains and sailors in the E. • 11 Cf., in addition to the previous note, p. 125 with note 520 inj,a. hi Cf. Go-rg.51 I

c.

STRUCTURE OF THE EPINOMIS

79

both with the Gorgias and with the Laws. and it is in the latter work that we should see the source of the author's decision not even to name those who claim to be defenders in trials. 1111 As for the aro1t~ 6vvau.1$'described and eliminated in 976 B 5--C6, it too falls outside the scheme based on the evolution of civilization. It is partly the similarity which exists between its results and those of wisdom that led the author to include it in his review of the sciences, just as it is probably its lack of method when compared with wisdom that leads to its elimination. 870 This elimination is in accordance with Plato fl 1 and the fact that the author should devote a whole paragraph to it is perhaps a reflection of the importance he attaches to the statement made in Laws 747 B to the effect that the study of number turns a slow mind into one ml ayxivovv. Since knowledge of number is that is wµa.Sii ml 1J,v{u.1ova the beginning of wisdom and since these qualities are the qualities of the best natures, who alone can master it,m it is reasonable that the author should here enter this caveat before he embarks upon the fifth step, number and wisdom, with which the review of the sciences ends. Since this fifth step was analyzed in the previous section, it need not be dis· cussed here.

c) The "Theogony" In the second part of the dialogue, the author embarks upon a search to demonst,ate what wisdom is.871 In 98o C 7-g88 E 4 he develops at length a theogony and zoogony, the relation of which to the rest of the work has puzzled some interpreters, who see in it a rather lengthy digression which they find hard to square with the program advanced in 980 A-B. While Harward and others see in this alleged incongruity between the order proposed in 980 A-B and the place actually occupied by the "theogony" evidence for the hypothesis that the E. is a first unrevised draft, Einarson has attempted to explain 980 C-g88 E as a digression which, since it deals with .9eia, was inappropriately intro~ duced here because of the influence of Aristotle's Protrepticus.~' Both interpretations fail, because they have in common Harward's reading of E. gBo A-B, which will not do. 176 Nor is 98o ~8 E really a digression; it is an integral part of the argument: since according to the author of the

•~&J>xils, in order

C/. comm. on 976 B 1-4. Note that the criticism is based on the fact that the possessor of the &-roiroS Svvo:µ,s does what he does because of a natural ability; hence he is not able to give an account (7'.oyovlhSovcn}, the necessary condition of knowledge and wisdom. Cf. 977 C 4-D 4. 171 Cf. comm. on 976 B 5-C 6. ns Cf. E. 989 B 4-C 3, and comm. on 989 B 4-D 1, on (}89 B 4-C 3, and on 989 B 8-C 3. 171 Cf. 979 D 2-98o A 5. N.b. 979 D 4-6 with Myov 6117'.apttv,and c/. comm. on 979 D 3-6. u, Cf. Einarson, 280-282. 1711 C/. comm. on 980 A 1-B 2. u,

110

8o

PLATO, PHILIP OF OPUS, AND THE EPINOMIS

E. piety is wisdom and astronomy is the science that will make us wise,

it follows that before he reaches this conclusion he should offer what he takes to be the correct account of the astral gods, of the scale of living beings on which that account is based, and of the theodicy with which he justifies his conception of the beneficent governance of the universe. In this scheme it is the topic of the astral gods that occupies the author's attention longest, as the heavenly bodies are the very object of the science of astronomy. In this connection it is noteworthy that in the first part of the work the author had already indicated sufficiently the knowledge of the cosmos as the means by which we shall attain wisdom.871 Throughout the E. and more particularly in the ''theogont' the author makes use of the Laws, especially of books X and XII. and of the Timaeus. But we must notice that he also uses the "thematic settings" of both works and not just some of their peculiar notions. 877 Yet since his own discus• sion, though it is closely related to both works, has a -riAoswhich is not identical with that of either of them, it is not surprising to find several incongruities and ambiguities in some of the notions and statements that were prompted or influenced, in part at least, by his dependence on those works of Plato's. This is worth repeating before considering the author's conception of the divine, of the soul,. of his attitude concerning the eternity of the cosmos, and other important matters. Several topics which appear in the "theogony," such as the five simple bodies, the scale of 171

C/. 976 D 5-971 B 8 and comm. on 976 C 7--977 B 8, 977 A 6-B 8, 977 B 6-8, and 977 B 8. an By "thematic settings" I mean the literary framework within which Plato limits his treatment of a given topic or theme. Thus in the Laws Plato speaks of the soul as a generated entity, but he does so in the course of arguing against the materialists that soul and not body is the ultimate cause of motion and change. It is in order to prove his point that soul as self-motion is prior to body that Plato refers to the supposition that everything comes to a standstill. If it were so, the self-motion of soul would have to arise first and the motion of body second, as the latter would have to be caused by the former (895 A-B).That it is his adversaries and not he himself who speaks of an absolute beginning of things is clear from Plato's own words: ii a-raf1) ~ Ta ,rlnrra 6µoO ytv61-1tva,ica.S 11.tyew,Aeyhoo µ!v, &lcoMV6i 6,r,J ,ronc:tAAc:.:,v OVTOV K0l Td:Avcnrrvybos Setva1Sarrepov yiyv6µevov 6µa ml 6vvcrrovbpaa.9a1. The underlined words cannot be taken literally, because the heavenly bodies are not second either in the order yiyv6µevov must refer to of creation or of importance ;an and so SE\f'Ttpov the order of presentation in the narrative. It is possible (and even probable when the purpose of the work is taken into account, as will be seen) that just as Plato employed this genetic terminology metaphorically in order to emphasize the supremacy of the teleological factor in the universe, so did the author of the E. If this is so, the E. would preserve the Platonic doctrine that soul is the "artificer" of everything both natural and artificial. 818 of the Timaeus, if not mythical, must a.lso be a soul, since his work is the work of voOsand voOs: can exist only in a soul (cf. Tim. 47 E 3-4 with 30 B 3 and 46 D .5-6). It is rather by disregarding the thematic settings of the TimatUs and of the Laws that the author of the E. runs into difficulties. • On a l.Qov as the union of soul and body c/. 981 A 7-B 2; on the world-soul as the cause of the universe cf. 988 D 1-E 4. IN That the author of the E. had replaced the Demiurge of the Timaeus with the ST)11tovpyt\aaaa 'fNX1'I was already the contention of F. Muller, 23. Novotny, 124, n. 259, states the same thesis but thinks that this replacement of the Demiurge had already occurred in the Laws: but besides disregarding the different dramatic set~ tings of the Timcuus and of the Laws he fails to observe that the Laws too speaks of "god." Cf. note 388 sup,a. 19 1 Cf. 981 C s-E 6, 984 B 2-D 2. Cf.also notes 174, 176, and 204 supra. IH Since according to 984 D 1-2 the heavenly bodies would have to be the first to be generated. m On this doctrine and its implications in Plato c/. Cherniss, I, 251 and 6o3. That soul is the cause of everything both natural and artificial means for Plato that the supremacy in the universe belongs to intelligence and purpose, which can exist only in soul, and not to blind mechanism. This doctrine need not imply and

84

PLATO. PHILIP OF OPUS. AND THE EPINOMIS

This whole question is further complicated in the E. by the fact that the author, having adopted the thematic setting of the Timaeus, tries at the same time to keep out of the Academic controversy concerning the question of the eternity of the cosmos in Plato's creation myth. Thus in 981 E 6-g82 A 3 the following statement is made concerning the heavenly 1101p&:,v -niv m')pav x.p-fi 66~ 1,ETQ6166vcu yaaa~VV' ov &y, 974 B I C1Qf0f, 974 B 6 a0q1la, 974 C 3 qlCI, etc. The equation of O'Of'ICX and 1'0VS is not explicit in the E. but is implied; compare g82 B .5-C 5, the soul that controls the heavens has acquired YOU5, with 983 B 1-3, this soul is s.6s (cf. comm. on 983 B 2-3) and 985 A 5-7, god is completely wise. In Plato, too. tp6YT}(11S. aoq,fa. and "'°°5'are sometimes used synonymously, cf. Laws 631 C 6-D 6 and g63 A 8-C 9 (Wo\l'llO'lS= YOU'!.L 689 D 4-7 (ippoVf1atS = CJOfla), Phil. 30 C 6-10 O'Olp{a= YOUS, etc. Because both soul and body, the only two kinds of entities that the E. admits, are processes, though soul is a kind of process essentially different from body. For the essence of the soul is psychical, spiritual seli-motion. G. Millier, Nomoi, 1o6, contends that neither in the Laws nor in the E. is there a sharp differentiation between being and becoming; but there is in the Laws no denial of an entity different both from soul and from body, and, even apart from the implied presence of the ideas in the last few pages of the work, some expressions show that in the Laws Plato has not given up the differentiation between being and process, cf. 904 A 8-9 li~v ... , 6).1,.' oOK.alGnnov. Cf. Chemiss, 378 and n. 2 • .. Cf. Laws g67 A 2-3 and E 1-2. Why these sciences are "necessary" was explained in 817 E 5--818 E 2, where there is. conversely, a forward reference to the concluding pages of the Laws. Cf. notes 99 and 112 supra. m CJ.,in addition to what is said in this and in the following section, comm. on 987 B 2-3 and on g8g D 3--6.

u•

STRUCTURE OF THE EPINOMIS

93

motivation for the passage as a whole is in question and this will be found to involve the Timaeus too. So far as the -rO..os of the course of studies is concerned, an essential difference between the E. and Plato's authentic works bas been identi• fied: in the former the preliminary training in mathematics is undertaken for the sake of learning astronomy, whereas according to Plato astronomy itself is one of the propaedeutic sciences that prepare the mind for the study of dialectic.tu This divergence explains whatever differences from Plato we find in the E.'s treatment of the individual mathematical sciences and in its peculiar explanation of these sciences' kinship and unity. The sciences themselves are the same in the E. as in Plato: arithmetic, geometry, stereometry, harmonics, and astronomy. The first and most fundamental discipline is arithmetic, the knowledge of number ,Per se and of its fundamental properties.•• This is to be followed by geometry and stereometry. 411 The latter, described as the study of solids, is in the Republic declared to be a necessary but as yet undeveloped discipline, a statement which is probably to be explained as referring to the dramatic date of that work and not to that of its composition.'15 Be that as it may. stereometry had already been developed by the time Plato wrote the Timaeus,,,..though neither there nor anywhere else in Plato does the word "stereometry" occur. In the seventh book of the Laws, because the Athenian Stranger is dealing only with the elementary education of all the citizens and because his interlocutors are shown to be ignorant of the most elementary mathematical notions, both geometry and stereometry are described in a simplified and rather crude way. Next in the E. comes harmonics. Here, though the word apµovfa is used, the science of "harmonics" is described but not named as such; and the treatment of it is dependent on the Timaeus. where the name "harmonics" is not applied to that science either.• 17 In the Laws this discipline is not specifically mentioned., because the subject of music was included together with gymnastics in the discussion of the rearing of children which precedes the elementary but more formal education in mathematics to be had by all the free-bom.' 18 In the Republic harmonics is described and comes after astronomy, a science which itself is to be studied after stereometry.'• In the E. astronomy comes after harmonics, just because in it the former is the TO.asof the course of studies. u1 C/. chapter I, ,. ' 11 C/. E. 990 C 5-8 and comm. ad we. Cf.also comm. on 976 E 1-3. , .. Cf. E. ggo D 1-E I and comm. on 990 D 1-4, on D 2-4, and on 990 D 6-7. tll

Cf. Rap.528 A-E .

.a,Since in the

Timtuus Plato makes use of the construction of the five regular solids, t:/.chapter I, g. n 7 C/. E. 991 A 4-B 4 and comm. on 990 E 1-991 A I, 991 A 5-B 2, 991 B 4. With 6ppoinas xlrpl.vin E. 991 B 4 c/. Tim. 47 C 6-D 7. •• Cf. note II 3 sv'f>t'a. •• Cf. R,p. 528 E-531 C. That the name of the science to be studied after astronomy is (mathematical) "harmonics" is implied in 530 D 6-9: cf. also 531 A 1, 53rB7-C4.

94

PLATO, PHILIP OF OPUS. AND THE EPINOMIS

What is peculiar in the E. is the rather one-sided description of geometry and stereometry as the sciences that teach us how to assimilate numbers which by nature are not similar. This means, if our interpretation of the mathematical passage is correct, that geometry teaches us to find one and stereometry two geometrical means. 480 It is reasonable to see in this an allusion to the Delian problem of the duplication of the cube, a problem that undoubtedly played an important role in the development of Greek mathematics on purely geometrical lines.481 This question of means and proportions as the solution to some of the mathematical problems of the time is also implied in several Platonic dialogues ;'31 but the difference between Plato and the author of the E. is that the latter explains the kinship and unity of the mathematical sciences by the theory of proportions and means; since this knowledge is necessary to acquire knowledge of astronomy and since the theory of proportions and means is based on number, it is reasonable for the author of the E. to hold that astronomy is the highest branch of the science of number.• Plato, however, holds the community of the mathematical sciences to be the lower stage of dialectic and their kinship to be related to the sepaue C/. comm. on 990 C 5-991 B 4. What is said there should be kept in mind in connection with what follows in this section, for the two discussions complement one another. 111 C/. Heath, A HistMy ofGreek M~hematics, I, 89ff., 244 ff. As Heath says (go) "this subject (sc. of irrationals) was regarded by the Greeks as belonging to geometry rather than arithmetic.'' It was the problem of "irrationals" that caused a crisis in the rather primitive and empirical mathematics of the fifth century a.c. The solution of the problem of "irrationals" required abstract proofs; and the search for such proofs led to the axiomatization of Greek geometry, for the solution offered to the problem of "irrationals" by Eudoxus and his contemporaries was through the theory of proportions, and the finding of means was achieved through geometrical and not arithmetical methods. That is why for the ancients the theory of proportions belongs to geometry and harmonics, not to arithmetic, which deals with the properties of number per se (c/. schol. on Go,g. 451 B [461-462, Greene]). That the theory of incommensurables was constructed with reference to magni~ tudes is clear also from Euclid's book X, and from the geometrical presentation in books VII-IX, which X presupposes. Cf. Klein, week Mmh. TAought and the Orig;,,_of Alg,bra, 43-45, 1 n, :u8, n. 12. In this development the problem of finding two mean proportionals, the so-called Delian problem, caused the greatest difficul• ties, to judge from the evidence. The Greeks did not offer an arithmetical solution to the problem of incornmensurables, because with their notion of rational number they could not admit irrational numbers. Cj. Hasse und Scholz, Die G,1,mdlagen• Arisis tI.,r Gruchischen M~hemalik, esp. 35-72: "Warum haben die Griechen die Irrationab:ahlen nicht aufgebaut ?" In this respect the presentation of the problem of incommensurables in book VII of the Laws is instructive, since it is related to magnitudes, and the science that deals with it is geometry•stereometry or, as Plato says, the study of "measuring" lines, planes, and solids. All this is well known, but it is too often disregarded in analyses of the mathematical passage in the E. • 11 CJ. MffW 82 B-85 B with Heath, A Histr:wyof G-ruk Mmlmn~ics, I, 297-298, The,ul. 147 D-148 B, and Laws 817 E 5-6 and 819 C 7-820 D 6. C/. also comm. on 990 C 5-991 B 4 and Novotny's paper "De Platonis Miraculo Geometrico." oa CJ. 990 C 5-991 B 4 with comm. ad lot., comm. on 990 E 1--992 A t, 991 A 5B 2, 991 D 8-992 A I with comm. ad loc., 976 E 1--977 B 8 and 977 C 4-D 6.

STRUCTURE OF THE EPINOMIS

95

rate existence of ideas, since what the mathematical sciences have in common is that the mathematical entities studied by them are part of the invisible reality of pure being; hence, since they are exact sciences, they prepare the mind to apprehend the invisible reality that is the object of thought.• It follows then that the different conceptions of the kinship of the mathematical sciences in Plato and in the E. are again to be traced back to the different -riAos of the course of studies in each, for save for this, the so-called mathematical passage in the E. is not at variance with Plato, as the author of the E. is certainly dependent on the Timaeus both in his treatment of the theory of proportions and means and in his notion that this theory is basic for the -study of the universe. With the latter point Plato agrees, but he considers that the study of the universe is only a preliminary step to the contemplation of the separate ideas. 435 Finally. both the author's inclusion of the mathematical passage and his rather one-sided treatment of geometry and stereometry were prompted. by Plato's discussion of these sciences and of the elementary notions on which they are based in the seventh book of the Laws. The main points made in Laws 817 E-820 E must be summarized. The subjects to be studied by all free-born children are three: (a) calculation and arithmetic; (b) geometry and stereometry; (c) astronomy.at At present we are concerned with the second study, which includes geometry and stereometry, as the description given in 817 E 6-7shows: ~pt'lTIKfl ~ '11'11(0vs KOihrmtoov 1vxpti q,{xva1 ~IV &tv TOVS ~~. lH:7a ml 1rapTIOAUS b 'Alyv-rtT(t)naf&.lv 6XAOS 6µa ypaµµaat 1,.1C1V$aw1. ,rp&-rov µb yap mp\ Aoyic,µ0U5.•. IJlTO'. 6l TaO-ra b -rots µnpfiot0111, 6oo:l){a in'liall(o\ itM-fri1Cal~. Titp\ lmatrnX TaOTa lvoOa{n, Tt»a q>VCl"EI yu.olav TE teal alaxpo:v &yvo,av h TOIS6:v.Sp&)'l'TOtS 1f001V,Tll\l"T1"l5 «1T~11 (sc. the Egyptian teachers). " 1 For the interpretation of Laws 819 D 5-E 1, cf. Einarson,• 98. The passage is usually misinterpreted to mean that Plato, or the Athenian Stranger, learned la.te in life about incommensurables, and that the Laws therefore implies a development in Plato's conception of mathematics, c/. e.g. Harward, 59.

STRUCTURE OF THE EPINOMIS

97

he proceeds to state: (a) 111'COS, irMrros, and ~ are never I.ITlTpETa though in some cases it is possible to "measure'' JAf\KOS with ll1'KOS,irM'roswith irMroc; and f3a9os with pa.9os, there are cases where it is impossible to do so; (c) it is impossible to measure 1,tfix6s TE ml ,rMTos,rpos~ or irMTos'TE 1«11P'iiKos,[email protected]')'Aa; (d) one must study the things which by nature are commensurable and incommensurable with one another.•" This passage of the Laws, which deals with magnitudes and not with numbers, with its peculiar terminology of "measuring""' explains why the author of the E. presents as a divine portent the fact that by means of geometry and stereometry we learn to assimilate to each other plane and solid numbers which by nature are not similar; such numbers could not be "measured" exactly with one another. Hence, the E.'s treatment of the assimilation of numbers which by nature are not similar, together with the related theory of proportions and means, which are the subject of geometry and stereometry, would permit us to •'measure" against one another some magnitudes which according to the Laws are by themselves incommensurable with one another. This is quite different. however, from saying that the E. refers to incommensurable numbers.'" But whereas Plato is dealing with elementary education and limits himself to calling attention to the prevailing ignorance in Greece of rather elementary mathematical notions, the author of the E., since he is describing the higher education, is not justified in reducing geometry and stereometry to the assimilation of numbers which by nature are not similar. Important as the theory of proportions is, these sciences are not to be reduced to that question only. In short, the peculiar treatment of this subject seems to be due, once more, to the author's dependence on Platonic statements which have been torn from their contexts.""

[email protected]'a;(b)

"' C/. Laws 819 E 3-820 C 5. Note that in 820 C 4-5 (TC!c-rti:>v IJITP11Ta 10pcn,, 898 D 3-7.

ro4

PLATO. PHILIP OF OPUS, AND THE EPINOMIS

slowest, because it falls further behind the zodiacal signs each day, whereas Saturn, though the slowest, seems to be the swiftest, because it falls behind the zodiacal signs least.ue The presentation of all these points as a "novelty" is due to the dramatic situation, and does not imply that Plato learned about the true paths of the planets recently. The context shows that the Athenian is complaining about the prevalent ignorance of elementary astronomical notions in the Greek states of the time, an ignorance exemplified by his two interlocutors. This ignorance, as in the case of incommensurables, is due to the poor character of Greek elementary education, whereas in Egypt children would learn in school that the planets travel always on the same paths, their wanderings being apparent only. The Athenian does not prove that the planetary motions are regular but asks his interlocutors to agree that, if the point can be proved, its content must be included in the elementary education of all the citizens, in order to avoid To overcome Clinias's reluctance to blasphemy against the astral gods.&10 admit that the subject can be learned and that the Greeks are at present mistaken is the purpose of the Athenian's contention that the subject, though not easy to learn, is not too difficult either and does not require a long time to learn. This must be proved if the subject is to be included as part of the elementary education; and the Athenian's proof ("mJ,.lt.kVICA't) mpl TO Tl'VpcxlwpoV1,.ll:\11)11 o\i Toov Ttl,ltWTirrc.,v

cumWV

ff~(,,)11 T0V,c.6aµov l,IOplc.>v v,ro:pxr:111. TaiiTa 6i kCXIm.a-rc.:1116: fCXOlff'pE~\JTt\V ytv6'1(!vov61awvof\o-Satmpl -ri'isyi'is.c!>s Iv ~ X6>pq'. icc&a-rc.:xn,s, ffl" 6i µiariv 1,~6aocpos, ~ Tovsm.a-r(,)vos N6µovs 61E1MvEis ~•1311.fa 1~',To yap 1y'

avr,bs,rpoo.9El\lO.LAfynal.

t«ll iljv

~ovs

11•

ml

cnrrovm.crr(,)vos aKOV-

A good bibliography of Philip of Opus will be found in Oldfather, 452, n. 137. The most important earlier publication is BOckb, Sonnenkreis,, 34-40, the most recent is von Fritz's article in R.E. I prefer to call the texts which refer to Philip testinwnui rather than fragments, since there are no verbatim quotations among them. Because the attribution of some of these texts to Philip is open to doubt and controversy, I have not attempted to classify them as genuine, doubtful, and spurious, but have arranged them according to the kind of information they provide. Variant readings are given according to the editions cited; but, though I have reported the editors' departures from the manuscripts, I have given variant readings only when one or another reading could make a difference to our understanding of Philip. This collection, then, does not attempt to be autonomous, and its main purpose is to facilitate reference. Oldfather, 457-463, contended that the fragmentary, short treatiseTfls Xaptlv, 'On-rucc;,v~•, "EVOTIT(p)tKG>v ~•. KVlCAm,ros: 'Orrovvnos:, 1CTA. III. Stephanus, EU.nika (440,5-8 [Meinecke]). MffiµT},,ro~lS '1-raA(as ml 1eTo Tij TJAa,-(l)vos cplA00'01)1~ avVTWlv. ot 1-EVovv TQSlcrroplas &lKI)'p6:\fK]v-res l'EX,PlTOVTOV Trpocxyovat TTl" -ri\shncrniµTls'TOV'TTIS TEAEloocn.v. I. "µevmlas, postera manu 6 super T scripto, M; µnalas G, Mnatas (MeSµatos) A, pevmtas B1 , C. Nesselmann {p. 6 annot. 13) fonnam Me6µatas veram putare mavult. 'maeteus' Z, 'Mendaeus' B" (Friedlein). V. Acad. Philos. Index He-rcuJ,. col. III. 36--41 (13 [Melder]). a .. .(6 &a)-rpoA6yos(l)~yet-

T' ml"T~IYEYOVOOS' &vaypa"'1(S) Toum&rwV9SKal &· l(OVpls TOV1,1t&s'1TANp&s TT~AT).9elcrris 6:cpop1.1:i1v ,ra~ov faCA>S µtv mi cS:AA01s Tialv, ~ ml IAl1T1T(t'), ~ q,T)aiv6 llf1Xavt1v· yh1011T01 pt' µiivas avvayovcn KOlAovs V1V1V; ad fiµep&>v ad marg. add. i)~pas pt'. 610 V; itaque habent edd.: t'iµepoov'l')µtpas(fiµipa1s H.) p1'. 610 pi' µfivasavvayovaa1vos lCOlVOOS, KV ovyypacptccv c¥1l.9EV'l'ESol &,lfTayEWOTEp01 avTOOII h'l'JPT)OO" b 61CJq,6po1s Torrensml 1r0llots TCISaWJTOACIS Kai TQS&:mas l((Jl ~ 6Mas mi-rwv hn0"!)"1E1@11s, ]tc;n hn~v KCXT ·1vaoo]v~vta

XIX. Ptolemy, 6:aus cmAaV«>v 00"-dpoov (OperaAstronomicaMi,uwa, 14, 21-15,2; 15,8--g; 17,14-16; 18.3-5; 21,8-10; 22,3-6, 21-23; 27,13-17; 32, 7-9; 33,15-17; 33.2:r-34,3; 35,13-15; 38,21-39,2; 39,13-16; 41,10-13; 42, 3-6; 43,7--9; 45,12-14; 46,3-6; 47,15-19; 48,12-15; 50,4-5; 52,8-12; 59, 1-3; 6o,r3-20 [Heiberg]). 0Co0 ['. M-rrrpo6~ 6uaaEpla. KaAAhrn't), EVK"IT}µov1, lAlmTCtJ 6vaaepfa ml aro~a &tpas.Ev66~ctivn6s, ~pov-ra[, dVEµoS11.ETtmhTT(l)V. ',. OOl)l»V 1yI...'·6 MJl,llT(X>S TOV TTepoioos tamp,05 &~ •. lA{Tm't) 6VOQEp(a • .6.oat~Ct> xe1pa{w1. A'. oopwv ,5 V· 6 KOt\lOS"lrnrov ml •Av6~ k1>s Svwt. EwTI)µoVlKal lAfmrc., l vn6s. A8YP Tfisj3ope{ovX11AfiS hrrrOO&a.wp&>v lE I..'.6 Acq11TfJOS TfisAvpo.s¼Sos CX\JCfflAAEl. EVKTT11JOVl ml lAf1T1T 6:VE~ l,lfyas,rveJ. t'. oopwv16· 6 Aa1.11TPOS T&>v'Ya5oovknrip105 allCmAA£1.Alyvmiois v6,-05 Mf\pos.Mhoov1 Ufvpas. Ev66~Cf1Jx>pbs fJ v6T05. Mrrrpo6ool)Ct> mcpaoia clipos. EVKTfiµoV1 ml 171.hnrct> ml "lirnapxct>ve-r6s. 16'. c:,p&v 16[..'· 6 KOIV05 TTOTaµaii ml 1ro66s "Wp{c.,Jvos !4>os 6vve1.t).{irn 1!µ,rpoo-.S{Cf!6e94> ~paxf(t> Toii K£na(,pov hrrrfilet. oop6:>v 16[..'· 6 !11Tei> hroJJtvCtJ cZ>µCf! Toii •wp(c.,Jvos kmipics avcrr0Ji.e1.M1')Tpo1 6oop(e)XEIPfp{ampla-rao,s. Eu1mu.10vtml 1Af1T1TC@ ml KaMlTMT(e) 6\14L(l)1,1 mcpaoia. TYBI y'. oop&;v 1y [..'·6 Aap,rpos TOV. krov hrrnAAE1.oopoov ii I,'· TlpolCVCA)v lo,riptoS ~•. EVICTI'iµoVl ml 1Almrq,ml .61')µoKph(t> hrtmwa{vet. la'. oop&>v ;: 6 hrl -rils KEcpaAiis TOVfflOIM:VOU .616vµov~ 6vve1.Einm')1,10\11l ptaos XE11,&CQV.

122

PLATO, PHILIP OF OPUS, AND THE EPINOMJ'S

1y'. wp&v 16· 6 Afll.l1T!)OS TOVVOTiov'lx.9vcs lCp01l"TETa1. oopoovir 6 faxaroS TOVTIOTa1,10ii wmploS 6:vcrrOwn. Alyu-rrdo1s\10TOS ft Uq:,vpcs,XEtµcl:,v Kal 1CaTayiiv Kai 1CaTO: .9&o'aav. MT)Tpo6&>f> Kal EVIC"rliµovi ml d>tAhrn 1«1ll&AiffltQJ •l,r,rapXvos KpirrrTe-rat.oop&'>v iel..'· 6 Aaµirpos -roov~Y&Swv1 x6:Aala. Uq:,vpos. Ev,m'n1oviml 1Ahmc+> TTAXulN

a'. &p&'>"' 16l..'· 6 Afll.l1Tps -roiiTle~ aTl'f!p1os &vve1. mi 6 µecros Tiis l.ooVT')s Toii 'ulpfvos 1os6vve1.wp&lv"i I...'·6 Aa1,11rpos TOU VOT(ou "lx.SVOS ~ 6vve1. M11Tpo6~p't)Kai EV1c1,'u10v1 xal tA{mre+> m,crlal 1rvtovC11, 1means in such contexts. On Proclus's first argument against the Platonic authorship of the E. c/. p. u supra . .. It is inconceivable to me that Proclus, who was himself the head of the Academy, could have committed such a mistake . .. Diogenes Laertius was used by Snidas or by his source (c/. note 515 sup,a). Notice how Suidas supports his statement that the division of the Laws into twelve books was the work of "the philosopher" (i.e. Philip) by the argument "for the thirteenth he is said to have added himself."

130

PLATO, PHILIP OF OPUS, AND THE EPINOMIS

does not go back to Philip or to the early Academy but is later than the fourth century e.c.N 1 In short, Suidas and the Prolegomena offer two different inferences about the nature of Philip's editorship of the Laws. Of his role in this Diogenes Laertius reports that "some say that Philip transcribed Plato's Laws which were Iv K'TlPci>-" Whatever be the exact meaning of the words 6u-ras Av14>, Ns this passage tells us only that Philip transcribed or copied out the Laws,"'14JJ hence, one may safely infer that he prepared the work for publication.au In fact, because of a few awkward passages which are probably not due to scribal corruption and because of a few unusual expressionsMI it may be supposed that, had Plato lived long enough to publish the Laws, he would have removed them.Me But such passages too easily prompted some critics to conclude that the work is in a state of chaos. Many critics during the nineteenth Nl Some scholars, e.g. Jaeger, Paideia, III, 214 and 337, n. 12, and Vanhoutte, La Philosopkie Politique de Plalan dans les "Lois," 7ff., accept at its face value the statement in Suidas that Philip divided the Laws into twelve books. Vanhoutte's attempt to show that this division plays a role in the work itself is unsuccessful however, except for the fact that books I-III are an introduction to the dramatic theme of the Laws, providing at the same time a model for the Cretan colony about to be founded (cf. also FriedlAnder, Plato, III, 566, n. 82). The external evidence does not support Suidas. Diogenes Laertjus says nothing about a division into twelve books, and it is probable that what he says about Philip's role a.s editor of the Laws gave rise to conjectures. Thrasyllus apparently made no use of this division in classifying Plato's works in tetralogies, and the earliest extant author who refers to the E. as the thirteenth book of the Laws, which implies the latter's division into twelve books, is Nicomachus. Moreover, to judge from our evi• dence, the custom of dividing long works into .. books" is Alexandrian; the Iliad and the Odyssey were not divided into twenty-four books before then (cf. Pfeiffer, History o/ Classical Scholarship, n5-116). and in the case of the Republic there was an alternative division into six books instead of ten. which would be hard to explain if either was the work of Plato himself or the early Academy. Na That the Laws was "in wa.x" may be literally true of part of the work at least; before committing a sentence or part of the work to expensive papyrus Plato may have v:ritten it down on tablets. [ doubt that the expression should be inter• preted metaphorically, as Bergk, Fun/ Abhandlungen, 44, proposed. NI Though the word used by Diogenes Laertius (Test. VI). µ,naypaqie111. can mean either "to transcribe, to copy," or "to rewrite, i.e. to correct," in the present con• text nothing suggests that Diogenes meant the latter, and his use of this verb elsewhere (cf. Diog. Laert. III, 9, VIII, 85, Zeller, II, i, p. 979, n. 2) is also against such an interpretation; but the former meaning fits the context well. Aristotle, moreover, refers to the Laws as if the work contained the ipsissima verba of Plato; a.nd, if Proclus knew the statement of Diogenes, it is clear that he must have interpreted it as lack of lh6p.9c.,a1s.Suidas or his source speaks only of a division of the Laws into twelve books, a fact which implies no rewriting. And the author of the p,,olegomena, as has been said, drew an inference from Proclus and perhaps also from Diogenes Laertius. Contrary to what is often asserted, I cannot see that anything certain can be inferred from Cicero, Ad Att. XIII, 21, 4 as to Plato's procedure in publishing his dialogues. w, Publication probably meant that a final, corrected copy of the work prepared by Philip was made available at the Academy. N• I mean to say that such phenomena go back to the author himself. C/. Shorey, C.P. 9 (1914), 345-346. w•This must have been the opinion of Proclus also, since he maintains that the Laws lacks 61~.

PHILIP OF OPUS

131

century unjustifiably attempted to dissect the Laws in order to isolate the corrections and changes allegedly introduced by Philip of Opus. " 7 The ancient evidence of Diogenes Laertius, of Proclus, and even of the P,olegomena,as has been shown, does not support the assumption of such "corrections." Moreover, Aristotle cites the Laws as Plato's and does not intimate that he knew of any other version of this work. NB If Plato left the Critias unfinished as we find it in our manuscripts, this would reinforce the inference that his successors at the Academy took care not to tamper with his works.Ml The Critias and the Laws were probably published shortly after his death. uo If Philip of Opus is indeed the author of the E. it is certain that he did not tamper with the text of the Laws, for the author of the E. misunderstood or chose to misunderstand the dramatic end of the Laws 661 and also strongly disagreed with Plato's treatment of the arts of navigation, medicine, and strategy as ac,JTI'Jp(ai. 611 Had the 147

For such analyses of the Laws cf. the works of Bruns, Bergk, Practorius, Rohde, and Krieg cited in the bibliography. This kind of criticism has been for the most part abandoned by recent scholarship. The overriding unity of the work, the cros~references, the handling of doctrines and arguments explained in other dialogues, and many other such phenomena are sufficient proof in addition to the almost unanimous testimony of antiquity that we do possess the work as Plato left it. "' Aristotle cites the Laws by title as Plato's work, cf. Polil. 1266 B 5 and 1271 B 1. In 1264 B 26ff., he implies that Plato is the author of the Laws, and ex~ pressly states that this work is later than the Republic and that their respective nm&iat are identical (c/. note 125 supra). In 1265 A II thcexpressionohovic.:,kpCXT~ >.6yo1 used in reference to the Laws is most probably a slip on Aristotle's part and neither evidence that he knew a different and earlier version of the Laws in which Socrates was the main speaker nor that he expressly interpreted the Athenian Stranger to be a mask for Socrates, as Grote, Plato, IV. 273, n., and Morrow, "Aristotle's Comments on Plato's Laws," 146, and Plato's Cretan City, 74 and 111, n. 44, prefer to believe. According to Cicero, De Legibus I, 5, 15, and to an ancient hypothesis on the Laws (Scholia Plalonica, 296 [Greene]}. the Athenian Stranger is Plato himself. Diog. Laert. III, 52 reports that this was the opinion of some, but he opposes it and correctly maintains that the Athenian is a ,r).&o-µa 6:~wµov. The fallacy of identifying the Athenian with Plato himself has led to misinterpretation of many passages in the Laws, for one notorious example of which cf. note 472 supra. "' The evidence we have suggests that the Critias was left unfinished by Plato, since there are no ancient references to any part of the work not now extant. Plutarch, Sown, 32 says that the unfinished state of the Crilias is due to Plato's death; and, even though Plutarch may have inferred this from the unfinished state of this work, his remark shows that in his time the work was unfinished. His statement need not imply that he considered the Crilias to be a later work than the Laws, for he may have meant on1y that Plato, if he had lived, would have finished the Crilias after having prepared the Lows for publication. Da !side 370 F (bi M TOTsN6JJO~ fi6fl npwpEVS and 6xovcrn'tsof Plato in Plato's old age. The restoration of this text adopted here is that given by Melder. which, though not absolutely certain, is probable enough and which has been generally accepted. 666 If it be accepted, however. the words A~ydTDl mrrc;, show that, since 0VT4'.> cannot be Philip, who must be the subject of the verb, the report does not come directly from him. Consequently Philip himself is being cited by someone else as giving a report to somebody, or the information must come from a dialogue. In either case, even if this notice should come from Philip's Tieplm.&n:..1vos, as Oldfather contended,w it cannot come directly from it.

d) Philip and the Authorship of the E. That part of Diogenes Laertius's statement in III, 37 concerning Phil• ip's role as editor of the Laws most likely represents a genuine tradition. It is unlikely to have been mere invention, for Philip is otherwise a rather obscure figure. The same cannot be said, however, about his alleged. authorship of the E. Diogenes Laertius reproduces both parts of the statement as emanating from the same source; but Philip's authorship of the E. may well have been a conjecture suggested by the tradition that he was the editor of the Laws, with which the E. is clearly connected. 617 A conclusive answer is made the more difficult by the absence of any verbatim quotation from Philip with which the E. could be compared and by the lack of decisive external evidence concerning his alleged authorship. Yet, since the E. cannot be the work of Plato and since it was attributed to Philip, an attempt should be made to see whether the scanty evidence of Philip's work which we possess renders his alleged authorship of the E. more or less likely. Like other Mention has been made of Philip's work ITeplTTh.6:Tea>vos. members of the early Academy he appears to have written on Plato's life; whether he also dealt there with Plato's doctrines, as Xenocrates probable that he worked on the Laws until the very end of his life, for the skeptical evasion that the reference may have been inserted "later" after Plato bad finished the work is implausible. If Philip was really the editor of the Laws, he must have been entrusted with this task either by Plato himself or by the Academy after the latter's death. u1 On the text of Indu Hucul. col. III, 36-4x (13 [Mekler]), c/. Gomperz, A.A.W.W. (1870), 40--42, a.nd Mekler ad loc. The restoration y.-yo~ 6:vo:ypa~ fits well with Philip's editorship of the Laws and with the word used by Diogenes No inference concerning oriental influence on La.emus to describe it: l,ln"CX)'J>a'f!EI\I. Plato can be drawn from the information contained in this passage, that Plato in his old age received the visit of a Chaldaean, since it is possible that this is a reference to the alleged visit to Athens by the Magi, who were desirous to learn from Plato. C/. A,wnymous Prolsgomena I, 6, 20---22 (Westerink): ol & ptryo16ta -rov ID.crr(.)110: •A.91\va~'ITO..(,.)v 1vXElpoKPflT/)hiathe doctrine of the unmoved mover was present, cf. note 625 supra. 1111Cf. comm. on 985 C 2-3, C 2, C 3, C 4, for parallels which suggest that the author is dependent on the Symposium and on Tim. 71 A-72 B; in both cases be misunderstood Plato's irony, cf. especially note 205 supra and comm. on 975 C6-8. 111 To be sure, Jaeger, Arisloteks 1 , 164-167, in accordance with bis reconstruction of the De Philosophia, argued that Aristotle was trying to explain the subjective conviction of god's existence, not the historical origin of it. But the text of Sextus 8t arroSuolv &pxwvlvotCI\I.9Ewv leaves no doubt. Cf. frag. IO (Rose}: Ap1a-rcmAT)S ~ yeyovivat b T01S m,Spclmo1s.c!m6 TETOO\I mpl 'f'VXiiVavµpaivotrrCl.lV KalarroTw" ~v .. . Ix TOV'IWV Cl'iv,ipqab, \ffltV01'\0'av ol 6:v.Spc.rrro1 rivat TI 9Eov••. 6'.:>.~Sq1v ~"• • boµIOUV 1tY01Ttua -SEovwv ~ TOlav-n)S1(1~ Kai wmtlas ahtov. C/. also Chernis.s. A.J.P. 56 (1935), 268. 111

1

THE EPINOMIS, ARISTOTLE. THE ACADEMY

14.9

about the divinity of the cosmos which is evident in the cosmic order, according to Aristotle. men b6p.1aavelva( Ttva Seov Tov TfisTOIO\JT11S Ktv{io&>S ml Ma~as aiT1ov just because they did become aware of cosmic order. There is nothing in common between E. gBB D-E and the De Philosoj,hia.since Aristotle's mention of Iranian dualism in frag. 6 (Rose) cannot be connected in any plausible way with the doctrine of the E. If the contrary is often asserted, it is only because E. g8B D-E is taken to mean

that there are two world-souls, one evil and one good. This interpretation has been refuted above, and it only remains to be said here that there is no evidence for Aristotle's attribution of such a doctrine to Plato either.• In Aristotle's treatises there are some similarities with the E. These are dealt with in other parts of this work, and here it need only be said that none of these similarities implies the dependece of either author on the other. 181 Two cases may be recalled here, as neither occurs in Plato. The author of the E. and Aristotle refer to proofs about the enormous size of the heavenly bodies.116 In the E., however, this notion is part of an argument intended to prove that the heavenly bodies are divine living beings, while such is not the case in Aristotle. Both authors also refer to the great antiquity of the oriental observations of the heavenly bodies.• It is noteworthy that both topics are connected with the interests of others in the Academy and particularly with the activity of Eudoxus. ffl Another type of coincidence between the E. and Aristotle. often neglected. is the tendency of the two to interpret some Platonic doctrines in the same way. Thus both have a purely physical interpretation of the mythical •Avayav .SVT1Tti>v )'lvio'.9at, ovSwrn'lv tp'll0'1 ylywo-Sat IJX>..' tm hi Tots SVT1Tots glaoudlncn, OV'r(I.)51\irovxpii iced-ro"T&v ~v" lncovrlv 611h Tij:> ytm T&v K\IOUµ6vt.,)V i«d $"'Tf&>V ylyvrrcn, IJX>..' tm 'ITClp'liv ttcnpovlassi.va,corf>o,eahia, tempo,e aeterna. Though Apuleius does not cite the E. and though it is possible that he made no direct use of this work, in all probability the notion that a demon is a living being with an aerial body goes back to it ultimately, since such a notion is not to be found in the Symposium or anywhere else in Plato. And the same is probably true also of the notion that demons are subject to passions as we are. Apuleius repeats these notions in chapters XIXII of the first book of his De Platone. Proclus informs us that some Platonists in interpreting the scale of living beings of the Timaeus made use of the E. and identified the aerial dron occupies the same position as in the Timaeus it seems that Albinus places ether above fire. If this is so, he is not dependent upon the E. in his theory of the simple bodies. '" Sinko, ••ne Apulei et Albini Docwinae Plaumi«u A4uncbralimu," 143-145, in comparing Apuleius and Albinus on the subject of demons, fails to note these essential differences. For Apuleius's four classes of living beings cf. De Platone, I, xi (94, 21-95, 7 [Thomas]): iam ipsa animanlium gensra in qualluor species ditiiduntu,, qu.a,um una est u natu,a ignis eiusmodi, qualem solem iu luttam vidamws ceterasqve siderum steUas,alterum ex a~ria quaWate- hanc etiam daamo,ium dicit -, twtium ex aqua ten-a,que coalesce,e et mm-tale g111us corpMum u eo dividi tnrenum atque ter,est,e - sic enim mu.iv d x1:pcratov censui ?Suncupi:inda terrenumq_w esse arboYum ceterarumque frugum, quae humi fixaa vitam trahunt, terrest,ia vero, quae alit ac susti,ut tellus. " 1 Cf. Apuleius, De Deo Socr°'is, VII-VIII (15, 7-17, 3 (Thomas]}. In 15, 14 (Thomas) it is unnecessary to add aquarum as Mercerus, followed by Thomas, did, since Apuleius divides the third kind of creature, which is mortal and whose body is made of water and earth, into te"enum and terristr1 (cf. the previous note). On Aristotle's argument from analogy c/. p. 145£. suf,1'a.

INFLUENCE OF THE EPINOMIS

163

creatures with the demons and the aqueous with the demigods. In the course of listing the three main interpretations of Tim. 39 E-40 A given before Syrianus, Proclus says of the third: o1 6eKat av\la'ITTOVTES aµcp6Tepa (sc. the two first interpretations) Kai Tots b Tij 'Emvo1d61 yeypaµ11bo1s aKOAOVSovVTES, b oOpaw{, l,l&V VTrOO"Tilvat Myovns, b OEpl Si TO\/S6a{µovas, b UOOTI Si TOVSfiµ1.sb,s, lv yi;\ Se 6:v.9pclmovs Kol Ta 1 6:~ .9Vf1Tal.4xt.• These Platonists, then, whoevertheywere,combined the four simple bodies and the four kinds of living beings of the Timaeus with part of the account of E. g8I C-E and g84 E-985 B; and, though this is an impossible interpretation of Tim. 39 E-40 A, it does some justice to the E. in so far as it does not confuse the demons with the aqueous creature, which according to the E. is fiµ{Seov.These interpreters, moreover, follow the E. in grouping the three mortal kinds of creatures of the Timaeus into one class, that of the terrestrial animals. Proclus does not subscribe to such an interpretation. In his In Platonis Rem Publicam he states that from the concluding myth of the Republic the TOOC>S 61KaO"TltS, Some Platonists maintained that demons are in the ether; and, though Proclus's sentence is hypothetical, it seems that some made use of the E. to support this contention, a use which Proclus rejects because he considers this work to be un-Platonic: el 8eSf) Kai TOUSb TU,E1T1vo11(61 A6yovs TlS itpoaot-ro 'Tit> al~pl TO\JS 6a{1,1ovaso:rro616ov0'1JKa\ TOJSTE alaSi]O"Eaw 6~pa1s KOl Talc.;610vo{ioww 6:)(p&v-ro1s1JE1l.6v~AEyOV0'1J Ta 6:v.SpclmwaKa.9opav, it&v-r~ 6f\1tov KaK Tci:>\Ib Ml"1] yeypaµµEVGl)V 6a1µ6v1ov T6irov Tov al.Stpa Afyea.9a1,rapa TouTTi\v}.His remarks here, including his previous statement based on Nicoma.chus, as well as his comments in the De Comm. Malla. Sc., show that he too took the community of the mathematical sciences in the E. as a preliminary step in the study of pure being. "' The three passages where Proclus refers to E. 991 E-992 A are quoted in note 28 supra. On the un-Platonic character of the doctrine of the cosmos in the E. and on the purely ancillary role of dialectic in it, cf. chapter I, 1-f.

pas'

INFLUENCE OF THE EPINOk/1S Though David does not cite 991 E--gg2 A, according to his remarks on 992 A 4--6 he must have interpreted it as implying that the mathematical sciences are the necessary path from the study of physics to that of Ta .9eoAoytK6:.'°' This passage of David must come ultimately from Ammonius, the son of Hermeias, for we find the same Neoplatonic interpretation in the commentaries of Asclepius and Philoponus on Nicomachus, which are based on the lectures of Ammonius. • Elias is less specific than David, but he too probably read the passage in the same way. 707 Theon's interpretation of 99r E-992 A, which is dealt with elsewhere, is remarkable in that, though wrong in reading a\lCV\oyiavfor 61,lO~oy(av in 991 E 3, he is probably right in interpreting the unity of the mathematical sciences in the E. as due to the theory of proportions. Theon, then, ascribed this notion to Plato himself; and it was the intention of the author of the E. himself to do so too. 708 Theon's treatment of the E. as a whole is itself remarkable, for by citing and closely paraphrasing several passages he produces a sort of summary of this work, and thereby attributes to Plato himself some of the doctrines of the E. that are definitely un-Platonic, for example the notion that piety is the highest virtue and that the true astronomer is the wise man.• Since Theon's work is an exposition of the mathematical knowledge which he thought necessary for the understanding of Plato and since Theon is not an original thinker, it is possible that this way of using the E. had a long tradition behind it. It is clear, then, despite the limited amount of extant material that the influence of the E. on the body of opinions ascribed to Plato in antiquity is far from negligible. The number of modern critics who have read Plato in a way very similar and sometimes identical to that of the author of the E. is even greater than that of the few ancient critics whom chance has preserved. Of such modem interpretations some examples will be given in pertinent places below. An exhaustive catalog of them is not a proper part of this study. 716

711 •

Cf. David, Proleg., 59, u-16 (Busse}. CJ.the references in note 702 sup,,a. For the demonstration

that the commen~ taries of Asclepius and Philoponus on Nicomachus go back to Ammonius cf. my Asclepius On Nicomachus, 8-17. _, Cf. Elias, In Cal., 125, 19-22 (Busse). 708 Cf. comm. on 991 D 8-----992 A 1. 'IOI Cf. Theon, 7, 9-10, n (Hiller}, where he ascribes to Plato E. 976 D-E, 977 C-D, 977 D-978 B, g8g B 1~2, 990 A-B, 990 C-E. Theon, 84, 7-14 (Hiller) quotes and comments on 991 E-992 A; Theon, 2, 13-21 (Hiller) deals with 99:z A-B. Other quotations and references by Theon are not relevant to our purpose here.

PART II

THE MANUSCRIPTS

OF THE EPINOMIS

The manuscript tradition of the E., which is for the most part identical with that of the Laws from 746 B 8 to the end, is now known thanks to Post, who, carrying to completion and correcting the work of Jordan, Schanz, Immisch, Rabe, and others, succeeded in establishing the fi.liation of our manuscripts. In what follows I shall limit my comments to the E.; for a full discussion of the issue I refer the reader to the works by Post and by des Places cited here and in the bibliography at the end of this work. The manuscripts which must be taken into consideration in estab• lishing the text of the E. are four: Parisinus Graecus 1807 (A), Vaticanus Graecus 1 (0). Marcianus Graecus 1022, olim 188 (K), and Pa,isinus Graecus3009 (Z). Post proved in 1928 that after Laws 746 B 8 11116b KTA. 0 is a copy of A and in all probability a direct one. Post completed his work of classification when in his Vatican Plato of 1934 he demonstrated that, with the exception of two fifteenth-century manuscripts which are direct copies of A (Vossianus GJ'aecusfol. ?4 and Estensis Graecus 114), all our manuscripts of the E. are directly or indirectly derived from 0, which, because of its numerous corrections and marginal notes, must be taken into account, and also that K, though it derives from O indirectly, since it is a copy of Vatican.us Graecus 1031, itself a copy of 0, must nevertheless be taken into consideration because of the corrections introduced, most often by erasure, by a different scribe (KC).As the text of K, with the corrections by KC, due to the loss of one quaternion is extant only up to E. 988 B 1 6-r1616aa-, wemustalsotakeintoconsideration Z, which is, beginning with the E., derived from K-KC, either directly or through an intennediary manuscript; hence, Z is our only witness for the probable readings of KCafter 988BI. I shall now describe briefly each manuscript, with special attention to the different hands that can be detected, especially in A and in 0. More details will be given when we come to discuss des Places's edition of the E. 710 To the best of my knowledge there are no remains of the E. in published papyri. A

Parisinus G,aecus 1807. (CJ. Omont, Inventai,e sommai,e des manuscrits g,ecs de la Bibliothbjue N ationale, II, 145-146,) This manu-

710 For the main publications on the four manuscripts discussed here r,/.the works by lmmisch, Rabe, Alline, Clark, Allen, Post, Lenz, and des Places cited in the bibliography at the end of this volume. For additional bibliography r,f. Post, Vatican Plato, 6, nn. 2 and 3, and des Places in his introduction to his edition of the Laws, pp. CCVII-CCXVI and in that of his edition of the E., p. 128 and n. 2.

171

172

PLATO, PHILIP

OF OPUS, AND THE EPINOMIS

script, often described and published in facsimile by Omont, is probably our oldest manuscript of Plato. It dates from the ninth century and is written in calligraphic minuscule in two colums of forty-four lines each. It contains Tetr. VIII, IX, Deg., and Spp. A has besides scholia marginal variants, corrections (often by erasure), and supplements by different hands. Since O was copied from A, Post appropriately suggested that the fonner's readings will decide which corrections in A are by the first (or a contemporary) hand AC and which are later. The former is designated AC and will include the readings introduced by erasure in A whlch are the same as those of 0. (Not to complicate matters unnecessarily, I shall distinguish A from Ac only when it can be gathered with some likelihood that the original reading in A was different from that in O and that the correction is not merely that of a mechanical error. Otherwise, erasures in A by the first hand will be noted and attributed to A. Even so, there is no need to record in the critical apparatus all such erasures in A, as we shall see.) A 1 Conversely, those readings in A which are different from those of 0 and which are corrections by a somewhat later hand which used a pale brown ink similar to the one used by A, will be called A1. A8 A different hand, of the tenth century (c/. Allen; C.Q.22 [1928], 76), supplied omissions and some new readings. It is often the same hand which supplied the omissions in O (OS).This hand (A1) is important for the Laws but not so for the E., since it is seldom to be seen in the latter. In any case, the important distinction is that between the corrections in A before O was copied from it and those made after thls. For the establishment of the text it makes no essential difference whether a given correction is by A 1 or A 1 • and to avoid unnecessary complications it is best to follow Post's rule. mentioned. above. a The hand of Constantine (a), probably the Metropolitan of Hierapolis in Phrygia and, if so, of the twelfth century, 711 who wrote with a reddish ink and in cursive, as may be seen from his subscription mrTflwo on the last page of the manuscript (' Qp,9o).9nt, f.\{~i\os Ke.:>\ICM"O.vr(vov, ~f1Tpo,ro~hov •1eparr6AE{A)S,TOV Kai OOVTJatll,dvou), has been active throughout the manuscript, not only introducing corrections but also retouching letters, ligatures, accents, etc. In the critical apparatus I mention his corrections only. Two later hands, a• and a 8 in Burnet and des Places, are not to be seen in the E. 0 Vaticanus G,aecus I. (CJ. Mercati et de' Cavalieri, Codices Vaticani Graeci, I, r-2.) This codex, of the ninth or tenth century, is written in minuscule and has rgr folios of forty lines each. It contained m Cf. des Places's introduction to the Laws, p. CCX and n. l. Immisch, Phil. SI. n1 Plalo, II, 49, n. :2, thinks that this Constantine was the Metro(k'.>litanof the Hieraix>lis of Sicily, who was probably a student of the philosopher Leo. If so, the hand of Constantine must be dated somewhat earlier than the twelfth century. In either case, Bumet's date for Constantine (fourteenth century) is too late.

THE MANUSCRIPTS OF THE EPINOMIS

173

Tetr. IX. Defj.. and S-P,P.,but the last three folios of the last quaternion have been torn off. It now ends with Axiochus 364 B 2 66oii

oc

affllll-.

Since O. in so far as the E. is concerned, is a copy of A. the corrections by the same hand (OC)are unimportant and will seldom be differentiated from the readings of 0. 0 1 Following the suggestion of Post we shall call 0 1 all variant readings and supplements written with a black ink different from that of O. above the line and without comment or mention of source. The hand is, according to Post, of the tenth or eleventh century and may in fact be the same as that of QC. However this may be, the readings of 0 1 most often have some authority behind them either in manuscripts or in the indirect tradition. 03 This hand supplied omissions, as A 3 did (cj. supra), used a reddish ink, and sometimes supplied variant readings in the margin introduced by the sign for ypaq,nai. Whether this hand is that of Arethas, as Lenz, followed. by des Places, contended, or not, as Post is inclined to think, is not important for us to decide. 08 is seldom to be seen in the E. O' A scribe, whose hand is to be dated in the tenth or eleventh century, which Post called O', edited the text thoroughly. He cites variant readings above the line or in the margin, introducing them by or as coming from the Patriarch's book (TI' and D,n-ypaq,nai, &AAa,xoii, TI), a possible reference, not to Photius, as some think, but to the fact that the manuscript so designated was in the Patriarchal library in Constantinople. Nor did this scribe hesitate to correct the text by erasure or by additions and corrections in the text itself. I find it impossible to follow des Places in his attempt to distinguish the hands of ()I and OC and consider it pref erable to ascribe to 0 1 all the variant readings given above the line without comment. It is quite likely that some of these are due to o•; but, since the task of distinguishing the hands is almost impossible and since it makes no difference for the constitution of the text, it simplifies the reading of the critical apparatus to know that when a variant is ascribed to 0 1 it means that no authority is cited, though this need not imply that there was no such authority for the reading in question. I do not see any evidence in the E. of the activity of 0 1 , a hand which des Places assigns to the fourteenth century. K Marcianus Graecus 1022 (own 188). (CJ. Zanetti et Bongiovanni, Gt-aecaD. Marci Bibliothecacodicum manu scriptorum, 107.) Being 1031. this manuscript descended from O through Vaticanus GrlUCUS is in itself unimportant, though a few of its conjectures or mistakes are mentioned. What is important is that this manuscript was corKC rected by a different scribe. whose corrections. following des Places, we shall call KC. (Post called it K1 .) Not all these corrections need be reported, however. K is an expurgated manuscript. for KC erased all the names of the planets given in E. g87 B Ifi., and substituted

174

PLATO, PHILIP

OF OPUS, AND THE EPINOMIS

for them other ancient names such as q,aiVv for Saturn, etc. These expurgations are probably due to the view of Nicephoros Choumnos that the planets should not be called by the names of pagan gods. 711 Nor is it necessary to report those corrections which eliminate mere mistakes by the scribe of K or those which introduce variant readings already in the margin and which ultimately come from 0. But corrections other than these must be reported. since in some cases at least KC has behind him readings of some manuscript (cj. Post, Vatican PlaJo, ro5-1o6). Other corrections by KC come from the indirect tradition, while a few are emendations of his. K• I designate as K1 the scribe of the supplementary quaternion which was inserted after the loss of that by K. This scribe did not have access to the lost quaternion of K with the corrections of KC. This is certain, since the readings of K 1 are not those of Z. The same K8 thing is true of K3, a hand which supplied the correct reading at E. 992 D 6, probably by conjecture; that is to say that this scribe cannot be identified with KC, since the lost quaternion of K cannot have been available to K 5• His reading at 992 D 6 is not found in Z, and those readings in Z which most probably come from KC are not to be found in K1 -K8 • Z Parisinus Graecus 3009. (CJ. Omont, Inventaire sommaire des manuscrits g,ecs de la BibliothequeNmionale,III, 89.) This manuscript, though only of the fifteenth or sixteenth century, is important for that part of K which is no longer extant, since Z is a direct or indirect copy of K-KC before the loss of the quaternion which contained E. 988 B r-992 E 1. There is evidence that Z did not always follow the corrections of KC (c/. e.g. 974 A 3 o AOZ: ov KC), but its readings must be reported where they differ from those of the various hands in A and in 0, since this manuscript is our only possible source for recovering the readings of KC for the last part of the E. There are also mistakes peculiar to Z, cf. e.g. 977 E 3 TtS' AO: ncn 0 1 et K: TOlS Z. A and Oare our best manuscripts, and my text of the E. is based on them unless otherwise noted; but they are not always right, for in addition to different kinds of mistakes they also present a number of omissions. Hence, the readings of AO should not be slavishly followed; but in each instance the correct reading must be decided after a careful consideration of all the sources, though the readings of AO are presumed right unless proved wrong. \Vhere AO must be followed is in the matter of spelling, for in this it is most probable that they are right as against the attempt of later scribes who tried to make uniform all the different spellings. It is therefore regrettable that Burnet and des Places always write avv- and avy- in cases where the manuscripts have ~v- and ~-. In fact the variation in the Platonic manuscripts between ~v-ovv and 711

CJ.Immisch. Phil. St. w Plato,

II, 78, n.

2.

THE MANUSCRIPTS OF THE EPINOMIS

175

~-ovy may well go back to Plato himself ,718 whom the author of the E. would follow in such matters, and are important in prose writers who paid attention to rhythm. I have also followed AO in the matter of v lcpeAxva-r1K6v and in that of final sigma (oOToo-oCrrCa>S), Moreover, because sometimes it is necessary to emend the text, it is better to follow the manuscripts, whose spelling is not uniform. In 0, 0 1 or O' has indicated expunctions of letters or words by dots below and sometimes above. I have reported these expunctions when they imply a different reading but have disregarded them where only the spelling is affected. Finally, in 973 B 4 I have written ropoµev with the manuscripts and not f)Vpopev,as Burnet and des Places did. The augment is found in contemporary inscriptions, 711 but this need not have been Plato's and the author of the E.'s practice. In any case, ev cannot be simply attributed to Byzantine pronunciation, since the scribes do write 'flV on some occasions, cf. e.g. 990 D 6 f)O~~vous; hence the spelling ev goes back to antiquity, and the manuscripts may well be right. (My quotations of the Platonic corpus other than those of the E., however, are according to Bumet's edition unless otherwise noted.) The four manuscripts described above I have examined by autopsy and also through photostats. My readings, in so far as they differ from the reports by des Places, may be seen from my discussion of des Places's edition -infra and more fully by comparing our respective editions. C/. also J. Kerschensteiuer, "Zum Gebrauch von avvund tvvbei Platon," St . .rur Sfwadwiss. 11 (1956), 28-,p. m Cf. Rutherford, The New Phrynu:hus, 244-245; Meisterhans, Gramm. der altischen Inschr.•, 171. 111

Mundnur

THE INDIRECT

TRADITION

To the indirect tradition of the E. des Places has devoted several studies; and, though some passages escaped him 715 and though he went too far in denying that Byzantine authors of the fourteenth century made use of the E., 716 he has thereby laid the foundations for the utilization of the indirect tradition in establishing the text of the E. The value of the indirect tradition is not very great, and its readings in accordance with the pratice of previous editors have seldom been adopted either by des Places or by myself. The indirect tradition, however, is useful in helping to establish the antiquity of a correction in our manuscripts of the E. From this point of view an author who does not cite the text verbatim or who does not even mention the E. by title (if it can be established that he in fact was making use of this work) may be of more importance than an author who does cite the actual text. Since some of the authors who cite the E. frequently pass from verbatim quotations to paraphrases or vice versa and since on both occasions they omit words, it is difficult in some cases to decide whether or not the author in question had in his text of the E. a reading different from that of our manuscripts or whether his text really omitted one or more words. To facilitate the task of the reader I have tried to be as explicit and as full as possible in my reports; but I have not considered it necessary to report variant readings in the manuscripts of an author who cites the E. unless there is serious doubt as to what precisely the author in question really wrote. I have considered it unnecessary to include in the indirect tradition as Specchia has done in his edition mere reminiscences by authors who may or may not be referring to the E. When such reminiscences are important to our understanding of the influence of the E. I have discussed them in the first part of this work or in the commentary itself. The value of the indirect tradition for the history of the interpretation of Plato has been discussed in chapter V suf>ra. 711

In g87 D 9-E 1, the passage of Photius pointed out by Einarson 1, 98, n. 3. In 987 C 3-6, the passage of Albinus which, though not a verbatim quotation, helps in establishing the antiquity of the reading Kp6vouin 987 C4. For des Places's contribution to this subject c/. the bibliography at the end of this volume. m C/. Sevtenko, La vie intelkctuelle d Byzanu, 83, n. 3, and the index, 321. These late Byzantine quotations and paraphrases are not important for the establishment of the text and I have therefore decided not to cite them. Moreover, Byzantine authors, such as Pacbymeres and others, often took their quotations from the indirect tradition itself.

176

MODERN

EDITIONS

Now that Post has succeeded in classifying the manuscripts of the E. 1 it is unnecessary to take into consideration the edition of Plato by Aldus (1513), the two Basle editions (1534 and 1556), and the Louvain edition of Minos, Laws, and E. (1531), since these editions depend on M arcianus Graecus 742 (olim 187) of the fifteenth century (N}, which so far as the E. is concerned comes from the Lau,entianus 85, 9, itself a copy of Lau,entianus Graecus 59, 1, which in its tum comes from 0. But as N was compared with K, many of the readings of K and KC were included not only in the editions mentioned above, but also in that of Stephanus (1578), i.e. the so-called vulgate. Stephanus's edition, however, must be taken into consideration because of his emendations, and for this purpose I have tried also to consult all subsequent editions of the E. as well as the most important translations of it. The translation by Ficino I have myself collated, but for the emendations which Cor• narius made in his translation I have had to rely on the report given by I. F. Fischer in his I. Corna,ii Eclogae in Dialogos PlatvKVo~vwv I~, Tpiq,ea.9a11xfii; ... Q;cuplaxc&v. Though the sentence is intelligible, this genitive absolute is not clearly separated from the one that precedes it. F. Miiller, 33 objects to the use of Titrro1.9a,a word which in Attic prose, he maintains, occurs only in two speeches for the dead in battle (Thucyd. II, 42, 4, and Plato, M enex. 248 A 7): but, since 11frro1.9ais poetic and probably for that reason is used in the two passages cited by Muller, there is nothing strange in its being used here. 1,10VTEV01,101is frequently employed by Plato to refer to a notion that has not yet been demonstrated, cf., e.g .• Charm. 16g B 4-5, Lys. 216 D 3--5, Re,p. 431 E 7-8. Thus the soul is said to possess the power to pro-

2r4

PLATO, PHILIP OF OPUS, AND THE EPINOMIS

phesy, cf. S ymp. 192 C 7-D 2, Phaed,us 242 C 6-J. A parallel to this passage of the E. occurs in Rep.505 D II-E 2 (about the good)~ 61' 6tOOXEI &,ltv&naaa 'flUX'l'i ml TOVTOV lvaca 'IT"0:17ra npch-m, cmo~VTEVO~Vfl TI elvat, 6:n-opovaa 6! t\IOVVTOOS lavT4> Afye1v.it is noteworthy that the adverb c,vµcpoov rn1.'I""· CJ.on 974 B 5-6 sub fin. 975 B 1-1 axdlr.,... ycc.>pyi«. Here X~ ;,,;:yfj. G. Miiller, Nomoi, n6 cites Laws 904 C ro as a parallel; but perhaps Laws 745 C I-2 (,iµve1v Tfiv TE ir6i.avClVlTI" ml iraaav niv x~v) is more appropriate. 97li B 6-7 a6 ... p.na:xcxcl(aloht. For the elimination of land-cultivation in general cj. Ref,. 428 C 8, where it is said about agriculture: ov~ Tl'lvvirip Tovmp1TOVTiisye~ b: Tiisyiist sc. O'OTl1v TE1CT6VGr.)V hrtO'iTjllfl,Ii -roov9,1A{VGr.)V O'l(.EVOOV hna-ni1,1ri,f\ -rov XaAKOV,and others such as these are not the sciences For the possession of these because of which the citywill be called aoq>11. things by primitive man, cf. Laws 679 A 4-B 3.

ffl B 7-8 fi 'fwv o~aewv ye ~uvvq>JI, Here 91vuq,11 is used metaphorically, and this according to F. Muller, 37 is un-Platonic. He suggests that the author is imitating C,itias 116 B 2-4 ml ToovolKo6o11ri11chwv Ta ~v OOTACX, TIX6! µe1yWVTES TOVSi\{SovslrOIKlAa vcpatvov,ra161as xap1v, where, however, the image of "weaving" is related to stones of different colors. Yet this image of "weaving houses" is poetical (cf. Aesch., P,om. 450-451 KOOTe Tri\1vSvq,ets 861,tovs,rpoo,:fAovsfjtcmv); and the verb vcpafVGr.) was already used metaphorically by Homer (cf. Il. 9, 93, etc.), as xal it is by Plato himself in Polit. 305 E 3-4, where he says of TrOA\Tilft>, on p. 68 this passage is compared with other Platonic passages. "C'c.i,'> This is usually taken to mean "wisdom;" since Toaoipov does not ordinarily have this good meaning in Plato (c/. Shorey, Rep. 11, 77, n. g), however, it would be possible to interpret, "hunting, ingenious and diversified though it is, does not confer nobility with the cunning (sc. that it does engender)"; but, since the author is searching for wisdom, it seems preferable to take TOaoipov in the former sense and to see in this usage a difference between the E. and Plato. 975

Supply aocpov6:v6pa Te1J.C'IJS tseAfaae1lnrepyaaaaSai from 975 B 3. µavr1xft and lp1,111mrr11anii[Ul µavnKfls lvSiov mi 6AT1Soiis, K"T'.A..). In Tim. 71 E 2-']2 B 5 Plato distinguishes the person who experiences irrational phenomena, which process is called l.l(lVTllC{t, from the interThe former is "out of his sense"; and, preter, whom he calls 1rpoq>rrrr1s. while the latter is not, what he "knows" is still based on an irrational experience, and consequently he cannot know whether there is truth in it or not. Plato maintains that one should not confuse the l,lavns with the 1rpocprrrr1s; and the functions of the latter are in Polit. 290 C 5 ascribed to the soothsayers, who are said to be lpµT)\l'E\n'Uf.For our author's conception of cosmic lp'1T)v1da cf. 984E-985 B. 975 C 7-8 w ... 11148-cv. F. Muller, 18 and 42, followed by Theiler, 34of. and Lier, 28-29, thinks this un-Platonic because the author disregards the fact that for Plato d6ba1 always means "to know the truth" and that he applies the antithesis ~1v--el~\1Cll to divination (c/. Af,ol. 22 C. Meno 99 C-D). The several attempts of Taylor•, 252-253, G. Miiller, Nomoi, 102, and Novotny to answer F. Muller's objections are not satisfactory. Nevertheless Plato does repeatedly disclaim and disregard the strict terminology that some interpreters attribute to him (c/. von Fritz, 2363, and p. 16 suf,,'a).

87S C 9-D 9 •o-r. . .. napq_C'nu. The necessities having been provided 610:-rixVTlS, consideration is next given the fine arts which are a kind of play, not serious enough to be considered wisdom. Art is not here attacked with the argument that, being due to inspiration, it cannot give wisdom (cf. on 975 C 6-8 supra). The description of it as a kind of play was precisely the result reached in the Republic after art was shown not to be based on knowledge (cf. 6o2 B. 6o8 A-B). and its treatment as "play" has a prominent place in the Laws. 87S D 1 hcpya~ol&MJ""• The participle of a deponent verb is seldom passive, but this is not unparalleled in Plato (c/. Phaedo 6g B x-2 ~vovpeva: TE ml ,rmpaO"K6µe\lCl, Soph. 224 A 3 ,nirpao,coµivriv [against Burnet's attempt to excise these words cf. Shorey, C.P. 8 (1913), 233-234]). 'ftMWV N rikp.kw. With TOVT6JV supply Twv TE)(~V from the preceding Ttxvris, which should not be emended. For a similar instance in Plato c/. Laws 88g D 2, where b\rrwv refers to TE)(ll&V, supplied from the singular ttXVflV in 889 C 6 (cf. England, Laws, II, 454 ad loc.). These "Ttxvaaare those that in 974 E r were called (hnO'Ti;µa1) avaytea16riara1 axeMv &A11.s6½ -re ttpCYrat.

COMMENTARY

225

975 D 2.7 -ro~- . .ywco,v. Taylor construes Ta-n 1(Cff(l A6yovsmi poucrav ircioav and the omitted antecedent of CXJ(.l)Vas internal accusatives of 1.npoii,rra1, and most interpreters follow Stallbaum and Burnet in putting a stop after 01TOV6afaand a comma after IJlllTIWlO'l"; but TaT£ m:raMyovs KTA.and xa\ (TaVTa)oooovKTA.seems to be the enumera• tion of the arts that are nai816: TtS and D 3-5 Tr01'Aots•.. µ1µ11µa01va µiv TO,r'Aelcrrov. parenthesis which explains IJIJ11')Tt1Cfl

975 D 2@3-ri Y•· . . cmou&l«. According to F. Muller, 18 this passage disregards the Platonic antithesis na161a-o-rrov61'i,since aM.' ovSaµij v &1fiTTlP (cf. on 975 D 2-7 sufrra). I would be TO:TE... Kal &rc.:,vypaq>11S; in Gorg. 463 D I-2 'Ii MTOptKJl is defined as 1T07'.LTtK1)Sµop{ov et6oo;\ov, because in a sense they both deal with justice, though rhetoric disregards what is good (cf. Gorg. 464 B-465 E, 499 Eff., Dodds' note on 463 E 5-466 A J, and Rep. 493 A-C). For the rhetorician masquerading as the true statesman cf. Aristotle, Rhetoric 1356 A 27-30. For the rhetorician in court as a "clever" speaker cf. Rep. 405 B-C and Theaet. 172 D-173 A. Though in Laws 7n E 2 we find Tij Tov Afy£1vpooµfJ,it is impossible in prose to take b as postpositive, with 6hca1s, as Lier, 33-34 wishes to do. The simple dative 6bca1s = "in trials" is unusual but not unparalleled in Attic prose, cf. [Xenophon], Pol. Ath. I, 5 lo-n 6t 1r6:Q'TJ yij TOj3EAT1CTT0v baVTiov Tij 6-rilJOxpaT[(j( (a passage which, p~e Stephanus and Kuhner*Gerth, I, 442, should not be emended). For the instrumental use of b cj. Garg.452 E 4-5 b Tm'.mJ -rij 6vvaµe1 = "in virtue of their power" with Dodds' note. 976 B 2-3 hoao, . .. ylyna&m.

976 B 3-t f.lWJl'll· . . mapt:o~,. CJ.the characterization of oq,orr011X'fiin Garg.501 A 7-B I: Tp1!3fjKal 4lm1pf~ 1,1.v{}IJ:f\V IW\JOVcr'-f)(oliVflTOV elCilScrrasyiyvea.9a1, which, as the context shows, applies to rhetoric also. CJ. Garg.463 B, 465 A-C (with Dodds' notes on 463 B 4 and 465 A 2-5), and Rep. 516 C g-D 2. There is no reason to emend the text; 66~s goes with Tp1!3ij,not with fi.9anv, as Post, 372 and Lier, 34 think. It is acquaintance with opinion that guides the rhetorician in his efforts to persuade (cf. Rep. 493 A 6-C 8), and 66~s is meant to be contrasted with &AnSE:las.

fiho,.., ffPOOexo~ m

compares this with Phaed,us 271 C 10-D 2 trre161)A6yov 6vvaµ15TVY)(OVEl \fN)(ayeuy{aovcra, T6v piAAO\rTQ MTOplkOVma.9a1 &:v~ el6!va1"VVX.11 00'0 £161') f}(EI; but the two passages should rather be contrasted, for the Phaed,us is describing the "philosophical rhetorician," whereas the E. is criticizing the "sophistic" notion of the rhetorician as the person who "knows the characters" of men. Thus, in Gorg. 484 D 6-7 Callicles says that those who pursue philosophy beyond a "reasonable" age ml av~fil361')vToovi'}SoovnaVTa1TQCJ'1V6:rretpol y(yvoV'TClt. 'IOiSv. Novotny

,mpt:affWV, With Kart00>1,1EV •.. 1Tf)OOTI1VSUpply -riJvhmm'u111v.Here the description of this hnCJTT)l,lf) is replaced by an indirect question; and so TaVTT"tV irpooTT)vis equivalent not to Tov-rO irpcZrrov,as Novotny maintains, but to Tm'..m-iv ,rpiZ>Tov. That the indirect question T{S••• d::v.9-pcl.mwv is not answered in 977 C 1-3, as Novotny thinks, is clear from that very passage (cf. 977 B g-C 3}. The answer is given in 976 E 1-3, which is the necessary complement to 976 D 5--8 (cf. on 976 D 5-E 4 supra and 976 E 1-3 infra). For this

COMMENTARY

233

method of "extraction" cj. also 977 C 1-3 and E :r-2. It is applied to arithmetic in Phil. 55 E 1-3 where n.b. olov 1raa6':w ,rou -rex~w 6:v TI~ &piSµflTlK'fl"' xoopiC.TJ XTA. --

fi d:vSpcom"'l q,vo,scj.

976 D 6 ix .. . &,~u.&oOau. For the periphrasis

on 973 A 4 su,p,a.There is no reason to emend SU!~ = "having passed entirely awayu; the author does use compound verbs to intensify the expression, and this is not un-Platonic. as F. Millier, 32-33 thinks it is (cj. on 984 D 2 infra). 976 D 7 'l'ii>v

wv mzpoucr&w. Sc.

ffllC"TTlJil1>V (cf. on 977 D 8-E I infra).

976 D 7-8 ~ ... &v&pwmar,,.Heidel, 73, n. 3 and N ovotn:y as a single phrase; but l.e;,ovis in the take l.cpovTOToov6:v.Spc.:rnwv predicate, the construction being lrVOf)T6Ta-rov ml 6:v from ii and understand "god himself or a certain TV)(ll." G. Muller does so to avoid the objection of Solmsen (Die Entwicklung der aristotelischen and -rux11is impossible for Logik, 138, n. 1) that the opposition of .9£6s the old Plato. But µci'AAavfi here means "rather than," since it is the author's contention that it is not chance or accident that has given us the knowledge of number but the god Uranos, a divine living being, who purposely does so (cf. 978 B 7-979 B 3 and 988 A 5-B 7). Nor is Solmsen's contention valid, for Platoneversaysthat.9Efa-rvx11istheonly ah[a TOO\I 6:ya.s&v. What he does say in the Laws is that the cause of all good things is the good kind of soul (cf. Bg6 D-897 C with 898 C-899 B) and that any perfectly good soul is a god (cf. note 159 supra), but he and Sefa "l"VXfl; and he nowhere restricts -nix.11to does not identify Set½: .Sda 1"VX11, as is implied by Solmsen's objection.

978 E 4-971 A 8

av... u6-rctt.F. Muller, 44 objects that 976 E 5-977 A

2 is a rhetorical question the content of which is already implied in 976 E 4-5, that it unnecessarily delays the naming of the god, and that, when finally the god is named in 977 A 2-4, the author again repeats the question. Taylor•, 281 and n. 1, in trying to answer these objections misunderstands the passage in the same way as F. Miiller did. The author asserts that it is necessary to state who this god is to whom we owe our salvation; but he is aware that he is introducing a paradox, and he introduces it as he did that in 973 B 7 ff., that is with the antithesis 6:-ro,rov.. ,OVI( 6:-ronov. As in 973 B 7-8 (cf. note ad loc.} he immediately adds the explanation of OUKliT01ToS,the clause TTiZ)s ... yry-ovtva1, which therefore is not merely a rhetorical question that repeats the previous sentence. After this, since he still has to mention the god and also ex• plain why this will seem 6:Toiros,he writes a question, 977 A 2-3, the purpose of which is both to return to 976 E 4, c!iv. •. XPTI, and to emphasize

COMMENTARY

235

the solemnity of the naming."'30 This god is Uranos, and it is 6:ronoS to mention him not because Megillus and Clinias are not accustomed to reflect on the question of the origin of number (Taylor) but because of the stories of Uranos's fate at the hands of Cronos (cf. Hesiod, Theog. r54ff., which became a commonplace, cf. Plato, Euthy,ph. 5 E--6A, etc.). As a consequence of such stories Uranos is not now honored by men and is not considered to be the supreme god. The whole point of the E. is that true piety, which consists in our knowledge of the god through astronomy, is the wisdom that will give us happiness (cf. 977 A 6-B 8, g88 A-B, 989 A--990B, etc.). Of all the commentators only Einarson 1, 95 saw that in 977 A 4 the author is contradicting traditional mythology. Plato also rejected the traditional stories about Uranos (cf. Rep. 377 E-378 B. Laws 886 B-E) but did so for different reasons, and he did not identify the supreme god with the cosmos as the E. does. It is this identification which is un-Platonic (cf. chapter I,/) and not 976 E 4-5 by itself as F. Muller, 23 thinks. '117 A 4-8 ax•MN . . -~Harward and Taylor supply a personal clause from the impersonal 6tK0.16-ro-rov,"Uranos, who has every right to the same honours to which all divinities are entitled." But the words ~ ~,ravns ... ..9eo( are in agreement with the omitted subject of the clause, "we men"; we should supply CJUTOV TIIJWO'las most interpreters do. ~µ1Tatrf'ES includes Cronos and Zeus. I cannot agree with Einarson 1, 95 in his interpretation that the gods are the stars and the Saf1,10ves are the gods of popular religion (cf. on 984 D 7-8 infra). This passage implies that the cosmos is the supreme god, since all the other gods honor and pray to him (cf. also 976 E 4-977 A 3 [the cosmos is the cause of all our goods including wisdom). g84 D 5--7, g86 A 8-D 4, g88 A 5-B 7, etc.); and we are enjoined here to do the same. The adverb 61acpep6v-rc,.>S modifies both TIIJOO'and evxeaSat.

m

A 6·B 8 -w... '"'loSov.

m

A 8-8

Here the preliminary investigation to discover the science that will give us wisdom comes to an end. The author develops 976 E r-977 A 4 and gives the main points of his answer to the question what is wisdom: it is the science of number that culminates in astronomy, and astronomy is the knowledge of the god cosmos when studied with his own gift of number. Thus we have number, astronomy, and piety, all of which will be discussed in the rest of the work. On piety cj. the previous note.

w . .. q.,cq&C'II.Notice the contrast between 1TO:VTES and 'i11JEts ye.

The latter's point is based on Tim. 47 A-C and explained in 978 B 8979 A 8. CJ.pp. 56-62 su,p,a. &oGvcl,M: if,l4 xul &p,&,u,v.Harward translates "(he) gave us number

as well;" but we should give its full value to &µa: the god gives us number ' 141Notice

~.

the use of 0tµuvvw1,1 and compare with Phileb. 28 B 't611O£O:VTOii Sti611,with Bury's note ad loc.

I

mµW\l&ISyap, &

236

PLATO, PHILIP

OF OPUS, AND THE EPINOMIS

at the same t-imethat he gives us all our other goods, cf. 977 B 1-6 and 979 A 6-8; the latter passage comes after the explanation of how we learn to count from the observation of the movements of the heaven]y bodies. 871 A 8-B 1 In .. . ~uvaxo~hiv. Not "et continuera de le donner" (des Places), but "and will give it in fuller measure" (Harward); Novotny ap•&AyE'(SwKEvbcrJ~)..cs-1}61 hi. &bat1. cites Homer, Il. 1, g6 -rovVEI" ®'pa iraaas 6te~66ous-Thus in Laws 897 B

PLATO. PHILIP OF OPUS, AND THE EPINOMIS

238

7-8 ir00711s Ti'\s,rep166ov also means "the revolution of the whole universe," cf. 897 C 4-5 t, ovinraaa ovpavoii 66bs 6'1Q 1Tta KC1l mp1TTcx6vvaµevos yiyVv vvvmxpovawv. For existential sh,ci1with tav cf. Parm. 135 B 5-6 Ef yeTtS.•• siriMau ef6TlToov 6v-roovelven. The author admits here, and not in 974 D 3--976 C 6 as Post thinks, and only for the sake of the argument, that all the Ttxva• are really Ttx_va1,i.e. that they are based on knowledge. Some may deny this altogether, and the author himself denied it e.g. in the case of agriculture in 975 B 5-7 and of the ~.9£10 of 975 E r-976 B 4.

-rexvas.

fY17E 1 o66l 'TOO'rW" h o65r.i p.ivc,. The repetition in distributive

form

of the subject enunciated in D 7-8 produces a slight anacoluthon. cmo:>..lnnm.= "eliminated." The sense is unusual, and Harward refers to Tim. 19 A 9 and Laws 724 A 3 where the passive participle of a,roAEhrwhas the sense "left out."

m E 2 &p,&p.l)'T~"· This refutes F. Miiller, 64, who because of 990 C 5-S says "Der Name der Arithmetik wird iiberhaupt vermieden." ffl E 3·978 B 8 ~e:w ... nap«ffll\l,This paragraph develops 976 E 5-977 A 2: number is the cause of all that is good, and of our greatest

COMMENTARY

good wisdom and happiness. The crux lies in the text, punctuation, and interpretation of 977 E 5-978 A 2. In 978 A I we must read 4v TlS instead 6:vTlS is of l,laVTIS, which gives no reasonable sense in the context. -rras also supported, as des Places saw, by the proverb in Iamblichus, De Myste,iis III, II, 124 (II2, 16-17 [des Places]) ovd-r av,15'KOl 61a TaVTa, ,') Tfisµ1~ 1«Jt fpovtl-1(.l)TcnTIS lMSf01sKal TO,)VJ.LETOev xp6vooval 61x0Toµ(a1. .... So are 1T'ClllOtA1)v6s any number of days can be a mpfo6cs and particularly the fifteen days of the waxing moon or the fifteen days of the waning moon. The whole of E 2-3 means then: "and this (i.e. this group of fifteen days and nights) is a period, if anyone desires to consider the whole single cycle {i.e. the full cycle from new moon to full to new) as one," i.e. the group of fifteen is one, one ,Period,even if someone should say that the thirty days of the full cycle is what is one, for the latter is one whole cycle but the fifteen days are still one. (I owe this interpretation to Professor Chemiss.) In this passage as well as in 990 B 5--6the author is probably criticizing the customary Greek division of the month into three parts. The true astronomical division according to the author is into two parts. -rO\Ix6x>.ov m 6).°" •~ h -n&hcu. CJ. Tim. 39 C 3-4 µsis S! m-e166:v 0'£Afl1111 mp1eMovoa Tovlmnfis'KlA°", ot,. For this shift from the singular to the plural cf. on 975 A 2-4 suf,ra.

cpucnv.C/. on 978 C 1-2 swfrra. 6 ~-

C/. on 978 C 5 supra.

978 E 5 &U\Hlw~

•I""'·CJ. swjwa on 978 C 3-4

sub fin.

978 E 5-8 xul f'CXPLf'rtl TOUflaNu xul Iv TOU'tOU.•"And up to these,"

mvm«l(Sa«1 flµei.e. individual numbers up to fifteen (cf. 978 E 1-2 J.IEX.Pl poovl((ll \1\/KToov),"and in these," sc. numbers. It is unnecessary to take AvTOUT01sto refer to night and day (Einarson 1 , 95) or to the sun and the moon (Novotny). 979 A 1 d xu&' ,-...e1.6woxonoOv. Harward refers Ka-9'§v to l.l{>a and takes TO with C1, cf. 980 B 7-8, Meno 94 B 7-8, P1'ot.314 C 7-8, and Kuhner-Gerth, II, 351-352. 979 A 4 11iivmc; n~ """' h\czU"«>\I~uvErrn')aa-n,. For the importance for the state of arranging the days into a month, and the months into a els µf}vwv year cf. Laws 771 B and 809 D, where n.b. ftµepoovTO:~CA>S mpa66ovs l((ll 1,111voov els hcaa-TovTOvlv1cnrr6v.

979 A 5 x«l 1'C6.vtu . .. ~\WO-f)&Y. This sentence is awkward, for the subject of fip~ cannot be the same as the subject of ~VEUTT)O'O'TO in the previous line; it is not the god but men who began to have a comprehensive view of number. It is likely that there is something wrong with the text here; but none of the emendations proposed is satisfactory, and I have therefore followed Stallbaum and others in taking n6:VTo.as = all the animals with the capacity neuter plural to be the subject. mXV"Ta to learn number (cf. 978 E 4-6).

COMMENTARY 979 A 5-6 riklJ,LOVLwxn• This is equivalent to Se{a TVX.1'1· The former combination of words does not occur in Plato, but the author of the E. makes a similar substitution once more in 992 D 2 where Ta,-oO 6a11,1ov{ov = TaTwv .9e6'lu.Lier, 48 considers ev6afµoov-rux11un-Platonic. The closest thing to it in Plato seems to be Tim. 25 E 4 6011,LOv(oos k TI\IOSTV)(ftS.

The author once more emphasizes that by turning the heavenly bodies the god gives us number together with our other goods (cf. 976E 3-977 B 8) and that in doing so the god is the cause of good only, cj. 978 A 4--6; "man is endowed with intelligence, and it is for him to use it in selecting his environment. If he makes mistakes, he must take the consequences" (Harward). CJ. Rep. 612 E-613 A. 979 A 6-B 3 6La ... J!lov.

979 A 6 61.«Sc -mu&-'.Tau-ra refers to the revolutions of the outer heaven, the moon, and the sun; the relations that exist between them, and to their periodical repetition. which, bringing about the seasons, produce rain, etc.

There is a zeugma here. With KOpiro( we should supply yeyavacn from the following ytyoveu. So Taylor•, 280 in answer to F. Muller, 43. who cites this passage as an example of awkward junctures which he considers to be un-Platonic. 979 A 6-7 l)p.iv . .. ylyo~.

979 A 8 OffG:>v. This

vncs

seems to be the only occurrence of in the Platonic corpus. The word is used by Homer and in prose by Antiphon, Xenophon, and Aristotle, cf. L.S.J. s.v. 979 B 1-3 o-6 .. -~lov. For periphrases with q,va15cf. on 973A 4 supra. We have here a 1«nacruvecnvconstruction, for the pronoun oohC:rv supposes that TflV 6:u..9pCu1TiVf1v cpvow is equivalent to TOVS av.Sp&rrovs (cf. also on g82 E 3--6 infra). 6 "Hp.tv... Atil3Eiv.This is a new paragraph and not part of the preceding one, as Stallbaum and Burnet among others thought. 979 B 3.n

With this paragraph the first part of the dialogue comes to an end. For this first part of the dialogue cf. on 973 A 1-979 D 6 sufwa. The train of thought here is as follows. The 6'o\j-v in B 3 is resumptive and indicates that the author comes back to his main theme, wisdom. He begins by referring to the Laws and to the earlier part of the E. (973 A 1-B 6) in order to state anew the problem of wisdom. The essential problem of the Laws was how to make men good; for only perfect goodness can insure happiness. The other goods are easy to know and to obtain, but virtue is difficult. And it is difficult because wisdom is diflicult, as is shown by the fact that there is no agreement as to what wisdom is. For everybody agrees that the soul must be good and that to be good it must be courageous, temperate, just, and wise; but there is no agreement in regard to the problem of wisdom, as we saw when we reviewed each of the sciences which, though called wisdom, do not make wise and happy

252

PLATO, PHILIP

OF OPUS, AND THE EPINOMIS

the man who possesses them. We then went on to find a wisdom, different from the others, which seems to be what we are looking for, that is the science of number which culminates in astronomy (cf. 976 D 5-977 B 8). But we still have to prove that this is truly wisdom, i.e. we must deter• mine by means of philosophical argument whether this wisdom will make a man truly wise and happy, for the mere appearance of being wise is not sufficient to insure happiness (cf. 979 D 2-6 with 976 C 8-g and note ad loc.). On wisdom as the question which according to the author of the E. was left open in the Laws cf. pp. 64-66 supra. 979 B 3-D 2 "Bp.i-.,... 1t0llciw. This passage reflects the tripartite classification of goods into property goods, bodily goods, and goods belonging to the soul, which is used throughout the Laws (cf. 6g7 A-B, 743 E, 870 B, etc.). It is already implicit in 631 B-C where the goods are said to be of two kinds, human and divine, the latter being the four virtues mentioned in 979 C 7-8; among the four virtues wisdom is the supreme good. CJ. further Gcwg.477 A-C and Shorey, Plato, 629 on Laws 6g7 B. 979 C 3-D 2 repeats and develops 979 B 3-C 3. 979 B 3-7 •~tv .. . iujA,q,ipov. This reference to the Laws is general and

cannot be traced back to any definite passage; as is clear from C 3-5, TO:@Ji.a refers to property goods and to goods that belong to the body, and the general implication of such passages as Laws 631 B-C etc. is that those goods are easy to obtain, because, our author would add, in such cases it is relatively easy for everybody to know what is and what is not beneficial; in contrast, virtue is difficult because wisdom is difficult and reserved for the few.

owT;11wuaLvffEpl vop.wv. According to

F. Muller, 19, the use of mpf TIVOSwith t-riTdv is un-Platonic, for Plato uses the accusative instead. Taylor 1 , 254 cites Plato's use of l.frrflO'tSwith mpf TlVOS:, This construction is at any rate good Attic Greek, cf. Dinarchus I, 8 (l.rintv mpl TOOV acpavwvl«ll ~.mfkiv. Here comes to an end the preliminary investi-

gation that began in 976 C 7ff. There it was said that we have to find a wisdom, different from the so-called hr1a-rfiµa1, which will make us truly wise; and here a provisional answer to this question is assumed to lf6:pE~TOOVElpflµbuw have been given, cf. 976 D I htpav (sc. hrtO'TT)l,JTl\l) evpelvwith 979 D 2-3 VV\IOV\I6f\ 1TOpO: lfo:aas TCISnp6aSev aoq,tasovcpavi\11vTIVCX 6:vevpla1xctv. CJ. on 973 C 8-D I supra. The position of 6:µa is due to

hyperbaton, since it belongs to aplO"l'TlS TE xal KaAAIO'T'llSFor a similar hyperbaton in Plato cj. Tim. 19 E 5-6, where &µa belongs to cptAOa0Cpu)v xal ,ro1'.1T1xl1w (cj. Taylor, Comm. on Tim., ad toe.).

1J...

980 B 7-8

Tlf'Wf"'o'•

For 6oxoofollowed by the finite verb cf. on

979 A 2-4 supra. 980 C 2 n:Lcn~ -ro~ ho1' wxou,F. Muller, 15-16 objects that ,rio-m,oo has here a definite religious meaning whereas in Plato "es ist stets auf ein sachliches Objekt bezogen oder beziehbar." From his objection it appears that Miiller took Tots Seots with TI'to-miaas; but Tots .9eotsgoes either with while TTtCT'TWaaS: is taken absolutely, or with both 1 mOTEVO'aS' and eOx,ov(cf. Taylor , 251-252). I prefer the former alternative.

evxov

Pavlu, 29 and nn. 1 and 2 thinks that i.6you in C 3 refers to the Laws and proposes consequently to emend the text. TOY fp1tpoaBut the Laws is referred to in g8o C 9 with the words KaTO: Sev >.6yov, whereas TOVhn6VTa ao1 A6yov means "the speech that comes into your head," just as hniva1 Afyl:w Jlµlv in g8o B 9 means "(praying) that it come into our heads to say ... ". Ast proposed to understand Myc.:,v after 1'6yov ToovKOA&v;but, though this use of the 980C2-3Uyc

.. ,h'c.

258

PLATO, PHILIP OF OPUS, AND THE EPINOMIS

partitive genitive is, pace H. Muller, Platonic (cf. L(lU)s907 B 1). it seems preferable to take TCi>V Kai\oovas an objective genitive after Myov (cf. A,Pol. 26 B 8-g, Laws 678A 3-4, Xenophon, C~op. VI, iii, 10); the meaning is " ... the speech that occurs to you concerning the beautiful things about the gods and the goddesses." That mpl TOIJ5 .9eoo, = "de diis" is guaranteed by mpl ooiToovin 980 B g. 980 c 4 it'll e1.~

The special significance that the author attaches to this traditional formula is clarified in 98g D 3-6 (cf. note ad loc.), though its meaning was already anticipated in 977 A 8B 8. Since this god is the cosmos, the addition of mh6s, which Ller, 52 considers un-Platonic, is explained. 6 &E~ 'fip.l..,6cp')~TCIL,

980 C 5 ~uwuxou µ,dvo'II. For such preliminary prayers cf. Tim. 27 B-D, Laws 893 B. etc.

This is the theogony and zoogony proper, i.e. the author's theory of living beings. the most important result of which, that the heavenly bodies are divine living beings of supreme intelligence and wisdom, leads in the next section to the conclusion that piety is wisdom and that the true astronomer is the wise man (cj. 988 E 5-990 B 4). On the "theogony" as a whole cf. chapter II, c. 980 C 7•988 E 4 &coyovi«v . ..

TOU&OTCI.

980 C 7-981 B 2 8toyovlaiv ... Na.l. This passage is a resume of the tenth book of the Laws (885 B-907 B), which will constitute the basis for the new account of living beings. 980 C 7 8coyovluv ... wa.l l';tpoy0\l'lc:n1. F. Muller, 25-26 thinks this expression un-Platonic because (~ov(a, which does not occur in Plato, is joined to .Seoyovfa to designate the doctrine of the author himself, whereas .9eoyov{a is used by Plato only in Laws 886 C 3 to designate the theogonies of the poets which Plato rejects. But .9eoyov[a ICCX\ (ct>Oyov[ais equivalent to 977 E 5--6 To .Sdov Tf\s )'EVEO'EGl>S Kal TO.9VflT6v, and yeveais is probably meant metaphorically, since the author is not interested in the "generation" of living beings or of the gods (cf. pp. 82-85 supra}. The adjective (CfK>yevfis occurs at Polit. 3og C 3; (Cf>Oyovfa is used also by Theophrastus, De Causis Plantarum, V, 9, 3.

980 c 8-9 KCDCw, ... >..oyo-.,.Previous accounts are wrong, according to the author, because they were based on the notion that body is prior to soul and rules it, c/.983 C 6-g, 988 C 1--8(the latter passage is directed also against the theogonies of the poets); consequently, his account will be based on the priority of soul to body (cf. 980 D 6-g81 A 5), which, as KaTa -rov fµ,rpocr.9EvA6yov and 980 C 9-D 7 show, the author assumes to have been demonstrated in the tenth book of the Laws (cf. 885 B-,go7 B). TOV (µ,rpocr.9Ev°A6yov,then, does not refer to g8o A 8-g as Novotny says it does: cf. also on 980 C g-D I infra. From the fact that fµ:rrpoa.9ev first means "in the past" and then "in our previous (discussion)" F. Muller, 57 infers that this passage is un-

COMMENTARY

2 59

Platonic, whereas Taylor 1 , 298 thinks this repetition proof that the E. is an unrevised draft. But neither inference is justified. The author's repetition of lµ1rpoa.9Ev is an instance of the unconscious use of a single word in two senses which is frequent in almost all writers. am11L. According

to F. Muller, 10-n, this is un-Platonic because Plato never uses the word and, when he uses ,rapaµ.u.9£la.9a1and the nominal forms, he does so to refer only to relations between men, whereas in referring to the relation between man and god he always adds a complementary expression. 6:rrapaµu.SflTOS' here, however, is used in the same sense as 6::rrapa{Tfl'TOt in Laws 907 B 6 (i.e. "inexorable"), the adverb arrapa1,1v.Strrwsoccurs at Laws 731 D 3, and Plato does use anrapapv.S,,T05 (cf. Laws 885 B 8 and 888 C 6-J)in a similar context. CJ.further Taylor 11, 241. 980 D 6-5 d ... fflfOP,~~'ffl. The words ~6:f3ETE vrroµvruxrra are frequently taken to mean "you took notes." This is not impossible, but to express this notion Plato uses typa~IJf'JV woµvf11mTa (c/. Theaet. I4J A I, Polit. 295 C 4) .. The words here mean rather "you have received a written account," cf. [Plato], Epist. XII, 359 C 6-D I V1Toµvt'n1a-ra ... 1 AA6:f3oJ.&Ev = "I have received the treatises" (cf. Einarson , 9I, Novotny ad loc.). Though there is in the Laws no indication that the discussion there is being written down, it is possible that the author of the E.

260

PLATO, PHILIP

OF OPUS, AND THE EPINOMIS

wrongly drew such an inference from some passages where reference is made to the "codification" of the "laws" or to the inclusion of the interlocutors' discussions in a future anthology which will provide the law-maker with a pattern for the education of children (cj. Laws 811 C-812 A, 890 E-891 A, 968 D 5-6 and on this last passage cf. note So here probably because in the sup,a). The author used VTl'OIJVfll,.IQTQ Phaedrus all writing is said to be a "reminder" (cf. 274 Eff., and n.b. q>apl,lCDCov, 276 D 2-4, etc.). Hence, we must give 275 A S VTTOl,lVT}aE~ its value to 1S, which our author employs in the next line, but he fails to notice that here 6noos, besides the repetition, would have produced hiatus too.

'f'VXT\ is un-Platonic cf. on

For the purpose of this word here cf. on 982 B 5-C 5 su,p,a. In Tim. 59 B 4-5 the 6:6(Xµ(JS is described as XPVaov6! 6(oS, 6ux 1TVK116TT1TO cncAflpataTovov ml µe).av.siv; and, though it is not clear what precisely Plato meant by ad.amant, he could hardly have considered it to be diamond (cf. Cornford, 251-252). 6:~.

882 O 3 4p.nuo-rpoq,w-rcpo'Y. F. Muller, 20 thinks that this comparative is un-Platonic. But cf. pp. 15-18 with note 56 sujJf'a. 982 C 8 -roGvouvfxcLv.

CJ. on

g82

B 5-C I and 982 B 7-C 2 su,p,a.

982 C 8-7 aU"C'pa-n: xcd !;up.ffllCRIY 'MOT1J" '"I" &u1tn:opdav. The author emjust as phasizes that the heavenly bodies and their motions possess \IOVS, in two other places he points out that they are all divine (c/. 984D 6-8 with note on 984 D 7-8, 986 B 3--6 and note ad loc.) For ~111taaav ... -rliv61Cl1Topefcx11 cj. 977 B 8 iraaav TT'ivmplo6ov and note ad loc.

982 C 7 &us.nopd4v.The word 61arropda, an abstract noun used here in a concrete sense, is employed by Plato in Critias 106 A 2 of the course of an argument. It occurs once more in the E. at 984 E 3 where it is used in a different sense both from 982 C 7 and from the Critias. In 982 E 4 the author employs iropEfa, and Plato himself uses nop1:fa to refer to the movement of the heavenly bodies (c/. Polit. 274 A 4-5 @i.Aa Ka.9amp Tepx6oµ~ irpoaETrnllC'Tocnrro1Cp6:ropcx ElvatTfisCXOTov iropdas). Lier, 61 objects to the use of the preposition; but cf. on g84 D 2 infra. 982 c 8-D 1 &uup.acnlrv. .. kov. Another case of hyper baton TWO

=

xp6vov

.9cxvµacrrovOO'OV.

982 D 1-2 clU' ... npinov. There is an anacoluthon here, the participles being in the singular though they refer to 6-o-Tpa;they are in the singular, just as irpirn-E, in C 7 is in the singular though its subject is &npa !! Kal ... -n')v 6tarrope{av, because the stars are subsumed in their single, unified procession and it is this unified revolution of all the heavenly bodies that is thought of as a single uniform thing.

COMMENTARY 982 D t o6 ... Xtifldi.This seems to be the only occurrence of &JETaf:\ovAEVOpa1in the Platonic corpus. Intensification by means of a compound

verb is not un-Platonic (cf. on g84 D 2 infra). Moreover, the adverbs 6:VCiJ ml 1echooare also used by Plato with compound verbs with IJFTO(cf., with Stallbaum's note, Phaedo 96 B I, and Novotny ad loc.). This

answers the objections raised by F. Muller, 31. 982 D 2-3 ~iahL. Apparently a &n-at Aey6',Evov,which specifies the hypothetical "wandering" of the planets as a change of orbits; cf. Laws 822 A 7-8, where each planet 1.1,lav (sc. 656v} &ElK\llQ\6-) 61E~PX£Tal. 982 D 8-'7 "C"OO&' •• • cpopcr.1,.According to F. Miiller1 , 3o6 this passage is

at variance with the Laws, for there the many admit only that the movements of the heavenly bodies are voluntary and disordered, whereas here it is the regular motion of the heavenly bodies that leads iroAAOfto the conclusion that they are lifeless. But this is mere misapprehension. In Laws 821 A-822 C when the Athenian Stranger refers to the general ignorance about the true paths of the planets he is addressing two ignorant old men who do not know even that the evening and the morning stars are one and the same. In book X it appears that they have never heard of the doctrines of the materialists (886 B 1o-C 1), and yet it is implied and said there that the adherents of these doctrines are many (c/. 888 E 1-2). In book XII it is clearly implied that the materialists already knew the true paths of the planets and from this concluded that the heavenly bodies are lifeless because they were ignorant of the true nature of the soul; and many believe that astronomy is conducive to atheism (c/. g66 D 9-967 D 2). Similarly the objections that Lier, 61 raises are based on misinterpretation of T01S 6:q,poo,.in D 5, who are not identical with the people referred to in D 3 (= 'TOirAi;.$osof D 5) but with the materialistic philosophers of Laws g66 E-967 D. 982 D 3-t fl)Q&' ... fx~mi1. Des Places accepts the manuscripts' irpcrrretv,

but his translation ("a savoir que, faisant toujours exactement les m~mes mouvements, ils n'avaient pas d'lme") implies the participle ,rpo:rrov. Novotny too keeps the reading of AO, and takes 6-n ... irpcrrretv to be the subject, ~uv the predicate, the copula mfv having been omitted. It is interesting to note that KCwith the changes he introduced construed the sentence in the same way as Novotny proposes to do: "This, the very opposite, has been the opinion of most of us, that to do the same things and in the same way is not to have a soul." (Post. The Vatican Plato, 105 misrepresents the reading of KC. K originally had the same reading as AO; KC added T6 s.v. before -ra, and mlv after fxen1. z. which is a copy of KC,has the same reading, 6TI -roTaOVTC:xal c:»avT~ irparrelv 'tJUX.flV OVIC ~e1v to-rlv. Post misinterpreted the ligature of e1vin ,rparre1v, and this has misled Lier, 61 and IIJ, n. no.) Novotny's interpretation though possible is improbable for two reasons: (a) it is unlikely that the author would have omitted here both the article and lo-rfv, and (b) the subject in D 4 must be the heavenly

PLATO. PHILIP OF OPUS, AND THE EPINOMIS

272

bodies, which are also the subject of irpirt-n1 in C 7, and not the general notion of doing the same things and in the same way. The author began by stating that the fact that the heavenly bodies move always in the same way should be considered to be the greatest proof of their being alive and intelligent (982 A 7-B 5), for to do always the same thing is the necessary result of the soul's perfect intellection of what is best (982 B 5-C 5); and this was at once applied to the heavenly bodies which always move in the same orbits (g82C 5-D 3). The very opposite of this, which is the opinion of the many who follow the materialists. is that precisely because they do the same things and in the same way the heavenly bodies do not have a soul; hence the divine (i.e. the heavenly bodies) lacks intelligence, since it remains in the same motions (982 D 4--7). Stephanus's emendation (irptrrm) should therefore be accepted. TOVTO refers forward to 'IN){f\V OVKfxetv, and av-ro ,-ovvanfov is in apposition with it: "This, the very opposite, has been the opinion of most of us, that because they do always the same things and in the same way they do not have a soul." (Novotny's contention that the usage of the Laws and the E. would lead us to expect hrd or hrea6f} instead of 6-n is not a reason why one should abandon this interpretation.) 982 D 4-7 oG-rw... q,apa1'.In D 5 oos == OOCTTe (c/. Laws 798 B r, 806 B 3 with England, Laws II, 279). tipcw. Sc . .9e6s(cj. on 983 B 2-3 swjwa}. On &\I6ta\l0cf. 982 B 7-C 5.

983 B 6 ••'"· The meaning here is "to set in motion," "to cause with Shorey, something to move"; cf. Tim. 4,8 A 7 (~ cptp£1vfflvmc;and TVX,T\ are primary causes and 'Tf)(VTl secondary (888 E-889 A); cf. the subsequent resume of the doctrines of the materialists in 889 B 1-E 2. CJ.also 889 E-890 A, 891 C, etc. By hyperbaton Ttvac; and aoo1.urr(,,)V go with pvl,ICtc;, not with ahfas as des Places takes them.

983 c 7 ~~- The explanation given by the scholiast, ~vµas. 6p1,1~ ~•afac; (382 [Greene]) is, I think, insufficient. The author is thinking of a vortex both as the starting point of the cosmogonical process and as the force that carries the heavenly bodies. Such notions played a significant role in most Presocratic cosmogonies: cj. Empedocles 31 A 49 and 31 B 35, 3-4 (vol. I, 292, 27-31 and 326, 32-327, I [Diels-Kranz]), Plato, Phaedo 99 B 6-J,Aristotle, Phys. 1g6 A 24-28. De Caelo 295 A 7ff., Heidel, C.P. 1 (19o6), 279--282. For the Presocratics this rotatory motion is mechanical, whereas ,Percontra for the author of the E. the

276

PLATO. PHILIP OF OPUS, AND THE EPINOMIS

rotatory motion of the heavenly bodies is itself proof of their being intelligent and alive, cj. g82 B I-E 5.

CJ. on g83 C 7-9 supraand Laws g6'J C 2-5 'TOyap61'} lTpOTWV6ppchwv, iravra aO-rols tq,6:vri,TO:Kaf 1 ovpavov cpep6µeva,µEOTO: Elma At9c.:,vta AaJ3clH1 Kai avµ,rA1)p~ls 66e 611,1Evo\.l, as Bekker and others propose, because it gives the wrong sense. The real difficulty is the meaning of 61opcl>µsvov. Most critics take it to mean "transparent," but this is at the very least unparalleled and probably impossible. The author must mean that the etherial and aerial creatures are invisible. This is clear from E 4-5 napov ... y(y\1£a.9at and can also be inferred from the characteristics of the other living beings: the fiery and the earthy kinds are both visible (cf. e.g. 982 A 5--7), while the living being constituted predominantly of water is sometimes visible and sometimes invisible (c/. g85 B 6-C 1). This being so, it seems best to accept the reading of KC, 06 even if it is a mere conjecture. The confusion of v and v is not a difficult one. Novotny's objection that ov61op&,1,1Evo\.l would turn 06 'KCl'Ta8flAO\I fiµlv y{yvea.S01into a tautology has no validity, for 11"ap611 is concessive : they are both invisible; indeed, even when they are close by, they do not become visible to us. Thus we can only come into contact

COMMENTARY with them in one of the ways described in g.85C 1-5, none of which is aacp!s(cf. 985 C 8). The verb 61op&vcommonly means "to discern," "to perceive" (Plato, Rep. 519 A 3 and Laws 773 D 4-5; Isocrates, Nicocles 16 [29 EJ and Panegyricus II [43 A]; Lucian, Hermotimus 758 = I, p. 347, I [Jaco(passive) means "undiscemed," "unperceived" bitz]), and so ov61opcb1,.1Evov or "imperceptible."

l'WJ~•

Einarson 1 , 93 thinks that this expression is to be interpreted in the light of the etymology 6alµoov = 5cn'iµColv in Grat. 3g8 B 5-C I. So Calcidius had already interpreted it (cj. pp. 159-160 supra); but the author is referring here to the etherial and aerial creatures and the latter are not called damwnes (cf. on 984 D 8-E I supra). Moreover, Plato refers the notions of a,µa.Sfis and µviJµColvto the philosophic nature, and so too does the author of the E. in 989 C 1-3 (c/. on 976 B 5-C 6, B 7-C 3 swfrra and on 98g B 4-D 1, B 4-C 3, and B 8--C3 infra). Consequently their use here is not necessarily due to the etymology of the Cratylus. We should notice that these characteristics and the very fact that the etherial and aerial creatures know our thought imply that they acquire knowledge, whereas the gods do not acquire knowledge, because they already possess it (c/. on 985 A 6-7 infra). 985 A 1-2 he y~

&Im&c6µ.u&o0i'"xul

985 A t-51-.. lUfflJc.f,1,ffqOYTClt f>&1J.In the scale of living beings we go from the most perfect, the heavenly bodies, to the least perfect, all the terrestrial animals. So, the creatures which occupy the second and the third positions in the cosmos are already subject to feeling, i.e. pleasure and pain (c/. also des Places 4 , 323). 985 A 5-8 h~

. ..

ft&ovflc., It is unseeemly for a god to experience pleasure

and pain (cf. Phil. 33 Band Laws 792 D with England, Laws II, 245). Seta. µolpa is the same as .9£la qivms: (cf. Critias 120 E r 1')"tou.9sov q.,vats: and 121 A 8-9 fi TOV µolpa). Since the aqueous creature is 1'111l.9E:ov and since it is said here that (only) god possesses the perfection (-riAos) of divine nature, the author seems to believe that the etherial and the aerial creatures are divine but not perfectly so. The perfect divinities are the heavenly bodies, since they are the greatest gods (cf. 984 D 5--8).

.9eov

985 A 8-7 wu . . ·l'"C"'-TJqNYCIL. God knows everything, so that he need not learn: cf. Lysis 218 A, Symp. 204 A, Phaedrus 278 D 3--6, Laws 901 D 2-5 (cited in note on 984 D 6), 902 A-B, 902 E 7--8. 985 B 1 ,cul. . . ycy~. ~µirA,'ipf)S: is used here for intensification, cj. F. Muller, 32. This is the only time ~Jl1TAflP1lS: occurs in the Platonic is used by Plato and occurs in two corpus, but the verb 9,1µ1r?l:r1p6w passages to which 985 BI is related: Symp. 202 E 6, where it is said of TO 6a1µ6vo1v,b ~ 61 ovaµq,o-rtpS ~flAOVS show that the author failed to grasp the "Anschaulichkeit" of the Platonic conception of daemon; but Muller's criticism diverts attention from the fact that Trpos alhfi).ovs is appropriate here because there are two intermediate kinds of living beings, whereas in the Symposium there is only one, and that the middle with Trf)OS: aAATlAOVS indicates not personal interest, as Muller thinks, but reciprocity (Novotny), since the messages go from the aerial to the etherial creatures and vice versa. cannot be TO~ 6af1,10vas(Ast) and even The subject of !flS111vrueaSa1 less ir&:v-ras(Novotny), but the subject is still the same as that of 984 E 3ff., i.e. the etherial and the aerial creatures. Nor does irav-rasgo with Seou5:, as Theiler, 343 appears to think, but refers to men, "interpret all men and all things to one another and to the highest gods" (so also with a personal object is unusual and I have des Places). ip1,111vevea.S0:1 been unable to find another example of it. 202

(cf. also on 984 E 2-3). F. Muller, 18-19 maintains

985 B 3 u l,liac1"t'wv ~~- In favor of Taylor 1 , 254, who would include

the denizens of water here, is the fact that in 984 B 4 TaTpfa TO:µ.ea-a TiZ>v irtVTE refers to the etherial, aerial and aqueous creatures; hut, whereas in g.84B-C the author had foremost in mind the cosmic order of the five kinds of creatures here it is the etherial and aerial creatures' functions that are being described, and it is they who are the subject of lp1,111vroea.$a1 in 985 B 1 (cf. the previous note). The functions of the denizens of water have not yet been mentioned; and, though it is possible that they also may act as interpreters, nothing specific is said in the E. to this effect, just as it is not said either that they know our thoughts, as the etherial and aerial creatures do. Moreover, it is implied in 984 E 4-5 that the etherial and aerial creatures can come close to us, and in 984 E 1-2 it is said that the mid.aq,P4.. . fn)1,1n. For Di.aq,p6s= "agile," "nimble" cf. Laws 795

E 3. ~1$1'\, which in 983 C 7 was used in the sense of "vortex," means "movement," "flight," "impetus."

here

985 B 4-C t d . .. ffOf.lEX.6...,cvov. The denizens of water are character-

ized as demigods which are sometimes visible and sometimes invisible. Einarson 1, 93 thinks that they are heroes; but, while the cult of gods,

COMMENTARY

daenwnes, and heroes is recommended at Laws 717 A-B, the three being frequently associated in Plato (cf. Rep.427 B, Laws 738 D, 801 E, etc.), and while heroes are said to be ftµ(.Secnin C,ai. 398 C II, they are never characterized as being sometimes visible and sometimes invisible. Einarson cites Phaedo 81 D and Rep. 558 A. The former passage, however, does not refer to heroes at all but, as its context indicates, to unpurified souls, while the latter is ironical and implies that a hero is invisible. Ast, followed by Stallbaum, Harward, and many others, identifies the aqueous creatures with nymphs. It is likely that the author has especially in mind the Nereids, on which cf. Hesiod, Theog. 240-264 with West's note ad loc. On the Nereids as "nymphs of the sea" cf. Herter, R.E. XVII, 2 (1937), 1533. The denizens of water are not called daemones, pace Reuther, Taylor 1 , 254, and others (cf. on 985 A 5-6 and on 984 D 8-E r supra with references). 985 B -l-6 w ... ycyovi"YS 6v-ra, cf. e.g. Harward's translation, "since these five forms of living beings are real existences." (If this were the meaning, this sentence would be un-Platonic, since it would attribute true being to things other than ideas ..,.} But this interpretation introduces a contradiction within the

'"Against G. Muller, Nomoi, 106, who cites passages from the Laws where he thinkB that c5VTs 6v is so used, c/. Cherniss, 370-37r.

COMMENTARY

289

E, itself, for the doctrine of the five kinds of living beings was said to be eb(6s (cf. 984 C 5) and a matter of 66~ (cf. 984 B 5). Therefore, it seems better to take the participle 6vroov as copulative, as Lamb and Chemiss do. For tq,a in the sense "(kinds of) living beings" cj. on 982 B I supra. 985 C 1-6 &ff1I .. ,Y«WjOffCU. Though C l-2 6mJTIW-.Sivnvxov 1'1'100\.1 refers to the five kinds of living beings mentioned previously, C 2--6 shows that the author has especially in mind only the three intermediate kinds, for it is only they that we "perceive" in the way described here, whereas we do see the astral gods and the earthy creatures, cf. 982 A 4--6, g84 B 2-4. This passage is in accord with Plato's notion that irrational experiences such as divination are the gift of god to man through -ro6a1µ6v1ov(cf. Sym,p. 202 E 7-203 A 4). Since it is impossible to possess true knowledge about such phenomena, the legislator should not interfere with the beliefs that arise from them (cj. Laws 738 B-D, 933 A-B).

986 C 2-3 ~ xa&• 6ffVOVIv 6vE1p01t0>.(11 ,rpocnux6~. CJ.in their respective contexts Sym,p. 203 A 4 m.Sev6ova1, Tim. 71 E 4-5 &"Ji:A' i\xa.9' lMTVOVTflV

Tfis cppovfiaECA>S m6fl.9els 6vvaµ1V, 71 D 3-4, Laws BooA 2-3, 910 A 2. For divine communication in sleep cj. Aeschylus, Eumen. 104, Pindar, frag. 131b 3ft. (Snell), Xenophon, Cyrop. VIII, 7, 21, Aristotle, frag. 10 (28, 4-7 [Rose]), Cicero, De Div. I 30, 62--63, etc. Plato's attitude towards dreams is best explained by Rep. 571 C... 572 B. He frequently disparages 86~ by assimilating it to dreaming, while true knowledge is compared to the state of being awake (c/. Rep. 520 C and 534 C.....D with Shorey, Rep. II, 143, n. g). In the E. too our visions in dreams are said to give rise only to mere opinions (cf. 985 C 5 66~s TI"apayE110µbas).

985 C 2 .-..6\lf:lf)Offl)Al~.The noun 6ve1po,ro:Madoes not occur in Plato, but the verb 6ve1po,roiUoodoes (cf. Rep. 534 C 6-J, Tim. 52 B 3, Laws 904 D 3). 985 C 3 ~ ... cbcoa.1', For KOTCX qn'll,IQS ... 1'.e)(.SbTaatv h aKoats cf. Laws

738 C3 hrnrvofasAE)(.9Etai,s.9eiov, Tim. 72A 2-4, n.b. Ta... cpwvri.Stv-ra. For '1Qvrefas cj. Symf>. 202 E 7-203 A 4, Tim. 71 D-72 A, Phaedr. 244 Afi. In 975 C 6 IJQVTIKT)was listed as one of the "necessary'' arts which does not give wisdom. 985 C 4 l)yudvoua1'V. Should this be taken to refer to Socrates' divine voice (cf. Apol. 31 C.....D,40 A-B, etc.) or to such phenomena as fv TE cp6:aµaaw fyp11yop6,-as 810:cp6jk)vs(Laws 910 A 1-2)? It seems, however, that h.9ova1aoµ6s is meant: cf. Tim. 71 E 5 fi 6ux Tlm b9ov01acrµ6v, where b.SOvmaoµ6sand v6aos are cited as different states in which divina• tion occurs.

,cd.p.vwa,"'·CJ. Tim. 71 E 5 ft Su~ v6aovand especially Phaed,. 244 D-E, for the text and interpretation of which cj. Linforth, U.C.P.C.P. I3 (1946), 163-172. Linforth's interpretation brings out a point which is

290

PLATO, PHILIP OF OPUS, AND THE EPINOMIS

also made in the E., namely that revelations through madness give rise to some rites and cults. 985 C t-5 il xal -r1:>..£U'tjj !3(ouffpoa-rux4:aL ycvofUVO,,.The power of prophecy at the moment of death was a commonplace: cf. Homer, Il. 16, 851 ff .• 22, 358ff., Plato, A,Pol.39 C-D, Phaedo 85 B, Xenophon, A,Pol.30, Aristotle, frag. 10 (28, 7-12[Rose]). 1tpocnuxial ywoµ.ivolti•

For this periphrasis cj. on 973 C I supra.

985 C 5 l&lq. ... rnxp«ycvoµ.~. For the meaning of this in the context cj. on 985 C 1-D 4, 985 C 1-6, and 985 C 2-3 supra. For the grammar cf. on g85 C 1-D I supra.

There is a brachylogy here in the omission of Tµev,on which cf. note on g86 B 8-C I. But in C I ff., perhaps to give more vividness to the injunction and to the conclusion in C 4-5, the author again uses and ,6:rrooµev instead of the participles. the finite verbs 6:iro616001,1ev Finally. in C 2-4, there is a shift from the plural Tots:6t to the singular. This emphasizes that to each planet, besides the sun and the moon, we have to assign a definite time for its revolution; hence OOC"TQSis implied v at. cl>JJ&ciii; n xe1l ~F. Muller, 16 thinks that to use &A11.9&s TE ml 6v-roosof the astronomer is to disregard the philosophical meaning that Plato gave to these words; but the two adverbs are used colloquially {c/. Polit. 301 B 5, where the ruler is trna,i'u1oov 6VTOOS oov, and note on 976C 8--g). The notion that the astronomer is the truly wise man is un-Platonic, but this has nothing to do with Platonic terminology. The author proposes a new religion based on the cult of the cosmos, and so the truly "initiated" is the astronomer. For the philosopher or virtuous man as the "initiated" cf. Phaedr. 250 B-C, Phaedo 81 A and by implication 6g B-C, Garg.493 A-B, and Theaet. 155 E.

PLATO. PHILIP

300

986 D 2-3 ~

OF OPUS. AND THE EPINOMIS

~0€~

992 B 6, and pp. 68-69

€le;

supra.

wvfl•llli- CJ.992 B 6-7 with note on

986 D 3-t dv ... "l,,v. The words &:ra tear' 6.f.,1.v suggest that this is a reminiscence of the myth of the vrrepovpa111as T6-rroSof the Phaedrus (cf 248 A-249 D, 250 B-C, and notice 248 A 6 Ta~\I El6ev,'TCl6' ov); but, as the whole context indicates, the author interprets that myth literally and in the light of his un-Platonic doctrine of the visible cosmos as the object of contemplation. Hence the "revolutions" of the Phaedrus are here the sidereal revolutions, and the heavenly bodies and revolutions are what the author means by the most beautiful objects which the wise man contemplates (.Su.,:ipos ToovKCJM{o-roov YEVOllEVOS), whereas in the Phaedrus the object of contemplation is the world of ideas. CJ. also on g86 D 1-2 supra.

986 D 4-5 viiv .. ,"ri"Hla,The author returns to his original purpose, to tell how many and who these gods are. 6ao1, sc. Seol, cf. on g86 B 3-6

s-u,pra. 988 D 5-E t 06 yapfliimn•cpc1vii'>1£CY ~cuk~. If he fails to tell how many and who these gods are, the Athenian Stranger would not fulfill what he implicitly promised in g85 D 4--986 A 6. 988 E :I.&uax;upltofLCR. CJ. also 992 B 2. For an example of subjects on

which the philosopher is willing and on those on which he is not willing 6uaxvpiua.9a1 cf. Phaedo 63 B g-C 4. 986 E 2 Myw yckpffd:>.Lv.CJ.g82 A 5 ,rciA1vyap Afyooµeu and note on gSr C 2 supra. ix-w

,uv alYUL. We should understand SvvaµElSfrom 986 A 8.

986 E 2-3 Tci>\I... clpfja&aa. The orbits of the sun, the moon, and the

daily revolution of the fixed stars which were mentioned in 986 B 1-3. 988 E 3 fffflC 6' In

).o1fflic.

CJ.986B 3 iriVTESe mpa,and

note ad loc.

988 E 3-987 C 7 'lj... XPWIJ4•The names of the planets occur here for the first time in extant Greek literature. On the author's reasons for giving the names of the planets here cf. on 986 A 8-987 D 2 and pp. 57supra.The names of the planets occur in Aristotle also 58 and 88---&J but not in a single place as here. 787 Aristotle, moreover, has a different view from that of the author of the E. as to the origin and motivation of calling the planets by the names of the traditional gods (c/. note 632 supra). On the subject of the names of the planets in antiquity

m On the other hand, it is not particularly instructive for our understanding of the E. to compare the names of the planets here with Cicero, De Natura Deon,m II, 20, 52-53, as Novotny and others do, for there is no reason to think that Cicero or his source depends on the E. The differences between both pa.ssages are more remarkable than their similarities, and the latter can in any case be explained by the fact that by the time of Cicero's source the information provided by the E. and by Aristotle had become commonplace.

COMMENTARY

301

cj. Cumont, "Les noms des planetes et l'astrolatrie chez les grecs," A.C. 4 (1935), 5-43 and W. Gundel-H. Gundel, "Planeten" in R.E. XX, 2 (1950), 2017-2185. But Cumont and others are too prone on the basis of what later and uncritical authors like Diodorus tell us to see influence of Babylonian "astrology." CJ.further notes 409 and 410 supra. 988 E 3-t fa..• lmJ, CJ.g87 B 4-5, 990 B 6--8. The author has in mind Tim. 38 D 2-3 k.xrq>6pov6Al(QlTO\llepov •epµov J..Ey6µEl10V els [Tov] -raxe1 µev lo66pouov f)Alct)K\IIU\.OV lov,-as, on which cf. Cornford, 105, n. 2,

&Litio6tki. The author shifts from Svvaµ1s to these two words to designate the revolutions of the heavenly bodies. For cpop6:cj. 982 D 7 with note on 982 D 4-7, 987 B 5, Tim. 39 B 4, 81 A 3, Laws 897 C 5, etc. 8li~o6os is used with the same meaning also in 977 B 4. According to Ast's Lexicon the word is not used in this sense by Plato, but Herodotus, II, 24 and Euripides, Androm. 1o86 had already used it of the sun. In Euripides, TpEts••• cpaevvasf}Afov 61~66ovs = three days. In the pseudo-Aristotelian De Mundo (399 A 3) 61!~ is also used of the planets. It is likely that, since the author of the E. did interpret literally the myth of the V'TTEpovpo:11104; T6-rrosof the Phaedrus (cf. on 986 B 4-5. g86 D 1-2, and g86 D 3-4 suf>ra), his use of 6t!~6os for planetary revolution was prompted by PhlUdrus 247 A 4-6 ,roAAa\~v ovv Kai l.l(JKv fKaaTos avr6>v TC) a\n'OV, cpopA,c«l

as

968E t~s xal oGff ,pd\t'ripa. o&rc N-nwv T6 y' lfflffllV. There is no need to emend the text here, and Bumet's punctuation must be right. Hermann and others take T6 y' tninav with what follows; but it must go with what precedes, for otherwise the author would be saying that Venus and Mercury complete their revolutions with the same uniform velocity as the sun, which would not agree with the astronomy of the Timaeus that the author has in mind throughout this passage. We need, then, a qualification of oJ.f)N.J.>V i')i\16sTEl«ll 6 Toii 'Epµov Kalt~; and cf. Cornford, 1o6-n2. who explains that according to Plato Mercury, Venus. Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn always travel on the same paths but not at a uniform speed and not always forward. The implication is that the sun always moves forward and at a more uniform speed and that consequently its motion is simpler than that of Venus or Mercury; cf. also Aristotle, De Caelo 291 B 35-292 A 3. For the asyndeton produced by Bumet's punctuation cf. on 978 C 6-D I supra.

302

PLATO, PHILIP

OF OPUS. AND THE EPJNOMIS

986 E 5 -ro.• .mlffll',I. This expression is used adverbially. The word hrfTrav does not occur in Plato but was already used by Aeschylus, Pers. 42, Suppl. 822, and by Herodotus, II, 68, 5 and VII, 50, 2. 988 E 5-7 kt . . .-rpl-rou.Because it makes no sense in the context, the

meaning of 6ei ... fiyeta.9at cannot be ''These being three, must be so regarded by him who has sufficient mind" (Lamb in the first edition and Post, 373). The meaning is "Of these three that which has a mind sufficient for the task must lead the way." The violent change to the masculine in this sentence from the feminines in the preceding sentence and back to the feminine in the following sentence is perhaps a result of the fact that the author identifies the revolutions merely by ascribing them to the respective planets and is about to mention the names of the planets (cf. also pp. 57-58 supra). What is meant by 'f)yeta.9a1is explained by the simplicity of the revolution of the sun as compared with those of Venus and Mercury (cf. on 986 E 4-5 supra). The sun comes first and is the leader because it has \IOVV 1mvov, for the simpler a revolution the more intelligent it is. Thus the simplest and therefore the wisest is the daily revolution of the whole heaven (cf. 978 C 6-8 with Tim. 39 C 1-2); then come the revolutions of the moon and of the sun. Those of the upper planets are too complex for description (c/. 990 B 5-C 5 with Tim. 39 C-D). The sun, then, leads Venus and Mercury and should be mentioned first in accordance with what follows, Atyooµe"Si\ Ttl\J"TOS f)A(ovT' dva116pov. ml Tphov KTA. (cf. Einarson 11, g6). This passage has no connection with Heraclides' theory that Mercury and Venus revolve around the sun, which Harward (137) and others read into it. In view of all this and especially of Tim. 39 B 2-6 we can understand why Albinus XIV, 6 (Louis) says ~AloS µh yap 1'JY£1,10\IEVEt iraVToov,&1n KOlq,afvwv TO:cni1,11ravra; but it is misleading to cite in this connection Theon, 138, 16-18 (Hiller) µwov el\101J3ovA6µevo1 TOVTOU/iA(ov Toov-rrAavooµevoov oos1'yeµo1,111apas ml 6ie~66o~. cf. g86 E 3-4. C/. on 987 B 2-3 infra.

916 E 7-987 B 2 x«l-rpl-rou, ~ f,Liv 6\,61,14-n q,p4~CL'Vo6xIO'n'V .•. 4>.M y&p awvuplcsv ctl.~q:,aat'III&diw. Having arrived at the third orbit, that of Mercury,

COMMENTARY

3o3

the author digresses to explain why the planets do not have proper names but are called after the gods. In 987 B 2 he begins again with Venus (cf. on 987 B 2-3 infra). From here down to 987 C 7 the antithesis 6voµa .. . hroovvµ(a plays an important role. cf. on g86 E 7-9 and g87 C 5 infra. 986 E 7-9 ~ ,uv.. .'fO\XW 6' «t~ ... C>v. According to F. Millier, 42 this is a case of false antithesis with ~v-6! . But Bi is simply connective

and µ!v is answered in 987B 1-2; the antithesis is between 6vol,1Cland hroow1.da. so that the ~v is not solitarium as Taylor•, 2']6 thinks. CJ. Theiler, 345 and n. I. Thews in E 7 is not pleonastic (Harward, 50) but causal: "Let us say that these are the sun's and the moming-star's and a third's, as to designate it by a name is not possible because not known .... " 988 E 8-9 TOO'fOU ••• &v. The planets have no Greek names because they were discovered by the barbarians, and the barbarians called them after the gods.

988 E 9-987 A 1 ffllACILl)c •.. iwo~~There is no reason to reject ,-p6-rr05, the reading of AO. Hackforth, 10 maintains that 11'aAatoS,-p6-rros does not mean "ancient custom," but "conditions in ancient times" which cannot start anything. But the author means that in the Orient it was an ancient custom to observe the sky because of the beauty of the summer climate. and this ancient custom led to the discovery of Tp6-rroS the true paths of the planets. As Novotny points out, TrClAatoS l9pE1.f1EVTO\JS1TpooTOVS is poetical for b1raAa1lj>Tpo,rct)hpaq>11aavotirpoo,Tol; and this is not un-Platonic, as Rep. 541 A 3-4 shows: (the rulers) .9pavca:,VTa1 (sc. ,-ovs ,rat5as) Iv -rots:mprnpo1s:Tp6Tro1aataVEpo\),;... &El~,ravTOS, which is true only "in a manner of speaking"; and so it is not, as Lier, 76 thinks, a "meaningless filler." 887 .A 4~5 au . .. xt.'X"C'JJ~· On the adverb &irlnrpoa:9£v(= Homeric &no1Tpo.9£v), which does not occur elsewhere in the Platonic corpus, cf.

COMMENTARY

Schwyzer•Debrunner. Griech. Gramm. II. 543, n. 3. There is no reason to emend this passage which Harward translated correctly; Toii K6aµov is a partitive genitive, the object of kEK"TTl~VOVSThe use of K6oµos = "sky," "heaven.'' seems strange to Harward, but 987 B 7 implicitly gives the reason for this (c/. note ad loc.). 987 A 5.9 6&n ... ti~,. There is no need to emend the previous clause to supply a subject for l~1a:1, as Hackforth, ro thinks, for the subject is "the knowledge of the planets or of the heavenly bodies," to be supplied from Taii-ra b110flaatrraS in 987 A :r. According to Einarson 1 , 94 iraVla)(.6ae is written "as if their reaching everywhere else made their reaching Greece easier to bear."

987 A 6 ~•~lCJIWl'CI X.POVCt> F1,up,nct fl xcal a1Cf>ct,. CJ. Aristotle, De Caelo 292 A 7~ (oµoic.i:,s Se KCilmpl TO~ lrAAovs&aripas AE)'OVO'\V ol ,r6:ACX1 -rttf\PflK6-res~ irAdO"Toov hoov Atyv miv. For the omission of Tc. But in view of ml 1,[email protected] Iup(• Four topoi are referred to in this passage; (a) the traditional one that men should not think thoughts divine (cf. on g88 A 6-? inf,a); the other three are typically Platonic: (b) that there is no q>Sovos in the divine (c/. on g88 B 6-7 infra). (c) that one should know oneself (cf. on 988 B 5 infra), and (d) that man should search for the ultimate causes of the universe (cf. on 988 A 5-8 inJ,-a). This last notion is connected with the :first topos, for it was a popular misconception that the study of astronomy leads to atheism (c/. Apol. 26 C-D, Laws g66 E-g6J D and 982 D 3-7 with note ad loc.); but Plato had shown in the Laws that the study of astronomy is necessary to prove that there are gods, i.e. the heavenly bodies which are divine living beings (cf. Laws 821 Aff., 886 Dff., and g66 D--967 D).The author of the E. combines all this with a reasoning of his own: we have seen that the cosmos gives us number (976 E 3-977 B B. 978 B 7-979 A 6) and that it is a divine living being (g82 A 4-983 C 5), and consequently we must assume that the cosmos knows that he is teaching us number and that with this gift we will study the god himself. In fact, then. we must infer that the god cosmos wishes us to think divine thoughts. Otherwise we would have to assume that he is ignorant of self; but we cannot suppose that the divine, to whom knowledge belongs 1>4'1' excellence(cf. g85 A 6-7with note ad loc.), would be guilty of the greatest

&µa91a. 988 A 6-8 't6k .. . 'f06~. In view of what precedes, the Seta that no Greek should fear to busy himself with are the heavenly bodies, i.e. the cosmos. In Laws 821 A 2-5, before including astronomy as part

314

PLATO, PHILIP OF OPUS, AND THE EPINOMIS

of elementary education, the Athenian Stranger said that we should get rid of the notion that it is not &ncs to busy ourselves about investigat• ing the causes of Tbv µfy10"Tov~v Kal 6Aov TOV1S ... ~v-ras, replaces the imperative that one would expect after l,lf16slscpof,T\Sij.For Plato's use of the infinitive for the imperative cf. Soph. 262 E 13-14 auµ01 cpp6Ie1v, Rep.473 A with Stallbaum's note, 508 B, etc. 988 A 8-B 1 oOff clq,pov. .. q,,)cr1v. For the notion that the heavenly

bodies (= the divine) are supremely intelligent cf. 982 B-E. That the

gods do not ignore man was the import of the second thesis against the atheists in book X of the Laws, which the author of the E. accepted at the beginning of the theogony and zoogony (cj. 980 D 1-3 with note ad loc.). For the notion that the gods do not neglect us cf. 991 D 4-5 with note ad loc.

ffJVAv&pc..mt¥r1v q,~o,v. For this periphrasis cj. on 973 A 4 supra. 988 B 1-2 6,~

«lnoti. Sc. Toii .Sdov

= the cosmos.

is fl av.Spoo,r(V11 cpva1s.As B 3-4 shows Ta616amc61,1E\la refers to the knowledge of number which we derive from the heavenly bodies and their movements (c/. 978 C 6--D 5). 988 B 2 iuY«Ko:>.ov~CJ'U . .. 6,6aoxol/A'V«, The subject

988 B 3 ToGw a6'ro. This is anticipatory of apl.9µ6v n ml 6:p1.Sµetv.

988 B 3-t i,t1V&6:voµ.cv ... &p,81utv. F. Muller, 43 cites &pa.9'16V n ml &p1.Sµeiv as an example of awkward junctures; but the zeugma "we learn number and (how) to count" is an easy one (cf. Taylor 1 , 280). For the

thought cf. 976 E 3-977 B 6; how precisely we learn to count is explained in 978 B 7-979 A 6. 988 B 5 -rl>M"(6J&WCW yap&v a~ a6'ro c:wro 6yvool. The proverb referred as interpreted by Plato. To know oneself is the to here is yvmS1O'Cl\J'T6v necessary condition of all other knowledge, and consequently he who

COMMENTARY

315

fails to do so would be 1r6:vroov&cppovbnal'ov (cf. Phaedrus 229 E 5230 A 1). This is a reductio ad absurdum when applied to the divine, to whom knowledge belongs because of its own nature (cf. ong88 A5-B7 supra). The proverb "know yourself" is referred to here from the negative side,. being the contrary of what the Delphic inscription commands. There is no allusion to mental aberration, as Novotny thinks. That the proverb can be referred to from the negative side may be seen from Phil. 48 C 2-D 2. Novotny, Platonis Epistulae. 214 is also mistaken. I think, in maintaining that [Plato], Epistle VII, 341 B 6-7oht~ Se, ov6' avrol CXVTOVS (sc. fa0a1v) is a reference to alienated people, for this passage is again a reference to yv&.91oavTov from the negative side (c/. Post, Thirteen Epistles of Plato, 152 and Bluck, Plato's Seventh and Eighth Letters, n9). On this proverb and on the different interpretations of it in antiquity cf. Wilkins, "Know Y O'Urself" in week and Latin

Literature. 988 B 6 iuna.tpov.This seems to be the only occurrence of ~alpel\l

in the Platonic corpus. Composites with evy.. are frequent in Plato's later works, however (cf. on g85 B I supra). 988 B 8-7

avcucp&dvou. To the traditional topos of the envy of the gods

Plato opposed the notion that a god, if he is a god. cannot have cp.96vos (cf. Phaedr. 247 A 7, Tim. 29 E 1-2; and Aristotle, Metaph. 983 A 2-3). 988 B 7-E t MyOY. . . -roux&ru.For the connection of this passage with what precedes and follows cf. on 987D 3-ou,;.AsAst says,

cnhoov,by hyper-

baton, goes with xeipovs. 989 C 7-8 'l'wv... 6.v&p(.intou.,_.It seems better

to take this genitive as depending on 1«1l4plO'l'l'J"'· F.

989 E 1-2 ffclp(i,l'Ch . .. IMl"&aw'"· This is the beginning of the answer

to 973 A 3-5 (cf. pp. 62:ff. supra).

COMMENTARY ~

fl

l.6-yCf>. The

325

-n is not solitarium, as Novotny thinks it is, for it is

probably answered by the mt before oos 6ei µav.9avetv, the 'TE being "dislocated" to an earlier position than expected, as it frequently is (cf. Kiihner~Gerth, II, 245, Anm. 5). 990 A 1-2 hOGt:JHIAI.,. ,114&iiCN"m1.. This merely repeats 989 E 1-2 & •.. µav.s&veLV. The word .9eocrij3e1awas already used in 985 C 8, is

equivalent to aiat~1a, and is probably used here to avoid hiatus (cf. on 977 E 6-g78 A 1). The author begins with astronomy because it is the highest part of wisdom. 990 A 2-B 2 axe:&h... cp6cNWfi. F. Millier, 47 objects

to the lack of periodic structure of this sentence, but it is arbitrary to compare it with Laws 892 D 5 ff. (cf. Taylor~', 288). The sentence is well explained by Novotny, who points out that to 6voµa the relative clause 6 .. ,a:. yvod TE is added to explain why it is chorros: to mention astronomy, that 6-n ... dvm depends on &yvoet, and that aa-rpovoµov is explained by IJ.T! ... mpt6Sous, while the genitive absolute 6U:~1oilO'T)S ... oO,-c.:,s is epexegetic of nep166ovs. Finally 6>S ... q,vae(l)Sexplains why wisdom is only for the few: only the best natures will be able to master astronomy. Astronomy and wisdom are not entirely coextensive, since piety also requires knowledge of the doctrine of the soul. F. Miiller. 64 thinks that the delay in naming astronomy and the circumspection in describing it are unPlatonic. The circumspection is not about the name itself, however, but about what is understood by the name. To most people to say that astronomy is wisdom will seem strange because they will immediately think of astronomy in Hesiod's sense as consisting of mere observations of risings and settings and of its application to agriculture (cf. Hesiod, Op. et Dies, 384, 6og-617) ;70 but the author means by astronomy the knowledge of the eight revolutions and of their respective periods. Similarly, two kinds of astronomy are also distinguished in Rep. 527 D Iff. For Post 3, 288, on the other hand, this "portentous" introduction of astronomy is a Platonic trait, which he compares with the statement in the Republic that philosophers must be kings; but the role of astronomy in the E. shows that this work is not by Plato (cf. chapter I, e). 990 A 2-8 c,x£&lnl. . . ncp'66o~.

990 A 2-3 a,c£6w . .. "if'E" ye XTl. There is no false antithesis here as F. Muller, 43 and 44 thinks, for the antithesis is between the popular "' 1 That E. 990 A is most probably a reference to Hesiod's Opera a.nd not to an alleged 'Acnpovoµ(a or 'Aa-rpoAOy(ais recognized even by those who like Nilsson, Op. Sel. II, 782 contend that the latter is an old ''Hesiodic" work. Hence, this passage of the E. should not be used as evidence that the alleged Hesiodic "Aa,-povoµla is an old pre-Alexandrian work, as Merkelba.cb and West do in their recent edition of Hesiod's fragments. I still think that the so-called 'AO'Tpo11C:>1,1(a cannot be earlier than the Alexandrian a.ge and tha.t even Callimachus does not refer to it {c/. Maass, Aratea, 268£1.).

326

PLATO, PHILIP

OF OPUS, AND THE EPINOMIS

conception of astronomy and the author's notion of what it is (c/. on 990 A 2-8 supra). For fiµelsye to contrast the author's opinion to that of the many cf. also 977 A 7-8. 990 A 2 thono-t,.

CJ.note

299 su,Jwa.

990 A 3-4. a . .. aywctu. The words &yvoet-n:, which Schneider conjectured, are the reading of AO. We have here another example of the author's preference for para taxis instead of subordination (&yvoeJ"TE instead of &yvowv), to which F. Muller, 44 objects.

990 A 7 6u~ •re xul &'IHl'ro~ wcnc£1-'f'CVOY,In g86 E 9-987A 6 the priority of the Orient in the knowledge of the planets was attributed to their clear skies (cf. on 987 A r-5 supra), but in Hesiod the observations refer only to certain stars and constellations, not to the planets. fflEO>CEp.p.ivov. For hrlO"KO'frioo =

"to observe'' cf. Prot. 321 C 3-4 fpxno.1 Tlpoµ1).9£vs hrtaKTA. 990 A 7-8 d:).).ik ... ffEPLO&ou~. Sc. hre01vovv in 31 C 4-32 A 1 as depending on Toutcrov. The continued geometrical proportion, which is simply called all'OAOy{a, was considered by the ancients to be the only true and primary proportion, since all the others are derived from it (cf. Cornford, 45 and n. I with references and Heath, The Thirteen Books of Eudid's Elements, II, 292-293). The author of the E. in all probability has in mind this passage of the Timaeus, and it is in the light of the latter that what follows becomes intelligible (cf. on 990 E 1-991 A I infra). Nature has stamped things in accordance with each all'OAOyfa.Now the basic

332

PLATO. PHILIP OF OPUS, AND THE EPINOMIS

6:vaAoyla is precisely the geometrical progression which advances according to the power of the double. The first is 1 : 2 = 2: 4 = 4: 8, etc. ; the second is r:4 = 4:16 = 16:64, etc.; the third is 1:8 = 8:64 = 64:512, etc. With the third progression we have gone from I to 8 generating the first cube, passing through the square. Thus we have generated the world of space and perception. This first geometrical progression, 1, 2, 4, 8, etc., however, implicitly gives us the arithmetical and harmonic means and with them the other two fundamental progressions. In going from I to 2 we have generated the octave; and, if we use the power which is the contrary of the first, we can insert between I and 2 the arithmetical (3: 2) and the harmonic (4: 3) means, which give us the fourth and the fifth. Thus we have generated the three basic intervals of the musical scale. Just as in the case of the geometrical proportion the author had in mind the account of the mathematical structure of the body of the universe given in the Timaeus, so in the construction of the arithmetical and harmonic means he has in mind Tim. 35 C 2-36 A 5, i.e. the mathematical constitution of the soul of the universe. Hence, the purpose of studying these preliminary sciences (geometry, stereometry, and hannonics) is to discover the mathematical structure of the universe. Since in the Timaeus this mathematical structure is used later for the "astronomy" of the work, the author of the E. probably has something similar in mind and recommends all these sciences as a study preliminary to the exact calculation of the eight revolutions. We can now see that the interpretation of 61,101os in ggo D 1-E I given above establishes a relation between the mathematical sciences which are preliminary to the study of astronomy. The connection consists in the relation between the three basic proportions and means: geometrical, arithmetical, and harmonic. This is in accordance with the ancients' notion that the theory of proportion and means belongs to geometry and harmonics rather than to arithmetic and is reflected also in 991 D 8--g92A 1 (cf. note ad loc. and also note 431 supra). There is no reference in this passage, as some scholars think there is, to ideal numbers or to idea-numbers of any kind. Any such notion, moreover, would be incompatible with the author's implicit but certain rejection of the separate existence of ideas (cf. p. 32 su;,ra). On the probable reason for the inclusion of this passage and its relation to the structure of the E. cf. pp. 92-97 sup,a. 990 C 5-8 d .. . cpuv. Here ){VEOlsis used in the sense of q,vcns,which is perhaps avoided because of cpvaisin the next line. " 1 For yl:ve01.s= cpva1scf. Laws 892 C, and for both words used periphrastically cj. 991 B 6-7 els .9Efavyivea1v &µa l(Ql Tf\v Twv n KCll.9EtOT~v "KOT'&p1Sµ.0\I vm:~-

340

PLATO, PHILIP OF OPUS. AND THE EPINOMIS

xouaav,fO'Ct)St VTT'EpE)(.oµiVflv. The order adopted by the author of the E. is to be explained in accordance with our interpretation of Ti;s I~ bia.\1Ti~ TaVT1J in 990 E 3-4 (c/. on 990 E 1-991 A I supra). that is we must first obtain the arithmetical mean in order to be able to obtain the hannonic mean. In 991 A 7-B I there is a parenthesis in which the author gives a particular example (n.b. the aorist ~vil:tt'l) with 6 and 12 as the extremes, of which 9, the arithmetical mean, is the sesquialter, and 8, the harmonic mean, is the sesquitertian. The author avoids giving an example with fractions. The words TOv-rwv .•. V refers to A 6 TWV 6:tcpw.v cnrrwv, and with CJ"TpEq>OJ,l!VT) we should understand cn.rw.oyfa.This aVOAoy(ais constituted by the octave, the fourth, and the fifth, i.e. the basic intervals of the musical scale, in the particular example given 6, 8, 9, 12. We can see why the author gave the geometrical proportion and implied the mean, whereas he defined the arithmetical and harmonic means while only implying the respective proportions (cf. on 990 E 1-991 A I supra): he did this because he is interested here primarily in harmonics and not in the arithmetical and harmonic proportions as such. It should be mentioned that van der Waerden, followed by Novotny, takes TOVTCA>Vcnrroov in BI to refer to the tu.no~iov and the rnhp1Tov in the parenthesis and maintains that B 1-2 refer to a subdivision of the fourth and the fifth which would give us the greater and the lesser third. But this is highly unlikely, as it is hardly possible that Tou-rwv mrroov could refer to something inside the parenthesis in A 7-B I; and , if it did, it would refer to 6 and 12 (Stallbaum, Taylor, Harward). If it referred to 8 and 9, as Toplitz maintains, or to the sesquialter and the sesquitertian, as van der Waerden thinks, we should have an indication that B 1-2 refer to a new a\!ClAOyla, whereas it appears that CJ"TpEq>OP£VT'I refers to the aVOAOyfamentioned in A4. 891 B 2-t ~ui,upc.NCN . .. xdp1v. I keep Burnet's punctuation and construe ,m161c%with xo:pav,as Hanvard does. Taylor takes 1rm81as with xpeiav.

991 B 4 .-6&«4t,ov,xopcu, MO\ICJliw k&oµ.MJ. The dative is ambiguous and

can mean "to the blessed choir of the Muses" (Novotny, Lacey), or, as it seems preferable to me, "by the blessed choir of the Muses" (Reuther, Harward, des Places). CJ. Tim. 47 D-E, where n.b. D 6-JvrroMoum;;;,v 6i&rra1. 991 B 5 T11GTC1q1.cv ow Ml'MlX'D• CJ. [Plato], Epist. II, 314 C 7 TCXVTQadv TOVTT).[Plato] Epist. XIII, 360 E 3-4, and Plutarch, Demosth., 4 ml TClV"T0µtv TaVT1J KCJTO: TlA..tv. On this expression cf. on 992 A 2 infra.

991 D 8 cl hov

991 D 8-992 A 16 ...

&1«VOOU1£M"• Here the author explains in what

way we must study the preliminary sciences and astronomy if we are to attain wisdom. The~ of this study is to perceive that the sciences constitute a single unit; if we study them with the eye fixed in unity, we shall discover that a single bond unites them all. This single bond, since it unifies the mathematical sciences, the highest of which is astronomy, unifies the whole of nature also. So, if the student aims at unity, he will learn the unity of self in contemplation of the unity of the cosmos, which contemplation gives happiness in this life and in the next (cj. 992 A 3-C 3, 986 C 5-D 4. comm. on 992 C 2-3, and especially pp. 68-69 supra). This eTs6roµ6s, however, is neither the separate idea, for the apprehension of which Plato recommends the preliminary mathematical training, nor the unity of virtue which the members of the Nocturnal Council must know according to the Laws. For, even apart from the fact that the author implicitly denies the separate existence of ideas (cf. p. 32 supra) and does not even mention the question of the unity of virtue (cf. pp. 64-66 su,p,a), the context shows that this bond (6eaµ6s) must be number and more specifically the theory of proportions. The author is referring here to geometry, stereometry. harmonics, and astronomy and asserts that to him who learns by the right method, i.e. with the eye fixed on unity, it will appear that there is a unity of all these sciences (1,1faairavro:w). Now, as the clause &aµb, yap... 81avoovl,ltvo1s: gives the reason of this unity, the ets 6eaµasna,noov TOVTCA>V, in view of ggo A-991 D, must be number. 710 Since the knowledge of the whole of number covers not only the study of number per se (arithmetic) but also that of relations among numbers, i.e. the theory of proportions (geometry, stereometry, harmonics) including the complex relations established by the unified system of the sidereal revolutions (astronomy), it becomes intelligible why the author's insistence that knowledge of no Des Places reads 1Tccvrwvin 992 A 1 with AO, and takes -rrc!wrwvto refer to all things (c/. des Places, Syngeneia, 96, where he calls the Sial,IOS"lien universel"); the reference is still primarily to but whether we read -rraVTwvor ,rc:ivTwvTOVTc.>v the bond that unites the sciences (cf. the µla mr-6:VTwvin 991 E 3). I agree tha.t ultimately the unity of the mathematical sciences points to the unity of the whole of nature, since the structure of the universe is mathematical (c/. on 990 C 7-8 sub fin.); but this has nothing to do with the unity of virtue or with the theory of ideas. The expression EisIv ~>J.rr(t)v,though in laguage reminiscent of the procedure of dialectic, is here clearly subordinated to the purpose of discovering the unity of the mathematical sciences (cf. also p. 31 f. supra), as ds Iv ~>.hrwv is what T(tl l«X'TQ:Tpo,rov µcxvMvovn in the previous line implies.

346

PLATO, PHILIP OF OPUS, AND THE EPINOMIS

number is wisdom and that it is necessary to know the whole of number 761 is in the second part of the work transformed by means of the theogony and zoogony into the notion that piety is wisdom and the astronomer the wise man. Astronomy, which gives us the knowledge of the god cosmos, is the supreme branch of the science of number, and presupposes arithmetic, geometry, stereometry, and hannonics, which are studied for its sake. Since the author here refers specifically only to geometry, stereometry (cf. on 991 E 1-2 inf-ra), harmonics,. and astronomy, it appears that by 6E0116s he has specifically in mind the theory of proporfor 6$1oAOy(avin tions. So despite the mistake of reading a:YOAC>y{av 991 E 3, Theon, following Eratosthenes, interpreted the passage correctly, St 6 1Tharoovµ(av otea.9a1 avvoxflv cf. Theon, 84, 7ff. {Hiller): !o11CE Elvai µo.9fjµaT(.t.)vTI)v h Tf\s aVOAoy(as.b n yap T'f'"Eirtvolll~ cp11oiv· c!mav 61a:ypa1,11,1a xTA.711

It is very likely that in 991 D 8--g92A I the author of the E. had in mind such passages as Rep. 531 C g-D 4, 537 C 1-3, and Laws 967E 2-3, where Plato speaks of the community of the mathematical sciences; but, though he based his account of the theory of proportions on the Timaeus (cf. on 990 C 5-991 B 4 suj,-ra), there is no evidence that his view of the community of the mathematical sciences is the same as that of Plato's. What is significant, however, is that in the E. the Tehcs of the course of studies is the unity of the mathematical sciences and that this notion is of a piece with the author's un-Platonic doctrine of the cosmos as the object of knowledge and contemplation (cf. pp. 3.ctv. Harward contends that this expression is antithetical

to Seov 6µ&1vov&ElKaAEtvin 991 D 8, while G. Miiller, Nomoi, 134, n. 2 maintains that in both passages .9e6sand TVX'll are synonymous. Both interpretations are to be rejected, however. When in 976 E 3-4 the author contrasts Se6sand 'TV)(fl,the god is the cosmos; but here both

expressions are alternatives to the right method, which consists in following the god cosmos (cf. 976E 3-977 B 8 and g89 D 3-6 with note ad lee.). So the god of 991 D 8 is not the cosmos. and it is therefore impossible to contend that the author himself is either identifying or and T\JX1'I here. He believes that, if one does not go contrasting through the course of studies in the way prescribed, there is no possibility

!fl:os

348

PLATO, PHILIP

OF OPUS, AND THE EPINOMIS

of salvation for man : neither calling on god nor on good luck is going to help. But he is referring to what most people usually do, since it is customary in prayers to invoke god or (good) luck (cf. Laws 757 E 4-5 Seovml aya.9t'lvWXflVml Tm Iv E\IX,alSlm~vous). With 991 D 8 cf. Tim. 27 C 3 .9eovla:i Trov mAovow. The author would admit that from the popular point of view god and good luck are not identical, and are often antithetical; but from his own JX>intof view those who do not know the true god cosmos may call on god or on (good) luck and it will not avail them. 992 A 3 ~ xcd Af-tof&C","As we al,so say"; since it is customary to invoke TU)(Tl-CJ.the previous note.

992 A 3-4 o-6. ..

q,oc,u_. On this clause cf. pp. 67--69with note 305 supra.

cpucr~.Lier, go says that Plato would not describe man as a mere cpvcns,but cf. Rep. 359 C s oncioa cpucns61001S Els0011µ16:;). The unity that is to be achieved in this life through the study of mathematics and astronomy (cf. 991 E 1-992 A I and note on 991 D 8--992A I supra) will be a perfect unity of self, which will result in that of wisdom after death, while in this life we continue to be disturbed by our manifold perceptions (cf. 992 B 5 and Phaedo 66 B--69E). For periphrases with µoTpa cf. on 990 D 3-4 supra. 992 B 6-7 be nollc.n1 Iv« ycyovo-ra,CJ. Ref>.443 EI l!vayev61,JE110v a< ,roi\Ji.oov, where the expression refers to this life, not to the life after

death as here. CJ. Laws 961 D 8-10 av1v\f1~61')v St vovs ~a TC1>v KOAAlO"Toov ala.Sfiaro,v 1v refers to all that precedes including C I (KaKElvov . .. TVX.T'lS), makes of Ta .•. .9EG>v a mere repetition of the preceding sentence. 1rpa~iv here means "will experience," "will fare" (cf. L.S.J., s.v. ,rp&C'O'C,) II); the author has described the blessedness of the wise man after death (B 2-C 1) and he means that he who lives through his life in the practice of these sciences (i.e. those of the course of studies recommended in 990 A-g92 A) "will experience the same things and in the same way (i.e. happiness) at the hands of the gods." That is to say the wise man will also be happy in this life. The happiness which is searched for in the E. is that which can be obtained in this life; but, as Plato does, the author insists that only the happiness in this life, which can be obtained exclusively through virtue and wisdom (977 C 3-D 4, 979 B 7-D 2, 988 E 6-gBgB 2, etc.), will insure happiness in the next life. The two happy states are connected by the unity of self in the contemplation of the unity of the cosmos (cf. on 992 B 6 and pp. 68-6g supra). 992 C 3-8 8 ... clpTJp.4-,,a. Harward,

57, though he translates Bumet's text, maintains that "Plato" probably wrote mrr6c; in C 4 and that the failure to remove C 4-6 ~ ... 6:Mywv, a mere repetition of 973 C 4-5, shows that the author never revised this work. F. Miiller1, 299 correctly is not there, argues that the author meant a6T6c;;for 973 C 4-5 (~ but cf. 975 B 3) was the paradoxical Myes that the whole dialogue was meant to explain, which is precisely what the author does in 992 C 6-D 3: happiness is only for the few because only the best natures will be able to master the studies prescribed and thereby become wise (cf. on 973 B 7-974 D 2, 973 B 7-8, and 974 A 7-B I supra). Xfl'

'9X"· CJ.on 974 E

2

supra.

COMMENTARY

351

992 c 4 «6"°i, . . ~. This and what follows proves that the paradoxical A6y05mentioned in 973 B 8 is 973 C 4-5 (cf. on 973 B 7-8 su.p,a).

4AYJ&ii, m~. These words are used colloquially without any specific ontological meaning, and consequently there is no force in the objection of F. Miiller 1 , 299 that they are taken over by lo-TtvTOVTa6p.S,oos' elpfll,l!va. 992 C 8-D 3 h6aol .. ,lxcl.

CJ.g89 B 4-990

B

2,

etc.

CJ.also on

992

C 3--6 swp,a. 992 C 6 &E:tol.For the adjective and for the notion that such men are few cj. Laws 951 B 4-5 elal yap Iv Tots ,roXAots ~.Spcamoi &r:l.9etofTt~ - oli no:Uol.

992 c 7 'fik ...

.,ua.1.CJ.g89 B 4-C

3.

992 C 7-D t ~. . dATJ~Notice the replacement of "wisdom" by "blest." For the adjective 1,10'KO:p1oS with an abstract noun cj. Laws 803 C 3-4 q,vaetBeElvat .9eov~v 1TacJ'f'IS pmcap(ov crnov6i;s 6:~tOV.According to I. Bruns, Plato's Gesetze,rn5 this passage of the Laws was written by Philip of Opus.

992 D 2 a &' lcntv elpiikcqu'li',CJ.990'B 5-992 A 6.

""'°""

'rO'lko,a,.., Only the few best natures with the appropriate training can attain happiness. For the poetic Ionic dative plural cf. g86 B 4 and note ad loc. d 'fOO k11&(Nlou. This is equivalent to TaToov.9eoov(Stallbaum) or to TO:TOVSdov (cf. on 979 A 5-ti supra). Lier, 91 mistakes it forT06a1116v1ov. For the periphrasis of the neuter article with the genitive cf. on 973 A 1 ToTfi5 6110M)yfassuf,ra.

cD:J1xiu xcll lx•L- For the intransitive

use of Aayxavc.> cj. Laws 745 E I TOAax,011µepos.The two verbs produce a zeugma here; for other cases of zeugma in the E. cf. 975 B 1-2, 979 A 6-7, etc. 992 D 3 lx~

992 D 3.9

'fO~

•••

&e:1v.For the same notion cf. 989 C 3-D I with note

on g89 C 4-D I and note on g8g B 4-D I swp,a with the quotation of Rep. 487 A. The author -wrote this passage probably with Laws 966 C 6-D 3 in mind. In line 5 he is thinking of the members of the Nocturnal Council (cf. Laws 951 Cff.). The guardians of the Republic are fifty years old when they come to office (c/. Rep.540 A-B); in the Laws nothing specific is legislated. about this, because only those who have gone through the training themselves can know what must be known to legislate about it (cf. Laws g68 D 3-E 5 with pp. 20-23 sUIJwa). 992 D 3--t 'f01'... &LCIRO'Vt,O'CIO'IV,This does not mean "ont ainsi peine a ces etudes" (des Places); the aorist implies that the action has been completed: "those who thus with labour have mastered these studies" (Harward).

352

PLATO, PHILIP

OF OPUS, AND THE EPINOMIS

992 D 4-5 ,c,sd Y6µ.o-,,-il&ci,,.cv.CJ.gSo A 7-9 with note on g8o A 1-B 2 and g84 D 4 KCrTCX TOV mrrov Tt.9tcr.9 voµovwith note on g84 D 4-5 supra, g87 A f>-7.This act of legislating proves that the author mis• understood the dramatic end of the Laws (cf. pp. 23-24 supra). 992 D 6-7 ~• . mi~. CJ.989 C 4-6, 980 Ag-BI. For rucpflµeivcf. Laws 821 C 6-D 4. For the omission of .9E6s cj. Laws 627 C 3-4 ,roll.ol a&Acpo(lTOUyevo1T' &v!VOS" &v6p6s TEKOl'11CXS vets,where with µ1cis we should supply llf1Tp6sfrom av6p6s. This trait is poetical (cf. Sophocles, Antig. 513 6µa1µcs hT01) xa1pncooav Ast: ~{01DJyoVTo Pavlu, 39 975 C 4 :AEyo~vri]YEVO~VflCornarius 975 C 6 ov] ov Schneider -nxvoov Stephanus 975 C 9 TEX.vris] 975 D 4 mrroov] avStephanus 975 EI t~1pyooµlvoov] t~1pyµboov vel t~1pyoµevoov Grou 975 E 2 1"]c'rlv1"Stallbaum 975 E 2 noi\eJ.ltKfl],r0Aeµ1KaH. Muller: cl>q,EAIPT) ,roAEµtKT\Stallbaum 976 A I 6e6o~vri] yevoµtVT)Hermann 976 A I l«lAOVat Jdv] KQ).ovµevStephanus 976 A 1-2 ~ ,rov] 61'),rovAst 976 A 3 ~:r1lfov-rcn]11.,:i{ov-rcu Einarson•, 98, n. 3 976 A 6 ult. ml] mho1 Wagner 976 A 7---8l~ c!mavroov] secl. Hackforth, 9 npoaq,epts Heidel. 73, n. 3: 'Tfpov AO)] airA.avoovAst: secl. Burnet 986 B 5 6:AAGl)S] @..Aas Ast 986 C 2 µflTE]1'µ!pas JJilTEViger ad Euseb. 986 C 4 1r6Aov]ir6pov Maass, Aratea, 132 et n. 30 986 C 4-5 Myes ... 6paT6v] ).6ycs arravroov Se16Ta-rovopa-roovPost•, 177 g86 E 4 61e~o6os]i\o~ 666sBurges 986 E 5 .96:rroov] Strrroov ( ... ) Schneider Stallbaum 986 E 5 T6 y'] TO6' Stephanus: ~• 986 E 6 lxavov] t~ Stallbaum 983 983 984 984

ws

358

PLATO, PHILIP OF OPUS, AND THE EPINOMIS

g86 E 71«XlTphov] Tphov Ast (xal Tphov KZ) g86 E 7 avAst: av Theiler, 34S: co(et 6voµa Tl pro 6uoµcrn Stallbaum) 987A 1 T~] mnovs Stallbaum g87 A 4 &n-6irpoa.9ev]air01Tp6aS£aw vel lac. post &n-6irpoa.9evPost•, 177: arr6itpo Srov Pavlu', 990: arr6irpoa.9Ev 1Tp00'0'fllV Hackforth, ro 987 A 4 &El]ftPokraks und ditJ Begrundung dar wiss,nschafllichn M6dui.J1, Berlin, 1938, A.J.P. 61 (1940), pp. 221-229 = AJICi,m Medici.,u, pp. III-120. EDELSTEIN, L., Plalo's S,vmth u#M. Leiden, 1g66. L., Tha Idea of Progress itt Classical Antiquity. Baltimore, 1967. EDELSTEIN, EDELSTEIN, L., "The Role of Eryxima.chus in Plato's Symposium." T.A.P.A. 76 (1945), pp. 85-103 = Ancimt Midi.cine, pp. 153-171 (my references are to the latter publication}. EDELSTEIN, L., Anci.mt Medu;i,u. Selected papers of L. Edelstein. Baltimore, 1967. EINARSON = Einarson B., "Aristotle's Protreptictu and the Structure of the Epinomis." T.A.P.A. 67 (1936), pp. 261-285. EtNARSON, B., Review of Raeder, Plalons E;,itt0mis, A .J.P. 61 (1940), pp. 365-369. EINARSON 1 = Eina.rson, B., "A New Edition of the Epinomis: Review Article." (Review of des Pla.ces's edition) C.P . .53 (1958), pp. 91-99. ENGLAND, E. B., Th, Laws of Plato. The text edited with introduction, notes, etc. 2 vols. Manchester, 1921. ERBSB, H., "Uberlieferungsgeschichte der griechischen klassischen und helleGeschichu dM Tutuberlu/,ruttg dn antiken und nistischen Literatur." miUelalurlichen Literatu,. Band I. Zurich, 1961, pp. 207-283. EDELSTEIN,

FABRICIUS, J. A., Biblwlheca. Gruca. Ed. Harles. Vol. VII. Hamburg, 1801. FARQUHARSON, A. s. L., The Meditation& of ,,., Emperor Marcus A,stoninus.

Edited with Translation and Commentary. 2 vols. Oxford, 1944. D., Du Wied#lwlungsfigurett UM ihr G,brau.ch bei d,n Gruchet& vor Gorgias.Berlin, 1969. FR.srocd::RH, A.-J., "Platon et l'Orient." R.Pll. 3e serie, 21 (1947), pp. 5-45. FBsnrmiRH, A.- J ., L' Epinomis et !'introduction des cultes etrangers a Athenes.'' Con. Neot. II (1947), pp. 66-74. F'RsTUGIERR, A.-J., "La religion de Platen dans l'Epinomis." Bulletin dtJ la Socutl FraHfiJistJ de Philosophie 42 (1948), pp. 33-48. FESTUGit.RB, II = La Rlvtlalion d'Henn~s TrismegisltJ. II. Le Dieu Cosmique, par le R. P. Festugil!re. Paris, 1949. FESTUGt:ltRR,III = ibid. III. Les doctrines tu l'ame. Paris, 1953. FESTUGii:RE, A. J .. "A propos des aretalogies d'Isi.s." H.Th.R. 42 (1949), pp. 209-234. F'ESTUGd:R:e:, A. J., "L'ordre de lecture des dialogues de Platon au VefVle siecles." M.H. 26 (196g), pp. 281-296. FICINO = Omnia Divi Plalonis Opera Translalione Marsilii Ficini. Basileae, 1546. FtcINO = Platottis Philosophi. Quae Entaf&t. Graece ad editionem H. Stephani accurate expressa cum Marsilii Ficini Interpretatione, accedit varietas lectionis studiis Societati.s Bipontinae. Vol. IX, Biponti 1786 (text and translation of E.); vol. XI, Biponti 1789 (contains the variant rea.di:ngs). FISCHER, I. F., Jani Corna.rii Eclogae in DiaJ.ogos Plawnis Omnes. Nunc primum separatim editae, cura Ioh. Frider. Fischeri; etc. Lipsiae, 1771. FRACCAROLI, G., Plato,u. II Timeo. Torino, 1906. FRARNKBL, E., Aeschylus, Agamemnon. Edited with a commentary. 3 vols. Oxford, 1950. FRANK, E., Plato u,sd die sogenannltJn Pythagorur. Halle an der Saale, 1923. F'REDERKING, A., "Sprachliche Kriterien fiir die Chronologie der platonischen Dialoge." J.f.P. 28 (1882), pp. 534-54J. FREUDENTHAL, J., Der plalo-niker Albinos wnd der falschd Alkinaos. Berlin, 1879. F°RBUDBNTHAL, J., "Zu Proklus und dem jilngereo Olympiodor.'' H. 16 (1881), pp. 201-224. FEHLING,

BIBLIOGRAPHY FRIEDLANDER, P., Platon. I'. Berlin, 1964. FRIEDLANDER, P., Plato. III. Princeton, 1969. FRUTIGER, P ., Les mythes tU Plluon. Paris, 1930.

culls

GENTILE, M.• La dottnna platonica idu numeri, Ari&wtele. Pisa., 1930. GJGON, 0., "Die Erneuerung der Philosophie in del' Zeit Ciceros." Rldwrches

sur la lradmon plalonieienne. Ill. Gen~ve, 195.5, pp. 25-59.

Entretiens

sur l'antiquit6

classique.

Tome

GILDERSLEEVE, B. L., Syntax of Classical Greek. 2 vols. New York, 1goo-I9II. 'ETl'TTOIU)0 'AAKlvoov .616aaKCV\t1CoS ?" A.A..S. T. n. 95 (1g6oGIUSTA, M.," 'AAfl,lvov 61), pp. 167-194. GrnsTA, M., I dossografi di Etua. 2 vols. Torino 1964-1967. l'histoire de la pensee GoLDSCllMIDT, V., Essai sur le "Cratyle." Contribution

a

de Platon. Paris, 1940. G6RGEMANNS, H., Beitrtlge mr Jnurpretation von Platons Nomoi. Munchen, 1g6o. GbSSMANN, F. v. under Deimel. GRAESER, A., Review of Cole, G. 41 (1969), pp. g--16. q,1>.oaoq,tas (Cicero, Nat. deor. II 16, 44)." GRAESER, A., "Zu Aristoteles TTEp\ M.H. 27 (1970), pp. 16-27. GROTE, G., Plato's Doctrine Respming the Rotation of the Earth and Aristotle's Comment Upon that Doctrine. London, 186o. GROTE, G .• P"lato and the Other Companions of Socrates. A New Edition. In four volumes. London 1888. GROU = Lois de Platen. Par le traducteur de la R~publique. 2 vols. Amsterdam, 176g, GRUBE, G. M. A., Plato's Thought. London, 1935. GRUPPE, 0., Die Kosmischen Sysume dn G-riechsn. Berlin, 1851. GuNDEL, W.-GuNDRL, H., "Planeten." R.E. XX, 2 {1950), cols. 2017-2185. HAASB, W., "Ein vermeintliches

Aristoteles-Fragment bei Johannes Philoponus." Synusia. Festgabe fur Wolfga11g Schathwaldl. Pfullingen, 1965, pp. 323-354. HACKFORTH = Hackforth, R., "Notes on Plato's Epinomis." P.C.P.S. No. 178 (1941-45, published 1946), pp. g--10. M.H. 19 HAGER, F. P., "Die Materie und das Bose im antiken Platonismus." (1962), pp. 73-103. HARRY, J.E., "Indicative Questions with 1,11\ and &po 1,1t'i." Studus in H.oa6tpou."H. 3 (186g), pp. 382-388 HERMANN = Platonis Secundum ThrasyUi Tetralogias Dispositi ex ,uognitiontJ C. F. Hnmanni. Vol. V. Lipsiae 1877. HERTER, H., "Nymphai." R.E. XVll, 2 (1937), cols. 1527-1581. HoERBER, R. G., ''Thrasylus' Platonic Canon and the Double Titles." Phr. 2 (1957), pp. I0---20. HoirirMANN, A., De Platonis in Dispositicme Legum Consilio. Gryphiae, 1907. HoPPE, E., Mathematik und AstrOffOmie im klassischen Alterlum. Heidelberg, 1911. HltRCHBR, R., " Tqs Xap1wias

I., Philologische Studien zu Plalo, II. De Recensicmis Platonicae Praesidiis atque Rationibus. Leipzig, 1903. INCENKAMP, H. G., Untersuchungen m dtn ps,udoplatcmischen Definitionen. Wiesbaden, 1967. IMMISCH,

JACHMANN, G., De, Platontext. N.G.G. 1941, Nr. u. JAEGER, W., A,istoteles. Gn.ndl8gung einer Geschuhte

•

seine, Entwichlung. Zweite verbderte Auflage. Berlin 1955. JAEGER, W., "AITAPXAI." H. 64 (1929), pp. 22-40 = W. Jaeger, ScriptaMinora, vol. II, Roma, 196o, pp. 7-25. JAEGER, W., Paicuia: the Ifkals of Gre8k Culture. Translated by G. Highet. vol. III. The C.On:flictof Cultural Ideals in the Age of Plato. New York, 1943. JANELL, G., "Quaestiones Platonicae." ].J.P. Supplb. 26 (1901), pp. 263-336. JENSEN, S. S., Dualism and Demonalogy. The /undion of demonology in Pythagonaff and Platonic thought. Copenhagen, 1966. JOACHIM, H. H., A,istotl8. 011 Coming-to-Bs and Passing-Away (DB gene,aliOfle et cor,uptione). A Revised Text with Introduction and Commentary. Oxford, 1922. JoNES, R. M., The Platonism of Plwta,ch. Menasha., Wisconsin, 1916. C.P. 13 (1918), pp. 194-208. JONES, R. M., "Chalcidius and Neo-Platonism." JONES, R. M., "Incommensurable Numbers and the E,pinomis." A.J.P. 53 (1932}, pp. 61-66.

A., DB Aristotslis dialogis, qu.i inscribuntu, "de philosophia" et "Evdemus." Disserlaliones philologae Vindobonenses, vol. XI, pars 2 (1913), pp. 67-99. KALBFLR1sca, K., Dis muplatonische, fdlschlich dem Galen mgBschrie!Mna Schrift Tiposravpov mpl ToO TrOOS lµl.jlV)(ovrat T6:lµ~pva aus der Pariser H andschri/t .rum wsten Mais h,rausgegebm. A.A.W.B. 1895. KAYSER, F., De Crantore Aeademico. Heidelberg, 1841. KERSCHENSTEINER, J .. Platon und dw Orient. Stuttgart, 1945. KERSCHBNSTEINRR, J., "Zurn Gebrauch von ovvund ~11 bei Plato." M-undeMF Studien mr Sprachwissenschaft 11 (1956), pp. 28-41. KLEIN, J., Greek MaJhematical Thought and the Origin of Algebra. Cambridge, Mass., 1g68. (An English translation of the author's "Die griechische Logistik und die Entstehung der Algebra." Q.S. 3 [1934-1936], pp. 18-105 and 122-235.) KosTER, W. J. W., LB mythe de Platon, de Zaralhovstra et dBs Chald4ens. Leiden, 1951. *KOLLER, H., "Harmonie und Tetraktys." M.H. 16 (1959), pp. 238-248. •K6LLER, H., "Zum Aufsatz tiber 'Harmonic und Tetraktys'." M. H. 17 (196o). pp. II5-II6. KRANZ, ,v., "Platon Uber Hippokrates." Ph. g6 (1944), pp. 193-200 = W. Kranz, Studien .,,,.,. antilu11 Literalu, und ihnm Fo,twi,kBn. Klsine Schri./tffl. Heidelberg, 1967, pp. 315-319. KRANZ, W., "Zwei kosmologische Fragen." R.M. 100 (1957), pp. 114-129 = Kleine Schrijtdn, pp. 338-348. KAIL,

BIBLIOGRAPHY

37 1

M., Du Oberarbeitung der pla.kmischen 'Gesetze' durch Philipp von Opvs. Freiburg im Breigau, 1896. KRUMBACHER, K., Geschichlt1 de, byzantinischen Litwalu, von Judinian bis zum En@ des oslromischen Reichas ( 5a7-I 453 ). Zweite Au1lage bearbeitet unter Mitwirkung von A. Ehrbard-H. Gelzer. Miinchen, 1897. • KUCHARSKI, P., Etuds sur la doctrine PythagOf'itienne de la tJtrade. Paris, 1952. KUGLER. F. x., Slernktn&de und Stemdian.st in Babel. Vol. I, Munster in Westfalcn, 1907, vol. II 1909/10; 3. Ergdnrungsluft zum Erslm und Zweiten Buch von ]. Schaumberger, 1935. KOHNER-GERTH = R. Kiihner-B. Gerth, A usfuhrlicM Grammalik der griechischen Sprache. Satzlehre. 2 vols. Vierte Autlage. Leverkusen, 1955. KRIEG,

A. R., "The

*LACEY,

Mathematical

Passage in the Epitt.Offlis."

Ph,-. 1 (1956),

pp. 81-104.

= Lamb, W.R. M., Plato, with an English TranslaliO'Jt,. Vol. VIII. Charmuies... Ef>i'lt(}fflis. London, 1927. Revised and reprinted in 1955 (unless othenvise noted I cite from the revised edition). LAMBE.RE, W., "Au temps ou Franz Cumont s'interrogeait sur Aristote." A .C. 18 (1949). pp. 279-324. LANG, P., De Speusippi Academici Scriplis Accedunt Fragmenta. Bonn, 1911. LANGERBECK, H., Review of Jachmann, G. 22 (H)50}, pp. 375-380. LAssERRE, F., Die Fragmmle des Eudoxus VOH K111idos.Berlin, 1g66. LENZ, F., De,, Vaticanus Gr. I, eine Handschrift des Ardhas. N.G.G. 1933, No. 17. LENZ, F., Review of Post, The Vatican Plato, G. 12 (1936), pp. 128-134. LEVI, A., "SuHa demonologia platonica." Ath. N.S. 24 (1946), pp. 11.0fayla •975 A) which leads men gradually to adopt a purely cereal diet." In the Epfnomis, however, vegetarianism is ,wt recommended, and the science that forbade cannibalism also instituted correct habits of eating flesh, ,;j. pp. 72-73 and 218-220 swpra.

p. 11, n. 41: On the ancients' discussions of Homer, Iliad 12, 239-240 cf. H. J. Mette, Sphai-ropoiia. Untersuchungen zur Kosmologie des Krates von Pergamon (Miinchen, 1936), pp. 8--10 and 162-166. p. 12: The TI\IESin Diogenes Laertius III, 37 is one more instance of the custom of Hellenistic and later authors to leave their sources anonymous. CJ. Pfeiffer, Histo,y of Classical Scholarship, pp. 270-271. p.21: On the theme of the (T(,,)Tflpia Toovv6µoovand its relation to Plato's philosophizing cf. now E. Sandvoss, Soteria. Philosophische Grundlagen der platonischen Gesetzgebung (Gottingen, 1971).

pp. 28-29, 31-32, and 345-347: To the expressions f3,Atrre1v, a-rro~i\.tmw,rposor etsfv in Plato L. Paquet has devoted a massive monograph: Platon. La midiation du ,-egard (Leiden, 1973). He believes that in his use of the formula the author of the Epinomis is in agreement with the final pages of the Laws. CJ. contra pp. 24-36, 62--66, and 345-346 su,pra. 378

ADDENDA

379

pp. 86-88 and 278 (comm. on 983 E 5-984 B 1): just as the author of the Epinmiswrote cfycx)..µa-ra in 983 E 6 because of Timaeus 37 C 6-7,so he wrote dx6vas in the same line because of Timaeus 92 C 7, where the uruverse is said to be ebv, cf. n. 403 supra). The author of the Epinomis in all probability misinterpreted both passages. p. 87, n. 402: On Laws 930 E-931 A cf. the discussion in T. the Laws of Plato (London, 1972), pp. u3-n4.

J.

Saunders, Notes on

p. 92, n. 421: CJ.further comm. on 977 C 4-D 2, 985 D 4-986 A 3, 985 E 5-986 A 1, 985 E 6-986 A I, 986A 9-B 1,987 A6-'J, 988A 4,988 A 5-8, 988 A 7-8, etc. p. 108, n. 486: Reuther, 64-69 recognizes that if the earth moves the circle of the fixed stars must be stationary, or vice versa, if the latter moves the earth must be stationary; he believes. however, that the author of the Epinomis, and Plato too, does not wish to commit himself to either hypothesis. But both Plato and the author of the E pinomis ascribe motion to the circle of the fixed stars and make the earth stationary in the middle of the universe. CJ. pp. 98-IIo supra. p.115, n. 510: The treatise Tfjf XapLKAEUJS tpµfivevµaTfisaooq,povoshecpoo'"}S JAhrnov -rov q,Moa6q,ovhas also been published by A. Colonna, Heli-odoriAethiof,u;a (Romae, 1938), pp. 366-370. In a brief introduction (op. cit., pp. 365-366) and then more fully in Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Bolletino del Comitato per la prep. della ed. naz. dei classici gred e latini, N. S. 8 (1900), pp. 25-28, Colonna, followed by H. Gartner, Antike und Abendland 15 (1g69), pp. 6o-64, argues that this treatise is the work of Theophanes Kerameus, who lived in the twelfth century A.D. Colonna's arguments seem to me to be unconvincing and sometimes based on misinterpretation of the text and of the philosophical doctrines it contains. Since the point at issue is really irrelevant to this book, I plan to discuss Colonna's and Gartner's papers in a separate article which is now in preparation. pp. 116 (Test. V) and 132-133: The attribution by Mekler (Academicorum Philosophorum Index Herculanensis, p. xxvii) and Bidez (Eos, pp. 1-2), among others, of col. V, 1-19 (pp. 14-15 [Mekler]) to Philip of Opus is highly unlikely, for, even apart from the lack of evidence, col. III, 36--41 itself comes from him indirectly (cf. p. 133 and n. 556).

p. 124t D. 514: Dolger's interpretation of the title fi Iou6a has been challenged by Silvio Giuseppe Mercati, "Intomo al titolo dei lessici di Suida-Suda e di Papia,"

380

PLATO. PHILIP OF OPUS, AND THE EPINOMIS

Atti deltaAccademiaN azionaledei Lincei, M emru, Classedi scunze morali, storichee {ilolcgiche,serie VIII, vol. X, fasc. I (196o) and ibid. Rendiconti delta Classe di scienze morali, stO'fichee filologiche,serie VIII, vol. XVII, fasc. r-2 (1962), both reproduced now in S. G. Mercati. Collectanea Byzantina, volume I (Bari, 1970), pp. 641-7o8, who proposes a new

hypothesis: Suida = Guida, which was written rovt6a in Greek characters by a bilingual reader in Southern Italy. Though Dolger's interpretation is not certain. it seems to me to be more likely than that proposed by Mercati. CJ.Delger, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 51 (1958), pp. 165-166 and 53 (196o), p. 430.

p. 124 and n. 515: On the Onomatolcgosof Hesychius of Miletus cf. Suidas s.v. 'Hovxias M1"T\atoS(II. 594, 15-25 [Adler]) and H. Schultz, "Hesychios (10)," R. E. VIII (1913), cols. 1322-1327. p. 125, n. 521: Test. XVI a: On the compendium ascribed to "Palchus" and on the probability that it was in fact put together by Eleutherius Eleus in 1388, cf. D. Pingree, G. 40 (1968), p. 279. p. 127, n. 534: K. von Fritz. 2353. 29-36, rejects Praetorius's conjecture as unnecessary, and attempts to explain Suidas's mistaken statement that Philip of Opus was a student of Socrates as a misunderstanding of an expression for "Sokratiker" in one of Suidas's sources. p. 129 and n. 538: On 616p&xns and 61op.96ooin ancient grammarians cj. P. M. Fraser. PlolemaicAlexandria (Oxford, 1972), II, pp. 647-648, n. 3, with references. Proclus, however, meant by it the kind of correction and revision an author would give to his manuscript before publication. p. 130, n. 541: C. Hoeg. "Notules sur l'histoire du livre grec.H Miscellanea Giovanni Me,cati IV (Studi e testi 124, Citta del Vaticano, 1946), pp. 1-12, esp. 1-5, argues that the division of the Anabasis into books goes back to Xenophon himself. This is far from certain, however (cj. A. Lesky, Geschichtede,griechischenLiteratur2 (Bem-Mi.inchen, 1g63], p. 665 and n. 5), and, even if true, would be the exception which confirms the rule, as Hoeg himself recogruzes. p. 130 and n. 542: On the use of wax tablets for writing cf. R. Devreesse, Introduction d l' etude des manuscripts grecs (Paris, 1954). p. 1 and nn. I and 4 with references. p. 136 and n. 752: In view of Eratosthenes' interpretation of the unity of the mathematical sciences in Plato on the basis of Epinomis 991 D 8-g92 A I, it is quite

ADDENDA

381

probable that he himself read amoyfav for 6µoAoyfav in 991 E 3 and that Theon and Nicomachus depend upon him. Since he assigned a leading role to the principle of harmony in the universe, which principle he based on the mathematical principle of proportion, we may infer that he found this in this passage of the Epinomis, though it is true, as Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexand,.ia, I, pp. 482-483 says, that this has no particular affinity with in any doctrine of Plato. On the subordination of apµov(a to a~oy{a Eratosthenes cf. Fraser, op. cit., II, p. 698, n. 32. p. 137, n. 580: Philip's Test. X must ultimately come from Aetius's Placita. p. 141, n. 590: On Aristotle, De Anima 4rr A n-13 we must add that far h-om being a reference to the Epinumis, as Harward thinks it is, this passage is merely one of the two difficulties that Aristotle raises against Thales' view. CJ. W. D. Ross, Aristotle, De Anima. Edited, with introduction and commentary (Oxford, 1961), p. 209, on 4u A 13-14.

p. 143, n. 607: The citation of the Tleplq,~fas in DeAnima404 B 18-19 (6µoloos& ml lv TOTS Tlepi q>lAOO'OCpfoS MYOµbo1s 6tea:,plo-.S,,) supports the inference that the Tleplq,11'.oooq,fas is earlier than the De A nima too. On this passage of the De Anima cj. Chemiss, G. 31 (1959), pp. 36--51. p. 148t D. 632: My interpretation of Aristotle, Metaphysics 1074 B 1-10 coincides with the first suggestion made by Ross. He rejects it, however, and that which he himself prefers, namely that the gods of mythology have their origin in the prime forces that lie behind nature, is impossible in view of Aris&f>xa(wv KO.l1Till11TaAa(wv totle's own words: ,rapa.6e60T01 Se,ropaTOOV lv µv.9ov CJXflµaTlKaTOAfAflµµiuaTOTS VO'T&p0V 6Tt Seo{ Te ela,v OVTOI 1VO"E~ of Dionysius of Alexandria. p. 272 (comm. on 982 E 3-6): F. Muller, 57 also objects to the repetition of 16s, p. 2 73qiopa

XPTllnOS =

~. p. 252. xcl>pa= yi\, P· u1. xc:,pa(metaphorical), p. 293. ~. pp. 227; 293; 304. &:,s(causal), p. 303. cl)s, with an absolute construction after verbs of saying and thinking, p. 214. &:,s= 6-n, p. 2 47~ =