Albinus, Alcinous, Arius Didymus

128 Pages·1995·10.689 MB·English

by  Tryggve Göransson

STUDI A GRAECA ET LAT INA
GOTHOBURGENSIA
LXI
ALBINUS, ALCINOUS, ARIUS DIDYMUS
by
Tryggve Goransson .
ACTA UNIVERSITATIS GOTHOBURGENSIS
To the memory of
Ole L. Smith
© Tryggve Goransson 1995
Distributors:
ACT A UNIVERSIT AT IS GOTHOBURGENSIS
Box 5096, S-402 22 Goteborg, Sweden
ISBN 91-7346-282-9
ISSN 0081-6450
Printed in Sweden by Ekblads, Vastervik 1995
Acknowledgements
I wish to express my gratitude to those who have helped me with this
book.
Karin Hult and Daniel Ridings have with admirable patience and
attentiveness read the successive drafts of my chapters and suggested
innumerable improvements. Karin Hult has also made an invaluable
contribution to tl}e final preparation of the manuscript for printing.
Professor Monika Asztalos has made many important suggestions for
clarification. Jon van Leuven has corrected my English. The staff of the
University Library has been constantly helpful.
The present study was begun many years ago under the late Profes
sor Cajus Fabricius. I benefited greatly by his scholarly acumen and his
invariably pertinent criticisms. For various reasons the work came to a
standstill for several years. I would probably never have taken it up
again, had it not been for the inspiration and encouragement I experi
enced from Professor Ole L. Smith, who assured me that the study was
worthy of being completed. It is still difficult for me to fully realize the
sad fact that he will never read the finished book.
Contents
Abstract
Title: Albinus, Alcinous, Arius Didymus (Studia Graeca et Latina
Gothoburgensia LXI)
Author: Tryggve Goransson
1. Introduction
University: Gc>teborg University, Department of Classical Studies,
Division of Greek The heritage of 1879
The aim of the present study
ISBN 91-7346-282-9
Principles for citations
ISSN 0081-6450
GAIUS AND ALBINOS
The common view of the Platonism of the early centuries of the Roman
empire has long been heavily influenced by the consequences of two
2. The testimonies for Gaius and Albinus
identifications established in 1879, namely that of the Platonist Albin us
with the author of the Didaskalikos, who in the manuscripts is called Al
3. Gaios and Albinos: biographical facts
cinous, and that of Augustus' court philosopher Arius with the doxogra
pher Arius Didymus. The former identification has now been generally Chronology
abandoned by scholars, but much work must still be done to clear up its Place of activity
consequences. The latter has not been seriously put to the test. Nigrinus
The present study consists of three parts, the second and third of
which are partly overlapping: 4. Gaius and Albinos: writings
( 1) An evaluation of the safely attested testimonies for Albinus and
The texts once contained in Parisinus graecus 1962
his teacher Gaius, with regard to the biographical facts and the writings
The Prologos
of the two. A suggestion is made for a reconstruction of the corrupt list
of the Platonic dialogues found in Albinus' Prologos and of his classifi 'Concerning the Incorporeal'
cation of the dialogues. Commentaries on Plato: some preliminaries
(2) An investigation of the character of the Didaskalikos and of the The canon of Coislinianus 387
relations between this text and Apuleius' De Platone and Arius Didy On the Phaedo
mus, respectively. It is found that both the Didaskalikos and the De Pia
•Y rcoµVTIJ.Lor:oW:f ou
tone build on many sources, of which only a summary of Platonic ethics
On the Timaeus
is common to the two, and that the Didaskalikos cannot be proved to be
Albinus in Stobaeus
dependent on Arius Didymus.
(3) An examination of the arguments for the received opinion on
5. Albinu.<;c' lassification of the Platonic dialogues
the identity of Arius Didymus and on his work and his influence. It is
demonstrated that the identification of the doxographer with the court Diogenes Laertius' classification
philosopher is groundless, and that at least one of the texts attributed to Some textual problems
Arius Didymus was in all probability not written by him. The list of dialogues
Albinus' division
Key words: Albinus, Alcinous, Gaius, Apuleius, Arius Didymus, Arius,
Stobaeus, Eudorus, Middle Platonism, Platonic corpus, commenta
ries, doxography, division of philosophy, telos.
THE DIDASKALIKOS ARIUS DIDYMUS
>.T he Didaskalikos: a work of many sources 105 10. The identity of Arius Didymus 203
Divergences in style and format 106 Arius Didymus the doxographer 204
Announced disposition later ignored 110 Arius the court philosopher 208
Previous treatment presupposed or ignored 118 Arius Didymus the court philosopher and doxo 211
Contradictions in doctrine and terminology 120 grapher
An attempt at summing up 129 Conclusion 218
The compilator 132
11. The Didyman texts: a stating of the problems 219
'. lne Didaskalikos and De Platone I 137
Background and questions of method 137 12 ·Epilogue 227
Division of philosophy 141
Metaphysics 143 Index locorum 232
Cosmology 147 243
Bibliography
Anthropology 152
Conclusion 156
. The Didaskalikos and De Platone II 157
The structure of the ethical sections 157
Division of the good 160
Virtues and vices 164
Friendship and love 172
The vicious and the sage 175
The telos 176
Politics 178
Conclusion 181
The Didaskalikos and Arius Didymus 182
The common opinion 182
Doxography A and the Didaskalikos 186
Arius Didymus Fr. 1 Diels and Didaskalikos 12 196
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
The heritageo f 1879
The year 1879 is a momentous date in the history of the research on
what we now call 'Middle Platonism'.
From antiquity there are preserved two works of introduction to
Plato, rather different as regards both extent and content. One, a short
account of the Platonic dialogues, indicating how they should be clas
sified and in which order they should be read, is found at the beginning
of some Plato manuscripts. The little treatise bears the title 'AAJ3tvou
lfp6:.\oycx;. The author, Albinus, is known from other sources to have
been active around the middle of the second century AD., and to have
been a pupil of the Platonist Gaius, who seems to have been a person
of some fame. Some, rather scanty, evidence for the teaching of these
two can be gathered from references in later authors.
The other introductory work, a rather detailed exposition of Plato's
doctrines in the different branches of philosophy, is in the manuscripts
entitled 'AA.KtV0O\J~ l0acrKaAtK0<;1; :WV lf:.\a-rwVtKWVoo yµa-rwv. The
author with the Homeric name Alcinous is otherwise unknown. The
only clue to his time of life, if we disregard two references in other
sources which might just possibly he to the same person, is furnished by
the contents of his treatise, which point to a time before Plotinus and
the emergence of Neoplatonism.
In 1879 Jacob Freudenthal, in a study entitled Der Platoniker Albi-
1ws und der falsche Alkinoos, not only tried to solve some textual prob
lems of Albinus' Prologos and elucidate Alhinus' classification of the
Platonic dialogues, but also set himself the task to prove that the myste
rious Alcinous was none other than Albinus and that the name Aki
nous in the manuscripts was simply due to a scrihal error. He substan
tiated this claim by comparing the two works with regard to style and
content, and by comparing the Didaskalikos to the ancient testimonies
for Albinus' doctrine.
There is a striking similarity between the opening section of chap
ter 12 of the Didaskalikos and an excerpt from the doxographer Arius
4 15
)idymus, preserved by Eusebius and Stobaeus. In the very same year and 170-171), both texts go back to the lectures of Gaius, which the two
,879 Hermann Diets, in his monumental edition of the Greek doxo authors, each in his own way, edited for a Greek and a Latin audience,
;raphical texts, established that Arius Didymus was beyond doubt the respectively. In the same year, yet another text was attributed to 'die
;ame person as the Stoic Arius, the court philosopher of Augustus, an Gaiische Schule',1 namely a newly discovered fragment of an anony
dentification which had already been made by August Meineke (1860). mous commentary on the Theaetetus (Diels 1905, xxxvii).
ln this way, the date and the intellectual environment of the doxogra Sinko's view of the close relationship between the Didaskalikos and
Jher became fixed. Diets furthermore laid down the still prevailing the De Platone was, despite some disagreement with regard to the
:>pinion on the extent of the preserved texts by Arius Didymus (most of details, accepted by Karl Praechter (1919, 558 = 1926, 546): 'De Plato
.vhich are anonymous in the manuscripts), and on the nature of the ne ... zeigt Schritt fur Schritt eine weitgehende ... Ubereinstimmung
relation between him and the Didaskalikos: Alcinous, as he was still mit Albinos' Didaskalikos, die sich nur aus einer nahen geistigen Ver
called by Diels, had copied Arius Didymus in the passage mentioned wandtschaft beider Autoren, namlich ihrer gemeinsamen Abhiingigkeit
and in all probability in other sections, too; possibly the whole work von der Lehre des Gaios, erkliiren liiBt.'2 For a long time, largely
derived from Arius Didymus (Diets 1879, 76). thanks to Praechter's authority, hardly anybody who wrote on Middle
The success of Freudenthal's and Diels' theses was probably to a Platonism doubted the validity of Sinko's results.3 From 'Albinus' and
large extent guaranteed by their being both immediately accepted by Apuleius the doctrines of Gaius could be reconstructed. 4 Where one of
Eduard Zeller (1880, 805 and 614-617, respectively), in the third edi the texts was silent, the other could supply the missing link. As soon as
tion of his Phi/osophie der Griechen.1 One can easily understand their these connections had been established, it was even possible to recon
attractiveness: instead of two authors (Alcinous and Arius Didymus), struct important doctrines of the 'Gaios-Gruppe' without any founda
about whom one knew nothing, and two philosophers (Albinus and the tion in the Didaskalikos. For instance, a particular adaptation of the
Stoic Arius), well defined with regard to both time of life and philo theory of oikeiosis was considered by Praechter (1916, 517-529; 1926,
sophical adherence, one had now only to reckon with the latter couple.
Proneness to prosopographical economy is a factor which has often
played a part in classical philology. to me to be still valid, despite the allempts lo prove Apuleian authorship made by Barra
(196(i) and Beaujeu (1973, ix-xxix).
We cannot here follow in all details the development that, slowly at
1 This is possibly the first occurrence of this or similar terms.
the beginning, led up to the long-prevalent conception of the 'Gaios 2 Praechter (1916, 510 n. 1) had previously expressed himself more cautiously:
Gruppe' or 'School of Gaius'.2 The next important date is 1905, when 'hochstwahrscheinlich ... dall Albinos und Apuleius ... in allem wesentlichen auf
Tadeusz Sinko, in his dissertation De Apulei et Albini doctrinae Platoni Gaios zuriickgehen.'
3 The label 'Middle Platonism' for the Platonism of the three centuries between the
cae adumbratione, professed to prove that there exists a very close rela
eclipse of the sceptical Academy and Plotinus was coined by Praechtcr (the first
tionship between the Didaskalikos and the two books of Apuleius' De
appearance of the term 'mittlerer Platonismus' is probably in Praechter (1918, 5371).
Platone et eius dogmate.3 According to Sinko (1905, passim, esp. 131 For the problematic nature of this designation, see the important discussion by Donini
(1990), in his review of the volumes of ANRW (2:36:1-2) devoted to the Middle Plato
nists. In the present study the term will be used as a practical designation for non
sceptical Platonism not showing signs of Plotinus' influence, and should not be under
1 Meineke's identification had already been accepted by Zeller (1865, 545) in his
stood as implying a specific form of Platonism with common characteristics.
second edition. 4 The reader might already have suspected that I, like most scholars today, do not
2 An excellent bibliographier aiso1111eise to be found in Mazzarelli (1980a and 1981). accept Freudenthal's ascription of the Didaskalikos to Albinus. In this book I will call
The relevant works from 1926-1986 (and some important earlier works) are listed in the author of the Didaskalikos Alcinous, when speaking for myself or reporting the
Deitz (1987). For works on Apuleius 1940-1990 we now have Bajoni (1992), not quite
views of scholars who call him Alcinous. When referring to the views of those who have
complete (notably, one misses Gersh (19861). The bibliography in Dorrie's RE article regarded Albinus as the author, it would obviously be impossible to say, e.g., that 'ac
'Albinos' (Dorrie 1970, 22), which pretends to be 'ab 1879 vollstandig,' is far from being
cording to Sinko Alcinous and Apuleius are both dependent on the lectures of Gaius.'
anything of the kind.
Since I am going to say much also about Albinus, the author of the Prologos, l will
3 In the present study the name Apuleius, unless otherwise stated, stands for the
therefore, to avoid confusion, use quotation-marks ('Albinus'), when reporting the
author of the De Plato11e.I do not thereby commit myself to a positive answer to the views of scholars who refer to the author of the Didaskalikos as Albinus.
question of authenticity. In fact, the 11011 Liquet conclusion of Redfors (1960, 117) seems
16 17
541) as one of the principal contributions by Gaius. He reconstructed think of Albinus himself as a philosopher? How could Proc!us (/n
this doctrine from the Theaetetus commentary and a textually disputed Remp. 2.96.10-13 K.) include this transcriber of a two-centuries-old
passage in Apuleius (see below, p. 162). In the Didaskalikos neither the doxography (composed by a Stoic) among the 'coryphaei of the Plato
word olKEtwat«;;n or the concept occurs. I nists'?
The character of the 'School of Gaius' that emerged from these Witt does not pay much attention to these questions, but he seems
combinations was one of far-going 'eclecticism',2 notably open to Peri fully prepared to sacrifice the 'Gaios-Gruppe'. 1 This is, however, not
patetic influence. It was commonly put in contrast to an anti-Aristote the common attitude in the following decades. Heinrich Dorrie, for a
lian group around Atticus. long time one of the most influential authorities on Middle Platonism,
We have not for a while paid attention to the other part of the is a representative case. It seems never to have been a problem for him
heritage of 1879, the Arius Didymus line. Hans Strache (1909, 84-100) to hold the Didaskalikos to be dependent on Arius Didymus while
was ,the first to combine Sinko's thesis with Diels' suggestion that the simultaneously using the work as the main source for reconstructing
Didaskalikos might be dependent on Arius Didymus for the most part. Gaius' teaching. In his RE article 'Albinos' he writes that the Didas
The total derivation from Didymus was maintained by Ernst Howald kalikos 'gibt ... dariiber, was A. an Besonderem lehrte, keine Auskunft'
(1920), who, however, belonged to the few dissidents who did not ac (Diirrie 1970, 17). Yet he keeps to the traditional view of the character
cept Freudenthal's thesis (see below, p. 18 n. 2). This 'Einquellen of the 'Gaios-Gruppe' (e.g. Diirrie 1976, 188-189: 'Die Gaios-Gruppe
hypothese' was most elaborately put forward by R. E. Witt in his study ... erkennt keinen Unterschied zwischen den Lehren Platons und Aris
Albinus and the History of Middle Platonism. According to Witt ( I 937, toteles' an'),2 apparently forgetting that this view is totally based on the
,1_03t_h)e Didaskalikos is 'd!rectly indebted ... to Arius Didymus,' and Didaskalikos and texts that have been claimed for the 'Gaios-Gruppe'
mt1mately connected ... with the De Platone of Apuleius.' because of their alleged similarity to the Dida~kalikos.
An embarrassing consequence, inevitably resulting from the com Some reactions against this approach to the Didaskalikos can be
bination of Freudenthal's and Diels' identifications, comes here to the noted, but they did not exert any influence. Thus, Pierre Louis (1945,
foreground. If the Dida1'kalikos, on one hand, is written by Albinus, the xx-xxi), in the preface to his edition of the text,3 thinks that the princi
pupil of the important Platonist Gaius, and the text, on the other hand pal source for 'Albinus' is neither Arius Didymus nor Gaius, but Plato,
din~ct_lyd eri':'es from a doxographical compendium, composed by ~ of whom the author has made direct and personal use.4 J. H. Loenen
Stmc m the first century B.C., what is left for Gaius? What should we
1 'That ... Gaius may exercise influence is not to he drnicd. But it must at the same
1 A lat_er example: a_d istinctive doctrine of Fate was claimed for Gaius by Theiler time2 Ohen ea dcmoiutltded thtihuakt tAharitu st hiasl ownea s wthoeu ldm ossutf feicxet reams eth ef osromuurclaet' io(nW ipttr o1d9u3c7ed, 11o8f ).t he tradi
( 1945). ll is to be found m Ps.-Plutarch, De Jato, Calcidius and Nemesius; the derivation
tional view of the 'eclecticism' of the 'Gaios-Gruppe', but it is surpassed by Merlan
from Gaius is inferred from similar thoughts in Apulcius; the treatment of Fate in the
(1967, 64): 'ohviously Aristotle is seen simply as a Platonist, the Sloa as a branch of Pla
Didaskalikos i~ quite different (see below, p. 151). In the same study Theiler puts for
tonism.'
ward a su~estm~ as to how _the ma~u~cript reading · AAKtv6ou (see above, p. B) might 3 fly preferring the title 'Emrnµfi, which appears at the end of the text in the two
be reconciled with the received opmrnn on the 'Gaios-Gruppe'. Theiler is convinced
principal manusnipts P (Par. gr. 1962) and V (Vindoh. phil. gr. 314), to the title L'.toaa
that the · A>..KivoU<~;o nfuted by Hippolytus of Rome in a work summarized by Photius
KOAtKa<a;t the beginning of the text in P (lhc heginning is missing in V), Louis unfortu
(~ee below,_ p. 135) 1s ~he author of the Didaskalikos, hut that constitutes a problem,
nately added to the confusion with regard to the titles of the works of Albinus and Alci
smce the D1daska/1kos1 s known to be written by Albinus. Since it is improbable that the
nous. An uninitiated reader would hardly guess that Albinus' Epitome (Louis 1945) is in
name had been corrupted_ as early as_i n Hippolytus' time (beginning of the third century
fact the same lext that in LSJ is referred to as Alcinous' lntroductio in P/atonem (in
A.O.), there arc, accordmg to Theiler, two possibilities: either the corruption of the
Hermann's edition (1853] the word Eiaayu,yii appears at lhe top of every other page,
name has happened, independently, twice in the textual transmission, 'odcr abcr
although the work in Hermann has the title L'i.toaaKci\tK6<;;)a, nd which is commonly
· A>..Klvou<w;; ar graphischc Grazisierung des ri\mischen Namens Albinus, der dem in
referred to as Alcinous' or Albinus' Didaska/ikos. In L<;J Alhinus' Prologos, too, is
Smyrna lebenden Professor oder seinen Studenten uicht ganz stilvoll erschien' (Theiler
called Jntroductio in Platonem, and many scholars (e.g. Merlan 1967, 64 n. 2; Dillon
1945, 69-70). The Albinian authorship is evidently now so firmly established that it is
1977, 2(i8 and 304; Baltes & Mann in Dbrrie 1990, 5B; Baltes 1993, 168; 183) refer to it
possible _to dispense with the very foundation-stone of the theory, the assumption of a
as Eiaaywyii (lsagogc), which is the tille in the older editions (see below, pp. 50-51).
manuscript error.
2 Ou this term, see the clarifying discussion hy Donini (1988h, esp. 28-30). 4 This theory is aptly dealt with by Chcrniss (1'149, 79).
18 19
(1956 and 1957) attempts to rehabilitate 'Albinus' as an original philo of Freudenthal's ascription were put forward by Giuseppe lnvernizzi
sopher, dependent neither on Arius Didymus nor on Gaius. (1976a, 1:154-156) and Claudio Moreschini (1978, 61-66), both without
The chapter on the 'School of Gaius' in John Dillon's book The knowledge of Whittaker, and more fully by Claudio Mazzarelli
Middle Platonists ( 1977) might, in one respect, be seen as the final sum (1980b).1 These arguments were answered, and the case for Alcinous
ming up of the traditional outlook, while in another, quite important, further substantiated, by Giusta (1986a, 170-193) and Whittaker
respect it marks a new beginning. Dillon (1977, 269) is still prepared to (1987a, 83-102). In the latter work the arguments for both sides are
view the Didaskalikos as 'essentially a "new edition" of Arius' On the clearly stated, and I have therefore not deemed it necessary to give an
Doctrines of Plato,' and he never really faces the problems this causes account of them here. Slowly but steadily the resuscitated Alcinous has
with regard to the teaching of Albinus and Gaius. obtained his right.2 By now the Albiniani seem to be easily counted.3 A
Dillon should, however, be given full credit for being the first to put
the thesis of Sinko to the test by a detailed comparison of the Didas
1 A remarkable attempt to eat the cake and have it was made by Tarrant (1985b).
kalikos and the De Platone (for the few earlier disbelievers, see below,
He accepts the manuscript reading of the author-name of the Didaskalikos and identi
p. 138). His conclusion is that the two texts differ in so many respects fies this Alcinous with one 'Alcinous the Stoic' mentioned by Philostratus (see below, p.
that they cannot derive from a common source, and that the similarities 133). This Stoic Aleinous is, however, supposed to have been 'not a schoolman, but a
that do exist should be attributed to a general school tradition. As complete philosopher; and no complete philosopher in the second century A.D. could
fail to take a great interest in Plato' (ibid., 89). By 'complete philosopher' ('general phil
regards Gaius, he then concludes, rather surprisingly: 'Only that which
osopher' ibid., 88; 'pan-philosopher' ibid., 95) Tarrant seems to mean a person who
is in Albinus and not in Apuleius can reasonably be claimed for Gaius, 'lives' his philosophy with an openness towards different philosophical schools, 'instead
and that turns out to be hardly worth claiming' (Dillon 1977, 340). Dil of merely "acting" the part of Plato through interpretation' (ibid., 94). This Alcinous is,
lon has himself demonstrated that there is in fact much in 'Albinus' that however, no other than Albinus, who after having been active as a Platonist teacher and
written commentaries on Plato 'experienced some revelation, whereby he ceased to be
is not in Apuleius, but how could this be claimed for Gaius, if the Di
a Platonic interpreter and began to live philosophy and to preach it' (ibid., 92), and in
daskalikos is 'essentially a "new edition" of Arius' On the Doctrines of connection with this 'rebirth' adopted 'a Greek name which better described his new
Plato'? role' (ibid., 94; cf. Theiler's suggestion, quoted above, p. 16 n. 1). This change of name
Neither Dillon ( 1977) nor D(jrrie ( 1970), in his RE article 'Albi is satirized by Lucian, when he calls the philosopher Nigrinus (ibid., 90-94; cf. below, p.
nos', 1 breathes a word about the fact that Freudenthal's thesis had by 42). I must confess that I find it hard to take this romance seriously. Apart from every
thing else, it is difficult to imagine why this reborn philosopher-preacher would care to
then been challenged by arguments worthy of consideration. There had sit down and write a Platonic doxography.
been some isolated dissidents in the preceding period,2 but the first to 2 One of the earliest converts was Donini (1974, 27 n. 68); it is rather surprising that
subject Freudenthal's arguments to an examination was Michelangelo in 1988 'for practical reasons' he uses the name Albinos (Donini 1988a, 118 n. 1).
Westerink (1976, 11 n. 10) 'returned to the traditional designation (sc. Alcinous) in or
Giusta (1960-61; 1967, 535-538 n. 3). His results were accepted and
der not to prejudice the issue,' though he by then still believed 'that Freudenthal was
corroborated by John Whittaker (1974). Their arguments were for long very probably right' (no reserve in Westerink 1990,v ii). Moreschini (1987, 481 n. 11) re
mostly either ignored or summarily dismissed.3 Arguments in defence tracted his previous opposition, and Mansfeld (1988, 92 n. 2) accepted, 'with some hesi
tation,' Giusta's and Whittaker's arguments, and was fully convinced in 1989 (see 'Ad
denda et Corrigenda' in Mansfeld (19891). Dillon went over between 1988 (cf. Dillon
1 A caveat must be given with respect to this article, which might be expected to pro 1988, 114) and 1989, but rather relnctantly (Dillon 1989, 58 n. 15: 'the Didaskalikos, ...
whether the author of that be Alcinous or Albinus'), and still in 1993 he does not seem
duce information on the factual evidence and the Forsclrnngslagc, but which in fact is
completely convinced (Dillon 1993, x.i:' I am ... prepared to accept that Freudenthal's
mainly a presentation of Diirrie's own view of the Didaskalikos, and as regards the ac
ingenious conjecture is, at the very least, not proven, and that the work cannot be confi
count of the evidence, especially for the Prologos, must be called a mine of disinforma
dently attributed to Albinus'). Nor is Balles (1993, 238-239) ready to take definite leave
tion. This is a harsh judgement, indeed, but regrettably it is just (for examples, see
above, p. 14 n. 2, and below, pp. 44 n. l; 50 n. I; 51 n. 2; 53 n. l; 60 n. 2). of Albinus; he prefers to refer to the author of the Didaskalikos as 'Alkinoos/ Albinos',
2 Shorey 1908; Howald 1920, 75 n. I; Jones 1926 ('corrected' by a meddlesome although in 1989, in his review of ANRW 2:36:1-2, he had found Whittaker's arguments
fully convincing (Baltes 1989, 178).
translator in Zintzen (19811); Schissel 1928, 107 n. 109; 1931, 220. It is also worthy of
3 It is therefore a strange experience to read in 1990 about 'die ehemals einem Alki
acknowledgement that the editors of LSJ never yielded to the overwhelming consensus.
3 E.g. Merlan 1967, 70 n. 3; Taran 1975, 164 n. 697; Dense 1983, 81 n. !; Moraux nous zuschriebene, heute aber iiberwiegend dem Albinus zurflckgegebene Einfflhrung
1984,4 42 n. 5. in die platonische Lehre' (Neschke-Hentschkc 1990, 14).
20 21
last abortive attempt at defending the traditional view was made by The stylistic arguments have been effectively exploded by Whit
Olaf Nusser (1991, 210-223). taker (1987a, 89-97). The parallels observed could in any case never
An interesting phenomenon, discernible also in other reactions to have proved more than that the two treatises were composed in a simi
the questioning of Freudenthal's thesis, becomes especially evident in lar jargon appreciated by philosophical writers.
Nusser's argumentation. Nusser and others along with him have not As regards similarities of doctrine, one must be aware of how
grasped what the point at issue really is, and what is the purport of extremely little has been preserved of Middle Platonic texts. Even if
Whittaker's (1987a, 85 n. 19) claim that the burden of proof rests with there were no known instances of a particular interpretation in other
those who challenge the manuscript evidence, not with those who do texts, this fact could not prove that the authors were identical. The
not challenge it. The conception of Albinus' authorship has in the points of divergence must therefore be assigned greater significance
course of time been so ingrained in the consciousness of the scholarly than the points of agreement. Now, it is evident from Giusta's and
society that those who point out the lack of foundation for it are re Whittaker's investigations ( 1) that there is in fact not one similarity that
garded as putting forward a new hypothesis and expected to prove that cannot be paralleled in other texts as well, (2) that the alleged simi
the Didaskalikos is not written by Albinus.1 The doctrinal incompati larities at a closer look in many cases turn out to be no similarities at
bility between some passages proves in fact, I would say, that the Didas all, and (3) that the Didaskalikos in some cases gives an interpretation
kalikos could not have been written by Albinus; but even if there had of Plato different from that attested for Albinus. But even if there had
not been any incompatibility there would be no reason to reject the been no divergences in doctrine, the similarities could never have
name given by the manuscripts until strong arguments for doing so had proved more than that the Didaskalikos, in the sections concerned, was
been put forward. What Giusta and Whittaker have done is simply to reflecting the same kind of Platonism as Alhinus.
demonstrate that no such strong arguments have been produced. It is evident that if the Didaskalikos had been transmitted under the
The arguments of Freudenthal and his supporters might be divided name of a writer known from other sources, neither Freudenthal nor
into three parts: anybody else would have hit upon the idea that the work belonged to
(1) Palaeographical arguments, i.e., arguments intended to show Albinus. The whole theory is caused by the fact that Alcinous is other
that the supposed corruption of 'AAj3i.vovi nto 'AAKtv6ov is plausible. wise unknown, and that by an unlucky chance he has a name similar
(2) Arguments from alleged stylistic similarities between the Didas enough to that of Alhinus to make it possible to suppose a scribal error.
kalikos and the Prologos. In the same study in which he launched the first attack on Freu
(3) Arguments from alleged identity of doctrine between, on one denthal's identification, Giusta (1960-6 l) restated the thesis of the
hand, the Didaskalikos, and on the other the Prologos and the ancient complete dependence of the Didaskalikos on Arius Didymus, although
testimonies for Albinus. it was now no longer a question of 'Albinus' hut of Alcinous. Giusta's
It is obvious that the palaeographical arguments could never be theories are further developed in his voluminous work / dossografi di
used to prove anything more than that the corruption could have taken etica (1964-1967), in which he tries to establish Arius Didymus as the
place. Even if it were a corruption of a kind prone to happen (which it only source for nearly all doxographical accounts from Cicero until the
is not, as Whittaker [1974, 453-456; 1987a, 84-85] has shown), there third century A.D., as well as in his later studies (Giusta 1986a and
would be no reason to suppose that it had in fact happened, unless 1986b ). His thesis is based on supposed traces in various texts, among
there were other strong reasons for rejecting the name of the author others the Didaskalikos and the De Platone (which he considers as
given by the manuscripts.2 closely connected as Sinko did), of Eudorus' division of ethics, which is
1 Cf. Niisser 1991, 218: 'lntcressant ist, daf3 sie nirgcndwo fiir sich reklamiercn, posi work is not written by Albinus: 'Gegen die fast einhiillig vertretenc Zuweisung ... wen
tive Beweise gegen die Verfasscridentitiit in der Hand haben zu wollcn.' det sich mit ncucn, vor allem paliiographischen Argumcnten J. Whittaker' (Deuse 1983,
2 Among those unwilling to accept Giusta's and Whittaker's arguments one often 81 n. l); 'Die paliiographischen Argumentc Whittakers-und nur diese-scheinen zu
meets the mistaken conception that the core of their argumentation is to be found in der Annahme zu zwingen, daf3 der Aulor des Didaskalikos ein sonst vbllig unbekannter
the palaeographical discussion, as if this discussion were intended to 'prove' that the Alkinoos ist' (Baltes 1993, 238).