Middle Platonism and the Seventh Epistle Harrold Tarrant

7/28/2019 Middle Platonism and the Seventh Epistle Harrold Tarrant

1/29

Middle Platonism and the Seventh EpistleHAROLD TARRANT

Thereis littleexcusefor new discussionsof theauthenticityof theSeventhEpistleunlesssubstantialnew evidenceornewarguments an beproduced.Moreoversuch evidence must come from outsidethe CorpusPlatonicum,as shouldbe evident from the followingconsiderations:(i) The interpretationof late Plato can differ so markedlyfrom onescholar to the next that thereis no chanceof agreementas to the centralfeatures of late Platonictheory and attitude,with which the Epistle,ifgenuine, would have to conform.(ii) There is no shortageof 'inconsis-tencies' on the surfaceat least)withinthe bodyof worksacknowledged obe genuine; thus apparent inconsistenciesbetween the Epistleand theDialoguesprove little.(iii) Therewould seemto be a certaincommunityoffeelingbetween ancient Platonists n general,suchthat,even if theEpistlewere entirelycompatible with the Dialogues, this would prove no morethan that it was composed by a Platonistwho understoodPlato well.(iv)The Epistlesbelongto a differentgenrefrom the Dialogues, and thusmaybe expected to show somestylisticdifferences. v) There is no agree-ment as to the existence of any genuine Epistleswith which the Seventhmay be compared.For most philosophersand historiansof ideas the chief concern is theauthenticityor otherwise of the philosophicaldigression(c.340-345c),which mightconceivablyhavebeen writtenand addedby a second writer.Inthis case the difficultiesbecomeparticularly estrictive,or it is difficultto imaginemuchevidenceoutsidethe CorpusPlatonicumwhichcouldhelpone. Naturally f one couldconfidentlyreject he Epistleas a whole, thenone couldreject hedigressionwith similarconfidence;but it appears hatthere s no conclusive videnceleading one either to rejector to acceptthemainbody of the work.I acceptneither heview that a work(particularlyletter)has to be attributed o its purportedauthoruntil it is proved spuri-ous; nor that it should be regarded as spurious until authenticity isdemonstrated.1We must accept that the historian of ancient ideasexamines ssues on which proof is often impossible;he mustoften adoptthe 'likelystory'or suspend udgement. It is pointlessto dogmatizeabouttheunknown.

75


2/29

I quote from a footnote of the late W.K.C.Guthrie:2Throughout the literatureone is baffled by the way in which Dr. A will recognizeunmistakably the hand of the Master' n passages which to Dr. B are trivial andquite unworthyof P. To carryon the game, I am in this case on the side of Dr. A: noone but P could or would have written ike this, and the passagegives us no less thanhis own attempt to compress nto a few pages the essence of his later philosophy.

Regrettably I must agree with Guthrie about the way in which theauthenticity-games played,and I see in his personalcontribution owardsit a challenge to those who reject the digressionto show us some otherwriterwho could have forged it. I intend to take up this challenge ater nmy paper, and to side with Dr. B, in spite of my full awareness hat thereare many who have based their judgements upon a far deeper under-standingof Plato thanI mighthope to acquire.Amongthem I include Dr.As) K. von Fritz, M. IsnardiParente,J. Stenzel,and Guthriehimself,3 nd(Dr. Bs) L. Edelstein and N. Gulley.4 In particular have acquired essfeelingfor Platonicexpression han C. Ritter,who was firstto athetize hedigressionwhile accepting he bulk of theEpistle.5My sole excuse for writing s new 'evidence',acquiredaccidentallyandpertaining nly to the digression;put briefly,my argumentsthattherewasa time when Platonismknew the Epistlebut did not know the digression.This willbe recognizedas an argument x silentio,but let me statenow thatit operates at the most conclusive level possible for such arguments. tproves nothing to note that early Middle Platonism, ncluding Plutarch,never makes use of the digression; t proves little to add the observationthatthe restof the Epistlewas well enoughknown,and thattherewas wideuse of the PlatonicCorpus n general; t doesapproach o proofwhenoneshows thatthe digressionwas not usedin spite of its obviousrelevance osomepressing ssues of early Middle Platonism;but the highestdegreeofex silentio proof is reachedwhen one is able to show passages n Plutarchandotherswhere the digression,had it been known,wouldcertainlyhavebeen used.I shallattempt o showsuchpassages,andI believethatthiswilloffer substantialreasons for concludingthat the digression s a verylateaddition to the text, made to some influential copy before A.D. 175,perhapsasearlyas the firstcenturyB.C.,probablyat Alexandria. hopetobe able to show how the philosophyof the digression agreeswith thePlatonismof its timeof composition.Thiswouldperhapsexplainwhythedigression s comparatively ighly regardedn Europe.6Standard iteratureon the SeventhEpistlenotes that the firstobviousreference o the workappears n Cicero;7 quallyit fails to note wherethefirst obvious reference o the digressionoccurs.This is a seriousomission76


3/29

now that statistical evidence has suggested to some writers that thedigression s by a separatehand.8 do not claimto be able to offerthefirstexample of an ancientauthor'suse of the digression,but I can perhapsmake somesignificantobservations:(i) Passagesusedto demonstrateCicero'sknowledgeof theEpistledo notdemonstratehis knowledgeof thedigression.(ii) I have not noticed any obviousallusionto the digression n PhiloJudaeus,nor is any parallelwith the digressionmentionedin Colson'snotes to the Loeb text or in Leisegang's ndex to the Cohn-Wendlandedition.9Both these sourcesmakes it plain that Philo alludes to a widerangeof otherPlatonicworks.(iii) R.M.Jones hascollected a large numberof parallelsbetween Platoand Plutarch;'0many parallelswithEpistleVIIarenaturally ound in theLife of Dion; parallelswithEpistlesIII (315c),IV(321b), and XIII(360d)are found at Mor. 36c, 808d, and 467cd/474e/533b. Nowhere is anyparallelwithEp. VII338a-345c3 o be found.(iv) While therewasdebateamongearlyMiddle Platonistsabout whichclasses of things had Ideas, the commonest view (see Didascalicus9 [p.163.22-27Hermann])excluded at least one class of thingsfor which thedigressionhad postulated deas, .e. manufactured bjects(cf. 342d5).It isremarkable hat Platonists, ike the doxographical radition,"werereadyto ignoreso explicita statementof Plato'spositionon this issue as thatofthedigression.'2It is in the second half of the secondcentury A.D. that the digressionappears o be playinga greaterpart.I suspect ts influenceon Numeniusfr.14(desPlaces),'3and c.175 hePlatonistCelsusdiduse the'trueaccount'ofthe digression (cf. 342a3-4) in an anti-Christian polemic entitled(significantly?)TrueAccount'14 Thereis reasonforsuspecting hat JustinMartyrwas alluding to the digressionat Dial. 4.1,15datingfromwithin adecade of A.D. 160.Thereafterreferencesand allusions to the digressionarefoundin manyauthors.Let me state now that I am not intending to arguethat the digressiondates from the period immediatelypreceding Numenius, Justin, andCelsus.I do not wish to excludethe possibilitythat it was written n thesecondquarterof thesecondcenturyuntilI seeevidencethat it wasknownbeforethat,but it couldhavebeeninexistencealongtimebefore tcametoPlatonists'attention.As we shallsee shortly,I think t likelythat itsdateofcompositionwas earlierthan Plutarch, houghnot earlyenough to havebecomepartof the textusuallyusedby Plutarch.The remarkablehingisnot that the digressionshould have remainedunknownfor a time, but

77


4/29

rather hatit shouldhavefoundits wayintoall textsin due course.I havereservationsas to whetherthiscould have occurredunlessthe digressionwas alreadypresent n the influentialeditionof theworksby ThrasyllusntheearlyfirstcenturyA.D.,or, if notoriginal o the Thrasyllan dition,wasincorporatednto a primecopy of thateditionat an early date.Thiscopymight soon come to have influence in the region where it was located(presumablyAlexandriaor Rome),but it would probably akeconsider-able time for copies of it to reach other parts. When it did so, thecompatibilityof the digressionwithMiddlePlatonic deaswouldhaveledto its acceptanceas genuinelyPlatonic,and thusit wouldhave ensured tsinsertion nto local textstoo.Let us askourselvesnext wherewe should have expectedreferences othe digressionduringthe MiddlePlatonicperiod.ItwouldseemlogicaltobeginwithCicero,whofirstshowsacquaintancewiththemainbodyof theEpistle. There is little evidence of detailed Platonic interpretation nCicero,but in theAcademicawedo encountera debate on epistemologynwhichbothsidesclaimedtheauthorityof Plato.Thedebateemerged romthe conflict betweenPhiloof LarissaandAntiochusof Ascalonwhichhadsurfaced in 87 B.C., and much of the material probablyderives fromAntiochus'Sosus,his replyto Philo'sRomanbooksof 88/7 B.C.Therearegood reasons why the Philonianposition should have appealedto thedigression f it had beenknown.Itwouldhave offeredsubstantial easonsfor continuingto rejectall mechanical heoriesof the acquisitionof certainknowledge (342e2-343e ), giving considerable justification for thetraditionalAcademicuncertaintywhen it statesthatdifficulties"fill eachman, as it were, with all unclarityand perplexity" 343c4-5).But at thesame time it would have allowed the Philonians,who ought not to beregardedas genuine sceptics,16 nd who sought to teach positively(ifesoterically)'7 s muchtestimonyshows,18ustification or (a) statingtheobvious concerning everydaymatters(see 343c5-8),'9and (b) believingthatsome obscurecognition-processsavailable o thetruth-seeker,20f notfrom the senses or fromStoic'catalepticpresentations'.21eference o thePlatonic Ideas in the digression would not have embarrassedthePhilonians,who wereaware hat Plato's truth'belonged o the realmof themind (Cic. Ac. 2.142, cf. Antiochiansat 1.30-32),for the digressionisdiscreetly ilentaboutthe natureof the Ideas,and evenavoidstheirusualnames: the Idea is simply'the Fifth'(342a8etc.). The Philonianswouldhave approvedof the digression'sdenial that the true intellectualcouldever write about the most importantaspectsof his philosophy(34lb-d,344cd).22Theywould also have approvedof the digression's mphasison78


5/29

the student'sneedto findout for himself(341c5-e3,cf. Cic. Ac. 2.60).Theymight also have utilized its criticismof the pupil who prematurelyandinaccuratelyreveals what he has heard from his master(341a8-c4),forAntiochusof Ascalon could plausiblyhave been included among suchpersons.Indeedthisdigressionwould have suitedPhilo sowell,that I have hadtosuggest that it could have been forged to suit his purposes.23 do notactuallybelieve that it was forgedby him or forhim,butI stronglysuspectthat it was forged to supporta broadlyPhilonianpositionat a later date.There is no survivingevidence that Philo was aware of it, in spite of itsrelevanceto his position,and if it had ever been a key passagefor Philo,then it wouldhave become a keypassageforCicero,his pupil.24Even if Philo did not collect individual passages from the PlatonicCorpus osupporthis fallibilistview of Plato,we must notethatothermoreextreme sceptics'didmakesuchacollectiontosupport he'sceptic'view ofPlato.Not only did theymakeextensiveuse of the Theaetetus,25heyalsoextractedargumentsfor a sceptic view from the Timaeus,26 haedo,27Phaedrus,28and early aporetic works like the Euthyphro, Charnides, andLysis.29Since it seems to have been the Pyrrhonianswho made theprincipal ollectionof sucharguments30if not in an attempt o showPlatoto be a Pyrrhonist),31one assumes hatfinaldetailsof thecollectiondo notantedate the first century B.C., the usual date for the activities ofAenesidemus.32ndeed there are signs that the collection was made byAenesidemushimself.33f Aenesidemus ?)had known of the digressionfind it difficultto believethat he wouldnothaveextractedanargument ornon-apprehensibility&xotrAXri4xa)rom t, inparticular rom tsinsistencethat men areconfusedby theirinabilityto penetratebeyondthe qualitiesof a thingto the natureof the thingitself(342e-343c).When we come to the anonymous Commentary on the Theaetetus,recentlyredatedby myselfto the secondhalf of the firstcenturyB.C.,34heapparent ack of influence of the digressionbecomes morenoticeable;foreven within the survivingpagesthe authorgivesa reasonably learpictureof his approachto Platonic epistemology.For him the Meno and theTheaetetus re the key epistemologicalworks. The fallibilismof Philo ofLarissas still in evidence,35 s is a mildesotericism.36hePlatonicmethodof teaching s nowclearlyregardedas a processof soliciting romwithinaninternalrevelation,not thepassingon of doctrines romteacher o pupil.37Positive Platonic thinkingis much more in evidence than in anythingwhich survives of Philo of Larissa (as it needs to be in a Platoniccommentary), nd the Ideasplaya background ole. The digressionof the

79


6/29

SeventhEpistle,oftenknownas the'epistemological igression', ouldthuseasilyhave been utilizedby the author.A more detailedcomparisonwillfollowshortly.There is room for disagreementas to whetherPhilo Judaeus,had heknown the digression,would have made use of it; indeed it is unclearwhetherhe even knew the Epistlesat all.38 f he did not, then it is fairlyclear that they were not then knownas a sourcefor Platonicdoctrine,asPhiloseemsto havestudied herestof theCorpusPlatonicumxtensively.39If he did know them, he could surelyhave used the digressionto goodeffect.He himself placesemphasis n severalpassageson the difficultiesofattaining real knowledge,40but seeks to justify confidence in his ownteachingsthroughbelief in a revelationfrom above.41This agreeswellenough with the digression.But does it agreewith the esotericismof thedigression?The revelation s not such as cannot be expressed n words;indeed it was revealedby Moses.Yes, but Mosesrevealed t in riddlessothatit requiredallegorical nterpretation.On the whole theesotericism fthe digressionmighthaveappealed o Philorather handisconcerting im.Andin viewof his interest n the Platonicrevelationasseenin themythofthe Phaedrus,42t may seem surprisingthat he ignores the revelation-processdescribed n thedigression 343e-344c).We have seen thatearlyMiddlePlatonism n generaldid not heed thedigressionwhen decidingto reject deasof manufactured bjectsasseenatDidascalicus9 (p. 163.22-27Hermann).The Didascalicustselfnaturallyfollows the usual view, and seems unawareof any explicitstatementofPlato'swhich could contradict hat view. If the authorwere offeringhisownphilosophy t wouldbe lesssurprisinghatPlato'sdirectstatementofhis own positionat 342d5 has been ignored;but the workis supposedlyacompendiumof Plato'sown doctrines,and intendsonly to unearththebeliefsupon which the Dialoguesarefounded,not to presentan originalPlatonistsystem.That the authordoes not know the digression s both apossibleand a naturalconclusion.TheIndex Platonicusof P. Louisoffersover 15 columns of PlatonicParallels,43rawn romallgenuineDialoguesother than Hippias Ma, and Mi., Menexenus,Apology, and Crito,as well asfrom Theages, Axiochus, Definitions, On Virtue,and Sisyphus. Naturallyone cannot expect much mention of the Epistlesin a work on Plato'sdoctrines,but one mightexpectsomereference o thedigressionof EpistleVIIseeingthatit givesa clear andconcisestatementof doctrine.Louis'note499(toDidasc.34.2)pointsto a possibleparallelwithEp. VII326ab in conjunctionwith Republic473cd,but only note 481 purports ooffer a parallelwith the digression 340d). Louissaysof the word ilXE-80


7/29

xpwa[?vov at Didasc.33 (p. 187.13-14Hermann)"expression mprunt6eAla LettreVII, 340d",but it is the word alone and not the contextthatmightbe thoughtto be evidence of borrowing.Plato's"tingedsuperficiallywithopinions"and the expressionn Didasc.33"tingedsuperficially, s it were,by virtue"hardly requireto be relatedhistorically.In Middle Platonisttimes theverb 'rTLXp.wvvvILas common enough, being found in Lucian,44Plutarch Mor. 395e,cf. 382c),Rufus Medicus Anat. 30),Pollux(VII, 129),and Plotinus(4.5.7, 5.6.4). I do not know of any other use of the wordbefore the time of Plutarch, xceptat Ep. VII340d- if even thatprecedesPlutarch. There is certainlyno use of it in such authors as Polybius,Philodemus,and PhiloJudaeus.Thus itsappearancenboththedigressionand the Didascalicus s more likely to springfrom the proximityof theirdates of compositionthan from a consciousborrowingon the partof theauthorof the latter.It thusremainspossiblethat the authorof theDidascalicusdidnot knowthe digressioneven thoughhe knew nearlyall the CorpusPlatonicum.Thenon-appearanceof material rom the digression s noteworthynot only inthe section on Ideas, but also in the comparativelydetailed sectionsontheory of knowledge(chapter4) and on assimilation o God (chapter28);for 344abroughtout theconnectionbetweenbecomingvirtuous,becomingwise, and becoming like the objectof wisdom connexionswhichDidasc.28 (p. 182. 2-7 Hermann) nsistson, and which had been foreshadowednits principalsource for the doctrine,Theaetetus 76a-c.The importanceof the Didascalicus ies in its adherence o the teachingsof contemporary chool-Platonism,withoutany realeffortto beoriginal. tuses those passages of Plato which would normally have been used,perhapswith some additionsbut with very few subtractions.Well-knownpassagesof Plato could not suddenly fall into oblivion, and were almostcertain to surfacein such a workas this. The digressionfailed to surfacehere;therefore t was not well-knownat the time.45Our most important evidence for contemporary ignorance of thedigression s found in Plutarch,a man whoseknowledgeof the Epistles ngeneralcannot be disputed,and who acceptedtheirauthenticitywithoutqualms.46He alone, of genuine MiddlePlatonists,has left us a consider-able body of writings n whose pages numerousPlatonicallusions occur.He has left us the Life of Dion, in which he sometimesmakesappeal to thewords of the SeventhEpistle.47NaturallyPlutarch's reat nterest n Plato,and in the interactionsbetweenPlatoand other men of importance,has ledhim to introducemuchmaterialon Platothat most historiansof the periodor biographersof Dion would not have found relevant.48But Jones was

81


8/29

unableto pointto anyparallelsbetween heLifeand thatpartof theEpistlebetween 338a and 345c (see n. 10). The Bud6 text sees parallelswithmaterialbetween338c and 339c in Dion 18.3-7,but pointsto no obviousborrowingbetween 339c and 345c.49 It does admittedlyrefer to 341b-e('parexemple') n relationto Dion 14.3 To GLW?I(4LCVOV&ya0ov CTELv), butthat section does not make the identificationbetween the object(s)ofPlato'sesotericphilosophyand the Good, and Plutarchhad no need tolearn of Plato's reluctanceto speak in detail about the Good from theEpistle.He could surelyrecallAristoxenus' eportof the connexionbet-ween the Good and the 'unwrittendoctrines' Harm.2.30-31,Meibom),and he hadsufficientevidenceof Plato'sreluctance odiscuss hematter nRep.506b8-el. Indeed I imaginethat Plato'sreluctance o revealthe fulldetails of his systemwas notorious n Plutarch'sime, andone of the chiefconnexionswhich Plutarchmade between Platonicand New Academicpractice.50One must thereforeask whyit is that Plutarch ailed to mentionPlato'sexperienceof teachingDionysiusand of the latter's ll-judgedpublicationof Plato'sdoctrine, as describedin the digression.I cannot accept theanswer hatit was not relevant o Dion's life, forPlutarchobviously oundthepartplayedby Platoof considerable ignificance o thecritical elationsbetween Dion and Dionysius;or at very least he thoughtthat they tho-roughlydeserveda digression.Plutarchcould have made capitalout ofDionysius' nabilityorunwillingnesso grasp he truemeaningof Platonicphilosophy.The fact thathe does not do so is mostreadilyexplainedbyhisignoranceof c.340-345c3.His failure to take accountof the digression ntwo significantdiscussionson epistemologyin the Moraliaadds to oursuspicions.51It is not, however,anythingto do with Plutarch's pistemologywhichleads me to the conclusionthat the Moraliatoo show him to have beenignorantof thedigression. tisrather wopassages,one from he DeEapudDelphos and the other from the De Defectu Oraculorum,where Plutarchindulges n lengthydiscussionsaboutfive-foldelements n Plato's hought.Besidessuch obvious passagesas the MegistaGeneepisodeof the Sophist(254dff) and the Classification f Goods in the Philebus 66a-c),he bringsin the ontological classificationof Philebus 23c ff (which is not evenobviouslyfive-fold),the five regularsolidsof the Timaeus 53c-55c),andthe suggestionin the same work that if therewere not one world theremight be five (55d2).52Plutarchhas omitted by far the most strikingfive-foldclassificationof the PlatonicCorpus the classificationof the'things to do with knowledge' in the digression (342a7 fl). This82


9/29

classificationactuallyhas its five-foldnaturehighlightedby the use of theterm thefifth'for the PlatonicIdeathroughout, nd couldhavebeenusedin the De E with farmore effect thanpassagesactuallyused (particularlyPhil.23c ff). Itsomission there s striking. n the De Defectu ts omission slessstriking,owing to the factthatthediscussionevolvesfromthequestionof howmany worldsthereare;but even there theMegista Gene havecreptin (428c)as has the sumof Plato's ourelements+ soul(422f-423a).In view of the importanceof the De E it would be well to list some of thefive-fold classificationswhichwere introducedby Plutarch npropriaper-sona in supportof a numerical nterpretation f the puzzlingDelphicE. Iconfine myself to the materialwhich follows the introductionof Platoat389f:(a) 389f,the Timaeusand thepossibilityof 5worlds(b) 389f-390a,Aristotle's ifthelement or 'fifthsubstance'(c) 390a,the five regular olids of the Timaeus(d) 390b,the five senses(sometimesassigned o 5 elements)(e) 390c, Homer'sdivisionof the world into 5(f) 390c-e,point-line-plane-solid-soul(g) 390e,God-demon-hero-man-beast(h) 390f,Aristotle's ive-foldpsychology,withPlatonistemendations(i) 391b, Megista Gene(j) 391bc,Phil. 23cff(k) 391cd,Phil. 66affIn so varied a list, designedpurely to illustratethat five is a speciallypotent number,and with its strongPlatonistcolouring,there is no doubtthattheclassificationof Ep.VII342a7ff wouldhavehadaplace if Plutarchhad thought of it.How significant, hen,is the factthathe did not think ofit?If the praise of the number five in the De E had been an isolatedphenomenon, hen Ishouldhavebeenwillingto acceptthatPlutarch ouldhave forgotten a seeminglyimportantpiece of evidence.But the passagefromthe De Genioconfirms o us that itssister-passagewasno mereadhocassemblageof passagesdemonstrating he potency of five. The materialhad at some stage been assembledwith considerablecare and interest,probablybeforePlutarch'sime. Plutarch ame to takean interest n suchinvestigationsas a resultof his curiosityconcerningthe Delphic E, as isshownby the mention of the E in the De Genioalso(426f).Similarly hereis no doubt that Plutarchwas fascinated by the notion of five Platonicworldssomehowcorrespondingothefiveregular olids,a topicwhichhadbeen discussed with some ingenuity by Theodorusof Soli before him

83


10/29

(427a f).53 Thusanyevidenceforthe potencyof thenumber ivein Plato'sworks would have been carefullynoted and committedto memoryby areader like Plutarch.He has collected so much triflingmaterialon thenumberfive (e.g. De E 387e-388e,389c-f,De Defectu429d-430a) hathecould scarcelyhave judged the passagefromthe digression 342a7ff) asanything ess thancritical.That my arguments for Plutarch'signorance of the digressionaresomewhatunusualIdo notquestion.ForthisreasonI suspect hattheywillnot hastilybe accepted.But whenthe issuehas beencarefullyconsideredfor some time, and with due consideration or Plutarch'sphilosophicalleanings,his personal nterests,andhisobjectives n writing, suspect hatotherstoo will recognizethat it is most unlikelythat Plutarchknew thedigression at the time of writing the Life of Dion, De E apud Delphos, andDe DefectuOraculorum.His ignoranceof the digressionwouldconfirmwhat one alreadyhadcauseto suspect: hat thedigressionwas littleknownin the earlyMiddlePlatonistperiod.If thatsuspicion s correct, hen it ishighly probable hatthe digressionwasforgedduringthatperiod.The PlutarchiantreatisesDe E and De Defectu are again of greatimportance n revealinga motive for such a forgery.There was greatinterestn anypossiblesignificanceof thenumber ive for Plato.We do nothave to confineour attention o Plutarchhere,forthat nterest s confirmedratherearlier n Seneca'sEp. 65.7-10,wherePlato is depictedas addingafifth cause to Aristotle'sfour: the paradigmaticcause. Here then is apassage,however differentfrom the epistemologicalclassificationof thedigression 342a7ff),whichalsomakes he Idea a 'fifth'.The other etterofSeneca in which he discusses Plato's metaphysicsin detail (58.16-24),thoughdividingthe real intosix Platonicsenses,mightalso be connectedwith the interest n Plato'suse of five-folddivision,for the firstuse givenisthe genericuse, and this is followed by five specificuses in hierarchicalorder;thus the underlyingmetaphysicseems to be five-fold rather hansix-fold.Elsewhere n Middle Platonismone mayfind lists of five namesappliedto God,54orindicationsof anunderlying ive-foldmetaphysic.55 utovertsignsof an interest n Plato's use of five-foldclassification s dyingafterPlutarch.If we concentrateon the first centuryA.D., however, t wouldseem that the evidence is clearer, n particularn the PlatonizingPytha-gorean Moderatus.E.R. Dodds long ago drew attentionto a five-foldontology in Moderatus,56 nd was able to link this with considerableplausibilityto early interpretationof the five57positive hypothesesofPlato'sParmenides.58Moderatusseems to have assumedthat these five84


11/29

hypothesespresentedfive esotericpicturesof Pythagorico-Platonicnto-logy, depicting(a) a supremeOne above Being,59b) a secondOne iden-tified with the really real and the intelligible,(c) the realmof the soul,which partookof the One and the Ideas, (d) the sensibleworld,whichreflected he Ideas, and (e) matter,which was not-realand deprivedof allform.It seems to me that a five-fold metaphysicof God, Intelligibles,Soul/Mathematicals,Sensible bodies, and Matteris also in evidence in Plu-tarch'streatmentof the Posidonian nterpretation f the PlatonicWorld-Soulat Mor.1023bc.I hesitateto tracethemetaphysicback to Posidonius,butam moreconfidentthat it was to be found in Eudorus, helikelysourceof most of Plutarch'smaterialon earlier nterpretations.60et us note thatEudoruswas alsothe first thinkerwe know of to have taken an interest nseeing esotericPythagorizingeachingsbehind the positivehypothesesofthe Parmenides,61nd thathe is the firstwe knowof to have madeuse ofthe five-foldclassificationof Goods at Phil. 66a-c.62 Thereis, I suggest,aplausible case for seeing early Middle-Platonic nterest in an esotericsignificanceof the numberfive andof five-folddivision in Platoas havingoriginatedwithEudorus;perhapsTheodorus' nterest n the five worldsofthe Timaeushad anticipated him,63but I know of no way of datingTheodorus relative to Eudorus.And I have doubts as to whether hisinterestswent far beyond the five worlds and five regularsolids of theTimaeus.Now one might anticipate the objection that if some early MiddlePlatonisthad attachedgreatsignificanceto the numberfive and to five-fold classification n Plato, then we might have expectedto hear rathermore about this; we might have expectedto see evidenceof some goodreasonleading to such an attitude.If he thoughthe had discoveredsomeunderlyingkey to theinterpretation f laterPlato,whywasthisgoodnewsnot immediately spread abroad? The answer is surely obvious. AnyPlatonist,thinkinghe had discoveredsomethingesoteric n Plato,some-thing meant to be confined to the school, might feel that he had anobligationto confinehisdiscoveries owithinhisschool.Itmightalsohavebeen to his advantage, n respectof both incomeand prestige, f he couldencourageoutside belief to expect excitingrevelationswithinhis school.One might expect reflectionsof the innerdoctrinesin such a Platonist'sexotericwork,togetherwith propagandaexplainingthe secrecyproper othecore of Platonicdoctrine.

Thatsuchsecrecysurrounded he earlyMiddlePlatonicschoolsis littleless than certain.Whenone considersthe case of Eudorusof Alexandria85


12/29

one is able to observethat thereis a strange ack of significantdoctrineattributed o him in oursources.There s plentyof materialrelating o hisexplanationsof the doctrinesof others,64ome of it givingus importantcluesas tohisowndoctrines.65 utwe have nothingto informus directlyofEudorus'own metaphysicalsystem;nor have we any Eudoranexplan-ationsof the coreof Plato'smetaphysical ystem.Hence Eudorusremains"to us a rathershadowyfigure".66No doubt Eudorus,thoughhe couldnever be describedas a 'sceptic',67 dheredto the traditionalAcademicpractice of concealing his own opinion on important philosophicalquestions.68Eudorusprobablydetermined he tone of muchsubsequentPlatonism,such as the attitude of reluctanceto commit too much toexoteric writing found in [Plutarch]De Fato.69It is noteworthythatEudorus eemsto have seen a stableunderlying oreof doctrine n Plato,whichrevealed tself in manymodesof expression; hushe surelysoughtfor a deeper (esoteric?)significancebehind Plato's words.70DiogenesLaertius,perhaps ollowingThrasyllanmaterialat3.63,71ecords hebeliefthat Platoemployeda rangeof differenttermsin ordermake his systemunintelligibleto the layman. Similar remarksare made about Plato'sobscureand riddlingmannerof referring o his doctrines n Plutarch'sDeDefectu,not long beforethe introductionof the 5-worldsmaterial 420f),andin Numenius,fr.24.57-64des Places.TheanonymousCommentaryntheTheaetetuseesdoctrine n Plato,butasserts hat t isnot revealed nhis'inquiries'59.12-21).Fromthiswe maygatherthatthe centuryor so of PlatonicscholarshipbeforePlutarch's aytendedto seePlatoas reluctant o givefull expressionto his most importantbeliefs. This view of Plato seems to have beenaccompaniedby the reluctanceof Platonic teachersto have their ownaccountof Plato'score-doctrinespublishedoutsidetheir 'schools'.Thuswhile variousextant Middle Platonictexts suggest that there had beensome centralfive-foldmetaphysicaldoctrine,none (withthe possibleex-ceptionof the fragmentof Moderatus)do more thanofferan insubstantialreflectionof that metaphysic.The digression's ive-fold epistemologicalclassificationmayitself offera carefully ontrivedreflectionof thisesotericmetaphysicaldoctrine n a settingwhere'Plato'explainshis reluctance owriteopenlyof his keydoctrines,andexplainsalso thepitfallsof learningsuch doctrines at second hand.72 n accordancewith the contemporarybeliefthatPlatovaried terminology oconfusethe layman(D.L. 3.63)thePlatonicIdea is alwaysreferred o simplyas 'the Fifth',also highlightingthespecialsignificanceof the number.It is not easy to discover any more about the context in which the86


13/29

digressionwas composed (assuming it to be spurious), for the authorclearlyfelt thathis own doctrinesshould not be widelyknown.Moreoverhe clearly wantedthe sentimentsexpressed n the digression o be readastheproductsof Plato'sownhand,and hewouldthushave been reluctantouse vocabularyor ideas which could not have come from Platohimself.Furthermorehe must have known Plato well, seeing that he felt he hadinsightsinto the core-doctrinesof Platonicmetaphysics.Therewould befew, if any, indicationsof the laterdate of thewriter,and therewouldbenothingwhich did not originatefroma thoughtfulPlatonistmind.Thereare a few relevant observations o be made about the forger'sdate andphilosophicalorientation,but one cannotexpectthemto be conclusive.We may begin by noting that the author s interested n Plato'sPytha-gorean connexions.As Edelsteinhas notedwith regardto the episodeonthe testing of pupils (340bl-341a7),73"for a moment,one may think thatthe forger . . . believes in the closeness of the Platonic and Pythagoreanschools, and ascribes to the mastera method similarto the well-knownmethod of testingthe novice whichthe Pythagoreans pplied."74But it isratherthe idea of a test itself thanthe actual contentof it whichremindsone of the Pythagoreans.Since the digression's est is said to have beenparticularly uitable for tyrantswho already have an inaccurate dea ofone's teachings (340b5-6), it is just possible that the passage had beencomposedby a Platonistwith someexperienceof teaching uch persons:ofAcademicsonlyNestor of Tarsus prings o mind as a possiblecandidate,75but Thrasyllus himself was astrologer at Tiberius' court76and shouldperhapsbe associatedwith thePythagoreanwingof Platonism,whileAriusDidymus' Platonicinterests qualifyhim for consideration;but officiallythis friendof Augustuswas a Stoic,77 nd the authorof the digressionwasanythingbut that.Only Thrasyllus trikesone as a possibleforger,andhecertainlyhad the opportunity o interpolatematerial nto his own editionof Plato.We are not reallyin a position to judge how far the digression'sdeep-rooted scepticism of mechanical explanations of knowledge would fitThrasyllus.The lack of clarity and of value attributed o knowledge EiTt-oi-irr ) at 343bc and d8-el, which must be held to pertain also to correctopinion and intellection(vovs)on the authorityof 342c (thus arousingmysuspicions of spuriousness),78ndicates the author'srecognition of thevalidity of New Academic activity; t shows some sympathy or the One-Academy hesispropounded n Philoof Larissa'sRoman Books.79 t isonlythe author'sbelief in some non-mechanical evelation 341cd,344ab)thatlifts him above scepticism proper. This attitude towards knowledge

87


14/29

remindsone of certain passages in Philoof Alexandria,Thrasyllus' on-temporary.80 othmay have inherited imilarattitudes romtheAcademicEudorusof Alexandria.81There aretwo significantways n which Ibelieve thatEudorannfluencehascrept into the digression: t makesgreatuse of the 'categories' f iToLovTL nd-r(orov,farmorethanonewouldhaveexpected rom themiserablePlatonic precedent (Meno 86el, 87b3); and it seems to relate therevelation-processo the doctrineof assimilation o God, in so far as onehas to be like the object revealed 344a2-4).82 udorus eems to havedoneconsiderableworkon the categoriesafterthe awakeningof interest n theAristotelian reatise n the mid-first enturyB.C.,83 ndit was probablyhewho popularized he assimilation-doctrineo that it became the standardMiddle Platonicgoal of life.84In short, I believe the principal nfluencebehind the digressionwas Eudorusof Alexandria,but this is insufficientreasonfor also believing that he wroteit.The forger s more ikely to havebeen Thrasyllus,actingunderthe influenceof Eudorus' nterpretation fPlato.SinceI havesuggestedelsewhere hattheCommentaryn theTheaetetusis a work of Eudorus,85 brief comparisonbetween this work and thedigressionseems warranted.The extant part of the commentaryhas onlyjust got as far as the first attempteddefinition of knowledge (151e) andPlato's arlydiscussionsof it, and it mustberemembered hatthediscoveryof more of thecommentary ould alterourimpressionsof it considerably.Nevertheless I have considerabledoubts as to whether its authorcouldhavebeenresponsible or the digression.Even n theintroductiont isplainthat accuracyplays a significantpart n theproductionof knowledge, or itis necessarythat the judging faculty,86 r criterion 'by which',must beaccurate;accuracydoes not belong toknowledge in theordinary ense)inthedigression 343bc).Alsorequiredbythe commentatororknowledgeofP is awarenessof why P (col.3); the digressionwouldnot appearto makesucha requirement, nd seems to think n termsof knowing things'ratherthanpropositions.The commentatoracquireshis ideasof knowingwhyPfromthe Meno,87whose recollection heory s also used;88 houghit couldbe argued thatthe Meno operatesbeneaththe surface n the digression,89thatwould not appear to be a majorsourceof the writer,who ignorestheMeno's mportantdistinctionbetweenknowledgeand trueopinion(342c).Ultimately hedigression hows ittle nterestn ordinaryknowledge,andisconcernedonly withknowledgeof 'theFifth', n whicha flashof revelatorylight (341cd,344b7)plays a fargreaterpartthanthepreparatory rocesses;thecommentatordoes not separateoff anyspecialkindof knowledge,does88


15/29

notseek for a comparablerevelation,and doesnotevenmakeanyobvioususe of the Ideas in the extant pages. The commentatorproduces aPlatonism with a late-Hellenisticcharacter;he still thinks in terms ofmechanicalcognitiveprocesses.The authorof the digressionproducesanew Platonicmysticismof an earlyimperialcharacter. n spiteof similar-itiesof interest scepticismconcerningpurelyphysicalcognitiontheory,90the rikpV1a,91 ndo'RoiwaLs92),he twoauthorscould not be identified.Thus, since I identify the author of the commentarywith Eudorus,Ishouldnot be temptedto holdEudorusresponsible or thedigression.Theforgerwasmoreextremeperhaps.Whetherornothe issufficiently xtremeto be identifiedwiththe authorof Ep.II 312d3-314c7I am not sure.Thematterhas to be considered,since both philosophicaldigressionsfirstappear n thesameperiod na similargroupof authors.93 hissuggests hatat the timewhentheeditionwiththedigressionof the SeventhEpistlewasbecomingavailablewidely,the passagewhichI regardas a parallelphilo-sophicaldigression n the SecondEpistlewascoming to be known.Couldthishavebelonged to thesameedition?Could it havebeen theworkof thesameeditor?The similaritiesbetween the two passagesare certainlymost striking.Thefearof thewrittenwordwhichisevidentat341bcand344cd s likewisepresent n the SecondEpistleat 312deand314bc,where t is accompaniedbyan almostparanoid earof theletter's alling nto thewronghands. Butwe cannotstatethatthe SecondEpistlewaswrittenby a manwithstrongerviewson the questionof writing.The obviousreasonfor the exaggeratedprecautionsof the philosophical digression here is that this letter isdiscussingwhatthe authorthoughtto be the suprememetaphysicaldoc-trinesof Plato at 312e-313a; thedigressionof the SeventhEpistlediscussesno more elevated level than that of the Ideas. Even so the principleofspeaking hroughriddles II 312d7-8)doesoccur n theotherdigressionnso far as the forgeravoids the usual termsfor Ideas and substitutes theFifth'.Themoreexaltedstatusof mattersdiscussed nII 312e313aalsoexplainsthe greatercontemptfoundherefor the'rotov s opposedto the Tr hanatVII342e-343c.Whenwe aresearching orthesupremebeing,asat313a,itis 'thecauseof allevils'to wonderaboutwhatkindit is;whenwesearch or'the Fifth' as at 342e, informationwhich indicates quality is merely ahindrance o the determination f the substance.It is perhaps unnecessary to state that both these philosophicaldigressionsshow great interest in the relationshipbetween Platonistteacherandhispupils,particularlyf thatpupilhappensto be a 'tyrant'. t

89


16/29

seems,however, that Dionysiusis less despisedin the Second, thoughitshouldbe added thatin both cases(313a-c,341b, 344d-345b)Dionysius sseen to have a tendency to think he knows everythingalready:a hintperhaps hat someactual relationshipbetweena Platonistand a monarchhad inspiredboth digressions.My final point of comparisonwould requirea separatearticleto esta-blish fully. I have no doubt that312e is referring o the discussionof theOne in the five positivehypothesesof Plato'sParmenides.Everything,hatis the whole discussion, s concernedwiththe supremeKing, i.e. the One.The second (i.e. hypothesis,142b-155e)s aboutthe second evel of entities(i.e. intelligibleIdeas),94while the third (hypothesis,155e-157b)s aboutthe third level of entities(psychicalsor mathematicals).95hus farinter-pretationof the hypotheseswouldbe similarto thatof Moderatus.96henumberof hypotheseswhich assumethe unity or existenceof the One isfive, and I stronglysuspect that Middle Platoniccuriosityconcerning herelevanceof the number ive forPlatohad itsorigins n the beliefthattherewere five metaphysicalevels pictured n thesefive positivehypothesesoftheParmenides.The digressionof Epistle VII providesanexampleof earlyinterest n 'fives' in Plato, while the digressionof Epistle II is concernedwith the passagewhich is the sourceof thatinterest.97A small linguisticpoint which could be thought to suggest identicalauthorship s the tendencyto favour asyndetonwhencommencing tate-mentsof (or allusions o) criticaldoctrine.We find thisat 312e1and 313a3,andagainat 342a7,b4, and 343a5.Unfortunatelyhesedigressionsdo notpresentenoughmaterial or stylometryo tellus much,and we areunlikelyto find many strikingfeatures given that Platonicstyle is consciouslyimitated.It would be ludicrous o expectsuch passagesas this to includeanymaterialwhichcould provethem to be from thesame hand.I am hereconcernedonly to show that theycould be from the samehand.98Althoughallconclusionswhichthispapermakesaretentative,andmayneed to be revisedin the light of new discoveries,one ought perhapstoassume, on the basis of evidence presented,that the digressionof theSeventh Epistle is an early Middle Platonic addition:possibly by Thra-syllus.If we areprepared odate thedigression o the late firstcenturyB.C.or early first centuryA.D. then it might explainsome minor confusionconcerning he natureof the Ideasin thedigression.Edelsteindenied thattherewas a truly ranscendentheoryof Ideashere,and heldthattheywereseen asbelongingwithin the soul.99This cannotbe right,10?or theposition

of knowledgewithinthe soul is saidto distinguisht fromthe 'Fifth'as wellas fromname,definition,and sensibleimage (342c5-dl). In fact it seems90


17/29

clear that the 'Fifth'belongsneitherin the soul, nor in the voice, nor inphysicalbodies.Wherethen?If ourdate is correct hen we couldcertainlyexpect the Ideasto be locatedin the divinemind.101Can such a theorybedetected n the digression?My answer s thatthe accompanimentso sucha theoryare to be foundthere. Edelstein'sattempt to put the 'Fifth' within the soul is partiallyjustified,andpartiallyonly, by the factthat theknowledgeof the 'Fifth' sobviouslyan internalexperience;we do not 'lookaway' &'LToi3X&rrrnv)102othe Idea,but turna certainamountof worldly nformationaround n ourheads until wisdom(pp0vqaLs)ndintelligence voi3s)hine forth(344b7);they shine like a self-nourishing ire within hesoul, sparkedoff by somefireelsewhere 34Ic7-d2), ikeknowledgeof divineorigin n Numenius.103The 'Fifth' s rather hatoriginalexternal ireand does notenterwithinthemind;the firewithin the mindis a differentthing, the 'knowledgeof theFifth' (342e2, cf. 343e2), or 'wisdom and intelligence'(344b7). 'Intel-ligence',though the highest kindof knowledge,does not seem tograsp he'Fifth'; t merelycomesclose to it in kinshipand in likeness 342d2) as onefire is akin to another. It is an internal likenessof the external'Fifth',created n us by our diligence,our intellectualpowers,and our own like-ness to the'Fifths' n respectof virtue 343e-344b).Thusthe'Fifth' s not anobjectof cognitionin the normalsense;we approach t onlyby recreatingourown Fifth-substitutewithinus; theprocess s one of likeningourselvesto the(hithertounknown) Fifth'.To the best of my knowledge Platonism knew no doctrine of 'jloFo;ats7EIIrTr, only of OpiwL0UOLS 04s. Though found in Plato,10 that doctrineassumes greater importance in early Middle Platonist times.105Butassimilation o God had alwaysinvolvedassimilation o the virtues(Tht.176bc,esp.b2), andit isclearthatthesearetheimportantFifths' n whichthe authorof the digression s interested 344ab,a8-bl). If assimilation othese 'Fifths' is assimilationto God, then it is clear that the 'Fifths'somehowbelongto God; thoughthevirtuescouldperhapshavebelongedto him as being his particulargood qualities, t is clear that many of the'Fifths'couldonly belongto him as thoughtswithinhis mind:the Idea ofFox, forexample,or of Walk(see 342d7-8).Letus nowaskourselvesbrieflywhatwastheepistemologyof thosewhoplaced the Ideas in the mindof God. How is it thatman'smindcouldbeexpectedto reachup to the Ideas,when those Ideaswereconfined to themindof a divinity?Does hepeerintothedivinemind?But we cannotevenpeer into each other'sminds.We mightperhapsbe able to workout whatour neighbourthinksif we have some basic informationavailable to us

91


18/29

about the premises from which he begins, and if we, like him, thinkrationally.We can recreatehis thoughtswithinourselves,as long as wethinklike he does. We haveaccess to his mindonly by makingourmindsworkin the sameway. I assumetherefore hatknowledgeof the Ideasinearly MiddlePlatonist imeswasjust sucha caseof recreatinghe likenessof the Ideas withinour own minds; theremay perhapshave been somememory-tracewithinthedivinepartof uswhichcouldrecognizewhenthatlikenesshad been recreated,butsucha memory-traceouldscarcelycon-stituteactive knowledgeof the Idea.06 God'sthoughtsremainedhisown;but we shared n the same construction s thatof thedivinemind,107andwecouldrestore hatconstructiono ourownminds,and recreate hesamemathematicalpatterns'08 nd the samevirtueswithin it. Hence ourmindswill contemplatethe same Ideas within themselvesas God's mind con-templateswithinitself.I cannot hope to makemy pointmoreforciblywithoutembarkingupona complete examinationof early MiddlePlatonistepistemology.In duecourseI hope to be able to do this.At present et it sufficeto say thatmycurrent heoryregardingheknowledgeof Ideas nearlyMiddlePlatonismis identicalwith the theorywhich I would attribute o the authorof theepistemologicaldigressionof theSeventhEpistle. regard his asimportantconfirmationof my belief thatthe digression s an earlyMiddlePlatonicdocument.'09Universityof Sydney

NOTESL. Edelstein,Plato's SeventhLetter Leiden, 1966),p. 2, seems almostto adopt such anattitude:"Recognizingthat in any case the burdenof proof lies with those who consider

the lettergenuine,..."2 Historyof GreekPhilosophyV (Cambridge.1978),p. 402 n.l.3 In addition to Guthrie(op.cit. pp. 402-417), see K. von Fritz, Platon n Sizilien unddasProblemder PhilosophenherrschaftBerlin, 1968) and 'Die philosophische Stelle imsiebenten platonischen Brief und die Frage der esoterischen Philosophie Platons',Phronesis 11 (1966), 117-153; M. Isnardi Parente,Filosofia e politica nelle lettere diPlatone (Napoli, 1970)and La Paroladel Passato 10(1955), 241-273; J. Stenzel. 'Oberden Aufbau der Erkenntnis m VII. platonischenBrief, Kleine Schriften(Darmstadt,1957),pp. 85-106.4 L. Edelstein (op.cit., n.l. above); N. Gulley, EntretiensHardt 18 (Geneva, 1972),105-143.5 C. Ritter,Platons Gesetze Leipzig, 1896),Anhang:'BriefVII und Vlll', pp. 367-378.The view thatthe digression s not an integralpart of the letter hascontinuedto be taken

92


19/29

seriously,and besides Mortonand Winspear below, n.9) one may mentionW. Brocker,'Der philosophische Exkurs in Platons siebenten Brief, Hermes91 (1963), 416ff. Hewouldsee only 342al-344cl as an addition,while Ritterconcentrateson 341a-345c4 pp.372-3), while regarding340b ff with some suspicion(p. 373). Mortonand Winspearsee341b-345d as the productof a separatehand,while I should athetizeall of 340bl-345c4.6 Europe,and the Tilbingen school in particular on whose views see K. Gaiser,'Plato'senigmaticLecture"On theGood"',Phronesis25 (1980),5-37),tendsto be thehome of theview that Plato adopted an esotericmetaphysicalsystemmuch of which emergedmoreopenly in later times, and hence that Plato can be, and indeed should be, understood ntermswhich the Anti-esotericswould regardas peculiarto laterPlatonism.The SeventhEpistle is often seen as offering support for the Esoteric view (i) by suggesting thatimportantdoctrinemustnot be transmitted n writing (see Gaiser,pp. 15-16with n. 33),(ii) by continueduse of Ideas,intuitivelygrasped,and (iii) by presentingsome systematicdoctrine, at least, which is not found in the Dialogues. If the digression is a MiddlePlatonicdocument, however, (ii) and (iii) are to be expected,while (i) is a useful devicefor allowing later Platoniststhe freedom to searchfor a deeper revelationbeneaththeDialoguesthanany whichopenlyemergeswithin hem.Ido notbelieve thattheargumentfor the digression'sauthenticityat p. 18 of Gaiser's articleworksagainstmy theoryof solate a date for its interpolation.TD.5.100, Fin. 2.92.8 See A. Q. MortonandA. D. Winspear, t'sGreek o theComputerMontreal,1971),pp.80-83.9 Loeb text, ed. F. H. Colson et al., vol. x (1962), indices by J. W. Earp,and PhilonisAlexandrini,OperaquaeSupersunt d. L.Cohnand P.Wendland,vol. VII(Berlin,1926),indices by J. Leisegang.10 ThePlatonismof Plutarch Univ. of Chicagodiss., 1916)now publishedwith intro.byL.Taran(New York, 1980),pp. 109ff,particularly119.'1 Arius Didymus (Diels Dox. p. 447.1-2, 16) and Aetius 1.10.1(p. 308bl9) appear toimply that there are Ideas of naturalentities only; Aetius' treatment of Platonic Ideas(1.3.21, 1.10.1-3)showsno awarenessof thedigressionand its 'fifth', while theconcept ofIdeas as thoughtsof God barelyaccordswith the notionof Ideasof artefacts,particularlyif these thoughts are seen as blueprints or the universeas at HippolytusPhilos. 19.2 (p.567 Diels).12 I assume that where referencesto Ideas of artefactsoccur in PlatonicDialogues (thebestknownexamplesbeing Rep.597bff and Crat.389a fl) they need not have been seenascommitting Platoto such Ideas,particularly t a timewhen Platowasbelieved tospeakin deliberatelyobscureterms in suchworks(below, p. 86), and to shun directexpressionof doctrine for the most part.WherePlatoemployedconceptsduringan argument heycould not immediately be assigned the status of doctrine. For that reason individualPlatonists might claim the right to decide for themselves. Dialogues are subject tointerpretation, ut much of the digressionhad either to be acceptedor denied.13 See fr. 14.11-12 des Places = 23 Leemans):olov &v'COLS kE0t4PqOvT0q' irTpoV XvxvovXuxvovqxpsExovTa, nd compareEp. 341c7-d1:olov&irsorVp6SIMavMroS Friqav q4ZS.Both passages are treating the acquisition of knowledge, in particularknowledge ofdivineorigin.Numeniussuggests thatthe revelation-processeavesthe sameIEtsor ov(iain the receiveras in thegiver; he is thinkingchieflyof God-givenknowledgehere, so thatthe revelation-processmustbe accompaniedby assimilation o God (cf. Ep. 343e-344a).

93


20/29

14 Origen, ContraCelsum4.3ff, trans.H. Chadwick Cambridge,1953),pp. 320-3, showsthat Celsus supportedhis view with quotationsand paraphrase f materialbetween 341dand 344b. In his introduction xxi) Chadwicknotes that R. Bader,Der A ethes Logos desKelsos (Stuttgart-Berlin, 1940), pp. 2-3, connects the title with Ep. 342a3-4. Middle-Platonisttimes, it seems, had an appetite for 'true accounts'from time gone by.15J.C.M.van Winden, in his edition of the Dialoguewith Trypho Leiden, 1971),drawsattention to a parallel here with Ep. 341cd as well as with Phd. 65e-66a and Rep. 509b.There is an ovi,reOqr6V n the text which might possiblybe inspiredby 341c5, and ancxiqvvnscf. c7); more significantly, we read TOXisevirrvxvuta i-;uxlXts lyytIPvovov L&&6auyyrvis,which is reminiscentof 343e-344a especiallye3 EcvTrfux6nT,2 avyyevi,cf. a6).16 See HaroldTarrant, Agreementand the Self-Evident n Philo of Larissa',Dionysius5(1981),66-97.

17 See Ac. 2.60, and the doctrine of concealment at De Or. 1.84; also Ac. fr. 35 = Aug.c.Acad. 3.43.18 See Philo's programme for moral philosophy in Stob. Ecl. 2.39.20 ff (Wachsmuth),and Aenesidemus'allegations of dogmatism within the Academy (of Philo), Phot. Bibl.cod. 212 p. 170a14-38 (Bekker); also Cic. De Or. 1.84-93 (with Tarrant, Classicum8(1982),7-11),Ac. 2.7-9, 35. I should add also Aetius' reportsof 'Academic'doctrines,pp.396b5-7, 17-19,398b24, 403b8-1I (Diels, Dox.).l9 According to the Philonianseven Carneadeswaswilling to abandonhis scepticismonmatters not debated by the philosophers (Aug. c.Acad. 2.11, cf. Num. fr.27.57-59desPlaces = Eus. P.E. 14.738d); Philonians themselveswere willing to appeal to generalagreementand to the self-evidentcharacterof certain truths see Tarrant, oc.cit. above[n.161, nd Numenius fr. 28 des Places = 8 Leemans = Eus.P.E. 14.739b).20 Philoniansregarded themselves as truth-seekerszetetics?),as may be seen from Cic.Ac. 1.46 (de omnibus quaeritur),2.7 (studium exquirendiand summa cura studioqueconquirimus), .9 (exquirere);also fr. 33 (rerum nquisitorem).Zetesisalso appearsto bean ideal of anon. In Tht.,who sees Tht. tself as a zetesis(2.43, 3.20etc.)and wouldarguethat a dogmatist school did not extend the range of its zetesis sufficiently(e.g. Stoics,11.25);anon. regardsthe Socratic method of examining people through question andanswer as zetesis (58.23ff), and sees its catharticfunction as important 2.9-11,58.33-36,cf. Philo Lar. n Stob. Ecl. 2.39.20ff (Wachsmuth).The zeteticprocess nanon.has a mildNew Academiccharacter,n so far as it is free fromaffirmationand denial(59.12-17);butit is considerablymore positive in purpose than Pyrrhonist etesis (D.L. 9.70, S.E. PH.1.7) and perhaps more akin to the zetesis of Plato's 'zetetic' dialogues (D.L. 3.49ff). Iassume that the less natural use of the term tocharacterizePyrrhonistswho arescarcelytruth-seekers)ssecondaryto an earlierandmore naturaluse of the term(aswith theterm'sceptic',see n. 67 below).21 Philonians maintainedthe Academic attack on the senses,but with an emphasisontheir ack of accuracyrather han their unhealthiness'Aetius,Dox. p. 396b17-19,cf. Cic.Ac. 2.79ff with the fragments of Ac.Post. II). They maintained their attack on thecognitive presentationas defined by the Stoics, but did not rejectthe notion of somecognitive act if more modestly defined (though not as a 'criterionof knowledge'),S.E.PH. 1.235 (on which see my comments in Dionysius5 (1981), pp. 84-92,and LCM. 7.2(1982), 21-2).22 Because their views on philosophical issues (if they had any) were not to becommunicated o the public,Cic. De Or. 1.84,Ac. 2.60, fr.35, Numeniusfr.27.57-59and70-72 des Places. It may be that their reasons forsilence werenot identicalwith thoseof94


21/29

[Platol,but it was certainly open to them to believe (with Gaiser, loc. cit. [above, n. 6] n.33) that[Plato]thoughthis doctrineable to be expressed n words(writtenor otherwise),but not able to be directly expressed in any manner consistentwith a Platonist'sedu-cationalobjectives.In any case it is the Academicpractice tself, ratherthanany under-lying theory,which Cicero was anxiousto defend.And Numenius at least(fr.24.57-64desPlaces) sees a link between Plato's reluctanceto express his doctrine clearly and NewAcademic'heresy'.23 Dionysius5 (1981), p. 70 with n. 16.24 Cicero had several teachers who exerted an influence upon him, including also thedogmatist-AcademicAntiochus of Ascalon, and the Stoics Diodotus and Posidonius(ND. 1.6), but he remainedtrue to Philo'sAcademicismas is clear from the samepassageas well as from Ac. 2.7-9; for he could legitimatelyfavourany philosophicalpositionandstill be true to his Academicism ust as long as he maintaineda criticalattitudeto such aposition. Note that when he asserts that he finds some Antiochian arguments verypersuasive Att. 13.19.5)he concedes nothing; for in usingthe Academic term IOctv6vheis reaffirminghis adherence to New Academiccriteriaof judgement.25 See anon. In Thi. 54.38-43, anon. Prol. in Plat. Phil. 10 (p.205,17-21, 206. 11-13Hermann).26 See D.L. 9.72; the relevant passage is Tim.40d.27 See anon. Prol! in Plat. Phil. 10(p. 205. 27-35 Hermann);Plato is said to rejectoursenses, but also to reject our intellect because it is thrown into confusion by the senses;thus he rejects both possible sources of information. See also Olymp. In Phd. 8.17 (p.15.1-12Norvin) for evidence of 'ephectic' use of Phd.28 See S.E. PH. 2.22,Phr.230a: 'Socrates'does not know whether he is a man or not.29 See anon. Prol. in Plat. Phil. 10(p. 205.12-17 Hermann).30 Anon. ProL n Plat. Phil. 10-11 s counteringargumentswhich weredesigned to showthat Platobelonged among the 'Ephecticsand Academics' p. 205.4Hermann),but moreespecially that he was ephectic (see also p. 205.11, 207.9 and 12). 'Ephectic'was thestandardlate Neoplatonic term for a Pyrrhonistsceptic (see the introductions of thevarious Categories-commentaries), nd is so used at anon. Prol. 7 (p. 202.22-27), where'Ephectics'are distinguished from Academics. Since the argumentswere certainly notdevised to show that Plato was a sceptic of the Pyrrhonist ather han the New Academicvariety, t is clear that anon. attaches mportance o the term'Ephectic'because he has inmind Pyrrhonist hampions of thescepticview of Plato.The argumentsaresuch that theymust come from a source concerned with the discovery of arguments ratherthan onedevoted to the historical ruth: theirobjectis not to secure belief, but to counter-balancethe argumentsof those who saw Plato as a dogmatist.See also also n. 32 below.31 I assume that the orthodox Pyrrhonistview held that Pyrrho was foreshadowed byearlierthinkers, but that he had out-stripped hem all in the rigourof his 'scepticism' cf.S.E. PH. 1.7); Plato was held to have been one of these (D.L. 9.72), though there wasperhapsdissensionamongPyrrhonists oncerning he degree to which he could be said tohaveembraced scepticism' S.E.PH. 1.222with Heintz'semendation:see myarticle TheDate of Anon. In Theaetetum',CQ. forthcoming,n. 66). In anon. Prol. there is no doubtthat Plato is depicted as an Academic ratherthan a Pyrrhonist n the Pyrrhonistargu-ments, for he makes hesitantstatements ratherthancompletely suspending udgement,and he appears to sanction the non-apprehensibilitydoctrine in the strongerAcademicfashion(but Tarrant, oc. cit., does note thatthe passage paintsPlato as ratherextreme inhis Academicism:there is no conflict here, as I hope to show elsewhere).

95


22/29

32 It is now usuallybelieved that LuciusTubero,dedicateeof Aenesidemus'PyrrhonianLogoi(Photius 169b33)was Cicero's riendL. AeliusTubero cf. Lig.2 1).Aristocles Eus.P.E. 14. 763d) says that Aenesidemus'activitieswereExOsxa; 'rrp6n1vnly to emphasizethatthey are a productof the Romanage and have no respectableGreek pedigree.Thewordsare a taunt,and werecertainlynot meantto be takenliterally.33 See Tarrant, oc.cit. (n. 31 above), includingnn. 77-78.34 See Tarrant, oc.cit. (n. 31 above),passim,also Dionysius5 (1981),p. 68 n. 9.35 Note the apparent approval of Pyrrho'srejectionof all Hellenistic-stylecriteriaat61.15-46 and the interest shown in Pyrrhonistrelativity-theoryn col. 63 (chiefly withregard o sensation).Note too the apparentreluctance o agreethat the sensesareeitheraccurateor to be highlyvalued (3.7-12)and the One-Academy hesisat 54.43-55.7.36 One assumes thatthe One-Academydoctrineof 54.43-55.7entailsbelief in an esoteric'dogmatism' n the Second if not the ThirdAcademy(cf. S.E. PH. 1.234);54.23-30and59.12-34see Platoas partlyesoteric n hismethods.(N.B. I suspectthe editor'srestorationof 59.28: 'Ear(LvTE]would be betterthankar[LVowl,for it is sometimesuseful to 'conceal'or 'by-pass'the truth,never useful to obliterate t.)37 46.43-54.30: considerableattention s paid to the processof 'Socraticmidwifery'.38 The Loeb notes referonly to Ep. VIII355b in conexion with QuodOmn.Prob.3, butthereis no evidence of Philo'shavingknown the passage.The Cohn-Wendlandeditionsees a parallelwith(but again hardlya borrowing rom) Ep. VII326b.39 Leisegang's ndex, under Plato,listsover 3 columnsof Platoniccitations,allusions,orparallels,drawn from Tim.,Phr., Laws,Rep., Tht.,Crat.,Gor.,Symp.,Meno, Phd.,Phil.,Prot.,Ap., Menex.,Sph.,Ion.Axiochus,and Eryxias approximateorderof importance nPhilo).40 e.g. Ebr. 166-205,Jos. 125-147,Fug. 135-6, 188-193,206, Spec. 1.333-343,Prov. fr. ,Opif.72, Her.247.41 e.g. Sac. 12-13, but the notion of a divine revelation,of a higherkind than human'knowledge', s fundamentalthroughoutPhilo'swritings.42 See R.M. Jones, 'Posidonius and the Flight of the Mind', CP. 21 (1926), 97-113,particularly101-7.43 Albinus,Epitome,ed. P. Louis (Paris,1945).44 Dom. 8, Im. 16, Iup.Tr.8.45 But since John Whittakerdemonstrated hatthereareno good grounds or attributingthe Didascalicus o Albinus (Phoenix28 (1974),320ffand 450ff) one cannotinsistthatitbelongs to the mid-second centuryA.D. Often the date of its source material is morerelevant.Stylometrycan at leastreveal partsof theworkwherethesentence-lengthdropswell below the 24-25words persentence-unitwhich characterizehe lessoriginal(?)partsfairlyconsistently.These are chapters 1 (surelythe author's own introduction);9.3 (p.163.28 Hermann)to II (wherenew materialon IdeasandGod, as well as a digressiononqualities, has presumablybeen introduced);about the last half of 14 (time and theplanets);18-22 probablya pr6cisof the source);24-25(extramaterialon thesoul);26(onfate: like 24-25 not foreshadowed n the divisionof philosophyin chapter3); 28 (up-to-date materialon assimilationtoGod); 30-33(original,or sourcemodified?);and 35-36(adigressionon the Sophist,and the author'sconclusion).Averagesentencelengthin theseparts areas follows: I - 17.83,9b - 11.64,10- 13.70,11- 12,88,14b - 20.13, 18 - 22.56,19 -20.76, 20-22 - 15.21, 24- 17.22, 25 - c.15.49-17.91, 26 - 15.94, 28 - 17.05, 30 - 17,90, 31 -16.13,32 - 15.68,33 - 19.21,35-36- 17.00.I suspectthattheauthor'sownnaturalsentencelengthwas around 17 wordson average,droppinga littlewhen presentingarguments as96


23/29

a 9b-l I and 24-25).There remainchapters2-9.2, 12-17(except part of 14),23 (Timaeus-based like 12-22,and no doubt from the same source),27, 29, and 34 (politics).It shouldbe noted that 12 is known to stem fromArius Didymus(Diels, Dox. p. 447) or fromsomeclosely related source. Minordiscrepanciesbetween 9b-11and partswith longer averagesentence-lengthconvince me that the work is not homogeneous. If I am broadlycorrect,then the passagewhich speaksagainst Ideas of artefacts 163.22-27Hermann)falls onlyjust within the unoriginalmaterial: so close to new material that the author would haveexcised it if it had been out of date. It is interesting hat the passage which I regardas thebestcandidate for dependence upon the digression of Ep. VII falls in chapter 1,which Ipresumeto be original:xai r p6o8tx0ol0)VT)V r ITE UXFVOXLX cov.ITpOoEL,,poVaL 8avTCJxai EVr6&ELavvi iLV't[uv. ompare344a. This maybe an argument n favour of thefinal work'shaving stemmed fromthe late secondcenturyA.D.46 cf. G.R. Morrow,Studies in the PlatonicEpistles (Urbana. 1935) p. 26: 'for Plutarchwas obviously as convinced that they were the writings of Plato as he was convinced oftheirvalue as historicalsources'.47 e.g. 4.5 ('S ax'Trs y&ypatE HX&?Wv),11.3 (as cpnoIVavr6s). 18.9 (oVi7w pv bi qrqatv6HX&rwv), and several less striking instances.48 ThecomparisonwithNepos and Diodorus is instructive, f. Gulley(lOc.cit. n. 4 above)p. 108: only Plutarchpays anysubstantialattentionto the partplayedby Plato.AndonlyPlutarchrefers to the Epistles'49 Bude text, ed. R. Flaceli0reand E. Chambry(Paris, 1978).50 Note thatPlutarchappears o have defendedPhilo of Larissa'sOne-Academythesis ina lost treatise(LampriasCat. no. 63). His worksappear to show a loyalty to Arcesilausand Carneadesas well as to Plato. On the earlyMiddle Platonicview of Plato as one whoconcealed his doctrine see below, p. 86.11 Quaest.Plat. I (999c-1000e) and fragments215-7.52 It would appear from the De Defectuthat Plutarch nheritsfromTheodorusof Soli hisinterest n the possibilitythat there are five worlds ratherthan one. There is, of course,nothing in the Timaeus o suggestthat Platohad some special affectionfor the notion offive worlds, and explanation must be sought elsewhere for Theodorus'interest in thequestion. It is possible that he had been stimulated by Old Academic texts, for a quaintinterest in five physical bodies in five regions of the universe with five correspondingtypesof divinity appears n the Epinomis 984b2ff) ust as there are five typesof matter nSpeusippus(see below, n. 63).53 See also my discussion of Theodorus in relation to Speusippus and the PlatonicParmenides,Phronesis 19 (1974), 130-145.Theodorus' date is unfortunatelynot known,but his interest n mathematicalaspectsof Plato's Timaeus s also attestedat De A n. Proc.1022cd and 1027d. My inclination is to place him after Crantor and Clearchus of Soli(whose views he seems to be replying to at 1022d),yet beforeEudorus,who appearsto bethe source of muchof the historicalmaterialon the interpretation f thepsychogony(see1013b, 1019e, 1020cwith H. Cherniss'note b, Loeb ed. p. 300).54 Twice at Didascalicus10(p. 164.27-30 Hermann);Aetius 1.7.31 (p. 304a1-2, b23-24Diels); MaximusTyrius Or. 29.7g (cf. 4.9d 'Who is helmsman,who general, who law-giver, who yeWpY6scf. Numen. fr. 13 des Places], who householder?').It may also berelevant that both the physical chapters of Didasc.(14-15) and Aetius 1.7.31appear toattribute ive ordersof divinity to Plato:Father-Creator,phere of fixed stars Didasc.)orintelligible (Aetius), astrals, element-powers, and earth (Didasc.) or all-embracingcosmos (Aetius). The lists are very different from the five kinds of God which are

97


24/29

associated with the five elements at Epinomis984b2ff, whose obvious influence on theauthor of Didasc. (see L. Taran, Academica:Plato, Philip of Opus, and the Pseudo-Platonic Epinomis (Philadelphia, 1975), pp. 161-4)was probably not direct;other un-knowninfluenceswere at work too.55 Ideas arerelated to God, the Ideas themselves,us (quasouls?), the sensible world, andmatter at Didasc. 9 (p. 162.12-16 Hermann).I draw attention to what I believe to be arelated five-fold metaphysicalpattern in Numenius (fragments 13, 16, 18, and 22 desPlaces= 22, 25, 27, and T25 Leemans) nAntichthon13(1979), pp.26-28. In thePrologusof Albinus(6, p. 150.15ffHermann)and the Introductio f Theon Smyrnaeus,both fromthe second century A.D., are relatedtheoriesof a five-fold Platoniceducation-process.Theon's account likens this processto progress n a mystery-religion p. 14.18ffHiller),but barely a trace of religious language is found in Albinus, the initial catharticstagebeing seen in relation to medicinerather han religion.Indeed the chiefpoint of contact sthe number of stages, a number which receives more emphasis in Theon, who alsoemphasizes the number of five mathematical sciences (used at the cathartic stage),relating them to the five-fold purification ?) of EmpedoclesB143 (p. 15.9ff).A commoninfluence seemsto have determinedboth the numberof stages andthecatharticnatureofthe firststage in bothauthors,and it must be Theon who is most indebted to it: for(a) heis inclined to excerpt the works of others, and (b) the passage has not been reworkedsufficientlyto adaptitwell to the context, while only the firststage isreally relevant o hismathematical subject. Since Thrasyllus is an important influence on Theon (see p.47.18ff, 85.8ff,87.8, 93.8, and 205.5at the conclusion:cf. J. Dillon, The MiddlePlatonists(London, 1977),pp. 397-8), and is well-known to, but not veryinfluentialupon, Albinus(p. 149.12-17),he may well be Theon's source and a passing influenceon Albinus. Notethat Theon (like Albinus' Prologus) was concerned with the Thrasyllansubject of theorder of the Dialogues (see al-Nadim, Fihrist, trans. B. Dodge (New York, 1970), pp.592-4 = pp. 245-6 Fliigel), and is committed to the notion of tetralogies.MaterialinPlutarch'sDe Iside on Horus as five (374ab)which relates to De E 387e and De Defectu429d-fsuggeststhat there may be some five-foldunderlyingmetaphysicrelating oOsiris,Osiris'efflux, Typhon, Isis, and Horus in the platonizingaccountof 37la ff, but the issueis complex.56 'The Parmenidesof Plato and the Originsof theNeoplatonic One',CQ.22 (1928), pp.129-142;cf. J.M. Rist, 'The Neoplatonic One and Plato'sParmenides',TAPA. 93 (1962),389-401.$7 I am aware that many modern scholars of Plato prefer to divide the positivehypotheses into four (with 155e4-157b5being regarded,with Cornford,Plato and Par-menides London, 1939), p. 194, as a corollaryof hypothesis 2), counter-balancing hefournegative ones. But unless the words"ETLi ToTpirovX)ywgv (155e4)are themselvesan early Middle Platonicaddition to the text it seemsthat Platowould have countedfive,and there seems to be a little evidence thatSpeusippusdid so too (see Tarrant,oc.cit.(n.53above), 138ff).FranklyI do not see how Moderatus'nterpretation ould haveevolvedwithout the existence of some tradition (written rather than oral) of five separatehypotheses.58 The evidence for Moderatus'views is to be found in a report,via Porphyry,at Simpl.In Phys. p. 230.34ff (Diels). It may be possible to claim thatPorphyry s responsibleforadulterating hepassagewithNeoplatonicelements,thusreadingan interpretation f theParmenides nto Moderatus;but I would join Dillon (op. cit. [n. 55 above] p. 349) inresisting such a suggestion, not least because I see Neoplatonism, and Porphyry's98


25/29

Neoplatonism in particular,as having evolved from Middle Platonismand Neopytha-goreanism,particularly n respectof Platonic nterpretation.59 The notion of a One beyond being goes back at least as far as Speusippus fr.34e Lang= 57 Isnardi Parente = F43 Taran; cf. Proclus, In Parm. ed. R. Klibansky and L.Labowsky London, 1953),pp. 38-40 = fr. 62 I-P = F48 T, and Iamb.De Comm.Math.Sc. 4 p. 17.7-8 Festa). Taran'sattempt to detach this doctrine fromSpeusippus,claimingthat the wordsW"UTE 6E Vvt LvaL To 'Ev OVXT6Arist.Met. 1092a14-15)areonly Aristotle'sopinion of where Speusippus'system ought to lead, and do not at all reflectSpeusippus'own view, is based upon the application of his privateschool-masterlyrules for Greekconsecutive clauses. How this could be a clause of intendedresult without it being theintention of Speusippus I fail to understand; ertainlyAristotlecannot have intended ucha result. MoreoverAristotlesimply has not been grantedthe premisesfor establishingsuch consequences for Speusippus'system.Pace Taran (Speusippusof Athens(Leiden,1981), 104-5 and 338-9), Aristotle's grammarestablishesonly that he is not reportingaclauseof actualresult(indicativeconstruction)usedby Speusippus;but there isno reasonwhy Speusippusshould have preferred he indicativeconstruction o the infinitive con-structionin the firstplace; the latter is appropriatewheneverone would wish to expressthe naturalresult, the resultthattendsto follow(Goodwin, GreekGrammar 450).TarAnalso triesto show thatotherAristotelian estimonyprovesthatthe SpeusippeanOne wasan entity in the normal sense of the word; the testimony is forced into yielding infor-mationon matterswhichAristotledid not intendtocommentupon, let alone tryto reportaccurately. I hope to say more on this topic in a review for Classical Philology. It isdifficult to interpret the passage in Proclus,but it is clear enough that NeoplatonistsassociatedSpeusippus (i) with the Parmenidescf. fr.61 I-P = F49b T = Porphyry ?)InParm.fr. I) and (ii) with a One beyond being. The lamblichanpassage mayperhapsbe areworkingof Speusippean doctrine ratherthan Speusippus'own words(Taranp. 107;IsnardiParente nAthenaeum53(1975), 88-110),buttheSpeusippeanelement can hardlyhave been derived fromAristotlepace Taran. It is inconceivablethat the periodof greatPythagorico-Platonicnterest in the mathematicalpassages of Plato'sworks which prec-eded thestudies of Plutarchand Theon Smyrnaeuswouldhave failed to have recourse osuchof the works of Speusippuson mathematicsas had survived.Rist (loc. cit. [above. n.561p. 390) oversimplifieswhen claiming that the system of Speusippus was a dualism,without a single universalcause, and thuswithout significantinfluence on 'Neo-Pytha-goreanism' thewordis not yetwell understood).Hadhe looked moreclosely atAristotle,Rist might have been persuadedthat Speusippus too had distinguishedbetween One(henadic) and One (monadic), cf. pp. 395-7 on Proclus,Theon, and Eudorus;for Tarannotes that Aristotle sometimes 'substitutes' monad for Speusippus'One, but not forPlatonistOnes in general (p. 36). For Monadseems to signify the One (one?) in a purelyarithmetical role as joint-principle with multiplicity (Met. 1092a29, Top. 108b29),whereasthe One is sometimes seen as somethingmore fundamental,a starting-point orall classesof substance(Met. 1028b21-24= fr.33aL,40 I-P,F29a T), each of whichhasonlyonetrulyseparateprinciple(ibid.,cf. De Comm.Math.Sc. . 16.20-22,17.5,17.13-19),thisbeing the materialprinciple.When the One is consideredas anelementof theclass ofnumber,and only then, it appears in the guise of the monad (cf. De Comm.Math.Sc. p.17.14-15: 's iv &pLOIO6Spv&&BaoTr TO'EV,O'v'rsartyLyv vypouLRois. .). Consequentlywhen Aristotlediscusses the notion of a primaryOne in Speusippus,priorto otherones(Met. 1083a24-27= fr.42L, 76 I-P,F34 T), he cannotreferto a 'monad'priorto monads,even though his argumentfromanalogywith thedyad and triadwould havebeen greatly

99


26/29

strengthenedby that term. The One has beenhypostatizedby Speusippus n a waywhichprinciplespeculiarto a single class were not; for the One was a generalprincipleof 6vica(De Comm.Math.Sc.p. 15.9),which is preciselywhy the One, but never (explicitly)anyprinciplepeculiarto a class, cannotbe an iov tself.60 On his use of Eudorussee n. 53 above; also Dillon (op.cit.[n.55above]p. 116). ButifPlutarchuses Eudorusas a basic source, why'doeshe not give Eudorus' nterpretation f35ab?His attitudeto Xenocratesand Crantor 1013b) is compatiblewith his havingbeenamong oiLTrpiHOLt8WVLOV1023b). These must have found attractiveelements in OldAcademic theories: the epistemologicalconsiderationsin Crantor, Xenocrates'use ofOne and Many. Eudorus,I think, associatedthe latter with Same and Differentratherthan with Indivisibleand Divisible. My suspicionstemsfrommy regarding1024d(1vSeTo 0rTEpov. .) and sequel as once more Eudoran;for P. Thevenaz,L'Amedu Monde,LeDevenir,et la Mati&rehezPlutarque Paris, 1938),p. 82, noted that Plutarch eems hereto derive Rest and Motion from Same and Other (1025a), whereas he had alreadycriticizedXenocrates (1013d) for such an assumption.Note too that the dual nature ofcognition,whichis herethoughtto dependupon Same andOther, s earlier, n Plutarch'sown criticismof Posidonius(1023d-4b),said to depend upon Indivisibleand Divisible.Finally let us note that Plutarchnow defines Same and Other as 'Idea of things in thesame state' and 'Idea of things in a differentstate' (1025c), but that such definitionsarereminiscentof the Posidoniandefinition of soul as 'Idea of the all-extended. . .' (1023b,afterSpeusippus'descriptionof the PlatonicWorld-Soul,fr.40 L = 96-97 I-P - 54 T:TarAn's ommentary s recommended); hisseems to use a senseof'Idea' which Plutarchhimselfcriticizesat 1023c. lt is difficulttosee how soul couldbe composedof Ideas n thenormalPlatonicsense, just as it could not be an Idea in sucha sense.]61 See Dodds, loc.cit.(above, n. 56); Rist. loc.cit.p. 397, sees the evidence in a differentlight, and therefore regardsModeratusas the first to make substantialuse of the Par-menides;Eudorus,he claims,394-8,was dependentratherupon the Philebus I 5ab).Butthis is a passagewhich features prominently n Proclus'commentaryon the Parmenides(p. 779.22etc.). Risthas beenablyansweredbyJohn Whittaker, E'rixetva ovxaLovao;as,Vig. Christ. 23 (1969), 91-104, particularlyp. 98 n. 10. It should not be forgottenthatThrasyllus'having coupledPhil. with Parm. earlyin the thirdtetralogyguarantees hataclose connexion was seen between the two worksin his day. It is likely that Parm.wasthoughtto investigatethe firstprinciplequaOne, while Phil. examineditquaGood. ThePhilebus' iberal sprinklingof materialon One, Many, Limited,and Unlimited wouldalso have ensuredthat the two dialogueswould be seen in close relation.62 See Stob. Ecl. 2.55.13-21 (Wachsmuth):I presume that Arius is here continuing toemploy Eudoranmaterial(see CQ forthcoming,n. 136).Earlyuse of the Philebus n theinterpretationof Plato's mathematicalmetaphysicshas been postulatedby Rist (n. 61,above) and linked by him with Eudorus.Certainlyone can say that Theon of Smyrna,Intr. p. 21.14-16, gives evidence of early interest in the dialogue. He can scarcelybeoriginalat this point,for earlier n the chapter p. 18.3ff,19.7ff,and 19.22ff)hiswordsarealmost identicalwith those of Moderatus Stob.Ecl. 1.1.8-9); he likeliestcommonsourceis Thrasyllus.63 See above, n. 53.64 Of Plato in Plutarch'sDe AnimaeProcreatione nd in his famous emendationto thetext of Arist.Met. 988a 10-1I (Alex.Aphr.ad loc.); of Socrates,Plato, Pythagoras,andAristotlein the 'problems'following his division of ethics (Stob. Ecl. 2.45.7ff); of thePythagoreans n Simpl. In Phys. p. 181.10ff(Diels); of Aristotle(criticismratherthan100


27/29

interpretation) n sundry partsof Simpl. In Categ.;reportsof the physicsof Posidoniusand Diodorus (possiblyof otherstoo) in Achilles Inir.adAratum.65 I thinkparticularlyof those reportsmentionedin n.64 which concernedPlatoand/orPythagoras.66 Dillon, op.cil. (above, n.55), p. 115.67 Eudorus s habitually regardedas a 'dogmatist',and thisview arisesfrommodernuseof the simplistic sceptic-dogmatistdichotomy. While dogmawas then a term for 'doc-trine', not all who had doctrines could be called 'dogmatic' today, nor was dogmainconsistentwith a New Academic position. 'Sceptic'still did not mean anything likewhat we mean by the term, as maybe seen in certainpassagesof Philo of Alexandria e.g.Ebr. 202), cf. K. Janacek, ListyFilologicke102(1979), 65-68; butJanacekpays too littleattentionto traces of the emergent newmeaningat Fug.209 and Congr.52, anddoes notappear to know QG. 3.33 where that new meaning is already the school-name of thePyrrhonists.The fact is that though Eudoruswas not a 'sceptic',this cannot be used toprovethat he was not following New Academictraditions, orneitherPhiloof LarissanorCharmadaswere 'sceptics' see Tarrant, oc.cit.n. 16and loc.cit.n. 18above). I attributeasimilar position to Eudorus n CQ 1983.68 Cic. De Oratore 1.84, ND. 1.11, Ac. 2.60.69 568c, 574f; I can offer no opinion hereas to the identityof the author.70 He appearsto have been responsible or the view that Platowasof many voices,not ofmany opinions: Stob. Ec. 2.49.25-50.1(with Heeren'ssuppl.),also 55.6.On its Eudoranorigin see H. Dorrie, PlatonicaMinora(Munchen, 1971), pp. 159-160.I like to compareanon. In Thi.59.12-21, where it is saidthatPlato'smeaningis not statedin his 'inquiries',but that it nevertheless reveals tself imperceptibly o thoseacquaintedwithhis methods.71 One cannot be certain of his source here; Thrasyllus had been followed from themiddle of 56 to the middle of 61, perhapsvia Favorinus,who is mentionedas a sourceatthe end of 62. All of 63-64 would appear to come from a single source.72 If I am correct, the forger has been inspired by the reference to others who wereiTopoxovaUtT0v Twvi:v 9p4LEOTOLTrV xa/r qptXoaoqiav at 338d3, so that he develops thistheme at 340b6-7 and 341a8-b5 using similarterminology 'rrap&xovaRa,napaxoA).Thatsuch terminologyshould be used three times within three Stephanus pages, but nowhereelse until the firstcentury B.C., gives an unexpectedly technical ring to the languageof'Plato'.73 op.cil. (above, n.l.), p. 73.74 The reader is referred o Zeller,Ph.Gr.I i6 p. 400.75 Butsee J. Glucker, Antiochusand the lateAcademy GOttingen,1978),pp. 122-3.76 Suet. Tib. 14, 62; Tac. Ann. 6.20 ff; Dio 55.11.1-3, 57.15.7, 58.27.1: presumingthatTiberius' Thrasyllus is not a different person from the Platonic scholar as has beenthought by some (e.g. Grote, Furneaux). Such a view, however, s calledinto question bya scholiaston Juv.6.576, who clearly dentifies thePlatonistwith thecourtastrologer,andthereseems no reason to challenge the accuracyof his information.Note that Thrasyllusexercised some influence over Tiberius (Suet. Tib.62), but that he reportedlywas luckyenough to survive murderous intentions on the partof Tiberius (ibid. 14, Dio 55.11.2).Thus it may be said that his relationshipwithTiberius was stormy enough to rival that ofPlatowith Dionysius.77 Or so it appears in the Epit. Diog., on which see Glucker, op. cit. (above, n. 75), pp.349-350.78 It seems to me that it is quitecontrary o the spiritof the Dialogues tospeak of taLur11L

101


28/29

and vovsas belongingto a q)poas. . srrpvxviaipavXs(343de), and that such words werenot uninfluencedby Academic 'scepticism'.79 Cic. Ac. 1.13.80 e.g. Prov.fr. ; see CQ 1983.81 It is currently fashionable to suppose the influence of Eudorus on Philo, e.g. W.Theiler, Philovon Alexandriaund der Beginndes kaiserzeitlichenPlatonismus',Parusia,Festschriftur J. HirschbergerFrankfurt,1965),199ff.82 Although our forger s here speaking (in theory) of the knowledgeof Ideasin general,it is clear that he thinks particularlyof the knowledge of true virtue, beauty, andgoodness: paradigmswhich one might expect to discernin the God to whichone likensoneself (cf. Tht. 176c).83 1 assumethat there is substance n the storiesof Strabo 13.54)and Plutarch Sulla26)concerningthe rediscoveryof the treatises n 86 B.C.,and theirsubsequentacquisitionbyAndronicus.84 Stob. Ec. 2.49.8 (Wachsmuth); he doctrinereappears n Albinus Prol.5-6 (pp. 150-1Hermann), Didasc. 28 (p. 181.16ffHermann),Apul.De Plat. 23 (p. 126.4ffThomas),andD.L. 3.78 (along with doxographic material in Clement Strom. 2.131.2ff andTheodoretus).85 'The Date of Anon. In Theaetetum,CQ (forthcoming).86 Anon. first refersto a criterion throughwhich we judge like a tool' (2.23-26),and that'by which' (26-27) should perhapsbe regardedas differentfromthis; for, to judge fromTht. 184d,it should be the mind as opposed to the senses: moreover3.7-12 suggestthatanon.does not allow accuracy o the senses, as he does to the criterion bywhich'.87 See 3.21-25(cf. 15.16-23);Meno 98a.88 47.45ff, up to and including 56.26-31. The Meno's mathematical episode is alsomentionedat 28. 43ff.89 The revelation-process s not, I think, ncompatiblewith the theoryof recollection,andknowing-the-ldea becomes knowing-the-causeif one chooses to regard the Ideas ascauses. However it is not necessary to read such theories into the digression.On the'categories'Tnoi6VLand ov or T;(342eff) and their possiblerelationto Meno 86e-87bseeabove, p. 88.90 anon. Cols. 3. 61, 63 etc.91 anon. 4.31-5.3,9.30ff; Ep. 343e-344a.92 anon. 7.14-20,cf. 58.39ff; Ep. 343e-344a.93 Celsus in Origenc.Celsum6.18(p. 331 Chadwick),JustinApol. 1.60.7,Clement Strom.5.103.1et al.; Dillon op.cit. (above, n.55) p. 367 thinks thatNumenius may have knownthe passage,and notes its use by Apuleius (p. 313).94 Or World-of-Ideas as a single entity with H.J. Kramer,Der Ursprungder Geistme-taphysik Amsterdam,1967), p. 221 n76; much depends upon whetherthem?piof 312e3and 4 should be read with the precedingsingulars understanding aaLXeaperhaps)orwith the pluralswhich follow (as I prefer).95 Orthe ensouled Cosmos withKramer;again the questionraised n n.94 aboveapplies.96 See above, n.58.97 My theoryis that Speusippusfirst wroteof Plato's nterest n seeingfive metaphysicallevels in the Parmenides, nd perhapsof a widersignificanceof thatnumberto the Platowhom he knew. The early commentatorson the mathematical aspects of Plato whoflourishedup to Theon's time made use of Speusippus n theirinterpretations, nd triedto recreate he vision whichlay beneaththe Parmenides.The digressionof Ep.11 s in my102


29/29

view part of this later search for the vision behind the Parmenides,and I find it mostinteresting hat John Glucker (op.cit. above, n.75],pp. 40-47)hasrecently ried to relate tto thiswork in particular.His explanationof the 'youngand beautiful Socrates'of 314c isvery attractive,but only if he does not persist n hisattemptto see the statementthat thereexists no Platonicwritingas a statementwithoutqualification(p. 43). The passage surelymeans that there is no Platonicwritingabout the supreme principlesof mathematicalmetaphysics,but that what is now being talked about (Parmenides) s the productof ayouthful Socrates. [The fact that 'Parmenides'questions'Aristotle' n the second partofthe work need not, I think,botherus.]98 1 do not see Glucker's alleged differencesbetween the two digressions see previousnote).99 op.cit.(above, n.l.), pp. 95-99.100 See TarAn,op.cit. (above n.54), p. 153 n. 660.101As in the doxographical radition Aetiusetc., see above, n. 12), n Seneca Ep.65.7-10,in Nicomachus of Gerasa, Introductio (p. 9.Hoche),and in the Didascalicus 9, p. 163.13etc. Hermann).102 Typical Platonic terminology,e.g. Euthphr.6e5.103 fr.14des Places,see above, n. 13.104 Tht. 176b,Rep. 613ab, Tim.90a-d.105 See n.84 for references.106 e.g. anon. In Thi. 46.43-49, Cic. Fin. 5.59: sine doctrinanotitiasparvas.107 The assimilation-processrecognized by Middle Platonists was generally seen asinvolving a God within the heavens, akin to the intellectof the PlatonicWorld-Soul,seeDidasc. 28 (p. 181.36-37Hermann), Eudorus in Stob. Ecl. 2.49.8ff.(Wachsmuth),andperhaps Albinus, Prol. 5 (p.150.8-12Hermannwith Tim.90a-d).108 The Ideas areoften numbers n the mind of God (e.g. Seneca and Nicomachus,lociscit., [above, n.101]), and the processoften involves attuning oneself to the harmoniesofthe heavens as at Tim. 90a-d.109 My thanks to the editor for some welcome and constructivecomments.

103

Middle Platonism and the Seventh Epistle Harrold Tarrant

Documents

Transcript of Middle Platonism and the Seventh Epistle Harrold Tarrant