Platonica: The Anecdotes Concerning the Life and Writing of Plato 9004045651, 9789004045651

Citation preview

COLUMBIA STU D IES IN T H E CLASSICAL T R A D I T I O N under the direction of WILLIAM V. HARRIS (Editor) - W. T. H. JACKSON PAUL OSKAR KRISTELLER - WALTHER LUDWIG

VOLUME III

LEIDEN

E. J. BRILL 1976

PLATONICA THE ANECDOTES CONCERNING THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF PLATO

BY

ALICE SWIFT RIGINOS

LEIDEN

E. J. BRILL 1976

Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition publishes monographs by members of the Columbia University faculty and by former Columbia students. Its subjects are the following: Greek and Latin literature, ancient philosophy, Greek and Roman history, classical archaeology, and the influence of the classical tradition on mediaeval, Renaissance and modern cultures.

The following books have been published in the series: I. Monfasani, John: George of Trebizond: a Biography and a Study of his Rhetoric and Logic (1976) II. Coulter, James A.: The Literary Microcosm: Theories of Interpretation of the Later Neoplatonists (1976) IV. Bagnall, Roger S.: The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions out­ side E gypt (1976)

The publication of this book was aided by the Stanwood Cockey Lodge Foundation. ISBN 90 04 04565 i

© 1976 The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York A ll rights reserved. N o part o f this book may be reproduced or translated in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, microfiche or any other means without written permission from the publisher PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

To m y father, Gustavus F. Swift I I I

CONTENTS Acknowledgments.......................................................................... List of A b b re v ia tio n s..................................................................

ix xi

In tro d u c tio n ...................................................................................

i

I. Plato’s Apollonian N a tu r e .......................................... II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. XI. XII. X III. XIV.

9

B i r t h .............................................................................. 33 Plato’s Name ............................................................... 35 Plato’s Y o u t h ............................................................... 39 Relations with S o c ra te s .............................................. 53 Travels and Study following the Death of Socrates . 61 The Sicilian Voyages: Plato at the Syracusan Court . 70 The Philosopher Sold into S l a v e r y .......................... 86 Plato and his Predecessors and Contemporaries . . . 93 Plato in the A cadem y.......................................................119 Plato’s Character as Depicted by Anecdotes . . . . 151 Plato the Bibliophile and Man of L e t t e r s ................... 165 Anecdotes about Individual Dialogues............................ 180 Special Achievements and In v e n tio n s ............................ 188

XV. Special H o n o rs .................................................................. 19° XVI. Death and Posthumous H onors.......................................194 XVII. Conclusion.......................................................................... 199 Appendix I: Chronological Chartof Sources..................................214 Appendix II : Distribution of Anecdotesin the Vitae . . . .

215

Appendix III: The Arabic Lives of P la to .................................... 216 Appendix IV : English Translations of Greek and Latin Quo­ tations and T erm s........................................................................219 Select B ib lio g rap h y ........................................................................239 A ddenda............................................................................................243 I n d e x ................................................................................................ 244

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study is a revised form of a doctoral dissertation written under the direction of Professor Leonardo Tarân in the department of Greek and Latin at Columbia University. I wish to take this opportunity to thank Professor Tarân, who initially suggested to me the topic of a study of the Platonic biographical anecdotes, for his guidance and criticism and for the interest he took in all phases of preparation of this study. I am grateful to the members of my doctoral committee, Professors Paul O. Kristeller, Walther Ludwig, Morton Smith, and James A. Coulter, for their careful reading of the dissertation and for many helpful suggestions. Professor Franz Rosenthal of Yale University kindly read Appendix III on the Arabic lives of Plato and made many corrections and brought to my attention several Arabic sources that otherwise would have es­ caped my notice. Professor Richard T. Bruère of the University of Chicago was helpful in locating the Paul Shorey Papers which have now been deposited in the University of Chicago Library. I am grate­ ful to the officials of the University of Chicago Library for making the Paul Shorey Papers available and to the research staff of Butler Library at Columbia University for their help in procuring micro­ film copies of two unpublished dissertations. Finally, I would like to thank the Editorial Board of Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition, with special thanks to the Editor, William V. Harris, for his advice and assistance during the final stages of preparing the manuscript for publication.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Abhandl. d. Kön. Sachs. Gesell, cl. Wiss. : Abhandlungen der philologischhistorischen Classe der Königlich Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissen­ schaften. Archiv f. Gesch. d. Philos.: Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie. Ausführ. Lex. d. gr. u. röm. Myth. : Ausführliches Lexicon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie, W. H. Roscher, ed. 6 vols. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1884-1937. AJP: The American Journal of Philology. BZ: Byzantinische Zeitschrift. CAG: Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, 23 vols. Berlin: G. Reimer, 18821909. CP: Classical Philology. FGrHist: Jacoby, Felix. Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, 3 vols. Berlin: Weidmann, 1923-1958. FHG: Müller, C. and Müller, T., edd. Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, 5 vols. Paris: Didot, 1841-73. GGA: Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen. GRBS: Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies. JA: Journal asiatique. JDAI: Jahrbuch des deutschen archäologischen Instituts. JOE AI: Jahreshefte des österreichischen archäologischen Instituts. OED: The Oxford English Dictionary, 12 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, PG:

1933 -

Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca. J. P. Migne, editor, Paris: Garnier, 1857-1866. P.L. : Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Latina. J. P. Migne, editor. Paris: Garnier, 1844-1880. P.O. : Patrologia orientalis. PR: Philosophical Review. RE: Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, A. Pauly, G. Wissowa, W. Kroll, K. Mittelhaus, and K. Ziegler, edd. Stuttgart: 1894Rh. M: Rheinisches Museum. Würzburger Jbb. : Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Altertumswissenschaft. ZDMG: Zeitschrift der Deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft.

INTRODUCTION There are extant six ancient lives of the philosopher Plato: the fragmentary remains of the Academicorum philosophorum index Herculanensis (first century B.C.); the introductory chapters of Apuleius’ De Platone et dogmate eius (second century A.D.); the first 47 chapters of the third book of Diogenes Laertius (third century A.D.); the introductory sections of Olympiodorus’ In Platonis Alcibiadem commentaria and of the Anonymous Prolegomena to Platonic Philosophy (sixth century A.D.) ; and a notice in Suidas (tenth century A.D.) which is based on the Onomatologos of Hesychius of Miletus (sixth century A.D.). Perhaps the most striking characteristic of these biographies is the great number of bio­ graphical anecdotes about the philosopher which are woven into all of them. Many of these anecdotes, however, do not originate in the lives: in some cases an earlier source is cited for a given anecdote, while in others an individual anecdote is also known from an author earlier than the Platonic lives. In addition to those from the vitae proper, a large number of anecdotes are found in sources which draw on an anecdote to illustrate a point under discussion and not to describe Plato’s life. Although the writers of the preserved ancient vitae have in general selected anecdotes, as well as other biographical information, favorable to Plato (Diogenes Laertius, however, incorporates a number of unfavorable anecdotes into his life of Plato), hostile anecdotes are numerous in the general biographical tradition. Modern biographers of Plato have also used the anecdotes preserved in the lives and in the general tradition to add details to the relatively few facts known about Plato’s life and to depict his character and personality. But while anecdotes have been used in this way as source material for the biography of Plato and other ancient figures, there have been few attempts to analyze the anecdotal material about a major ancient personality in an ex­ haustive and critical fashion, to question the anecdotes themselves and to trace them back to their original sources; an important exception is of course the case of the biographical material about Jesus preserved in the Synoptic Gospels. A critical analysis does not accept one anecdote and reject another because the one com-

2

INTRODUCTION

plements while the other contradicts the picture of Plato preferred by the individual biographer; rather, such an analysis is based on consideration of whether or not a given anecdote could be historical, or of why it may have been invented, and of how it was used by later writers. Such a critical treatment is attempted in this study which presents a classified collection of 148 anecdotes dealing with the life and writings of Plato. The present study is restricted to the anecdotal tradition as a source for biographical information about Plato and does not aim at presenting a critical biography of the philosopher. The problems raised by the other sources of biographical material— the question, for example, of the authenticity of the seventh and eighth Platonic Epistles or an analysis of the sources of the pre­ served ancient lives of Plato—lie beyond the scope of this work. The Epistles attributed to Plato are not direct sources of anec­ dotes. They are useful, however, in indicating the nature of criticism and attacks which were directed at Plato as early as the fourth century B.C. and to which certain of the anecdotes allude, for, even if the Epistles are considered spurious, one may still claim a fourth century date for certain of them and attribute them to a responsible source familiar with the events of Plato’s life. The Platonic anecdotes in this study are numbered sequentially and are introduced by a paraphrase of their contents and a listing of the ancient testimonia in chronological order. A critical com­ mentary follows which discusses the salient features of the one or more versions of the story, traces the development of the variants, and, where possible, accounts for the source and the historical reliability of the anecdote. The anecdotes are grouped in chapters according to their thematic content ; in some instances the chapters follow the traditional rubrics of ancient biography (e.g. birth, travels, death) while in others they represent special themes in the life of Plato (e.g. his Apollonian nature). For the purpose of this study an anecdote is defined as the narration of a specific habit, event, or act in the life of Plato. Compare the second entry s.v. “anecdote” in the OED: "The narrative of a detached incident or a single event, told as being in itself interesting or striking.” As used in this study the term “anecdote” is without the connotations of the earlier meaning listed in the OED ("Secret, private, or hitherto unpublished narratives or details of history” ) which derives from the Greek

INTRODUCTION

3

άνέκδοτα, “things unpublished.” As the title of Procopius’ memoirs of Justinian, which dealt with the private affairs of the court, the term “άνέκδοτα” came to connote accounts of a scandalous nature, but in its later usage, which came into the English language in the eighteenth century from the French, the term is free of these connotations. In some instances the biographical anecdotes are extensive reports of a given incident, in others they are but brief allusions to otherwise unknown events. The dividing line between an anecdote and a biographical notice is at times difficult to draw (particularly when a notice supplies a piece of biographical information which is demonstrably untrue is one tempted to regard the notice as a “story” or “anecdote” ). The introductory remarks which preface several of the chapters include references to additional material which might be considered anecdotal. In the testimonia those authors in whose works the anecdote is preserved are listed chronologically. In order to avoid repetition, earlier sources cited by the authors recording the anecdote are not included in the testimonia. In the discussion of each anecdote, however, complete references are made to the sources cited and they are discussed in chronological sequence. Appendix I provides a listing of all sources associated with each anecdote, both those whose works are preserved and those known only by citation. In general the later chronological limit on the material in­ cluded in this study is the sixth century A.D., the period of Hesychius of Miletus, the source on which Suidas depends. But some sources later than the sixth century (particularly Tzetzes and Ioannes Saresberiensis) are included in the testimonia, for they clearly draw on earlier works. The more important Arabic authors who treat of Plato’s life are listed in the testimonia as well. For the Arabic sources see Appendix III. The sources of the anecdotes are many and varied (the table in Appendix I provides a complete list of all the sources), and each anecdote must necessarily be analyzed in itself. Certain of them can be traced back to contemporaries of Plato and to fourth century writers of biography. A large number of the anecdotes were probably first circulated in lost works—favorable anecdotes in pro-Platonic writings, hostile in anti-Platonic pamphlets (some of which were written as early as the fourth century) by sophists rhetors, and opposing philosophers, in historical writings, and in

4

INTRODUCTION

middle Attic comedy.1 Another group of anecdotes is drawn from Alexandrian biographers and writers. A large number, however, cannot be traced back to a specific source; in some cases one can suggest a probable origin and date, while in other cases one can but note when the anecdote is first attested in the tradition. Apart from the ancient Platonic lives, which are late in date,2 other important sources preserving anecdotal material are the writings of Cicero, Seneca, Plutarch, Aelian, Valerius Maximus, Athenaeus, Stobaeus, and the commentaries of the Neoplatonists on Plato and Aristotle (the latter are included in the Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca). These authors preserve anecdotes which in most cases are probably drawn from earlier sources, even when an earlier author is not cited by name. Christian writers such as Origen, Tertullian, Gregorius Nazianzenus, and Jerome also record stories about Plato. Sayings attributed to Plato are found in the late gnomologia, particularly the Gnomologium Vaticanum. While gnomic sayings as such are excluded from this study, those sayings which can be classified as χρεΐαι—maxims set in the context of a specific narration—have been numbered among the anecdotes. Other declarative sayings are referred to only when they are connected thematically with a specific anecdote. In analyzing the form of the Platonic anecdotes the critical methods utilized in the study of the Synoptic Gospels 3 are not entirely applicable. There is no evidence that an oral tradition 1. See R. Fenk, Adversarii Platonis quomodo de indole ac moribus eius iudicaverunt, (Jena: G. Nevenhahn, 1913), pp. 9-54 for references to testi­ monia and to preserved fragments of such hostile material. The forms in which anti-Platonic sentiment was expressed are treated by the studies of E. L. Theiss, “H ostility to Plato in Antiquity,” (Ph.D. dissertation. Univer­ sity of Chicago, 1916) and of J. Geffcken, “Antiplatonica," Hermes 64 (1929) : 87-109. 2. While a comparative analysis of all the biographical information in the various vitae is not the aim of this study, the chronological range of the preserved vitae allows one to see certain developments in the form and con­ tents of the later Platonic vitae. One can also trace certain relations among the lives based on the anecdotal material that they include and exclude. See Appendix II for a table of the biographical anecdotes found in the ancient lives. 3. See especially the studies of M. Dibelius, A Fresh Approach to the New Testament and E arly hristian CLiterature, (London: I. Nicholson & Watson, 1936) and R. Bultmann, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, 3rd ed., Forschungen zur Religion und Literature des Alten und Neuen Testaments N.S. 12, (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957), anck joke on his poverty : Diogenes Laertius 2.63 reports too that Aeschines had but one pupil, here called “ ’Αριστοτέλης ό Μύθος.” 18 . FHG IV 412. 7

Ç8

PLATO AND HIS PREDECESSORS AND CONTEMPORARIES

initially supposing Plato to be involved in an intrigue, was over­ whelmed by the philosopher’s εύμένεια and μεγαλοφροσύνη when he instead recommended his fellow philosopher to the tyrant.19 This story is favorable to Plato, depicting him as befriending Aeschines, and stands in contrast to 40 and 41. C o n c l u s io n

Two anecdotes come from the anti-Platonic tradition and depict Plato as despising Aeschines: 40 taken from the third-century Epicurean Idomeneus and 41 from Athenaeus. In opposition to these is 42 from Plutarch which tells of Plato’s self-effacing re­ commendation to Dionysius. Antisthenes A necdotes

Anecdote 43: Their enmity stemmed from Plato’s comment when Antisthenes was going to read one of his writings and invited Plato to be present. When Plato learned that the subject was the impossibility of contradiction he commented, “ Πώς ούν σύ περί αύτοϋ τούτου γράφεις;” Testimonium: Diogenes Laertius 3-35 (Ι: ΐβύ·1^-22 [Long]).20 Diogenes Laertius gives this and the following anecdote in his section on Plato’s relations with the other Socratics as evidence of his enmity with Antisthenes. That Antisthenes did maintain that contradiction is impossible is attested elsewhere.21 Diimmler 22 suggests that this anecdote as well as 44 was made up to explain the title of the dialogue Σάθων. Anecdote 44: Antisthenes gave Plato the vulgar name Σάθων 23 and published a dialogue under that title. Testimonia: Athenaeus 5.220D and 11.507A (1: 488, 3: 120 [Kaibel]);24 Diogenes Laertius 3.35 (1: 136.22-24 [Long]). 19. Cf. Ep. Socr. 23.2-3 (pp. 625-6 [Hercher]) for mention of Plato's intercession on behalf of Aeschines. See also anecdotes 25-28 for Plato’s frankness of speech toward the tyrant. 20. Cf. Antisthenes Frag. 13.2 (Winckelmann). 21. Aristotle Metaph. 4.29.1024B.32-34; Top. 1.11.104B.20-21 ; Diogenes Laertius 9.53; Stobaeus 2.2, 15; Proclus In Crat. 37. 22. Antisthenica (Berlin: Weidmann, 1882), p. 62. 23. See Fenk, Adversarii Platonis, p. 80. 24. Cf. Antisthenes Frag. 13.i (Winckelmann).

PLATO AND HIS PREDECESSORS AND CONTEMPORARIES

99

Athenaeus mentions in two places the dialogue given a vulgar name and written about Plato: in 5. 220I) it is part of a catalogue of slander against Antisthenes, in 11. 507A it is mentioned, following a list of people Plato slanders in his dialogues, with the comment that Antisthenes too was not blameless on this score. In Diogenes Laertius the anecdote is told as Antisthenes’ retaliation for Plato’s comment in anecdote 43. Athenaeus apparently draws on the malicious Herodicus of Babylon 25 who, writing in the second century B.C., assailed the Socratics in a special treatise, Προς τ6ν Φιλοσωκράτην. A collector of earlier attacks not preserved (one of his sources was Hegesander), Herodicus is a source for later de­ tractors of Plato. The close relation of 43 and 44, where the first describes an initial insult, the second a retaliation, is reminiscent of the literary polemic seen in 60 and 61. Although 43 and 44 could have come to Diogenes Laertius via Herodicus, directly or indirectly, it is possible that the ultimate source for both anecdotes is an Alexan­ drian biographer.26 Anecdote 45: Antisthenes’ remark when Plato spoke ill of him: ‘'Βασιλικόν καλώς ποιοΰντα κακώς άκούειν.”

Testimonium: Diogenes Laertius 6.3 (2: 248.7-8 [Long]).27 Told to illustrate Antisthenes’ dignified response to Plato’s abuse, the saying is attested elsewhere for both Antisthenes and Alexander the Great.28 Anecdote 46: Antisthenes and Plato were watching a parade and Plato repeatedly praised a particularly spirited horse. Antisthenes remarked, making fun of Plato ώς τετυφωμένον, “ Έδόκεις μοι καί σύ ίπ π ος Sv είναι λαμπρυντής.” 25· See A. Gudeman, “Herodikos,” RE 8 (1913): 976 for the suggestion that the anti-Platonic material of books 5 and n of Athenaeus is drawn from Herodicus, followed by 1 . Düring, Herodicus the Cratetean: A Study in Anti-Platonic Tradition, Kunliga Vitterhets Historie och Antikvetets Akademiens Handlingar, Del 51.2 (Stockholm: Wahlström & Widstrand, 1941) who includes these passages in his section 4 of Herodicus' ΓΙρές τόν Φιλοσωκράτην, see also pp. 54-9 and 63-81 of his commentary. 26. See Conclusion, p. 206 n. 20. 27. Cf. Frag. 2.3 (Winckelmann). 28. M. Antoninus Comm. 7.36 and Epictetus Diss. 4.6.20 attribute the saying to Antisthenes, Plutarch Alex. 41.2 and Apophth. Alex. 181F gives it to Alexander. Dio Chrysostome Or. 47.25 gives the saying without attri­ bution.

PLATO AND HIS PREDECESSORS AND CONTEMPORARIES

Testimonia·. Diogenes Laertius 6.7 (2: 249.19-22 [Long]) ; Arsenius Violetum (p. 108.5-9 [Walz]). Anecdote 47: Antisthenes visited Plato when he was sick and, seeing a basin into which Plato had vomited, commented: “ Χολήν μέν όρώ ένταϋθα, τϋφον δε ούχ όρώ.” Testimonia: Diogenes Laertius 6.7 (2: 249.22-24 [Long]) ; Arsenius Violetum (p. 108.9-11 [Walz]). Anecdotes 46 and 47, both from Diogenes Laertius’ βίος of Antisthenes, deal with Plato’s arrogance as criticized by Antisthen­ es. For Cynic criticism of τύφος and φιλοδοξία, which was equated with τύφος, see the discussion under 7/. The theme of horses associated with pride and arrogance in 46 29 is seen also in n o . The sickbed setting of 47 is found in 55 as well. Anecdote 48: Plato’s comment when Antisthenes spoke at too great a length: “ ’Αγνοείς δτι τοϋ λόγου μέτρον έστίν ούχ ό λέγων, άλλ’ ό άκούων.” 30 Testimonia: Stobaeus 3-36.22 (3: 695 [Hense]) ; Gnom. Vat. 437 (p. 163 [Stembach]) = Cod. Vat. Gr. 1144 f. 231v; Maximus Confessor 47.647 (Migne, P.G. 91: 941A) ; Arsenius Violetum (p. 422.15-17 [Walz]). Curiously, this anecdote portraying Plato’s disapproval of Antisthenes’ verbosity31 is found also in the Gnomologium Vaticanum, number 13, with the roles reversed. In light of anecdote 64 where Diogenes reproaches Plato’s verbosity it may be that such a charge originated with the Cynics.32 Not attested before Stobaeus, the anecdote appears otherwise only in collections of sayings. C onclusion

Anecdote 103 also has bearing on Plato’s relationship with Antisthenes, for it recounts his opposition to Plato’s theory of 29. The anecdote may also allude to metempsychosis and make fun of Plato for the reputed Pythagorean influence on his thought. 30. Stobaeus. The Gnom. Vat. gives the saying as “λόγου μέτρον Χριστόν έστιν ούχ ό λέγων, άλλ’ ό άκούων.” 3ΐ. Arsenius, however, says μικρολογήσαντος. 32. L. Stembach, Gnomologium Vaticanum, p. 9 gives parallels for sup­ porting both Plato and Antisthenes as the speaker.

PLATO AND IUS PREDECESSORS AND CONTEMPORARIES

ΙΟ Ι

Ideas. The anecdote (also told about Diogenes and Platoby Diogenes Laertius) is associated with Antisthenes by Ammonius of the fifth century A.D. Anecdote 43 (from Diogenes Laertius) also indicates opposition in points of doctrine, while anecdote 44 (from Athenaeus and Diogenes Laertius) attests a personal enmity between the two philosophers. Herodicus of Babylon is probably the source of 44 and perhaps of 43 as well since the one follows the other in a causal relationship in Diogenes Laertius. In 45 (from Diogenes Laertius) Plato is addressed with a well-known saying of Antisthenes. Anecdotes 46 and 4·/ (also from Diogenes Laertius) are examples of the Cynic attack on pride directed against Plato. The attribution of 48 is not certain. Apollodorus Anecdote 49 : Shortly after the death of Socrates when his former pupils were as yet despondent, Plato raised his cup in a symposion and urged them not to despair, for he was competent to direct their school. He then drank a toast to Apollodorus who, however, responded that “ ήδιον αν παρά Σωκράτους τήν τοϋ φαρμάκου κύλικα είλήφειν ή παρά σοϋ τήν τοϋ οΐνου πρόποσιν.” Testimonium: Athenaeus 11.507Α-Β (3: 120-121 [Kaibel]). Athenaeus quotes directly from Hegesander έν τοϊς ' Υπομνήμασι33 for this example of Plato’s κακοηθεία which illustrates Plato’s lack of respect for Socrates' memory,34 his insensitivity to the feelings of his companions, and his arrogance in proclaiming himself Socrates’ successor. A ristippus Grounds for bitter personal enmity between Plato and Aristippus were found by those ancient critics who interpreted Plato’s words in the Phaedo 59C 35 that Aristippus was in Aegina on the day that Socrates drank the hemlock as an abusive attack on Aristippus. An explanation of how Plato’s words are meant as vilification is found in Demetrius De elocutione 288,36 while Diogenes Laertius 33. 34. 35. 36.

FHG IV 412-413· See also anecdotes 18 and 50. Cf. Frag. 103A (Mannebach). Cf. Frag. 103B (Mannebach).

PLATO AND HIS PREDECESSORS AND CONTEMPORARIES

repeats the charges in 2. 65 (έκάκισεν αυτόν)37 and in 3. 36 (διαβάλλων αυτόν).38 Another bit of literary gossip is seen in 40 where Plato in the Crito is said to have ignored Aeschines’ role during Socrates’ last days because he was friendly with Aristippus. Moreover, Theopompus accused Plato of plagiarizing Aristippus.39 The traditional hostility between Plato and Aristippus doubtless derives from the opposition of their doctrines which present φρόνησις and ηδονή as the highest good, respectively.40 The doctrinal opposition is taken up by the biographical tradition and is used as the basis for anecdotes depicting the contrast between Aristippus the pleasure-seeker and Plato the self-disciplined moralist. The fact that both philosophers were at Dionysius’ court also provides a context for the favorable tradition to contrast Plato’s behavior with that of the parasite-philosopher Aristippus.41 A necdotes

Anecdote 50: Aristippus reprimanded Plato for speaking contrary to Socrates with the words: “’Αλλά μην δ γ’ έταΐρος ημών ούθέν τοιοϋτον.” Testimonium: Aristotle Rhet. 2.2^.î^g8B.2q-^i. The saying attributed to Aristippus 42 is the earliest example of hostility between Aristippus and Plato. Aristotle, using the anecdote to illustrate the case where a previous judgement is to be accepted when it is that of one whom it is unseemly to correct, gives no details about the occasion or the content of Plato’s words provoking Aristippus’ reprimand. The same theme, th at Plato distorted Socrates’ teaching, is seen in anecdotes 16 and iy . 37. Cf. Frag. 103C (Mannebach). 38. Cf. Frag. 103D (Mannebach). 39. FGrHist 115 F259. 40. See A. Mauersberger, “Plato und Aristipp,” Hermes 61 (1926): 208230, 304-328 for Plato’s treatment of the Aristippean or Cyrenaic Good in his dialogues, and G. Giannantoni, I Cirenaici, (Florence: G. C. Sansoni, 1958) pp. 116-169 for the opposing view that Plato refers to Aristippus only in the Phaedo, 59C. 41. Cf. Athenaeus 11.507B (Frag. 105 [Mannebach]) who gives as an example of Plato’s base character the account that he mocked Aristippus for going to Sicily while he himself went three times. The Socratic Epistle 23 (pp. 625-6 [Hercher]) alludes to the hostility of Aristippus and Plato at the court. Plutarch Dion 19.7 reports that Aristippus predicted the falling out of Dionysius and Plato. 42. Cf. Frag. 104 (Mannebach).

PLATO AND HIS PREDECESSORS AND CONTEMPORARIES

IO 3

Anecdote 5 /: Plato censured Aristippus for όψοφχγία when he found him purchasing fish at an extravagant price; Aristippus replied to the effect that Plato was miserly. Testimonia : Athenaeus S.343D (2: 254 [Kaibel]) ; Gnom. Vat. 40 (p. 20 [Stembach]). The common element in the anecdote found in Athenaeus434 and in the Gnomologium Vaticanum 44 is Plato’s reprimand over the purchase of fish. Athenaeus, cataloguing the οψοφάγοι of the past, cites for Plato’s criticism of Aristippus Sotion the Alexandrian biographer and Hegesander of Delphi, both of the second century B.C. The version he quotes is that of Hegesander,45 where Plato criticizes Aristippus for buying many fish. Aristippus then replies that he bought them for only two obols, and Plato concedes that he too would have bought the fish at that price. Whereupon Aristippus quips, "Όρας ούν, ώ Πλάτων, δτι ούκ έγώ έψοφάγος, άλλά συ φιλάργυρος.” The version in the Gnomologium Vaticanum is slightly different. Aristippus purchases his fish for twelve drachmae, and when Plato reprimands him he inquires if Plato would have bought them for one drachma. When Plato admits that he would have done so, Aristippus remarks: “"Ο γάρ έστι Πλάτωνι ή μία δραχμή, τοϋτο Άριστίππω αί δώδεκα.” Both versions have the form of “Streitgespräch” with Aristippus countering Plato’s reprimand with a question and ending the exchange with a remark pointing at Plato’s being a miser.4® An anecdote similar to the version in the Gnomologium Vaticanum is found in Diogenes Laertius 2. 66 4748where an anonymous person reproaches Aristippus for buying a partridge at great expense, while a parallel to Hegesander’s version is found in Diogenes Laertius 2. 75 48 where another unnamed critic 49 attacks him for πολυτελή όψωνίαν. 43. Cf. Frag. 72A (Mannebach). 44. Cf. Frag. 73B (Mannebach). 45. FHG IV 416-417. 46. See below p. 162 for other allusions to Plato the miser. 47. Cf. Frag. 72B (Mannebach). 48. Cf. Frag. 73B (Mannebach). 49. The critic is identified as Plato by I. Casaubon, Notae ad Diogenis Laertii libros de vitis, dictis, decretis principum philosophorum (Leiden, 1595; reprint ed., Leipzig : 1830) ρ. 46 on the basis of comparison with Hegesander’s version. The anecdote in Diogenes Laertius 2.75 follows one attributed to

104

PLATO AND HIS PREDECESSORS AND CONTEMPORARIES

The anecdote is attested for the second century by Athenaeus’ citing of both Sotion and Hegesander. Apparently Hegesander’s version was preferred by Athenaeus ; perhaps it was the more vicious of the two. Since the anecdote turns Plato’s reproach of Aristippus back upon Plato himself to point out a flaw in his own character, it is reasonable to suppose that the anecdote as recorded has developed from a simpler form which gave only Plato’s initial criticism of Aristippus. Probably a Cyrenaeic, or Epicurean, source is responsible for the more developed and anti-Platonic form. Anecdote 52 : Plato censured Aristippus for το πολυτελώς ζην, and Aristippus countered by asking if Dionysius is a good man. When Plato replied in the affirmative, Aristippus concluded: “ Καί μήν ζη έμοϋ πολυτελέστερον ■ ώστ’ ούδέν κωλύει καί πολυτελώς καί καλώς ζην.” Testimonium·. Diogenes Laertius 2.69, 76 (i: 86.8-12, 89.1-4 [Long]). Found only in Diogenes Laertius 50 (the placement varying in the manuscripts) this anecdote shows Plato’s objection to Aristippus’ luxurious ways countered first by a question from Aristippus ("Gegenfrage” ) and then silenced by Aristippus’ comment. A Cyrenaeic or Epicurean source is likewise probable in this case. Anecdote 53: Plato said to Aristippus, “Σοί μόνω δέδοται καί χλανίδα φορεΐν καί ράκος.” Testimonia: Diogenes Laertius 2.67 (i: 85.16-17 [Long]); Arsenius Violetum (p. 113.6-9 [Walz]). Diogenes Laertius,81 from whom Arsenius excerpts, tells this saying of Plato 52 to illustrate Aristippus’ extremes in choosing Sotion and may be taken as well from the Alexandrian. Contrasting Aristip­ pus’ final remark in this anecdote with that of Hegesander’s version, the more deliberate word use and arrangement of the words, “ούκέτι τοίνυν φιλήδονος έγώ, άλλα σύ φιλάργυρος,” as seen in the alliteration of the adjectives and the chiastic ordering, may point to the Alexandrian writer. Perhaps this was the actual remark in Sotion’s telling of the story. 50. Cf. Frag. 75 (Mannebach). 51. Cf. Frag. 33 (Mannebach). 52. The saying is also attributed to Straton (head of the Peripatos from 287 to 269) who was too young to have known Aristippus personally.

PLATO AND HIS PREDECESSORS AND CONTEMPORARIES

I 05

and scorning (ούτως ήν και έλέσΟαι καί καταφρονήσαι πολύ;). Plato’s words, that Aristippus alone could wear both robes and rags, are said in disapproval of the Cyrenaeic’s inconsistency of character. The saying may allude to anecdotes 54 and 57. Anecdote 54: Plato’s comment when he came upon a shipwrecked Aristippus clothed in rags: “ ΙΙάντα ην. πρέπει.” Testimonia : Helcnius Acron In Horat. Epist. 1.17.23 (2: 463 [Hauthall); Pomponius 1'orphvrion In Horat. Epist. 1.17.23 (2: 468 [Hauthaljj. Similar to the previous anecdote, this story reports Plato’s comment when he saw Aristippus actually wearing rags after his shipwreck.53 The story is found only in the scholiasts on Horace,54 Helenius Acron of the second century A.D. and Pomponius Porphyrion of the third century. Both scholiasts tell the anecdote in connection with Horace’s lines in Epistulae 1. 17. 23-24·55 For Aristippus’ extreme adaptability and hence inconstancy of character see also Diogenes Laertius’ assessment of his character in 2. 66. Anecdote 55: Plato visited Aristippus when sick, and when Plato asked how Aristippus was the latter replied that “τον μέν σπουδαιον καί πυρέττοντα καλώς έχειν, τον δέ φαϋλον καί μή πυρέττοντα κακώς.” Testimonium: Gnom. Vat. 30 (ρ. ι6 iSternbachJ) = Cod. Paris. 2720 f. Ι5Γ(et 1773 f. 230'’). Found only in the gnomologia this anecdote has Aristippus contrast himself, the good man though feverish, with Plato, the base man without fever. The sick-bed setting is seen also in 47. Anecdote 56: Aristippus, who openly sought money from Dionysius in Sicily, contrasted his own conduct with that of Plato. Testimonia·. Plutarch Dion 19.3 (2.1: 106 [Ziegler]); Diogenes Laertius 2.81 (1: 91.3-5 jLongj). The two variations both give sayings attributed to Aristippus in which he contrasts his own willingness to accept monetary 53. Cf. Frags. o \- H (Mannehnch) for Aristippus’ shipwreck. 54. Cf. Frag. 32H (Mannehnch). For Plato's words Acron paraphrases Horace while Porphyrion gives the quotation in Greek. 55. Omnis Aristippum decuit color et status et res temptantem maiora, fere praesentibus aequum.

favors from the Syracusan tyrant with Plato who would take no money. Plutarch's version 56 is entirely favorable to Plato and is intended to refute the charge that Plato was a parasite in Dionysius’ court.®7Aristippus, seeing Plato refuse money repeatedly, comments on Dionysius’ shrewdness: "αύτοϊς μεν γάρ μικρά διδόναι πλειόνων δεομένοις, Πλάτωνι δέ πολλά μηδέν λαμβάνοντι.” The version known to Diogenes Laertius,58 however, contrasting Plato’s request for books with Aristippus’ for money from Dionysius, bears the stamp of the hostile tradition, Aristippus remarks: “ Έ γώ μέν γάρ άργυρίων, Πλάτων δέ βιβλίων έστίν ενδεής.” Here the words of Aristippus allude to the slanderous charge that Plato acquired books in Sicily in order to plagiarize their contents.59 The inference is that Aristippus’ unconcealed need of money is less reprehensible than Plato’s need of books from which he could copy. Anecdote 57: Dionysius asked both Plato and Aristippus to put on long robes and dance. Plato declined quoting Euripides’ Bacchae : ούκ αν δυναίμην θήλυν ένδϋναι στολήν 60 While Aristippus complied citing lines of the same tragedy : καί γάρ έν βακχεύμασιν ουσ’ ή γε σώφρων ού διαφθαρήσεται.61 Testimonia·. Sextus Empiricus P. h. 3.204 (1: 189 [MutschmannMau]); Diogenes Laertius 2.78 (i: 89.23-90.4 [Long]); Gregorius NazianzenusCam. 1.2.10.324-334 (Migne, P. G. 37; 703-4) ; Stobaeus 3 -5-38 (3: 267 [Hense]); Ioannes Damascenus Exc. Flor. 1.10.37 (P178.8 [Meineke]) ; Cosmas Hierosolymitanus Ad carm. S. Greg. Theol. 1.2.10.324-334 (Migne P. G. 38: 565); Suidas s.v. Αρίστιππος (i: 355.8-14 [Adler]); Gnom. Vat. 41 (pp. 21-22 [Stembach]); Arsenius Violetum (p. 112.10-15 [Walz]). The earliest source for this popular anecdote62 is Sextus Empiricus who, discussing varying social customs, mentions the example of long robes which no Greco-Roman would wear but 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62.

Cf. Frag. 48 (Mannebach). See above pp. 71-72. Cf. Frag. 44 (Mannebach). See anecdote 127. Bacch. 386. Bacch. 317-318. Cf. Frags. 39A-B, D-G (Mannebach).

PLATO ANO HIS PREDECESSORS AND CONTEMPORARIES

IO 7

which are thought respectable by the Persians and tells the story of Plato and Aristippus to show that one philosopher found it shameful to dress in long garments while the other did not. The anecdote is one of many which Diogenes Laertius tells about Aristippus at the Syracusan court, in this instance to illustrate the adaptability of his character (compare 53 and 54). Suidas too includes the story in his life of Aristippus, while in Gregorius Nazianzenus it is one of several illustrations of pagan άρετή to be contrasted with the Christian.63 Gregorius Nazianzenus’ telling deviates from the main tradition in setting the anecdote at the Macedonian court of Archelaus. In the remaining sources the story is excerpted without context. The adaptability of Aristippus and his willingness to participate in a court revelry are contrasted in this anecdote with Plato’s dignified and serious comportment. The wit of Aristippus’ remark,64 which caps Plato’s quote from the Bacchae with another quote from the same play, probably accounts for the anecdote’s popularity. C o n c l u s io n

The tradition of mutual hostility between Plato and Aristippus begins with Aristotle, the source for anecdote 50. Plato’s reproach of Aristippus’ luxurious way of life is a topos by the second century B.C. as seen in anecdote 5 / (the sources are Sotion and Hegesander in Athenaeus) and in 52 from Diogenes Laertius: yet both come from the anti-Platonic tradition for in both instances Aristippus’ reply is turned against Plato. Anecdotes 53 (also from Diogenes Laertius) and 34 (from the second and third century A.D. scholiasts on Horace) depict Plato’s critical view of Aristippus’ flexible charac­ ter which could adapt to all situations. Anecdote 57, first preserved by Sextus Empiricus, is a contrast of Aristippus’ adaptability with Plato’s more austere dignity. The contrast of character and their mutual hostility are seen also in 56, where the version in Plutarch is favorable to Plato while that in Diogenes Laertius is hostile. In 55, from the Gnomologium Vaticanum, Aristippus contrasts his own character with that of Plato. 63. Cosmas, the scholiast on Gregorius Nazianzenus, approves of Plato’s refusal and censures Aristippus for complying with the tyrant: "ταύτη γάρ δουλότροπος ή φιλόσοφος φωραΟήσεται.” 64. Cf, Athenaeus 12.544Ε for Aristippus’ use of the same lines in another context.

Ιθ 8

PLATO AND HIS PREDECESSORS AND CONTEMPORARIES

Only 50, coming from Aristotle, may reflect a true story. The remaining anecdotes emphasize the contrast between Aristippus and Plato and are too influenced by this motif to be based in truth.65 Phaedon Mutual hostility is seen in the two anecdotes dealing with Plato and Phaedon, 58 and 59, both from Athenaeus. Anecdote 58 : Phaedon, when he had read Περί ψυχής,66 commented that he had neither heard nor said himself any of the contents. Testimonium: Athenaeus 11.505E (3: 117 [Kaibel]). Yet another example of Plato’s misrepresentation of events in his writings, the anecdote is part of the group already treated in t6, 17,37, and 40. Anecdote 59: Plato brought Phaedon to trial on the charge that he was not a free man. Testimonium: Athenaeus 11.507C (3: 121 [Kaibel]). Athenaeus here makes a brief allusion to a story not found elsewhere concerning Plato’s legal challenge of Phaedon’s status as a free man.67 The other sources dealing with Phaedon’s servitude do not repeat the story that Plato challenged his status. This slander probably presupposes that one knows of Plato’s servitude,68 which makes his attack on Phaedon all the more reprehensible. Athenaeus uses the story as further illustration of Plato’s base character; he may draw on Hegesander here as in 11. 507A. Xenophon Aulus Gellius, who devotes an entire chapter of his Nodes atticae (14. 3) to the rivalry between Plato and Xenophon, is witness to the fact that the earlier vitae of both Plato and Xenophon 65. See also 27 and 101 for sayings attributed to both Plato and Aristippus. U is said on the authority of Favorinus to have been an exchange between Plato and Aristippus rather than Diogenes. 66. For the Phaedo designated as Περί ψυχής cf. Callimachus Epigr. 23.4 (Pfeiffer2) = 53.4 (G.-P.). 67. See p. 91, n. 20 for references to Phaedon's servitude. 68. See Chapter VIII.

PLATO ANO HIS PREDECESSORS ANU CONTEMPORARIES

lo g

dealt with the rivalry between the two which was inferred from their writings : Qui de Xenophontis l'I.Uunisque vita et moribus pleraque omnia exquisitissime scripsere, 11011 afuisse ab eis motus quosdam tacitos et occultos sim ultatis aem ulationisque m utuae putaverunt et eius rei argumenta quaedam conieetatoria ex eorum scriptis protulerunt.69

Gellius then proceeds to list the various reasons why this enmity was inferred by the biographers: Plato does not mention Xenophon and vice versa (14. 3. 2) ;70 the reports told in 60 (14. 3. 3) and 61 (14. 3. 4); and the discrepancies in their portrayals of Socrates’ teaching (14. 3. 5-6). Gellius himself finds these inferences inade­ quate arguments for hostility and rivalry, lie suggests (14. 3. 7-15) that the similarity between Plato and Xenophon gave the im­ pression of rivalry and that it was the rivalry between their fol­ lowers in championing the one or the other that gave rise to the belief that there was a personal hostility between Plato and Xenophon themselves. His rejection of the reports of enmity indicates that Gellius himself does not draw on an early and reliable source. Athenaeus takes up the question of their enmity in ir. 504E-505B and follows the arguments found in Gellius so closely that a common source probably underlies both accounts. Athenaeus also adds that they both treated the same subject differently (symposia) and that Plato denies the truth of Xenophon’s account of Meno in the Anabasis (2. 5. 28 and 2. 6. 21-29) and actually praises Meno in the dialogue named after him. Athenaeus, however, suggests that the rivalry between the two was an example of Plato’s jealous nature. Diogenes Laertius in 3. 34 recapitulates the main reasons for conjecturing hostility, while Marcellinus, the biographer of Thucydides, adds that Xenophon attacks .Mono out of jealousy of Plato because Meno was Plato’s friend.71 An epistle, purporting to be from Xenophon to Aeschines found in Eusebius Praeparatio Evangelica 14. 12 and in Theodoretus (Iraecarum affectionum curatio 2. 24, assails Plato for the Egyptian and Pythagorean inclination 69. N. a. 14.3,1. 70. Diogenes Laertius (3.34) rightly notes, however, that Xenophon does mention Pinto once, Mem. 3.0.1. 71. Vita Thuc. 27.

of his doctrine and for gluttony.72 And the Socratic Epistle 15, ascribed to Xenophon, contains the charge that Plato misrep­ resented Socrates in the dialogues. Although the topic of the enmity between Plato and Xenophon is well attested by the above sources, only two anecdotes are told to illustrate their relationship. Both are from Gellius and express mutual enmity in terms of a literary polemic. Anecdote 60: Plato first circulated two books of the Republic, which Xenophon read and then wrote the Cyropaideia in opposition. Testimonium'. Gellius N. a. 14.3.3 (1: 437 [Marshall]). Those that wrote on their mutual enmity, says Gellius, found this story “esse non sincerae neque amicae voluntatis indicium” on the part of Xenophon. Anecdote 61: Plato was so angered at Xenophon’s opposing him that he expressly wrote that Cyrus lacked true education. Testimonium: Gellius N. a. 14.3.4 (1: 437 [Marshall]). Anecdotes 60 and 61 are closely united in Gellius’ account73 and surely are taken from the same source. The passage suggesting 61 is Laws 3. 694C where Plato does indeed condemn Cyrus’ education. But there is no evidence to indicate that Plato did in fact issue the first two books of the Republic in advance of the rest, nor does the Cyropaideia take the Republic as its point of departure. The fact that the two anecdotes, and indeed all accounts of their mutual hostility, deal in terms of a literary rivalry rather than a personal one points to Alexandrian sources who had perused the Xenophontic and Platonic writings in search of grounds for conjecturing a hostile relationship and then fabricated anecdotes based on this relationship. 72. Cf. Himerius Or. 44.6 (p. 182 [Colonna]) for Xenophon scorning Plato as "πολύφιλον καί μεταλλάττο'ηα πρύς τούς πλουσίους τ6ν έρωτα.” 73· Compare 4 3 and 4 4 f°r a similar pair of anecdotes.

PLATO AND HIS PREDECESSORS AND CONTEMPORARIES

III

RE LATIO N S W ITH T H E CYNICS

Diogenes A n e c d o te s

Two anecdotes bearing on the relationship of Plato and Diogenes, 103 and 104, are treated in Chapter X, as they apparently refer to the doctrine Plato taught in the Academy. Twelve more are found in the following section. Anecdote 62 : Diogenes ridiculed Plato for writing both the Laws and the Republic since laws were included in his Republic, Διογένης ήρετο Πλάτων* εί νόμους γράφει· δ 8έ Ιφη. Τί δαί; πολιτείαν Ιγραψας ; Πάνυ μέν οδν. Τί οδν, ή πολιτεία νόμους ουχ εΐχεν ; Ειχεν. Τί οδν έδει σε πάλιν νόμους γράφειν ; Testimonia: Stobaeus 3 -13-45 (3 : 4&3 [Hense]); Antonius Melissa and Maximus Confessor (p. 250 [GesnerJ) ; Gnom. Par. 291. This anecdote is found only in Stobaeus and in the later col­ lectors of gnomai. The form is a series of questions directed at Plato by Diogenes which parody the Socratic dialectic.74 Progessing from the innocent inquiry as to whether Plato was writing laws, Diogenes continues with three more questions which demonstrate the redundancy of the two dialogues. The intentional parody of Plato’s writing is unique among the anecdotes. Stobaeus’ source is unknown. Anecdote 63: Diogenes criticized Plato’s teaching because he had hurt no one by his censure. Testimonia: Plutarch De virt. mor. 452D (p. 84 [Helmbold]); Sto­ baeus 3.13.68 (3: 468 [Hense]) ; Antonius Melissa and Maximus Con­ fessor {p. 251 [Gesner]). The account of Diogenes’ criticism of Plato is given by Plutarch as an illustration that good teaching requires censure and shame as well as encouragement and praise. Diogenes’ words criticize Plato for a lack of harshness that implies a lack of dignity as well: "Τί δ’ έκεΐνος έχει σεμνόν, δς τοσοΰτον χρόνον φιλοσόφων ούδένα 74- The responses ο ί “ δ δέ έφη” a n d “ πάνυ μέν οδν” also seem to parody the P latonic sty le.

II2

PLATO AND HIS PREDECESSORS AND CONTEMPORARIES

λελύπηκεν;” Stobaeus excerpts the saying from Themistius in his Περί ψυχής who in turn draws on Plutarch.75 Anecdote 64: Diogenes ridiculed Plato as άπεραντολόγος when he asked Plato for a few figs and Plato sent him an entire bushel. Testimonia: Diogenes Laertius 6.26 (2: 258.23-259.3 [Long]); Sto­ baeus 3.36.21 (3: 695 [Hense]); Arsenius Violetum (p. 198.17-22 Walz). The same anecdote appears in Diogenes Laertius and Arsenius 76 and in a slightly abbreviated form in Stobaeus. In Diogenes Laertius’ account Diogenes requests on one occasion some wine and on another figs. Plato, however, sent κεράμιον δλον in compliance which prompted Diogenes to remark: “Σύ άν έρωτηθής δύο καί δύο πόσα έστίν, Είκοσιν άποκρινή; ούτως ούτε πρός τά αίτούμενα δίδως ούτε πρός τά έρωτώμεν’ άποκρίνη.” In Stobaeus’ version Dio­ genes requests three figs, receives a μέδιμνον, and replies, “ Ούτως καί άποκρίνη έρωτηθείς μύρια.” Criticism of Plato’s verbosity is seen also in 48. See 69 for Plato’s love of figs. Anecdote 65; When Diogenes was censured because he begged while Plato did not he answered: “ Αιτεί, άλλ’ ‘άγχι σχών κεφαλήν, ίνα μή πευθοίαθ’ οί άλλοι.’ ” 77 Testimonia Diogenes Laertius 6.67 (2: 276.5-7 [Long]); Arsenius Violetum (p. 202.27-29 [Walz]). In this anecdote which is known only from Diogenes Laertius 78 and Arsenius, Diogenes quotes Homer in allusion to the slander that Plato was a parasite.79 The same accusation is made by Diogenes in 66 and 67. Anecdote 66: When Plato called Diogenes a dog he answered alluding to Plato being a parasite. 75. Cf. Plutarch, Frag. 203 (15: 376 [Sandbach]). The wording of the saying is slightly altered: “τί δαί όφελος ήμϊν άνδρός, δς πολύν ήδη χρόνον φιλοσόφων ούδένα λελύπηκεν.” Antonius and Maximus follow Stobaeus verba­ tim. 76. The text of Arsenius differs from Diogenes Laertius, being more concise in not mentioning wine with the figs and more precise by specifying the number of figs requested. 77. Od. 1.157, 4.70. 78. Cf. Diogenes, Frag. 240 (Mullach). 79. See also above pp. 71-72.

PLATO ANU IUS PKKUIO KSSOKS AND CONTEM PORARIES

II3

Testimonia: λιΛίχη Γ. Α. M J j U ' U>S . H e r c h e r j ; D io g e n e s L a e r t iu s 6.40 (2: 2O4.7-N Long ).f>0 Aelian reports a detailed version of this anecdote where Plato, discoursing on an unspecified topic, was annoyed by Diogenes inattentiveness and said, " Τ„πάκουσον των λόγων, κυον. to which Diogenes replied, without losing his composure, Αλλ εγώ ουκ έπανςλθον έκεϊθεν, οθεν έπράθχν, ώσπερ οι κυνες. Diogenes Laertius in his compressed version says th a t when Plato called Diogenes a dog the latter replied. “ Nat, έγω γάρ έπανήλθον è~t τους πεπρακοτας. In both versions Diogenes uses the epithet of dog w ith which Plato castigates him, and from which the Cynics took their name, to compare his own behavior with th a t of Plato w'ho, dog-like, returned to Syracuse after having been sold into slavery a t the instigation of Dionysius.81 The inference is th a t Plato did so because he was a parasite at the court. Compare 65 and 67.

Anecdote 67: Plato, seeing Diogenes washing vegetables, said: “Εί Διονύσιον έθεράπευες, ούκ âv λάχανα έπλυνες. ’ Diogenes re­ sponded: “ Καί σύ εί λάχανα έπλυνες, ούκ αν Διονύσιον έθεράπευες.” Testimonium: Diogenes Laertius 6.58 (2: 272.8-12 [Long]).8* The story that when another philosopher scoffed a t Diogenes washing his simple fare of vegetables Diogenes accused him in reply of being a parasite to ty ra n ts is well known b u t is more frequently told of A ristippus and Diogenes.83 Diogenes Laertius alone tells it of Plato and Diogenes. Compare 65 and 66 for similar accusations. Anecdote 68: At a sum ptuous dinner Diogenes noticed th a t Plato was eating only olives and rem arked, “ Τί ό σοφός εις Σικελίαν πλεύσας των τραπεζών τούτων χάριν, νϋν παρακειμένων ούκ άπολαύεις;” And when Plato protested, “ ’Αλλά νή τούς Θεούς, Διύγενες, κάκεΐ 8ο. Cf. Diogenes, Krag. 122 (Mullach) 81. See above pp 86-7, 89. 82. Cf. Diogenes, Frag. 200 (MullachV 83. The story is found, with variation as to w ho m ade the initial criticism of the other, in: Horace lip . 1.17 13-15; V alerius Maximus 4.3. ex t. 4; Diogenes Laertius 2.68; l-.ptst. D iogenis 32 (p. 24b [H ercher]); Acron on Horace, loc. cit :Onom. Vat. 192; A rsenius (p. 113.10-13 [W a lz]); Cod. Vat. Or. 742 f. 65v. A sim ilar exch an ge is also told of the second-generation Cyrenaean Theodorus and the C ynic M etrocles in D iogenes Laertius 2.102.8 8

τά πολλά προς έλάας καί τά τοιαϋτα έγινόμην,” Diogenes quipped, “Τί οδν έδει πλεΐν είς Συρακούσας; ή τότε ή Αττική οΰκ έφερεν έλάας;” Testimonium: Diogenes Laertius 6.25 (2: 258.7-14 [Long]).84 Diogenes’ remarks repeatedly insinuate the slanderous accusation that Plato went to Syracuse only for the luxurious court life and cuisine,85 even though Plato protests and though his comportment at the banquet is not that of the glutton. The phrase των τραπέζων τούτων χάριν echos Olympiodorus' refutation of Aristides in In Alcibiadem 2. 96. The mention of olives may be an allusion to a joke from comic authors about Plato’s liking olives.86 See also 69 for Diogenes’ charges of gluttony and y8 for the tradition of Plato’s moderate dining habits. Diogenes Laertius says that Favorinus έν Παντοδαπή ιστορία 87 attributes Diogenes’ comment to Aristippus. Surely Favorinus or his source has confused the roles, for Plato elsewhere (51 and 52) is seen to censure Aristippus for his luxurious ways. Anecdote 69: Diogenes was eating figs when he met Plato and said, “ Έξεστί σοι μετασχεΐν.” But when Plato ate them Diogenes protested, "Μετασχεΐν εΐπον, ού καταφαγεΐν.” Testimonium: Diogenes Laertius 6.25 (2: 258.14-16 [Long]). Diogenes Laertius places this anecdote immediately after the previous one; both show Diogenes pointing out Plato’s gluttony. Plato is indeed called φιλόσυκος by Plutarch 88 and by Athenaeus.86 Both include Plato in nearly verbatim catalogues of famous gluttons, and Athenaeus names his source as Phanocritus εν τω Περί Εύδόξου.60 A comic source seems likely as the ultimate source for this epithet.6184567901 84. Cf. Diogenes, Frag. 81 (Mullach). 85. See above pp. 70-71. 86. Cf. Anaxandrides, Frag. 19 (2: 142 [Koch]) in Diogenes Laertius 3.26 where Plato is depicted as eating the μορίαι, sacred olives from the precinct of the Academy. See also anecdote 23. 87. Cf. Frag. 39 (Mensching) = Frag. 71 (Barigazzi). 88. Quaest. Conviv. 668A. 89. 7.276F. 90. FHG IV 473. Phanocritus is otherwise unknown cf. W. Kroll, "Phanokritos,” RE 19 (1938): 1793. 91. Cf. above n. 86 for a comic allusion to Plato's eating olives.

PLATO AND HIS PREDECESSORS AND CONTEMPORARIES

II5

Anecdote 70: Plato said that Diogenes was like a “Σωκράτης μαινόμενος.”

Testimonia'. Aelian V. h. 14.33 (p. 168 [Hercher]); Diogenes Laer­ tius 6.54 (2: 270.9-10 [Long]) ;92Gnom. Vat. 442 (p. 165 [Stembach]) = Cod. Vat. Gr. 1144 f. 232··. Plato’s assessment of Diogenes betrays both a certain fondness for him and a disapproval of the extremes to which he went in pursuing the model of Socrates’ way of life.93 Aelian says that Plato often made this comment ; the version in Diogenes Laertius94 and the Gnomologium Vaticanum puts the comment in the stock format of Plato being asked by an unnamed person what sort of person he considered Diogenes to be. Anecdote y i\ Exchange between Plato and Diogenes when Diogenes trampled on Plato’s carpets. Testimonia: Diogenes Laertius 6.26 (2: 258.17-23 [Long]);95 Tertullian Apologet. 46.12 (p. 108 [Hoppe]) and De pallio 4.7 (p. 118 [Bulhart]); Jerome Adv. Iovin. 2.9 (Migne, P. L. 23.311-312); Ioannes Saresberiensis Polycrat. 8.9.739C-D (2: 278 [Webb]); Arsenius Violetum (p. 198.11-16 [Walz]). This anecdote, whose popularity is evident from Diogenes Laertius’ citing of no less than three variations, illustrates, like 46 and 47, the Cymes' scorn of pride and arrogance (τϋφος).·6 But, like 72 and 73, it also illustrates the counter charge that the extremes to which Cynics went to show their άτυφία are in fact but another form of τϋφος or φιλοδοξία.97 The group of anecdotes dealing with the “τϋφος” theme was probably circulated by later Cynics and countered by their Platonist contemporaries, both groups depicting the founders of their schools as spokesmen for 92. Cf. Diogenes, Frag. 183 (Mullach). 93. Cf. Diogenes Laertius 6.11 for Cynic admiration of Socrates. 94. Apparently the anecdote was originally a marginal notation later incorporated into the text, for as it reads Diogenes makes the comment about himself. 95. Cf. Diogenes, Frag. 82 (Mullach). 96. On Cynic scorn for τϋφος see : G. A. Gerhard, Phoinix von Colophon, (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1907) pp. 89-90; idem, "Zur Legende vom Kyniker Diogenes,” Archiv für Religionswissenschaft 15 (1912) pp. 396-397; J. Geffcken, Kyniha und Verwandtes, (Heidelberg: Carl Winters, 1909) pp. 113- 114·

97. Cf. M. Antoninus Comm. 12.27: “ Ό γάρ ύπ6 άτυφία τϋφος τυφόμενος πάντων χαλεπώτατος.”

the hostility existing between the later schools. As such the anec­ dotes cannot be said to illustrate the relations of the historical Plato with his contemporaries Antisthenes and Diogenes. Diogenes Laertius’ three variants differ in the wording of the remarks Plato and Diogenes make to each other. The story seems to be set in Syracuse, where Plato had invited guests παρά Διονυσίου. Diogenes, with the other guests presumably watching, trampled on Plato’s carpets saying, “ Πατώ τήν Πλάτωνος κενοσπουδίαν,” to which Plato replied, “"Οσον, ώ Διόγενες, του τύφου διαφαίνεις, δοκών μή τετυφώσαι.” The second version has Diogenes say, “ Πατώ τδν Πλάτωνος τΰφον,” while Plato replies, " 'Ετέρου γε τύφω Διόγενες.” And in the third instance, for which Diogenes Laertius cites Sotion έν τώ τετάρτω, only the words of Diogenes are quoted indirectly: “τον Πλάτωνα τον κύνα [sc. πατεϊν].” Tertullian uses the story in his Apologeticum to illustrate the difference between Christians and pagan philosophers : “ Christianus nec in pauperem superbit.” His version is close to the second in Diogenes Laertius, playing on “superbia” and “superbos” as the saying in Diogenes Laertius plays on “τΰφος” : “ecce lutulentis pedibus Diogenes superbos Platonis toros alia superbia deculcat.” In De pallio a brief allusion is made in reference to Diogenes’ opposition to pride, while Jerome, followed by Saresberiensis, mentions the story as evidence that Plato was wealthy as inferred from the fact that Diogenes was so provoked by Plato’s furnishings. The citation of the Alexandrian Sotion shows that the anecdote was in circulation in the second century B.C. Anecdote 72: Diogenes was once being drenched and the by­ standers were pitying him when Plato passed and said : "Eî βούλεσθ’ αυτόν έλεησαι, άπόστητε. Testimonium: Diogenes Laertius 6.41 (2: 264.23-25 [Long]).88 Diogenes Laertius concludes his description of Plato’s words with the phrase "ένδεικνύμενος φιλοδοξίαν αύτοϋ.” Like J i this anecdote depicts Plato charging that Diogenes’ άτυφία is another form of φιλοδοξία, for Diogenes’ real purpose in enduring the drenching was to impress the crowd watching him. Compare also 7 3 - 98

98. Cf. Diogenes, Frag. 130 (Mullach).

PLATO AND HIS PREDECESSORS AND CONTEMPORARIES

II7

Anecdote 73: Plato’s retort when Diogenes invited him to join him at breakfast in the agora: “ 'Ως χάριεν αν ήν σου το άπλαστον, εΐ μή πλαστόν ήν.” Testimonia: Theon Prog. 5 (2: 98.14-17 [Spengel]); Scholion ad Aphthonium (2: 17.14-17 [Walz]); Gnom. Vat. 445 (p. 167 [Sternbach]) = Cod. Vat. Gr. 1144 f. 2 i8 \ Plato here censures Diogenes’ seemingly unaffected (άπλαστον) indifference to social conventions as contrived (πλαστόν). Theon, the second century A.D. rhetor, tells the story to illustrate an example of his classification of χρεΐat, as does the scholiast to Aphthonius. Compare 71 and 72. C o n c l u s io n

Thematically, several of the anecdotes told of Plato and Antisthenes’ pupil Diogenes are related to those told of Plato and Antisthenes himself. Anecdotes J 0 3 and 104 (both from Diogenes Laertius) indicate Diogenes’ opposition to Plato's teaching. Ridicule of Plato’s writings is seen in 62 (first found in Stobaeus) while criticism of Plato’s teaching methods 99 is seen in 63 (from Plutarch) and of his verbosity in 64 (from Diogenes Laertius), which may be compared to 48. The charge of arrogance (see 46 and 47) is raised in 71, 72, and 73, which are from the pro-Platonic tradition, for Plato is depicted as countering the Cynic’s attack. Anecdotes 71 and 72 are from Diogenes Laertius ; Theon the rhetor is the source for 73. The anti-Platonic tradition supplies Diogenes’ accusations of parasitism in 65 (from Diogenes Laertius), 66 (from Aelian and Diogenes Laertius), and 67 (from Diogenes Laertius) as well as his accusations of gluttony in 68 and 69 (both from Diogenes Laertius). Plato’s own assessment of Diogenes, not entirely hostile, is seen in 70, told by Aelian. The anecdotes about Plato’s relations with Diogenes and Antisthenes are indicative of the charges upon which the Cynics based their criticism of Plato : inadequate definitions, poor teaching methods, verbosity, arrogance, parasitism, gluttony.100 As such they shed little light on the actual relations between Plato and both Antisthenes and Diogenes. 99. Cf. Diogenes Laertius 6.24: ‘‘τήν δέ Πλάτωνος διατριβήν [sc. έλεγε ό Διογένης] κατατριβήν.’' too. Geffcken, “Antiplatonica,” p. 89.

RELATIONS W IT H THE RHETORICIANS

Isocrates Plato’s opposition to the professional rhetoricians101 is clear from the Gorgias, yet there are but two anecdotes dealing with Plato and the rhetoricians,102 74 and 90. In 74 Plato reproaches the prominent instructor of oratory, his contemporary Isocrates, for accepting fees for his instruction.103 Anecdote y4 : Isocrates defended his charging fees for instruction in that τούς μέν γάρ ευφυείς ώφελοϋν, περί δε τούς άφυεΐς πονεΐν. Plato answered: “Τούναντίον ποιείς, Ίσόκρατες· περί μεν γάρ τούς εύφυεΐς ού πονεΐς, τούς δέ άφυεΐς οΰκ ώφελεΐς.” Testimonia: Stobaeus 2.31.n o (2: 221 [Wachsmuth]) ; Flor. Law. 227.1: Mel. Aug. c. 38 n. 25. The anecdote gives Isocrates’ words of justification in two balanced clauses which recall Isocrates’ own rhetorical style. Plato’s words play on Isocrates’, repeating his two clauses but with the verbs interchanged. Plato’s own refusal to accept fees is well attested in the biographical tradition.104 Other than the above anecdote, which says nothing of the personal relations between Plato and Isocrates, mention should be made of Plato’s prophecy about the youthful Isocrates in the Phaedrus 279A, which is, perhaps, intended to be ironical. More­ over Diogenes Laertius in 3. 8 reports that the two were friendly, citing as evidence διατριβήν τινα περί ποιητών by Praxiphanes 105 which described a discussion set on Plato’s property where he was entertaining Isocrates. 101. Tzetzes Chit. 11.736-743 accuses Plato of attacking the rhetors out of jealousy when his own classroom was empty, theirs filled with students. 102. There is, however, the saying attributed to Plato about a base orator in Stobaeus 2.3.4 and the Gnom. Vat. 447. For the tradition that Demosthenes, Hypereides, and Aeschines were pupils of Plato see also go. 103. Cf. Socrates’ refusal to receive payment for teaching, A pol. 19D-E, 3lC 104. Diogenes Laertius 4.2, Olympiodorus InAlcib. 140.16-18 and 141.1-2, Anon. Proleg. 5.24-25. The above emphasize that Plato was the first philos­ opher to do so. 105. Cf. Frag, i i (Wehrli). Praxiphanes, pupil of Theophrastus, was born ca. 330 B.C. and lived into the first half of the third century.

CHAPTER TEN

PLATO IN THE ACADEMY Tradition reports that following the first Sicilian trip Plato settled in the region known as the Academy and began to give instruction on a regular basis to a group of his followers in the gymnasium located there.1 Eventually Plato purchased his own garden adjacent to the Academy, where he lived and taught.2 This chapter contains various anecdotes about the Academy— about the shrine Plato is said to have dedicated, about the geo­ graphical location of the school, the symposia and other activities practised there,3 about Plato’s methods as a teacher and his relations with his students, including Aristotle, Xenocrates, Speusippus, and others. Moreover those anecdotes based on the doctrine Plato taught—emphasis on mathematics and geometry, the theory of Ideas, his use of definitions—have also been included in this chapter since many are set in the context of Plato’s school, although some are not directly associated with the Academy. Due to the variety of topics included in this chapter concluding remarks are placed, when appropriate, at the end of each section. THE ACAD EM Y

Structures and Location Anecdote 75: Plato established a temenos of the Muses in the Academy. Testimonia: Diogenes Laertius 4.1 (1: 164.6-7 [Long]); Olympiodorus In Alcib. 2.145-146 (p. 5 [Westerink]) ; Anon. Proleg. 4.24 (p. ii [Westerink]). Diogenes Laertius in the opening chapter of Speusippus’ life tells of statues of the Graces which Speusippus dedicated "έν 1. Diogenes Laertius 3.7, Olympiodorus In Alcib. 2.145-146, Anon. Proleg. 4.14, Suidas s. vv. ’Ακαδημία, Πλάτων. 2. Cicero De fin. 5.1.1-2, Plutarch De exilio 603B, Diogenes Laertius 3.20, Apuleius De Platone 1.4, Damascius Vita Isid. 158 [Zintzen], See also Ch. VIII, n. 13 for the report that Anniceris purchased land for Plato in the region. 3. For comic ridicule of the activities in the Academy see Epicrates, Frag, n (2: 287-8 [Kock]) which is preserved in Athenaeus 2.59D-F.

PLATO IN THE ACADEMY

τώ Μουσείω τώ υπό Πλάτωνος έν Άκαδημεία ίδρυθέντι.” This is the earliest mention of Plato’s dedication of a shrine to the Muses. The Mouseion itself is first mentioned by Philochorus 4 who is cited in the Index Herculanensis Col. VI 30-38 (pp. 37-38 [Mekler]) for the dedication made by Speusippus;5 but this passage does not name Plato as the founder of the Mouseion. Not until Olympiodorus and the author of the Anonymous Prolegomena is Plato again associated with the establishment of the shrine. Olympiodorus says, “ μέρος τι τοΰ γυμνασίου τέμενος άφορίσας ταϊς Μούσαις.” The author of the Anonymous Prolegomena follows Olympiodorus closely. A number of sources mention the Muses in association with the Academy. Pausanias in x. 30. 2 tells of a βωμός sacred to the Muses, without, however, giving any information about its establishment. Favorinus reports that Mithradates dedicated the statue of Plato to the Muses.6 But there is no evidence for a religious association between the Muses and Plato’s philosophical school.7 Boyancé 89 correctly associates the story of the foundation of a Mouseion with Plato’s equation of philosophy with the μεγίστη μουσική,® and he suggests that the association of philosophy with the “greatest music” would explain Plato’s motivation for establishing a shrine of the Muses, the goddesses of music. But the report that 4. FGrHist 328 F224. 5. The Index Here, gives the dedicatory inscription (cf. Frag. 66 [Lang]) which describes the statues as “κατεχούσας τδ μουσεΐον” and as dedicated to the Muses. 6. Frag. 5 (Mensching) = Frag. 36 (Barigazzi). For the association of the Muses with the Academy see. in addition to the reference to Philochorus in n. 4 above. Index Here. Col. O 45 and Col. T 12-13 (pp. 41, 58 [Mekler]), and Diogenes Laertius 4.19. Themistius Or. 6.72D (p. 86 [Dindorf]) calls the philosophy of the Academy "έστία των Πλάτωνος καί Άριστοτέλους Μουσών.” Proclus In Rep. (2: 1.9 [Kroll]) calls Plato “προφήτης των Μουσών.” B y the time of the Neoplatonists the name "mouseion” appears to be synonymous with Plato’s place of teaching or "lecture room,” cf. the testi­ monia for anecdote 98 where Olympiodorus tells of the inscription before the μουσεϊον while David says άκροατήριον and Philoponus says διατριβή. 7· Monthly sacrifices to the Muses in the Peripatos are attested in Athen­ aeus 12.547F, who draws on Antigonus Carystos. This has led some, in­ cluding Zeller in Die Philosophie der Griechen, 2: 418 n. 3, to suggest similar sacrifices in the Academy. 8. Le culte des Muses chez les philosophes grecs. Bibliothèque des Écoles Françaises d’Athènes et de Rome, fase. 141 (Paris: De Boccard, 1937) PP· 261-2. 9. Phaedo 61A. For Plato’s use of ή Μοϋσα = φιλοσοφία see Rep. 6.499D, 8.548B-C, Philebus 67B, and the “etymology” in Cratylus 406A.

PLATO IN THE ACADEMY

I2 I

Plato himself established a Mouseion in the Academy is not a t­ tested before Diogenes Laertius. The passages in Diogenes Laertius and the Index Herculanensis are very close, with one of the main differences being that the Index does not mention Plato as the founder of the shrine.101Perhaps the idea that Plato founded the Mouseion is a conjecture of Diogenes Laertius or of his source. Then, too, the altar seen by Pausanias could have been dedicated before Plato’s time (as was the altar of Eros n ) or it may be that the Mouseion was established later in the history of the Academy 12 but that its establishment was attributed to Plato because of his equation of philosophy and music and because of the tendency in later sources to ascribe such things to the founder of the Academy himself. At any rate, even if Plato did establish a Mouseion in the Academy it probably was not intended as a cult of the Muses but was meant to emphasize the connection Plato saw between philosophy and music. Anecdote 76: Plato chose on purpose a remote and unhealthy area for the location of his school. Testimonia·. Porphyry De abstin. 1.36 (p. 112 [Nauck]); Basil Ad adoles. 9.80-84 (p. 57 [Boulenger]) ; Jerome Adv. Iovin. 2.9 (Migne, P.L. 23: 312); Aeneas Gazeus Theophr. (p. 20.10-14 [Colonna]); Papias Vocabulista s.v. Achademia (ed. Venice 1496) ; Ioannes Saresberiensis Polycrat. 7.3.641A-B, 8.8.739C-D (2: 99-100, 278 [Webb]). Despite testimonia to the contrary,13 a late tradition reports that the Academy was located in an unhealthy region. Porphyry, writing in the third century A.D., is the earliest preserved source to report that Plato purposely sought an insalubrious locale for his school. Other philosophers, he writes, sought remote places to practise philosophy, but Plato chose a spot removed from the city and έπίνοσον as well. Porphyry does not elaborate on Plato’s motivation. The anecdote is used by the Christian writers Basil and Jerome in the fourth century A.D. to demonstrate that the practices of certain pagan philosophers are examples useful for the inculcation of Christian virtues. Basil writes that Plato’s concern for the 10. text. 11. 12. 13.

In this passage of the Index Here, there is no lacuna interrupting the See above p. 24, n. 53. But by the time of Philochorus who wrote in the third century B.C. Cf. Plutarch Cimon 13.7, Diogenes Laertius 3.7, Suidas s.v. Άκαδημεία.

PLATO IN THE ACADEMY

detrimental potential of the body led him to seek out a pestilential region so that he would “prune” the body’s comfort just as one prunes the fruit of the vine when it grow's in abundance. Jerome applauds the fact that many ancient philosophers withdrew from worldly temptations, giving as examples the Pythagoreans who lived in deserted regions and the Platonists and the Stoics who “in templorum lucis et porticibus versabantur, ut admoniti angustioris habitaculi sanctitate, nihil aliud quam de virtutibus cogitarent.” He then proceeds to describe how Plato, though wealthy,1415went out of his way to select the Academy, "villam ab urbe procul, non solum desertam, sed et pestilentem: ut cura et assiduitate morborum, libidinis impetus frangeretur.” The account finishes with anecdote 83, the story of the students who deliberately blinded themselves. Obviously Jerome imputes to Plato the ascetic ideals of the Christians of his own day, for his account emphasizes the turning away from material possessions, the avoidance of temptation, and the subjection of passion by the weakening of one’s physical strength. Other stories which are patterned on the ascetic ideal are mentioned in the conclusion to the following chapter.16 Aeneas Gazeus, writing in the early sixth century A.D., refutes the notion that disease and poverty are άδικία by describing how Plato selected a νοσώδες χωρίον because he was in good health and wanted to exchange his health for σωφροσύνη. The explanation given by Aeneas that “τον δέ θάνατον κακών ελευθερίαν καί λύσι.ν μάλα σεμνώς ονομάζει” is an allusion to the doctrine of the Phaedo where it is said that the true philosopher makes life a pursuit of death (64A, 67E) and praises death as a release from bondage (66B-67E). One wonders if the story that Plato chose an unhealthy location for his school did not begin with the hostile tradition ridiculing the extremes to which the philosopher went in pursuing his own doctrine.16 Yet the testimonia from the third, fourth, and sixth 14. For proof of Plato’s wealth Jerome alludes to anecdote 71. 15. See below pp. 161-162. Saresberiensis in 8.8 quotes Jerome verbatim. In 7.3, however, he follows the version also recorded by Papias in the eleventh century A.D., according to which the Academy was located in a region prone to earthquakes and was chosen by Plato and his followers "ut se timore a libidine continerent et ab aliis cessantes studio philosophiae vacarent.” 16. Cf. the ridicule of the Callimachean epigram in anecdote 130.

PLATO IN THE ACADEMY

I23

centuries are not given in ridicule and the philosopher’s ascetic aims are commended. Anecdote 77: Doctors advised Plato to move from the Academy, because it was in an unhealthy locale, to the Lyceum. Plato refused saying, “ Άλλ’ έγωγε ούκ αν ουδέ ές τά του "Αθω 17 μετφκησα αν ύπερ τοϋ μακροβιώτερος γενέσθαι.” Testimonium: Aelian V. h. 9.10 (pp. 98-99 [Hercher]). The story in Aelian is a variation of the tradition (see the previous anecdote) that Plato chose to live in an unhealthy place and hence to pursue death in accordance with the doctrine of the Phaedo. There is a certain irony to Plato’s words that he would not move in order to live longer, for he was in fact one of the μακρόβιοι of antiquity. The advice that he should move to the Lyceum suggests a Peripatetic source for the story. Activities in the Academy Anecdote 78: Timotheus the illustrious statesman dined at the Academy, and on the following day he met Plato and praised his symposia as being pleasant both during the actual banquet and on the next day as well. Testimonia: Cicero Tusc. 5.35.100 (p. 449 [Pohlenz]); Plutarch De tuenda san. 127A (p. 262 [Paton-Wegehaupt]), Quaest. conv. 686A-B (p. 452 [Clement-Hoffleit] ) ; Athenaeus 10.419C-D (2: 412 [Kaibel]); Aelian V. h. 2.18 (pp. 26-27 [Hercher]). All of the sources tell the anecdote to illustrate the praise of moderate dining. Athenaeus gives two slightly different variants, citing Hegesander for the second. In the first version Timotheus, accustomed to sumptuous banqueting, dines frugally at Plato’s Academy (έστιαθείς άφελώς καί μουσικώς) and his comment following the banquet is quoted indirectly (ώς οί παρά Πλάτωνι δειπνοϋντες καί τη υστεραία καλώς γίνονται). The version from Hegesander έν τοΐς ' Υπομνήμασιν 18 reports that when Timotheus met Plato on the following day he commented, “ 'Υμείς, ώ Πλάτων, εδ δειπνείτε μάλλον εις τήν ΰστεραίαν ή τήν παρούσαν ημέραν.” The anecdote is preserved in Aelian in the same way as in Athenaeus with the Γ7· For the longevity of the inhabitants of Mount Athos see Mela 2.2.32, Pliny N. h. 4.37, Solinus 11.34, Lucian Macrob. 5. 18. FHG IV 420.

PLATO IN THE ACADEMY

two variants, the one giving an indirect quote, the second the direct. The wording is also similar. Cicero reports only a version of the first variant in Athenaeus, giving Timotheus’ words in a direct quote in Latin. Plutarch reports in both passages a version of the first variant. The marked similarity of phraseology in the different authors suggests a common source. Athenaeus’ citation of Hegesander shows that the anecdote was well known by the second century B.C. The format in Aelian and Athenaeus, giving the first variant with all the background information and then the version attributed to Hegesander, may reflect Hegesander’s own treatment of the story, telling first the story as he found it elsewhere and then giving his own variant. There is a sarcastic tone to the words of Timotheus as given by Hegesander (who elsewhere transmits anecdotes hostile to Plato), implying that Plato’s symposia were, perhaps, a bit too frugal. This sarcasm may be the reason why Cicero and Plutarch do not repeat Hegesander’s version, for the first version reports only Timotheus’ praise for Plato’s symposia without insinuating his criticism as well.19 The anecdote, which then dates at least to the second century B.C., represents a story set in opposition to the charges of gluttony or Plato’s love of luxury 20in depicting the symposia in the Academy as dignified and without excesses of indulgence.21 A companion story to anecdote 78, found in Aelian Varia historia 2. 10, is based on the contrast between the life of the statesman with that of the philosopher. Here Timotheus, at the height of power and influence, encounters Plato “βαδίζοντι έ'ξω τοϋ τείχους μετά τινων γνωρίμων κ α ί. . . σεμνόν μέν ίδεΐν το πλάτος, ϊλεων δέ τω προσώπω” and discussing none of the mundane affairs with which Timotheus had to deal. At this sight Timotheus exclaims, “ΤΩ τοϋ βίου καί της όντως ευδαιμονίας.” Anecdote When Plato announced that he would give a lecture entitled "On the Good” the audience came with the ex­ pectation that it was a human good which would be discussed. As a result they felt disappointed and departed. 19. Although έστιαθείς μουσικώς may also be taken ironically. 20. See above pp. 70-2 and 67, 68, 69. 21. See also Athenaeus 7.547F-548A for the immoderate practices of the Peripatos under Lycon.

PLATO IN THE ACADEMY

I25

Testimonia·. Aristoxenus Harm. 30-31 (pp. 39-40 [Da Rios]); Themistius Or. 21.245C-D (p. 299 [Dindorf); Proclus In Parmen. 127C (col. 688 [Cousin]). Aristoxenus introduces his second book of the Harmonics with this anecdote which he says Aristotle used to recount in order to illustrate the necessity of prefacing a lecture with an outline of the subject matter and the method. For if the audience had known that Plato was going to speak “περί μαθημάτων καί άριθμών καί γεωμετρίας καί άστρολογίας καί το πέρας δτι άγαθόν έστιν εν,’’ those who came would have been receptive to the lecture. Themistius reports the anecdote to illustrate his point that the true philosopher does not seek public acclaim and that his dis­ course has the same force whether delivered to a crowd or in solitude. His account is more descriptive and exaggerated for rhetorical effect. Themistius, moreover, localizes the lecture in the Piraeus, describes how people flocked there from the city, from the fields, and from the silver mines, and says that when Plato expounded on the Good the majority of the audience became confused and departed leaving only Plato’s usual followers to listen. Proclus uses the anecdote to illustrate his point that when a philosopher reads his own composition he must consider whether it is suitable for those who are going to listen. He too describes how most of the audience left when they could not follow the lecture and adds that Plato had instructed his companions not to bar anyone from attending, for the reading would deal with familiar topics. Simplicius also makes mention of the lecture on the Good and reports that Xenocrates, Speusippus, Aristotle, Heracleides, Hestiaios, and others were present and wrote up the notes that they took during the lecture.22 Coming from Aristotle on the authority of Aristoxenus, the basic elements of the anecdote—that Plato gave a public lecture on the subject of the Good and that the majority of his hearers were perplexed and hence scornful of Plato—may be accepted as true. It should be noted that this is the only lecture by Plato 22. Simplicius In Phys. {CAC 9: 151.8-11 and 453.28-30 [Diels]). Cf. H. Cherniss, The Riddle of the Early Academy, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1945), p. 90 n. 57. Cherniss notes that Simplicius here draws on Porphyry, who in turn takes his information from Dercyllides.

PLATO IN THE ACADEMY

which is attested by reliable sources. The lecture on the Good is described as a public lecture in the accounts of Themistius and Proclus (“συλλεγηνα'. γαρ πολύν καί παντοΐον όχλον” ), and while Aristoxenus does not expressly say that the lecture was open to the public, it is apparent that the disappointed audience was drawn from a wider circle than that of Plato's usual associates.23 Plato’s Teaching Methods Two anecdotes deal with Plato’s methods of instruction. Both are from the Neoplatonists and are inventions based on Platonic doctrine. See also 63 for criticism of Plato as a teacher and 48 and 64 on his verbosity. Anecdote 80: Plato walked while lecturing as a form of exercise in order to have a sound body that would not interfere with his “psychic energy.” Testimonia'. Ammonius In Porph. Isag. (CAG 4.3: 46.5-8 [Busse]) and In Cat. (CAG 4.4: 3.9-11 [Busse]) ; Philoponus In Cat. (CAG 13.1 : 3.4-6 [Busse]) ; Olympiodorus Prolegg. (CAG 12.1: 5.21-22 [Busse]) ; Elias In Cat. (CAG 18.1: 112.18-20 [Busse]); [Elias] In Porph. Isag. 29.40 (p. 69 [Westerink]) ; al-Mubashshir Mukhtar od-hikam 15 (pp. 198-99 [Düring]); Said al-Andalusi Tabaqat al-umam (p. 62 [Blachère]) ; Ibn al-Kifti Tabaqat al-hukama 58, 63 (pp. 9, 13 [Roeper]). The Neoplatonists all include this anecdote24 as an aition to account for the name of the Peripatetic school. Ammonius, Olympiodorus, and Elias explain that the reason why Plato lectured 23. Aristoxenus' report of this single public lecture has led some scholars to conjecture the existence of a secret and unwritten Platonic doctrine which Plato transmitted orally to a restricted circle of pupils, see Cherniss, The Riddle of the Early Academy, pp. 1-13, and 87 n. 2. Bibliography for the controversy concerning an oral doctrine is in H. Cherniss, “Plato (19501957),'” Lustrum 4 (1959) pp. 27-31 and Lustrum 5 (i960) pp. 579-580, 581. K. Gaiser, Platons ungeschriebene Lehre. Studien zur systematischen und ge­ schichtlichen Begründung der Wissenschaften in der Platonischen Schule, (Stuttgart: E. Klett, 1963) and others continue to speak of a secret and oral doctrine of Plato, cf. the essays and the bibliography in Das Problem der ungeschriebenen Lehre Platons : Beiträge zum Verständnis der Platonischen Prinzipienphilosophie, Wege der Forschung Vol. 186, J. Wippern editor, (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1972). The important point, however, is that, contrary to Krämer, Gaiser, et al., the text of Aristo­ xenus speaks of but one lecture which was a public one, cf. H. Cherniss,"Some War-Time Publications Concerning Plato,” AJP6S (1947): 236 η. 76 and G. Vlastos, Gnomon 35 (1963): 650-652. 24. Cf. Testimonia 72A-D (Düring).

PI.ΑΤΟ IN THE ACADEMY

I2 7

while walking was, as Ammonius says in his In Categorias, “εξηγούμενος έβάδιζε θέλων το έαυτοϋ σώμα γυμνάζειν, ώς άν μή άσθενέστερον γεγονός έμποδών γένοιτο ταΐς ψυχικαΐς ένεργείαις.” 25

In al-Mubashshir, whose account follows that of the Neoplatonists, the anecdote is included in the life of Aristotle.26 Said al-Andalusi and al-Kifti, who mentions the anecdote twice, are the only sources to include it in the vita of Plato himself. The explanation that Plato excercised while discoursing on philosophy “διά τό άμα τη ψυχή τό σώμα γύμναζε tv,” as Elias suc­ cinctly phrases it, is probably drawn from passages in the Platonic writings stressing the interdependency of the body and soul, such as Laws 7. 790C-791C (where the beneficial effect of walking is mentioned), Republic 9. 591C-D, and Timaeus 88B.27 The anecdote may be intended to correct the type of story found in 76 where Plato is said to have sought disease as a means of spiritual release. The comic fragment from Alexis given by Diogenes Laertius in 3. 27 gives support to this otherwise late report that Plato instructed while walking : άνω κάτω τε περιπατοϋσ’ ώσπερ Πλάτων σοφόν ούδέν εδρηκ’, άλλα κοπιώ τά σκέλη.28 Anecdote 81: Plato believed that the young men entering his course of instruction should first be intoxicated to learn what was in their soul. Testimonia: Olympiodorus Prolegg. (CAG 12.1: 11.30-33 [Busse]); David In Porph. (CAG 18.2: 107.9-13 [Busse]) ; Elias In Cat. (CAG 18.1: 126.10-15 [Busse]). Olympiodorus, followed by David and Elias, gives the example of Plato’s use of intoxication, δοκιμασίας χάριν, in his description of how Aristotle would test the eagerness of a prospective pupil 25. Pseudo-Elias states that Plato urged even pregnant women to exercise so that the very start of life would not be άγύμναστος. 26. I. During, Aristotle in the Ancient Biographical Tradition, p. 204 sug­ gests that al-Mubashshir was not responsible for incorporating the anecdote into Aristotle’s vita but that this was done by the anonymous author who initially translated the vita of Aristotle by Ptolemy-al-Gharib into Arabic. 27. Tim. 88Β:"μία δή σωτηρία πρός άμφω, μήτε τήν ψυχήν άνευ σώματος κινεΐν μήτε σώμα άνευ ψυχής, ίνα άμυνομένω γίγνησθον Ισορρόπω καί υγιή.” 28. Cf. Alexis, Frag. 147 (2: 351 [Kock]).

128

PLATO IN THE ACADEMY

by confronting him with an άσαφες σύγγραμα. All three mention also Pythagoras’ use of dreams for a similar purpose. The story is apparently fabricated from Plato’s discussion of the value of moderate drinking in the Laws (i. 637A-650B; 2. 666A-E, 671C-672A), particularly his statement that symposia are an important element of education (1. 641D) and his explanation of how character can be revealed in “ τ η ς έν οϊνω βασάνου” (χ. 649D650Β). However in the Laws 2. 666A-B Plato expressly states that wine should be denied to youths, and elsewhere in the tradition Plato is seen to oppose intoxication.29 PLATO AND H IS STUDENTS

General The ensuing section deals with Plato and his students.30 The first group to be considered consists of two stories not told about specific students.31 The first, 82, is a humorous fabrication given by a fifth century Neoplatonist and based on a specific passage in the Phaedrus, and the second, 83, is an extreme example of the practices of asceticism attributed to Plato and his followers by the late tradition. The remaining anecdotes are told of Plato in his relations with individual students. Anecdote 82: A student wrote down all of Plato’s lectures. Later, when he was traveling by boat, his notes were lost. He then returned to Plato and said that he now knew from experience the truth of Plato’s maxim that one should write not in books but in men’s souls. Testimonium:

Hermias In Phaedrum 275C (p. 258 [Couvreur]).

The story of the student who lost his notes appears in Hermias as an illustration of the passage in the Phaedrus (275C-276D) where Plato contrasts the written word, which he calls an είδωλον, with the “λόγον ζώντα και. έμψυχον” of one speaking with knowledge. The word spoken with knowledge is inscribed “έν τη τοϋ μανθάνοντος 29- S ee 1 1 5 . 30. For references to Plato's female pupils see 131 . Compare also 32 . 31. See also Plato’s advice to students in a saying found in Stobaeus 2,31.62 (= Damascenus Excerp. flor. 1.1.8 and 2.13.62; Flor. Mon. 136 and 230; Gnom. Vat. 433; and Cod. Vat. Gr. 742 f. 6yv et 633 f. I 2 i v). The

Gnom. Vat. 449 also records a comment to one of his students.

PLATO IN THE ACADEMY

I29

ψυχή,” and the student in the anecdote had entrusted Plato’s words to notes without writing them έν τη ψυχή, that is, without learning them. When he lost the notes he had no means of re­ calling Plato’s teaching. This anecdote probably originated as a humorus interjection to commentaries on the Phaedrus. It is preserved only in Hermias of the fifth century A.D. Anecdote 83: Some students of Plato put out their eyes to avoid distractions from philosophy. Testimonium: Jerome Adv. I ovin- 2.9 (Migne, P. L. 23: 312). Jerome appends this anecdote to the list of ascetic motivations which led Plato to choose a remote and unhealthy region for his school, see anecdote 76. Asserting that one of Plato’s reasons was that his pupils would be distracted by no other pleasure than that of learning, Jerome adds: “Quosdam legimus effodisse sibi oculos, ne per eorum visum a contemplatione philosophiae avo­ carentur.” The same story is given in Porphyry De abstinentia i. 36 where it also follows the report covered in anecdote 76—but in Porphyry’s account the philosophers who blinded themselves are unnamed (άλλοι). Jerome, or an intermediary source, has transferred to Plato’s pupils this example of the extremes to which some philosophers had gone to avoid worldly concerns. Aristotle I n t r o d u c tio n

The relation between Plato and his most famous pupil, Aristotle, is treated by I. Düring, whose work is cited below for the vitae of Aristotle, both those in Greek and Latin, and in Arabic and Syriac as well.32 Essentially there are two opposing tendencies in the biographical tradition treating of Plato and Aristotle : the tendency to emphasize the closeness and mutual esteem of the twm philosophers; and the tendency, based on Aristotle’s departure from Plato’s doctrine, to portray the διαφωνία between them and to impute inimical relations to the two philosophers. 32. Aristotle in the Ancient Biographical Tradition. See Part III, Chapter VI, entitled “Aristotle and Plato”, as well as Diiring’s commentary on the vitae of Aristotle where mention is made of Plato. 9

PLATO IN THE ACADEMY

Accounts of the διαφωνία begin with the insinuations of Aristoxenus έν τω βίω τοΰ Πλάτωνος.33 Refutation of their dis­ agreement is voiced as early as Philochorus,34 before 300 B.C. Evidence for the διαφωνία is collected by Düring, Testimonia 35-40,3536 including points of doctrinal disagreement as well as personal. Special note should be made of Testimonium 36 from Aelian Variae historiae 3. 19, which belongs to the Aristotelian anecdotal tradition rather than the Platonic. This passage, giving the most extensive account of the personal friction between Aristotle and Plato which took its beginning with Plato’s disapproval of Aristotle’s way of adorning his person and of his τρόπος in general, describes how Aristotle was able to force Plato, then eighty years of age, from his usual lecture place. Xenocrates and other faithful pupils reinstated Plato to his previous place of teaching. This story, depicting Xenocrates’ defense of Plato against Aristotle’s disrespect, may well have originated in the later Academy as an expression of the rivalry between the Academic and Peripatetic schools.38 A vicious notice from Aristotle’s contemporary Eubulides is preserved by Aristocles in Eusebius Praeparatio evangelica 15. 2. 5:37 Aristotle was deliberately not present at Plato’s death and tried to destroy Plato’s books.38 Testimonia collected by Düring for the friendship between Aristotle and Plato consist of citations from Aristotle himself,39 including the fragments of his elegy telling of the foundation of an altar of Philia which he dedicated to Plato.40 This report of the altar of Philia is the strongest evidence opposing the tradition of mutual hostility. Another story important in the late tradition is that Aristotle 33. Cf. Aristoxenus, Frag. O4 (Wehrli). 34. FGrHist 328 F223. 35. See also Aristotle in the Ancient Biographical Tradition, pp. 256-258 and 463. 36. Compare 95, 96, and 97 for a picture of Xenocrates probably emanating from the Peripatetics. 37. Cf. Test. 58F (Düring). 38. See also anecdote 123 for the theme of a philosopher wanting to destroy the writings of another philosopher. 39. Cf. Test. 34A-B (Düring). 40. Cf. Test. 34C (Düring). In addition to the elegy preserved in Olympiodorus InGorg. 41.9 the altar is mentioned by: David In Porph. {CAG 18.2: 121.14-17 [Busse]), who gives the first lines of the elegy as the epigram on Plato’s tomb; Vita Marciana 26 (p. 101 [Düring]); Vita Vulgata 11 (p. 133 [Düring]); Vita Latina 30 (pp. 154-5 [Düring]).

PLATO IN THE ACADEMY

I3 1

was turned to philosophy by the Delphic oracle, a story influenced by Socrates’ account in the Apology that he turned his life into a pursuit of the truth about the oracle delivered to Chaerephon.41 The vita of Ptolemy-al-Gharib 42 reports that Aristotle joined Plato on the advice of the Delphic oracle.43 Anecdote 4 portrays Apollo's intervention in Plato’s becoming Socrates’ follower; thus the three major philosophers of the fifth and fourth centuries are united in the Neoplatonic tradition in a succession ordained by Apollo.44 A necdotes

Anecdote 84: Plato called Aristotle “Πώλος” or “"Ιππος,” or commented when Aristotle withdrew: “ ’Αριστοτέληςήμαςάπελάκτισε καθαπερεο τά πωλάρια γεννηθέντα τήν μητέρα.” 4564 Testimonia·. Aelian V. h. 4.9 (Ρ· 65 [HercherJ); Diogenes Laertius 5.2 (1: 197.11-13 [Long]) ; Photius Bibliotheca cod. 279 (p. 533^14-17 [Bekker]). Given as evidence for Aristotle’s secession from the Academy while Plato was yet alive, the anecdote is found first in Aelian 4e who says that Plato called Aristotle Πώλος in allusion to his άχαριστία because a colt will kick his mother when satiated with 41. Apol. 20E-21A, 23B. The influence of the Pythia on Socrates’ con­ version is also treated by Xenophon Apol. 14 (where the oracle delivered to Chaerephon is said to have named Socrates as the most free, the most just, and the most wise of men) and by Aristotle Frag. 1 (Rose) who says that the Delphic maxim γνώθι σαυτόν inspired Socrates to turn to philosophy. See Gigon, “Berufung zur Philosophie,” pp. 3-7. 42. See I. Düring, “Ptolemy’s Vita Aristotelis Rediscovered” in Philomathes: Studies and Essays in the Humanities in Memory of Philip Merlan, edited by R. B. Palmer and R. Hamerton-Kelly (The Hague: M. Nijhoff, 1971), p. 265 and below. Appendix III, n. r. Ptolemy-al-Gharib is followed by the Vita Syriaca I 4 (p. 185 [Düring]); Ibn an-Nadim Kitab al-Fihrist 4 (p. 1 9 3 [Düring]) ; Ibn Abi Usaybia Tabaqat al-attiba’ 3 (p. 214 [Düring]). 43. The Vita Marciana 5 (p. 98 [Düring]), followed by the Vita Vulgata 4 (p. 132 [Düring]) and the Vila Latina 5 (p. 152 [Düring]), reports simply that the oracle turned Aristotle to philosophy. 44. See above p. 23. But the motif of Apollo’s influence, especially the use of the Pythia as an intermediary in turning the philosopher to his true pursuit, is not restricted to the biographical traditions of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, see Gigon, “Berufung zur Philosophie,” pp. 7-8 who argues that the stories told of Pythagoras (Aristoxenus, Frag. 15 [Wehrli]), Dio­ genes (Diogenes Laertius 6.20-21, Epictetus Diss. 3.21.19), and Zeno (Dio­ genes Laertius 7.2, Epictetus Diss. 3.21.19) are based on the stories of Socrates’ conversion (see above n. 41). 45. Diogenes Laertius 5.2. 46. Cf. Test. 37A (Düring).

PLATO IN THE ACADEMY

her milk. Diogenes Laertius gives Plato’s comment on the occasion of Aristotle’s withdrawal.47 Helladius Besantinous, excerpted by Photius,48 gives the nickname as 'Ίππος because “the horse bites its father.’’ An Academic source seems probable for this anecdote hostile to Aristotle. Anecdote 85: Plato called Aristotle “ ’Αναγνώστης.” Testimonia·. Vita Aristotelis Marciana 6 (p. 98 [Düring]); Vita Aristotelis Vulgata 5 (p. 132 [Düring]); Vita Aristotelis Latina 6 (p. 152 [Düring]). So φιλόπονος was Aristotle, the Vita Marciana reports, that his home was called by Plato "οικία άναγνώστου,” for Plato would often say “ Άπίωμεν εις την τοϋ άναγνώστου οικίαν.” The Vita Vulgata mentions only the naming of the house, while the Vita Latina translates the saying attributed to Plato as well. Coming from the Vita Marciana, this anecdote was a part of Aristotle’s βίος by the fourth century A.D.49 The nickname ’Αναγνώστης must refer to Aristotle’s prodigious literary activity.50 The story does not seem to show hostility between the two phi­ losophers.51 Anecdote 86: Plato called Aristotle “ό Νοΰς.” Testimonia: Vita Aristotelis Marciana 7 (p. 98 [Düring]); Philoponus De aetern. mundi 6.27 (p. 211.24-26 [Rabe]); Vita Aristotelis Latina 7 (p. 152 [Düring]) ; al-Mubashshir Mukhtar al-hikam 12 (p. 198 [Düring]) Ibn Abi Usaybia Tabaqat al-attiba’ 29 (p. 217 [Düring]) ; Vita Aristotelis Syriaca I 5 (p. 185 [Düring]) ; Gregorius Barhebraeus Chron. Syr. 34 (pp. 36-37 [Budge]). 47. Düring, ibid., p. 319 ascribes the report in Diogenes Laertius 5.2 to Hermippus; but Hermippus is cited for the fact that Aristotle was on a state embassy when Xenocrates was made head of the Academy, not for Plato’s comparison of Aristotle with a colt. 48. Cf. Test. 37B (Düring). 49. Düring, ibid., p. 117 : “I have assumed that this biography was written after the time of Porphyry, probably by a member of Iamblichus’ school in the fourth century.” 50. Cf. ibid., pp. 337-8. 51. Düring, ibid., p. 109 believes that the two reports of the nicknames (see also 86) are evidence of personal friction between Plato and Aristotle. But it is n ot certain that Plato did in fact call Aristotle by these names and if the names are the invention of the Neoplatonists (or of the sources they draw on), they are probably intended to illustrate Plato’s respect for Aris­ totle.

PLATO IN THE ACADEMY

I33

Philoponus states that Aristotle was so esteemed by Plato for “τοσοϋτον της αγχίνοιας” that he was called “ό Νους της διατριβής.” The Vita Marciana (followed by the Vita Latina) reports that when Aristotle was absent Plato would say, " Ό Νους άπεστι, κωφόν το άκροατήριον.” The author of the Vita Syriaca and Barhebraeus seem to have drawn on a translator who was unsure of the meaning intended, for both give three different versions of Plato’s saying. In al-Mubashshir, who is also quoted by Usaybia, the report of the nickname follows 8g where it is said that Plato refused to lecture until Aristotle was present: "He often said too, ‘Not until the Mind is here,’ or when Aristotle arrived he said, ‘Read, the Mind is here.’ ” The nickname of Νους is probably based on the importance of νους in the philosophy of Aristotle.52As in the case of anecdote 85, the report of the nickname by the Neoplatonists, upon whom the Arabic sources draw, was probably intended to show Plato’s admiration for his pupil. Anecdote 87: Plato reproached Aristotle for writing so many books on philosophy ; Aristotle replied that his books were meant only for the συνετοί. Testimonia: al-Farabi Philosoph. Abhand. (p. i i [Dieterici]); alMubashshir Mukhtar al-hikam 37 (p. 201 [Düring]). This anecdote, drawn from the tradition favorable to Aristotle, depicts him countering Plato’s reproach of his great activity as a writer. Düring notes that the anecdote is a transferral of a story also known for Aristotle and Alexander.53 While the story is preserved only in Arabic authors (al-Mubashshir takes his version from al-Farabi), it may be that the story comes from a Neo­ platonic,54 or even a Peripatetic, source since it portrays Aristotle defending himself against Plato’s criticism. Anecdote 88 : Plato did not allow Aristotle to be instructed by Xenocrates or by anyone other than himself, so impressed was he by Aristotle’s ability. Testimonium : al-Mubashshir Mukhtar al-hikam 10 (p. 198 [Düring] 52. Cf. e.g. Metaph. 12.1074B.15-35. I am indebted to L. Tarân for this suggestion. 53. Ibid.., p. 433. The story of Alexander’s reproach of Aristotle is taken from two letters in Gellius N. a. 20.5, for which Gellius draws on Andronicus. 54. Ibid., p. 207.

134

PLATO IN THE ACADEMY

Anecdote 8g: Plato would not begin a class until Aristotle was present. Testimonia: al-Mubashshir Mukhtar al-hikam n (p. 198 [Düring]) ; Ibn abi Usaybia Tabaqat al-attiba’ 29 (p. 217 [Düring]). Anecdotes 88 (which is joined by al-Mubashshir with anecdote 86) and 8g come from al-Mubashshir and are known only in the Arabic tradition. Both depict the esteem which Plato held for his outstanding pupil. It may be conjectured that such stories are drawn from the pro-Aristotelian tradition of Ptolemy-alGharib and the Neoplatonic lives based on his vita of Aristotle;55 conversely, the anecdotes could be the contributions of an Arabic source. C o n c l u s io n

None of the stories about Plato and Aristotle appear to be reliable and unprejudiced indications of their relationship. The traditional hostility between Aristotle and Plato is seen in anecdote 84, found in Aelian and drawn from an anti-Aristotelian source. Anecdotes 97 and 131 (both preserved by Diogenes Laertius) come from the tradition favorable to Aristotle: anecdote 97 favors Aristotle at the expense of Xenocrates while anecdote 12g shows favor to Aristotle and hostility to Plato. A Peripatetic source may be supposed for both. Anecdote 87, not attested until alFarabi in the tenth century A.D., alludes to the hostility between Plato and Aristotle and is pro-Aristotelian. Anecdotes 85 and 86 come from the Neoplatonists and are intended to show Plato’s high estimation of his pupil and harmonious relations between the two philosophers. The same tendencies are seen in 88 and 8g from al-Mubashshir of the twelfth century A.D. Mention should be made of Plato’s criticism of Aristotle’s definition in 105, also from Neoplatonic writings; the "criticism” in this case seems to be intended as a humorous note in the commentaries and is not indicative of personal hostility. Demosthenes Anecdote go: Plato expelled Demosthenes from his classroom because he was θηρολέκτν,ς. Testimonium: Anonymous In Rhetor. 3.1 (CAG 21.2: 160.31-32 [Rabe]). 55. Ibid., p. 204.

PLATO IN THE ACADEMY

135

The anonymous commentator on Aristotle tells the story of Plato’s expulsion of Demosthenes from his circle as an example of the preference of philosophers for the unembellished word (to φορτικόν) as a more precise expression of fact. The inference is that Plato had no patience with the future orator’s playing with words (θηρολέκτης). This otherwise unknown anecdote is one of the two (the other being 74) which treats of Plato and the rhetoricians. That Demo­ sthenes was a pupil of Plato is frequently mentioned in the tradition beginning with Hermippus 56 as cited by Gellius 3. 13. 1-5 and Plutarch Demosthenes 5. 7.87 In Gellius’ account, Hermippus reports a story of how Demosthenes, at the time when "admodum adulescentem venitare in Academiam Platonemque audire solitum,” heard the orator Callistratus speak and was so “et demultus et captus” that he abandoned the Academy and Plato altogether. This story, primarily of Demosthenes’ conversion to oratory, was doubtless also intended by Hermippus to depreciate Plato as a teacher. Eudoxus Anecdote gi\ When Eudoxus came to Sicily Dionysius was pleased, but Eudoxus refused to flatter the tyrant and announced, “ Άφικόμην ώσπερανεί προς πανδοχέα άγαθόν, παρ’ ω κατήγετο Πλάτων,” admitting that he had come to see Plato, not Dionysius. Testimonium: Aelian V. h. 7.17 (pp. 86-87 [Hercher]).88 The anecdote in Aelian is more illustrative of Eudoxus’ character than of his relation to Plato. Other than this anecdote, Diogenes Laertius in 8. 87 89 seems to know of a story that Plato had originally spurned Eudoxus to his later regret. In 8. 88 however Eudoxus is said to have attended a symposion given by Plato and to have introduced on this occasion "την ημικύκλιον κατάκλισιν.” No earlier source is cited for either brief notice. See 100 for Plato’s reproach of Eudoxus’ misuse of geometry. 56. Cf. Frags. 71 and 72 (Wehrli). 57. See also Cicero De or. 1.20.89, Brut. 31.121 ; Quintilian 12.2.22, 12.10.24; Plutarch De X orat. 844B; Diogenes Laertius 3.47; Zosimus Vita Dem. 147R; Suidas s.v. Δημοσθένης. Other orators listed as pupils of Plato are : Aeschines (Photius Bibl. cod. 61), Lycurgus (Diogenes Laertius 3.46), and Hypereides (Diogenes Laertius 3.46, Photius Bibl. cod. 266). 58. Cf. Eudoxus, Test. 23 (Lassere). 59. Cf. Eudoxus, Test. 130 (Lassere).

PLATO IN THE ACADEMY

Menedemus Anecdote g2: Menedemus, sent on a mission to Megara by the Eretrians, was won over to philosophy on hearing Plato and abandoned his military service. Testimonium: Diogenes Laertius 2.125 (l: 112.19-21 [Long]). The conversion of Menedemus when he was θηραθείς by Plato’s teaching is comparable to the abrupt conversions reported in anecdotes 134, 135, 136. Thematically the anecdote is related to 15 where Socrates dissuades Plato from the military. Speusippus Anecdote 93: Plato remonstrated and reformed Speusippus by setting an example. Testimonia: Plutarch De adul. et amie. 71E (p. 143 [Paton-Wegehaupt]) and De prat, amore 4giF-492A (pp. 320, 322 [Helmbold]). See also 113A for another anecdote told of Plato and his nephewsuccessor Speusippus. Plutarch uses this story to illustrate the speech needs to be reinforced by character when one admonishes point that frank and the point that one must take an active part in the upbringing of one’s nephews. In conjunction with the latter point Plutarch adds that Plato did not reproach Speusippus as his parents did but set him an example, even though many friends tried to persuade him to upbraid his nephew. Xenocrates A necdotes

Anecdote 94: Plato refused to believe it when he was told that Xenocrates spoke ill of him. When the person informing him remained adamant Plato said “non esse credibile ut quem tantopere amaret ab eo invicem non diligeretur.” When further pressed he swore “numquam Xenocratem illa dicturum fuisse, nisi ea dici expedire sibi iudicasset.” Testimonium: Valerius Maximus 4.1. ext. 2 (p. 171 [Kempf]). Valerius Maximus praises Plato for his moderation which exceeded human limits in dealing with persons confronting him with such allegations. While the anecdote reflects more on

PLATO IN THE ACADEMY

137

Plato’s character than on his relations with Xenocrates, it does incidentally portray the trust Plato had in his student.60 The next three anecdotes show Plato’s estimation of Xenocrates as somewhat sluggish 61 and graceless. Anecdote 95: Plato said to Xenocrates, “Ξενόκρατες, θΰε ταΐς Χάρισι.” Testimonia·. Plutarch Conj. praec. 141F (p. 291 [Paton-Wegehaupt]), Amat. 769D (p.428 [Helmbold]), Marius 2.3-4 (3 ·ι: 2 0 4 [Ziegler]) ; Diogenes Laertius 4.6 (1: 167.6-8 [Long]) ; Eunapius Vitae soph. 5.3 (p. 11.6-7 [Giangrande]). Plutarch is the earliest preserved source for this anecdote. In both the Coniugalia praecepta and the Amatorius he uses the anecdote as an example for married women, in the first instance to show that the virtuous woman needs graces as well, and in the second instance to compare the need for a chaste woman to sacrifice to Love to bless her marriage. In the life of Marius Plutarch notes that if Marius had sacrificed to the Greek Muses, then his life would have run a different course. He variously de­ scribes Xenocrates as ‘‘βαρυτέρω to ήθος βντι,” “αυστηρότατου δε τω ήθει,” and “σκυθρωποτέρω δοκοΰντι to ήθος είναι.” Diogenes Laertius includes the anecdote in the life of Xenocrates who, he notes, was σκυθρωπός αεί. Eunapius too repeats the anec­ dote as a comment on Porphyry’s style of discoursing. Anecdote g6: Plato teased Xenocrates for being όίχαρις, and when Xenocrates was provoked by someone who urged him to reply to Plato, he answered to silence the man, " ’Αλλά τοϋ-ro έμοί συμφέρει.” Testimonium: Aelian V. h. 14.9 (p. 162 [Hercher]). Aelian is the only source for this anecdote where Xenocrates' remark acknowledges that Plato’s teasing him as being graceless was to his benefit. 60. Plato’s esteem for Xenocrates is treated also in the Socratic Ep. 32.1-3 (p. 633 [Hercher]) where Speusippus, urging Xenocrates to return to Athens to lead the Academy, purportedly writes to Xenocrates to inform him that Plato, as proof of his high estimation of Xenocrates, had altered his will to read that Xenocrates was to be buried near Plato himself in the Academy. 61. Cf. Plutarch De aud poem. 47E: “ώσπερ ό Κλεάνθης καί ό Ξενοκράτης βραδύτεροι δοκοϋντες είναι των συσχολαστών. ”

PLATO IN THE ACADEMY

Anecdote 97: Plato said, contrasting Xenocrates and Aristotle: “Τω μεν μύωπος δει, τω δέ χαλινού,” and ‘‘ Έ φ’ οΐον ίππον οϊον δνον αλείφω.” Testimonia: Diogenes Laertius 4 6 and 5.39 (i : 167.4-6 and 216.3-4 [Long]). Diogenes Laertius gives Plato’s comments in 4. 6 as part of Xenocrates’ βίος and then alludes to the first comparison again in 5. 39 where Aristotle makes the same comparison of his pupils, Theophrastus and Callisthenes. Moreover, Cicero 62 and Quintilian 63 report Isocrates saying the same words of the quickness of Theopompus and the slowness of Ephorus. This stock comparison cannot, therefore, be taken with confidence as Plato’s actual estimation of Xenocrates and Aristotle. The contrast of these two with the outcome favoring Aristotle may indicate a Peripatetic source for the anecdote seeking to praise the founder of this school at the expense of the head of the rival school. The other anecdotes, 95 and 96, which make fun of Xenocrates’ ‘‘graceless nature” may also derive from the Peripatetics. C o n c l u s io n

Anecdote 94 from Valerius Maximus points to Plato's great trust in Xenocrates. Xenocrates’ faithfulness to Plato is seen in Aelian Variae historiae 3. 19 where, after Aristotle forced Plato out of his usual place of instruction, it was Xenocrates who came to reinstate him and in Diogenes Laertius 4. xi where, when Dionysius threatened to kill Plato, Xenocrates replied that he would die first. Three anecdotes—95 (first attested in Plutarch), 96 (from Aelian), 97 (from Diogenes Laertius)—describe Plato’s assessment of Xenocrates as graceless and slow by nature. A Peripatetic influence is suspected. PLATONIC DOCTRINE

Emphasis on Geometry A n e c d o te s

Anecdote 98: At the entrance to Plato’s classroom was written: " ’Αγεωμέτρητος μηδείς είσίτω.” 62. De or. 3.9.36, Ep. ad AU. 6,i, Brutus 56.204. 63. Quintilian 2.8.11.

ΙΊ.ΑΤΟ IN THE ACADEMY

I39

Testimonia: Julian the Apostate Contra Hcrac. 237D (2.1: 87-88 Rochefort ) ; Philoponus ln de An. (CAG 15: 117.26-27 Hayduck]); Olvnipiodorus Prolegg. (t AG 12.1: 8.39-9.1 :Bussel); David Prolegg. (CAG 18.2: 5.10-13 and 57.14-20 Busse]); Elias In Cat. [CAG 18.1: 118.18-19 and 119.3-4 Busse ); Elias) In Porph, Isag. 18.17 (p. 34 Westerink ) ; Scholion in Aristidem (3 ; 464.12-15 [Dindorf]) ; Tzetzes Chii. S.972-975 (p. 322 jKiessling'). The reports of the inscription over Plato's place of instruction have been analyzed by H. 1). Saffrey,®4 who shows that the passages from Julian and from the scholiast of Aelius Aristides, identified as the fourth century A.I). Attic orator Sopatros,6465 indicate that the story was known as early as the fourth century A.I).66 As an example of the respect paid the gods by pagan philosophers, Julian mentions, in the oration written in 362 A.D., an introductory67 formula which Aristotle had had inscribed over the place where he taught. Julian adds that in a similar fashion there was an inscription over the entrance to Plato’s classroom. This allusion to the inscription gives no indication of its content. The scholiast of Aelius Aristides, however, repeats the inscription in full, equating αγεωμέτρητος with άνίσος or άδικος since geometry is based on equality and justice.68 This brief notice says nothing of the inscription being put up at the direction of Plato himself. The anecdote is repeated by the sixth century Neoplatonists of the Alexandrian school Philoponus, Olympiodorus, Elias, and David who give the inscription in full and report that Plato him­ self caused the prohibition to be inscribed. As Saffrey demonstrates 64. "ΑΓΕΩΜΕΤΡΗΤΟΙ ΜΗΛΕΙ11 ΕΙΣ 1 ΤΩ: l ’ne inscription légen­ daire," Revue des Etudes Grecques 81 (1068): 67-87. 65. See Saffrey, ibid., pp. 72-73 and F. \V. Lenz, l 'niersuch ungen zu den Aristeides Scholien, Problemata 8 (Berlin; 1034). rpr. ed. Aristeidesstudien, Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Schriften der Sektion für Altertumswissenschaft Vol. 40, (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1964), pp. 1-99, who shows that the scholia on Aristides begin with Sopatros in the fourth century A.I>. and go until Arethas in the ninth century. 66. In the earlier literature, e.g. (). Weinreich, "De dis ignotis quaestiones seiectae,” Archiv fur Religionswissenschaft 18 (1915): 16-17, it was believed that the report of the inscription and its formulation originated with the Neoplatonists of the sixth century A.I). 67. συστατικόν Cobet: άστατικόν V. 68. Saffrey, ibid., p. 74 notes that the comment of the scholiast is based on the relationship between justice and equality outlined in Gorg. 507A508A and Laws 6.757A-758A. Tzetzes in the twelfth century follows the same interpretation as this scholiast, equating αγεωμέτρητος with άδίκαιος.

PLATO IN THE ACADEMY

in detail,69 these Neoplatonists use the anecdote to illustrate different points. For Philoponus the inscription is an indication that Plato was a Pythagorean.70 Olyrapiodorus, followed by Elias, gives the inscription as evidence of the importance which Plato placed on mathematics and says that this importance is, in turn, an argument for those who say that one should begin the study of Aristotelian philosophy with mathematics. David, however, followed by Pseudo-Elias,71 says that the inscription is further proof that Plato considered mathematics to be a προγύμνασμά τι of philosophy and not a part of philosophy proper. The story of the inscription calls to mind inscriptions posted over the entrances of temples and sanctuaries which are attested by preserved epigraphic examples.72 It appears, however, that inscriptions at the entrance to a school of philosophy constitute a topos. A second example is the inscription which, as discussed above, Julian says Aristotle placed over the door to his school;73 and from Seneca comes a report of an inscription at the entrance to the garden of Epicurus.74 The content of the Platonic anecdote is probably based on the fact that Plato did esteem mathematics as propaedeutic to philosophy, but there is no early source which attributes the inscription to Plato.75The earliest sources to report the inscription, Sopatros and Julian, both writing in the middle of the fourth century A.D., seem to allude to a well-known story, and it is possible that the anecdote was circulated even before their time. 69. Ibid., pp. 77-84. 70. Saffrey, ibid., pp. 79-80 makes the suggestion that the form of the inscription given by Philoponus (άγεωμέτρητος μή εΐσίτω) is altered to con­ form with the Pythagorean maxims which Philoponus cites on p. 116.30-32 (Busse). 71. L. G. Westerink, Pseudo-Elias (Pseudo-David), Lectures on P orphyry’s Isagoge: Introduction, Text, and Indices, (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co., 1967) pp. xiii and xvi suggests that this anonymous Neoplatonist came from Constantinople and lived after Olympiodorus and Elias, in the late sixth or seventh century A.D. 72. See Saffrey-, ibid., pp. 69-71. 73. The inscription on Aristotle’s school is not attested elsewhere, see Saffrey, ibid., p. 76 and n. 33. 74. Ep. 21.10. 75. Saffrey notes, however, ibid., p. 85, that άγεωμέτρητος is a technical term of the fourth century B.C. attested in Aristotle Anal. post. 1.12.77B.12-

PLATO IN THE ACADEMY

I4I

Anecdote 99: When the Delians were assailed by a plague and sought advice from the oracle at Delphi, they were advised that if they doubled their altar, which was in the shape of a cube, the plague would cease. They thereupon set out to double their altar, but no solution for the problem of duplicating the cubic altar could be found until they sought the advice of Plato. Plato interpreted the true meaning of the oracle: that the god was punishing the Greeks for neglecting the study of geometry. Testimonia'. Valerius Maximus 8.12. ext. 1 (pp. 404-5 [Kempf]); Plutarch De E ap. Delph. 38OE (3:6 [Paton-Pohlenz-Sieveking]) and De genio Socr. 579A-D (7: 39b, 398 [DeLacy-Einarson]) ; Theon Smyrnaeus (p. 2.3-12 [Hiller]) ; Asclepius of Tralles In Nicom. arith. 2.17.8-15 (p. 61 [Tardn]); Eutocius Comm, in lib. 2 (4: 64.25-65.4 [Mugler]) ; Philoponus In A nal. post. (CAG 13.3:102.12-22 [Wallies]) ; Anon. Proleg. 5.15-24 (p. 11 [Westerink]). Abu Sulayman al-Mantiki Siwan al-hikama; al-Kazwini Athar al-Bilad (p. 45 [Wüstenfeld]); Lufti al-Maktul Tadif al-Madhbah (pp. 44-47 [Yaltkaya-AdnanCorbin]). The ultimate source of this story of the Delian altar 76 (which Philoponus calls “πολυθρύλητον” ) is Eratosthenes of Cyrene, the third century scientist and librarian in Alexandria. Theon Smyrnaeus (of the second century A.D.), who tells the anecdote in the intro­ duction to his handbook of mathematics for the reader of Plato, cites Eratosthenes in his Πλατωνικός. Theon’s account includes the basic elements of the story—the plague, the oracle, Plato’s advice being sought, and Plato alone understanding the true meaning of the oracle. Eutocius includes in his commentary on Archimedes a letter which purports to have been written by Eratosthenes 77to Ptolemy Euergetes. The letter first outlines the background, including the oracle to the Delians, of the geometric problem known as the “doubling of the cube” or the “ Delian problem,” and then 76. Vitruvius too mentions the duplication of the Delian altar but without reference to Plato (De arch. 9.1.13-14). In this account the solutions of Archytas and Eratosthenes are commended for demonstrating Apollo’s intention when he bid the Delians double the altar “ut i qui essent in ea insula tunc religione liberarentur.” The anecdote is discussed in 1 .. Bieter, Θείος άνήρ i : 77-79. 77. The letter itself is apocryphal but the epigram which closes the letter may be genuine, cf. U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, “Ein Weihgeschenk des Eratosthenes (1894),” Kleine Schriften, 6 vols., (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1962-72), 2: 48-70.

PLATO IN THE ACADEMY

presents Eratosthenes’ own solution.78 The main point of the anecdote as seen in the version attributed to Eratosthenes by Theon—that Plato alone knew what the god intended—is missing from the version given by the letter attributed to Eratosthenes in Eutocius.79 In this version it is said that the Delians, instructed by the oracle to double the altar, were at a loss and sent to the geometricians in Plato’s Academy to find a solution. In the Acad­ emy, he adds, much effort was expended on the problem and only Archytas, Eudoxus, and Menaechmus could find theoretical but not practical solutions.80 In De E apud Delphos Plutarch mentions the oracle concerning the Delian altar as an example of how the Delian god promotes logical reason by ambiguous oracles: only Plato understood that the intention of the oracle was to urge the Greeks to study ge­ ometry. In De genio Socratis a detailed account is given, which differs from that attributed to Eratosthenes by the inclusion of a report of a futile first attempt by the Delians to double their altar, by omitting mention of the plague, and by localizing the story in Caria where Simmias and Plato are overtaken by Delian envoys as they return to Athens from Egypt. The Delian envoys ask Plato, ώς γεωμετρικός, to explain an oracle which instructed the Delians and the other Greeks to double the altar in Delos in order to put an end to their current troubles (παύλαν των παρόντων κακών έσεσθαι). No mention is made of the plague. The Delians, it is reported, had already tried to fulfill the oracle but had instead constructed an altar eight times greater than the original by doubling all of its dimensions. Plato answered 81 the Delians by explaining that the actual stereometric problem would be solved by finding two mean proportionals—for this solution he referred them to Eudoxus and Helicon—and warned them that the solution to the problem of the doubling of the cube was not what the oracle was alluding to: 78. See T. Heath, A History of Greek Mathematics, 2 vols., (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1921), x: 244-270 for Kratosthenes’ Platonicus, the letter cited by Eutocius, and the Delian problem. 79. See the comments of E. Hiller, Eratostbenis carminum reliquiae, (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1872}, pp. 131-133. 80. See anecdote 100. 81. In his reply Plutarch has Plato think back to his instructor in Egypt, Chonuphis: Plato’s interpretation of the oracle is given as support for the interpretation of the writing of Agesilaus which Chonuphis makes in De genio Socr. 578F-579A.

PLATO IN THK ACADEMY

143

άλλά προιττάσσειν 'Έλλη»τι πασι, πολέμου καί κακών μεθεμένους, Μούσαις όμιλεϊν καί διά λόγων καί μαθημάτων τά πάθη καταπραύνοντας, άβλαβώς καί ώφελίμως άλλήλοις συμφέρεσθαι. In addition to Eutocius,82 three other members of the Neo­ platonic school of Alexandria—Asclepius of Tralles, Philoponus, and the author of the Anonymous Prolegomena—report the anecdote about the Delian problem. The similarity in the accounts of Asclepius and Philoponus is probably dut* to the dependence of both on the lectures of Ammonius,83 while the variations in their accounts are due to the motives of the individual authors in telling the anecdote. Asclepius of Tralles, who lived in the late fifth and early sixth centuries, mentions the anecdote in a discussion of the stereometry of the cube where he notes that a cubic volume is not doubled by the doubling of the length and width of the cube. The example Asclepius gives is the Delians’ first solution which was to construct an altar with the length and width double that of the original altar. The result, however, was a structure four times as large as the original. Asclepius also tells of the plague, of the Delians’ recourse to Plato, of his reply that the god was criticizing their neglect of geometry, and adds at the end that Plato then explained to his companions that in order to solve the problem they must first determine two mean proportionals. Asclepius' contemporary Philoponus gives the story in com­ menting on Aristotle's words that the demonstration fru cob δύο κύβοι κύβος is not in the realm of geometry (Analytica posteriora 75B. 13-14). Explaining that the problem is properly in the realm of stereometry, he reports that the Delians tried to solve their problem by putting another cube of the same dimensions on top of the original altar. Philoponus also tells of a second consultation with the oracle informing the Delians that they had misinterpreted the oracle; following this they consulted Plato. The author of the Anonymous Prolegomena presents a modified account of the episode. Attributing to Plato the discovery of how to determine two mean proportionals, he reports that when a plague befell the Athenians the oracle was given and that follow82. For Jiutocius' probable association witli the Alexandrian school see Westerink, Anonymous Prolegomena, p. xiii and n. 30. 83. See L. Tarân, Asclepius of Tralles: Commentary to Nicomachus' Intro­ duction to Arithmetic, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society n.s. 59.4 (Philadelphia. 1969) pp. 8-10. 14.

144

PLATO IN THE ACADEMY

ing futile attempts at doubling the altar the Athenians consulted Plato. Plato, who understood the god's words as berating the neglect of geometry, demonstrated the solution to the geometrical problem, and when the Athenians applied his solution the plague stopped. The author of the Anonymous Prolegomena, or his source, has changed the story so that Plato not only is the sole interpreter of the oracle, but an innovator in geometry 84 and the benefactor of his city as well. This glorification of Plato on three accounts is in accord with the tendency of this author to emphasize the philosopher’s divine nature.85 The version in Valerius Maximus stands apart from all the other reports. To give an example that “suae autem artis unum quemque et auctorem et disputatorem optimum esse,” Valerius Maximus tells that when the “conductores sacrae arcae” approached Plato 84. Plato is the discoverer of the two mean proportionals in the accounts of al-Kazwini in the thirteenth century A.D. and of Lufti al-Muktul in the fifteenth century. Lufti al-Muktul, librarian of Sultan Mahomet II in Istan­ bul, composed a treatise entitled “The Doubling of the Altar" in which he expounded on the Delian problem and its solution. Deviations from the Greek sources are many in this late author’s version of the anecdote. Here the plague is localized within a temple—said to be that of David the prophet— and the prophecy is delivered to a prophet of Israel (in this detail Lufti al-Muktul follows al-Kazwini). When the construction of a second altar only causes the pestilence to increase, God reveals to the prophet that the cube has not been doubled. At this point the prophet of Israel consults the Greek sage, Plato, who declares: “Vous vous êtes écartés du trivium, c’est-à-dire de ces trois sciences (qui forment le seuil) de la philosophie : l’arithmétique, la géométrie et la science des carrés magiques. Si Dieu vous a éprouvés par la peste, c’est comme par un châtiment en retour, car les sciences philosophi­ ques ont leur importance devant Dieu.” Plato also explains that the solution of the problem lies in the determination of two mean proportionals. Without parallel are the explanations supplied by Lufti al-Muktal (pp. 48-51 [Yaltkaya-Adnan-Corbin]) as to why the plague was confined to the temple (the cause of the pestilence is said to be the putrification of sacrificial carcasses and blood collected in the altar which was a cubic basin inside the temple), why the construction of a second altar caused the plague to double (twice as much matter was allowed to decompose), and why the construction of a cubic altar double the volume of the original altar caused the plague to abate (the deeper basin allowed proportionately less contamination to escape into the air). The anecdote is also attested in the tenth century A.D. in Abu Sulayman al-Mantiki who draws on Al-'Amiri, also of the tenth century, see R. Walzer, “Alflätün,” Encyclopedia of Islam, 2nd ed., (1970), col. 235B. The Siwan al-hikama of Abu Sulayman is not available in translation. 85. See above pp. 29-30.

PL A T O IN T H K A CA D E M Y

I45

for advice he bid them take their problem to Euclid,86 “ scientiae eius cedens, imino professioni.” The anecdote of the “ Delian problem” was probably inspired by the Meno 82B-85B where the similar problem of doubling the square is discussed and several erroneous solutions are applied before the correct one is found. Circulated by Eratosthenes in the third century B.C., the anecdote depicts Plato as the only true interpreter of the Delphic oracle, as enjoying widespread fame and esteem as shown by the fact th a t the Delians sought his advice, and as emphasizing the importance of the study of geo­ metry. Whether Eratosthenes himself fabricated the story to illustrate the “ Delian problem” or whether he drew on another source, the story is evidence of the tendency to glorify Plato existing in the third century B.C. Anecdote 100 : Plato reproached Eudoxus, Archytas, Menaechmus for their misuse of geometry. Testimonia : Plutarch Quacst. conviv. 718E-F (pp. 120,122 [Minar]) and Marcellus 14.9-11 (2.2: 123 !Ziegler J). Plutarch is the only source for the report th a t Plato reproached Archytas, Eudoxus, and Menaechmus for their misuse of geometry. In the Quaestiones conviviales a discussion held on Plato’s birthday begins in 718C with the question what Plato meant when he said "αεί γεωμετρεΐν τον Θεόν.” A description follows of the value Plato is said to have placed on geometry because it draws one from the world of the senses to th at of the intelligible and of how Plato believed that το γεωμετρίας αγαθόν is destroyed when mechanical means are introduced which, by their very nature, prevent ge­ ometry from attaining των άϊδίων καί άσωμάτων εικόνων. And for this reason Plato is said to have reproached Archytas, Eudoxus, and Menaechmus for relying on mechanical means, particularly in finding the mean proportional for the doubling of a cubic solid (see anecdote 99). In the life of Marcellus a digression in 14. 9-11, departing from mention of the siege engines Archimedes had developed as a sort of accessory to geometry, reports th a t Plato accused Archytas and Eudoxus of corrupting geometry. Chiefly in their solution 86. Chronological c o n s id e ra tio n s are enough to show this version to be incorrect. 10

146

PLATO IN THE ACADEMY

of the problem of finding two mean proportionals did they use mechanical illustrations for geometry, thereby originating the art of mechanics. The story of Plato’s reproach of contemporary geometricians for the use of mechanical aids in the solution of geometrical problems is suspect. Plato himself relies on a geometrical construction for his solution to the problem of doubling the square in Meno 82B-85B, and it is unlikely that he would have reproached his contemporaries for using a similar method. A possible source for the anecdote may be Republic 7. 527 A-B where Plato, in a discussion of the educational value of geometry,87 says of geometricians “λέγουσι μέν που μάλα γελοίως τε καί άναγκαίως” in that the terminology they use for their geometrical applications is not indicative of the true object of the study of geometry, which is pure being. Perhaps this passage suggested to Plutarch, or the source upon which he draws, that Plato was critical of specific contemporary geometricans 88 for their reliance on constructions, although in the passage cited Plato is concerned with the terminology of ge­ ometry, and in fact he admits that the language employed by geometers though ridiculous (for the objects they “construct” are actually eternal entities which exist outside time and place) is necessary, since the demonstration of geometrical theorems “necessitates” such constructions. Anecdote 101: Plato was shipwrecked on a strange shore, but when he saw geometric forms drawn in the sand he told his com­ panions to be of good cheer, “videre enim se hominum vestigia.” Testimonium: Cicero De rep. 1.17.29 (p. 19 [Ziegler]). Cicero tells the anecdote in praise of those who call “men” only those “qui essent politi propriis humanitatis artibus.” The a t­ tribution of the story to Plato is unique to Cicero who alludes to another person of whom it is told as well. As the shipwreck theme is usually associated with Aristippus 89 it appears that the anecdote has been transferred to Plato. The attribution of the story to 87. Plutarch, Quaest. conviv. 718B-F draws his discussion of Plato's estimation of geometry from Rep. 7.526C-527D. See also Laws 7.819D-820E. 88. In Rep. 7.528A-D Plato is also critical of contemporary researchers in the field of stereometry, calling them too arrogant and ignorant of the true value of the matters they study. 89. Cf. Frags. 9A-9E (Mannebach).

PLATO IN THE ACADEMY

I47

Plato probably does not originate with Cicero who may be depen­ dent on a Hellenistic source. C o n c lusion

Five anecdotes are based on the emphasis which Plato put on the value of geometry for the true philosopher,90 and all seem to have been invented to illustrate this emphasis. Anecdote 99 comes from Eratosthenes, while 100 and 31 are found first in Plutarch. Anecdote 101 is transferred from Aristippus to Plato and is re­ corded by Cicero. Anecdote 98, the inscription on the entrance to the Academy, is from the Fourth century A.D. Theory of Ideas Anecdote 102 : When Plato found the theory of Ideas he dreamed he had a third eye. Testimonia'. Origen Contra Cels. 6.8 (3: 196.23-24 [Borret]); Anon. Proleg. 5.40-42 (p. 13 [Westerink]). Plato himself in the Republic 7. 533D uses the analogy of “το της ψυχής ομμα” which is drawn by dialectic to νοϋς or to true being.91 Surely this passage provided the inspiration for the report that Plato dreamed of a third eye. The story is not attested before Origen in the third century who includes it in his list (see anecdotes I and 16) of prophetic stories told about Plato. He appears to allude to a well known story. Only the author of the Anonymous Prolegomena makes subsequent mention of the dream. Anecdote 103·. Plato was criticized by Diogenes or Antisthenes who said that they could see a physical object but not the abstrac­ tion of it. To this criticism he replied: "Κατά λόγον, οΐς μεν γάρ κύαθος καί τράπεζα θεωρείται οφθαλμούς έχεις- ώ δε τραπεζότης καί κυαθότης βλέπεται νοϋν ούκ εχεις.” 92 Testimonia: Diogenes Laertius 6.53 (2: 270.3-8 [Long]); Elias In Porph. (CAG 18.1: 47.12-19 [Busse]); Simplicius In Cat. (CAG 8: 208.28-33 [Kalbfleisch]); Arsenius Violetum (p. 201.1-7 [Walz]). 90. For Plato’s estimation of geometry see also Cicero De or. 1.50.217, Proclus In Euclid. (66.8-14 [Friedlein]), Plutarch Dion 14.3. 91. Cf. Rep. 7.527D-E where the δργανόν τι ψυχής by which alone the truth is seen, is said to be "κρεϊττον δν σωθήναι μυρίων δμμάτων.” 92. Diogenes Laertius 6.53·

PLATO IN THE ACADEMY

Diogenes Laertius, from whose account Arsenius made his excerpt, places this anecdote in his life of Diogenes and describes how Plato “περί ιδεών διαλεγομένου καί όνομάζοντος τραπεζότητα καί κυαθότητα” 93 was criticized by Diogenes. The same anecdote is told by the Neoplatonists about Antisthenes and Plato. To the testimonia above are added : Ammonius In Porph. (CAG 4.3: 40.6-10 [Busse]) ; David In Porph. (CAG 18.2:109.14-16 [Busse]) ; Tzetzes Chit. 7.604-611 (p. 263 [Kiess­ ling]). all of whom give the objection attributed to Antisthenes but without Plato’s reply.94 Ammonius and David cite Antisthenes in a discussion of Porphyry’s division of τά όντα into τά μέν οντων and τά δε έν ψιλαϊς έπινοίαις where the abstractions given by Antisthenes (ιππότης, άνθρωπότης) are examples of the second category.95 Elias and Simplicius mention specifically the dispute between Antisthenes and Plato over the existence of abstract entities. The reply given by Plato about the eye with which the ab­ stractions are viewed must also be derived from τό τής ψυχής δμμα mentioned in the Republic 7. 533D (see 102). Whether the criticism is attributed to Diogenes or to Antisthenes is not significant, for the point of the anecdote is Plato’s defense of his theory of ideas against Cynic criticism. As such the anecdote derives from the tradition favorable to Plato. Definitions Criticism of Plato for his excessive use of definitions begins with Theopompus who protested, “Ούδείς ήμών προ σοϋ ελεγεν 93- The abstractions with which Diogenes and Antisthenes reproach Plato make allusion to his coining of the word ποιότης in Theaet. 182A. For the significance of Diogenes Laertius’ version, which gives the examples τραπεζότης and κυαθότης, as pointing to the belief that Plato posited ideas of artefacts see H. Cherniss, Aristotle's Criticism of Plato and the Academy, (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1944-) 1: 246 n. 151. In note 151 Cherniss argues that the original version of the story mentions τραπεζότης which was changed to άνθρωπότης or ιππότης by later Platonists who denied ideas of artefacts. See also Aristotle’s use in Met. 7.1039A.33-1039B.2 of ίππος and άνθρωπος as examples in his discussion of είδη and γένη. 94· For the Cynic saying cf. Testimonia 72A-E in A. Packmohr, De Diogenis Sinopensis apophthegmatis quaestiones selectae, (Monasterii Guestfalorum: Aschendorff, 1913) p. 84, who omits citation of Elias. 95. Tzetzes follows Ammonius and David.

PLATO IX THE ACADEMY

I49

άγαθον ή δίκαιον;” 96 Cynic criticism of Plato’s definition is shown in 104 from Diogenes Laertius where Diogenes the Cynic ridicules Plato with the plucked chicken which fit the definition of άνθρωπος. The second anecdote (105), not attested before the Neoplatonists, has Plato causing Aristotle to modify his definition of άνθρωπος when Plato presented evidence of the existence of nymphs and daimones. Anecdote 104; When Plato defined “άνθρωπος” as “ζωον δίπουν άπτερον” and was respected for his definitions, Diogenes plucked a rooster and brought it to the school saying, "Ουτός έστιν ό Πλάτωνος άνθρωπος.” Plato then added the term "πλατυώνυχος” to his definition. Testimonia: Diogenes Laertius 6.40 (2: 264.10-14 [Long]);97 Arsenius Violetum (p. 205.20-24 [Walz]). Only Diogenes Laertius (whose account Arsenius excerpts) tells this humorous anecdote of Diogenes’ ridicule of Plato’s definition of άνθρωπος known from the pseudo-Platonic Definitiones 415A. The anecdote is probably from a Cynic source,98 and, based as it is on the spurious Definitiones, cannot be supposed to have been circulated in Plato’s own lifetime. Anecdote 105: To Aristotle’s definition of "άνθρωπος” as "ζωον λογικόν θνητόν” the final term “νοϋ καί επιστήμης δεκτικόν” was added because Plato found the body of a dead Nereid or, alter­ natively, learned of a daimon which died in Samos. Testimonia: Philoponus In Anal. post. (CAG 13.3: 411.7-8 [Wal­ lies]); Eustratius In Anal. post. (CAG 21.1: 206.32-33 [Hayduck]); Ioannes Doxopatros Horn, ad Aphthon. (2: 154.27-30 [Walz]). Philoponus and Eustratius introduce this anecdote into a discussion of Aristotle’s definition known from the Topica 5. 134A. 14-17 as an aside as to why it was necessary to distinguish man from φύσεις τινές αύτομαθεϊς by adding the term νοϋ καί επιστήμης δεκτικός to θνητός. Both report the story that Plato had found 96. FGrHist 115 F275. See also Epicrates, Frag. 11 (2: 287-288 [Kook]). Criticism of difinitions is continued by the Sceptics, cf. Geffcken, "Antiplatonica,” p. 97 n. 7. 97. Cf. Frag. 124 (Mullach). 98. See also Sextus Empiricus P. h. 2.28 for criticism of the definition taken up by the Sceptics.

ISO

PLATO IN THE ACADEMY

the body of a dead nymph, confirming the existence of αύτομάθεις φύσεις such as centaurs, pans, satyrs, and the like. Doxopatros in his discussion of the terms says that Plato corrected the definition when he heard that a daimon died in Samos. The anecdote is used as a humorous interjection into the discussion of the definition. As an anecdote it appears to be a parallel to 104 where Plato, as Diogenes in 104 does to him, criticizes Aristotle’s definition by producing another creature which fits the definition, and Aristotle is thereby forced to add another term. The story probably originates with the Neoplatonists who used it to enliven their discussion of Aristotle’s definition.

CHAPTER ELEVEN

PLATO’S CHARACTER AS DEPICTED BY ANECDOTES The following chapter contains those anecdotes which depict some aspect of Plato’s character and have little other biographical significance. Needless to say many of the anecdotes in the other chapters also add to the portrayal of Plato’s character, and in the concluding remarks cross references are made to the more significant stories. The gnomologia contain a number of sayings attributed to Plato which are prefaced by a comment or a question, usually from an unnamed person, introducing the topic to which the reply of the philosopher is addressed. These gnomic sayings have, for the most part, not been treated as anecdotes, although in some cases the distinction between saying and anecdote is somewhat arbitrary. References to such sayings, when they relate thematically to the anecdotes under discussion, will be found in the notes. The anecdotes collected in this chapter are varied in content; the concluding remarks at the end of the chapter attempt to outline the major themes in the portrayal of Plato’s character found in the tradition. A n e c d o tes

Anecdote 106: Plato was so modest that as a youth he was never seen to laugh excessively. Testimonium: Diogenes Laertius 3.26 (1: 132.8-9 [Long]). Heracleides of Lembos,1 the second century B.C. epitomator of Satyrus and Sotion, is Diogenes Laertius’ source for this anec­ dote.2 The stock stories of the philosophers who never laughed 3 and of the contrast between Heracleitus as the philosopher who wept and Democritus as the philosopher who laughed at the human condition 4 probably inspired this anecdote. This charac1. FUG III 171. 2. Aelian V. h. 3.35 says of the old Academy: “ΰβρει γάρ καί ραθυμία έπειρώυτο τί> χωρίου άβατου φυλάττειυ.” 3· Cf. Aelian V. h. 8.13 for Anaxagoras, Aristoxenus, and Heracleitus. 4. Cf. Seneca De Ira 2.10.5, Stobaeus 3.20.53, Lucian Vit. A net. 13-14.

PLATO’S CHARACTER AS DEPICTED BY ANECDOTES

terization of Plato as the sober type of philosopher 5 could arise from either the hostile or the favorable tradition, depending upon whether the emphasis is placed on the philosopher’s austerity or his dignified comportment. One may infer that Heracleides took the story from an earlier Alexandrian source. Anecdote ioy: Plato was wont to weep incessantly and people always knew where he was from the sound of his crying. When he wept he could be heard for up to two miles in deserted regions. Testimonium: Al-Mubashshir Mukhtar cd-hikam (pp. 48-49 [Rosen­ thal]). Al-Mubashshir includes this story about Plato in his brief biography of the philosopher. The anecdote appears to be drawn from the Heracleitean tradition and seems to indicate that Plato was living in an isolated and desolate place.6 Anecdote 108: Anniceris of Cyrene,7 the man who allegedly ransomed Plato, gave an exhibition of chariot driving in the region of the Academy during which he made repeated circuits on the same set of tracks. All present marvelled at his skill, except Plato who, criticizing the attention Anniceris paid to so trivial a matter, said,8 ’Αδύνατόν έστι, τον ές μικρά οΰτω καί ούδενός άξια τοσαύτην φροντίδα κατατιθέμενον ύπέρ μεγάλων τινών σπουδάσαι· πάσαν γάρ αύτω την διάνοιαν ές εκείνα άποτεθεΐσαν άνάγκη όλιγωρεϊν των όντως θαυμάζεσθαι δικαίων. Testimonia: Aelian V. h. 2.27 (ρ· 3 ° [Hercher]); [Lucian] Dem. enc. 23 (3: 372 [Jacobitz]). Aelian’s story seems to be set at some time after Plato’s ransom when Plato was entertaining his benefactor in the Academy. The serious, almost pedantic, side of Plato’s character is depicted in his unwillingness to praise the one to whom he owed so much when he did not approve of Anniceris’ pursuing a skill of so little consequence as contrasted to the pursuit of philosophy. PseudoLucian knows the story about Anniceris trying to win Plato’s admiration but does not give Plato’s rebuke. 5. See also the disapproval of laughter in Rep. 3.388D-E : “ούδέ φΟ,ογέλωτάς γε δει είναι.” 6. See pp. 161-2 and n. 35 for his preference for living in isolation. 7. See above p. 88-9. 8. Aelian V. ft. 2.27.

p l a t o ’s c h a r a c t e r as d e p ic t e d b y a n e c d o t e s

153

Anecdote iog: Plato expected people doing him a favor to be discriminating and to show that the)' held him in special esteem. Testimonia: Seneca De bene/. 6.1S.1 (1.2:159 [Hosius]) ; Eustathius Ad Od. 4.401 (i .174 1503.16-20 [Stallbaum]). Two stories are told in illustration of the same point. Seneca describes how, when Plato was ferried across a river without charge, he assumed it was done out of respect to him and said that he was indebted to the ferryman; however, when he saw the same man taking many others as well, he declared that he no longer owed him a favor. The story is an illustration of Seneca’s assertion that one is indebted only when a favor has been done, not merely to him, but because of him. Eustathius’ commentary censures Menelaus for his "άδοκίμαστον φιλίαν’’ towards Alexander and tells a contrasting story about Plato. After Plato was ransomed, he accepted the hospitality of his benefactor. When, however, he saw that many others were honored indiscriminately by the same man, he withdrew. Such stories where indiscrimination on the part of a benefactor is scorned by the person benefited are evidently a topos, for similar stories are told of Demosthenes, Diogenes, Stratonicus, and Socrates.9 Anecdote n o : When Chabrias the general was being brought to trial none of the citizens would adtmeate his cause, except Plato. Krobylos the informer approached Plato as he ascended the acropolis with Chabrias and taunted him saying, “ ’Άλλω συναγορεύσων ήκεις, άγνοών οτι και σέ το Σωκράτους κώνειον αναμένει;” Plato replied, "Καί δτε ύπέρ τής πατρίδος έστρατευόμην, ύπέμενον τούς κινδύνους, καί νυν ύπέρ τοΰ καθήκοντος διά φίλον υπομένω.” Testimonium: Diogenes Laertius 3 24 (ι: 13111-16 [Long]). This anecdote depicting Plato acting out of true friendship is preserved only in Diogenes Laertius, and is a parallel to 20 where Plato alone came to Socrates’ defense. The story may be patterned on the accounts of Socrates’ behavior in the trial of the generals 9. References in Sternbach, (înomologittm Vaticanum 223 p. 89, who lacks the version told of Socrates in Arsenius Violetum p. 439.3-5 (Walz): " Ό αυτές ίδών τινα προχείρως πδσι χαριζόμενον καί άνεξετάστως υπηρε­ τούμενων, κακώς, εϊπεν, άπόλοιο, οτι τάς χάριτας παρθένους οΰσας, πόρνας έποίησας.’’

154

p l a t o ’s c h a r a c t e r as d e p ic t e d b y a n e c d o t e s

who fought at Arginusae and his refusal to arrest Leon of Salamis10 —in both instances Socrates refused to compromise his principles for his personal safety. Kühhas 11 suggests that the story may be intended to correspond to the role played by Chabrias in Plato’s own life as seen in Diogenes Laertius 3. 20 and thinks that Favorinus, with his preference for trial episodes, is the source Diogenes Laertius uses for this anecdote. Anecdote h i : Plato refused to mount a horse saying that “ εύλαβεΐσθαι μή ίπποτυφία ληφΟ/}.

Testimonium: Diogenes Laertius 3.39 (1: 138.7-8 [Long]). Diogenes Laertius tells this anecdote as evidence that Plato tried to avoid pride, and the anecdote probably arises in opposition to the Cynic charge of τϋφος aimed at Plato, see 46, y i and especially 4y which also mentions pride in conjunction with horses. Anecdote 112: Plato visited Olympia incognito and associated freely with ordinary people who were delighted by the company of their companion whom they knew only as a man named Plato. When they returned to Athens Plato entertained his new friends, who were apparently not Athenians, and they said in jest that Plato should take them to the Academy to meet his name-sake. Plato then revealed his identity. His friends were amazed that they had not recognized him due to his humble conduct and his avoidance of philosophical conversation during their stay to­ gether. Testimonium: Aelian V. h. 4.9 (p. 64 [Hercher]). This story of Plato’s modesty, humility, and ability to conduct himself with common people is aimed at countering criticism of his character as prideful (see i n ) by depicting him as "άτύφως «ύτοϋ συγγεΜομένου καί άνεπιτη8εύτως αύτοΐς.” The story also opposes those anecdotes (such as 108 and 57) which make Plato seem, perhaps, too pedantic. Compare 140 where Plato is said to have been the center of attention when he visited Olympia. Perhaps the most frequently repeated anecdotes are those 10. SeeApol. 32A-D. 11. "Die Platonvita,” p. 107.

p l a t o ’s c h a r a c t e r as d e p ic t e d b y a n e c d o t e s

155

dealing with Plato’s refusal to punish his slaves in anger. Three forms are found in the tradition.12 Anecdote 113A : Plato when angered at a disobedient slave asked some one else to punish the slave for him because he was so angry. Testimonia: Valerius Maximus 4.1 ext. 2 (pp. 170-1 [Kempf]); Seneca De ira 3.12.6 (ι.ι: 121 [Hermes]) ; Plutarch De lib. educ. 10D (p. 20 [Paton-Wegehaupt]) ; Adv. Col. 1108A (p. 192 | Einarson-De Lacy]) ; Diogenes Laertius 3.38 (1: 138.4-5 [Long]) ; Stobaeus 3.20.57 (3 : 5 5 1 [Hense]); Antonius Melissa 2.53 (Migne, P.G. 136: 1133); Maximus Confessor 19.594 (Migne, P. G. 91: 841C) ; Gnom. Vat. 436A (p. 162 Stembach]) = Cod. Vat. Gr. 151 f. 243v n. 9*, 742 f. 68r; Flor. Mon. 234* (4: 286 [Meineke]) ; Arsenius Violetum (p. 422.1-3 [Walz]). The earliest source of this variant is Valerius Maximus who praises Plato’s act in having the slave who had been disobedient punished but not by his own hands lest ‘‘parem reprehensionem culpa servi et animadversio Platonis mereretur.” Seneca telis the story to illustrate how punishment should be entrusted to another person when one is angry. He gives Plato’s words as, "tu, Speusippe, servulum istum verberibus obiurga; nam ego irascor.” Plutarch uses the story twice: in De liberis educandis to illustrate the precept for children that anger must be controlled, where he gives Plato’s saying (“Τούτον κρότησον εγώ γάρ πάνυ θυμούμαι”), and in Adversus Colotem where Plato’s words are given as a precedent for passing the act of chastising to a second person. Diogenes Laertius includes the story in his life of Plato, The same saying is uniformly given by Stobaeus, the Gnomologium Vaticanum, the Florilegium Monacense, Antonius, Maximus, and Arsenius: ‘‘Λαβών τούτον μαστίγωσον· εγώ γάρ οργίζομαι.” Valerius Maximus, Seneca, and Plutarch report that Plato asked Speusippus to punish the slave; the remaining sources say Xenocrates.13 Anecdote 113B : Plato, intending to strike a slave in anger, re­ mained instead with his arm held upright to punish himself for his intention. 12. Due to the large number of testimonia this anecdote has been sub­ divided into variants A, B, and C. 13. Galen De cognosc. curand. animi morbis 4 seems to be referring to this version when he praises Plato’s example in “τό μηδέποτε μηδένα των οίκετών

άμαρτάνοντα διά των έαυτοϋ χειρών νουθετεΐν.”

156

PLATO’S CHARACTER AS DEPICTED BY ANECDOTES

Testimonia: Seneca De ira 3.12.5 (ι.ι: 121 [Hermes]); Plutarch De ser. nnm. vind. 551B (pp. 196,198 [Einarson-DeLacy]) ; Themistius Περί αρετής φ (Rh. Μ. 27 [1872] : 462 [Bücheier]) ; Proclus De prov. 54.20-22 (p. 86 [Boese]) ; Maximus Confessor 19.594 (Migne, P. G. 91 : 841C); Gnom. Vat. 346B (p. 163 [Stembach]) = Cod. Vat. Gr. 151 f. 243v n. 9b, 1144 f. 231v;Flor. Mon. 23411(4: 286 [Meineke]) ; Arsenius Violetum (p. 422.3-6 [Walz]). Seneca, arguing that anger should be entrusted to time so that it can be assessed with a clear mind, describes how Plato, ordering the slave to bare his back, “manum suspensam detinebat et stabat percussuro similis.” And when he was found in this posture by a friend who asked what he was doing his reply was, “exigo poenas ab homine iracundo.” Plutarch’s account, which is much briefer and without the direct quotation of Plato’s words, is given as an example of the sort of story that can influence the conduct of those who hear it. Proclus’ report, praising restraint of violent passions, is close to that of Plutarch, as is that of the Gnomologium Vaticanum and the remaining collections of gnomic sayings which give Plato’s saying as "κολάζειν τον έαυτοϋ προσορμήσαντα θυμόν.” 14 Anecdote 113C: When Plato was angered at a slave he said: “ Μεμαστίγωσο άν, εΐ μή ώργίζομην.” Testimonia: Diogenes Laertius 3.39 (i: 138.5-7 [Long]); Stobaeus 3.20.42 (3: 548 [Hense]) ; Arsenius Violetum (p. 421.24-26 [Walz]). The third variant dealing with Plato’s refusal to punish in anger is Plato’s comment to the slave. Diogenes' Laertius’ version is given above; it is an abridged version of that found in Stobaeus and Arsenius. All three versions are illustrative of Plato’s self-control and his moderation towards his slaves. Variants A and B are known in the first century A.D., C is first seen in Diogenes Laertius. The refusal to punish slaves 15 in anger is in accordance with Pythagorean doctrine.16 14. The words of Themistius, who gives the story as an example of αρετή in the peroration of his speech, have been altered by the translation into Syriac. 15. See also Seneca De ira 3.12.7. 16. Cf. Aristoxenus, Frag. 30 (Wehrli). Similar stories are told of Archytas (Cicero Tusc. 4.36.78; De Rep. 1.38.59; Valerius Maximus 4.1. ext. 1 ; Plutarch De lib. educ. 10D, De sera num. vind. 551B; Lactantius De ira 18.4; Iambli­ chus De vita Pythag. 31.197; Jerome Ep. 79.9.4; Proclus De prov. 54) and of Theano, wife of Pythagoras (Proclus De prov. 54).

PLATO’S CHARACTER AS DEPICTED BY ANECDOTES

157

Anecdote 114: A boy educated by Plato reproached his own father for his behavior saying, “ Numquam hoc apud Platonem vidi.” Testimonium'. Seneca De ira 2.21.10 (ι.ι: 92 [Hermes]). In discussing education of the young, Seneca notes that a young person will imitate the character of his tutor and tells by way of illustration this story of Plato’s temperate behavior to those around him. Anecdote 115: When observing the faults of others Plato would inquire of himself, “ TH που άρ’ έγώ τοιοΰτος;” Testimonia·. Plutarch De aud. poet. 40D, De cap. ex inimic. util. 88D-E, De tuend, san. 129D (pp. 81,177, 267 [Paton-Wegehaupt]), De coh. ira 463E (p. 154 [Helmbold]) ; Stobaeus 3.23.13 (3: 599 [Hense]) ; Antonius Melissa 2.75 (Migne, P. G. 136: 1188); Flor. Mon. 225 (4: 285 [Meineke]). Plutarch uses this saying of Plato (with but slight variation in the wording) to illustrate such diverse points as: that one should not scrutinize a speaker but rather one’s self ; that one may profit by criticizing enemies if he turns the criticism on himself and adjusts his behavior accordingly; that one may profit by as­ certaining how a friend fell sick and by avoiding the same illness; and that one may avoid anger by channeling righteous indignation against himself. Stobaeus, followed by Antonius, rephrases the same notion: Πλάτων συνεβούλευεν δτε καταγελάσομεν τινών, έπιστρέφειν έφ’ εαυτούς καί σκοπεΐν, μή καί αυτοί τοϊς αύτοϊς έσμέν ένοχοι, πολλά γάρ το φίλαυτον έπικρύπτει καί περιβάλλει | παρά τω μάλλον καταγελώντι. while the Florilegium Monacense says: Πλάτων εϊ ποτέ έώρα τινά άμαρτάνοντα, έπισκεπτέον έλεγε, μή ποτέ καί έγώ τοιούτω περιπέσω. Anecdote 116: Plato advised drunken people to look into a mirror. Testimonium'. Diogenes Laertius 3.39 (1: 138.8-9 [Long]).

158

PLATO’S CHARACTER AS DEPICTED BY ANECDOTES

The account of Plato’s advice to drunken people is followed in Diogenes Laertius by the notice that Plato was opposed to drunkeness.17 Approval of the moderate use of drink is found in the Laws (1. 637A-650B, 2. 666A-E and 671C-672A); these pas­ sages are misinterpreted elsewhere as approval of intoxication.18 An anecdote like 116 must have entered the tradition in reaction to the reports that Plato approved of intoxication. Anecdote ι ι γ : Plato reproached one who was impudent to his own father with the words, “Ου παύση τούτου καταφρονών, St’ δν σύ μέγα φρονείς Testimonia : Stobaeus 4 -25-43 (4 : 628 [Hense]) ; Maximus Confessor 23.604 (Migne, P. G. 91: 860D) ; Gnom. Vat. 429 (p. 160 [Stembach]). Diogenes Laertius 6. 65 gives the remark to Diogenes. Anecdote 118: Plato reproached someone playing dice, and when the person answered“ώς έπι μικροΐς;” Plato replied,“ ’Αλλά τό γ’ έθος οΰ μικρόν.” Testimonium·. Diogenes Laertius 3 38 (i: 137-26-138.2 [Long]). The same anecdote is attested for Solon.19 Anecdote n g : the goldsmiths. for his house he my meditations,

Plato deliberately chose to live in the street of When asked why he selected such a situation replied, “When sleep overcomes me and impedes the noise of their tools rouses me.” 20

Testimonium: [Bryson] Oeconomicus (pp. 62-63 [Plessner]). 17. Plato’s opposition to intoxication is found also in the following sayings : Gnom. Vat. 426 ( = Flor. Mon. 228) and Arsenius Violetmn p. 422.25-28. Praise of drink is found in Arsenius p. 422.18-22. 18. For such a misinterpretation see 81 and also Gellius N. a. 15.2.1-3 for a story of a Platonist of Gellius’ own day whose modus vivendi was a carica­ ture of Plato’s views on drinking. In 15.2.4-8 Gellius elucidates Plato's position. 19. Gnom. Vat. 502. References in Sternbach, Gnomologium Vaticanum, pp. 185-6. 20. Following the words of Plato the text gives the comment, “ Und Gott weiss das Richtige am besten.” Plessner ad loc. describes "diese skeptische Formel" as referring only to the truth of the anecdote. However, the phrase could also be an allusion to Plato’s belief that only God is σοφός, cf. Apol. 23A, Phaedrus 278D.

p l a t o ’s c h a r a c t e r as d e p ic t e d b y a n e c d o t e s

159

The anecdote is preserved only in the pseudepigraphic treatise circulated under the name of Bryson in the second century A.D.21 No other report tells of Plato living in any place other than the region of the Academy. Such a story may derive from the dis­ cussion of sleep in Laws 7. 807E-808C where Plato stresses that excessive sleep is detrimental to both body and soul.22 Anecdote 120: When Plato was thirsty he would often draw water from a well and then pour it on the ground to punish his desire. Testimonia-. Stobaeus 3.17.35 (3: 501-502 [Hense]) ; Gnom. Vat. 435 (p. 162 (Stembachj) ----- Cod. Vat. Or. 1144 f. 231'', 151 f. 24iTn. 2. The same report is given for Pythagoras by the Florilegium Monacense 231. Anecdote 121: Plato used to take oaths on a plane tree. Testimonium: Gregorius Nazianzenus Liber. Carm. 1.2.24.306-317 (Migne, P. G. 37: 811-812). This story from Gregorius Nazianzenus is ultimately motivated by the passage in the Phaedrus (236D-E) where Socrates swears by a plane tree.23 Anecdote 122: Plato would make use of a mirror to see what changes his travels and experiences had wrought on his appearance. Testimonium : Ioannes Saresberiensis Polycrat. 8.12.761A (2: 314315 [Webb]). John of Salisbury draw's on Flavianus24 for this otherwise unknown story which may have some connection with Timaeus 46A-C where Plato discusses mirror vision and uses the face as an example of an object reflected in a mirror. 21. The Oeconomicus of [Bryson] is preserved only in Arabic translation. 22. 808B: "ύπνος γάρ δή πολύς ούτε τοΐς σώμασιν ούτε ταΐς ψυχαΐς ήμών ούδ’ αυ ταΐς πράξεσιν ταΐς περί ταϋτα πάντα άρμόττων έστίν κατά φύσιν. καθεύδων νάρ ούδείς οΰδενύς άξιος, ούδέν μάλλον τοϋ μή ζώντος.” See also anecdote J3923. See also Pliny N. h. 12.5.9 for a famous and ancient plane tree in the region of the Academy. 24. See C. C. I. Webb, Ioannis Saresberiensis, episcopi carnotensis, Policratici, sive de nugis curialium et vestigiis philosophorum libri VIII, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1909) 2: 294 note to line 17 for suggestions for the possible identification of Flavianus.

ι6ο

plato ’s character as d e p ic t e d b y a n e c d o t e s

Co n c lu sio n

The stories dealing with the depiction of Plato’s character bear the stamp of either the hostile or the favorable tradition and it is nearly impossible to ascertain if any may represent the historical Plato. The hostile tradition paints Plato as malicious (41, 59), disrespectful to those deserving respect (18, 4g), jealous (121), and dishonest (22)—in addition to the abusive charges of gluttony and parasitism. The favorable tradition gives the opposite view: Plato is seen as altruistic (42), a true friend (20, 21), and as boldly confronting the tyrant of Syracuse (25-28). The anecdotes treated in this chapter dealing with Plato’s character are in the main favorable to the philosopher. Taken as a group they answer, by depicting Plato as the embodiment of the philosophical ideal, the various forms of vilification found in the hostile tradition. Anecdotes 106 and 108 portray the dignified and serious nature of the philosopher, which accords also with the description of Plato’s symposia in j8 and with his dignified comportment in 57 and 34.25 Anecdote iog shows Plato as having a sense of selfrespect in expecting discrimination of those doing him a favor. His acts out of true friendship without consideration of dangers to himself are reported in 20 and n o . Where the hostile tradition portrays Plato as arrogant (46, 47, 7Τ), the favorable tradition says that he shunned pride ( i n ) and tells of his humility and modesty (112).26 Many stories deal with Plato’s moderation and strong character— including 94, 93, and 1ij A -C, his refusal to punish his disobedient slaves in anger,27 and 114, the story of the boy who reproached his own father after living with Plato. A number of the sayings attributed to him deal with the theme of moderation and selfcontrol.28 Anecdote 115 shows Plato as being cautious in blaming 25. A key adjective in allusions to Plato is σεμνός: cf. Aelian V. h. 2.10 “σεμνόν μέν ΐδεΐν,” and Amphis, Frag. 13 (2: 239 [Kock]) in Diogenes Laertius 3.28: ώσπερ κοχλίας σεμνώς έπηρκώς τάς όφρυς. 26. His modesty is seen too in the sayings in Diogenes Laertius 3.38 and 40 about the memory and the memoirs he would leave behind him. F.p. Socr. 32.1-2 (p. 633 [Hercher]) presents a version from the hostile tradition. 27. Cf. the saying in Cod. reg. 1630 p. 189 (1: 119 [Boissonade]) : “Μανίαν ίαται φάρμακον, οργήν δέ ούδέν άλλο ή λόγος.” 28. Cf. his reply to those slandering him Gnom. Vat. 431, ( = Cod. Vat. Gr. 1144 f. 2 i8 v, 742 f. 67'·; Antonius Melissa 2.69); his reply in a similar situa­ tion, Stobaeus 3.19.5 (= Gnom. Vat. 441, Arsenius Violetum p. 422.7-8); his

Pl a t o ’s

c h a r a c t e r as d e p ic t e d b y a n e c d o t e s

161

others and mindful of the need to review his own behavior. That he expected moderation and discipline in others as well is seen from 116, ι ι γ , and 118,29 Anecdotes n g (Plato’s deliberate choice of a noisy location for his house so that he would not sleep excessively) and 120 (punishment of his έ-ιθυμία by pouring water on the ground when he was thirsty) portray a self-discipline bordering on as­ ceticism. Several notices in the tradition (none, however, as early as anecdote 119 which dates to the second century B.C.30) contribute to the picture of Plato as an ascetic, eschewing not only sensual pleasures but shunning human society as well. This tendency in the late tradition is not, however, restricted to Plato. The ascetic wise man becomes an idealized figure which in turn influences the traditional portrayal of individual philosophers.31 In the case of Plato notices are found to the effect that he disliked excessive sleep,32 that he was a vegetarian,33 that he practiced celibacy,34 and that he preferred solitude to human response when one treatened to kill him, Themistius Περί αρετής Rh. M. 2J (1872): 461; advice on how to harm one’s enemies, Gnom. Vat. 432; advice on how to face περιπτώματα Stobaeus 3.7.42. 29. See also words reproaching a youth for squandering his inheritance ascribed to Plato by Maximus Confessor 61.672, Flor. Pal.-Vat. 220, Par. 97 (= Cod. Paris. 1168 f. i4 0 r-i4 6 v). Bar. 261, Ottobon. 263, but more reliably assigned to Diogenes the Cynic (Diogenes Laertius 6.50, Gnom. Vat. 169). 30. See also 13g, Ch. XIV. 31. Cf. Bieler, Θείος άνήρ, pp. 60-73. In the Arabic tradition Plato is described as an idealized holy man. The vita of al-Mubashshir (pp. 47-8 [Rosenthal]) : "Er tat viel Gutes und half den Schwachen . . . Er besass gute Charaktereigenschaften, war edel in seiner Handlungsweise und tat viel Gutes für alle, die ihm nahestanden, wie auch für Fremde. Er war sanftmütig, besonnen und geduldig.’’ Plato's withdrawal to solitude and a hie of religious contemplation in old age is mentioned by A1-Amiri of the tenth century A.D. (see R. Waltzer, "Aflâfün,” col. 235B), Sa'id al-Andalusi Tabaqat alumam (p. 62 [Blachcre]), and Ibn al-Kifti Tabaqat al-hukama 58 (p. 9 [Roeper]). 32. Diogenes Laertius 3.39, who draws on Laws 7.808B. See also n g and 13Ç. Cf. Porphyry Vita Plotini 8 and Marinus Vita Prodi 24. Cicero De div. 1.30.62 followed by Gellius N. a. 4.11.3 says that Plato commended tranquil sleep. 33. Anon. Proleg. 2.22-23. 34. Suidas (4: 141.5-6 [Adler]), drawing on Hesychius of Miletus, writes: "τελευτή . . . ούδέ γάμον τινά ούδέ όμιλίαν καΟάπαξ σώματος εις πείραν δεξάμενος.’’ Cf. Philostratus Vila A p. 1.13 and Damascius Vita Isid. 274 (Zintzen). See also Plato’s answer when asked "εί γήμας φιλοσοφήσω;’’ Stobaeus 4.22B. 60. The fact that Plato himself never married may underlie the late tradition of celibacy. Ridicule of Plato's views of marriage is seen in the comic poet

II

102

Pl a t o ’s

c h a r a c t e r as d e p ic t e d b y a n e c d o t e s

society.35 To this tendency to portray Plato as an ascetic belong the notices of his poverty,38 while other sources note that he was of a family of means.37 There are indications that the hostile tradition accused Plato of being a miser,38 a charge opposed by the many sayings attributed to Plato against wealth and avarice.38 One aspect of Plato’s character not treated in the anecdotes is that of his sex life. If the late and favorable tradition as seen in Hesychius of Miletus described Plato as celibate, the earlier and hostile tradition proclaimed just the reverse.40 Diogenes Laertius, unlike the other lives, devotes an entire section (3. 29-32) in his life of Plato to the indirect vilification of his character from the erotic epigrams attributed to Plato.41 The epigrams are used to Philippides, Frag. 6 (3: 303 [Kock]), who describes the warning not to marry as the Platonic Good. Lucian Conviv. 39 continues this theme: “τό μέν οδν άριστον ήν μή δεϊσθαι γάμων, άλλα πειθόμενος Πλάτωνι καί Σωκράτει παιδεραστειν. μόνοι γάρ ούν οι τοιοϋτοι άποτελεσθειεν αν προς αρετήν.” Barhebraeus Hist. Dyn. 58 (Pococke, translated by Roeper p. 12) gives a version of Plato’s recommendation of celibacy to his students which must be influenced by Moslem practices: “E discipulis suis qui coelibem vitam agere non sustinerent, plures unius uxores participes esse permisit; cum ita et sumptui parceretur et mutuo auxilio abunde prospiceretur.” In al-Kifti 63 (pp. 12-13 [Roeper]) the tradition of Plato's two female students (see below p. 84) is altered to tell of his two wives. 35. Diogenes Laertius 3.40. See also 76. Cf. Ep.Socr. 24 (p. 626 [Hercher]) attributed to Plato: "μισώ νΰν συνεϊναι τοις πολλοις . . . διό δή έκ του δστεος άπηλλάγην ώσπερ εΙρκτής θηρίων.” The assertions that Plato was friendly with his neighbor Timon the misanthrope (Ep. Socr. 24.2; Olympiodorus In Alcib. 2.147; Anon. Proleg. 4.14-17) are also meant to imply misanthropy. 36. Gelhus 3.17.i ; Aelian V. h. 3.27; Damascius Vita Isid. 158 (Zintzen). 37. Index Here. Col. II 32-33 (p. 20 [Mekler]); Jerome Adv. Iovin. 2.9; Olympiodorus In Alcib. 141.1-2. 38. See 51 and the response to the question “διά τί γέρων ών φιλάργυρος εί;” in Gnom. Vat. 428 ( = Flor. Mon. 227). 39. See 142 and sayings in: Aelian V. h. 12.29; Stobaeus 3.10.59, 4.31D. 123, 4.53.31; Gnom. Vat. 425 ( = Flor. Mon. 229); Gnom. Vat. 434 ( = Flor. Mon. 233); Arsenius p. 422.9-10, 13-14. 40. For the earliest preserved criticism of Plato for discoursing on love see Dicaearchus, Frag. 43 (Wehrli). For a discussion of the Platonic dialogues as the source of Plato’s alleged eroticism see Theiss, “Hostility to Plato,” P- 7 5 · 41. A .P. 7.77, 78, 79, 99, 100, 217, 669, 670. W. Ludwig suggests to me that the epigrams should be considered anecdotes in poetic form. While the Callimachean epigram in 132 is considered an anecdote in poetic form, in the case of the Platonic erotic epigrams I would draw the following distinction between the epigrams and anecdotes: the Platonic epigrams do not recount a story about Plato and a given lover, but present a pseudoautobiographical statement aimed at corroborating the accusations that Plato was engaged in certain erotic liasons. As a form for presenting bio-

PLATO’S CHARACTER AS DEPICTED BY ANECDOTES

163

attest Plato's erotic relations with two dramatic poets, Agathon the tragedian and Alexis the comedian, with the rhetorician Phaedrus, and with two opponents of tyranny, Dion, who fought against Dionysius, and Aster, who fought against Philip. His heterosexual liaisons include a hetaira, Archeanassa,*4243and Xanth­ ippe, the wife of his teacher Socrates. For this section Diogenes Laertius draws on the fourth book of the work entitled Περί πκλαιας τρυφής 48 ascribed to Aristippus. The date of this writing is uncertain.44 Sufficient proof for this slanderous account of Plato’s bisexuality was found in the epigrams attributed to him, for the tradition does not preserve any stories which elaborate further on his sexual exploits.45 Novotnÿ may well be correct in arguing that the emphasis on Plato’s eroticism was not part of the early tradition.46 Probably it was Pseudo-Aristippus who was, if not the first, then influential in circulating the collected group of spurious 47 epigrams as a means of vilifying Plato. graphical information the "autobiographical” epigram makes a stronger statement in that it pretends to voice the feelings of the person in question while an anecdote is presented as the report of an observer. While accusations of specific love affairs may well have been circulated before the publication of the epigrams in the pseudo-Aristippean treatise, the biographical tradition does not preserve any stories based on these accusations. A possible exception may be the identifying remarks about Aster in Diogenes Laertius 3.29: “φησιν αυτόν [sc. Πλάτων] Άστέρος μειράκιου τίνος άστρολογεΐν συνασκουμένου έρασθήναι.” But the identification of Aster as a youth who practised astrology with Plato seems to be an explanation of the word-play between άστήρ and the proper name, which is seen in epi­ grams A.P. 7.669 and 670, rather than the story to which the epigrams allude. 42. See also Athenaeus 13.589C. 43. FHG II 7 9 44. P. Natorp, “Aristippus, 8,” RE 2 (1895) : 904 gives the earliest possible date as the second half of the third century B.C. While Pseudo-Aristippus is mentioned by name only in Diogenes Laertius, some epigrams from the Platonic collection are found earlier than the late third century A.D., in Apuleius Apol. 10 (A.P. 7.99, 100, 669, 670), Gellius N. a. 19.11.1 (A.P. 5.77) and Athenaeus 13.589C (A.P. 7.100). 45. Plutarch De lib. educ. 11E lists Plato as a philosopher who practised pederasty yet morally benefited young men. See also Lucian Conviv. 39. 46. "Die Platon-Legenden,” p. 174 n. 51: Novotnÿ notes that Hermesianax of Colophon (ca. 300 B.C.) is cited by Athenaeus 13.597A-599C for stories of philosophers affected by the power of love and that Plato is con­ spicuously absent from the list. See also that Aristoxenus made frequent mention of Socrates’ incontinence (Frags. 52, 54, 57, 58 [Wehrli]) and one might expect to find him telling similar stories about Plato. 47. Ludwig, “Plato’s Love Epigrams,” pp. 159-182.

i

64

p l a t o ’s c h a r a c t e r as d e p ic t e d b y a n e c d o t e s

Anecdotes 121 (Plato took oaths on a plane tree) and 122 (his use of a mirror) do not relate to other themes in the tradition. Finally, in reference to Plato’s character mention may be made of the few descriptions of his physical appearance.48 Epictetus 49501 describes Plato as “καλός . . . καί ισχυρός,” Simplicius 60 as "ευρις πλατύς 61 το σώμα καί εύόφθαλμος.” Plutarch, however, speaks of a stoop of the shoulders which was imitated by Plato’s admirers.52 From Timotheus 5354comes the detail that he was weak of voice. Of his dress it is said only that as a boy he wore a golden earring, “insigne nobilitatis,” in one ear.34 48. Al-Mubashshir includes a detailed physical description in his bio­ graphical notice on Plato (p. 48 [Rosenthal]) which, however, conforms to a standardized description which he repeats for other philosophers as well, see F. Rosenthal, “Arabische Nachrichten über Zenon den Eleaten,” Orienta­ lia n.s. 6 (1 9 3 7 ) ·' 3 8 · 49. Diss. 1.81 13. 50. In P h y s. (CAG 9: 772.29). 51. Cf. the references to Seneca, Apuleius, Diogenes Laertius, Servius, Olympiodorus, the Anon. Proleg., Suidas and Tzetzes in the testimonia to anecdote 11, pp. 35 and 36. 52. De and. poet. 26B, De adul. et am. 53D. 53. FGH IV 523, in Diogenes Laertius 3.5. 54. Apuleius De Platone 1.4, Sextus Empiricus Adv. math. 1.258, and repeated in Ibn al-Kifti 63 (p. 13 [Roeper]) and Barhebraeus Chron. Syr. 33 (p. 36 [Budge]), Hist. Dyn. 58 ([Pococke]).

CHAPTER TWELVE

PLATO THE BIBLIOPHILE AND MAN OF LETTERS I n t r o d u c t io n

The following group of anecdotes deal with Plato’s literary preferences. Several depict Plato the bibliophile collecting and purchasing the books of those writers he admired, others provide stories to illustrate his admiration (or in one case his jealousy) for certain writers. In some variants of the individual anecdotes there is the implication—or even the open charge—that Plato was dependent on these writers or that he plagiarized their works. A brief outline of accusations of this nature which are independent of the biographical tradition provides a background for the implications of plagiarism found in the anecdotes.1 The list of Plato’s detractors who raised the charge of plagiarism— a double attack on the philosopher’s originality and moral character—begins in the fourth century with Theopompus of Chios έν τω κατά τής Πλάτωνος διατριβής2 and is continued by Aristoxenus,3 Alcimus Siculus,4 Timon of Phlius5 (followed by 1. See E. Stemplinger, Das Plagiat in der griechischen Literatur (Leipzig and Berlin: B. G. Teubner, 1912), pp. 25-27, Geffcken, “Antiplatonica,” pp. 94-95; Burkert, Weisheit und Wissenschaft, p. 211, who comments on the superficiality of the points of correspondence between Plato’s works and those of the authors he supposedly plagiarized. 2. FGrHist 115 F 259, taken from Athenaeus 11.508C-D, who cites Theopompus for Plato’s plagiarism from Aristippus, Antisthenes, and Bryson. 3. Cf. Aristoxenus, Frag. 67 (Wehrli). In 3.37 Diogenes Laertius says that most of the Republic is taken from the Antilogikoi of Protagoras, giving Aristoxenus as his source; in 3.57 he cites Favorinus έν ΙΙαντοδαπής Ιστορίας δεοτέρΐΛ, Frag. 23 (Mensching) = Frag. 55 (Barigazzi). Hence it is inferred that Aristoxenus was also Favorinus’ source. Borrowing from Protagoras is also mentioned by Porphyry, see Eusebius Praep. Ev. 10.3.24-25 (1: 566-567 [Mras]). 4. FGrHist 560 F6. Diogenes Laertius in 3.9 cites Alcimus έν τοΐς Πρδς Άμύνταν for the assertion that Plato transcribed much from Epicharmus. Citations from Epicharmus to support the charge are embedded in Diogenes Laertius’ life of Plato (3.10-17). For a recent analysis of Alcimus see K. Gaiser, “Die Platon-Referate des Alkimos bei Diogenes Laërtios (III 3-17)’’ in Zetesis, Album amicorum door

ι66

PLATO THE BIBLIOPHILE AND MAN OF LETTERS

Hermippus ®) in his sillographs, and by the Epicureans,7 each of the above noting Plato’s debt to a different predecessor. By the late fourth and early third centuries Plato had been accused of plagiarizing such diverse figures as his fellow Socratics Aristippus and Antisthenes, the obscure Bryson of Megara, Protagoras, Epicharmus, certain Pythagoreans, and Zoroaster.8 The tradition hostile to Plato is at its most vicious in the leveling of these and similar charges which are modified, repeated, and met with refutation throughout antiquity. Only a few of these charges, however, were woven into the anecdotal tradition. A necdotes

Anecdote 123: Plato wanted to collect the writings of Democritus and have them burned; but he was stopped by two Pythagoreans who argued that the attempt would be futile since the copies of Democritus’ works were numerous and owned by many people. Testimonia : Diogenes Laertius 9.40 (2:457.11-18 [Long]) ; Arsenius Violetum (p. 192.23-27 [Walz]). The most vicious story dealing with Plato as a collector of books, this anecdote was circulated by Aristoxenus of Tarentum εν τοϊς Ίστορικοϊς ύπομνήμασι.® As cited by Diogenes Laertius 10 Aristoxenus slanders Plato by saying that his motive in collecting Democritus’ writings was the basest—to systematically burn them—and that he was dissuaded only by the impossibility of collecting them all. Proof of Plato’s jealousy towards Democritus is seen in the fact that he makes no mention of him in any of his writings:11 clearly Plato realized that he did not dare to match himself against Democritus, τον άριστον των φιλοσόφων. vrienden en collega's aangeboden aan Prof. Dr. E. de Strycker, (Antwerp and Utrecht: De Nederlandsche Boekhandel, 1973), pp. 61-79. 5. Cf. Timon Phliasius, Frag. 54 (Diels). See the discussion in anecdote 12J. 6. Cf. Frag. 40 (Wehrli). For Hermippus’ accusation that Plato copied a book of Philolaus see anecdote i2 j. 7. Colotes in Clement of Alexandria Strom. 5.14.103.2-4 (pp. 395-6 [Stäh­ lin-Früchtei]) accuses Plato of taking the final myth of the Republic from Zoroaster. See Geffcken, “Antiplatonica,” p. 96 for the suggestion that Colotes draws on Theopompus. 8. See also anecdote 22. 9. Cf. Aristoxenus, Frag. 131 (Wehrli). 10. Arsenius’ notice is excerpted from Diogenes Laertius. 11. Diogenes Laertius in 3.25 raises but does not answer the question why Plato avoids mention of Democritus.

PLATO THE BIBLIOPHILE AND MAN OF LETTERS

167

The malicious Aristoxenus in all probability fabricated this story to explain why Plato did not mention Democritus, a fact not in itself surprising, considering the different interests of the philosophers.12 The intention of a philosopher to destroy the writings of a rival appears to be a motif seen also in the notice from Eubulides,13 who also wrote in the fourth century B.C., that Aristotle intended to destroy Plato’s books. Anecdote 124: Plato, disliking the poetry of Choerilus even though it was then popular and preferring that of Antimachus of Colophon, persuaded Heracleides Ponticus to go to Colophon and collect the extant poetry of Antimachus. Testimonium: Proclus In Tim. 1.28C (1: 90.20-24 [Diehl]). Proclus relates that Heracleides Ponticus himself told the story of how Plato prevailed upon him to go to Colophon and collect the poetry of Antimachus.14 Coming from Plato’s own pupil, this anecdote is probably a true story. Heracleides also gives the information that, although the epic poet Choerilus was quite popular at the time, Plato preferred Antimachus.1516 Proclus uses this anecdote from Heracleides as proof that Plato was in fact a competent judge of poetry and alludes to an attack on Plato’s critical capabilities by Duris of Samos 18 and Callimachus.17 The citation of Duris as a detractor of Plato may have bearing on anecdote 128 where Duris is the source for Plato’s fondness of Sophron’s mimes, while the citation 12. For those modern scholars who argue that Plato does draw on Demo­ critus in his Timaeus and other writings, see the references in H. Cherniss, “Plato (1950-1957),’’ pp. 39-40, as well as the earlier works of I. HammerJensen, “ Demokrit und Platon,” Archiv f. Gesch. d. Philos. 23 (1909) : 92-105, 211-229, and U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Platon, 1: 10, 478, 581-2 and 2: 258-263. 270-2. 13. Test. 58F (Düring). See above p. 13c. 14. Cf. Heracleides Ponticus, Frag. 6 (VVehrli) = Antimachus, Test. 1 (Wyss).

15. Cf Laws 2.658C-D where Plato mentions an old m an’s preference for epic poetry. 16. FGrHist 76 F83. 17. Frag. 589 (Pfeiffer). For Callimachus’ criticism of Antimachus cf. Frag. 398. Callimachus’ hostility towards his adversaries the "Telchines” may be based on his hatred of Antimachus, cf. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship from the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968) p. 136.

ι68

PLATO THE BIBLIOPHILE AND MAN OF LETTERS

of Callimachus may be compared to his satire of Plato’s doctrine seen in anecdote 132. Anecdote 123: Antimachus competed in the Lysandreia 18 and was defeated by Niceratus, an inferior poet, Lysander himself being the judge. Distressed at his defeat, Antimachus destroyed his verse, and Plato, as yet a young man, consoled Antimachus saying, "Τοϊς άγνοοϋσι κακόν είναι την άγνοιαν, ώσπερ τήν τυφλότητα τοϊς μή βλέπουσιν.” Testimonium Plutarch Lysander 18.8-9 (3.2: 114 [Ziegler]). Preserved only in Plutarch,19 this anecdote with its quotation of Plato’s words of consolation was probably invented to illustrate Plato’s appreciation of Antimachus seen in anecdote 124. The story also seems to relate thematically to the poetic rivalry between Choerilus and Antimachus as mentioned by Heracleides Ponticus in 124. In Lysander 18. 7 Plutarch reports that Lysander kept Choerilus in his retinue so that his every achievement would be met with a fitting panegyric; in 18. 8 Plutarch reports that it was Lysander who awarded the contest not to Antimachus but to an inferior poet. It seems reasonable that this story which, given Lysander’s patronage of Choerilus, has Lysander award the victory to the poet competing with Choerilus’ rival, Antimachus, was also taken from the same source which Proclus drew on for his citation of Heracleides Ponticus in anecdote 124,20 Anecdote 126: When Antimachus held a reading of his poetry, the audience, with the exception of Plato, departed before Anti­ machus finished. The poet, however, was not distressed but said, "Legam nihilo minus: Plato enim mihi unus instar est centum milium.” Testimonium: Cicero Brutus 51.191 (p. 56 [Malcovati]). 18. The ancient Samian festival the Ηραία was renamed in honor of Lysander, see Duris FGrHist 76 F71. 19. Cf. Antimachus, Test. 2 (Wyss). 20. B. Wyss, Antimachi Colophonii reliquiae, (Berlin: Weidmann, 1936) p. ii n. i argues for Duris being the source for both Plutarch and Proclus. But Proclus cites Heracleides, not Duris, for the story that Plato collected Antimachus’ poetry, and he tells the story to counter Duris’ estimation of Plato.

PLATO THE BIBLIOPHILE AND MAN OF LETTERS

169

Cicero gives this anecdote 21 about Plato and Antimachus as an illustration of how an orator must enjoy the approval of his audience to be effective—Demosthenes could never have spoken effectively if only Plato had remained to listen. Cicero, however, is not critical of Antimachus’ verse and approves of his comment— “poema enim reconditum paucorum approbationem, oratio popularis adsensum vulgi debet movere.” Like anecdote 131, the story of Aristotle alone remaining when the Phaedo was read, this anecdote is probably patterned after the story of the lecture on the Good (anecdote 79) where only Plato’s faithful followers are said to have remained until he finished. In this anecdote, however, the positions are reversed with Plato portrayed as the faithful listener. The story, moreover, in this example is favorable to the person abandoned by his audi­ ence; Antimachus uses the situation to make a comment about the nature of the audience for which he intended to write. The anecdote also complements anecdote 123 where Plato praises the defeated Antimachus, for in this story Antimachus speaks in praise of Plato. While Cicero’s source for the anecdote is unknown, one may suggest that it is taken from a Hellenistic author. Perhaps in its original form the anecdote told simply of Plato’s remaining while Antimachus read, and in this form it aimed at ridiculing both Antimachus and Plato. As it is preserved in Cicero, however, the anecdote is favorable to Antimachus, and in this form the anecdote may have been used to support Antimachus against his detractors, chiefly Callimachus.22 Anecdote 127 : Plato purchased Pythagorean writings. Testimonia·. Cicero De rep. 1.10.16 (pp. 11-12 [Ziegler]); Gellius N. a. 3.17.i, 4-5 (1: 158-9 [Marshall]) ; Diogenes Laertius 3.9,8.15,84, 85 (1: 124.14-19, 2: 399.8-9, 433.1-2, 12-18 [Long]); Proclus In Tim. 1.1A, 3B (1: 1.8-16, 7.18-21 [Diehl]); Iamblichus De vita Pythag. 31.199 (p. 109 [Deubner]) and In Nicom. arith. (p. 105.10-17 [Pistelli]) ; Anon. Proleg. 5.27-31 (pp. 11, 13 [Westerink]) ; Scholion ad Tim. 20Â (p. 279 [Greene]) ; Tzetzes Chit. 10.797-805, 10.999-11.8, and i i .40-41 (pp. 395-396, 403, and 405 [Kiessling]) ; Ibn al-Kifti Tabaqat al-hukama 61 (p. 11 [Roeper]). 21. Cf. Antimachus, Test. 3 (Wyss). 22. See p. 167 and n. 17.

PLATO THE BIBLIOPHILE AND MAN OF LETTERS

Associated with Plato's travels to Sicily is the persistent tradition that he acquired certain Pythagorean writings. Yet there are many inconsistencies in the stories told as to how the writings came into his possession and as to exactly what was acquired and from whom. The several variations are provided by diverse motives ranging from simply noting Plato’s interest in collecting books to accusing him of plagiarism and emphasizing that funds lavished upon him by Dion or Dionysius enabled him to purchase the writings. The earliest source for the report that Plato purchased a book from the Pythagoreans are the verses of the sillograph Timon of Phlius : καί