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

Download

Media
831-ubc_1992_fall_cooper_craig_richard.pdf [ 17.39MB ]
Metadata
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
831-1.0086535-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0086535.ris

Full Text

T H E D E V E L O P M E N T O F T H E B I O G R A P H I C A L T R A D I T I O N O N T H E A T H E N I A N O R A T O R S IN T H E H E L L E N I S T I C PERIOD By C R A I G R I C H A R D C O O P E R 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 IN P A R T I A L F U L F I L L M E N T O F T H E R E Q U I R E M E N T S F O R T H E D E G R E E O F D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y 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 UNIVERSITY O F BRITISH C O L U M B I A September 1992 © Craig Richard Cooper, 1992 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of C /<\ S S / C S The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date £fc f-o H /?9'i DE-6 (2/88) A B S T R A C T B y the time Dionysius of Halicarnassus came to compose the brief biographies that introduce his essays on the ancient Athenian orators common 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 At t ic 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 problems of the nature and authorship of this collect ion, 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 primitive core. The basic biography, which is still discernible and was or iginal ly composed by a grammarian, perhaps Caecilius of Caleacte (30 B.C.), was modeled on the biographies of the koine historia. The biographies found in 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 kind, to his account. These additions were taken from two places: from the same common history and f r o m the biographer Hermippus . But the same compar i son 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. Hermippus proved an important source for the compilers of the common history, since he himself gathered together and transmitted existing traditions on the orators. Chapters 2 and 3 examine and evaluate the his tor ic i ty 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 Hermippus picked up, incorporated into his own biographies and transmitted into the later tradition their treatments of these orators. The f inal chapter (4) is devoted to Hermippus himself. He was a highly respected biographer and scholar in antiquity and his biographies were characterized by their r ich mixture of anecdote and erudition. In particular attention was paid to his collection of biographies On the Isocrateans, which was schematically arranged into a diadoché as a construct of the history of 4th century At t ic prose. From 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. Much of the research was into literary sources. That is to say much of the biographical information was inferred from texts, whether of the orator under consideration or of contemporary comic 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 i i Table of Contents v Preface v i i References xv i Acknowledgements x v i i i Introduction 1 1. Dionysius and Ps.-Plutarch 35 Sources 35 Koine Historia 40 Nature and Content of the Common Histories 44 Chronology 47 Biography 56 I. Genos 58 II. Education 66 III. Career 68 IV. School 72 V Death 79 2. Demetrius of Phalerum 87 Demetrius 88 Demetrius and Hermippus 91 Demosthenes' Speech Impediment 96 The Value of the Tradition 110 I. Peripatetic V i e w of Demosthenes' Abi l i ty 110 II. Peripatetic Theory of Delivery 120 III. Peripatetic Criticism of Demosthenes' Delivery 128 IV. Comic Origins 138 V . Testimony of Aeschines and Demosthenes 145 3. Idomeneus of Lampsacus 149 Lineage: Polemic 150 Diadoche 154 Topoi of Polemic 157 I. t P I A O T I M I A 157 II. T P Y 0 H 160 The Archetype Pericles ô àKÔAaotoç 162 The Tradition on Aeschines, Demosthenes, Hypereides 165 I. O I A O T I M I A 165 II. T P Y O H : ot àicoAaotot 174 4. Hermippus 202 Popularity of his Wri t ing 204 Character of his Wri t ing 208 I. Pinacography 208 II. Biography 212 On the Isocrateans 217 Demosthenes, Hypereides, Isocrates 235 I. Demosthenes 235 1. Genos 236 2. Sexual Mores 240 3. Education 247 i . Teachers 247 i i . Training 264 4. Death 271 II Hypereides 283 1. Genos and Education 285 2. Sexual Mores 286 3. Death 295 III. Isocrates 300 1. Genos 301 2. Education 304 3. School 309 4. Sexual Mores 316 5. Death 319 Conclusion 325 Bibliography 332 P R E F A C E Much of the scholarship of this century has been concerned with the origins and history of the genre of biography. F. Leo in his work, Die griechisch-romische Biographie nach ihrer literarischen Form, set the terms for subsequent debate. In an investigation of the literary form of the biographies of Suetonius, he reconstructed an entire h is tory of the genre, based on a distinction between a Plutarchean and Suetonian form, and argued that the former had its origin in 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, wh ich was invented by Alexandr ian grammarians, was, by contrast, s imple and schematic. In it the biographical material on literary figures was gathered and arranged into categories. Leo further postulated that with the birth of this type of "grammatical" bios in 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.' Scholars like Momigl iano and Arrighet t i have pointed out some of the difficulties. 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 in question. The first literary biographies did not appeared until the age of Call imachus. 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 schoo l , l i k e Ar i s toxenus of Tarentum, do seem to have wr i t t en bioi o f philosophers. Despite the continued controversy over the role the Peripatetics played in the development of G r e e k biography, the second part of 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. For 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 only 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 ve s was based on 1) false inferences f rom the works of the author under consideration; 2) from works of his contemporaries, notably the comic poets; 3) references in var ious types of scholar ly and pseudo-scholarly works, such as epigraphical studies or historical miscellanea; and 4) attempts to schematize history into neat patterns, l ike 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. Lit t le , 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 or ig in of the biographical tradition of the orators lies in the literary and antiquarian research that flourished in the Peripatos and later at Alexandria. But any attempt to trace the development of the biographical tradit ion in the Hellenistic period must come to terms with 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 84 (1980) 29-49; The Lives of the Greek Poets (London 1981). order to view 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 wi l l concentrate on three orators for whom there is detailed surviving evidence originating with the biographer Hermippus: Isocrates, Hyp>ereides and Demosthenes. There are two possible approaches to the biographical t radi t ion of these orators: the various components of the tradition can be examined topically, or by sources. A . Rig inos ' book, Platonica: The Anecdotes Concerning the Life and Writings of Plato (Br i l l 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. The other approach is represented by E. Drerup's work, Demosthenes im Urteile des Altertums (Wurzburg 1923), in which 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 wh ich he treated Aeschines , Demosthenes 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 understanding of how ancient scholarship worked, in 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. But good biography is more than just the sum of its pleasing stories. The biographies that left the hands of the Alexandr ian scholars showed a curious blend of erudition and anecdote, scholarly research and fine story-telling.'' So we must deal with both aspects. Content is important and, for historians, perhaps the most important thing, but for a biographical t radit ion 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, only one biographer, Hermippus left an indelible mark on the later tradit ion; and so, much of this dissertation wi l l center on his contribution to the biographical tradition of the orators. The fol lowing stemma outlines the general affiliations between the sources discussed in this study. 7. The term erudite is used in this dissertation like Hermippus, but simply to refer to his method sources and to display to his readers the breadth of his not to pass evaluation on the intellect of a writer, of composition, whereby he took care to cite his reading and learning. ca. 200 B.C. ca. 300 B.C. ca. 240 B.C. (Koivfi loxopia) ca. 30 B.C. (Caecilius; Dionysius of Halicarnassus Ps.-Plutarch ca. 850 A.D. Photius A s the evidence wi l l show, Hermippus was crucial in the development of the biographical tradition as it was preserved in the koine historia and Ps.-Plutarch. By the time Dionysius of Halicarnassus came to write the brief biographies that introduce his essays on the ancient orators, common histories of various literary figures had been assembled by earlier compilers of bioi and incorporated into a standard collection of biographies, known as the icoivfi laiopia, on which Dionysius could draw for biographical information on the orators. Preserved in the corpus of Plutarch, among his essays on ethics, the Moralia, is a collection of biographies of the ten orators of the canon. This collection, simply designated Ps.-Plutarch, belongs to the same tradition as the biographies of the Kotvfi lotopia. The common history was based on the w o r k of earlier scholars and biographers of Alexandr ia , and the b iog raph ie s conta ined in it show features characterist ic of the g rammat ica 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. H i s importance stemmed f rom the fact that he assembled together and transmitted existing traditions on the orators. Chapters 2 and 3 wi l l be devoted to the con t r ibu t ion of Demetr ius of Pha le rum and Idomeneus of Lampsacus 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 evaluat ion of the h i s to r i ca l value of their 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 Koivf i loxoptct, on w h i c h both Dionys ius of Hal icarnassus 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 Hermippus 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 wi th earlier writers l ike Demetrius of Phalerum and came to be preserved in final form in later collections l ike 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 in an important way. Certainly he included anecdotes in his lives but many of them were inherited. His ma in contr ibut ion lay in providing factual details drawn from scholarly works to balance the anecdotes that he found in earlier writers, like Demetrius and Idomeneus. N O T E O N R E F E R E N C E S 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 wi 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 Hermippus are those in Wehrl 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. The names of ancient authors are abbreviated in references and notes according to H . G Liddell and R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon (9th ed. oxford 1940) xvi -xxxvi i i i . Abbreviations of periodical titles follow those found in L' Année Philologique or The Oxford Classical Dictionary (2nd ed. Oxford 1970). Works and articles of modern scholars are cited in full once and subsequent citations are by name only, or w i th 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 I-III (Leipzig 1887-1898) Connor R. Connor, Theopompus and Fifth-Century Athens (Cambridge, Mass. 1968) Drerup E. Drerup, Demosthenes im Urteile des Altertums (Wiirxburg 1923) During I. During, "Aristotle in the Ancient Biographical Tradition," Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis 68 (1957) Fraser R M . Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria I-III (Oxford 1972) Heibges Heibges, "Hermippos," VIII1 (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 MûUer, FHG Pfeiffer Prasse Schaefer Wehrl i Wehrl i Suppl. I F. Leo, Die griechisch-romische Biographie nach ihrer literarischen Form (Leipzig 1901) A . Momigliano, The Development of Greek Biography (Cambridge 1971) M . Muller, Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum (Paris 1841-85) R. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship (Oxford 1968) A . Prasse, De Plutarchi quae feruntur Vitis Decern Oratorum (Marburg 1891) A . Schaefer Demosthenes und seine Zeit I-III (Leipzig 1885-1887) F. Wehrli , Die Schule des Aristotles I -X (Basel 1944-59) F. Wehrli , Hermippos der Kallimacheer (Basel-Stuttgart 1974) A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S I would l ike to express my sincerest thanks to my adviser Phillip Harding for his unending goodwi 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 my warmest expression of gratitude for my dearest wife Karen, whose love and support has been constant throughout my years of study. To her I wi l l be ever indebted. C R C I N T R O D U C T I O N In the catalogue of Lamprias we find ascribed to Plutarch in the 41st position a work entitled (3iot twv ô é m pntôpcov. A collection of brief biographies by that title has come down to us i n Plutarch's Moralia. A. G . Becke 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 work not written by Plutarch. The two most plausible suggestions are that either Plutarch's work 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 work 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, in 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 striking similarities between Philostratus' Lives of the Sophists and the Antiphon of Ps.-Plutarch led Blass^ to conclude that the former had used the latter. Thus a post quem nan for the date of composit ion can be 1. 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 pr imit ive 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 imar ia v i ta" , represents the or iginal biography, wri t ten 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 Y É V O Ç , education, career, and death of the orator,* and which concluded 6. 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. IV. Isocratis: pater, avus, ordo patris, annus natalis, sors, annus mortis, orationum numerus. V. Isaei: patria, praeceptores, numerus orationum, ratio dicendi. VI. with 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 main concern of this thesis is wi th the "primaria", although it wi l l be necessary at time to discuss the "auctaria". M u c h of past scholarsh ip has been directed towards de te rmin ing 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 pr imit ive lives. Ballheimer" tried to show that for the biographical parts Photius had used not Ps.-Plutarch but a common archetype. He 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. VII. Lycurgi: pater, avus, pagus, gens, praeceptores, sors, orationum numerus. VIII. Demosthenis: pater, mater, avus, pagus, praeceptores, sors, annus natalis, annus mortis, oratioum numerus. IX. Hyperidis: pater, avus, pagus, praeceptores, sors, oratioum numerus. X. Dinarchi: pater, patria, orationum numerus, ratio dicendi. 10. The phrase regularly begins with (ptpowou 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 in the primit ive 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 , Andoc ides , Hypereides and Lycurgus could not have come f rom Dionysius. ' ' ' Prasse believed, since the pr imary lives presented almost the same material i n al l the biographies in the same order and concluded with 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 wr i t t en on every orator found in Ps.-Plutarch. He certainly did not wri te on Ant iphon , Andocides 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 on the same sort of sources. Caecilius is the most frequently cited source in Ps.-Plutarch.'' In the life of Antiphon he is cited no less than three times, and in 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.^' Also 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 ôÉm pritôpwv." In the introduction to his essay on Dinarchus, D ionys iu s of Halicarnassus cri t icizes earlier writers, part icularly Call imachus, Demet r ius Magnes and the Pergamene Grammarians, for fa i l ing to provide an adequate account of the orator's life. Radermacher argued that in this review of his 19. PS.-P1. 832e, 833c, 833d, 836a, 838d, 840b. 2 0. Ps . -P l . 833d. At 832e the title of the work is given as OlJVX(XY|i0i nept 'AVTtCpCOVroç. 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 separate work; so too of the citation in Longinus (jizpl UlJfOUÇ 32. 8) to a work of Caecilius on Lysias: Ô KcKtAioç xoTc, unèp ATXJIOU ovyypônmaaiv. 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, oûyicptotç Ariliooeevouc Koà Aioxtvou, nept Arniooeévotx;, norot a ù x o û y^rfSLOi Aôyot Koâ noïoi v ô e o t see the Suda and Roberts (above, n. 20) 304-5. predecessors Dionysius would not have failed to mention his friend and rival , if Caecil ius ' work had been current?" Thus it would seem that his work on the ten orators fo l l owed that of Dionys ius . If we accept Caec i l ius 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. He 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." From 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." Whi le the parallels prove the essential 24. 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. An 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 in Ps.-Plutarch so much 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 of 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 of w h i c h was undoubtedly Caec i l ius , par t icular ly for the concluding remarks i n Ps.-Plutarch on the style of the orator.^" Shoemaker admitted that there were noticeable differences between the two accounts,^' but the divergence in expression on which Radermacher relied for evidence of an independent mind impressed her as the mark of a compi le r who 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 in 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. Vocabulary and syntactical differences, though frequent, are nonetheless superficial (33-4). s imply grafted onto the Dionys ian narrative. A s Shoemaker 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. This same silence in both accounts, along w i t h the s imilar i t ies in construction, in both concept and language, bespeak a compiler and not the work of a critic.^" According 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, l ike Dionysius, was more concerned with matters of style and eloquence than biography. A s wi l l be shown in 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, known as the icoivfi i a iop ia , to provide h im wi th the brief biographical sketches wi th which he introduced his essays on the orators. In fact, the scheme w h i c h he adopted was s imply that wh ich had been established by previous grammarians . The same may be assumed for Caecil ius, whose work Jiept lov XapaKifjpoç xwv Séica prixôpcov was prefaced by the same type of brief biography. As 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 work indicates, he was more concerned with the rhetorical style of the orators; he may 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 in a type of biography developed by Alexandrian grammarians to which 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 in 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 phi lology," and we must look to the scholarship of Alexandr ia for the or ig in of the biographies of Ps.-Plutarch. The grammatical biographies produced by grammarians characteristically contained brief notices which began with the genos of the author and ended with his death and the honours accorded h im 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 rammat ica l biographies have come down to us in the form of 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. According to Leo^ ' the YÉvri have the same origin as the scholia. As 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 in the manuscripts in their general form and literary character did not differ greatly from what they were at the t ime of o r ig in in the Alexandr ian period. H e assigned the period in which 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 Leo showed that the scheme of each of the biographical sketches was more or less consistent. The biography of each literary figure was arranged under the same rubrics."^ Accord ing to Leo"^ the schematic arrangement was preserved to a greater extent and disturbed far less in the biographical articles of a compiler like Hesychius, whose ovoiaaxo^oyoc, an offshoot of the literature de viris illustribus, drew upon the individual piot of the Kotvfi l a t op 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 cf. Ptcx; AtOXUAou in codex Mediceus 1, 9, 2, 6, 7, 8; yevoc ZcxpOKAÉOUÇ 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 8, 7. 43. p. 30. variations in the sections of the schematization, based in large part on the material. Wi th philosophers, sophists and grammarians, teachers, schools and students are more important; wi th poets, the development of a genre. Otherwise the rubrics generally agree.''^ A s noted, Leo 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 imar i ly in a reduct ion of contents. In general terms his hypothesis was confirmed by the discovery of POxy 2438, wh ich preserves a brief biography of Pindar of the hypomnematic type, dated to the late 2nd or early 3rd centuries A-D."*' It shows a certain similari ty to at least one of the Pindaric yEvri of the manuscripts, the Vita Ambrosiana ((3toç ITivôàpou). 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 yÉvoç 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 cri t icism and polemic,"** citations of Pindar to support chronology and biographical statements,"* in both cases quoting the incipit to identify the poem,'" a technique introduced by Callimachus in his Pinakes.^^ There are clear indications of the use of chronographic lists, of the Athenian archons linked to Olympiads, of the N î i c a i AtovuoiaKaî and of Olympic 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. See Gallo (27-45) for a full discussion of the classification of the poetry of Pindar in antiquity. Pioç was excerpted f rom Aristophanes of Byzantium (as Gal lo suggests) or from Didymus (as Arrighett i suggests), it is clearly an example of the type of grammatical biography characteristic of Alexandrian scholarship." In the Byzantine tradit ion several Pindar ic lives have been preserved of varying degrees of antiquity and value." What sets the 3toç of the papyrus apart from the other yivr\ is the complete absence of anecdotal and fanciful material, found in these other biographies.^* A t the same time POxy 2438 shares a common schematic arrangement with at least one of the yivr\ of the manuscripts, the Vita Ambrosiana (VA)P Both Gallo and Arrighett i have noted the similarities and the latter has even postulated a common Didymean or ig in for the two pîoi . The 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 or igin wi th 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 in 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.*' On the other hand, the discovery of POxy 2438 58. Arrighetti (above, n. 46) 144. Cf. POxy 2438 11.4-6: lyiyo]\£V 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. See Leo, "Didymos JlZpl Ar||iOaeÉVOUÇ," NGG (1904) 254-61 =Ausgewàhlte Kleine Schriften (1960) 387-94 and Pfeiffer 146. 60. 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 which cannot easily be reconciled with the scientific aims for which, Leo believed, the grammatical bios was original ly 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 in 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 erudite mate r ia l was replaced wi th anecdote and romantic notices taken f rom completely different biographical works, such as those of Satyrus, Ister and Hermippus. Another 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. Cf. Arrighetti's comments on this point mentioned in n. 54. 65. Nuova Biografia (above, n. 46) 25-6. 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. As it stands, it represents a composite which has grown up f rom a primit ive core of biographies through a series of additions over the centuries up to the Byzantine per iod. Th i s process of accret ion best explains the frequent repetitions and contradictions preserved in the text. 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, which provided the same basic information for each orator.*'' In many respects the scheme approximates that of the YÉvri as it was conceived by Leo and confirmed by POxy 2438. A comparison of the biographies common to Ps.-Plutarch and Dionysius of Halicarnassus shows that the two authors drew on the same models. Chapter One wi l l show that their source was a anonymous collection of hioi, commonly known as the icoivfi loxopta, bioi which 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 preserves the name of Chamaeleon and relates the story of the bee. Gallo follows Lobel, the editor of POxy 2451, in assigning the fragment to the vita which introduced the commentary. 67. Momigliano (87), however, thinks that the biographies of the ten orators can only be forced into the "Suetonian" scheme with considerable difficulty. This is true of the composite but not the primitive biography. scholars. Features that clearly point in that direction are the use of chronographies, archon-dates, Olympiads, synchronisms, or the tabulation of the number of genuine speeches of an orator. A l l these features are found in Ps.-Plutarch. But at the same t ime anecdote can be found in some of the l ives of Ps.-Plutarch. Was such material already present in their pr imit ive core or was it added later? H o w much of this k ind of material on an orator could one expect to find in a grammatical bios of the Kotvfi iozopia, the source of Ps.-Plutarch? As noted, Prasse had shown that the biographies of Ps.-Plutarch broke into two parts, the "vita primaria," which provided a continuous account arranged in the same scheme and concluding wi th the same formula on the number of speeches or the orator's style, and the "auctaria" which represented a disjointed collection of additions. The original vita of Hypereides concluded cpépovtai 5' aù io i j Àôyoi épSoiifiKovia Éntà, Q V yvfioioi zioL jievxfiKOvta ôw.*^ What follows are notices on the sexual escapades of the orator taken from Hermippus' biography. Obviously these notices in the "auctaria" were added later, after the original composition of the primitive life was fixed. But that does not necessarily mean that Hermippus was never consulted originally for other details which became part of the Kotvfi iozopia and eventually made their way into Ps.-Plutarch. So for instance he is mentioned for an alternative version of the death of H y p e r e i d e s i n M a c e d o n i a , where the ora tor had his tongue cut out.*' In Demosthenes Hegesias of Magnesia is cited for the story of how Demosthenes 68. PS.-P1. 849d. 69. 849c. gave up the study of philosophy for rhetoric, after hearing Callistratus of AphidnaJ" Hermippus told the same story and is likely Ps.-Plutarch's source for the citation. This anecdote appears in the primary life, but it is rejected by Prasse on the grounds that it disturbs the sense and tenor of the primitive biography.^' Drerup, however, accepts the story, even though the citation from Hegesias and its order contradicts the previous statements in the l ife about the orator's teachers.^^ His inclusion of such anecdotal material in the primary life stemmed from his conclusion that the grammarian and polyhistor Demetrius of Magnesia was the source of the life of Demosthenes in particular and of Ps.-Plutarch in general.''^ F rom a comparison of passages in Plutarch's Demosthenes which can be attributed to Demetr ius , he concluded that Demetrius' account of Demosthenes in nept toàv ô|iQvû|jLWv was a h i g h l y anecdotal descr ipt ion, but equal ly m a r k e d by such grammatical erudition as chronological calculations, synchronisms and references to numerous versions of a subject.'"* Thus Ps.-Plutarch 845d-846c would represent for Drerup an excerpt from Demetrius' work. 70. 844b: 8-20 W. 71. Prasse 8. 72. Drerup 169 n. 1. 73. pp. 167-93. 74. pp. 113-18. Cf. Ps-Pl. 846d & Plut. 27 for Demosthenes' recall from exile on the motion of Demon, and Ps-Pl. 846e-847a & Plut. 29-30 on his death at Calauria. In Plutarch Demetrius (Magnes?) is cited for the detail that Archias was the student of Anaximenes, whereas in Ps.-Plutarch we are told that the distich inscribed on the orator's statue was believed by Demetrius Magnes to have been written by Demosthenes before he died. There is no question that the two authors share a common source for the account of Demosthenes' death. The question is not the similarity of the two accounts but whether the whole account can be attributed to Demetrius, or whether it is not just simply a matter of particular variants specifically attributed to him by Plutarch and Ps.-Plutarch; cf. Schwartz, "Demetrios," RE IV 2 (1901) 2816. The brief account of Demosthenes' political career begins with chronology: at the age of 37, calculated from the archonship of Dexitheus (385/4) to that o f Callimachus (349/8), Demosthenes persuaded the Athenians to assist the Olynthians against Phil ip. Then follow the synchronisms with the death of Plato and the fall of Olynthus, and with the akme of Demosthenes and Xenophon, whose Hellenica ended with the battle of Mantinea and the archonship of Charicles {?>6?>I1), by which time Demosthenes had already prosecuted his guardians. Included is a series of brief notices on his trierarchy to Thasus, his duties as grain commissioner which ended in prosecut ion and acqui t ta l for embezzlement, as commiss ioner overseeing the rebuilding of the wall to which he contributed 100 minae, his contribution of 10,000 drachmae to the théorie fund and his tax-collection among the allies. The passage concludes w i t h notices on his frequent crownings by Demomeles, Ar is tonicus , Hypereides and Ctesiphon and the prosecution for napavôi icûv by Diodotus and Aeschines. The style is grammatical, marked by brief entries; the notices are based on the research of grammarians into chronography and the speeches of the orators."" But amid this array of grammatical erudition can be found anecdotes, of Demosthenes' pursuit on horseback of Aeschines as he fled his conviction in the Ctesiphon case, or of his cowardly behaviour at Chaeronea, the former chronologically misplaced, the latter immediately contradicted by the statement zinz névtot tôv Èmiâcpiov èm xoîç jiEooûai. For Drerup the inclusion of these anecdotes confirmed his impression that 75. His office as grain controller and subsequent prosecution from Dem. XVIII 224-5; his contribution of 100 minae from Aesch. Ill 17; the donation of 10,000 drachmae to the théorie fund from the forged Psephisma in XVIII 118; the connection between Demosthenes' tax-collection among the allies and his crowning from Aesch. Ill 159. the whole presentation smacked of a "biographisches Roman", wh ich was not par t i cu la r ly concerned about precision in chronology, names and facts.'* The confusion and disorder in the account is ascribed by Drerup to the fact that Ps.-Plutarch is an abridgement of a fuller presentation and not the result of later interpolations.'' In Drerup's opinion the model was a grammarian who essentially owed the content of his biography to an earlier source, but who enriched his material with new inventions, by collecting variant accounts, with source citations and with chronological references and synchronisms. This was his image of Demetrius of Magnesia.'* B y conc lud ing that Ps.-Plutarch preserved only a very much abridged and hastily excerpted version of Demetrius ' account of Demosthenes, Drerup bel ieved that Ps.-Plutarch had left the hands of its excerptor in the form in which it is preserved today. Whereas Prasse attributed the contradictions and confusions in the primitive life to later interpolations, Drerup saw this as evidence of excerption. Whereas Prasse had moved from the premise that Ps.-Plutarch went back to Caecilius and followed a serious arrangement which did not admit much anecdotal material, Drerup saw such material as characteristic of his grammarian. His assumption that the primitive life 76. p. 175. The confusion of names is present in the name Diodotus who with Aeschines had prosecuted Ctesiphon for paranomon. Drerup (174) follows Bohnecke in thinking there is a confusion here with Diondas who had prosecuted for illegality the crowning proposed by Hypereides and Demomeles in the spring 338, and in fact in one of the appended notices (848d) in the "auctaria" of the life he is mentioned but wrongly in connection with Aristonicus who proposed a crowning in 340. A similar confusion is found at 844d in the names of Demosthenes' guardians, Aphobus, Therippides, and Demophon or Demeas, the last of whom, we are told by Ps.-Plutarch, was especially prosecuted by Demosthenes àôcAcpoÛ Trjç |ir|TpC)Ç OVIOÇ. 77. pp. 176-7. 78. p. 116. was excerpted hastily from the fuller account by Demetrius Magnes, led him also to conclude that even the "auctaria", the disjointed collection of notices appended to the end of the primitive life, went back to the same compiler and to the same principal sourceJ* Though Prasse and Drerup disagreed fundamentally on the o r ig in of the intrusive elements in the basic life ("primaria") inherited by Ps.-Plutarch, both authors looked to grammarians as the ultimate source of Ps.-Plutarch. The question is what type of grammarian? The difference determined for them the type of material included in Ps.-Plutarch.*" W o u l d Caecil ius have admitted anecdotes of the k ind which Demetrius apparently included in his treatment of Demosthenes? The question is further complicated by the fact that the lives of Ps.-Plutarch are themselves not uniform in their treatment. Whereas Demosthenes is r ich in anecdotal material, Lysias is completely free of anecdote, shows a predominance of dates and facts, and admits few additions and disturbances to the primary life, even on Prasse's count; it must lead back to a source quite different from that of the life of Demosthenes. So concluded Schindel;*' he rejected the communis opinio^^ that Ps.-Plutarch owed its final form to an unimportant compiler in favour of the view that at its core it was the 79. pp. 188-89. 80. Drerup (191) is wrong when he states that Prasse's conclusions for Ps.-Plutarch in general and Demosthenes in particular were based on the much too narrow premise "either Didymus or Caecilius". In fact Prasse (32) rejects Didymean authorship "nam neque nomen eius usquam in vitis nominatur et fragmenta quae servantur multo magis viri grammatici quam rhetoris specimen prae se ferunt." But the implication in Drerup's remarks is right: Ceacilian authorship implies the acceptance of only certain material in the original life. 81. "Untersuchungen zur Biographie des Redners Lysias," RhM 110 (1967) 32-52. 82. Schaefer (above, n. 2) 37, Ballheimer (above, n. 11) 32. work of a "kaiserzeitlichen Grammatikers", who had revised an older model very similar to the version in the essays of Dionysius of Halicarnassus.^^ In the case of Lysias Schindel identified two types of variations from the Dionysian version which clearly revealed the method of a grammarian: first, amplifications designed to add precision and secondly, orderly supplements to the Dionysian version. In the first class of additions we find exact dates not found in Dionysius,*'' and detailed statements about historical events only alluded to briefly in Dionysius.*' In the second class we f ind actual supplements to Dionysius' text, all drawn from reliable literary texts.** A c c o r d i n g to S c h i n d e l , the "blasse Schemen" of Lysias shows that the "friihkaiserzeitlich Bearbeiter" must have written a work on Lysias at least, if not on the ten orators, and that he must have been acquainted with the speeches of Lysias, Plato's Republic, Ps.-Demosthenes ica tà Neaipaç, Timaeus' historical works and certain chronographies. This writer, suggested Schindel, could have been Caecilius. 83. Schindel (above, n. 81) 33. 84. For the birth of Lysias, for the foundation of Thurii, for the year of Sicilian disaster, for the year of Lysias' return to Athens. 85. For instance D.H. Lys. 1 (452/53): EXr) SÈ nEVXElcatSEKOd Y^TOvàç dç ©OUptOUÇ $XEXO nAÉCÙV o ù \ àôEAcpoTç Suotv, Kotvcùvrpcov iv\ç, omovdoLç v\\ EOXEAAOV 'AerivodTot xe KOÙ f) oîAAri 'EAAàç ScoôEKàxco npôxepov ïizi xoû IleAonovvriotaKoû noAÉ^ou is enlarged by Ps.-Pl. (835d) to h\d ÔÈ xriv Etç Zûpodptv ànotictodv xrjv uoxEpov Ooupbuç |i£xovo|iaa9ETaav EOXEAAEV f] nôAtç, cpXEXo aùv xû npEoPuxàxcù àôEAcpcù noAEiiotpxcp (naav yàp aùxcô KOit ôîAAot Sûo, Eùeijôriiioç KOÙL BpâxuAAoç), xoû nodxpôç TÎSri XEXEAEUXXIICÔXOÇ, œç icotvcùvriocùv xoû KAripou, £xr| y^TOvàç nEvxEKOitôEKa, hû ripOd^ txÉAoUÇ cipxOVXOÇ. For further examples see Schindel 34. 86. These include the genealogical supplement XOÛ AUOOiVtOU XOÛ KECpàAou based on Plato's Republic (330b>, the notice that Cephalus was nAoÛXO) StOdCpÉpovxa from Republic 329e; the additional reason for Cephalus' emigration to Athens, the persuasion of Pericles, on the basis of Lysias XII 4; the mention of two other brothers besides Polemarchus: Euthydemus from Republic 328b and Brachyllus through a misunderstanding of Ps.-Demosthenes KOixà NEOÛpoiÇ 22; and finally the continuation of the narrative beyond the point where Dionysius had ended his account with Lysias' return to Athens: for the arrest and flight under the Thirty Lysias XII 8-17 and for the return and grant of citzenship under Thrasybulus the REpt XCûV tSÎcov EUEPYEOtCuV and the npôç 'innoeÉporiV. Cf. Schindel 34-8. Schindel recognized a uniform arrangement for the biography of Lysias, the method of which, he believed, was generally reliable in its choice and use of sources.*^ Prasse had recognized this uniformity of arrangement for all the lives. But the lives of Demosthenes, Aeschines, Hypereides and Isocrates, wi th their abundance of anecdotal material , do not inspire the same confidence in the choice and use of sources. A s we have seen, in the brief account of Demosthenes' political career (845d-846a), the compiler of the passage used the speeches of Demosthenes and Aeschines , chronographies and other documentary evidence, but also included anecdotes. Appended to the end of Ps.-Plutarch are decrees honouring Demosthenes, Demochares and Lycurgus , documents much l ike the two wri ts of indictment appended to the end of Antiphon and expressly attributed to Caecilius.** A s noted, it was on the basis of these documents that Blass attributed the lives of both Antiphon and Demosthenes to Caecilius.*' But unlike Demosthenes, Antiphon is as seriously arranged as Lysias. Hence we have two lives attributed to the same rhetorician, who in the one life admitted only serious data, but in the other both serious and frivolous material. A s noted, the compiler of Ps.-Plutarch modeled his biographies after the bioi of the so-called icotvfi totopta; these were of the grammatical type. The question which 87. Schindel (above, n. 81) 39. 88. Ps.-Pl. 833d: r^jcpiotJiod ènt 0£onô|.inoi) àpxovxoç, ècp' ou ot Teipoiicôotot icaxEAuerioav, [i|rr|g)ta|ia] ica9' o ïôo^zv 'Avuqxùvxa KptGfjvoa, o KouKtAtoç nocpaxiOniou. 89. Blass I (1887) 93 and III 1 (1877) 5. But contrast Drerup (191 n. 2) who attrbuites the honorary decrees relating to Demosthenes, Demochares and Lycurgus to Demetrius Magnes on the basis of the fact that the content of the decrees appears in the main body of the biographies, whereas such is not the case in Antiphon. w i l l be answered in Chapter 1 is whether the grammatical bioi developed by the Alexandrian scholars admitted such anecdotal material as we find in Demosthenes. The evidence would suggest that such material could be found in the biographies of those orators, who were treated by Hermippus . In the opening chapters of Dinarchus Dionysius quotes verbatim Demetrius' account of Dinarchus, which reveals none of the anecdotal material apparently found in his treatment of Demosthenes. This is the same discrepancy which we find in Ps.-Plutarch between Lysias a n d Demosthenes. A s a matter fact, Demetrius Magnes gave nothing which even resembles a biography of Dinarchus. Dionysius had to rely on his own research on Philochorus and the speech against Proxenus. There was no pre-existing biography of Dinarchus on which he could have drawn. Something of the same may be true of other orators l ike Lysias, Antiphon and Andocides, who had never been fully treated by the Alexandrian biographers. What wi l l emerge from the discussion is that the fullness of the biographies of Demosthenes, Hypereides and Isocrates, particularly in terms of an anecdotal treatment, is due to the fact that these orators were treated by H e r m i p p u s in his nzpl lôov ' l o o K p à t o u ç naSTiicùv, and this w o r k , w h i c h was characterized by its r ich erudition and anecdote, was used by later scholars, when they came to compile their own biographies of these orators. Accordingly, a reassessment of his work is in order. Hermippus is generally regarded as frivolous and fanciful with a taste for the sensational, and thus his notices are held suspect. Whilst this is partly true, it should be remembered that in ancient times he was highly regarded; Dionysius of Halicarnassus credits him with accuracy,'" whereas he criticizes the shortcomings of Callimachus.'' This judgment alone should caution against modern assumptions on the character of Hermippus' work. Leo had distinguished between two types of biography, the Peripatetic and the Alexandrian. In the Callimachean period he assumed that the biographies of literary authors by the Peripatetics had given way to a new literary form, the grammatical bios. For this transition Leo pointed to Callimachus, Satyrus, Hermippus and finally Heraclides Lembus. Callimachus had inherited from the Peripatetics their interest in chronology and biographical research; he then enlarged upon what he had inherited and incorporated it into his Pinakes?'^ Satyrus and Hermippus, as is suggested by the titles of their works, no longer nept xoxt ôe tva or nepi pîou t o û ÔEÎva'^ but Bîoç xoi; ÔEÎva, showed a taste for the exposition of the vitae of various persons.'" From the Peripatetic biography they would have preserved only the elaborate literary form." Heraclides Lembus, with his epitomes of Satyrus, Hermippus and Sotion, would have arranged the material from their works into a definite biographical scheme, and from their works , intended for public consumption, would have created a work for scientific use.'* According to Leo, then, Heraclides played the most decisive role in br inging about this transition from Peripatetic to grammatical biography. But as 90. Is. 1. 91. Din. 1. 92. p. 118. 93. This suggested the prevalence of historical-literary and exegetical interests over genuine biographical interests in the Peripatetic works. 94. pp. 105 & 118. 95. pp. 118 & 124-25. 96. p. 135. Steidle observed (followed by Arrighet t i ) ," Heraclides was a figure of secondary importance who owed his fame precisely to the popular use provided by his epitomes of much larger works. This point seems confirmed by POxy 1367 which provides fragments of his epitome of nepi vouoGetwv of Hermippus; it is a brief summary, containing anecdotes and other notices, which hardly justifies Leo's assumption that Heraclides' work was intended for scholarly use. The fact that the Pinakes contained biographies of the authors that were catalogued suggests that Callimachus had already discovered a type of abbreviated, grammatical biography long before Heraclides. Heibges, in his discussion of the biographical works of Hermippus,'* places h im next to Satyrus as the leading representative of Alexandrian authors of vitae. According to Heibges, Hermippan biography was based on the previous generation of Peripatetic biography, but differed from it "through the development of the scholarly method." Ar r ighe t t i ' ' argues that this description suits grammatical biography but completely contradicts what Heibges says next about Hermippan biography: "It is a naive delight in collecting and compiling which we notice in these people; from the enormous wealth of the Alexandrian library was drawn out and passed on the most obscure and remote." According to Arrighett i these words describe Hermippus but not grammatical biography. Despite his objection, Heibges is close to the truth; he is right to notice a fusion of contradictory elements, the Peripatetic and the grammatical. The d i scovery of D i d y m u s ' commentary on Demosthenes, entitled nzpl 97 Steidle, "Sueton und die antike Biographie," Zetemata 1 (1951) 167-8; Arrighetti, "Satiro, Vita di Euripide," SCO 13 (1964) 7-8. 98. "Hermippos," RE VII 1 (1912) 847. 99. Arrighetti (above, n. 97) 9 ArinoaGÉvouç, yields an example of the ntpl literature hypothesized by L e o and which Chamaeleon's l i terary 'biography' closely resembled. Diels and Schubart, in the in t roduc t ion to their edi t ion of the text,'"" gave their own explanat ion of the transformation of the historical-literary interest of the Peripatetics to that of the Alexandrian scholars. The Peripatetic method of research into literary history on the basis of documents and texts was brought to Alexandria by Demetrius of Phalerum. This method was adopted by Call imachus, who, however, extended the research beyond the field of drama and lyric, which was the main concern of the Peripatetics, to all genres of literature, and in particular to Attic prose. The final and extremely condensed fruit of this activity were the Pinakes. The whole research necessary for such a vast undertaking was distributed among Callimachus' students, and from their endeavours arose learned l i terature, of the type to wh ich belong Hermippus ' biographical production, in which rare notices and foolish erudition got displayed: "In the stupendous, sometimes stupid erudition of his bioi lies the roots of the whole h i s to r ica l -b iograph ica l scholarship, w h i c h from the second century partly was corrected, partly enlarged and combined, most often however simply compiled." Diels and Schubart overstated their case somewhat; they failed to note the importance of o ther b iographers , such as Satyrus and Sot ion, who were impor tant for the biographical tradition of the tragedians and philosophers. But Hermippus did occupy a p ivota l role in the development of biographical tradition of the orators. The German scholars did recognize the essential character of his work, as both serious and 100. " Didymos Kommentar zu Demosthenes," Berliner Klassikertexte I (1904) xxxvi-xliii; cf. Arrighetti (above, n. 97) 10-11. frivolous, full of both erudition and anecdote. In the introduction to his edition of Satyrus' bios of Euripides, Arrighet t i reexamined the whole question of whether the Peripatetics wrote biography. He also attempted to define Satyrus' position in the history of ancient biography. Leo had placed Satyrus, whom he had defined along with Hermippus as "Halbperipatetiker", among those scholars who with Callimachus had marked out the transition from Peripatetic to Alexandrian biography. The latter would have acquired its grammatical character through the epitomes of Heraclides Lembus. W e have seen how untenable this hypothesis is. B y examin ing the character of the so-called biographical product ions of the Peripatetics, Aristoxenus, Dicaearchus, Heraclides Ponticus, Chamaeleon, Phaenias, Idomeneus, Duris and finally Neanthes, Arrighetti showed that a type of product of the Peripatos to which could be given the name biography never existed, particularly if we understand by biography a well-defined literary genre which researches and narrates the facts and events of a person simply because they are worth researching and narrating. Peripatetic research moved from other interests, polemic, apolegetic, ethical, historical-literary, and as such was far removed from the genre of b iography which as an act iv i ty was an end in itself. In the case of Chamaeleon his works on different poets are in fact only syngrammata of the nept genre, much like the nzpi AriHooGévouç, which provided interpretations on the text albeit, in the case of Chamaeleon, of a highly romantic and anecdotal character. That there were biographical elements contained in the writings of the Peripatetics does not permit us to include their works in the genre of biography.'"' N o longer can we speak of a transition from an older type of biography to a newer type, whereby Peripatetic biography died out to give way to grammatical b i o g r a p h y . ' R a t h e r the actual birth of the genre of biography itself was in Alexandria, l iving alongside a very different type of literary production, which has been improperly called biography. Both types of works flourished and exercised reciprocal influences on one another. Thus around the middle of the third century B.C., which sees the blossoming of genuine biography, Clearchus wrote his nept Btwv, a work which "did not contain biographies but represented in models forms of lives,"'"^ and Praxiphanes wrote a nepi jxoiriT^wv or nepi notrinâicov.'"' ' This is the same period in which Hermippus and Satyrus also wrote. Both Satyrus and Hermippus blend elements from Peripatetic research with the type of Alexandr ian biography as it was developed by Call imachus. Arrighet t i identifies four features in Satyrus' bios of Euripides: dialogue form, use of literary sources, arguments grouped into categories and respect for chronological order.'"' The dialogue form was practiced by Aristotle, and later by Peripatetics like Praxiphanes and Clearchus. The method of using literary sources found in many works ntpl lov ÔEÎva was particularly associated with Chamaeleon.'"* The arrangement of arguments 101. Arrighetti (above, n. 97) 12-20; cf. Gallo, "L