Defining a 'Pseudo-Plato' Epigrammatist
by Davide Massimo
From Defining Authorship, Debating Authenticity: Problems of Authority from Classical Antiquity to the Renaissance
Edited by Roberta Berardi, Martina Filosa, and Davide Massimo
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT
YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.
1 Introduction
This paper will analyze the corpus of epigrams which were variously ascribed in ancient times to the philosopher Plato.1 Scholars nowadays tend not to believe in the authenticity of these texts, and so they are defined as pseudepigraphical and their author is generally labelled as ps.-Plato. Pseudepigraphical literature is a fascinating yet complex subject, in which convenient labels often hide a series of complicated dynamics of textual transmission and cultural history.2 Pseudepigraphical epigrams are no exception, and so it is with those ascribed to Plato. The ultimate aim of this paper is to analyze such dynamics, in order to sketch the origin and the history of this corpus of epigrams and thus to provide a satisfactory definition of the ps.-Plato label, with a specific focus on the erotic sub-group of epigrams.
The only comprehensive edition of all these epigrams is Epigrammata Graeca by D.L. [Denys Lionel] Page,3 in which 31 epigrams variously ascribed to Plato are included. The edition was followed by Further Greek Epigrams by the same editor,4 which narrowed the selection to 24. [5] I will treat the subject with regard to all 31, since they all contribute to the overall picture of the corpus.6 The sources of the epigrams are different: the great majority of them (29 epigrams) are in the Greek Anthology, one is in Athenaeus (epigram IX) and another one (epigram XIV) in an anonymous Vita Aristophanis and Olympiodorus. Of the 29 epigrams contained in the Greek Anthology, nine are also present in Diogenes Laertius, three in Apuleius and others in later writers (for these additional sources, see below). Almost all of the epigrams fall into the erotic, sepulchral [relating to a tomb or interment], or ecphrastic [a vivid, often dramatic, verbal description of a visual work of art, either real or imagined] sub-categories (cf. the table at the end).
2 The Authenticity of the Epigrams
As mentioned above, pseudepigraphical literature is a complex matter which encompasses a wide variety of entities. Different labels and categories have been suggested, which do not (admittedly) cover all the existing cases of Greek and Roman literature: it might be useful to recall some of them.7 The greatest distinction is between 'intentional' pseudepigraphical and 'unintentional' pseudepigraphical works. The former category, which involves the actions of forgers, itself encompasses different cases, since forgers could ascribe a work to a third person, different from the actual author, or also to themselves; besides, this choice could be made for different reasons and with different intentions.8 The latter category ('unintentional') involves the occurrence of mistakes in the ascription, which can be of various origins (e.g. in the manuscripts, headings etc., or originated from authors with the same or similar names).9 The existence of pseudepigraphical works and the criteria for ascertaining the authenticity of literary works were already acknowledged in Antiquity, and in the same way one can distinguish cases where the doubts about authenticity go back to Antiquity (e.g. the most famous case of Varro's catalogue of Plautus' comedies), and cases in which the doubt only arose in modern times.10 The case of the epigrams ascribed to Plato is a good exemplification of the complexity of the pseudepigraphical problem: from the following pages, in fact, it will be clear that these epigrams fall under both macro-categories ('intentional' and 'unintentional') and exemplify their different sub-categories (i.e. different reasons for the ascription). At the same time, however, the epigrams demonstrate the inadequacy of the pseudepigraphical categories and constitute a peculiar case for several reasons. Firstly, the epigrams are poetic texts whereas Plato is known to us exclusively as an author of philosophical prose. Secondly, within the corpus of his philosophical works there is already a debate about authenticity for some pieces (notably the Letters). Lastly, this case is different even from the debates about the authenticity of epigrammatic texts (notably 'Simonides'11 and 'Theocritus'):12 in those cases, there seems to be at least a core of authentic epigrams.
This leads us to the thorny question of the authenticity of the epigrams ascribed to Plato, which involves different layers of complexity. The analysis which follows will show that the corpus is stratified, and the material has different origins: it is therefore more sensible to distinguish the material rather than proving or disproving the authenticity of all of the epigrams a priori. Let us briefly sketch the modern approach to the authenticity of the epigrams before moving on to the next step of the analysis.13
There were substantially no doubts about authenticity from ancient times all the way until the modern age, when scholars such as Hermann,14 Bergk,15 and Reitzenstein16 raised the first objections to the communis opinio [general opinion], denying the authenticity of some or all of the epigrams. Conversely, authoritative voices for authenticity appeared in the first half of the 20th century, namely those of Wilamowitz17 and Bowra.18 It is only with Ludwig19 that a strong case against the authenticity of a specific sub-group of the epigrams (the erotic ones) was built, which was then accepted and developed further by Page.20 Ludwig's main argument, which is still held to be valid, is that the style of the erotic sub-group is plainly that of Hellenistic erotic epigram: 'If the so-called Platonic erotic epigrams had really been composed by Plato, they would destroy the apparent logic of the literary development -- after the seventh and sixth centuries, decline in the fifth and the fourth, then c. 300, the revival with Asklepiades. This fact at the start necessarily makes us suspicious about the tradition ascribing these love epigrams to Plato'.21 Specific arguments pertaining to the erotic epigrams will be treated in the following pages. It is clear, then, that the main argument against the authenticity of this group is a chronological/stylistic criterion.22 A similar argument can be applied to the other sub-groups (sepulchral, ecphrastic), with the addition that it is even possible sometimes to suggest an ascription to other known authors, which again denies Platonic authorship (e.g. the case of Asclepiades or Plato the Younger, for which cf. below).
Having said that, one still has to consider the epigrams separately, with regard not only to their authenticity, but also to the reasons for their ascription to Plato and the ways in which they are ascribed to him. After recalling the anecdotes concerning the alleged poetic activity of Plato, it will be convenient to treat the epigrams by their sources, which will allow us to distinguish the reasons for and manners of ascription and at the same time to sketch a chronological development, distinguishing in which age which of the epigrams were ascribed to Plato.
3 The Anecdotes about Plato the Poet
A series of different ancient sources report that Plato was a poet in his youth, before turning to philosophy.23 The oldest of these seems to be Dicaearcus, quoted by Diogenes Laertius:
[x]
Diog. Laert. 3.4-5, ed. Dorandi24
The sources mention poetic works of different genres, but not the epigrams, with the exception of Apuleius (whose testimony will be discussed extensively in section 5 below). Some of the scholars who tried to defend the Platonic authorship of the epigrams insisted on the interest of Plato in poetry.25
Then the lying poet has no place in our idea of God?
I should say not...
And we must beg Homer and the other poets not to be angry if we strike out these and similar passages, not because they are unpoetical, or unattractive to the popular ear, but because the greater the poetical charm of them, the less are they meet for the ears of boys and men who are meant to be free, and who should fear slavery more than death...
Because, if I am not mistaken, we shall have to say that about men poets and story-tellers are guilty of making the gravest misstatements when they tell us that wicked men are often happy, and the good miserable; and that injustice is profitable when undetected, but that justice is a man's own loss and another's gain — these things we shall forbid them to utter, and command them to sing and say the opposite.
To be sure we shall, he replied....
Enough of the subjects of poetry ...
If Homer had said, "The priest came, having his daughter's ransom in his hands, supplicating the Achaeans, and above all the kings;" and then if, instead of speaking in the person of Chryses, he had continued in his own person, the words would have been, not imitation, but simple narration. The passage would have run as follows (I am no poet, and therefore I drop the metre), "The priest came and prayed the gods on behalf of the Greeks that they might capture Troy and return safely home, but begged that they would give him back his daughter, and take the ransom which he brought, and respect the God....
And therefore when any one of these pantomimic gentlemen, who are so clever that they can imitate anything, comes to us, and makes a proposal to exhibit himself and his poetry, we will fall down and worship him as a sweet and holy and wonderful being; but we must also inform him that in our State such as he are not permitted to exist; the law will not allow them. And so when we have anointed him with myrrh, and set a garland of wool upon his head, we shall send him away to another city. For we mean to employ for our souls' health the rougher and severer poet or story-teller, who will imitate the style of the virtuous only, and will follow those models which we prescribed at first when we began the education of our soldiers....
But shall our superintendence go no further, and are the poets only to be required by us to express the image of the good in their works, on pain, if they do anything else, of expulsion from our State? Or is the same control to be extended to other artists, and are they also to be prohibited from exhibiting the opposite forms of vice and intemperance and meanness and indecency in sculpture and building and the other creative arts; and is he who cannot conform to this rule of ours to be prevented from practising his art in our State, lest the taste of our citizens be corrupted by him? We would not have our guardians grow up amid images of moral deformity, as in some noxious pasture, and there browse and feed upon many a baneful herb and flower day by day, little by little, until they silently gather a festering mass of corruption in their own soul. Let our artists rather be those who are gifted to discern the true nature of the beautiful and graceful; then will our youth dwell in a land of health, amid fair sights and sounds, and receive the good in everything; and beauty, the effluence of fair works, shall flow into the eye and ear, like a health-giving breeze from a purer region, and insensibly draw the soul from earliest years into likeness and sympathy with the beauty of reason.
There can be no nobler training than that, he replied....
Of the many excellences which I perceive in the order of our State, there is none which upon reflection pleases me better than the rule about poetry.
To what do you refer?
To the rejection of imitative poetry, which certainly ought not to be received; as I see far more clearly now that the parts of the soul have been distinguished.
What do you mean?
Speaking in confidence, for I should not like to have my words repeated to the tragedians and the rest of the imitative tribe — but I do not mind saying to you, that all poetical imitations are ruinous to the understanding of the hearers, and that the knowledge of their true nature is the only antidote to them....
And the tragic poet is an imitator, and therefore, like all other imitators, he is thrice removed from the king and from the truth?
That appears to be so....
Then must we not infer that all these poetical individuals, beginning with Homer, are only imitators; they copy images of virtue and the like, but the truth they never reach? The poet is like a painter who, as we have already observed, will make a likeness of a cobbler though he understands nothing of cobbling; and his picture is good enough for those who know no more than he does, and judge only by colours and figures.
Quite so.
In like manner the poet with his words and phrases may be said to lay on the colours of the several arts, himself understanding their nature only enough to imitate them; and other people, who are as ignorant as he is, and judge only from his words, imagine that if he speaks of cobbling, or of military tactics, or of anything else, in metre and harmony and rhythm, he speaks very well — such is the sweet influence which melody and rhythm by nature have. And I think that you must have observed again and again what a poor appearance the tales of poets make when stripped of the colours which music puts upon them, and recited in simple prose.
Yes, he said....
Thus far then we are pretty well agreed that the imitator has no knowledge worth mentioning of what he imitates. Imitation is only a kind of play or sport, and the tragic poets, whether they write in iambic or in Heroic verse, are imitators in the highest degree?
Very true....
Then the imitative poet who aims at being popular is not by nature made, nor is his art intended, to please or to affect the principle in the soul; but he will prefer the passionate and fitful temper, which is easily imitated?
Clearly.
And now we may fairly take him and place him by the side of the painter, for he is like him in two ways: first, inasmuch as his creations have an inferior degree of truth — in this, I say, he is like him; and he is also like him in being concerned with an inferior part of the soul; and therefore we shall be right in refusing to admit him into a well-ordered State, because he awakens and nourishes and strengthens the feelings and impairs the reason. As in a city when the evil are permitted to have authority and the good are put out of the way, so in the soul of man, as we maintain, the imitative poet implants an evil constitution, for he indulges the irrational nature which has no discernment of greater and less, but thinks the same thing at one time great and at another small — he is a manufacturer of images and is very far removed from the truth.
Exactly.
But we have not yet brought forward the heaviest count in our accusation: — the power which poetry has of harming even the good (and there are very few who are not harmed), is surely an awful thing?
Yes, certainly, if the effect is what you say.
Hear and judge: The best of us, as I conceive, when we listen to a passage of Homer, or one of the tragedians, in which he represents some pitiful hero who is drawling out his sorrows in a long oration, or weeping, and smiting his breast — the best of us, you know, delight in giving way to sympathy, and are in raptures at the excellence of the poet who stirs our feelings most.
Yes, of course I know.
But when any sorrow of our own happens to us, then you may observe that we pride ourselves on the opposite quality — we would fain be quiet and patient; this is the manly part, and the other which delighted us in the recitation is now deemed to be the part of a woman.
Very true, he said.
Now can we be right in praising and admiring another who is doing that which any one of us would abominate and be ashamed of in his own person?
No, he said, that is certainly not reasonable.
Nay, I said, quite reasonable from one point of view.
What point of view?
If you consider, I said, that when in misfortune we feel a natural hunger and desire to relieve our sorrow by weeping and lamentation, and that this feeling which is kept under control in our own calamities is satisfied and delighted by the poets; — the better nature in each of us, not having been sufficiently trained by reason or habit, allows the sympathetic element to break loose because the sorrow is another's; and the spectator fancies that there can be no disgrace to himself in praising and pitying any one who comes telling him what a good man he is, and making a fuss about his troubles; he thinks that the pleasure is a gain, and why should he be supercilious and lose this and the poem too? Few persons ever reflect, as I should imagine, that from the evil of other men something of evil is communicated to themselves. And so the feeling of sorrow which has gathered strength at the sight of the misfortunes of others is with difficulty repressed in our own.
How very true!
And does not the same hold also of the ridiculous? There are jests which you would be ashamed to make yourself, and yet on the comic stage, or indeed in private, when you hear them, you are greatly amused by them, and are not at all disgusted at their unseemliness; — the case of pity is repeated; — there is a principle in human nature which is disposed to raise a laugh, and this which you once restrained by reason, because you were afraid of being thought a buffoon, is now let out again; and having stimulated the risible faculty at the theatre, you are betrayed unconsciously to yourself into playing the comic poet at home.
Quite true, he said.
And the same may be said of lust and anger and all the other affections, of desire and pain and pleasure, which are held to be inseparable from every action — in all of them poetry feeds and waters the passions instead of drying them up; she lets them rule, although they ought to be controlled, if mankind are ever to increase in happiness and virtue.
I cannot deny it.
Therefore, Glaucon, I said, whenever you meet with any of the eulogists of Homer declaring that he has been the educator of Hellas, and that he is profitable for education and for the ordering of human things, and that you should take him up again and again and get to know him and regulate your whole life according to him, we may love and honour those who say these things — they are excellent people, as far as their lights extend; and we are ready to acknowledge that Homer is the greatest of poets and first of tragedy writers; but we must remain firm in our conviction that hymns to the gods and praises of famous men are the only poetry which ought to be admitted into our State. For if you go beyond this and allow the honeyed muse to enter, either in epic or lyric verse, not law and the reason of mankind, which by common consent have ever been deemed best, but pleasure and pain will be the rulers in our State.
That is most true, he said.
And now since we have reverted to the subject of poetry, let this our defence serve to show the reasonableness of our former judgment in sending away out of our State an art having the tendencies which we have described; for reason constrained us. But that she may impute to us any harshness or want of politeness, let us tell her that there is an ancient quarrel between philosophy and poetry; of which there are many proofs, such as the saying of "the yelping hound howling at her lord," or of one "mighty in the vain talk of fools," and "the mob of sages circumventing Zeus," and the "subtle thinkers who are beggars after all"; and there are innumerable other signs of ancient enmity between them. Notwithstanding this, let us assure our sweet friend and the sister arts of imitation that if she will only prove her title to exist in a well-ordered State we shall be delighted to receive her — we are very conscious of her charms; but we may not on that account betray the truth. I dare say, Glaucon, that you are as much charmed by her as I am, especially when she appears in Homer?
Yes, indeed, I am greatly charmed.
Shall I propose, then, that she be allowed to return from exile, but upon this condition only — that she make a defence of herself in lyrical or some other metre?
Certainly.
And we may further grant to those of her defenders who are lovers of poetry and yet not poets the permission to speak in prose on her behalf: let them show not only that she is pleasant but also useful to States and to human life, and we will listen in a kindly spirit; for if this can be proved we shall surely be the gainers — I mean, if there is a use in poetry as well as a delight?
Certainly, he said, we shall the gainers.
If her defence fails, then, my dear friend, like other persons who are enamoured of something, but put a restraint upon themselves when they think their desires are opposed to their interests, so too must we after the manner of lovers give her up, though not without a struggle. We too are inspired by that love of poetry which the education of noble States has implanted in us, and therefore we would have her appear at her best and truest; but so long as she is unable to make good her defence, this argument of ours shall be a charm to us, which we will repeat to ourselves while we listen to her strains; that we may not fall away into the childish love of her which captivates the many. At all events we are well aware that poetry being such as we have described is not to be regarded seriously as attaining to the truth; and he who listens to her, fearing for the safety of the city which is within him, should be on his guard against her seductions and make our words his law.
Yes, he said, I quite agree with you.
Yes, I said, my dear Glaucon, for great is the issue at stake, greater than appears, whether a man is to be good or bad. And what will any one be profited if under the influence of honour or money or power, aye, or under the excitement of poetry, he neglect justice and virtue?
Yes, he said; I have been convinced by the argument, as I believe that any one else would have been.
-- The Republic, by Plato
Such interest is of course undeniable,26 and one cannot rule out in principle that there might be some truth behind the anecdotes and that Plato might have composed poetry in his youth: however, the analysis of the data (as already stated in section 2 above) shows that none of the extant epigrams can be identified with this alleged poetic production. Even so, the anecdotes concerning this poetic activity of Plato are interesting and may have played a role in the ascription of some of the epigrams.
4 Diogenes Laertius and Pseudo-Aristippus
The most important source for the epigrams ascribed to Plato (apart from the Greek Anthology) is Diogenes Laertius. In the book on the life of Plato, Diogenes elaborates on Plato's poetic activity and quotes 11 epigrams:
[x]
Diog. Laert. 3.29, ed. Dorandi
Diogenes Laërtius (fl. 3rd century AD [200 AD]) was a biographer of the Greek philosophers. Nothing is definitively known about his life, but his surviving Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers is a principal source for the history of ancient Greek philosophy. His reputation is controversial among scholars because he often repeats information from his sources without critically evaluating it. He also frequently focuses on trivial or insignificant details of his subjects' lives while ignoring important details of their philosophical teachings and he sometimes fails to distinguish between earlier and later teachings of specific philosophical schools. However, unlike many other ancient secondary sources, Diogenes Laërtius generally reports philosophical teachings without attempting to reinterpret or expand on them, which means his accounts are often closer to the primary sources. Due to the loss of so many of the primary sources on which Diogenes relied, his work has become the foremost surviving source on the history of Greek philosophy.
Laërtius must have lived after Sextus Empiricus (c. 200), whom he mentions, and before Stephanus of Byzantium and Sopater of Apamea (c. 500), who quote him. His work makes no mention of Neoplatonism, even though it is addressed to a woman who was "an enthusiastic Platonist". Hence he is assumed to have flourished in the first half of the 3rd century, during the reign of Alexander Severus (222–235) and his successors.
The precise form of his name is uncertain. The ancient manuscripts invariably refer to a "Laertius Diogenes", and this form of the name is repeated by Sopater and the Suda. The modern form "Diogenes Laertius" is much rarer, used by Stephanus of Byzantium, and in a lemma to the Greek Anthology. He is also referred to as "Laertes" or simply "Diogenes".
The origin of the name "Laertius" is also uncertain. Stephanus of Byzantium refers to him as "Διογένης ὁ Λαερτιεύς" (Diogenes ho Laertieus), implying that he was the native of some town, perhaps the Laerte in Caria (or another Laerte in Cilicia). Another suggestion is that one of his ancestors had for a patron a member of the Roman family of the Laërtii. The prevailing modern theory is that "Laertius" is a nickname (derived from the Homeric epithet Diogenes Laertiade, used in addressing Odysseus) used to distinguish him from the many other people called Diogenes in the ancient world.
His home town is unknown (at best uncertain, even according to a hypothesis that Laertius refers to his origin). A disputed passage in his writings has been used to suggest that it was Nicaea in Bithynia.
It has been suggested that Diogenes was an Epicurean or a Pyrrhonist. He passionately defends Epicurus in Book 10, which is of high quality and contains three long letters attributed to Epicurus explaining Epicurean doctrines. He is impartial to all schools, in the manner of the Pyrrhonists, and he carries the succession of Pyrrhonism further than that of the other schools. At one point, he even seems to refer to the Pyrrhonists as "our school." On the other hand, most of these points can be explained by the way he uncritically copies from his sources. It is by no means certain that he adhered to any school, and he is usually more attentive to biographical details.
In addition to the Lives, Diogenes refers to another work that he had written in verse on famous men, in various metres, which he called Epigrammata or Pammetros (Πάμμετρος).
The work by which he is known, Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers (Greek: Βίοι καὶ γνῶμαι τῶν ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ εὐδοκιμησάντων; Latin: Vitae Philosophorum), was written in Greek and professes to give an account of the lives and sayings of the Greek philosophers.
Although it is at best an uncritical and unphilosophical compilation, its value, as giving us an insight into the private lives of the Greek sages, led Montaigne to write that he wished that instead of one Laërtius there had been a dozen. On the other hand, modern scholars have advised that we treat Diogenes' testimonia with care, especially when he fails to cite his sources: "Diogenes has acquired an importance out of all proportion to his merits because the loss of many primary sources and of the earlier secondary compilations has accidentally left him the chief continuous source for the history of Greek philosophy"....
His chief authorities were Favorinus and Diocles of Magnesia, but his work also draws (either directly or indirectly) on books by Antisthenes of Rhodes, Alexander Polyhistor, and Demetrius of Magnesia, as well as works by Hippobotus, Aristippus, Panaetius, Apollodorus of Athens, Sosicrates, Satyrus, Sotion, Neanthes, Hermippus, Antigonus, Heraclides, Hieronymus, and Pamphila.
There are many extant manuscripts of the Lives, although none of them are especially old, and they all descend from a common ancestor, because they all lack the end of Book VII. The three most useful manuscripts are known as B, P, and F. Manuscript B (Codex Borbonicus) dates from the 12th century, and is in the National Library of Naples. Manuscript P (Paris) is dated to the 11th/12th century, and is in the Bibliothèque nationale de France. Manuscript F (Florence) is dated to the 13th century, and is in the Laurentian Library. The titles for the individual biographies used in modern editions are absent from these earliest manuscripts, however they can be found inserted into the blank spaces and margins of manuscript P by a later hand.
There seem to have been some early Latin translations, but they no longer survive. A 10th-century work entitled Tractatus de dictis philosophorum shows some knowledge of Diogenes. Henry Aristippus, in the 12th century, is known to have translated at least some of the work into Latin, and in the 14th century an unknown author made use of a Latin translation for his De vita et moribus philosophorum (attributed erroneously to Walter Burley).
The first printed editions were Latin translations. The first, Laertii Diogenis Vitae et sententiae eorum qui in philosophia probati fuerunt (Romae: Giorgo Lauer, 1472), printed the translation of Ambrogio Traversari (whose manuscript presentation copy to Cosimo de' Medici was dated February 8, 1433) and was edited by Elio Francesco Marchese. The Greek text of the lives of Aristotle and Theophrastus appeared in the third volume of the Aldine Aristotle in 1497. The first edition of the whole Greek text was that published by Hieronymus Froben in 1533. The Greek/Latin edition of 1692 by Marcus Meibomius divided each of the ten books into paragraphs of equal length, and progressively numbered them, providing the system still in use today.
The first critical edition of the entire text, by H.S. Long in the Oxford Classical Texts, was not produced until 1964; this edition was superseded by Miroslav Marcovich's Teubner edition, published between 1999 and 2002. A new edition, by Tiziano Dorandi, was published by Cambridge University Press in 2013....
Henricus Aristippus, the archdeacon of Catania, produced a Latin translation of Diogenes Laertius's book in southern Italy in the late 1150s, which has since been lost or destroyed.Henry Aristippus of Calabria (born in Santa Severina in 1105–10; died in Palermo in 1162), sometimes known as Enericus or Henricus Aristippus, was a religious scholar and the archdeacon of Catania (from c. 1155) and later chief familiaris of the triumvirate of familiares who replaced the admiral Maio of Bari as chief functionaries of the Kingdom of Sicily in 1161.
While the historian of Norman Sicily, John Julius Norwich, believes him to have probably been of Norman extraction despite his Greek surname, Donald Matthew considers it self-evident, based on both his name and occupations, that he was Greek. He was first and foremost a scholar and, even if Greek, he was an adherent of the Latin church.
Aristippus was an envoy to Constantinople (1158-1160) when he received from the emperor Manuel I Comnenus a Greek copy of Ptolemy's Almagest. A student of the Schola Medica Salernitana tracked down Aristippus and his copy on Mount Etna (observing an eruption) and proceeded to give a Latin translation. Though this was the first translation of the Almagest into Latin, it was not as influential as a later translation into Latin made by Gerard of Cremona from the Arabic. The original manuscript is probably in the Biblioteca Marciana in Venice.
Aristippus himself produced the first Latin translation of Plato's Phaedo (1160) and Meno and the fourth book of Aristotle's Meteorologica. He also translated Gregory of Nazianzus at the request of William I of Sicily.
In 1161, William appointed three familiares—Aristippus, Sylvester of Marsico, and the Bishop Palmer—to replace the assassinated Maio. In 1162, Aristippus was suspected of disloyalty by the king and imprisoned. He died probably soon after in that very year. He may have helped himself to some of the royal concubines during the rebellion of 1161.
-- Henry Aristippus, by Wikipedia
Geremia da Montagnone used this translation as a source for his Compedium moralium notabilium (circa 1310) and an anonymous Italian author used it as a source for work entitled Liber de vita et moribus philosophorum (written c. 1317–1320), which reached international popularity in the Late Middle Ages. The monk Ambrogio Traversari (1386–1439) produced another Latin translation in Florence between 1424 and 1433, for which far better records have survived. The Italian Renaissance scholar, painter, philosopher, and architect Leon Battista Alberti (1404–1472) borrowed from Traversari's translation of the Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers in Book 2 of his Libri della famiglia and modeled his own autobiography on Diogenes Laërtius's Life of Thales.
Diogenes Laërtius's work has had a complicated reception in modern times. The value of his Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers as an insight into the private lives of the Greek sages led the French Renaissance philosopher Michel de Montaigne (1533–1592) to exclaim that he wished that, instead of one Laërtius, there had been a dozen. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) criticized Diogenes Laërtius for his lack of philosophical talent and categorized his work as nothing more than a compilation of previous writers' opinions. Nonetheless, he admitted that Diogenes Laërtius's compilation was an important one given the information that it contained. Hermann Usener (1834–1905) deplored Diogenes Laërtius as a "complete ass" (asinus germanus) in his Epicurea (1887). Werner Jaeger (1888–1961) damned him as "that great ignoramus". In the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, however, scholars have managed to partially redeem Diogenes Laertius's reputation as a writer by reading his book in a Hellenistic literary context.
Nonetheless, modern scholars treat Diogenes's testimonia with caution, especially when he fails to cite his sources. Herbert S. Long warns: "Diogenes has acquired an importance out of all proportion to his merits because the loss of many primary sources and of the earlier secondary compilations has accidentally left him the chief continuous source for the history of Greek philosophy." Robert M. Strozier offers a somewhat more positive assessment of Diogenes Laertius's reliability, noting that many other ancient writers attempt to reinterpret and expand on the philosophical teachings they describe, something which Diogenes Laërtius rarely does. Strozier concludes, "Diogenes Laertius is, when he does not conflate hundreds of years of distinctions, reliable simply because he is a less competent thinker than those on whom he writes, is less liable to re-formulate statements and arguments, and especially in the case of Epicurus, less liable to interfere with the texts he quotes. He does, however, simplify."...
He is criticized primarily for being overly concerned with superficial details of the philosophers' lives and lacking the intellectual capacity to explore their actual philosophical works with any penetration. However, according to statements of the 14th-century monk Walter Burley in his De vita et moribus philosophorum, the text of Diogenes seems to have been much fuller than that which we now possess.
-- Diogenes Laertius, by Wikipedia
There follows the quotation of epigrams I (on 'Aster' ), II (on 'Aster'), X (on Dion), VI (on Alexis and Phaedrus), IX (on Archeanassa), III (on Agathon), IV (on an apple), V (on Xanthippe), XI (on the Eretrians buried in Euboea), VII (on Kypris and the Muses), and XXXI (on gold).
Diogenes' testimony raises several issues. The main one concerns Aristippus' work, which has not been transmitted to us except for a few fragments preserved by quotation. It is essential to our discussion to summarize all we know of this work, which has been carried out exhaustively by T. Dorandi.27 Based on the extant fragments, the [x] was supposed to report anecdotes concerning the romantic affairs of tyrants (book 1) and philosophers (book 4), and possibly other well-known people, with the aim of discrediting them. It is clear that Diogenes believes Aristippus to be the same person as Aristippus of Cyrene [435 – c. 356 BCE], pupil of Socrates and founder of the Cyrenaic school. The mention of Arcesilaus, Polemon, and Nicomachus (the son of Aristotle) in the fragments, however, unmistakably shows that the author cannot be the same Aristippus for chronological reasons (it might be useful to call him ps.-Aristippus from now on to avoid any confusion). As far as this fragment is concerned, it is hard to determine the exact extent of the quotation from ps.-Aristippus, i.e. whether Diogenes is quoting all of these epigrams from his work. Wilamowitz's idea that all of the epigrams come from the [x] had been accepted by several scholars, until Page questioned his position.28 According to Page, only the first two epigrams were present in ps.-Aristippus and the repetition of [x] at 3.29, 3.31, 3.33 denotes a plurality of sources. Dorandi agrees with this view but has some reservations about the third epigram (= epigram X, on Dion). Page also observed that the absence of the epigrams quoted by Diogenes in Meleagrian sections of the Greek Anthology is 'evidence (not proof) that they were not in the collection of pseudo-Platonic [Plato: 428-348 BC] epigrams used by Meleager' and so suggests that ps.-Aristippus might have lived in the early imperial period [27 BC – AD 14]. This series of epigrams, as already shown by Weisshaupl,29 must have entered the Anthology through Diogenes Laertius and not through Meleager.
The Epigrams of Meleager of Gadara have been preserved in the Greek Anthology. Meleager made a major contribution to the Anthology, by compiling the first known collection of epigrams, his "Garland", in the early part of the 1st century B.C.; and he included many of his own love poems....
THE INTRODUCTION TO MELEAGER'S "GARLAND"
The names of the poets, whose epigrams have not been preserved in the Anthology, are printed in italics.
1 To whom, dear Muse, do you bring these varied fruits of song, or who was it who wrought this garland of poets? The work was Meleager's, and he laboured on it to give it as a keepsake to glorious Diocles. Many lilies of Anyte he inwove, and many of Moero, of Sappho few flowers, but they are roses; narcissus, too, heavy with the clear song of Melanippides and a young branch of the vine of Simonides; and therewith he wove in the sweet-scented lovely iris of Nossis, the wax for whose writing-tablets Love himself melted; and with it marjoram from fragrant Rhianus, and Erinna's sweet crocus, maiden-hued, the hyacinth of Alcaeus, the vocal poets' flower, and a dark-leaved branch of Samius' laurel.
15 He wove in too the luxuriant ivy-clusters of Leonidas and the sharp needles of Mnasalcas' pine; the deltoid plane-leaves of the song of Pamphilus he plucked intangled with Pancrates' walnut branches; and the graceful poplar leaves of Tymnes, the green wild thyme of Nicias and the spurge of Euphemus that grows on the sands; Damagetus, the dark violet, too, and the sweet myrtle of Callimachus, ever full of harsh honey: and Euphorion's lychnis and the Muses' cyclamen which takes its name from the twin sons of Zeus {Dioscuri}.
25 And with these he inwove Hegesippus' maenad clusters and Perseus' aromatic rush, the sweet apple also from the boughs of Diotimus and the first flowers of Menecrates' pomegranate, branches of Nicaenetus' myrrh, and Phaennus' terebinth, and the tapering wild pear of Simmias; and from the meadow where grows her perfect celery he plucked but a few blooms of Parthenis to inweave with the yellow-eared corn gleaned from Bacchylides, fair fruit on which the honey of the Muses drops.
35 He plaited in too Anacreon's sweet lyric song, and a bloom that may not be sown in verse; and the flower of Archilochus' crisp-haired cardoon - a few drops from the ocean; and therewith young shoots of Alexander's olive and the blue corn-flower of Polycleitus; the amaracus of Polystratus, too, he inwove, the poet's flower, and a fresh scarlet gopher from Antipater, and the Syrian spikenard of Hermodorus; he added the wild field-flowers of Poseidippus and Hedylus, and the anemones of Sicelides {Asclepiades}; yes indeed, and the golden bough of Plato, ever divine, all shining with virtue; and Aratus he set in there, wise in star-lore, cutting the first-born branches from a heaven-seeking palm; and the fair-tressed lotus of Chaeremon mingled with Phaedimus' phlox, and Antagoras' sweetly-turning oxeye, and Theodoridas' newly flowered thyme that loves wine, and the blossom of Phanias' bean and the newly written buds of many others, and with all these the still early white violets of his own Muse.
57 To my friends I make the gift, but this sweet-voiced garland of the Muses is common to all the initiated.
[5.8] { G-P 69 } G
O holy Night, and Lamp, we both chose no confidants but you of our oaths: and he swore to love me and I never to leave him; and you were joint witnesses. But now he says those oaths were written in running water, and you, O Lamp, see him in the bosom of others.
-- Meleager: Epigrams, by attalus.org
The ultimate issue is that we cannot determine precisely the modus operandi of ps.-Aristippus. There seem to be cases of deliberate forgery (cf. section 6.2.4 below), but in the end we cannot tell if he already knew epigrams ascribed to the philosopher or if he composed some himself, or a mixture of the two. We will come back later to this in the analysis of some specific cases.
