UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The development of the biographical tradition on the Athenian orators in the Hellenistic period Cooper, Craig Richard 1992

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-ubc_1992_fall_cooper_craig_richard.pdf [ 17.39MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0086535.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0086535-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0086535-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0086535-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0086535-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0086535-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0086535-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

THE DEVELOPMENT OF T H E BIOGRAPHICAL TRADITION O N T H E ATHENIAN ORATORS IN T H E HELLENISTIC PERIOD By CRAIG R I C H A R D COOPER B A , The University of Alberta, 1983 M A ^ The University of British Columbia, 1985 A THESIS S U B M I T T E D I N P A R T I A L F U L F I L L M E N T O F THE REQUIREMENTS FOR T H E DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY  in The Faculty of Graduate Studies (Department of Cassics, Faculty of Arts)  W e accept this thesis as conformimg to the required standard  T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F BRITISH C O L U M B I A September 1992 © Craig Richard Cooper, 1992  In  presenting  degree freely  at  this  the  thesis  in  partial  fulfilment  University  of  British  Columbia, I agree  available for  copying  of  department publication  this or of  reference  thesis by  this  for  his thesis  and study. scholarly  or  her  for  Department  of  C /<\ S S / C S  The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  Date  DE-6  (2/88)  £fc f-o  H  /?9'i  I further  purposes  gain  the  requirements that  agree that  may  representatives.  financial  permission.  of  It  shall not  be is  the  Library  an  advanced  shall make  permission for  granted  by  understood be  for  allowed  the that  without  it  extensive  head  of  my  copying  or  my  written  ABSTRACT  B y the time Dionysius of Halicarnassus came to compose the brief biographies that introduce his essays on the ancient Athenian orators  c o m m o n histories of a  variety of literary figures had already been assembled by earlier compilers of bioi into a collection known as the koine historia.  This anonymous collection of biographies  was the source that rhetoricians and other writers turned to for a standard account of an orator's life.  This dissertation sets out to examine the development of the  biographical tradition behind the common history, as it came to be preserved in a collection of bioi known as Ps.-Plutarch. In ancient times a canon of the ten best A t t i c orators was recognized. In Plutarch's collection of essays, the Moralia,  is preserved a set of brief biographies of  the orators of the canon, but this collection is no longer considered a genuine work of Plutarch.  The introduction provides an extensive review of past scholarship on the  p r o b l e m s o f the nature and authorship of this collection, generally k n o w n as Ps.-Plutarch. It shows that the biographies are composites that were expanded through centuries of additions from a p r i m i t i v e core.  The basic biography, w h i c h is still  discernible and was o r i g i n a l l y composed by a g r a m m a r i a n , perhaps Caecilius of Caleacte (30 B.C.), was modeled on the biographies of the koine  historia.  The  b i o g r a p h i e s f o u n d i n this anonymous collection are themselves the product of Alexandrian scholarship. Chapter 1 examines the common history as the source of the biographies of Dionysius and Ps.-Plutarch. A comparison of their lives of Isocrates shows that the author of Ps.-Plutarch not only used the same source as Dionysius but also made a  number of substantial additions, particularly of an anecdotal k i n d , to his account. These additions were taken from two places: from the same c o m m o n history and f r o m the b i o g r a p h e r H e r m i p p u s .  B u t the same c o m p a r i s o n reveals that this  biographer was an important source not only of the anecdotes on Isocrates, but also of much of the common history as it was preserved by Dionysius and Ps-Plutarch. H e r m i p p u s proved an important source for the compilers of the c o m m o n history, since he himself gathered together and transmitted existing traditions on the orators.  C h a p t e r s 2 and 3 examine and evaluate the h i s t o r i c i t y of the earlier  contributions of Demetrius of Phalerum and Idomeneus of Lampsacus. The former treated Demosthenes in a treatise on rhetoric; the latter the orators Demosthenes, Aeschines and Hypereides in his polemic on the Athenian demagogues.  The evidence  indicates that H e r m i p p u s picked up, incorporated into his o w n biographies and transmitted into the later tradition their treatments of these orators. T h e final chapter (4) is devoted to Hermippus himself.  H e was a highly  respected biographer and scholar in antiquity and his biographies were characterized by their rich mixture of anecdote and erudition. In particular attention was paid to his collection of biographies On the Isocrateans, into a diadoché  which was schematically arranged  as a construct of the history of 4th century A t t i c prose. F r o m there  attempts were made to reconstruct the scheme and content of his biographies of Demosthenes, Hypereides and Isocrates. F r o m this study it became apparent that the type of biography written by Hermippus was essentially antiquarian in approach. literary sources.  Much of the research was into  That is to say much of the biographical information was inferred  from texts, whether of the orator under consideration or of contemporary c o m i c poets, or even from other antiquarian works, such Demetrius' work on rhetoric.  In  the end this type of biography was itself a product of same antiquarian interests that characterized much of the scholarship of the Alexandrian period.  Abstract  ii  Table of Contents  v  Preface  vii  References  xvi  Acknowledgements Introduction 1. Dionysius and Ps.-Plutarch Sources K o i n e Historia Nature and Content of the C o m m o n Histories Chronology Biography I. Genos II. Education III. Career IV. School V Death 2. Demetrius of Phalerum Demetrius Demetrius and Hermippus Demosthenes' Speech Impediment The Value of the Tradition I. Peripatetic V i e w of Demosthenes' A b i l i t y II. Peripatetic Theory of Delivery III. Peripatetic Criticism of Demosthenes' Delivery I V . C o m i c Origins V . Testimony of Aeschines and Demosthenes 3. Idomeneus of Lampsacus Lineage: Polemic Diadoche Topoi of Polemic I. t P I A O T I M I A II. T P Y 0 H  xviii 1 35 35 40 44 47 56 58 66 68 72 79 87 88 91 96 110 110 120 128 138 145 149 150 154 157 157 160  The Archetype Pericles ô àKÔAaotoç The Tradition on Aeschines, Demosthenes, Hypereides I. O I A O T I M I A II. T P Y O H : ot àicoAaotot 4. Hermippus Popularity of his W r i t i n g Character of his W r i t i n g I. Pinacography II. Biography O n the Isocrateans Demosthenes, Hypereides, Isocrates I. Demosthenes 1. Genos 2. Sexual Mores 3. Education i. Teachers ii. Training 4. Death II Hypereides 1. Genos and Education 2. Sexual Mores 3. Death III. Isocrates 1. Genos 2. Education 3. School 4. Sexual Mores 5. Death  162 165 165 174 202 204 208 208 212 217 235 235 236 240 247 247 264 271 283 285 286 295 300 301 304 309 316 319  Conclusion  325  Bibliography  332  PREFACE  M u c h of the scholarship of this century has been concerned with the origins and history of the genre of biography. F. L e o in his work, Die Biographie  nach ihrer literarischen  griechisch-romische  Form, set the terms for subsequent debate. In an  investigation of the literary form of the biographies of Suetonius, he reconstructed an e n t i r e h i s t o r y o f the genre, based on a distinction between a Plutarchean and Suetonian form, and argued that the former had its origin i n the Peripatos, the latter in Alexandria.  The Plutarchean form of biography was essentially a chronological  account that aimed at describing the riGoç of an individual.  The Suetionian form,  w h i c h was invented by A l e x a n d r i a n grammarians, was, by contrast, simple and schematic.  In it the biographical material on literary figures was gathered and  arranged into categories.  L e o further postulated that with the birth of this type of  "grammatical" bios i n the age of Callimachus, literary biographies by the Peripatetics ceased, while historical and political biographies that also originated in the Peripatos continued and found full expression in the lives of Plutarch. M u c h subsequent scholarship has tried to refute, or revise, Leo's hypothesis, particularly his attempt to see the origins of biography in the Peripatos.' M o m i g l i a n o and A r r i g h e t t i have pointed out some of the difficulties.  Scholars like It is now clear  that the monographs on individual poets by such Peripatetics like Chamaeleon were  1. For a critical  review of Leo's reconstruction of the history of ancient biography, see A.  Momigliano, The Development of Greek Biography (Harvard 1971) 18-22; G. Arrighetti, "Satiro, Vita di Euripide," SCO 13 (1964); "Fra erudizione e biografia," SCO 26 (1977) 13-67; I. Gallo, "La vita di Euripide di Satiro e gli studi sulla biografia antica," PP 22 (1967) 151-6; "L'origine e lo sviluppo della biografia greca," QUCC 18 (1974) 173-86.  not biographies but simply exegetical works, which often included biographical details about the poet i n question.  The first literary biographies did not appeared until the  age of C a l l i m a c h u s . Less clear, however, is the question of political biography. Recent suggestions have been to regard it as a late invention by Nepos or Plutarch himself.^  But the ethical approach which Plutarch took to the writing of biography  certainly had its origin in the ethical discussions of the Peripatetics,^ and members of the s c h o o l , l i k e A r i s t o x e n u s of T a r e n t u m , do seem to have w r i t t e n bioi  of  philosophers. Despite the continued controversy over the role the Peripatetics played in the d e v e l o p m e n t of G r e e k b i o g r a p h y , the second part o f Leo's hypothesis is less contentious.  In fact, recent papyrological finds confirm that there existed in antiquity  a type of biography developed by Alexandrian scholars that arranged the life and achievements of an author schematically. A full discussion of form and nature of the grammatical biography is reserved for the Introduction.  F o r now it need only be  noted that the first biographies to be written on the Athenian orators, whether in the Pinakes of Callimachus or by the biographer Hermippus, were of this type. It has o n l y been in the last two decades that scholars have systematically considered the method and reliability of ancient biographers.  In one such attempt J.  Fairweather has shown that much of the biographical material found in the ancient  2.  See J. Geiger, "Cornelius Nepos and Ancient Politcal Biography," Historia Suppl. 47 (1985);  Podlecki, "A Survey of Work on Plutarch's Greek Lives, 1951-1988," ANRW 33. 6 (1992) 4054. 3.  See  A. Dihle,  "Studien zur griechischen Biographie," Abhandlung  der  Akademie  der  Wissenschaften Gottingen Philologisch-Historische Klasse 37 (1956); cf. Hamilton, Plutarch Alexander: A Commentary (Oxford 1969) xxxviii-xxxix.  l i v e s was based o n 1) false inferences f r o m the w o r k s of the author  under  consideration; 2) from w o r k s of his contemporaries, notably the comic poets; 3) references i n v a r i o u s types of s c h o l a r l y and pseudo-scholarly w o r k s , such as epigraphical studies or historical miscellanea; and 4) attempts to schematize history into neat patterns, like genealogies or succession lists.^  This was a general survey  that touched briefly on a variety of lives. More comprehensive examinations both by her^ and by M . Lefkowitz* dealt with the lives of the tragedians and other Greek poets.  Little, however, has been done to evaluate the biographical tradition on the  Athenian orators. B y the 2nd century A . D . a canon of the ten best Athenian orators had been established. This comprised Antiphon, Andocides, Lysias, Isocrates, Isaeus, Aeschines, Lycurgus, Demosthenes, Hypereides and Dinarchus. Ancient biographers treated these orators as literary figures, and not until the time of Plutarch was there a poUtical biography, and then only of Demosthenes.  Thus the o r i g i n of the biographical  tradition of the orators lies in the literary and antiquarian research that flourished i n the Peripatos and later at Alexandria.  But any attempt to trace the development of  the b i o g r a p h i c a l t r a d i t i o n in the Hellenistic period must come to terms w i t h the fragmentary evidence that forces one to peer, as it were, through a small window in  4.  "Fiction in the Biographies of Ancient Writers," Ancient Society 5 (1974) 231-75.  5.  "Traditional Narrative, Inference and Truth in the Lives of Greek Poets," Papers  of  the  Liverpool Latin Seminar 4 (1983) 315-69. 6.  "Fictions in Literary Biography: the New Poem and the Archilochus Legend," Arethusa 9 (1976)  181-9; "Poet as Hero: Fifth-Century Autobiography and Subsequent Biographical Fiction," CQ 28 (1978) 459-69; "The Euripides' Vita," GRBS 20 (1979) 187-210; "Autobiographical Fiction in Pindar," HSCP (1980) 29-49; The Lives of the Greek Poets (London 1981).  84  order to v i e w the broader horizon. Often one must reconstruct earUer evidence from later derivatives, or undertake the difficult task of source criticism  (Quellenkritik).  Since the treatment in the sources is uneven, with an abundance of material on one orator but not on another, the present study w i l l concentrate on three orators for w h o m there is detailed surviving evidence originating with the biographer Hermippus: Isocrates, Hyp>ereides and Demosthenes. There are two possible approaches to the b i o g r a p h i c a l t r a d i t i o n of these orators: the various components of the tradition can be examined topically, or by sources. Writings  A . R i g i n o s ' book, Platonica:  The  Anecdotes  Concerning  the Life  and  of Plato (Brill 1976), represents a good example of the first approach.  She  has collected and arranged the various anecdotes concerning Plato under different headings (Apollonian origin; early youth; relations with Socrates), and then analysed their origin and influence. Demosthenes  The other approach is represented by E. Drerup's work,  im Urteile des Altertums (Wurzburg 1923), in w h i c h the ancients' view  of Demosthenes is traced from his contemporaries down to the Byzantine period. W e have adopted the latter approach but have limited the study to the Hellenistic period when the biographical tradition was established, and examined only those writers who classify the orators together, whether as rhetoricians, demagogues or Isocrateans. These writers are Demetrius of Phalerum, who composed a work on rhetoric in which Demosthenes figured prominently; Idomeneus of Lampsacus, who wrote a polemic on the A t h e n i a n demagogues  in w h i c h he treated A e s c h i n e s , D e m o s t h e n e s and  Hypereides; and Hermippus, who assembled a collection of biographies on the students of Isocrates.  W e shall analyse specific sources behind the tradition to try and reach a  better u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f h o w ancient scholarship w o r k e d , i n particular ancient biographical and antiquarian research, which was a part of the tradition of ancient historiography within which all three writers were working.  This w i l l reveal the  methods and sources used by these writers, weaknesses in their approaches, and any bias that led them to characterize an orator in a particular way. It is a truism that there can be no good biography without good anecdotes, and many of the fragments examined are anecdotes. than just the sum of its pleasing stories.  But good biography is more  The biographies that left the hands of the  A l e x a n d r i a n scholars showed a curious blend of erudition and anecdote, scholarly research and fine story-telling.''  So we must deal w i t h both aspects.  Content is  important and, for historians, perhaps the most important thing, but for a biographical t r a d i t i o n to exist it needs a biographer able to compile and arrange the various elements into a whole.  In the Hellenistic period, when much of that tradition was  established, o n l y one biographer, H e r m i p p u s left an indelible mark on the later tradition; and so, m u c h of this dissertation w i l l center on his contribution to the biographical tradition of the orators. The  f o l l o w i n g stemma outlines the general affiliations between the sources  discussed in this study.  7.  The term erudite is used in this dissertation not to pass evaluation on the intellect of a writer,  like Hermippus, but simply to refer to his method of composition, whereby he took care to cite his sources and to display to his readers the breadth of his reading and learning.  ca. 300 B.C. ca. 240 B.C. ca. 200 B.C.  (Koivfi loxopia) ca. 30 B.C.  (Caecilius;  Dionysius of Halicarnassus  Ps.-Plutarch ca. 850 A.D.  Photius  A s the evidence w i l l show, Hermippus was crucial in the development of the biographical tradition as it was preserved in the koine historia and Ps.-Plutarch. B y the time Dionysius of Halicarnassus came to write the brief biographies that introduce his essays on the ancient orators, c o m m o n histories of various literary figures had been assembled b y earlier compilers of bioi and i n c o r p o r a t e d into a standard collection of biographies, known as the icoivfi laiopia, on which Dionysius could draw for biographical information on the orators. among his essays on ethics, the Moralia, orators of the canon.  Preserved in the corpus of Plutarch,  is a collection of biographies of the ten  This collection, simply designated Ps.-Plutarch, belongs to the  same tradition as the biographies of the Kotvfi lotopia.  The c o m m o n history was  based o n the w o r k o f earlier scholars and biographers of A l e x a n d r i a , and the b i o g r a p h i e s c o n t a i n e d i n it show features c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the g r a m m a t i c a l bioi postulated by L e o and first introduced by Callimachus in his Pinakes.  Our  discussion begins with an examination of Ps.-Plutarch. The introduction reviews the  past scholarship on Ps.-Plutarch: the date of composition, possible authorship, character of the biographies of this collection and their relationship to grammatical  bioi.  Chapter 1 examines the source of Dionysius and Ps.-PIutarch, the common history. A comparison of their lives of Isocrates reveals considerable agreement and significant departures, particularly of an anecdotal kind, on the part of the author of Ps.-Plutarch. In both cases Hermippus emerges as an important source for the common history and anecdotes about Isocrates. His  i m p o r t a n c e stemmed f r o m the fact that he assembled together and  transmitted existing traditions on the orators. Chapters 2 and 3 will be devoted to the c o n t r i b u t i o n of D e m e t r i u s of P h a l e r u m and Idomeneus of L a m p s a c u s to the b i o g r a p h i c a l t r a d i t i o n and to an e v a l u a t i o n of the h i s t o r i c a l v a l u e of t h e i r contribution. W e shall show that their treatments were adapted by Hermippus in his own  work, and that much of the anecdotal material that can be ascribed to them  entered the biographical tradition through him. Hence his work on the Isocrateans was of fundamental importance in shaping that tradition and proved an important source for the Koivfi loxoptct, o n w h i c h both D i o n y s i u s of H a l i c a r n a s s u s and Ps.-Plutarch later drew. The chapters on Demetrius of Phalerum (2) and Idomeneus of Lampsacus (3) attempt first to trace into later antiquity the lines of a tradition that may go back to one of these writers; second, to note where Hermippus has picked up that tradition and incorporated it into his own biographies; and third, to evaluate the reliability of that tradition. Chapter 4 on Hermippus: first examines the popularity and general character  of his writings; second, outlines the schematic arrangement followed in his work on the Isocrateans; and third, reconstructs the literary form and content of his biographies of Demosthenes, Hypereides and Isocrates.  This approach leads to some unavoidable  repetition of material from the preceding chapters, but is needed for completeness, since H e r m i p p u s stands at the center, both as the biographer who gathered  the  separate elements into a whole and as the source tapped by later compilers of the common history. The results of the present study are threefold.  In attempting to establish the  relationships between the various writings on the Athenian orators, it was found that Hermippus was the pivotal figure in the development of the biographical tradition that began w i t h earlier writers like Demetrius of Phalerum and came to be preserved i n final f o r m i n later collections like Ps.-Plutarch. Secondly, by examining in detail the specific contributions of Demetrius of Phalerum, Idomeneus of Lampsacus and Hermippus, it was discovered that these writers derived much of the biographical material on the orators from the very sources identified by Fairweather.  Finally,  through examining the biographical methods of these writers we were able to provide a more solid basis for assessing their reliablity. Much of the anecdotal material found in the works of Demetrius or Idomeneus was invented on the basis of false inferences from the text of the orators or from comedy.  Indeed a certain bias is supected of  these two writers, who invented their stories only to malign the orators they were treating.  Hermippus stands apart from these earlier writers i n an important way.  Certainly he included anecdotes in his lives but many of them were inherited. His m a i n c o n t r i b u t i o n lay in providing factual details drawn from scholarly works to  balance the anecdotes that he found in earlier writers, like Demetrius and Idomeneus.  NOTE O N REFERENCES  In all cases the primary evidence is quoted in full in the notes and only rarely is a translation provided. The text of Ps.-Plutarch is taken from J. Mau's edition of the Teubner (Plutarchus: Moralia. V 2, 1. Leipzig, 1971) and w i l l be cited according to the traditional numbering: e.g. Ps.-Pl. Isoc. 837a or simply Ps.-Pl. 837a. The minor biographies are cited from Westermann's Biographi Graeci Minores according to the page and line number: e.g. Libanius 293.10. The fragments of Demetrius of Phalerum and H e r m i p p u s are those i n W e h r l i ' s Die Schule des Aristoteles I V & Suppl. I. (Basel-Stuttgart).; Idomeneus of Lampsacus is cited from Jacoby's Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker 338. Unless otherwise specified, the Teubner edition is used for all other texts. T h e names of ancient authors are a b b r e v i a t e d i n references and notes according to H . G Liddell and R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon (9th ed. oxford 1940) xvi-xxxviiii. Abbreviations of periodical titles follow those found in L' Année Philologique or The Oxford Classical Dictionary (2nd ed. Oxford 1970). W o r k s and articles of modern scholars are cited in full once and subsequent citations are by name only, or w i t h an abbreviated title, whenever clarity is demanded, and cross-referenced: eg. Shoemaker (above, n. 13) 62. Below is a list of abbreviations of the most frequently cited authors. Blass  Fr. Blass, Attische Beredsamkeit (Leipzig 1887-1898)  I-III  Connor  R. Connor, Theopompus and Fifth-Century Athens (Cambridge, Mass. 1968)  Drerup  E. Drerup, Demosthenes im Urteile Altertums (Wiirxburg 1923)  During  I. During, "Aristotle in the Ancient Biographical Tradition," Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis 68 (1957)  Fraser  R M . Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria  des  I-III  (Oxford 1972) Heibges  Heibges, "Hermippos,"  V I I I 1 (1912).  Jacoby  F. Jacoby, "Apollodors Chronik," Philologische Untersuchungen 16 (1902)  Jacoby, FGrH  F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (Berlin-Leiden 1923-58)  Leo  Momigliano  F. Leo, Die griechisch-romische Biographie nach ihrer literarischen Form (Leipzig 1901) A . Momigliano, The Development Biography (Cambridge 1971)  of Greek  MûUer, FHG  M . Muller, Fragmenta (Paris 1841-85)  Pfeiffer  R. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship (Oxford 1968)  Prasse  A . Prasse, De Plutarchi quae feruntur Decern Oratorum (Marburg 1891)  Schaefer  A . Schaefer Demosthenes und seine Zeit I-III (Leipzig 1885-1887)  Wehrli  F. Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristotles I - X (Basel 1944-59)  Wehrli Suppl. I  F. Wehrli, Hermippos (Basel-Stuttgart 1974)  Historicorum  der  Graecorum  Vitis  Kallimacheer  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  I would like to express my sincerest thanks to m y adviser Phillip Harding for his unending g o o d w i l l and patience, and for his many encouraging remarks and helpful criticisms. To the other members of my committee, Anthony Podlecki, Hector Williams and especially Robert Todd I am grateful for their timely suggestions. I reserve m y warmest expression of gratitude for m y dearest wife Karen, whose love and support has been constant throughout m y years of study. To her I w i l l be ever indebted. CRC  INTRODUCTION  In the catalogue of Lamprias we find ascribed to Plutarch i n the 41st position a w o r k entitled (3iot twv ô é m pntôpcov. A collection of brief biographies by that title has c o m e d o w n to us i n Plutarch's Moralia.  A. G . B e c k e r , f o l l o w e d by A .  Westermann,^ had maintained the authenticity of the collection, but since Schaefer^ the accepted position has been to regard this collection as a w o r k not written by Plutarch.  The two most plausible suggestions are that either Plutarch's w o r k on the  ten orators had been lost and an anonymous composition of the same title (our Ps.-Plutarch) had taken its place in the Plutarchean collection, or that Plutarch never wrote such a w o r k and Ps.-Plutarch is an apocryphal collection, transmitted by the manuscripts and wrongly attributed to Plutarch by Lamprias.^ In either case the work existed at the time Lamprias made his catalogue. M a x Treu^ had dated the catalogue to the 3rd or 4th centuries A.D., on the grounds that the title of the catalogue does not specify that it is dealing with the works of Plutarch of Chaeronea, i n order to avoid confusion with Plutarch of Athens, who died in 433 A.D.  In this case we have a terminus ante quern of the third century for the original  composition of Ps.-Plutarch. the Sophists and the Antiphon had used the latter.  1.  The striking similarities between Philostratus' Lives of of Ps.-Plutarch led Blass^ to conclude that the former  Thus a post quem nan for the date of composition can be  Plutarchi Vitae Decern Oratorum (Quedlinburg 1833).  2.  Commentatio de libra Vitarum X Oratorum (Dresden 1844).  3.  M. Cuvigny, Plutarchque oeuvres morales tome XII (Budé 1981) 25.  4.  Der sogenannte Lampriascatalog der Plutarchschriften (1873) 53-4.  5.  I (1887) 93.  established sometime between the middle of the 1st and end of the 2nd centuries A.D.* Ps.-Plutarch, as it has come down to us, represents a composite, which had been expanded through centuries of additions and amplifications from a p r i m i t i v e core. In refuting decisively Westermann's position that Ps.-Plutarch represented either a "collectanea sive adversaria" of Plutarch, Schaefer concluded that our collection of lives was composed not long after the time of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (30 B.C.) by a grammarian, as a preface to the reading of the orators, but that many interpolations and amplifications had been made at various times after that in the rhetorical schools by both learned and unlearned men.''  It was Schaefer's stated intention to devote a  later study to the task of distinguishing what had been written originally from what had been added subsequently, and thereby to discover the kinds of interpolations and additions made to the primitive lives. This task was taken up by Prasse,^ who showed that the individual lives of Ps.-Plutarch break into two distinctive parts; the first half, the " p r i m a r i a v i t a " , represents the o r i g i n a l biography, w r i t t e n as a continuous narrative; once the disturbances to the text of the primary lives had been removed, he showed that each had been arranged according to the same scheme which outlined briefly the  6.  YÉVOÇ,  education, career, and death of the orator,* and which concluded  Cuvigny (above, n. 3) 27 n. 2, however, argues that the similarities can be explained by recourse  to a common source.  In fact, he adds, in certain parallel passages Philostratus is either more detailed or  clearer; cf. Ps.-Pl. 833c & Philostr. I 499; Ps.-Pl. 838c-d & Philostr. I 503; Ps.-Pl. 840d & Philostr. I 509. 7.  Schaefer (above, n. 2) 37-8.  8.  De Plutarchi quae feruntur Vitis Decern Oratorum (Marburg 1891).  9.  Prasse 6-7: I. vita Antiphontis: pater, pagus, praeceptores, annus natalis, annus mortis, res gestae  (mérita), numerus orationum.  II. vita Andocidis: pater, avus, pagus, ordo patris, res gestae, annus natalis,  numerus orationum, ratio dicendi.  III. vita Lysiae: pater, avus, proavus, patria, annus natalis, res gestae,  annus mortis, orationum numerus, ratio dicendi. annus mortis, orationum numerus.  IV. Isocratis: pater, avus, ordo patris, annus natalis, sors,  V. Isaei: patria, praeceptores, numerus orationum, ratio dicendi.  VI.  w i t h a formulaic phrase indicating the number of speeches attributed to that orator or his style of speaking.'"  The second half, the "auctaria", follows the notice on the  number of speeches, and is a disjointed collection of annotations and stories written without any uniformity, often simply to amplify notices found in the primitive core. These represent the additions of successive generations.  The m a i n concern of this  thesis is w i t h the "primaria", although it w i l l be necessary at time to discuss the "auctaria". M u c h o f past s c h o l a r s h i p has been directed towards d e t e r m i n i n g  the  relationship between Ps.-Plutarch and Photius, or between Ps.-Plutarch and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, or determining whether Dionysius or Caecilius of Caleacte was the source of the p r i m i t i v e lives.  Ballheimer" tried to show that for the biographical  parts Photius had used not Ps.-Plutarch but a common archetype.  H e was refuted  decisively by Prasse who followed Zucker'^ in concluding that Ps.-Plutarch was the direct source of Photius. This conclusion has become the common consensus.'^ The bigger question has been the relationship of our lives to Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Caecilius.  It is generally agreed that these two rhetoricians were  Aeschinis: pater, mater, pagus, gens, praeceptores, sors, ratio dicendi, orationum numerus. pater, avus, pagus, gens, praeceptores, sors, orationum numerus.  pagus, praeceptores, sors, annus natalis, annus mortis, oratioum numerus. praeceptores, sors, oratioum numerus.  VII. Lycurgi:  VIII. Demosthenis: pater, mater, avus, IX. Hyperidis: pater, avus, pagus,  X. Dinarchi: pater, patria, orationum numerus, ratio dicendi.  (ptpowou  10.  The phrase regularly begins with  ôÈ KtA. Cf. 833c, 836a, 838d, 840e, 843c, 849d, 850e.  11.  De Photi Vitis Decern Oratorum (Bonn 1871).  12.  "Quae ratio inter Vitas Lysiae Dionysiacam, Pseudo-Plutarcheam, Photianam intercédât," Acta  Seminarii Philologici Erlangensis 1 (1878) 289-315. 13.  Cuvigny (above, n. 3) 26 n. 1; Shoemaker, Dinarchus: The Traditions of his Life and Speeches  with a Commentary on the Fragments of the Speeches. Diss. (Columbia University 1986) 41, 82; Blass III (1877) 5; cf. Treadgold, "The Nature of the Bibliotheca of Photius," Dumbarton Oaks Studies 18 (1980) 48-51.  the major sources for Ps.-Plutarch.  The striking verbal and structural similarities  between Ps.-Plutarch and the brief lives prefaced to Dionysius' essays led Seeliger''* to conclude that the primitive core of the biographies of Lysias, Isocrates, Isaeus and Dinarchus were derived from Dionysius.^' Prasse, on the other hand, recognized the similarities between the two writers,'* but concluded that Caecilius was the immediate source of Ps.-Plutarch, because the collection as a whole followed the same uniform scheme i n the primitive core of each biography, not all of which could be derived from Dionysius.  Seeliger himself, as Prasse noted, conceded that the remaining lives  of A n t i p h o n , A n d o c i d e s , Hypereides and L y c u r g u s could not have come f r o m Dionysius.'''  Prasse believed, since the p r i m a r y lives presented almost the same  material i n a l l the biographies i n the same order and concluded w i t h the same formula on the style or number of speeches of the orator, that the collection as a whole must be attributed to an author other than Dionysius, since the latter had not w r i t t e n o n e v e r y orator found i n Ps.-Plutarch.  H e certainly d i d not w r i t e on  A n t i p h o n , A n d o c i d e s and Lycurgus, and there is some question whether he ever fulfilled his promise to write on Hypereides and Aeschines.'*  These arguments alone  would suggest that our collection is dependent on a source subsequent to Dionysius  14.  De  Dionysio  Halicarnassensi  Plutarchi  qui vulgo fertur  in Vitis  Decern Oratorum  auctore (Budiasse 1874). 15.  Cuvigny (above, n. 3) concurs with Seeliger's opinion and provides a convenient list of  comparisons (29 n. 1) showing where entire phrases or limbs of phrases are repeated almost verbatim by Ps.-Plutarch, or modified phrases which still allow the original framework to be recognized. 16.  For his comparison see pp. 25-7 (Isocrates), 27-8 (Isaeus), 28-9 (Lysias), 30 (Dinarchus).  17.  Seeliger (above, n. 14) 43; Prasse 31.  18.  Prasse 31; Bonner, The Literary Treatises of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (repr. Amsterdam 1969)  29-38; Aujac, Les orateurs antiques (Budé 1978) 21.  but one which followed the same scheme as the latter and which drew o n the same sort of sources. Caecilius is the most frequently cited source in Ps.-Plutarch.''  In the life of  A n t i p h o n he is cited no less than three times, and i n particular as the source of the two writs of indictment against Antiphon reproduced in extenso?"  Blass and others  inferred from the inclusion of these two documents that Caecilius was the source.^' A l s o the presence of the two decrees in honour of Demosthenes and Demochares at the end of the collection led Blass to argue that the life of Demosthenes was derived from Caecilius.^^ It is generally agreed that Caecilius was a younger contemporary of Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Several rhetorical works are attributed to him, the most important of which, and the one most often regarded as the source of Ps.-Plutarch, was the nepi zov xotpctKtfîpoç xwv ô É m pritôpwv."  In the introduction to his essay on Dinarchus,  D i o n y s i u s o f H a l i c a r n a s s u s criticizes earlier writers,  particularly Callimachus,  D e m e t r i u s Magnes and the Pergamene G r a m m a r i a n s , for f a i l i n g to p r o v i d e an adequate account of the orator's life.  19. 2 0.  Radermacher argued that i n this review of his  PS.-P1. 832e, 833c, 833d, 836a, 838d, 840b. Ps.-Pl.  'AVTtCpCOVroç.  833d.  A t 832e  the title  of the work  is given as OlJVX(XY|i0i  nept  Ofenloch, Caecilius Calactinus (Teubner 1908) fr. 99, sees this not as separate treatise on  Antiphon but as part of nept XOÛ XOipOdtCXripOÇ XCùV S É m pflxÔpCùV.  But Bonner (above, n. 18) 9 n. 4,  Blass I (1887) 118 and Roberts, "Caecilius of Calacte," AJP 18 (1897) 305, consider this a reference to a  (jizpl ovyypônmaaiv.  separate work; so too of the citation in Longinus KcKtAioç  xoTc,  u n è p ATXJIOU  UlJfOUÇ 32. 8) to a work of Caecilius on Lysias: Ô  21.  Blass I (1887) 93 n. 1 & 99; Prasse 32-3; Cuvigny (above, n. 3) 31 & n. 1.  22.  Blass III 1 (1877) 5; cf. Ill 2 (1880) 96 on Lycurgus.  23.  For a list of his rhetorical works among which are included OÛyiCptOtÇ ArUJLOaeÉVOUÇ Kcd  KtKÉpcovoç, o û y i c p t o t ç Ariliooeevouc Koà Aioxtvou, nept Arniooeévotx;, norot a ù x o û Koâ noïoi  v ô e o t see the Suda and Roberts (above, n. 20) 304-5.  y^rfSLOi  Aôyot  predecessors D i o n y s i u s w o u l d not have failed to mention his friend and rival, if Caecilius' w o r k had been current?"  Thus it would seem that his work on the ten  orators f o l l o w e d that of D i o n y s i u s .  If we accept C a e c i l i u s as the source of  Ps.-Plutarch, as he must be for Antiphon  and the other orators not treated by  Dionysius, he must have followed the Dionysian scheme closely, since the verbal and structural parallels between the Dionysian and the Ps.-Plutarchean lives of Lysias, Isocrates, Isaeus and Dinarchus cannot be denied. Thus concluded Radermacher in the case of Dinarchus.  H e believed that the work of Dionysius, which for the first time  made use of the Proxenus-speech for biographical ends, became the model on which Caecilius based his own biography." F r o m his comparison of the texts of Dionysius and Ps.-Plutarch he concluded that in the final analysis the notices in the latter go back to the former; but he felt that the rendering in Ps.-Plutarch was far too free a paraphrase to be credited to a mere compiler.^*  Radermacher thought that the author  of Ps.-Plutarch tried to give an independent exposition, evident in the different turns of phrase and the chronological clarifications."  24.  W h i l e the parallels prove the essential  Radermacher, "Dinarchus," Philologus 58 (1899) 162; Shoemaker (above, n. 13) 52-3; Weise,  Quaestiones Caecilianae (Berlin 1888) 21f.; Blass III 2 (1880) 261.  For a discussion of whether Caecilius  was a friend or rival of Dionysius see Bonner (above, n. 18) 6-10, who regards him as a close associate, as does Roberts (above, n. 20) 302-3; contrast Ofenloch (above, n. 20) xiii & xxx, who considers him both a rival and an older contemporary. 25.  p. 162.  26.  p. 164.  27.  A n example of turns of phrase which indicated to Radermacher evidence of an independent  critical mind is the substitution by Ps.-Plutarch of x à ç ÔpàoEtÇ àoSevriÇ for the Dionysian l à ç Ollfaç ào9evriÇ.  For chronological clarification Ps.-Plutarch says that Dinarchus came to Athens Ka9' OV  XPOVOV 'AAÉ^OdVÔpOÇ ènfiet XriV 'Aotav, whereas Dinysius simply KOdS' OV XPOVOV Tlve0U\ Oit IE TCOV cptAooÔcpCOV Koà pniÔpCùV SiOiXptPodt. According to Radermacher (164) this change presupposes historical knowledge.  agreement between Dionysius and Ps.-Plutarch, the variations are so persistent and the statements i n P s . - P l u t a r c h so m u c h more precise that Radermacher wanted to recognize not the transcription of a compiler but the attempt at an independent treatment; he supposed that Ps.-Plutarch obtained the notices through the redaction o f Caecilius.^* Recently Shoemaker^' has taken issue with Radermacher and has argued that the Ps.-Plutarchean account of Dinarchus' life is based primarily on that of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, with additional information drawn from secondary sources, one o f w h i c h was u n d o u b t e d l y C a e c i l i u s , p a r t i c u l a r l y for the c o n c l u d i n g remarks i n Ps.-Plutarch on the style of the orator.^"  S h o e m a k e r admitted that there w e r e  noticeable differences between the two accounts,^' but the divergence in expression o n which Radermacher relied for evidence of an independent mind impressed her as the m a r k o f a c o m p i l e r w h o w o r k e d carelessly and injudiciously.^^  F o r her the  similarities between the two texts in sequence of thought, in order of events and i n language were too striking to admit the independent work of a later critic, such as Caecilius.^^  Where there are additions from another source, she believed, they were  28.  p. 164.  29.  Dinarchus: The Traditions of his Life and Speeches (above, n. 13) 49-55.  30.  pp. 47 & 54.  Her position is basically that of Blass, Dinarchi Orationes (Leipzig 1888) xvi;  Thalheim, "Deinarchos," RE (1901) 2387 and Conomus, Dinarchi (Teubner 1975) 2-3 n. citing Blass: "haec vita ex eis quae Dionysius congessit maximam partem contexta est, additis paucis quae Caeclio fortasse debentur." 31.  p. 29.  32.  pp. 39 & 44.  33.  Shoemaker's concluded from her comparison of the two texts that the similarities are effected  by identical construction; Ps.-Plutarch uses circumstantial  particples, prepositional phrases and genitive  absolutes at the same point of the development in the narrative as Dionysius does. syntactical differences, though frequent, are nonetheless superficial (33-4).  Vocabulary and  s i m p l y grafted o n t o the D i o n y s i a n narrative.  A s S h o e m a k e r pointed out, the  similarities between the two works extend even to the omission of the results of the prosecution against Proxenus, later events of Dinarchus' life and the circumstances of his death.  T h i s same silence i n b o t h accounts, along w i t h the s i m i l a r i t i e s i n  construction, i n both concept and language, bespeak a compiler and not the work of a critic.^"  A c c o r d i n g to Shoemaker,^' if we agree that Caecilius simply absorbed and  slightly altered Dionysius' account, then we must hold an extremely low opinion of Caecilius, who was so influential in establishing standards of eloquence. But this is precisely the crux of the problem.  Caecilius, like Dionysius, was  m o r e concerned w i t h matters of style and eloquence than biography. A s w i l l be shown i n Chapter 1, except for the life of Dinarchus, where no previous biography existed, Dionysius himself claimed no originality; he relied on a previous biographical collection, k n o w n as the icoivfi i a i o p i a , to provide h i m w i t h the brief biographical sketches w i t h which he introduced his essays on the orators.  In fact, the scheme  w h i c h he a d o p t e d was s i m p l y that w h i c h had been e s t a b l i s h e d b y p r e v i o u s grammarians.  T h e same may be assumed for Caecilius, whose w o r k Jiept lov  XapaKifjpoç xwv Séica prixôpcov was prefaced by the same type of brief biography. A s  34.  Shoemaker (36) is convinced that Ps.-Plutarch never consulted the Proxenus-speech or the writ  of indictment  which Dionysius tells us was attached to it and which he included in chapter 3 of his  essay on Dinarchus, even though Ps.-Plutarch himself indicates his awareness of the existence of the speech (850e).  How else can we explain, she argues, the inclusion in Ps.-Plutarch of the conflicting  tradition of Dinarchus' Athenian origin, a fact which the writ clearly disputes.  This suggests to  Shoemaker the uncritical work of a compiler who perhaps read no further in Dionysius than  |ièv  Ô 3'OÇ x à v ô p ô ç (300. 22) which follows the notice that Dinarchus filed suit against Proxenus. Radermacher, on the other hand, sees the remark on Dinarchus' Athenian origin as part of a pre-Dionysian tradition which has contaminated the original biography of Ps.-Plutarch. 35.  p. 50.  the title of the w o r k indicates, he was more concerned with the rhetorical style of the orators; he m a y have used Dionysius as a model in constructing his biographies, adding other material gathered from his own investigations. Whether Caecilius or Dionysius of Halicarnassus was the source of Ps.-Plutarch cannot be decided decisively. What is important is that the structure of the primitive lives of Ps.-Plutarch, even if we attribute some to Dionysius, had an earlier origin i n a type of biography developed by Alexandrian grammarians to w h i c h L e o gave the name "grammatical".  This was an abbreviated and schematic form of biography  developed by scholars, often as introductions to their commentaries on literary figures. It had its origin i n the Pinakes of Callimachus, who prefaced to the catalogue of each author's writings a brief but limited biography.^* Indeed there was a close connection between the development of biography and p h i l o l o g y , " and we must look to the scholarship of A l e x a n d r i a for the o r i g i n of the biographies of Ps.-Plutarch. T h e grammatical biographies produced by grammarians characteristically contained brief notices which began with the genos of the author and ended w i t h his death and the honours accorded h i m after death.  In between came biographical material on his  education, production and career, schematically arranged into set rubrics.^*  This is  close to the arrangement of the "primaria" of Ps.-Plutarch recognized by Prasse. These g r a m m a t i c a l b i o g r a p h i e s have c o m e d o w n to us i n the f o r m o f  36.  Schmidt, "Die Pinakes des Kallimachos," Klassisch-Philologische  Studien 1 (1922) 66-70.  Callimachus seems to have included at least information on the genos, the education and perhaps the "Lebensgang" of the author. 37.  Momigliano 13  38.  Leo 27-8.  anonymous  YÉVTI  attached to the mediaeval manuscripts.  YÉvri have the same origin as the scholia.  A c c o r d i n g to L e o ^ ' t h e  A s the Alexandrian hypomnemata  had been  excerpted and have reached us in the form of scholia, so the grammatical biographies which had originally accompanied these great commentaries have come down to us in the gené of the manuscripts.  Although much of the learned material and the contents  were lost, the general form was maintained.  Despite this process of epitomization,  Leo"" was convinced that the brief biographies transmitted i n the manuscripts in their general f o r m and literary character did not differ greatly from what they were at the t i m e of o r i g i n i n the A l e x a n d r i a n period.  H e assigned the period i n w h i c h the  majority of the preserved y^vri acquired their original form to the time of Didymus or Aristarchus."' F r o m his examination of the various gene of the manuscripts L e o showed that the scheme of each of the biographical sketches was more or less consistent. biography of each literary figure was arranged under the same rubrics."^  The  According  to Leo"^ the schematic arrangement was preserved to a greater extent and disturbed far less i n the biographical articles of a compiler like Hesychius, whose ovoiaaxo^oyoc, an offshoot of the literature de viris illustribus, drew upon the individual piot o f the Kotvfi l a t o p i a and book collections. In the Suda the biographical epitomes show  39.  pp. 19-20, 22.  40.  pp. 22 & 27.  41.  pp. 20 & 22-3.  42.  The rubrics of the model  yÉvoç  are: 1)  yÉVOÇ 2)  Zeit 2a) Lehrer 3) Erlebnisse 4) ETSOÇ 5 )  PtOÇ, xpônoç 6) eupnttOdlOd 7) Werke 8) Lebensalter, Tod, Todesart 9) Familie und Nachkommen 10)  XOdpOdlCXlp 43.  cf. Ptcx; AtOXUAou in codex Mediceus 1, 9, 2, 6, 7, 8; yevoc  p. 30.  ZcxpOKAÉOUÇ  1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 8, 7.  variations i n the sections of the schematization, based in large part on the material. W i t h philosophers, sophists and grammarians, teachers, schools and students are more important; w i t h poets, the development of a genre.  Otherwise the rubrics generally  agree.''^ A s noted, L e o had concluded that the change which these grammatical p î o t had suffered since the end of the second century B . C . had been p r i m a r i l y i n a r e d u c t i o n o f contents. d i s c o v e r y of POxy  In general terms his hypothesis was c o n f i r m e d by the  2438, w h i c h preserves a brief biography of P i n d a r of the  hypomnematic type, dated to the late 2nd or early 3rd centuries A-D."*'  It shows a  certain similarity to at least one of the Pindaric yEvri of the manuscripts, the Ambrosiana  ((3toç ITivôàpou).  Vita  The beginning of the papyrus biography is of the  classic type of this genre: IltvSapoç ô ;\upiicc)ç to pè[v yÉvoç] riv ©riPatoç.^* It has a simple, straightforward structure, and scholars have repeatedly observed the extreme seriousness of the biography both in terms of the biographical material it includes and the arguments it presents.^'  What sets it apart from the other Pindaric biographies is  the complete absence of fanciful or anecdotal material. What we do find are traces  44.  Leo 30.  45.  ed. E. Lobel, POxy 26 n. 2438 (1961) 1-7.  46.  The title FltvSOipoç and not pîoç or y É v o ç n t v S à p o u has suggested to scholars that the  biography did not belong to a commentated edition of the poet, but to a larger collection of biographies. Leo, on the other hand, had insisted that this type of biography arose in terms of annotated editions of the classics; cf. Arrighetti, "La biografia di Pindaro del Papiro di Ossirinco XXVI 2438," SCO 16 (1%7) 129 n. 1 and Gallo, Una Nuova Biografia di Pindaro (Salerno 1968) 17-18. 47.  Turner, Greek Papyri (Oxford 1968) 106; Gallo (above, n. 46) 16; Arrighetti (above, n. 46) 129;  Lamedica, "II P.Oxy. 1800 e le form della biografia greca," SIFC ser. 3, 3 (1985) 70-1.  of criticism and polemic,"** citations of Pindar to support chronology and biographical statements,"* i n both cases quoting the incipit introduced by Callimachus in his Pinakes.^^  to identify the poem,'" a technique  There are clear indications of the use of  chronographic lists, o f the A t h e n i a n archons linked to Olympiads, of the N î i c a i A t o v u o i a K a î and o f O l y m p i c victors."  A l l this points to a product of Alexandrian  scholarship and confirms Leo's hypothesis that a type of grammatical biography was developed by the Alexandrians for scholarly use. That the papyrus biography is not directly Callimachean in origin is shown by the polemical tone and the use of Olympiads for chronology, a system which points to a period subsequent to Eratosthenes." But it approaches the method of Callimachus, whose JiîvaKEç were the model and basis of all subsequent research. Whether the  48.  Polemic (11. 2-3) seems to be directed against those writers, possibly Chamaeleon, who used the  poetry of Corinna as evidence that Pindar's father was Scopelinus, and again (11. 6-19) against those who maintained that Pindar died in the archonship of Habron (458/7) at the age of 50.  The traces of  polemic are especially noted in the repeated use of the verb OLTi<^ (H. 8 & 22). See Gallo (above, n. 46) 62 and Arrighetti (above, n. 46) 132. 49.  In the first case (1. 18) Olympian 4 produced in the archonship of Chaerephontes, in the second  (11. 29-30) the ode in which the daughters of Pindar were mentioned.  50. [OU àpxn- "ÈAaxrp vmpvnz  Ppovxâç" (1. 18); [èv xlrj ùSrî  ^ àpCxH' "ô MotoodJyÉxaç \i.z  KOiAeT xfopeûaai 'AlnôAAcùv (il. 29-30). 51.  Pfeiffer 129.  52.  Gallo (above, n. 46) 16.  53.  Turner (above, n. 47) 106; Gallo (above, n. 46) 17 cf. 41-2. Gallo attributes the arrangement of  the catalogue of Pindar's works to Aristophanes of Byzantium and notes that it differs from the catalogue in VA, generally assigned to Didymus.  Aristophanes appears to be quoted in our text on two occasions,  at line 21 (KOdxà XftJVCXÇ, UV [èoxt KjOdt 'ApttoXOCpàvriç] and in particular in connection with the catalogue at line 35: Sllfipqxoa Sè aV)X[0Û] X[à nOtrpOiXOi 'AptOXCXpàNoUÇ Etc Pl(3Ata iÇ,'.  In both cases  Arrighetti, (above, n 46) 139-40, sees the citations as polemic and accordingly assigns the catalogue of POxy to Didymus.  The Didymean origin of the biography is confirmed for him by the similarity with  the Vita Ambrosiana, which since Leutsch, "Pindarische Studien. I. Die Quellen fiir die Biographie des Pindaros," Philologus 11 (1856) 14, has been regarded as Didymean in origin; but oddly Arrighetti (139-40) suggests an Aristophanic origin for the catalogue in VA. classification of the poetry of Pindar in antiquity.  See Gallo (27-45) for a full discussion of the  Pioç was excerpted f r o m Aristophanes o f Byzantium (as Gallo suggests) or from Didymus (as Arrighetti suggests), it is clearly an example of the type of grammatical biography characteristic of Alexandrian scholarship." In the B y z a n t i n e tradition several P i n d a r i c lives have been preserved of varying degrees o f antiquity and value."  What sets the 3toç o f the papyrus apart  from the other yivr\ is the complete absence of anecdotal and fanciful material, found i n these other biographies.^*  A t the same time POxy  2438 shares a c o m m o n  schematic arrangement with at least one of the yivr\ of the manuscripts, the Vita Ambrosiana  (VA)P  Both Gallo and Arrighetti have noted the similarities and the  latter has e v e n postulated a c o m m o n D i d y m e a n o r i g i n f o r the t w o p î o i . T h e comparison of the two lives reveals that VA has an origin close to that of POxy 2438;  54.  Gallo (above, n. 46) 16; Turner (above, n. 47) 104.  In a later article, "Fra erudizione e  biografia," SCO 26 (1977) 40, Arrighetti states that POxy 2438 does not constitute an example of a grammatical PtOÇ in its original form, that which ought to have characterized the biographies present in the ntVOdKEÇ, but it is closer to them than the y£\r\ of the Byzantine tradition.  As he notes, the  disproportionate length given over to matters of chronology (15 out of 40 lines) makes us suspect a subsequent development of a topic which was of particular interest.  This would also confirm that  originally the grammatical bioi were of much greater length than the form in which they appear in the gene. As Arrighetti noted in his earlier article ("La biografia di Pindaro," [above, n. 46] 146), POxy 2438 is likely a summary of a greater work in which were present erudition, technical discussion and polemic. 55.  Vita Ambrosiana (PtOÇ FltvSàpou), Vita Thomana (IltvSOdpou yzvcxO. Vita Metrica (Iltvôàpoi)  yi^OC, ÔC èncov), Eustathius and Suda; cf. Gallo (above, n. 46) 14-20, for a summary of the dates and nature of these biographies. 56.  The exception is the Suda which lacks sections on the prodigies and GEOCptAtOd of the poet  found in the other yz\r\ and which contains only a single anecdote relating to the death of Pindar. 57.  VA (Leo 28): 1) Y^VOÇ with variations on the name of the father 2) prodigies in childhood 3)  teachers connected with Athens 4) QzOCplÀlOL 5) chronology based on synchronism with Simonides 6) family 7) works 8) death and epigram 9)—. POxy 2438 (Arrighetti 141): 1) yz\OÇ, with variations on name of the father 2)—. 3)—. 4)—. 5) chronology, synchronism with Simonides 6) family 7) death 8) works 9) character.  they share a similar scheme and a similar criterion of dating.^^ There are differences, however, the most notable of which is the absence of sections 2, 3 and 4 of the VA, where we find an abundance of anecdotes which seem to have their origin w i t h Chamaeleon and Ister.^'  W e may suspect that many of the anecdotes preserved in the  YÉvri go back to Chamaeleon.*" In the papyrus we have no element which can be called Chamaeleonic; in fact POxy 2438 seems to have reacted against his romantic interpretation of the texts. O n the one hand, the serious nature of the papyrus biography confirms Leo's thesis that the yEvri had their origin in the grammatical activities of the Alexandrian period. The comparison between VA and POxy 2438 confirms that the vevr) retained their original scheme and had not greatly changed i n form and literary character; there was a diminution in content and scholarly material, something which seems confirmed by the fact that papyrus displays a greater amount of erudite material than VA and the other Byzantine YEVTI.*'  58.  O n the other hand, the discovery of POxy  Arrighetti (above, n. 46) 144. Cf. POxy 2438 11.4-6: lyiyo]\£V  2438  SE KOdxà l à nepOlKOd, VEUTEpoç  rtpeaPulTEpcp St|jicovt5ri èmpàAAcûv and VA (2. 21) ènépaAAe Sè toTç xpôvotç St|jicovtôri rj veûbiepcx; npEop-UTÉpco. 59.  In section 2 Chamaeleon and Ister are cited as the source for the anecdote of the bee.  In  section 3, the SeoCptAtW, the notices concerning Pan and Demeter depend on citations of text which do not contain any element related to the notices to which they refer.  This suggests the method of  romantic interpretation of literary texts characteristic of Chamaeleon (Arrighetti 142).  For detailed  discussion of the biographical method of this Peripatetic see Arrighetti, "Fra erudizione," (above, n. 54) 1-37,  Leo 104f,  Leutsch, "Pindarische Studien," (above, n. 53) 21f.  Chamaeleon's works were not  biographies as such but monographs or syngrammata of the genre known as Jiept-literature, closely akin to the nept AniiOoeévoUÇ of Didymus. =Ausgewàhlte 60.  See Leo, "Didymos JlZpl Ar||iOaeÉVOUÇ," NGG (1904) 254-61  Kleine Schriften (1960) 387-94 and Pfeiffer 146.  Gallo (above, n. 46) 22; see Podlecki, 'The Peripatetics as Literary Critics," Phoenix 23 (1969)  114-37 for the importance of the Peripatetics as a source of many of the literary comments in yh)X\ of the tragedians. 61.  Arrighetti (above, n. 46) 146.  has presented one problem to Leo's reconstruction: the degree of alteration in content, whereby VA displays quite different material from POxy  2438, anecdote and legend,  material w h i c h cannot easily be reconciled with the scientific aims for which, L e o believed, the grammatical bios was originally composed.*^  The presence of this  material in the ytvr\ of the Byzantine tradition has been explained in one of two ways: first, by Arrighetti,*^ who suggested that at the time when the material was obtained for the annotated editions from the uno^vfm,ata, material for the y^vri was also excerpted from the same commentaries, or from other erudite works, or from the biographies which accompanied them;*" but that these yevri have not reached us in the manner i n which they left the hands of epitomizers of the imperial period. A t some later point, though still preserving the original scheme, in the various  YÉVT)  serious  e r u d i t e m a t e r i a l was replaced w i t h anecdote and romantic notices taken f r o m completely different biographical works, such as those of Satyrus, Ister and Hermippus. A n o t h e r explanation was offered by Gallo,*' who recognized the analogy of scheme between POxy 2438 and VA, but on the origin of the  YÉVTI  hypothesized the existence  of different kinds of grammatical pîoi, which followed the same scheme and structure  62.  Arrighetti, "La biografia di Pindaro," (above, n. 46) 147; "Fra erudizione," (above, n. 54) 39; Gallo  (above, n. 46) 15. 63.  "La biografia di Pindaro," 147-8; cf. "Fra erudizione," 39.  64.  Gallo,  "Un nuovo frammento di Cameleonte e il problema della biografia 'grammaticale'  alessandrina," Vichiana ns. 2 (1973) 243 n. 15, is right that a priori it is more likely that the yèyV\, as Leo suggested, were epitomized from previous biographies; certainly this is true of the biographies prefaced to Dionysius' essays on the ancient orators.  In all cases the yzW), like POxy 2438, are excerpts from larger  biographical works, still essentially grammatical and erudite, vast and extensive, as Leo put it, perhaps approaching the length of the Ps.-Plutarchean lives. in n. 54. 65.  Nuova Biografia (above, n. 46)  25-6.  Cf. Arrighetti's comments on this point mentioned  that characterized the genre, but which admitted different material and used different sources.  Some were more seriously planned, to which POxy  2438 goes back; others  accepted anecdotes and notices of a more dubious nature through the influence of biographies of the other type. In all would be found common material and agreement of scheme.** W e are presented with the same problem when we turn to Ps.-Plutarch. A s it stands, it represents a composite w h i c h has g r o w n up f r o m a p r i m i t i v e core of biographies through a series of additions over the centuries up to the Byzantine period.  T h i s process of a c c r e t i o n best explains the frequent  contradictions preserved in the text.  repetitions and  Despite this accretion, the primitive core of the  biographies can still be recognized; as Prasse clearly showed, they were originally arranged systematically under the same scheme, w h i c h p r o v i d e d the same basic information for each orator.*''  In many respects the scheme approximates that of the  YÉvri as it was conceived by L e o and confirmed by POxy 2438. A comparison of the biographies c o m m o n to Ps.-Plutarch and Dionysius of Halicarnassus shows that the two authors drew on the same models. Chapter One w i l l show that their source was a anonymous collection of hioi, commonly k n o w n as the icoivfi loxopta, bioi w h i c h were closely related to the type of "grammatical" biography developed by Alexandrian  66.  Cf. Gallo's latest attempt to substantiate his hypothesis: "Un nuovo frammento di Cameleonte,"  (above, n. 64) 241-6.  Among the fragments of POxy 2451,  all of which belong to an Alexandrian  •Un0|ivr||i04 of Pindar, dated to the beginning of the 2nd century A.D., is found a fragment which p