plato at alexandria: aristophanes, aristarchus, and the

12 Pages·2006·0.13 MB·English

ClassicalQuarterly55.2423–434(2005)PrintedinGreatBritain 423
doi:10.1093/cq/bmi040
PLATO AT ALEXANDRIA: ARISTOPHANES,
ARISTARCHUS, AND THE ‘PHILOLOGICAL
TRADITION’ OF A PHILOSOPHER(cid:1)
The Alexandrian scholars, and Aristarchus of Samothrace in particular, are much
better known for their work on poetry, especially Homer, than for their work on
prose. That Homer was at the core of their interests is certainly true: the epics
were, after all, the basis of Greek culture and education. We also have much more
evidence for the Homeric studies of the Alexandrians. But this does not mean that
their activity was limited to Homer, or to poetry. With the publication of PAmh.
2.12 (third century A.D.), a papyrus preserving part of a commentary by
Aristarchus on Herodotus,1 we discovered that Aristarchus worked on at least one
proseauthor.2 HereIwouldlike topresent some newevidence and suggest that the
Alexandrians produced an edition of and acommentaryon Plato. If this hypothesis
iscorrect,itprovidesgoodevidenceforthebreadthofancientscholarship,andinpar-
ticularthatofAristarchus,a‘scientific’scholarwithwideinterestswhoemployeda
clearandconstantmethodology.Moreover,itgivesanewinsightintothestoryofthe
Platoniccorpusitself,whichseemstohaveundergoneaprocesssimilartoHomer’s,
despitethecleargenericdifferencesbetweenthesetwoauthors.
Among the glosses inthe Byzantine lexicawhichquote the name of Aristarchus,
two are particularly interesting. The first is preserved only by the Etymologicum
Genuinum:3
EGen.ou(cid:1)ke(cid:1)to´v:ou(cid:1)ke(cid:1)tw´ sion,ou(cid:1) ma´thn.a(cid:2)lloide` to` ou(cid:1)ke(cid:1)to`va(cid:1)nti` tou˜ ou(cid:1)ko(cid:2)ntwv,ou(cid:1)ka(cid:1)lhqw˜ v.
para` to` e(cid:1)to`n,to` a(cid:1)lhqe´v."ri´starcovde` le´geiou(cid:1)kei(cid:1)ko´twvkai` a(cid:1)naginw´ skeiou(cid:1)ke(cid:1)to´vkw(cid:3) vlou(cid:1)ke(cid:1)mo´v.
1 EGen. constitui ex A(240r) et B (199v) j le. ou(cid:1)ke(cid:1)to´v scripsi: ou(cid:2)ketov A:ou(cid:1)keto´v B j ou(cid:1)k
e(cid:1)tw´ sion om. B j ou(cid:1)k e(cid:1)to`v2 scripsi: ou(cid:2)ketov A: ou(cid:1)keto`v B j a(cid:1)nti` tou˜ om. A 2 e(cid:1)to`n B:
e(cid:1)teo`nA ou(cid:1)ke(cid:1)to´vscripsi:ou(cid:1)keto´vABjkw(cid:3) vladdidijou(cid:1)ke(cid:1)mo´vscripsi:ou(cid:1)kemo´vAB
[EGen.ou(cid:1)ke(cid:1)to´v(‘notwithoutreason’):‘notfruitlessly’,‘notinvain’;others(understand)ou(cid:1)k
e(cid:1)to´vas‘notreally’,‘nottruly’,frome(cid:1)to´n,whichmeans‘true’;Aristarchussays(thatitmeans)
‘notreasonably’andreadsou(cid:1)ke(cid:1)to´v(as)ou(cid:1)ke(cid:1)mo´v.]
* ThisisarevisedversionofpapersIpresentedatHarvard,ColumbiaandPrincetonuniver-
sities in 2004-05. I would like to thank the attendees for useful comments and suggestions;
thanksalsotoPatrickFinglass,EnricoMagnelli,andNigelWilsonforreadingandimproving
mydrafts.
1 Theendtitleispreserved:"rista´rcou/(cid:3)Hrodo´tou/a/u(cid:3)po´mnhma.
2 Cf.R.Pfeiffer,HistoryofClassicalScholarship:FromtheBeginningstotheEndofthe
HellenisticAge(Oxford,1968),224–5;F.Montanari,‘L’erudizione,lafilologiaelagramma-
tica’,inG.Cambiano,L.Canfora,andD.Lanza(edd.),LospazioletterariodellaGreciaantica
(3vols;Rome,1992–6),1.2L’Ellenismo(1993)235–81at248.
3 TheEtymologicumGenuinum,likemostByzantineEtymologica,ismainlyunpublished.
Theglossescontainingthefragmentsanalysedherehavebeencollatedbymeonthebasisof
the two existing manuscripts (A and B) in connection with my work on the fragments of
AristarchuspreservedintheByzantineEtymologica;cf.F.Schironi,IframmentidiAristarco
di Samotracia negli etimologici bizantini: introduzione, edizione critica e commento,
Hypomnemata152(Go¨ttingen,2004),frr.72–3.
ClassicalQuarterly55.2#TheClassicalAssociation2005;allrightsreserved
424 FRANCESCA SCHIRONI
Thelemmaou(cid:1)ke(cid:1)to´visanAtticexpressionwhichmeans‘notwithoutreason’,‘notin
vain’, where e(cid:1)to´v means ‘without reason’ or ‘in vain’. Among the classical authors
before Aristarchus, it is used only by Aristophanes (Ach. 411, 413; Av. 915; Lys.
138; Thesm. 921; Eccl. 245; Plut. 404, 1166; fr. 9.1 PCG), by other playwrights
such as Anaxilas (fr. 29.1 PCG) and Philetaerus (fr. 8.1 PCG), and then by Plato
(Resp. 414E7, 568A8). However, there is also a homograph e(cid:1)to´v which means
‘true’ (cf. Callim. fr. 780 Pf.) and is derived from e(cid:1)teo´v, but is never found in
union with ou(cid:1)k in the sense of ‘not true’. Our gloss in the Etymologicum
Genuinum comments on the first e(cid:1)to´v and correctly translates the lemma ou(cid:1)k e(cid:1)to´v
as ou(cid:1)k e(cid:1)tw´ sion ‘not fruitlessly’ and ou(cid:1) ma´thn ‘not in vain’. It adds, however, that
others took it to mean ou(cid:1)k o(cid:2)ntwv ‘not really’, ou(cid:1)k a(cid:1)lhqw˜ v, ‘not truly’. Some
ancient exegetes thus confused this e(cid:1)to´v, ‘in vain’, with the homograph e(cid:1)to´v
meaning‘true’,whichisoftenglossedwitha(cid:1)lhqh´v.4Thesamehappensinthetrans-
lation attributed to Aristarchus, who is said to have understood the expression as a
synonym of ou(cid:1)k ei(cid:1)ko´twv, that is ‘not reasonably’, ‘unreasonably’, hence ‘unlikely’.
Doesthis mean that Aristarchustoo, like others in antiquity, did not understand the
realmeaningofou(cid:1)ke(cid:1)to´v?
Unfortunately, we have no other evidence for Aristarchus’ interpretation of ou(cid:1)k
e(cid:1)to´v: among the other sources dealing with this lemma, none of them quotes
Aristarchus, and, moreover, ou(cid:1)k e(cid:1)to´v is translated rightly as ou(cid:1) ma´thn ‘not in vain’,
ou(cid:1) matai´wv ‘not without ground’, ou(cid:1)k a(cid:1)lo´gwv ‘not irrationally’ or, in a positive
way, as dikai´wv ‘rightly’.5 ou(cid:1)k e(cid:1)to´v is glossed with ou(cid:1)k ei(cid:1)ko´twv in only one
other source, Sch. Pl. Resp. 568A, an old scholium to Plato,6 which ascribes this
interpretationtosomeanonymousexegetes(oi(cid:3) de´):
Sch.Pl.Resp.568Aou(cid:1)ke(cid:1)to´v[e(cid:2)tovA:e(cid:1)tw˜ vA2],o(cid:3)te` me`nou(cid:1) ma´thn,o(cid:3)te` d(cid:1)ou(cid:1)ka(cid:1)lo´gwv.para` to`
e(cid:1)tw´ sion,o(cid:4) e(cid:1)stito` ma´taion,oi(cid:3) de` ou(cid:1)kei(cid:1)ko´twv.
Sch.Pl.Resp.568Aou(cid:1)ke(cid:1)to´v(‘notwithoutreason’),sometimes‘notinvain’,sometimes‘not
irrationally’;frome(cid:1)tw´ sion(‘fruitless’),whichmeans‘vain’;others,instead,(understanditas)
‘notreasonably’.
Itis,ofcourse,possiblethatAristarchushasgothisinterpretationwrong.Wedohave
evidence that in antiquity the distinction between e(cid:1)to´v ‘in vain’ and e(cid:1)to´v ‘true’ was
notalwaysclear.7However,itishardlyanattractivehypothesistosaythatthegreatest
4 Cf.Hrd.GG1.114.9(exTheogn.inAO2.50.31etSch.AIl.18.410d);Hrd.GG1.216.1(ex
Theogn.inAO2.75.3);EGen.A(e1e2)Bs.v.e(cid:1)teo`vkai` e(cid:1)to´v;EM385.54(ffi Hrd.GG2.228.12);
Zon.889;Et.Or.59.27ffiEGud.546.22DeStef.;EM387.23;EGud.548.16DeStef.¼Ep.
Hom. e 77; EGen. A (e1) s.v. e(cid:1)tw´ sion; EGen. A(e2) B s.v. e(cid:1)tw´ sionffiEM 387.30; Zon. 892;
EGud. 550.21 De Stef.; EM 387.43 (ffi Hrd. GG 2.850.25)ffiEGud. 550.9 De Stef.ffiEp.
Hom. e 123; EGen. A (e1) B s.v. e(cid:2)tumovffiEM 388.1; Zon. 890; EGen. a 246 L-LffiEM a
561 L-LffiESym. a 313 L-L; EM a 2113 L-LffiESym. a 1582 L-L; EGud. 237.5 De
Stef.ffiEp.Hom.a29(cf.Hrd.GG2.315.22);Eust.1408.12.
5 Cf.Sch.Pl.Resp.568A;Phot.2.37Naber;Sch.Pl.Resp.414E;Ps.-Did.Lex.Plat.399;
Tim. Lex. Plat. 167; Sch. Ar. Lys. 138; Sch. vet. Ar. Plut. 404a; Sch. vet. Ar. Plut. 1166b;
Sch.Tzetz. Ar.Plut.404;Sch.Tzetz.Ar.Plut.1166;Sch.rec.Ar.Plut.404a;Sch.rec. Ar.
Plut.1166a;Thewrongou(cid:1)ka(cid:1)lhqw˜ v,ou(cid:1)ke(cid:1)tew˜ voccurinSch.vet.Ar.Plut.404b,whileboth
meanings, the correct one (ou(cid:1) matai´wv, ou(cid:1)k a(cid:1)lo´gwv) and the false one (ou(cid:1)k a(cid:1)lhqw˜ v), are to
befoundinHsch.o1703,Sudao889.Noneoftheseglosses,however,mentionsAristarchus.
6 Cf.L.Cohn,‘Untersuchungenu¨berdieQuellenderPlato-Scholien’,Jahrbu¨cherfu¨rclas-
sischePhilologie,Suppl.13(1884),773–864at803.
7 Forexample,Sch.AIl.18.410dandEGen.A(e2)Bs.v.e(cid:1)tw´ sionffiEM387.30containtwo
fragments by Philoxenus (frr. 578 and 491 Theodoridis), according towhom e(cid:1)to´v, meaning
a(cid:1)lhqh´v,isderivedbyantiphrasisfrome(cid:1)tw´ siov‘vain’.
PLATO AT ALEXANDRIA 425
oftheAlexandriangrammarianshasmadeasimplesemanticerror.Itismorelikely
that the fault lies not with Aristarchus, but with the transmission of his ‘fragment’.
Evidence for such a corruption may lie in a gloss in the lexicon of Photius, which
offersadifferent‘translation’ofthephrase:
Phot.,s.v.ou(cid:1)ke(cid:1)to´v(2.37Naber).ou(cid:1)ka(cid:1)peiko´twvh(cid:5) ou(cid:1) ma´thn.para` to` e(cid:1)tw´ sion,o(cid:4) e(cid:1)stima´taion.oi(cid:3)
de` ou(cid:1)ka(cid:1)lo´gwv.
Phot.,s.v.ou(cid:1)ke(cid:1)to´v(‘notwithoutreason’),‘notunreasonably’or‘notinvain’:frome(cid:1)tw´ sion
(‘fruitless’),whichmeans‘vain’;others,instead,(understanditas)‘notirrationally’.
PhotiusdoesnotquoteAristarchusoranyothergrammarian,buthisglossiscorrect:
forhereou(cid:1)ke(cid:1)to´v‘notinvain’isglossedwithou(cid:1)ka(cid:1)peiko´twv‘notunreasonably’,‘not
withoutreason’.Sch.Pl.Resp.568AandPhot.,s.v.ou(cid:1)ke(cid:1)to´v,areverysimilartoeach
other,butonlyPhotiushastheright‘translation’a(cid:1)peiko´twv,insteadofei(cid:1)ko´twvinthe
Platonic scholium and the Etymologicum Genuinum. The corruption of a(cid:1)peiko´twv
into ei(cid:1)ko´twv is easy to explain: it is just a question of dropping the first syllable of
the word. The Byzantine lexica, moreover, are characterized by a wide usage of
abbreviations for preverbs, which may have made a(cid:1)p(o)- even more prone to omis-
sion.Inaddition,thedoublenegativeou(cid:1)ka(cid:1)peiko´twvmayhavebeenasourceofcon-
fusion.NotwithstandingthefrequencyofdoublenegativesinGreek,peoplewouldbe
morefamiliarwiththephrasesou(cid:1)kei(cid:1)ko´vorou(cid:1)kei(cid:1)ko´twv,whereasou(cid:1)ka(cid:1)peiko´twvwould
be a rarer form of expression. It thus seems plausible to ascribe a(cid:1)peiko´twv to
Aristarchus, who correctly interpreted the Attic ou(cid:1)k e(cid:1)to´v, ‘not without reason’, and
glosseditaccuratelywithou(cid:1)ka(cid:1)peiko´twv‘notunreasonably’.
The Etymologicum Genuinum gives another piece of information about
Aristarchus: a(cid:1)naginw´ skei ou(cid:1)k e(cid:1)to´v kw(cid:3) vl ou(cid:1)k e(cid:1)mo´v. This note seems to hint at the
accent: Aristarchus read ou(cid:1)ke(cid:1)to´v with oxytone e(cid:1)to´v, byanalogy with e(cid:1)mo´v. Though
the analogical parallel is not straightforward, as there is not much in common
between the adverb e(cid:1)to´v and the possessive e(cid:1)mo´v, there is no other obvious way to
read this parallel. Aristarchus was thus proposing to read e(cid:1)to´v as an oxytone word,
aclarificationthatimpliestheexistenceofanothervariant.
Indeed, an alternative reading e(cid:1)tw˜ v, with omega and circumflex accent, has left
traces in our sources: it is a variant added by scribe A at Sch. Pl. Resp. 568A
(quotedabove),andrecursagainintheSuda:
Sudao888ou(cid:1)ke(cid:1)tw˜ v:ou(cid:1)kei(cid:1)ko´twv,h(cid:5) ou(cid:1) ma´thn.para` to` e(cid:1)tw´ sion,o(cid:4) e(cid:1)stima´taion.ou(cid:1)ka(cid:1)lo´gwv.
"ristofa´nhv (Plut. 1166–7). “ou(cid:1)ke(cid:1)tw˜ v a(cid:4)pantevoi(cid:3) dika´zontev qama` /speu´dousin e(cid:1)pi` polloi˜v
gegra´fqaigra´mmasin”.
Sudao888ou(cid:1)ke(cid:1)tw˜ v:‘notreasonably’or‘notinvain’;frome(cid:1)tw´ sion(‘fruitless’),whichmeans
‘vain’;‘notwithoutreason’.Aristophanes(Plut.1166–7):‘Notwithoutreason[but:ou(cid:1)ke(cid:1)tw˜ v!]
allthejurymensoeagerly/trytogetenteredformanytribunals’.
Thesamemistakeninterpretationou(cid:1)kei(cid:1)ko´twvisreferredthistimetothelemmaou(cid:1)k
e(cid:1)tw˜ v,whichisalsothereading(metricallyandsemanticallyimpossible)inthequota-
tionfromAristophanes’Plutus.
We can thus suppose that Aristarchus was commenting on a passage which
presented two different readings, very similar in sound: ou(cid:1)k e(cid:1)tw˜ v, with omega and
circumflex accent (not attested elsewhere), and ou(cid:1)k e(cid:1)to´v, with omicron and acute
accent. He decided that the correct version was the latter and in order to support
hisreadingquotedtheanalogousou(cid:1)ke(cid:1)mo´v.
Now, which text was Aristarchus correcting and commenting on? We might
suppose that he was commenting on Ar. Plut. 1166, as quoted in the Suda: hewas
426 FRANCESCA SCHIRONI
correctlyinterpretingtheexpressionasmeaning‘notwithoutreason’(ou(cid:1)ka(cid:1)peiko´twv)
and,moreover,wantedtoemendthetransmittedtext,whichhadthewrongou(cid:1)ke(cid:1)tw˜ v,
intothecorrectou(cid:1)ke(cid:1)to´v.
But there is another, more plausible possibility. For in several ways our sources
seem to suggest that Aristarchus referred to Plato and not to Aristophanes. First of
all, in the manuscript tradition of Aristophanes a variant ou(cid:1)k e(cid:1)tw˜ v is never attested
in any of the passages where ou(cid:1)k e(cid:1)to´v occurs (these are much more numerous than
in Plato).8 The only instance is the quotation in the Suda. Moreover, none of the
many Aristophanic scholia analysing the lemma ou(cid:1)k e(cid:1)to´v9 has the Aristarchean
gloss ou(cid:1)k a(cid:1)peiko´twv, nor the incorrect ou(cid:1)k ei(cid:1)ko´twv, as found in the Etymologicum
Genuinum. On the other hand, in the two passages from the Republic where ou(cid:1)k
e(cid:1)to´v occurs (Resp. 414E7 and 568A8, the only two occurrences of the expression
in Plato), ou(cid:1)k e(cid:1)tw˜ v is attested as a manuscript variant.10 ou(cid:1)k e(cid:1)tw˜ v also recurs as a
variantinthescholiumtoPl.Resp.568A,aswehavealreadyseen.
Butthereismore.Allthemainsourcesthatwehaveanalysed(EGen.s.v.ou(cid:1)ke(cid:1)to´v;
Sch.Pl.Resp.568A;Phot.,s.v.ou(cid:1)ke(cid:1)to´v;Sudao888)areverysimilartoeachother.
The glosses ou(cid:1)ke(cid:1)tw´ sion and ou(cid:1) ma´thn recur in all four sources, while the errorou(cid:1)k
ei(cid:1)ko´twv for ou(cid:1)k a(cid:1)peiko´twv is shared by the Suda, the Etymologicum Genuinum,
andthe Platonicscholium against Photius,whichisthe oldestamong ourpreserved
sources. Moreover, the first part of the Suda’s gloss (ou(cid:1)k e(cid:1)tw˜ v. ou(cid:1)k ei(cid:1)ko´twv, h(cid:5) ou(cid:1)
ma´thn. para` to` e(cid:1)tw´ sion, o(cid:4) e(cid:1)sti ma´taion. ou(cid:1)k a(cid:1)lo´gwv) is verysimilar to Photius: ou(cid:1)k
e(cid:1)to´v. ou(cid:1)k a(cid:1)peiko´twv h(cid:5) ou(cid:1) ma´thn. para` to` e(cid:1)tw´ sion, o(cid:4) e(cid:1)sti ma´taion. oi(cid:3) de` ou(cid:1)k a(cid:1)lo´gwv.
Asinmanyother glosseslike this,which recuridentically in the Sudaand Photius,
the common source is the so-called erweiterte Sunagwgh´, a collection of difficult
words that forms the basis of many Byzantine lexica. Among the main sources for
the Sunagwgh´ were two Platonic lexica, one by Boethus and the other by Timaeus.
This erweiterte Sunagwgh´, via Photius, is the source of the Etymologicum
Genuinum.11 We can thus suppose that the Platonic entryou(cid:1)ke(cid:1)to´v passed from the
Platonic lexica of Boethus and Timaeus to the erweiterte Sunagwgh´ and that from
there it arrived with many corruptions in the Suda,12 Photius, the Etymologicum
Genuinum, and, on the other hand, the scholium to Plato. To this evidence we can
add that one of the Platonic lexica mentioned above, that of Timaeus, is still extant
and does indeed have this entry, though highly corrupted: Tim. Lex. Plat. 167,13
8 Seethereferenceslistedonpage2.
9 Includedinthelistatn.5above
10 SeetheapparatusinChambry’sedition(2vols;Paris,1947–8):thesecondhandinA(Par.
Gr.1807)hascorrectedandwrittene(cid:1)tw´ v(sic)inResp.414E7and568A8;thevariantisattested
alsoinF(Vindob.55)inResp.568A8.Cf.alsoBurnet’sOxfordClassicalText(Oxford,1905)
adResp.414E7:‘e(cid:1)tw˜ vfecitA’;SlingsinhisrecentOxfordClassicalText(Oxford,2003)does
notmentionanyvariant.
11 On the Sunagwgh´ as the source of Photius and the Etymologicum Genuinum, see
R. Reitzenstein, Der Anfang des Lexicons des Photios (Berlin and Leipzig, 1907), xxix–
xxxiv; G. Wentzel, Beitra¨ge zur Geschichte der griechischen Lexicographie, Sitzungsber. d.
Preuß.Akad.(1895),477–87(¼LGM1–11);K.Alpers,DasattizistischeLexikondesOros:
Untersuchung und kritische Ausgabe der Fragmente, SGLG 4 (Berlin, 1981), 69–79;
I. C. Cunningham, ‘Harpocration and the Sunagwgh´’, GRBS 27 (1986), 205–21; id.,
‘Introduction’,inSYNAGOGE,SUNAGWGHLEXEWNCRHSIMWN,TextsoftheOriginal
VersionandofMS.B,SGLG10(BerlinandNewYork,2003),13–61.
12 TheSudaaddedtothisthequotationfromAristophanes.Theadditionofexternalmaterial,
especiallyquotationsfromclassicalsources(inparticularAristophanes),isapeculiarityofthe
Suda.
13 Ed.G.A.Koch(Leipzig,1828).
PLATO AT ALEXANDRIA 427
ou(cid:1)k e(cid:2)twv. ou(cid:1)k e(cid:1)twsi´wv, where the lemma was already emended by the editor into
ou(cid:1)ke(cid:1)to´v.
To conclude: it is Plato and not Aristophanes to whom all our sources point.
Aristarchus does indeed seem to have worked on the Platonic text. In this passage
from the Republic he suggested an emendation and gave an interpretation in order
toclarifyanexpressionthatwasprobablynotclear.Thefactthatthepassagescom-
mentedoncomefromtheRepublicisalsosignificant,andwillbediscussedfurther
below.
We come now to the second fragment, which recurs in three sets of sources: the
Etymologica (EGen. AB s.v. h(cid:6) d(cid:1) o(cid:4)vffiEM 416.31); Photius and the Suda; and a
minor lexicon to Plato (Ps.-Did. Lex. Plat. 399). This time the common source of
all these glosses is probably the Platonic lexicon of Boethus,14 and, since the Suda
andPhotiuspreserveabettertext,weshalllimitourselvestothem:
Phot.h51ffiSudah100h(cid:6) d(cid:1)o(cid:4)v:oi(cid:3) me`nperi` (cid:1)Eratosqe´nhna(cid:1)nti` tou˜ e(cid:2)fhde` o(cid:4)v.[...]kai` h(cid:6) a(cid:1)nti` tou˜
e(cid:2)fh. ‘a(cid:1)lla` perimenou˜men, h(cid:6) d(cid:1) o(cid:7)v o(cid:3) Glau´kwn’ (Pl. Resp. 1.327B). kai` ‘h(cid:6)n d(cid:1) e(cid:1)gw´ ’ (Pl. Resp.
1.327C),a(cid:1)nti` tou˜ e(cid:2)fhnde` e(cid:1)gw´ .[...]."ri´starcovde` to` me`nh(cid:6) d(cid:1)o(cid:7)va(cid:1)nti` tou˜ e(cid:2)fhde` o(cid:4)v,to` de` h(cid:6)n
d(cid:1)e(cid:1)gw´ ,e(cid:2)fhne(cid:1)gw´ .to` de` h(cid:6) tw˜ na(cid:1)rcai´wne(cid:2)fhei(cid:6)nailexeidi´wn,(cid:4)Omhronde` ou(cid:1) kata` pa´ntacrh˜sqai
au(cid:1)tw¼˜,ou(cid:1)de` schmati´zeina(cid:1)p(cid:1)au(cid:1)tou˜ to` a(cid:1)na´logon{me´n},w(cid:3) vo(cid:4)tanlo´gouteleuth`nshmai´n}.‘h(cid:6) kai`
kuane´}sin e(cid:1)p’ o(cid:1)fru´si(cid:1) (Il. 1.528). kai` (cid:3)h(cid:6) kai` e(cid:1)p(cid:1) (cid:1)Antino´w¼(cid:1) (Od. 22.8). tou`v de` meq(cid:1) (cid:4)Omhron
a(cid:1)diafo´rwvau(cid:1)to` ta´ssein.
1.h(cid:6):h(cid:5) sempergz,corr.Porson2h(cid:6)nd(cid:1)e(cid:1)gw´ :d(cid:1) Su.etEGen.;cf.Plat.:de` gz4e(cid:2)fhne(cid:1)gw´ :e(cid:2)fhnd(cid:1)
e(cid:1)gw´ conieceratPorsonjto` de` h(cid:6):h˜ zg5me´ndel.Bernhardy,oblocutusestLudwich,RhM41,
1886, 439, n. 11, qui me`n w(cid:3) v ex mo´nwv depravata esse coniecit 6 h(cid:6) kai` e(cid:1)p(cid:1) "ntino´w¼ Porson:
h(cid:1)kee(cid:1)pantino´wg:h(cid:6)kepantino´wz
Phot.h51ffiSudah100h(cid:6) d(cid:1)o(cid:4)v(cid:1):Eratosthenes(saysthath(cid:6) d(cid:1)o(cid:4)visused)inthesenseofe(cid:2)fhde` o(cid:4)v
(‘hesaid’);[...]andh(cid:6) (isused)inthesenseofe(cid:2)fh(‘said’);‘“Sowewillwait”,saidGlaucon’
(Pl.Resp.1.327B),and‘saidI’(Pl.Resp.1.327C)(isused)inthesenseofe(cid:2)fhne(cid:1)gw´ (‘Isaid’).
[...].Aristarchus(saysthat)h(cid:6) d(cid:1)o(cid:4)v(isused)inthesenseofe(cid:2)fhde` o(cid:4)v(‘hesaid’)andh(cid:6)nd(cid:1)e(cid:1)gw´ (in
thesenseof)e(cid:2)fhne(cid:1)gw´ (‘Isaid’).Andhesaidthath(cid:6) isanarchaicwordandthatHomerdoesnot
use it everywhere, nor does he construct a whole paradigm from this form according to the
analogy, as (he uses it only) when it indicatesthe end of a speech: ‘(So the son of Cronus)
spoke,and(bowed)hisdarkbrow(inassent)’(Il.1.528)and‘Odysseusspoke,and(aimeda
bitter arrow) at Antinous’ (Od. 22.8); (Aristarchus says that) on the other hand the authors
afterHomeruseh(cid:6) syntacticallywithoutdiscrimination.
The question concernsthe expression h(cid:6) d(cid:1) o(cid:4)v ‘he said’, which is absent from Homer
but typical of Attic.15 Together with the parallel expression for the first-person
singular h(cid:6)n d(cid:1) e(cid:1)gw´ ‘I said’, it is often used in comedy16 and even more by Plato,
who uses it frequently in his dialogues.17 I shall not go through all the different
interpretations that ancient exegetes, whose opinions are preserved in the gloss of
the Etymologicum Genuinum, gave of this expression.18 Instead I shall focus on
Aristarchus, according to whom h(cid:6) d(cid:1) o(cid:4)v was equivalent to e(cid:2)fh de` o(cid:4)v (where o(cid:4)v has
the meaning of a demonstrative and not of a relative pronoun), and h(cid:6)n d(cid:1) e(cid:1)gw´ to
e(cid:2)fhne(cid:1)gw´ .
14 Cf.Cohn(n.6),795,806.OnBoethusseeA.R.Dyck,‘NotesonPlatoniclexicographyin
antiquity’,HSCPh89(1985),75–88at75–84.
15 Cf.Greg.Cor.141;Sch.Ar.Eq.634b.
16 Cf.Vesp.795;Lys.514;Cratin.fr.205PCG(h(cid:6) d(cid:1)o(cid:4)v);Ar.Eq.634(h(cid:6)nd(cid:1)e(cid:1)gw´ ).
17 Cf.Sch.Ar. Vesp.795d;Suda h371.ForPlatonicoccurrences ofthese expressions cf.
L.Brandwood,AWordIndextoPlato(Leeds,1976),s.vv.h(cid:6)nd(cid:1)e(cid:1)gw´ .h(cid:6) d(cid:1)o(cid:4)v.
18 Cf.alsoPhot.h52ffiSh36.Onthedifferentsolutionsproposedbyancientgrammarians
forthisPlatonicexpressionseeA.Ludwich,‘DieFormelh(cid:6) d(cid:1)o(cid:4)v’,RhM41(1886),437–53.
428 FRANCESCA SCHIRONI
The same interpretation had already been given by Aristarchus’ predecessor
Eratosthenes.19
Aristarchusalsonoticedthattheformh(cid:6) wasanarchaicexpression:itwaspresentin
Homer,whouseditonlytomarktheendofdirectspeech,butnevertointroduceit.
However,itisclearthatAristarchusiscommentingherenotonaHomericbutona
Platonic expression; he was actually translating it into more ‘modern’ Attic. In
theory, we might suppose that the reference to this Attic and Platonic expression
was included by Aristarchus in his Homeric commentary, but, as we have already
found some evidence for a Platonic commentary, it might be fruitful to continue
withthelatterhypothesis.
In the glosses we see that Aristarchus analysesfirst h(cid:6) d(cid:1) o(cid:4)v and then h(cid:6)n d(cid:1) e(cid:1)gw´ (...
(cid:1)Ari´starcov de` to` me`n h(cid:6) d(cid:1) o(cid:7)v a(cid:1)nti` tou˜ e(cid:2)fh de` o(cid:4)v, to` de` h(cid:6)n d(cid:1) e(cid:1)gw` e(cid:2)fhn e(cid:1)gw´ ). This
order (first the third person, followed by the first) is certainly not the
most obvious. But if we suppose that the analysis occurred in a commentary on
Plato, it is likely that Aristarchus dwelt on and analysed the two expressions when
he first encountered them. For in running commentaries, the exegete normally
dwells on the first occurrence of expressions or words that need explanation.
He does not normally repeat his note when he finds the same expressions later in
thesametext.20
PhotiusandtheSudaquotetwopassagesfromtheRepublic:“a(cid:1)lla` perimenou˜men,h(cid:6)
d(cid:1)o(cid:7)vo(cid:3) Glau´kwn”(Pl.Resp.1.327B8).kai` “h(cid:6)nd(cid:1)e(cid:1)gw´ ”(Pl.Resp.1.327C6,10),a(cid:1)nti` tou˜
e(cid:2)fhnde` e(cid:1)gw´ .ThesearethefirstoccurrencesoftheseexpressionsintheRepublic.We
can thus suppose that Aristarchus was commenting on this text, where he met the
expressions in that order. He wrote some comments on them, glossing them and
tracingacomparisonwithhisbelovedHomer,somethingwhichwouldbeparticularly
naturaltohim.
AllthisevidenceseemstoconfirmwhatwealreadyknewofPlatonicscholarshipin
Alexandria. Diogenes Laertius (3.61) informs us that Aristophanes of Byzantium,
Aristarchus’ predecessor, had ordered Plato’s work into trilogies instead of
tetralogies:
Diog.Laert.3.61:e(cid:2)nioide´,wFne(cid:1)stikai` "ristofa´nhvo(cid:3) grammatiko´v,ei(cid:1)vtrilogi´ave(cid:4)lkousitou`v
dialo´gouv,kai` prw´ thnme`ntiqe´asinhFvh(cid:3)gei˜taiPolitei´a,Ti´maiov,Kriti´av.deute´ranSofisth´v,
Politiko´v, Kratu´lov. tri´thn No´moi, Mi´nwv, (cid:1)Epinomi´v. teta´rthn Qeai´thtov, Eu(cid:1)qu´frwn,
(cid:1)Apologi´a.pe´mpthnKri´twn,Fai´dwn,(cid:1)Epistolai´.ta` d(cid:1)a(cid:2)llakaq(cid:1)e(cid:7)nkai` a(cid:1)ta´ktwv.
Diog.Laert.3.61:Some,Aristophanesthegrammarianamongthem,arrangethedialoguesinto
trilogies.TheyhavethefirsttrilogyconsistingoftheRepublic,theTimaeus,andtheCritias;
the second consisting of the Sophist, the Statesman, and the Cratylus; the third consisting
of the Laws, Minos, and Epinomis; the fourth consisting of the Theaetetus, the Euthyphro,
and the Apology; the fifth consisting of the Crito, the Phaedo, and the Epistles. The rest
consistofseparatetexts,withoutanyarrangement.
Accordingtothisarrangement,therewerefivetrilogiesforatotaloffifteenPlatonic
worksthatcorresponded(apartfromtheClitopho)totheworkscontainedinthefirst,
second,eighth,andninthtetralogies,asshowninTable1.TherestofPlato’sworks,
19 According toEGen.andEM416.31,however, Eratosthenesglossed h(cid:6) d(cid:1)o(cid:4)v withe(cid:2)fhde`
ouFtov (‘this mansaid’). Cf.C. Strecker, De Lycophrone,Euphronio,Eratosthene comicorum
interpretibus (diss. Greifswald, 1884), 39–40; G. Bernhardy, Eratosthenica (Berlin, 1822),
217–18.
20 Thatiswhythebulkoflearnednotesinancientcommentariesconcerntheverybeginning
oftheworkcommentedonandbecomefewerandfewerinthecourseofthecommentary.
PLATO AT ALEXANDRIA 429
TABLE 1. DivisionofPlatonicdialoguesintotetralogiesandtrilogies
TETRALOGIES TRILOGIES
1.Euthyphro,Apology,Crito,Phaedo 1.Republic,Timaeus,Critias
2.Cratylus,Theaetetus,Sophist,Statesman 2.Sophist,Statesman,Cratylus
3.Parmenides,Philebus,Symposium,Phaedrus 3.Laws,Minos,Epinomis
4.Alcibiades,2ndAlcibiades,Hipparchus, 4.Theaetetus,Euthyphro,Apology
RivalLovers 5.Crito,Phaedo,Letters
5.Theages,Charmides,Laches,Lysis
6.Euthydemus,Protagoras,Gorgias,Meno
7.Hippiasmajor,Hippiasminor,Ion,Menexenus
8.Clitopho,Republic,Timaeus,Critias
9.Minos,Laws,Epinomis,Letters
on the other hand, were kaq(cid:1) e(cid:7)n kai` a(cid:1)ta´ktwv: not arranged into any collection and
editedasseparatetexts.21
According to Diogenes Laertius, the first trilogy opened with the Republic. This
seemstoconfirmourhypothesis.IfAristarchusdidworkonPlato,hewouldhaveana-
lysedthefirstoccurrenceofacommonandtypicalPlatonicexpressionsuchash(cid:6) d(cid:1) o(cid:4)v
at its very first occurrence in the corpus. And this passage from the Republic
(1.327B8) with h(cid:6) d(cid:1) o(cid:7)v o(cid:3) Glau´kwn, is indeed the first occurrence of this pervasive
Platonic expression under the arrangement into trilogies provided by Aristophanes
of Byzantium. It is tempting, therefore, to imagine Aristarchus commenting on
Plato and using the edition prepared by his predecessor Aristophanes. In his work
on Homer too, Aristarchus used Aristophanes’ edition when he wrote his first
commentary.22
ThatthetextofPlatowastheobjectofexegeticalactivitycanalsobeseenfromthe
famous list of critical signs used in the Platonic corpus as preserved again by
DiogenesLaertius:
Diog.Laert.3.65:e(cid:1)pei` de` kai` shmei˜a´ tinatoi˜vbibli´oivau(cid:1)tou˜ parati´qentai,fe´rekai` peri` tou´twn
tiei(cid:2)pwmen.ci˜ lamba´netaipro`vta`vle´xeivkai` ta` sch´matakai` o(cid:4)lwvth`nPlatwnikh`nsunh´qeian.
diplh˜ pro`v ta` do´gmata kai` ta` a(cid:1)re´skonta Pla´twni. ci˜ periestigme´non pro`v ta`v e(cid:1)kloga`v kai`
kalligrafi´av.diplh˜ periestigme´nhpro`vta`ve(cid:1)ni´wndiorqw´ seiv.o(cid:1)belo`vperiestigme´novpro`vta`v
ei(cid:1)kai´ouv a(cid:1)qeth´seiv. a(cid:1)nti´sigma periestigme´non pro`v ta`v ditta`v crh´seiv kai` metaqe´seiv tw˜ n
grafw˜ n. kerau´nion pro`v th`n a(cid:1)gwgh`n th˜v filosofi´av. a(cid:1)steri´skov pro`v th`n sumfwni´an tw˜ n
dogma´twn.o(cid:1)belo`vpro`vth`na(cid:1)qe´thsin.
Diog.Laert.3.65:Ascertaincriticalsignsareaffixedtohisworks,Iwillnowsaysomething
aboutthem.Thechiisusedtomarkexpressionsandfiguresofspeech,andingeneralPlatonic
usage;thediple¯ isusedtomarkdoctrinesandideastypicalofPlato;thedottedchiisusedto
markselectedexpressionsandeleganceofstyle:thedotteddiple¯ isusedtomarkcorrections
suggestedbyeditors;thedottedobelusisusedtomarkwrongathete¯seis;thedottedantisigma
isusedtomarkrepetitionsandtranspositions;thecerauniumisusedtomarkthephilosophical
school;theasterisk isusedtomarkanagreementofdoctrine;theobelusisusedtomarkan
athete¯sis.
21 According to H. Tarrant, Thrasyllan Platonism (Ithaca, NY and London, 1993), 205,
Aristophanes knew only those fifteen works and did not exclude anything from his edition.
Only later at Alexandria would the rest of Plato’s works become available, and they would
beeditedseparately.
22 We have evidence of two Homeric commentaries by Aristarchus, of which only the
secondwasbasedonhisownedition.Cf.Sch.AIl.2.133a;seealsoSch.AIl.2.111b;Sch.
AIl.7.130a1;Pfeiffer(n.2),216–17.
430 FRANCESCA SCHIRONI
TheevidenceofDiogenesLaertiusisconfirmedbyapapyrus(PSI1488¼Plato142
TCorpusdeipapirifilosoficigrecielatini [CPF])ofthesecondcenturyA.D. Itlists
thesamecriticalsigns,butinafullerandmore‘logical’order:23
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
to` me`ncei˜ lamba´netaipro`v]
th`nPlatwnikh`nsun]h´qeia[n.h(cid:3) de` diplh˜ .
pro`vta` do´gmat]alamba´ne[taikai` ta`
a(cid:1)re´skontaPl]a´twni.o(cid:3) de`˙o(cid:1)bel[o`]v[– pro`v
th`na(cid:1)qe´thsin]lamba´ne˙tai.to` de` a(cid:1)[˙nti´sig-
ma pro`vta`v]dissografi´avkai` t[rissa´v.
to` de` periestig]me´noncei˜ .c.[˙p˙˙ro`˙vta`ve(cid:1)k-
loga`vkai` kallig]rafi´av˙.h(cid:3) [de` perie-
stigme´nhdip]lh˜ pro`v˙˙ta`˙ve(cid:1)[ni´wndior-
qw´ seiv.o(cid:3) de` pe]riestigme´n[o˙vo(cid:1)belo`v 4
pro`vta`vei(cid:1)kai´]ava(cid:1)qeth´sei[v.to` de` peri-
estigme´nona(cid:1)]nt˙i´sigma [pro`vta`vdissa`v
crh´seivkai` m˙]etaqe´sei[vtw˜ ngrafw˜ n.
to` de` kerau´nion˙Ts]hm[ei˜onpro`vth`n
a(cid:1)gwgh`nth˜vfiloso]fi´av.o(cid:3) d[e` a(cid:1)steri´-
skov pro`vth`nsum]f[wni´a˙ntw˜ ndogma´twn.
. . . . . . . . . . . .˙. . . . . . . . . . . . .
ThesamelistalsorecursinaLatinmanuscript(theso-calledAnecdotumCavense).24
Ishallnotanalysethesecriticalsignsindetail,25butdrawattentiontotwopoints.
First:manyofthesesignsareidenticalwiththosethatAristarchususedforHomer:
theo(cid:1)belo´v,thediplh˜,thea(cid:1)nti´sigma,thea(cid:1)steri´skov,andthediplh˜ periestigme´nh.The
othersigns,theci˜,thekerau´nion,26theo(cid:1)belo`vperiestigme´nov,theci˜ periestigme´non,
andthea(cid:1)nti´sigmaperiestigme´non,aredifferentbutseemtobecreatedaccordingtothe
sameprinciples:thereisasetof‘simple’signs(o(cid:1)belo´v,diplh˜,ci˜,a(cid:1)nti´sigma)andtheir
‘dotted’counterparts.27ThelogicunderlyingthissystemisthatofAristarchus,who
wasalsothefirstscholartomakethedistinctionbetweensimpleanddottedshmei˜a.
Moreover, although the Platonic signs are in part different from those used by
23 Cf. V. Bartoletti, ‘Diogene Laerzio III 65–66 e un papiro della raccolta fiorentina’, in
Me´langes Euge`ne Tisserant, 1: E´criture sainte, Studi e Testi 231 (Vatican City, 1964), 25–
30,andM.Gigante,‘UnpapiroattribuibileadAntigonodiCaristo?PSI1488,Vitedeifilosofi’,
inPapiriFilosoficiMiscellaneadistudiII,STCPF9(Florence,1998),111–14;M.J.Luzzatto,
‘Itineraridicodiciantichi:un’edizionediTucididetrailIIedilXsecolo’,MD30(1993),167–
203at195–6.IreportGigante’sedition,thoughhisattributiontoAntigonusofCarystusseems
quite doubtful; cf. T. Dorandi, ‘Prolegomeni per una edizione dei frammenti di Antigono di
Caristo. III’,ZPE 106 (1995),61–90 at 84–5; H.Do¨rrie, Der Platonismus inder Antike,2:
Der hellenistische Rahmen des kaiserzeitlichen Platonismus (Stuttgart and Bad Cannstatt,
1990),354–5;Tarrant(n.21),183,n.14.
24 Cf.A.Reifferscheid,‘MittheilungenausHandschriften.I:AnecdotumCavensedenotis
antiquorum’,RhM23(1868),127–133at131–2.
25 Cf.H.Alline,‘AristophanedeByzanceetsone´ditioncritiquedePlaton’,REA17(1915),
85–97; id., Histoire du texte de Platon (Paris, 1915), 86–93; G. Jachmann, Der Platontext
(Go¨ttingen,1942),334–41;A.Carlini,StudisullatradizioneanticaemedievaledelFedone
(Rome,1972),20–1;Do¨rrie(n.23),92–6,347–56.
26 WehavenoevidencethatAristarchususedthechiandthecerauniumforHomer.They
seeminanycasetodatebacktotheAlexandrians.ThecerauniumwasusedbyAristophanes
to comment on Od. 18.281–3 (cf. Sch. H Od. 18.282), and it is possible that Aristophanes
usedthechiaswell:cf.A.Gudeman, s.v.‘Kritische Zeichen’,inRE21.2(Stuttgart,1922),
1916–27at1924–5.
27 The asterisk and the ceraunium were apparently used only as simple signs, probably
because an addition of dots would have been quite problematic (at least for the asterisk,
alreadyprovidedwithfour).
PLATO AT ALEXANDRIA 431
AristarchusforHomer,inbothauthorstheo(cid:1)belo´visusedtomarkpassagesconsidered
spurious, the diplh˜ periestigme´nh is a ‘polemical’ sign to mark disagreement with
other critics, and the a(cid:1)nti´sigma is used for transpositions. As for the new signs,
they might have been invented for the commentaryon Plato, whose text differed in
many respects from that of Homer. We can thus suppose that it was commented on
inadifferentway,withafullersetofeditorialmarks.28
Secondly: the very existence of critical signs presupposes the existence of a
commentary.29 The names and usages of these Platonic signs are too evocative of
Alexandrian scholarship not to suggest the existence of a sort of commentary on
PlatobythetimeofAristarchus,andindeedbyhishand.
AristarchuscommentedonPlatoasaHomerist,notasaphilosopher:heestablished
the Platonic text through analogy (cf. ou(cid:1)ke(cid:1)to´v as ou(cid:1)ke(cid:1)mo´v) and noticed usages and
Homeric echoes in Platonic diction (h(cid:6)). And this way of working, especially
analogy and attention to the usage of an author, is perfectly in keeping with what
wealreadyknowofAristarchus’methodologyandscholarship.
This is averyattractive hypothesis. Until now we have had no evidence, besides
PAmh. 2.12, that Aristarchus or other Alexandrian grammarians worked on prose
authors. These two Platonic fragments, if my reconstruction is correct, give us a
new insight into and a better understanding of Aristarchean activity, which was by
no means limited to Homer or to poetry. Rather, it embraced prose of different
kinds. His interest in Plato, an author who continually engaged with the work of
Homer, is revealing and fits well with Aristarchus’ interest in Herodotus, defined
by the ancients as(cid:3)Omhrikw´ tatov ([Longinus] Subl. 13.3). It is not a surprise that
Herodotus and Plato were the very prose authors who attracted the attention of a
HomericscholarsuchasAristarchus.
Moreover, these pieces of evidence preserved in the Byzantine lexica open
up a new perspective on the textual history of another great classic. The
problem of the ancient editions of Plato has been debated for a long time and by
outstanding scholars.30 Wilamowitz, Bickel, and Pasquali thought that the edition
of Plato was prepared in the Academy by Arcesilaus.31 Alline32 and then
28 ForadiscussionofthesimilarityofthesesignstothoseusedbyAristarchusforHomer,
seeF.Solmsen,‘TheAcademicandtheAlexandrianeditionsofPlato’sworks’,ICS6(1981),
102–11at106–7.ItishardtoaccepttheanalysisofAlline,‘AristophanedeByzance’(n.25),
whotriesontheonehandtoascribeallofthesignstoAristophanesandontheothertounder-
mineAristarchus’contributioninthisfield.
29 Cf. E. G. Turner, Greek Papyri: An Introduction (Oxford, 19802), 115–18; Carlini
(n. 25), 19–20; and more recently K. McNamee, Sigla and Select Marginalia in Greek
LiteraryPapyri (Brussels,1992),11,19–20.ContraPfeiffer(n.2),115,n.4.
30 On the edition(s) of Plato in antiquity, cf. Alline, Histoire (n. 25), 78–103; U. von
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Platon (2 vols; Berlin, 19202), 2.324–5; Carlini (n. 25), 13–30;
H. Erbse, ‘U¨berlieferungsgeschichte der griechischen klassischen und hellenistischen
Literatur’, in H. Hunger, O. Stegmu¨ller, H. Erbse, M. Imhof, K. Bu¨chner, H. G. Beck, and
H. Ru¨diger (edd.), Geschichte der Textu¨berlieferung der antiken und mittelalterlichen
Literatur(Zu¨rich,1961),207–83at219–21;A.H.Chroust,‘Theorganizationofthecorpus
Platonicum in antiquity’, Hermes 93 (1965), 34–46; Solmsen (n. 28); Tarrant (n. 21),
esp.14–15,69–71,89–98,103–7,205–6.
31 Cf.U. vonWilamowitz-Moellendorff, Antigonos vonKarystos(Berlin, 1881),286; id.
(n. 30), 2.326–7; E. Bickel, ‘Geschichte und Recensio des Platontextes’, RhM 92 (1944),
97–159; G. Pasquali, Storia della tradizione e critica del testo (Florence, 19522), 261–2.
However, Alline, Histoire (n. 25), 50–6, maintained that the academic edition was due to
Xenocrates.
32 SeeAlline,Historie(n.25),84–103.
432 FRANCESCA SCHIRONI
Jachmann33 were the most important supporters of the Alexandrian edition,
putting great trust in the passage of Diogenes Laertius, while Wilamowitz,
Pasquali, Pfeiffer, and Erbse denied the existence of the edition by
Aristophanes and considered the arrangement into trilogies to be no more than
a different way of cataloguing the works of Plato,34 perhaps worked out by
Aristophanes in his supplement to the Pinakes.35 However, while we do not
have any evidence of this Academic edition in our sources (an edition which
everyone seems to believe in), we do have the evidence of Diogenes Laertius
(at 3.61 and 3.65) for an Alexandrian ekdosis of Plato; there thus seems no
reason to deny it.36
Thus it seems likely that, together with an Academic tradition which produced
the Platonic edition by Arcesilaus, followed by the standard one arranged into
tetralogies by Thrasyllus, the astronomer of Tiberius (cf. Diog. Laert. 3.56),37
there was another ‘grammatical’ tradition, developed in Alexandria by
Aristophanes and then Aristarchus. These scholars were interested in Plato not
fromaphilosophicalpointof view,butfromaphilologicalone.Theywantedtofix
a good Platonic text (good in terms of language), to clarify Platonic expressions,
and to study Platonic style.38 The Alexandrians did not limit themselves to
an edition of Plato; Aristarchus wrote a hypomne¯ma on Plato based on the
edition of his predecessor Aristophanes. His main concern was grammatical
and philological: Aristarchus clarified obscure expressions by ‘translating’ them
into more accessible language, established Platonic usages, and chose between
differentreadings.
Not much of this ‘philological’ Platonic scholarship has come down to us, apart
from the evidence just discussed. We know of Ammonius, a pupil of Aristarchus,
whowrote (cf. Sch. A Il. 9.540) atreatise Peri` tw˜ n u(cid:3)po` Pla´twnov metenhnegme´nwn
e(cid:1)x Omh´rou, on the borrowings of Plato from Homer. The interest in Platonic
diction compared with that of Homer is revealing of the kind of approach
Alexandrian scholars had to Plato and, moreover, confirms what we have found
about Aristarchus’ work on Plato. In this case too, Aristarchus analysed a Platonic
expressionandcompareditwiththeHomericusage.Moredoubtfulevidenceispro-
vided by POxy. 3219, which analyses Plato’s work in terms of dramatic narrative
33 See Jachmann (n. 25), 331–46, who denied the existence of the Academic edition by
Arcesilaus (pp. 334, 341–4, 345). Bickel (n. 31), 113, replied that the existence of the
AlexandrianeditiondidnotexcludeanearlierAcademicone;cf.alsoCarlini(n.25),22–3.
34 Wilamowitz(n.30),2.325:‘Aristophanesscheintkaummehrgetanzuhaben,alsander
a¨lterenOrdnungKritikzuu¨ben’;Pasquali(n.31),264–6;Pfeiffer(n.2),196–7;Erbse(n.30),
219,221.
35 Chroust (n.30),35,ismoreambiguous:‘Itisnotunlikely,however,thatthesetrilogies
werepartofAristophanes’ (andAristarchus’)attempt,promoted at Alexandria ingeneral,to
collateandeditwhatheconsideredthe“best”ormostrepresentativeliteratureofthepast—a
sortof“greatbooks”programoranthologyforawiderreadingpublic.’
36 J. Barnes, ‘The Hellenistic Platos’, Apeiron 24 (1991), 115–28, denies any ‘official’
edition of Plato in Hellenistic times and concludes: ‘...there was no such beast as the
Hellenistic Plato. For in truth, there were several texts of Plato, several versions of Plato’s
thoughts, several Hellenistic Platos’ (128). This may well be true, but does not imply that
therewas noedition of Plato at Alexandria. ‘An’ Alexandrian Plato is not the same as ‘the’
HellenisticPlato.
37 AlthoughthearrangementintotetralogiesisprobablyearlierthanThrasyllus,perhapsdue
totheAcademyitself;cf.Carlini (n.25),24–7;Chroust(n.30).
38 Thisreconstructionis,moreover,inkeepingwiththehypothesisofTarrant(n.21),103–7,
whomaintainsthatThrasylluswantedtocorrectthe‘trilogic’editionofAristophanes,asthis
wasnota‘philosophical’arrangement.