Chapter VI (2)

Among all the books which would pass over to Alexandria as the earliest stock of the new library, I know nothing upon which we can reckon more certainly than upon the works of Plato.[35] For they were acquisitions not only desirable, but also easily accessible. The writings of Aristippus or Demokritus--of Lysias or Isokrates--might require to be procured (or good MSS. thereof, fit to be specially copied) at different places and from different persons, without any security that the collection, when purchased, would be either complete or altogether genuine. But the manuscripts of Plato and of Aristotle were preserved in their respective schools at Athens, the Academic and Peripatetic:[36] a collection complete as well as verifiable. Demetrius could obtain permission, from Theophrastus in the Peripatetic school, from Polemon or Krantor in the Academic school, to have these MSS. copied for him by careful and expert hands. The cost of such copying must doubtless have been considerable; amounting to a sum which few private individuals would have been either able or willing to disburse. But the treasures of Ptolemy were amply sufficient for the purpose:[37] and when he once conceived the project of founding a museum in his new capital, a large outlay, incurred for transcribing from the best MSS. a complete and authentic collection of the works of illustrious authors, was not likely to deter him. We know from other anecdotes,[38] what vast sums the third Ptolemy spent, for the mere purpose of securing better and more authoritative MSS. of works which the Alexandrine library already possessed.

[Footnote 35: Stahr, in the second part of his work "Aristotelia," combats and refutes with much pains the erroneous supposition, that there was no sufficient publication of the works of Aristotle, until after the time when Apellikon purchased the MSS. from the heirs of Neleus--_i.e._ B.C. 100. Stahr shows evidence to prove, that the works, at least many of the works, of Aristotle were known and studied before the year 100 B.C.: that they were in the library at Alexandria, and that they were procured for that library by Demetrius Phalereus. Stahr says (Thl. ii. p. 59): "Is it indeed credible--is it even conceivable--that Demetrius, who recommended especially to his regal friend Ptolemy the study of the political works of the philosophers--that Demetrius, the friend both of the Aristotelian philosophy and of Theophrastus, should have left the works of the two greatest Peripatetic philosophers out of his consideration? May we not rather be sure that he would take care to secure their works, before all others, for his nascent library--if indeed he did not bring them with him when he came to Alexandria?" The question here put by Stahr (and farther insisted on by Ravaisson, Essai sur la Métaphysique d'Aristote, Introd. p. 14) is very pertinent: and I put the like question, with slight change of circumstances, respecting the works of Plato. Demetrius Phalereus was the friend and patron of Xenokrates, as well as of Theophrastus.]

[Footnote 36: In respect to the Peripatetic school, this is true only during the lifetime of Theophrastus, who died 287 B.C. I have already mentioned that after the death of Theophrastus, the MSS. were withdrawn from Athens. But all the operations of Demetrius Phalereus were carried on during the lifetime of Theophrastus; much of them, probably, in concert with Theophrastus, whose friend and pupil he was. The death of Theophrastus, the death of Ptolemy Soter, and the discredit and subsequent death of Demetrius are separated only by an interval of two or three years.]

[Footnote 37: We find interesting information, in the letters of Cicero, respecting the _librarii_ or copyists whom he had in his service; and the still more numerous and effective band of _librarii_ and _anagnostæ_: (slaves, mostly home-born) whom his friend Atticus possessed and trained (Corn. Nep., Vit. Attici, c. 13). See Epist. ad Attic. xii. 6; xiii. 21-44; v. 12 seq.

It appears that many of the compositions of Cicero were copied, prepared for publication, and published, by the _librarii_ of Atticus: who, in the case of the _Academica_, incurred a loss, because Cicero--after having given out the work to be copied and published, and after progress had been made in doing this--thought fit to alter materially both the form and the speakers introduced (xiii. 13). In regard to the Oration pro Ligario, Atticus sold it well, and brought himself home ("Ligarianam præclaré vendidisti: posthac, quicquid scripsero, tibi præconium deferam," xiii. 12). Cicero (xiii. 21) compares the relation of Atticus towards himself, with that of Hermodôrus towards Plato, as expressed in the Greek verse, [Greek: lo/goisin E(rmo/dôros [e)mporeu/etai]]. (Suidas, s, v. [Greek: lo/goisin E(rm. e)mp].)

Private friends, such as Balbus and Cærellia (xiii. 21), considered it a privilege to be allowed to take copies of his compositions at their own cost, through _librarii_ employed for the purpose. And we find Galen enumerating this among the noble and dignified ways for an opulent man to expend money, in a remarkable passage, [Greek: ble/pô ga\r se ou)de\ pro\s ta\ kala\ tô=n e)/rgôn dapanê=sai tolmô=nta, mêd' ei)s bibli/ôn ô)nê\n kai\ kataskeuê\n kai\ tô=n grapho/ntôn a)/skêsin, ê)/toi ge ei)s ta/chos dia\ sêmei/ôn, ê)\ ei)s kalô=n a)kri/beian, ô(/sper ou)de\ tô=n a)naginôsko/ntôn o)rthô=s]. (De Cognoscendis Curandisque Animi Morbis, t. v. p. 48, Kühn.)]

[Footnote 38: Galen, Comm. ad Hippokrat. [Greek: E)pidêmi/as], vol. xvii. p. 606, 607, ed. Kühn.

Lykurgus, the contemporary of Demosthenes as an orator, conspicuous for many years in the civil and financial administration of Athens, caused a law to be passed, enacting that an official MS. should be made of the plays of Æschylus, Sophokles, and Euripides. No permission was granted to represent any of these dramas at the Dionysiac festival, except upon condition that the applicant and the actors whom he employed, should compare the MS. on which they intended to proceed, with the official MS. in the hands of the authorised secretary. The purpose was to prevent arbitrary amendments or omissions in these plays, at the pleasure of [Greek: u(pokri/tai].

Ptolemy Euergetes borrowed from the Athenians these public and official MSS. of Æschylus, Sophokles, and Euripides on the plea that he wished to have exact copies of them taken at Alexandria, and under engagement to restore them as soon as this was done. He deposited with them the prodigious sum of fifteen talents, as a guarantee for the faithful restitution. When he got the MSS. at Alexandria, he caused copies of them to be taken on the finest paper. He then sent these copies to Athens, keeping the originals for the Alexandrine library; desiring the Athenians to retain the deposit of fifteen talents for themselves. Ptolemy Euergetes here pays, not merely the cost of the finest copying, but fifteen talents besides, for the possession of official MSS. of the three great Athenian tragedians; whose works in other manuscripts must have been in the library long before.

Respecting these official MSS. of the three great tragedians, prepared during the administration and under the auspices of the rhetor Lykurgus, see Plutarch, Vit. X. Orator, p. 841, also Boeckh, Græcæ Tragoed. Principia, pp. 13-15. The time when Lykurgus caused this to be done, must have been nearly coincident with the decease of Plato, 347 B.C. See Boeckh, Staatshaushaltung der Athener, vol. i. p. 468, ii. p. 244; Welcker, Griech. Trag. iii. p. 908; Korn, De Publico Æschyli, &c., Exemplari, Lykurgo Auctore Confecto, p. 6-9, Bonn, 1863.

In the passage cited above from Galen, we are farther informed, that Ptolemy Euergetes caused inquiries to be made, from the masters of all vessels which came to Alexandria, whether there were any MSS. on board; if there were, the MSS. were brought to the library, carefully copied out, and the copies given to the owners; the original MSS. being retained in the library, and registered in a separate compartment, under the general head of [Greek: Ta\ e)k ploi/ôn], and with the name of the person from whom the acquisition had been made, annexed. Compare Wolf, Prolegg. ad Homerum, p. clxxv. These statements tend to show the care taken by the Alexandrine librarians, not only to acquire the best MSS., but also to keep good MSS. apart from bad, and to record the person and the quarter from which each acquisition had been made.]

[Side-note: Large expenses incurred by the Ptolemies for procuring good MSS.]

We cannot doubt that Demetrius could obtain permission, if he asked it, from the Scholarchs, to have such copies made. To them the operation was at once complimentary and lucrative; while among the Athenian philosophers generally, the name of Demetrius was acceptable, from the favour which he had shown to them during his season of political power--and that of Ptolemy popular from his liberalities. Or if we even suppose that Demetrius, instead of obtaining copies of the Platonic MSS. from the school, purchased copies from private persons or book-sellers (as he must have purchased the works of Demokritus and others)--he could, at any rate, assure himself of the authenticity of what he purchased, by information from the Scholarch.

[Side-note: Catalogue of Platonic works, prepared by Aristophanes, is trustworthy.]

My purpose, in thus calling attention to the Platonic school and the Alexandrine Museum, is to show that the chance for preservation of Plato's works complete and genuine after his decease, was unusually favourable. I think that they existed complete and genuine in the Alexandrine Museum before the time of Kallimachus, and, of course, during that of Aristophanes. If there were in the Museum any other works obtained from private vendors and professing to be Platonic, Kallimachus and Aristophanes had the means of distinguishing these from such as the Platonic school had furnished and could authenticate, and motive enough for keeping them apart from the certified Platonic catalogue. Whether there existed any spurious works of this sort in the Museum, Diogenes Laertius does not tell us; nor, unfortunately, does he set forth the full list of those which Aristophanes, recognising as Platonic, distributed either in triplets or in units. Diogenes mentions only the principle of distribution adopted, and a select portion of the compositions distributed. But as far as his positive information goes, I hold it to be perfectly worthy of trust. I consider that all the compositions recognised by Aristophanes as works of Plato are unquestionably such; and that his testimony greatly strengthens our assurance for the received catalogue, in many of those items which have been most contested by critics, upon supposed internal grounds. Aristophanes authenticates, among others, not merely the Leges, but also the Epinomis, the Minos, and the Epistolæ.

[Side-note: No canonical or exclusive order of the Platonic dialogues, when arranged by Aristophanes.]

There is another point also which I conceive to be proved by what we hear about Aristophanes. He (or Kallimachus before him) introduced a new order or distribution of his own--the Trilogies--founded on the analogy of the dramatic Didaskalies. This shows that the Platonic dialogues were not received into the library in any canonical or _exclusive order_ of their own, or in any interdependence as first, second, third, &c., essential to render them intelligible as a system. Had there been any such order, Kallimachus and Aristophanes would no more have altered it, than they would have transposed the order of the books in the Republic and Leges. The importance of what is here observed will appear presently, when we touch upon the theory of Schleiermacher.

[Side-note: Other libraries and literary centres, besides Alexandria, in which spurious Platonic works might get footing.]

The distributive arrangement, proposed or sanctioned by Aristophanes, applied (as I have already remarked) to the materials in the Alexandrine library only. But this library, though it was the most conspicuous portion, was not the whole, of the Grecian literary aggregate. There were other great regal libraries (such as those of the kings of Pergamus and the Seleukid kings[39]) commenced after the Alexandrine library had already attained importance, and intended to rival it: there was also an active literary and philosophising class, in various Grecian cities, of which Athens was the foremost, but in which Rhodes, Kyrênê, and several cities in Asia Minor, Kilikia, and Syria, were included: ultimately the cultivated classes at Rome, and the Western Hellenic city of Massalia, became comprised in the number. Among this widespread literary public, there were persons who neither knew nor examined the Platonic school or the Alexandrine library, nor investigated what title either of them had to furnish a certificate authenticating the genuine works of Plato. It is not certain that even the great library at Pergamus, begun nearly half a century after that of Alexandria, had any such initiatory agent as Demetrius Phalereus, able as well as willing to go to the fountain-head of Platonism at Athens: nor could the kings of Pergamus claim aid from Alexandria, with which they were in hostile rivalry, and from which they were even forbidden (so we hear) to purchase papyrus. Under these circumstances, it is quite possible that spurious Platonic writings, though they obtained no recognition in the Alexandrine library, might obtain more or less recognition elsewhere, and pass under the name of Plato. To a certain extent, such was the case. There existed some spurious dialogues at the time when Thrasyllus afterwards formed his arrangement.

[Footnote 39: The library of Antiochus the Great or of his predecessor, is mentioned by Suidas, [Greek: Eu)phori/ôn]. Euphorion was librarian of it, seemingly about 230-220 B.C. See Clinton, Fast. Hell. B.C. 221.

Galen states (Comm. in Hippok. De Nat. Hom. vol. xv. p. 105, Kühn) that the forgeries of books, and the practice of tendering books for sale under the false names of celebrated authors, did not commence until the time when the competition between the kings of Egypt and the kings of Pergamus for their respective libraries became vehement. If this be admitted, there could have been no forgeries tendered at Alexandria until after the commencement of the reign of Euergetes (B.C. 247-222): for the competition from Pergamus could hardly have commenced earlier than 230 B.C. In the times of Soter and Philadelphus, there would be no such forgeries tendered. I do not doubt that such forgeries were sometimes successfully passed off:** but I think Galen does not take sufficient account of the practice (mentioned by himself) at the Alexandrine library, to keep faithful record of the person and quarter from whence each book had been acquired.]

[Side-note: Other critics, besides Aristophanes, proposed different arrangements of the Platonic dialogues.]

Moreover the distribution made by Aristophanes of the Platonic dialogues into Trilogies, and the order of priority which he established among them was by no means universally accepted. Some rejected altogether the dramatic analogy of Trilogies as a principle of distribution. They arranged the dialogues into three classes:[40] 1. The Direct, or purely dramatic. 2. The Indirect, or narrative (diegematic). 3. The Mixed--partly one, partly the other. Respecting the order of priority, we read that while Aristophanes placed the Republic first, there were eight other arrangements, each recognising a different dialogue as first in order; these eight were, Alkibiades I., Theagês, Euthyphron, Kleitophon, Timæus, Phædrus, Theætêtus, Apology. More than one arrangement began with the Apology. Some even selected the Epistolæ as the proper commencement for studying Plato's works.[41]

[Footnote 40: Diog. L. iii. 49. Schöne, in his commentary on the Protagoras (pp. 8-12), lays particular stress on this division into the direct or dramatic, and indirect or diegematic. He thinks it probable, that Plato preferred one method to the other at different periods of life: that all of one sort, and all of the other sort, come near together in time.]

[Footnote 41: Diog. L. iii. 62. Albinus, [Greek: Ei)sagôgê\], c. 4, in K. F. Hermann's Appendix Platonica, p. 149.]

[Side-note: Panætius, the Stoic--considered the Phædon to be spurious--earliest known example of a Platonic dialogue disallowed upon internal grounds.]

We hear with surprise that the distinguished Stoic philosopher at Athens, Panætius, rejected the Phædon as not being the work of Plato.[42] It appears that he did not believe in the immortality of the soul, and that he profoundly admired Plato; accordingly, he thought it unworthy of so great a philosopher to waste so much logical subtlety, poetical metaphor, and fable, in support of such a conclusion. Probably he was also guided, in part, by one singularity in the Phædon: it is the only dialogue wherein Plato mentions himself in the third person.[43] If Panætius was predisposed, on other grounds, to consider the dialogue as unworthy of Plato, he might be induced to lay stress upon such a singularity, as showing that the author of the dialogue must be some person other than Plato. Panætius evidently took no pains to examine the external attestations of the dialogue, which he would have found to be attested both by Aristotle and by Kallimachus as the work of Plato. Moreover, whatever any one may think of the cogency of the reasoning--the beauty of Platonic handling and expression is manifest throughout the dialogue. This verdict of Panætius is the earliest example handed down to us of a Platonic dialogue disallowed on internal grounds that is, because it appeared to the critic unworthy of Plato: and it is certainly among the most unfortunate examples.

[Footnote 42: See the Epigram out of the Anthology, and the extract from the Scholia on the Categories of Aristotle, cited by Wyttenbach in his note on the beginning of the Phædon. A more important passage (which he has not cited) from the Scholia on Aristotle, is, that of Asklepius on the Metaphysica, p. 991; Scholia, ed. Brandis, p. 576, a. 38. [Greek: O(/ti tou= Pla/tônos e)stin o( Phai/dôn, saphô=s o( A)ristote/lês dêloi=--Panai/tios ga\r tis e)to/lmêse notheu=sai to\n dia/logon. e)peidê\ ga\r e)/legen ei)=nai thnêtê\n tê\n psuchê/n, e)bou/leto sugkataspa/sai to\n Pla/tôna; e)pei\ ou)=n e)n tô=| Phai/dôni saphô=s a)pathanati/zei] (Plato) [Greek: tê\n logikê\n psuchê/n, tou/tou cha/rin e)no/theuse to\n dia/logon]. Wyttenbach vainly endeavours to elude the force of the passages cited by himself, and to make out that the witnesses did not mean to assert that Panætius had declared the Phædon to be spurious. One of the reasons urged by Wyttenbach is--"Nec illud negligendum, quod dicitur [Greek: u(po\ Panaiti/ou tino\s], à _Panætio quodam_ neque per contemptum dici potuisse neque a Syriano neque ab hoc anonymo; quorum neuter eâ fuit doctrinæ inopia, ut Panætii laudes et præstantiam ignoraret." But in the Scholion of Asklepius on the Metaphysica (which passage was not before Wyttenbach), we find the very same expression [Greek: Panai/tio/s tis], and plainly used _per contemptum_: for Asklepius probably considered it a manifestation of virtuous feeling to describe, in contemptuous language, a philosopher who did not believe in the immortality of the soul. We have only to read the still harsher and more contemptuous language which he employs towards the Manicheans, in another Scholion, p. 666, b. 5, Brandis.

Favorinus said (Diog. iii. 37) that when Plato read aloud the Phædon, Aristotle was the only person present who remained to the end: all the other hearers went away in the middle. I have no faith in this anecdote: I consider it, like so many others in Diogenes, as a myth: but the invention of it indicates, that there were many persons who had no sympathy with the Phædon, taking at the bottom the same view as Panætius.]

[Footnote 43: Plato, Phædon, p. 59. Plato is named also in the Apology: but this is a report, more or less exact, of the real defence of Sokrates.]

[Side-note: Classification of Platonic works by the rhetor Thrasyllus--dramatic--philosophical.]

But the most elaborate classification of the Platonic works was that made by Thrasyllus, in the days of Augustus or Tiberius, near to, or shortly after, the Christian era: a rhetor of much reputation, consulted and selected as travelling companion by the Emperor Augustus.[44]

[Footnote 44: Diog. L. iii. 56; Themistius, Orat. viii. ([Greek: Pentetêriko\s]) p. 108 B.

It appears that this classification by Thrasyllus was approved, or jointly constructed, by his contemporary Derkyllides. (Albinus, [Greek: Ei)sagôgê\], c. 4, p. 149, in K. F. Hermann's Appendix Platonica.)]

Thrasyllus adopted two different distributions of the Platonic works: one was dramatic, the other philosophical. The two were founded on perfectly distinct principles, and had no inherent connection with each other; but Thrasyllus combined them together, and noted, in regard to each dialogue, its place in the one classification as well as in the other.

[Side-note: Dramatic principle--Tetralogies.]

One of these distributions was into Tetralogies, or groups of four each. This was in substitution for the Trilogies introduced by Aristophanes or by Kallimachus, and was founded upon the same dramatic analogy: the dramas, which contended for the prize at the Dionysiac festivals, having been sometimes exhibited in batches of three, or Trilogies, sometimes in batches of four, or Tetralogies--three tragedies, along with a satirical piece as accompaniment. Because the dramatic writer brought forth four pieces at a birth, it was assumed as likely that Plato would publish four dialogues all at once. Without departing from this dramatic analogy, which seems to have been consecrated by the authority of the Alexandrine Grammatici, Thrasyllus gained two advantages. First, he included ALL the Platonic compositions, whereas Aristophanes, in his Trilogies, had included only a part, and had left the rest not grouped. Thrasyllus included all the Platonic compositions, thirty-six in number, reckoning the Republic, the Leges, and the Epistolæ in bulk, each as one--in nine Tetralogies or groups of four each. Secondly, he constituted his first tetralogy in an impressive and appropriate manner--Euthyphron, Apology, Kriton, Phædon--four compositions really resembling a dramatic tetralogy, and bound together by their common bearing, on the last scenes of the life of a philosopher.[45] In Euthyphron, Sokrates appears as having been just indicted and as thinking on his defence; in the Apology, he makes his defence; in the Kriton, he appears as sentenced by the legal tribunal, yet refusing to evade the sentence by escaping from his prison; in the Phædon, we have the last dying scene and conversation. None of the other tetralogies present an equal bond of connection between their constituent items; but the first tetralogy was probably intended to recommend the rest, and to justify the system.

[Footnote 45: Diog. L. iii. 57. [Greek: prô/tên me\n ou)=n tetralogi/an ti/thêsi tê\n koinê\n u(po/thesin e)/chousan; paradei=xai ga\r bou/letai o(/poiois a)\n ei)/ê o( tou= philoso/phou bi/os]. Albinus, Introduct. ad Plat. c. 4, p. 149, in K. F. Hermann's Append. Platon.

Thrasyllus appears to have considered the Republic as ten dialogues and the Leges as twelve, each book (of Republic and of Leges) constituting a separate dialogue, so that he made the Platonic works fifty-six in all. But for the purpose of his tetralogies he reckoned them only as thirty-six--nine groups.

The author of the Prolegomena [Greek: tê=s Pla/tônos Philosophi/as] in Hermann's Append. Platon. pp. 218-219, gives the same account of the tetralogies, and of the connecting bond which united the four** members of the first tetralogical group: but he condemns altogether the principle of the tetralogical division. He does not mention the name of Thrasyllus. He lived after Proklus (p. 218), that is, after 480 A.D.

The argument urged by Wyttenbach and others--that Varro must have considered the Phædon as _fourth_ in the order of the Platonic compositions--an argument founded on a passage in Varro. L. L. vii. 37, which refers to the Phædon under the words _Plato in quarto_--this argument becomes inapplicable in the text as given by O. Müller--not _Varro in quarto_ but _Varro in quattuor fluminibus_, &c. Mullach (Democriti Frag. p. 98) has tried unsuccessfully to impugn Müller's text, and to uphold the word _quarto_ with the inference resting upon it.]

[Side-note: Philosophical principle--Dialogues of Search--Dialogues of Exposition.]

In the other distribution made by Thrasyllus,[46] Plato was regarded not as a quasi-dramatist, but as a philosopher. The dialogues were classified with reference partly to their method and spirit, partly to their subject. His highest generic distinction was into:--1. Dialogues of Investigation or Search. 2. Dialogues of Exposition or Construction. The Dialogues of Investigation he subdivided into two classes:--1. Gymnastic. 2. Agonistic. These were again subdivided, each into two sub-classes; the Gymnastic, into 1. Obstetric. 2. Peirastic. The Agonistic, into 1. Probative. 2. Refutative. Again, the Dialogues of Exposition were divided into two classes: 1. Theoretical. 2. Practical. Each of these classes was divided into two sub-classes: the Theoretical into 1. Physical. 2. Logical. The Practical into 1. Ethical. 2. Political.

[Footnote 46: The statement in Diogenes Laertius, in his life of Plato, is somewhat obscure and equivocal; but I think it certain that the classification which he gives in iii. 49, 50, 51, of the Platonic dialogues, was made by Thrasyllus. It is a portion of the same systematic arrangement as that given somewhat farther on (iii. 56-61), which is ascribed by name to Thrasyllus, enumerating the Tetralogies. Diogenes expressly states that Thrasyllus was the person who annexed to each dialogue its double denomination, which it has since borne in the published editions--[Greek: Eu)thu/phrôn--peri\ o(si/ou--peirastiko/s]. In the Dialogues of examination or Search, one of these names is derived from the subject, the other from the method, as in the instance of Euthyphron just cited: in the Dialogues of Exposition both names are derived from the subject, first the special, next the general. [Greek: Phai/dôn, ê)\ peri\ psuchê=s, ê)thiko/s. Parmeni/dês, ê)\ peri\ i)deô=n, logiko/s].

Schleiermacher (in the Einleitung prefixed to his translation of Plato, p. 24) speaks somewhat loosely about "the well-known dialectical distributions of the Platonic dialogues, which Diogenes has preserved without giving the name of the author". Diogenes gives only _one_ such dialectical (or logical) distribution; and though he does not mention the name of Thrasyllus in direct or immediate connection with it, we may clearly see that he is copying Thrasyllus. This is well pointed out in an acute commentary on Schleiermacher, by Yxem, Logos Protreptikos, Berlin, 1841, p. 12-13.

Diogenes remarks (iii. 50) that the distribution of the dialogues into narrative, dramatic, and mixed, is made [Greek: tragikô=s ma=llon ê)\ philoso/phôs]. This remark would seem to apply more precisely to the arrangement of the dialogues into trilogies and tetralogies. His word [Greek: philoso/phôs] belongs very justly to the logical distribution of Thrasyllus, apart from the tetralogies.

Porphyry tells us that Plotinus did not bestow any titles upon his own discourses. The titles were bestowed by his disciples; who did not always agree, but gave different titles to the same discourse (Porphyry, Vit. Plotin. 4).]

The following table exhibits this philosophical classification of Thrasyllus:--

Table I.

PHILOSOPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE WORKS OF PLATO BY THRASYLLUS.

I. Dialogues of Investigation. II. Dialogues of Exposition.

_Searching Dialogues_. _Guiding Dilogues_ [Greek: Zêtêtikoi/]. [Greek: U(phêgêtikoi/].

I. Dialogues of investigation.

Gymnastic. Agonistic.

[Greek: Maieutikoi/. Peirastikoi/. E)ndeiktikoi/. A)natreptikpoi/.]

Obstetric. Peirastic. Probative. Refutative. ---- ---- ---- ---- Alkibiades I. Charmidês. Protagoras. Euthydêmus. Alkibiades II. Menon. Gorgias. Theagês. Ion. Hippias I. Lachês. Euthyphron. Hippias II. Lysis.

II. Dialogues of Exposition.

Theoretical. Practical

[Greek: Phusikoi/. Logikoi/. Ê)thikoi/. Politikoi/.]

Physical Logical. Ethical. Political. ---- ---- ---- ----

Timæus. Kratylus. Apology. Republic.
Sophistês. Kriton. Kritias.
Politikus. Phædon. Minos.
Parmenidês. Phædrus. Leges.
Theætêtus. Symposion. Epinomis.
Menexenus.
Kleitophon.
Epistolæ.
Philêbus.
Hipparchus.
Rivales.

I now subjoin a second Table, containing the Dramatic Distribution of the Platonic Dialogues, with the Philosophical Distribution combined or attached to it.

Table II.

DRAMATIC DISTRIBUTION. PLATONIC DIALOGUES, AS ARRANGED IN TETRALOGIES BY THRASYLLUS.

Tetralogy 1.

1. Euthyphron On Holiness Peirastic or Testing. 2. Apology of Sokrates Ethical Ethical. 3. Kriton On Duty in Action Ethical. 4. Phædon On the Soul Ethical.

2.

1. Kratylus On Rectitude in Naming Logical. 2. Theætêtus On Knowledge Logical. 3. Sophistês On Ens or the Existent Logical. 4. Politikus On the Art of Governing Logical.

3.

1. Parmenidês On Ideas Logical. 2. Philêbus On Pleasure Ethical. 3. Symposion On Good Ethical. 4. Phædrus On Love Ethical.

4.

1. Alkibiadês I On the Nature of Man Obstetric or Evolving. 2. Alkibiadês II On Prayer Obstetric. 3. Hipparchus On the Love of Gain. Ethical. 4. Erastæ On Philosophy Ethical.

5.

1. Theagês On Philosophy Obstetric. 2. Charmidês On Temperance Peirastic. 3. Lachês On Courage Obstetric. 4. Lysis On Friendship Obstetric.

6.

1. Euthydêmus The Disputatious Man Refutative. 2. Protagoras The Sophists Probative. 3. Gorgias On Rhetoric Refutative. 4. Menon On Virtue Peirastic.

7.

1. Hippias I On the Beautiful Refutative. 2. Hippias II On Falsehood Refutative. 3. Ion On the Iliad Peirastic. 4. Menexenus The Funeral Oration Ethical.

8.

1. Kleitophon The Impulsive Ethical. 2. Republic On Justice Political. 3. Timæus On Nature Physical. 4. Kritias The Atlantid Ethical.

9.

1. Minos On Law Political. 2. Leges On Legislation Political. 3. Epinomis The Night-Assembly, Political or the Philosopher 4. Epistolæ XIII Ethical.

The second Table, as it here stands, is given by Diogenes Laertius, and is extracted by him probably from the work of Thrasyllus, or from the edition of Plato as published by Thrasyllus. The reader will see that each Platonic composition has a place assigned to it in two classifications--1. The dramatic--2. The philosophical--each in itself distinct and independent of the other, but here blended together.

[Side-note: Incongruity and repugnance of the two classifications.]

We may indeed say more. The two classifications are not only independent, but incongruous and even repugnant. The better of the two is only obscurely and imperfectly apprehended, because it is presented as an appendage to the worse. The dramatic classification, which stands in the foreground, rests upon a purely fanciful analogy, determining preference for the number _four_. If indeed this objection were urged against Thrasyllus, he might probably have replied that the group of four volumes together was in itself convenient, neither too large nor too small, for an elementary subdivision; and that the fanciful analogy was an artifice for recommending it to the feelings, better (after all) than selection of another number by haphazard. Be that as it may, however, the fiction was one which Thrasyllus inherited from Aristophanes: and it does some honour to his ability, that he has built, upon so inconvenient a fiction, one tetralogy (the first), really plausible and impressive.[47] But it does more honour to his ability that he should have originated the philosophical classification; distinguishing the dialogues by important attributes truly belonging to each, and conducting the Platonic student to points of view which ought to be made known to him. This classification forms a marked improvement upon every thing (so far as we know) which preceded it.

[Footnote 47: It is probable that Aristophanes, in distributing Plato into trilogies, was really influenced by the dramatic form of the compositions to put them in a class with real dramas. But Thrasyllus does not seem to have been influenced by such a consideration. He took the number _four_ on its own merits, and adopted, as a way of recommending it, the traditional analogy sanctioned by the Alexandrine librarians.

That such was the case, we may infer pretty clearly when we learn, that Thrasyllus applied the same distribution (into tetralogies) to the works of Demokritus, which were _not_ dramatic in form. (Diog. L. ix. 45; Mullach, Democ. Frag. p. 100-107, who attempts to restore the Thrasyllean tetralogies.)

The compositions of Demokritus were not merely numerous, but related to the greatest diversity of subjects. To them Thrasyllus could not apply the same logical or philosophical distribution which he applied to Plato. He published, along with the works of Demokritus, a preface, which he entitled [Greek: Ta\ pro\ tê=s a)nagnô/seôs tô=n Dêmokri/tou bibli/ôn] (Diog. L. ix. 41).

Porphyry tells us, that when he undertook, as literary executor, the arrangement and publication of the works of his deceased master Plotinus, he found fifty-four discourses: which he arranged into six Enneads or groups of nine each. He was induced to prefer this distribution, by regard to the perfection of the number six ([Greek: teleio/têti]). He placed in each Ennead discourses akin to each other, or on analogous subjects (Porphyry, Vit. Plotin. 24).]

[Side-note: Dramatic principle of classification--was inherited by Thrasyllus from Aristophanes.]

[Side-note: Authority of the Alexandrine library--editions of Plato published, with the Alexandrine critical marks.]

That Thrasyllus followed Aristophanes in the principle of his classification, is manifest: that he adopted the dramatic ground and principle of classification (while amending its details), not because he was himself guided by it, but because he found it already in use and sanctioned by the high authority of the Alexandrines--is also manifest, because he himself constructed and tacked to it a better classification, founded upon principles new and incongruous with the dramatic. In all this we trace the established ascendancy of the Alexandrine library and its eminent literati. Of which ascendancy a farther illustration appears, when we read in Diogenes Laertius that editions of Plato were published, carrying along with the text the special marks of annotation applied by the Alexandrines to Homer and other poets: the obelus to indicate a spurious passage, the obelus with two dots to denote a passage which had been improperly declared spurious, the X to signify peculiar locutions, the double line or Diplê to mark important or characteristic opinions of Plato--and others in like manner. A special price was paid for manuscripts of Plato with these illustrative appendages:[48] which must have been applied either by Alexandrines themselves, or by others trained in their school. When Thrasyllus set himself to edit and re-distribute the Platonic works, we may be sure that he must have consulted one or more public libraries, either at Alexandria, Athens, Rome, Tarsus, or elsewhere. Nowhere else could he find all the works together. Now the proceedings ascribed to him show that he attached himself to the Alexandrine library, and to the authority of its most eminent critics.

[Footnote 48: Diog. L. iii. 65, 66. [Greek: E)pei\ de\ kai\ sêmei=a/ tina toi=s bibli/ois au)tou= parati/thetai, phe/re kai\ peri\ tou/tôn ti ei)/pômen], &c. He then proceeds to enumerate the [Greek: sêmei=a].

It is important to note that Diogenes cites this statement (respecting the peculiar critical marks appended to manuscripts of the Platonic works) from Antigonus of Karystus in his Life of Zeno the Stoic. Now the date of Antigonus is placed by Mr. Fynes Clinton in B.C. 225, before the death of Ptolemy III. Euergetes (see Fasti Hellen. B.C. 225, also Appendix, 12, 80). Antigonus must thus have been contemporary both with Kallimachus and with Aristophanes of Byzantium: he notices the marked manuscripts of Plato as something newly edited--[Greek: neôsti\ e)kdothe/nta]): and we may thus see that the work of critical marking must have been performed either by Kallimachus and Aristophanes themselves (one or both) or by some of their contemporaries. Among the titles of the lost treatises of Kallimachus, one is--about the [Greek: glô=ssai] or peculiar phrases of Demokritus. It is therefore noway improbable that Kallimachus should have bestowed attention upon the peculiarities of the Platonic text, and the inaccuracies of manuscripts. The library had probably acquired several different manuscripts of the Platonic compositions, as it had of the Iliad and Odyssey, and of the Attic tragedies.]

[Side-note: Thrasyllus followed the Alexandrine library and Aristophanes, as to genuine Platonic works.]

Probably it was this same authority that Thrasyllus followed in determining which were the real works of Plato, and in setting aside pretended works. He accepted the collection of Platonic compositions sanctioned by Aristophanes and recognised as such in the Alexandrine library. As far as our positive knowledge goes, it fully bears out what is here stated: all the compositions recognised by Aristophanes (unfortunately Diogenes does not give a complete enumeration of those which he recognised) are to be found in the catalogue of Thrasyllus. And the evidentiary value of this fact is so much the greater, because the most questionable compositions (I mean, those which modern critics reject or even despise) are expressly included in the recognition of Aristophanes, and passed from him to Thrasyllus--Leges, Epinomis, Minos, Epistolæ, Sophistês, Politikus. Exactly on those points on which the authority of Thrasyllus requires to be fortified against modern objectors, it receives all the support which coincidence with Aristophanes can impart. When we know that Thrasyllus adhered to Aristophanes on so many disputable points of the catalogue, we may infer pretty certainly that he adhered to him in the remainder. In regard to the question, Which were Plato's genuine works? it was perfectly natural that Thrasyllus should accept the recognition of the greatest library then existing: a library, the written records of which could be traced back to Demetrius Phalereus. He followed this external authority: he did not take each dialogue to pieces, to try whether it conformed to a certain internal standard--a "platonisches Gefühl"--of his own.

[Side-note: Ten spurious dialogues, rejected by all other critics as well as by Thrasyllus--evidence that these critics followed the common authority of the Alexandrine library.]

That the question between genuine and spurious Platonic dialogues was tried in the days of Thrasyllus, by external authority and not by internal feeling--we may see farther by the way in which Diogenes Laertius speaks of the spurious dialogues. "The following dialogues (he says) are declared to be spurious _by common consent_: 1. Eryxias or Erasistratus. 2. Akephali or Sisyphus. 3. Demodokus. 4. Axiochus. 5. Halkyon. 6. Midon or Hippotrophus. 7. Phæakes. 8. Chelidon. 9. Hebdomê. 10. Epimenides."[49] There was, then, unanimity, so far as the knowledge of Diogenes Laertius reached, as to genuine and spurious. All the critics whom he valued, Thrasyllus among them, pronounced the above ten dialogues to be spurious: all of them agreed also in accepting the dialogues in the list of Thrasyllus as genuine.[50] Of course the ten spurious dialogues must have been talked of by some persons, or must have got footing in some editions or libraries, as real works of Plato: otherwise there could have been no trial had or sentence passed upon them. But what Diogenes affirms is, that Thrasyllus and all the critics whose opinion he esteemed, concurred in rejecting them. We may surely presume that this unanimity among the critics, both as to all that they accepted and all that they rejected, arose from common acquiescence in the authority of the Alexandrine library.[51] The ten rejected dialogues were not in the Alexandrine library--or at least not among the rolls therein recognised as Platonic.

[Footnote 49: Diog. L. iii. 62: [Greek: notheu/ontai de\ tô=n dialo/gôn o(mologoume/nôs].

Compare Prolegomena [Greek: tê=s Pla/tônos Philosophi/as], in Hermann's Appendix Platonica, p. 219.]

[Footnote 50: It has been contended by some modern critics, that Thrasyllus himself doubted whether the Hipparchus was Plato's work. When I consider that dialogue, I shall show that there is no adequate ground for believing that Thrasyllus doubted its genuineness.]

[Footnote 51: Diogenes (ix. 49) uses the same phrase in regard to the spurious works ascribed to Demokritus, [Greek: ta\ d' o(mologoume/nôs e)sti\n a)llo/tria]. And I believe that he means the same thing by it: that the works alluded to were not recognised in the Alexandrine library as belonging to Demokritus, and were accordingly excluded from the tetralogies (of Demokritus) prepared by Thrasyllus.]

[Side-note: Thrasyllus did not follow an internal sentiment of his own in rejecting dialogues as spurious.]

If Thrasyllus and the others did not proceed upon this evidence in rejecting the ten dialogues, and did not find in them any marks of time such as to exclude the supposition of Platonic authorship--they decided upon what is called internal evidence: a critical sentiment, which satisfied them that these dialogues did not possess the Platonic character, style, manner, doctrines, merits, &c. Now I think it highly improbable that Thrasyllus could have proceeded upon any such sentiment. For when we survey the catalogue of works which he recognised as genuine, we see that it includes the widest diversity of style, manner, doctrine, purpose, and merits: that the disparate epithets, which he justly applies to discriminate the various dialogues, cannot be generalised so as to leave any intelligible "Platonic character" common to all. Now since Thrasyllus reckoned among the genuine works of Plato, compositions so unlike, and so unequal in merit, as the Republic, Protagoras, Gorgias, Lysis, Parmenidês, Symposion, Philêbus, Menexenus, Leges, Epinomis, Hipparchus, Minos, Theagês, Epistolæ, &c., not to mention a composition obviously unfinished, such as the Kritias--he could have little scruple in believing that Plato also composed the Eryxias, Sisyphus, Demodokus, and Halkyon. These last-mentioned dialogues still exist, and can be appreciated.[52] Allowing, for the sake of argument, that we are entitled to assume our own sense of worth as a test of what is really Plato's composition, it is impossible to deny, that if these dialogues are not worthy of the author of Republic and Protagoras, they are at least worthy of the author of the Leges, Epinomis, Hipparchus, Minos, &c. Accordingly, if the internal sentiment of Thrasyllus did not lead him to reject these last four, neither would it lead him to reject the Eryxias, Sisyphus, and Halkyon. I conclude therefore that if he, and all the other critics whom Diogenes esteemed, agreed in rejecting the ten dialogues as spurious--their verdict depended not upon any internal sentiment, but upon the authority of the Alexandrine library.[53]

[Footnote 52: The Axiochus, Eryxias, Sisyphus, and Demodokus, are printed as Apocrypha annexed to most editions of Plato, together with two other dialogues entitled De Justo and De Virtute. The Halkyon has generally appeared among the works of Lucian, but K. F. Hermann has recently printed it in his edition of Plato among the Platonic Apocrypha.

The Axiochus contains a mark of time (the mention of [Greek: A)kadêmi/a] and [Greek: Lukei=on], p. 367), as F. A. Wolf has observed, proving that it was not composed until the Platonic and Peripatetic schools were both of them in full establishment at Athens--that is, certainly after the death of Plato, and probably after the death of Aristotle. It is possible that Thrasyllus may have proceeded upon this evidence of time, at least as collateral proof, in pronouncing the dialogue not to be the work of Plato. The other four dialogues contain no similar evidence of date.

Favorinus affirmed that Halkyon was the work of an author named Leon.

Some said (Diog. L. iii. 37) that Philippus of Opus, one of the disciples of Plato, transcribed the Leges, which were on waxen tablets ([Greek: e)n kêrô=|]), and that the Epinomis was his work ([Greek: tou/tou de\ kai\ tê\n E)pinomi/da phasi\n ei)=nai]). It was probably the work of Philippus only in the sense in which the Leges were his work--that he made a fair and durable copy of parts of it from the wax. Thrasyllus admitted it with the rest as Platonic.]

[Footnote 53: Mullach (Democr. Fragm. p. 100) accuses Thrasyllus of an entire want of critical sentiment, and pronounces his catalogue to be altogether without value as an evidence of genuine Platonic works--because Thrasyllus admits many dialogues, "quos doctorum nostri sæculi virorum acumen è librorum Platonicorum numero exemit".

This observation exactly illustrates the conclusion which I desire to bring out. I admit that Thrasyllus had a critical sentiment different from that of the modern Platonic commentators; but I believe that in the present case he proceeded upon other evidence--recognition by the Alexandrine library. My difference with Mullach is, that I consider this recognition (in a question of genuine or spurious) as more trustworthy evidence than the critical sentiment of modern literati.]

[Side-note: Results as to the trustworthiness of the Thrasyllean Canon.]

On this question, then, of the Canon of Plato's works (as compared with the works of other contemporary authors) recognised by Thrasyllus--I consider that its claim to trustworthiness is very high, as including all the genuine works, and none but the genuine works, of Plato: the following facts being either proved, or fairly presumable.

1. The Canon rests on the authority of the Alexandrine library and its erudite librarians;[54] whose written records went back to the days of Ptolemy Soter, and Demetrius Phalereus, within a generation after the death of Plato.

2. The manuscripts of Plato at his death were preserved in the school which he founded; where they continued for more than thirty years under the care of Speusippus and Xenokrates, who possessed personal knowledge of all that Plato had really written. After Xenokrates, they came under the care of Polemon and the succeeding Scholarchs, from whom Demetrius Phalereus probably obtained permission to take copies of them for the nascent museum or library at Alexandria or through whom at least (if he purchased from booksellers) he could easily ascertain which were Plato's works, and which, if any, were spurious.

3. They were received into that library without any known canonical order, prescribed system, or interdependence essential to their being properly understood. Kallimachus or Aristophanes devised an order of arrangement for themselves, such as they thought suitable.

[Footnote 54: Suckow adopts and defends the opinion here stated--that Thrasyllus, in determining which were the genuine works of Plato and which were not genuine, was guided mainly by the authority of the Alexandrine library and librarians (G. F. W. Suckow, Form der Platonischen Schriften, pp. 170-175). Ueberweg admits this opinion as just (Untersuchungen, p. 195).

Suckow farther considers (p. 175) that the catalogue of works of esteemed authors, deposited in the Alexandrine library, may be regarded as dating from the [Greek: Pi/nakes] of Kallimachus.

This goes far to make out the presumption which I have endeavoured to establish in favour of the Canon recognised by Thrasyllus, which, however, these two authors do not fully admit.

K. F. Hermann, too (see Gesch. und Syst. der Platon. Philos. p. 44), argues sometimes strongly in favour of this presumption, though elsewhere he entirely departs from it.]