THEOXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

VOLUME LXXΙII

edited with translations and notes in honour of

PETER PARSONS and JOHN REA by D. OBBINK and N. GONIS

with contributions by

R . S. B AG N A L L A . B E N A I S S A A . K . B O W M A N A . B Ü L O W- JA C O B S E N D. C O L O M O J. C H A PA T. G AG O S H .- C . G Ü N T H E R E . W. H A N D L E Y R . H AT Z I L A M B RO U N. L I T I N A S M . M A L O U TA A . N O DA R C . E . RÖ M E R P. S C H U B E RT D. N. S E D L E Y J. D. T H O M A S Y. T R N K A - A M R H E I N S. R . W E S T J. W H I T E H O R N E

Graeco-Roman Memoirs, No. 94

published by THE EGYPT EXPLORATION SOCIETY

with the support of THE ARTS AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH COUNCIL

and THE BRITISH ACADEMY

2009

offprint from

0 Front Matter.indd 3 17.5.2009 16:37

4941. A THRASYLLAN INTERPRETATION OF THEAETETUS 65

4941. A Thrasyllan Interpretation of Plato’s TheaeTeTus

114/44(d) Fr. 1 9.3 × 10.1 cm Second half of second century Plate VI

A single principal fragment containing the final fourteen lines of one column and the final six line-beginnings of a second column to its right, with an inter-columnium of 1.5 cm.; two further small fragments of uncertain location, only one of them with any legible traces of writing. A column width of around 30 letters = c.8 cm. Back blank.

The script consists of upright, oval capitals (i.e. exhibiting some vertical ex-tension) related to the Formal Mixed style, but basically bilinear (top and bottom line violated only by ι, φ, and χ); in this respect it bears a resemblance to some of the better-known earlier examples of the mixed style: e.g. I 26 = P. Lond. Lit. 129 (Roberts, GLH 19a; Demosthenes, Prooemia), X 1234 (Plate iV; Alcaeus), and IV 665 (Plate i; History of Sicily)—all assigned to the second century. Our specimen is penned more rapidly than these, and so exhibits more connection of letters and other cursive features, in addition to the supra-linear stroke to represent nu at the ends of lines (inception datable to the second half of the second century, according to Turner, GMAW 2 introd. p. 17). For an objectively dated comparison, see P. Mich. 3 (Roberts, GLH 15c; Dioscorides, De materia medica), which bears a date of aD 190 on the verso.

It is impossible to be sure that the raised point and following space in i 10 were accompanied by a diple or paragraphos at the lost line-beginning, but in view of the diplai at the line beginnings of ii 5 and 6, the former seems probable (cf. XLVII pp. 38–9). At line endings a wedge-shaped line-filler is occasionally used. Iota ad-script is consistently written. The same applies to the raised point in i 7, if this has been correctly deciphered (possible doubt arising from the weak break in the syntax to which it would have to correspond).

The suggestions of Professor Harold Tarrant, Professor Apostolos Pierris, Pro-fessor Antonio Carlini, and the General Editors in correspondence are gratefully acknowledged, as are the comments of discussion groups at the Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, and the Université de Paris i. It is a great pleasure to be able to join other contributors to this volume in honouring Peter Parsons and John Rea. They gave me my first introduction to the Oxyrhynchus Papyri decades ago, and have set a standard for papyrological research that continues to serve as an in spiration.

3 New Literary Texts.indd 65 17.5.2009 16:53

66 NEW LITERARY TEXTS

Fr. 1 Col. i Col. ii . . . . . . . . [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]ηδουϲ[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]θοδικ[ 4–5 ]μα> ̣[ [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣μενο ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]μοϲτηνπ̣εριτ1ω τ ̣[ [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]ατ̣ων[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣τειανπαρεχομε χ̣[ [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ιδετο[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]ατυλοϲτηνπεριο τ[ 5 [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ν[ ̣]ρθοτητο ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]αλιανπερι 5 > τ[ [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]ε̣ξ̣ηϲδετου̣τ̣ω ̣[ 6–7 ] ̣τ ̣ϲουτοϲ ̣ > ̣ ̣[ [ 2–3 ] ̣μ ̣ ̣δηεπιτωιθε[ ̣] ̣[ ̣] ̣τωι· [ 2–3 ]φιϲτηϲ [ ̣]εκαιπο ̣[ ̣]τικοϲτηνοριϲτικηντεκ̣[ 2–6 [ ̣] ̣[ ̣] ̣ρετικηνμεθοδονδιδαϲκοντεϲ> 10 [ ̣ ̣]αμφιλογωϲμενεκε̣ινοι· οδεθεαιτη [ ̣ ] ̣ϲαμφιδοξ[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]καιβουλεταιπερι [ ̣] ̣ ιϲτημηϲ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣αϲαναϲκευαζ1ω [ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣αιτ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣δριτωντρ ̣[ ̣]νδια [ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ντη[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣νημονευϲεωϲανα

Fr. 2 . . ] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]πομε ]μενου ]υγαρ . .

Fr. 1 col. i2 ] ̣, vertical trace ̣[, prob. ϲ 3 ̣τ: right end of horizontal or descending stroke,

suggesting α, ε or λ π corrected from ε by overwriting, probably scribendo 4 η, μ, or π, or possibly ι or ν 5 ̣ν: θ, ο or ω ο ̣ ̣[: ε, θ, ο, or ϲ, followed by left end of low horizontal, suggesting δ, ζ, or ξ 6 υ̣τ̣: the vertical stroke of υ̣ is too far to the right, but this seems to be due to distortion of the papyrus; without such rectification, the sequence of traces would have sug-gested rather υ̣π̣ ̣τ: top of final vertical τ ̣: right arc of curved letter, almost certainly ο ϲ ̣: part of a vertical stroke, followed after a break in the papyrus by a raised dot or the right-hand end of a vertical stroke; possibly γ, ε, η, or ι followed by a raised point 7 ̣μ: top of final vertical, matching η, ι, μ, ν, or π μ ̣ ̣δ: bottom of oval or circular letter (ε, θ, ο, or ϲ) and foot of upright ] ̣: minimal low trace of ink ̣τ: base of vertical, suggesting η, ι, μ, ν, or π The apparent raised point may be followed by a space, as in 10 8 ̣[: beginning of α, λ, or χ 9 Two bases of verticals 10 After νοι raised point followed by space 11 ] ̣: δ, ο, or ω 12 ] ̣: high perpendicular junction ̣ [: ε or θ ] ̣ : upright with join from left at the bottom (ν?) 13 ] ̣ ̣: top half of high vertical, almost certainly ι, followed by low horizontal, compatible with δ, ζ, or ξ ̣[: thick traces of rising oblique, compatible with α, ω ] ̣, bottom of upright with hook

3 New Literary Texts.indd 66 17.5.2009 16:53

4941. A THRASYLLAN INTERPRETATION OF THEAETETUS 67

Fr. 1 Col. i . . . . . . [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]ηδουϲ[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣με]θοδικ[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]μα [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣μενοϲ̣[ ̣ ̣ἁρ]μοϲτὴν περὶ τῶ(ν) [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]ατ̣ων [πραγμ]α̣τείαν παρεχομέ- [ ̣ ̣ προ]ή̣ιδετο [γὰρ ὁ Κρ]άτυλοϲ, τὴν περὶ ὀ- 5 [νομάτ]ω̣ν [ὀ]ρθότητοϲ̣ δ̣[ιδαϲκ]αλίαν περι- [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]· ἑξῆϲ δὲ τούτωι̣ [ὁ Θεαίτ]η̣το̣ϲ οὑτοϲί̣, [κα]ὶ̣ μὲ̣ν̣ δὴ ἐπὶ τῶι Θε[α]ι̣[τ]ή̣τωι [ὁ Ϲο]φίϲτηϲ [τ]ε καὶ Πολ̣[ι]τικὸϲ, τὴν ὁριϲτικήν τε κ[αὶ τὴν [δ]ι̣[α]ι̣ρετικὴν μέθοδον διδάϲκοντεϲ, 10 [ἀν]αμφιλόγωϲ μὲν ἐκεῖνοι, ὁ δὲ Θεαίτη- [τ]ο̣ϲ ἀμφιδόξ[ωϲ, ἐπεὶ] καὶ βούλεται περὶ [ἐ]π̣ιϲτήμηϲ ἐ̣[κεῖ πλά]ν̣αϲ ἀναϲκευάζω(ν) [δε]ῖ̣ξ̣αι τὰ̣ [ἐπὶ τῶι ἀ]ν̣δρί, τῶν τρι̣[ῶ]ν δια- [λόγ]ω̣ν τὴ[ν ἐκ τῆϲ] μ̣νημονεύϲεωϲ ἀνά|[πτυξιν

Fr. 2 . . ] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]πομε- ]μενου ]υ γὰρ . .

to right, as of ν ̣[: top of upright on edge 14 ] ̣: scattered traces on broken surface ] ̣: dot at line level on edge

Fr. 1 col. ii1 Base of curved letter, probably first of line 2 Upright, probably η or ι 6 Two

low traces of verticals, the second descending further than the first

Fr. 21 Minimal and indecipherable traces (letter feet)

‘. . . methodical . . . provide a harmonized study about . . . . For the Cratylus used to be sung as a prelude, [bringing in] (his) teaching on correctness of names. Directly after it comes this (dialogue), the Theaetetus, and, following upon the Theaetetus, the Sophist and Statesman, which teach the methods of definition and division. They do this transparently, whereas the Theaetetus does so ambiguously, since he also aims there, in eliminating errors about knowledge, to demonstrate those points that bear upon the individual man (Theaetetus), with the three dialogues [showing that] the unfolding, as a result of a memory process, [of innate concepts . . .]’

3 New Literary Texts.indd 67 17.5.2009 16:53

68 NEW LITERARY TEXTSIn our modern editions of Plato the dialogues are ordered in tetralogies. Thus volume 1 of

the OCT contains the first tetralogy, consisting of Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, and Phaedo, followed by the second, consisting of Cratylus, Theaetetus, Sophist, Statesman. This canonical arrangement is due to Thrasyllus, who in addition to his philosophical scholarship is also notable for having served as court astrologer to the emperor Tiberius (died aD 36). Despite being generally rejected or ignored by the other Platonist thinkers of later antiquity, his tetralogical ordering had a decisive effect on the codex tradition. Comparisons have been made to Andronicus’ reported role, in the mid to late first century BC, in establishing the canonical ordering of Aristotle’s works.

There can be little doubt that, in explaining the purpose of the Theaetetus, the present frag-ment locates it in Thrasyllus’ second tetralogy, for which cf. DL 3.58: δευτέρα τετραλογία, ἧϲ ἡγεῖται Κράτυλοϲ ἢ περὶ ὀρθότητοϲ ὀνομάτων, λογικόϲ· Θεαίτητοϲ ἢ περὶ ἐπιϲτήμηϲ, πειραϲτικόϲ· Ϲοφίϲτηϲ ἢ περὶ τοῦ ὄντοϲ, λογικόϲ· Πολιτικὸϲ ἢ περὶ βαϲιλείαϲ, λογικόϲ.

It is impossible to say with confidence that Thrasyllus is the fragment’s author, but the following considerations favour the possibility:

1) Although there were other tetralogists, we know of no other writer on Plato who adopted Thrasyllus’ ordering (beyond the bare report of DL 3.61 that Thrasyllus ‘and some (others)’ follow it), and of many who adopted alternative orderings. These start with Thrasyllus’ predecessor Aris-tophanes of Byzantium, who had in fact organized Plato’s works into trilogies, placing Sophist, States-man, and Cratylus in his second trilogy but Theaetetus in his fourth (DL 3.61–2). Thrasyllus, who also organized Democritus’ works into tetralogies, was almost certainly the originator of tetralogical ar-rangements of the Platonic corpus, as is fully argued by H. Tarrant, Thrasyllan Platonism (Ithaca, N.Y., 1993). A certain Dercyllides, of unknown date, is reported to have advocated the same first tetralogy as Thrasyllus (Albinus, Intr. 4), but there is little reason to think that he adopted the whole Thrasyllan ordering, and still less to think that he anticipated it (cf. also J. Mansfeld, Prolegomena: Questions to be Set-tled before the Study of an Author, or a Text (1994) 64). Even Theon of Smyrna, who was heavily influenced by Thrasyllus and quoted him extensively, adopted his own tetralogical ordering of the corpus rather than replicate the Thrasyllan one (Tarrant, Thrasyllan Platonism 58–72).

2) Thrasyllus proposed the tetralogical scheme, not as his own editorial device, but as represent-ing Plato’s original ordering: according to him, Plato actually ‘published’, or ‘edited’, the dialogues in tetralogies (DL 3.56). The present fragment says nothing about publication, but does likewise appar-ently purport to recount the original educational use of the dialogues in the early Academy: hence in line 4 the imperfect προ]ή̣ιδετο.

3) Two terminological details match our evidence for Thrasyllus’ usage. (a) At 7, the unusual ἐπί + dative to describe one dialogue as continuing another in a tetralogy seems to be Thrasyllan (see 7 n. below); (b) in 11 ff., the use of ἐπεὶ] καὶ βούλεται . . . [δε]ῖ̣ξ̣αι κτλ. to convey Plato’s authorial inten-tions (see further below, 11–14 n.) mirrors what Thrasyllus, as reported at DL 3.57, says about Plato’s intentions in the first tetralogy: παραδεῖξαι γὰρ βούλεται κτλ.

In constructing his tetralogical schema, Thrasyllus labelled each dialogue generically: λογικόϲ, πειραϲτικόϲ, ἠθικόϲ, etc. For example the first tetralogy, which displays in the person of Socrates a paradigm of the philosophical life, consists of one ‘peirastic’ dialogue (Euthyphro) and three ‘ethical’ (Apology, Crito, Phaedo), following a favoured pattern according to which a tetralogy typically consisted of three dialogues of a single generic type appropriate to the group’s overall function, plus one odd man out, analogous to the satyr play that was combined with a tragic trilogy to make up a full dra-matic tetralogy (DL 3.56; see Tarrant, Thrasyllan Platonism 70–72). Along these same lines, the second tetralogy (see DL 3.58, quoted above) consisted of one ‘peirastic’ dialogue, namely the Theaetetus, and three ‘logical’ ones.

The new fragment for the first time elucidates what this particular 3 + 1 arrangement amounted to. (For past suggestions, which find some measure of support in the new papyrus, cf. M. Dunn,

3 New Literary Texts.indd 68 17.5.2009 16:53

4941. A THRASYLLAN INTERPRETATION OF THEAETETUS 69‘Iamblichus, Thrasyllus and the Reading Order of the Platonic Dialogues’, in R. B. Harris (ed.), The Significance of Neoplatonism (1976) 59–80, esp. 63–4; Mansfeld, Prolegomena, esp. 70; and A. Dunshirn, ‘In welcher Reihenfolge die Dialoge Platons lesen?’, Gymnasium 115 (2008) 103–22, esp. 110–12.) The tetralogy’s overarching theme is, it seems, the methodology for acquiring the ideal philosophical knowledge that the first tetralogy has already advertised. The second tetralogy’s main thrust is thus ‘logical’, in the broad sense of this term which includes both inferential method and epistemology. Its solitary peirastic dialogue, i.e. the one that tests and finds wanting the views of others, is the Theaetetus, whose main task is to clear away a series of misconceptions about what knowledge is (perception, true belief, true belief plus an account), thereby indirectly pointing to the term’s correct Platonic definition. As a result this dialogue’s more far-reaching task, to teach philosophical method, remains somewhat hidden (10–11). The other three members of the tetralogy are straightforwardly ‘logical’. The first is the Cratylus, devoted to ‘correctness of names’. The other two are the Sophist and Statesman, which serve as paradigms of methodology, consolidating and amplifying the hints already given by the Theaetetus as to how knowledge is really constituted.

The work from which the fragment derives was either closely dependent on Thrasyllus or, at least as likely, by Thrasyllus himself. Tarrant, Thrasyllan Platonism, argues that Thrasyllus may have set out his full tetralogical schema in an ‘Introduction to the reading of Plato’s dialogues’. However, the present fragment would be unlikely to derive from a work of precisely that character, since it is clearly focusing ultimately on just one dialogue, the Theaetetus, rather than on the tetralogy or tetralogies as such. The author pays special attention to the Theaetetus, not only by going into greater detail about its content and function, but also by referring to it as ‘this dialogue, the Theaetetus’ (fr. 1.i 6, ὁ Θεαίτ]η̣τὸ̣ϲ οὑτοϲί)̣. The deictic pronoun, if correctly read here, opens the possibility (kindly suggested by Pro-fessor A. Pierris) that the text was in fact a commentary on that dialogue, even if no commentaries by Thrasyllus are attested in our sources. If so, the fragment would almost certainly come from the commentary’s introductory section—corresponding to Anon. In Platonis Theaetetum (CPF iii) 2.11–3.25, where in his own introductory section this Middle Platonist commentator compares two rival views as to how the Theaetetus is related to the Sophist, neither of them being exactly the Thrasyllan view proposed in the present fragment.

Fr. 1 Col. i1–4 These lines defy exact reconstruction. But the theme seems to be the harmonized study

(ἁρ]μοστὴν . . . [πραγμ]ατείαν) that the four dialogues combine to offer. This musical metaphor, which will continue with προ]ή̣ιδετο in 4, may have already started in lines 1–2, where με]θοδικ[ὸν ἆιϲ]μα could be restored. Fittingly, harmonic theory was Thrasyllus’ own major area of specialization (texts in Tarrant, Thrasyllan Platonism 222–7).

3 ]ατ̣ων. Since the tetralogy is meant to be about philosophical method, one might expect ζητημ]άτ̣ων or θεωρημ]άτ̣ων.

4–6 Cf. DL 3.57, quoting Thrasyllus with regard to the first tetralogy: διπλαῖϲ τε χρῆται [sc. Plato; see first paragraph of 11–14 n.] ταῖϲ ἐπιγραφαῖϲ καθ’ ἑκάϲτου τῶν βιβλίων, τῇ μὲν ἀπὸ τοῦ ὀνόματοϲ, τῇ δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ πράγμα τοϲ. In then setting out the tetralogies, Thrasyllus systematically gives each dialogue its full disjunctive title, for example (58) Κράτυλοϲ ἢ Περὶ ὀρθότητοϲ ὀνομάτων, as echoed in the present passage, albeit without its explicit use as title plus subtitle. Thrasyllus (see 11–14 n.) believed the subtitles to go back to Plato, and they certainly predated Thrasyllus himself by centuries (cf. Mansfeld, Prolegomena 71–4), because that of the Phaedo, Περὶ ψυχῆϲ (for which cf. also Anon. In Plat. Tht. 48.9–10, possibly close in date to Thrasyllus), was already used by Callimachus (Epigr. 23.2–4).

4 προ]ή̣ιδετο: the imperfect suggests that the author purports to be describing the regular practice of the early Academy.

3 New Literary Texts.indd 69 17.5.2009 16:53

70 NEW LITERARY TEXTS5 δ̣[ιδαϲκ]αλίαν is due to Professor Tarrant, who also suggests περι|[άπτων (‘joining on’?) in

5–6. For the latter, περι|[λαβών, ‘incorporating’, is another option, and a third is περι|[έχων, ‘includ-ing’ (suggested by Professor Carlini, who cites the parallels of DL 1.112 and Diodorus 2.1.1). This last fits the lacuna, provided we assume that it was followed by a space like that in line 11. The first two treat the Cratylus as appending an extra topic to the ensuing trilogy, the third as simply including it in its contents. Since the topic of ‘correctness of names’ was recognized as the theme of the Cratylus, one might hope to avoid a reading which makes this topic merely ‘included’ in it, and hence prefer one of the first two suggestions. The author considers the methodology of attaining knowledge to be the dominant theme of the whole tetralogy, and this would make it natural for him to treat the official topic of the Cratylus, correctness of names, as somehow subsidiary or ancillary (‘joined on’ or ‘incorporated’) to the tetralogy’s purpose. On the other hand, he could, if περι|[έχων were read, have it in mind that the question ‘How are we to obtain knowledge?’ is already becoming a focal question by the end of the Cratylus (337d–340e), a point of view from which it would indeed be true that cor-rectness of names is merely ‘included’ among the dialogue’s themes.

6 The restoration of this line is primarily due to Professor Pierris.6–11 Following the Cratylus, the ensuing trilogy of Theaetetus, Sophist, Statesman is seen as turning

to the methodology by which knowledge is to be attained. The latter two, being supreme exhibitions of definition by the method of division, are direct lessons in philosophical method. The Theaetetus, which is prefaced to them (for the use of ἐπί in 7, see n. below), is only indirectly or covertly about method, since in it Plato’s main aim is to eliminate Theaetetus’ wrong definitions of knowledge and thus prepare the ground for what will emerge from the entire trilogy as the correct account of know-ledge. Knowledge, in the author’s view, turns out to depend on the full articulation of our innate concepts by the process of recollection, a process that is presumably here identified with the dialecti-cal mapping of interrelated Forms through the method of division. The Theaetetus, with its portrayal of Socrates as midwife, sketches the correct means of arriving at knowledge as one of intellectual parturition from our own innate resources; and the Sophist and Statesman go on to show in detail what the complete attainment of that parturition is like.

7 The unusual ἐπί + dative, used here to describe dialogues as ‘following’ others in a tetralogy, concurs with Albinus’ report of Thrasyllus’ first tetralogy (Prolog. 4.10), ἐπὶ τούτοιϲ [sc. Euthyphro and Apology] τὸν Κρίτωνα κτλ.). As Professor Most has plausibly suggested to me, it could be a usage de-rived from the title Ἐπινομίϲ. This title had already been applied in the early Academy to the dialogue believed to have been compiled by Plato’s secretary Philip of Opus, which was accepted by Thrasyllus in his ninth tetralogy as the authentic sequel to the Laws, Νόμοι (DL 3.60). It may be meant (as Pro-fessor Manetti suggests to me) to express a closer continuity than the simple ἑξῆϲ δὲ τούτωι in line 6. The latter describes the relation of the Cratylus to a trilogy that it prefaces without either significantly anticipating its content or being part of a single dramatic sequence.

11–14 It is unclear from the run of the text whether the subject of βούλεται . . . [δε]ῖ̣ξ̣αι is (a) ‘the Theaetetus’ or (b) ‘Plato’, the reverential omission of whose name is a common feature of Platonist literature. But a striking parallel from Diogenes Laertius may help. DL 3.57 is reporting Thrasyllus’ tetralogies: πρώτην μὲν οὖν τετραλογίαν τίθηϲι τὴν κοινὴν ὑπόθεϲιν ἔχουϲαν. παραδεῖξαι γὰρ βούλεται ὁποῖοϲ ἂν εἴη ὁ τοῦ φιλοϲόφου βίοϲ. It has generally been held (and argued by Tar-rant, Thrasyllan Platonism 91) that the subject of this latter passage is Thrasyllus, but the parallel in the papyrus now favours taking it either, in correspondence with option (a), as ‘the tetralogy’, or, with option (b), as ‘Plato’. Of these, the second is marginally favoured by the fact that in the next sentence of Diogenes Laertius (quoted above, 4–6 n.) the unnamed subject said to use double titles for dialogues is not very likely to be ‘the tetralogy’ but could very well continue to be ‘Plato’. On either reading, it is Plato whose intentions are in both texts said to be didactic: his first tetralogy started off the entire didactic project by displaying Socrates’ conduct in his last days as a paradigm

3 New Literary Texts.indd 70 17.5.2009 16:53

4941. A THRASYLLAN INTERPRETATION OF THEAETETUS 71of the philosophical life; the second continued by teaching how we too can attain philosophical knowledge.

For the author’s definition of knowledge, including the suggested completion ἀνά|[πτυξιν], cf. Anon. In Plat. Tht. 47.37–48.7: ἐν δὲ τῷ διδάϲκειν αὐτοὺϲ [παρ]εϲκε̣ύα̣ζεν (sc. Socrates) [τοὺϲ] μ̣α̣ν̣θάνονταϲ [λέγει]ν περ̣ὶ τῶν π̣[ραγ]μ̣ά̣των, ἀναπτ̣ύ[ϲ]ϲων αὐτῶν τὰϲ φ̣υϲ̣ι̣κὰϲ ἔννοίαϲ καὶ διαρθ̣ρ̣ῶν. καὶ τοῦτο ἀκόλ̣ο̣[υ]θον τῷ δόγμ̣α̣τ̣ι̣ τ̣ῷ τὰϲ λεγομ̣ένα̣ϲ μ̣αθήϲειϲ ἀναμνήϲειϲ ε[ἶ]ν̣α̣[ι] κ̣[αὶ] πᾶϲαν ἀνθρώπου ψυχὴν τεθεᾶϲθαι τὰ ὄντα καὶ δεῖν αὐτῇ οὐκ ἐνθέϲεωϲ μαθημάτων ἀλλὰ ἀναμνήϲεωϲ. Like this author, our author turns out to hold this same Middle Platonist position that knowledge is acquired by ‘unfolding’ or ‘articulating’ one’s innate (ἔμφυτοι or φυϲικαί) ἔννοιαι into full-scale definitions, an interpretation that combines the Platonic theory that all learning is recollection, the portrayal of Socrates in the Theaetetus as an intellectual midwife bringing to birth others’ embry-onic ideas, and the elaborate methodology for articulating definitions deployed in the Sophist and Statesman.

With the author’s view of the Theaetetus’ strategy, cf. Anon. In Plat. Tht. 2.52–3.25, according to whom Plato uses the dialogue to refute a series of wrong views about what knowledge is, converging on but deliberately stopping short of the correct one.

14 ἐκ τῆϲ] μ̣νημονεύϲεωϲ. This rare noun is otherwise attested only in Epicurus, Nat. 25 (34.19.2 Arrighetti2) and Origen, In Ev. Io. 206.3, 208.6. In neither author does it refer to Platonic recollection, simply meaning ‘memory’ or ‘remembering’, a sense that however is perfectly suitable to the present passage. It is possible that a compound should be restored instead: either ἐκ ϲυμ]μνημονεύϲεωϲ or ἐξ ἀπο]μνημονεύϲεωϲ. However, neither term has any link to Platonic recollection that would com-mend it as obviously preferable. The former is a Pyrrhonist technical term for joint-memory of two or more items, and the latter very rare word would be more likely to connote ‘recounting’ than simple remembering. A final possibility would be ἐξ ἀνα]μνημονεύϲεωϲ, but not only is the noun unattested but the cognate verb ἀναμνημονεύω has only three attestations, none of them linking it to Platonic recollection; and the prefix would sit awkwardly with the immediately following ἀνα- compound.

D. N. SEDLEY

4942. ZenoBius, epiTome of DiDymus anD LuciLLus of Tarrhae, Book 1

29 4B.48/B(2–4)b 12.4 × 9.5 cm Third century Plate VI

The tops of two consecutive columns from a papyrus roll, written across the fibres on the back of a document. The line beginnings of the first column are not preserved, but the second column is almost complete in width, with only a small lacuna in the first four lines and a few letters missing from the end of lines. The intercolumnium ranges between 1.5 and 2 cm. The papyrus, irregularly broken on all sides, has an upper margin 2 cm high. Over the centre of col. ii, at the top of the margin, there appears an incomplete and uncertain trace of ink (an ascending oblique), which probably represents a column number (on the practice of number-ing columns in papyrus rolls, see 4935 introd.). The exact number of lines missing from the bottom of the columns is uncertain. The document on the front appears to be a land survey (names, cardinal points, aroura symbol, numbers) written in a second-century hand.

3 New Literary Texts.indd 71 17.5.2009 16:53

PLATE VI

4941

4942

cm 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

9 Plates.indd 6 17.5.2009 17:12