Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T07:15:22.819Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

STRUCTURING THE ‘HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY’—A COMPARISON BETWEEN PHILODEMUS AND DIOGENES LAERTIUS IN THE LIGHT OF NEW EVIDENCE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2020

Kilian Fleischer
Kilian Fleischer*
Affiliation:
Institut für Klassische Philologie – Universität Würzburg
*
kilian.fleischer@uni-wuerzburg.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Considering the fair amount of ancient authors who compiled works on the subject of the ‘History of Philosophy’, it is remarkable—and regrettable—that there is no solid basis for a comparative analysis of their structures. Most ancient histories of philosophy are only preserved in a few fragments or excerpts and hardly allow any meaningful non-trivial comparison of the structure and order of the philosophers and schools discussed. The only more or less entirely preserved ‘History of Philosophy’ is Diogenes Laertius’ famous treatise. Although his work seems to offer an idiosyncratic rendering in some respects, and is hardly representative of the genre, some structural similarities with Sotion's Διαδοχαί (Successions) can be identified. Generally, a crucial question concerning the structure is how the philosophers and their schools were arranged in these works. Did the works basically follow a chronological order? How were the Διαδοχαί arranged? Were certain schools or philosophers dealt with together in a single book or in more than one book, or were they presented in a certain order?

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 69 , Issue 2 , December 2019 , pp. 684 - 699
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 703798—AcadHist. This article reflects only the author's view. I am currently working on a new comprehensive edition of Philodemus’ Index Academicorum (P.Herc. 1691/1021/164). I would like to thank Graziano Ranocchia and David Sedley for their advice.

References

1 For the different types of ancient historiography of philosophy and their relation to Diogenes Laertius, see Mejer, J., Diogenes Laertius and His Hellenistic Background (Wiesbaden, 1978), especially 60–95Google Scholar.

2 In addition to the works listed in n. 5 below, I would like to refer to Diocles of Magnesia, who is exclusively quoted by Diogenes (19 times), and may have written two works on the History of Philosophy, Ἐπιδρομὴ (τῶν φιλοσόφων) (Summary of Philosophers) and Βίοι (τῶν) φιλοσόφων (Lives of Philosophers); cf. Gaiser, K., Philodems Academica (Stuttgart and Bad-Canstatt, 1988), 111Google Scholar. The first work encompassed at least three books, but the treatment of Epicurus in the third book makes it not unlikely that the overall number did not exceed three books. The highest book-number for Favorinus’ philosophical-historical treatise Ἀπομνημονεύματα (Memoirs) we know of is five. His Παντοδαπὴ Ἱστορία (Varied History) also touched upon historical-philosophical issues.

3 A new edition has been provided by Dorandi, T., Diogenes Laertius: Lives of Eminent Philosophers (Cambridge, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Mejer (n. 1), 70 draws a comparison between Sotion, Diogenes, Heraclides Lembus, Sosicrates and Philodemus. The comparison between the structure of Sotion and Diogenes is the most meaningful, but it rests on a poor basis and there are many variables in the reconstruction of Sotion's work. Nevertheless, some careful deduction might be inferred. The structure of Sotion's work was first reconstructed by F. Panzerbieter, ‘Kleinigkeiten 1. Sotion’, NJB 1837 (Suppl. 5/1), 211–20. For a useful overview of the genre, including Philodemus, see Mansfeld, J., ‘Sources’, in Algra, K. et al. (edd.), The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy (Cambridge, 1999), 3–30, at 23–5 (‘successions’)Google Scholar and Schorn, S., ‘Philodem und die Autoren von Abfolgen der Philosophen (VI 7.10)’, in Zimmermann, B. and Rengakos, A. (edd.), Handbuch der griechischen Literatur der Antike. 2 (Munich, 2014), 721–4Google Scholar.

5 For Διαδοχαί as a title of historiographical works, see Mejer (n. 1), 62–75. He mentions Sotion, Heraclides Lembus (who epitomized Sotion), Sosicrates, Alexander, Iason, Antisthenes and Nicias.

6 The so-called ‘Vita Socratis’ might represent another book of the Σύνταξις τῶν φιλοσόφων and the two papyri scrolls could represent a draft and the final version: see Giuliano, F.M., ‘PHerc. 495 – PHerc. 558 (Filodemo, Stori di Socrate e della sua scuola?) Edizione, commento, questioni compositive e attributive’, CErc 31 (2001), 37–79, here 46–7Google Scholar. Scepticism about the attribution has been expressed by Gallo, I., ‘Una trattazione biografica di Socrate nei papiri ercolanesi’, SIFC 20 (2002), 59–62Google Scholar.

7 Gigante, M., Philodemus in Italy (transl.: Obbink, D.) (Ann Arbor, 1995), 21CrossRefGoogle Scholar (Italian edition: Gigante, M., Filodemo in Italia [Florence, 1990], 26Google Scholar: ‘è una circostanza finora non rilevata che tanto la Syntaxis di Filodemo quanto i Bioi di Diogene Laerzio si estendevano per dieci libri. Ci domandiamo se Filodemo, evidentemente ancora letto nel III sec. d.C., non abbia almeno fornito a Diogene Laerzio un modello di scrittura e di misura.’)

8 For sure, it is likely that Philodemus made his work end with the book about Epicurus and his successors as well, but, contrary to what Gigante implies, it cannot entirely be excluded that Philodemus’ work encompassed more than ten books: see Sedley, D., ‘Philodemus and the decentralisation of philosophy’, CErc 33 (2003), 31–41, at 31Google Scholar: ‘in ten books (or possibly more)’.

9 Sedley (n. 8), 32.

10 The latest edition was provided by Dorandi, T., Filodemo. Storia dei filosofi. Platone e l'Academia (PHerc. 1021 e 164). Edizione, traduzione e commento (Naples, 1991)Google Scholar. Prior editions: Bücheler, F., Academicorum philosophorum index Herculanensis (Greifswald, 1869)Google Scholar; Mekler, S., Academicorum philosophorum index Herculanensis (Berlin, 1902)Google Scholar. The edition by Gaiser (n. 2) contains only the first part of the work. Some fragments belonging to columns prior to P.Herc. 1021 have been identified by del Mastro, G., ‘Altri frammenti dal PHerc. 1691: Filodemo, Historia Academicorum e Di III’, CErc 42 (2012), 277–92Google Scholar.

11 For the columns on the verso, their placement and other peculiarities of the papyrus, see Fleischer, K., ‘Die Lokalisierung der Verso-Kolumnen von PHerc. 1021’, ZPE 204 (2017), 27–39Google Scholar.

12 Cf. Dorandi, T., ‘Den Autoren über die Schulter geschaut’, ZPE 87 (1991), 11–33Google Scholar and Dorandi, T., Nell‘officina dei classici. Come lavoravano gli autori antichi (Rome, 2007), 40–2Google Scholar.

13 Döring, K., Die Megariker (Amsterdam, 1972), 77 n. 5Google Scholar, for instance, questions the reading and does not include it in his collection of testimonies.

14 The textual reconstruction (see the apparatus criticus) and translation are slightly obscure (Gaiser [n. 2], 24): ‘Wann immer man aber die Darstellung über Eukleides (von Megara) und über die von Platon ausgegangenen, ferner auch über die anderen noch hinzugekommenen Schulrichtungen und Philosophenfolgen durchgeht, sieht man, was sich daran anschließt.’ He explains: ‘Mit τῶν ἀπὸ Πλάτωνος (αἱρέσεων) sind hier, wie ich meine, der aristotelische Peripatos and die Schule des Menedemos von Pyrrha gemeint.’ His interpretation had already been mentioned a couple of years before by Dorandi, T., ‘Filodemo e l'Academia (PHerc. 1021 XXXIII–XXXVI)’, CErc 16 (1986), 113–18, at 117 n. 36Google Scholar.

15 Dorandi (n. 10), 253 and Dorandi (n. 14), 117 n. 36.

16 What looks like ink at the left foot of the δ is simply a shade or hole in the original. Also the ‘ink’ above the ι is not ink in the original.

17 Owing to the uneven surface of the cornice, which is not reproduced in the images, and to the varying size of the letters, the space for this supplement is absolutely sufficient (the ο and φ, and partly also the π, are rather small letters). The right part of the ν is pretty well preserved, ruling out that the μ of the disegni might be correct.

18 The MSI are slightly misleading. A check of the original papyrus in the Officina dei Papiri in Naples showed that the right part of lines 15–19 is ‘stretched’ and may be placed up to half a letter to the right and slightly shifted. Furthermore, the surface on which the papyrus is glued (‘cornice’) is very uneven and some tiny fragments have to be adjusted and shifted around different axes and angles. The size of (identical) letters in this papyrus and the space between letters varies considerably. Tiny traces of α are preserved at the bottom. The following traces stem either from the right or from the left foot of π, depending on what size or shifting one assumes. Then there is room for α. After that, the left part of a ν is preserved, before there is space for one letter. Then the lower part of another letter (probably an ι or a τ) is preserved. After this letter, the ink at the top allows for σ. The following scattered traces are compatible with θ. The ε is almost exclusively preserved in the disegno. The ν is almost entirely preserved, whereas the next letter hints strongly at o, which is also given by the disegno.

19 It is possible to estimate the number of columns on the lost recto before the beginning of the surviving portion of P.Herc. 1691/1021: most likely 25–30, and surely no more than 40. Since only the last columns of the Life of Plato survive, the number lost may well match that of the passage about Plato.

20 Pupils of Euclides (108–20): Eubulides, Alexinus, Euphantus, Apollonius Cronus, Diodorus Cronus, Ichthyas, Cleinomachus, Stilpo. Pupils of Phaedo: Menedemus of Eretria, founder of the Eretrian School, and Asclepiades of Phlius (125–44). In Diog. Laert. 2.120–5 other minor Socratics are listed: Criton, Simon, Glaukon, Simmias, Kebes.

21 Sedley, D., ‘Diodorus Cronus and Hellenistic philosophy’, PCPhS 23 (1977), 74–120, at 74–8Google Scholar made the point that there were two different schools. Döring, K., ‘Gab es eine dialektische Schule?’, Phronesis 34 (1989), 293–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar opposed this view. In favour of Sedley's hypothesis, for instance, Ebert, T., Dialektiker und frühe Stoiker bei Sextus Empiricus: Untersuchungen zur Entstehung der Aussagenlogik (Göttingen, 1991), 24–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ebert, T., ‘In defence of the dialectical school’, in Alesse, F. (ed.), Anthropine Sophia (Naples, 2008), 275–93Google Scholar; Denyer, N., ‘Neglected evidence for Diodorus Cronus’, CQ 52 (2002), 597–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 In these chapters Diogenes uses frequently the (common) expression οἱ ἀπὸ (…), which occurs three times in the above re-edited Philodemus passage (Diog. Laert. 2.106, 112, 113, 125, 126, 144).

23 See Diog. Laert. 6.12 (quotation main text below).

24 However, as far as I can judge from the remaining parts, it seems that the syntaxis was not mainly concerned with philosophical aspects; hence the more institutional translation (‘sects’) might be preferable.

25 Its position and its flashback-character are a bit strange, might have a connection with the preview in Diog. Laert. 2.85, and reflect Diogenes’ (later revised?) plan for the structure of the work.

26 The latest edition is by Dorandi, T., Storia dei filosofi. La Stoà da Zenone a Panezio: PHerc. 1018 (Leiden, 1994)Google Scholar.

27 Ranocchia (per litteras) suggests something like: ‘Let us end the book on Plato and add that on Euclides, Phaedo and Antisthenes.’

28 Since only Phaedo and not Menedemus is mentioned, I will speak in the following just of the Elean School (not the Elean–Eretrian School). However, it is very likely that Menedemus (the Eretrian school) was integrated in the Elean succession scheme.

29 Auricchio, F. Longo, ‘I Megarici nei papiri Ercolanesi’, CErc 15 (1985), 187–9Google Scholar.

30 The insertion of a possible Megarian book right after the Index Academicorum does not necessarily conflict with chronological considerations, given the Nachleben of the Elean–Megarian philosophers and the fact that—like Plato—they were ‘Socratics’.

31 The traces in line 14 make a reconstruction like οὐδέποτε δέ or μηδέποτε δέ (or another similar one) unlikely.

32 See Erler, M., ‘§25 Philodemus’, in Flashar, H. (ed.), GGPh 4.1 (Basel, 1994), 289–362, at 297–301Google Scholar and Crönert, W., Kolotes und Menedemos (Leipzig, 1906), 133Google Scholar. For the attribution of the Vita Socratis, see Giuliano (n. 6), 43–6.

33 For a discussion and new edition, see Cavalieri, M., ‘La Rassegna dei filosofi de Filodemo: Scuola eleatica ed abdertia (PHerc. 327) e Scuola pitagorica (PHerc. 1508)?’, PapLup 11 (2002), 17–53Google Scholar.

34 Latest edition by Giuliano (n. 6).

35 Latest edition by Tepedino, A., ‘Il Kepos epicureo nel PHerc. 1780’, CErc 10 (1980), 17–24Google Scholar.

36 Latest edition by Dorandi (n. 26).

37 Latest comprehensive edition is by Dorandi (n. 10).

38 A more exact title might be Index Megaricorum et Eleorum.

39 Crönert (n. 32), 127–30.

40 Democritus’ funeral might be alluded to and such an account is more likely to have occurred in a ‘History of Philosophy’ than anywhere else. However, only small fragments survive, and a kind of doxographical and anecdotal digression in a treatise not genuinely devoted to the history of philosophy remains a distinct possibility. Crönert's palaeographical arguments are no longer compelling (Crönert [n. 32], 126–7). For instance, he mistakenly believed that P.Herc. 495 and P.Herc. 558 stemmed from the same scroll: see Giugliano (n. 6), 40. Based on an analysis of the original papyri, it does not seem likely that P.Herc. 327 stems from the same hand as one of these papyri. However, the similarity (not identity) of the hand of P.Herc. 327 with P.Herc. 495 and P.Herc. 558 and with other papyri from the syntaxis makes it possible that they come from the same ‘editorial project’: see Cavallo, G., Libri scritture scribe a Ercolano (Suppl. CErc 13) (Naples, 1983), 62Google Scholar.

41 Crönert (n. 32), 131–2; Cavalieri (n. 33).

42 Most recent edition by Giuliano (n. 6). On the edition, see Auricchio, F. Longo, ‘Gli studi sui testi biografici negli ultimi dieci anni’, in Erler, M. und Schorn, S., Die griechische Biographie in hellenistischer Zeit (Berlin, 2007), 219–56, at 238Google Scholar.

43 Crönert (n. 32), 130; Tepedino (n. 35).

44 Latest edition of the Tractatus (1418): Militello, C., Memorie Epicuree (Naples, 1997)Google Scholar. Latest edition of De Epicuro (1232, 1289): Guerra, A. Tepedino, ‘L'opera filodemea su Epicuro (PHerc. 1232, 1289 β)’, CErc 24 (1994), 5–53Google Scholar. A new edition is currently being prepared by G. Barbieri.

45 See the main text above. What speaks particularly against such a theory is the fact that the second mention of Philodemus, though not entirely clear (Diog. Laert. 10.24: ὡς οἱ περὶ Φιλόδημόν φασι), occurs in relation to the characterization of Polyaenus, not Epicurus. Assuming that this reference is somehow drawn from the same book as Diog. Laert. 10.3 (Book 10), Epicurus was probably not the only philosopher included in this book, that is, all Epicureans were included in Philodemus’ Book 10.

46 Furthermore, Philodemus’ biography of Epicurus (De Epicuro) and the other treatises on his life and tenets (Tractatus) may be regarded as evidence that the biography of Epicurus in the Index Epicureorum was not exhaustively detailed in any respect and that there was sufficient space for the treatment of all other Epicureans (successors) in the same book.

47 If there were more than 10 books, the book on the Megarians or on Cyncis (or on both) cannot have been Book 11 (or Book 12), but a treatment of Plato after Epicurus is in any case unlikely.

48 Since the logic-loving Megarians have already often been mentioned in this contribution, I should point out that the lists of convergences and divergences are supposed to highlight certain aspects and that I have not sought to avoid possible ‘logical’ overlaps or (probable) implications.

49 The above-cited final passage of the Index Stoicorum has at least a flashback (conclusion of the current book). A preview in the lost part remains possible.

50 A similar case is that of the Index Stoicorum.

51 For instance, it is quite trivial that Socrates was treated before Plato, and that Plato was treated before his successors.

52 An anonymous reviewer pointed out that Philodemus and Diogenes may have followed two different models of the biographical tradition. The reviewer states that Philodemus seems to remain fairly close to the Διαδοχαί tradition, while Diogenes follows or creates a new genre where biographical and doxographic data are mixed. This is certainly a plausible hypothesis, even if it must remain doubtful whether there were different (strictly) standardized or formalized models for this genre.