University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A Critical Analysis Of The Philosophical Fragments Of Epicharmus

(USC Thesis Other)

A Critical Analysis Of The Philosophical Fragments Of Epicharmus

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content This dissertation has b een m icrofilm ed ex a ctly as receiv ed 6 8 — 5 8 7 1 MILLER, Eddie LeRoy, 1937- A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE PHILOSOPHICAL FRAGMENTS OF EPICHARMUS. University of Southern California, Ph.D., 1965 Philosophy University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OP THE PHILOSOPHICAL FRAGMENTS OP EPICHARMUS b7 Eddi© Le J Miller A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OP THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Philosophy) June 1965 UNIVERSITY O F SO U TH ERN CALIFORNIA TH E G RA D U A TE SC H O O L U N IV ER SITY PA RK L O S A N G E LE S. C A L IFO R N IA 9 0 0 0 7 This dissertation, written by Eddie LeRoy Miller under the direction of h%$....Dissertation Com mittee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by the Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y c y . _______ Dean D ate... April. 22 * 1965 DISSERTATION COMMITTEE TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ....................................... II. EPICHARMUS ......................................... III. KAIBEL»S TREATMENT OF THE PSEUDEPICHARMEA . . . Kaibel*s catalogue of the Pseudepicharmea Kaibel*s hypothesis of the Carmen Physicum The inadequacy of the hypothesis of the Carmen Physicum The Gnomai of Axiopistus The Clement-fragments IV. THE PLATONIC TESTIMONY . . . .................... Plato’s estimation of Epicharmus A direct quotation from Epicharmus Possible allusions in Plato to Epicharmus The report of Diogenes Laertius Conclus ion V. DIELS-KRANZ AND THE ALCIMUS-FRAGMENTS ......... Diels-Kranz and Kaibel Diels-Kranz on fragments DK 1-5 Diogenes1 report of fragments DK 1-5 Wilamowitz and Covotti on fragments DK 1-5 The problem of Alcimus Fragments DK 6 and 7 Conclusion VI. CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING AUTHENTICITY ........... VII. TEXT AND TRANSLATION OF THE FRAGMENTS IN DIELS-KRANZ .................................... VIII. THE PHILOSOPHICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF EPICHARMUS1 WORKS ...................................... Chapter Page Epicharmus and Pythagoreanism Epicharmus and Heracliteanism Epicharmus and Xenophanes Epicharmus and the history of Pre-Socratic philosophy The philosophical character of Epicharmus1 writings IX. CONCLUSION . 112 BIBLIOGRAPHY 114 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The motivations behind the present study of Epicharmus are not difficult to delineate- Though the Pre- Socratic period of philosophy has begun to enjoy these days a renewel of interest and scholarly attention (which seems to be the case with classical studies in general), Epicharmus has never emerged as anything more than a quite peripheral and even dubious contributor to the Pre-Socratic stream. The examination of this continued estimation of the status of Epicharmus as a Pre-Socratic figure and the suggestion that it is not entirely justified is, at least in part, the purpose of the present work. One would think that when a premium is placed upon extant writings of the thinkers of the Pre-Socratic period^ l-The indifference of Pre-Socratic studies towards Epicharmus is evidenced in E. J. Minar’s survey of Pre- Socratic scholarship since 1945 ("A Survey of Recent Work in Pre-Socratic Philosophy,” The Classical Weekly [XLVII, 1954], 161-70, 177-82). Virtually every work on Pre- Socratic philosophy of the last hundred years is itself an example, including the recent definitive (at least for our generation) work of G. S. Kirk and J. E. Raven (The Pre- Socratic Philosophers: A Critical History with a Selection of Texts [Cambridge: at the University Press, I960]. 2E .g., Charles H. Kahn has written a whole book on the single extant saying of Anaximander (Anaximander and 1 attention would certainly be directed to the sixty-five fragments attributed to Epicharmus.3 The truth of the matter is, however, that the fragments of Epicharmus might, indeed, have been admitted as significant Pre-Socratic material had they not from the beginning been shrouded in questions of authenticity. This gives us our theme. Of the two parts of the present work, the first centers on the problems pertaining to the authenticity of the fragments. The question of the authenticity of the fragments involved is an old and unpopular one. But because of the obvious urgency of the question, two things must be done in this first part. First, it will be neces sary to indicate as effectively as possible the various positions which have been assumed relative to the question during the last hundred years or so. Secondly, the sug gestion, which will be made repeatedly in the course of the dissertation, that the present status of the discussion tends to yield a favorable judgment regarding the the Origins of Greek Cosmology [New York: Columbia University Press, 1960J). ^This is the number of "philosophical” fragments contained in the ed. of Epicharmus by Hermann Diels and Walther Kranz (in Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, Griechisch und Deutsch C10th ed.; Berlin: Weidmann, 196l], I). The most popular ed. of all the fragments (302) is that of George Kaibel (Comicorum Graecorum Fragments [[Berlin: Weidmann, 1899J , Part I) . Hie Diels-Kranz ^ ed. is to Pre-Socratic scholarship what the Kaibel ed. is to classical scholarship in general. 3 authenticity of the fragments must be justified if the remainder of the study is to be of any profit. It is my opinion that much of the feeling that the study of Epicharmus is a waste of energy may be traced to the authority of the Kaibel and Diels-Kranz editions of the fragments in which virtually all of them are judged inau thentic, or the authenticity of which is, at least-*— questioned. Since the Diels-Kranz edition is better known to students of Pre-Socratic philosophy, let me suggest at this point how it has hardly provided any incentive for interest in Epicharmus or in a critical analysis of the fragments. The most prominent word in the Diels-Kranz edition is "unecht." It is clear to me that this general estimate of the fragments has been unwillingly foisted upon the world of Pre-Socratic studies since: (1) no one questions the general virtue of the Diels-Kranz contribution; (2) the Diels-Kranz edition is virtually the only authoritative voice with respect to these matters (at least for students of Pre-Socratic philosophy)4; (3) it has enjoyed con siderable perpetuation or reduplication at the hands of its disciples5; (4) not very many scholars are willing to 4The appearance of the Kirk and Raven ed. of the major Pre-Socratics has done a great deal to undermine the long-established authority of Diels-Kranz. 5E.g., the standard English trans. of the Pre- Socratic fragments is that of Kathleen Freeman (Ancilla to 4 undertake the dismal study of sources and authenticity for themselves. For these reasons the authority of the Diels- Kranz judgment has stood for many years and the study and the appreciation of the Epicharmean fragments have not progressed. But it is not enough for a dissertation to be motivated only by an interest in the authenticity of cer tain Pre-Socratic fragments. In reality, the energy spent on the question of authenticity is justified only if the fragments themselves are significant philosophically. And it is my firm opinion that important insight concerning the history of Pre-Socratic philosophy (and, possibly, even later philosophy) could be gained through the analysis of the Epicharmean fragments. For example, someone has sug gested "what vistas are opened to the imagination” if some of the Epicharmean fragments should be judged authentic and dated early.6 Someone else observes that an interesting light is thrown on the problem of the Logos doctrine of Heraclitus by the fragments, and so on. It does seem to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers [Oxford: Blackwell’s, 1956j) but this trans. of the fragments contained in Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker reflects the Diels-Kranz judgments as to authenticity. In German the Diels-Kranz trans. and authenticity-opinions have been rendered more accessible through the Plambock ed. (Hamburg: Rowohlt, 1963). 6N . B. Booth, "Were Zeno*s Arguments Directed against the Pythagoreans?" Phronesis, ed. D. J. Allan and J. B. Skemp (II, No. 2, 1959), p. 97. ^Philip Wheelwright, Heraclitus (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1959) , pT 23. me that there is real promise as to the relevance of the Epicharmean fragments in the event that the special kind of scholarship which breeds answers to questions of authen ticity should begin to look with approval upon the fragments. The dissertation may best be appreciated in terms of its two parts. The thesis of the first part is that much of the reasoning upon which Kaibel and Diels-Kranz (most notedly these two, though there are others) based their judgments is unsound, and indeed that there has been for many years an undercurrent of responsible but little- known scholarship which has seriously questioned their conclusions. In the first part it seemed to be best to deal with the fragments in terms of "blocks," since for the most part they come to us in groups, reflecting a common source, either primary or secondary. Only those groups will be considered which contain fragments of obvious philosophical significance. The first part, then, will take up in succession groups of fragments (e.g., those constituting the so-called Carmen Physicum, those passed along by Clement, and so forth) and deal with the group as a whole and, if possible, with individual fragments, at tempting to pass judgment on the question of their authenticity. The question of the Platonic testimony will figure early in the argument since it will prove relevant for many arguments of the first part. Having settled, as much as possible, the problems concerning authenticity, the second part of the dissertation will turn to the task of translating the "philosophical" fragments and suggesting (on the basis of the fragments) the role of Epicharmus as a Pre-Socratic thinker. The inspira tion for the second part is the judgment that the main job of drawing an accurate picture of the development of ancient philosophy remains to be done and that the outstanding immediate need is the collection and adequate exposition of Q the textual material. I have elected to consider the fragments contained in the Diels-Kranz collection, believing that the more philosophically relevant fragments are to be found in that edition and because it is the collection most familiar to students of classical philosophy. It is hoped that out of the study will come a renewed estimation of the philosophical significance of Epicharmus. There are three main editions in which the fragments of Epicharmus appear: Kaibel,^ Olivieri,-*-0 Diels-Kranz. - * - • * - ^0. Gigon, Diogenes, No. 3, ed. Roger Caillois CInterculture Publications, 1953), pp. 102—04. ^Kaibel, op. cit. 5-OAlessandro Olivieri (ed.), Frammenti. della commedia greca e del mimo nella Sicilia e nella Magne Grecia. I: Frammenti della commedia dorica siciliana, testo e commento (Naplesr Xibreria Scientifica Editrice, 1946). H-Die Is-Kranz, oip. cit. All of the fragments of Epicharmus may be found in Kaibel and Olivieri; only the "philosophical" fragments in Diels-Kranz. It seemed to me unnecessary to provide at all times all the cross-references relative to the three editions. Rather, I have given the fragment number in terms of more than one edition when it seemed appropriate (Kaibel, abbreviated nK"; Olivieri, abbreviated ,!0”; Diels-Kranz, abbreviated "DK”). At times the number will be provided in terms of one system and at other times another, depending upon which is the most useful and relevant for the particular context, except where the Diels-Kranz fragments are translations (Chapter VII) and all three numbers will be indicated. Also, it should be emphasized that an attempt has been made to avoid textual squabbles as much as possible. All the relevant textual considerations may be found in the three editors. All textual emendations are enclosed in brackets. I have had numerous occasions to include texts from various classical sources. When possible, I have used the text of the various editions of the Loeb Classical Library (exceptions may be noted in the Bibliography). I wish to express my appreciation especially to the Chairman of my Ph.D. Dissertation Committee, Prof. W. H. Werkmeister who, though on sabbatical leave from the University of Southern California, was willing to continue with me through the completion of my degree. I also wish to express my thanks to the other members of my committee, Prof. Morris Engel and Prof. Richard Trapp, and to Prof. Kevin Robb who, though not a member of my committee, made many helpful suggestions. CHAPTER II EPICHARMUS The purpose of this dissertation is to focus as quickly as possible upon central and technical considera tions relative to the philosophical significance of Epicharmus.- It would not be out of place, however, to set him in perspective by reminding ourselves at the beginning of the biography of the man and the character of his work. Some of the more important testimonia from antiq uity regarding the life and work of Epicharmus are as follows^: Diogenes Laertius (Lives, VIII, 78): Epicharmus of Cos was the son of Helothales. He also was a pupil of Pythagoras. When he was three months old he was sent to Megara in Sicily, and from there to Syracuse, as he himself says in his writings. On his statue this is inscribed: As the great sun outshines the stars, And the sea is more powerful than the rivers, So much, I say, do I, Epicharmus, surpass all in wisdom, Whom my fatherland Syracuse thus crowned. He has left memoirs in which his physical, practical, and medical doctrines may be found. And he has made marginal notes in most of his memoirs which make it clear that they are his writings. He died at the age of ninety. -*-The texts for these passages (and still others) may be found in Kaibel, op. cit., pp. 88ff., and 9 10 Aristotle (Poetics, V, 1449b 5; 1448a 30): In the beginning, Epicharmus and Phormis came from. Sicily making plots . . . The Dorians, therefore, also make a claim to both tragedy and comedy; comedy is claimed by the Megarians here in Greece as arising in the days of their democracy, as well as by those in Sicily, for from there came the poet Epicharmus who was much earlier than Chionides and Magnes. The Suda (in Diels-Kranz, pp. I90f.): Epicharmus, the son of Tityrus or Ghimarus and Sikis, was a Syracusan or from the city Krastos of the Sicans. Along with Phormis he invented comedy in Syra cuse. He produced fifty-two plays, but Lycon says thirty-five. Some say he was a Goan of those who crossed with Cadmus to Sicily, some that he was a Samian, and still others that he was from the Sicilian Megara. Six years before the Persian Wars he was pro ducing plays in Syracuse. Anonymous Commentator (in Kaibel, p. 7): Epicharmus of Syracuse: He first brought together the scattered elements of comedy and added many artis tic changes. Chronologically he belonged to the seventy-third Olympiad. In his poetry he included maxims, both original and artistic. Forty of his plays are preserved, of which four are disputed. Mamor Parium (in Kaibel, p. 89 fEpistle 71^): From when Hiero was tyrant of Syracuse, 208 years, Chares being archon in Athens [[i.e., 472-471 B.C.3- Epicharmus the poet was contemporary with Hiero. As is inevitable with early Pre-Socratic figures, there is very little of which we can be certain regarding the life of Epicharmus. Drawing upon our sources from Diels-Kranz, op. cit. , pp. 190ff. I am attempting at this point to provide only a general frame of reference. There is a series of extremely relevant testimonies which concern the philosophical status of Epicharmus in particular, but those will be supplied at the appropriate places. 11 antiquity (which do not always agree), we may be certain only that he wrote comedies at Syracuse during the reigns of Gelo (485-478 B.C.) and Hiero (478-467 B.C.), that he had some association with Hiero, and that he may have been writing for some time before he came to Syracuse (possibly at Megara Hyblaea). The question of dating Epicharmus, his exact birthplace, and so forth, is as garbled as ever. However, in order to avoid at this time technical discus sions of these subtle difficulties, the reader is referred to the excellent discussion by Pickard-Cambridge and its 2 appended revision by Webster. Epicharmusf claim to the title of ”father of Greek comedy”3 is acknowledged by everyone.^ Of thirty-six plays (the exact number is disputed) three hundred and two ^Arthur Pickard-Cambridge, Dithyramb, Tragedy and Comedy (2nd ed. rev.; Oxford: at the Clarendon Press, 1962) , pp. 230ff. This work contains, undoubtedly, the best recent discussion of Epicharmus in general (pp. 230-90). Such an account is to be preferred over the longer but antiquated work by Aug. O. Fr. Lorenz (Leben und Schriften des Koers Epicharmos, nebst einer Fragmentensammlung [Berlin: Weidmann, 18641). 5It has been suggested that there is a sense in which the work of Epicharmus, from what we know of it, was not properly comedy at all (see T. A. Sinclair, A History of Classical Greek Literature from Homer to Aristotle [Routledge: Broadway House , 19341 , pi 287) . ^The statement of the Anonymous Commentator may mean that he brought together a no. of already existing elements into a single structure, which marked the begin ning of that genre (Pickard-Cambridge, op. cit. , p. 276). 12 fragments survive.5 The fragments reflect his Doris Greek and his use of anapaestic tetrameters, trochaic tetram eters,6 and iambic trimeters. According to Aristotle, Epicharmus (along with Phormis) invented the plot, though it is fairly certain that the structure of his plays must have been relatively unsophisticated. There is some evidence from the fragments that he employed three speakers at times. Of the dramas we know nothing substantial, but the fragments indicate that they fall into three categor ies: (1) mythological burlesques (in which Odysseus and Heracles appear to be his favorite heros); (2) social burlesques, in which the parasite (which became a stock character in the Athenian comedy) first appears; (3) con tests (?) between personified abstractions (the most famous of which was called Aoyo^ xai AoYiva).^ The plays probably averaged about four hundred lines. He is said, also, to have invented the two rhetorical figures, the "Growing Proposition" and the "Climax." ^The Kaibel and Olivieri eds. contain all the fragments; the Diels-Kranz ed. contains only the "philosophical" fragments (65). Whether all of the frag ments originated in dramas is a question to be considered later. ^Called by the ancient grammarian Marius Victorinus "Epicharmus1 meter" (see Heinrich Keil [ed.] , Grammatici Latini [Leipzig: Teubner, 1857-80], VI, 84). 7A list of the plays, along with an estimation of their contents, may be found in Pickard-Cambridge and Gilbert Norwood's Greek Comedy (Boston: John W. Luce and Co., 1932), pp. 83-113. 13 Whatever may have been his exact relation to Greek ft comedy, it is clear that he was the originator of phil osophical burlesque. That Epicharmus was very much in touch with the philosophical opinions of the time and that he was regarded in antiquity to be a philosopher no less than a writer cannot be denied. Further, there is an especially strong tradition which identified him with Pythagoreanism. But to what extent his fragments reflect particular thinkers or school’ s , ’ to what extent they are to be taken as serious philosophizing--in short, to what extent Epicharmus is a significant figure for Pre-Socratic studies is the question of this dissertation. And to the attempt to answer it we turn now. ®0n this point see further, Norwood, op. cit., p. Ill, n. 1. ^These last observations will be considered again and documented in Chapter VIII. CHAPTER III KAIBELTS TREATMENT OF THE PSEUDEPICHARMEA Kaibel*s catalogue of the Pseudepicharmea. Kaibel has been called the greatest systematizer of the inauthen tic fragments of Epicharmus.^ The Kaibel edition of the fragments consists of three hundred and two fragments. Of these, K 1-239 are judged authentic. The remainder of the fragments constitute the Pseudepicharmea and are thought by Kaibel to derive from the following works^: Fragments K 239-54 are attributed to a poem called CARMEN PHYSICUM.3 K 255-60 are attributed to the XPYSOrONOY TOY AYAHTOY nOAITEIA.4 K 261-88 are said to derive from the ASI0M2T0Y TOY A0KP0Y H 2IKYS2NIOY rN£2MAI.5 iM. Gigante, "Epicarmo, Psuedo-Epicarmo e Platone," La Parola del Passato, ed. V. Arangie et al. (Naples: Gaetano Macchiareli, 1953), VIII, 164. ^See Pickard-Cambridge (2nd ed.), op. cit. , pp. 240ff.; Norwood, op. cit., pp. 91ff. 3The nature of this work is more obscure and diffi cult (and consequential) than the others, so all the discussion of it will be reserved for later. ^Chrysogonus, the flute player, flourished in jfche_ last part of the 5th century B.C. The fragments preserved by Clement (9 significant lines) have to do with Heraclitean-Pythagorean-sounding notions relative to the human and divine Logos. ^These, as may be seen easily enough from the fragments, consist of opinions concerning the judgment and correction of habits and customs. According to Kaibel, 14 15 K 289 is said to be taken from the ASI0M2T0Y KANS2N.6 K 290 is attributed to a work called XIPffiN and/or OTOIOIIA.7 K 295 is attributed to the AOrOS IIP02 AUTHNOPA. K 296 is attributed to the EEIirPAMMA. K 297-302 are labeled, simply, FRAUDES.10 Kaibel*s main argument is the testimony of the ancient editor Apollodorus, as recorded in Athenaeus (The Deipnosophists, XIV, 648D): Tfjv [itv i)|jLivav o i T r d l eiC ’ EJitxapn-ov &vatpep&p,eva aioif)p.aT:a x e x o iTpc6'ire£ o 'fS a a t, x a v tO Xetpcovi £ iu Ypatpop.§vco otfTtoC * x ai atieTv (SQ cop SircX&aiov x^-iapov, % uvac 6<io. tA 6£ ^eo6e7cix&PP-eta TraOTra 5ti iceacoifptaaiv ftvSpec &v6o£;oi . . . Xpua6yov6c are o auXriTfjC, &Q (prior iv 'Apla-rSgevoC ev oySotp EfoXiTixftv N6p,o)V, Tfjv IIoAi'uetav ^aciYPtt^op-tivTiv . . . 3>iX&xopoC 6' tv nroTC icepf MdVTix^S 'Agioaucruov t6v eYte Aoxpdv y^vo^ Sixo&viop t6v this work was forged under the name of Epicharmus in the 4th century B.C. ^Since the Canon was mentioned in Philochorus* work On Prophecy and in view of Tertullian’s statement "certerum Epicharmus etiam summum apicem inter divinationes somniis extulit" (De Anima, ed. J. H. Waszink [Amsterdam: Meulenhoff” 1947 J , 46) , Kaibel is led to believe that the work must have treated, to some degree, the subject of divination (op. cit., pp. 133f). 7This work (or works) is of unknown date and authorship. According to Kaibel (op. cit., p. 133) the work may have contained medical instruction (cf. Chiron the centaur who had somewhat to do with the healing arts); and K 290 is consistent with this conjecture. See Pickard- Cambridge (op. cit., p. 240, nn. 3-4) who seems rather absorbed on the question of the contents of this work. Susemihl conjectured that these works were identical (see Pickard-Cambridge, op. cit., p. 240, n. 5). ®See Kaibel, fragment K 295. 9lbid., fragment K 296. 10Ibid., fragments K 297-302. 16 Kav&va x a t t& c rvfi)p.ac iceicp^rjx&vai tpTiatv. onoicoc 5e Icnropei x a i ' AxoXX66copoc. Thus, several poems, known by name, circulated from as early as the last part of the fifth century B.C. under the name of Epicharmus but were judged by the ancient editor Apollodorus-^ to be forgeries. There is no question but that for Kaibel, who exerted great influence on the general evaluation of the Epicharmean fragments, the fragments attributed by him-^ to the Politeia, the Chiron, the Gnomai, and the Canon are spurious mainly because Apollodorus said so.^^ liThe Deipnosophists, trans. Charles Burton Gulick (Loeb Classical Library; London: William Heinemann, 1937), VI. ■^-^Apollodorus was born ca. 180 B.C. Among other things, he wrote critical and exegetical commentaries on Epicharmus and Sophron, which probably included a critical recension of the text. For an account of Apollodorus, the reader is referred to E. Schwartz, "Apollodorus [61j Realencyclopadie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft, ed. Pauly-Wissowa (Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 1894--), I, col. 2855f. The works of Apollodorus are collected in The Library, trans. James George Frazer (Loeb Classical Library; London: William Heinemann, 1921). ■*-^It is never a question of the proper identifica tion of the original source of a fragment on the part of Kaibel. The ancient secondary contexts usually provide such information. The accuracy of the secondary sources, however, is another question. l^Kaibel’s complete confidence in the authority of Apollodorus is suggested by the remark with which he intro duces the quotation provided above: "Apollodorus, qui acri iudicio, ut par est, genuina a spuriis secernere studuit, haec fere tradidit . . .” And he concludes with the simple and uncritical affirmation, based on the quotation from Apollodorus, "non unum igitur sed complura carmina eaque 17 Kaibel believed, also, that one could judge at times between the genuine and spurious Epicharmus on the basis of the internal evidence of linguistics. He says, for example, that the maxims of Axiopistus are all in trochaic tetrameter, and in their manner of expression, speech and thought obviously different from the true Epicharmus. Some of these maxims, according to Kaibel, are indeed expressed so meanly and basely that they seem un worthy of even Axiopistus or any other man older than Philochorus . It should be mentioned, parenthetically, and the reader must be reminded of the fact--that no one is suggesting that Kaibel has not done an important piece of work in attempting to distinguish between the true and the false Epicharmus--a distinction which, as we have seen, has been made since antiquity. But continued critical analysis is necessary if the fragments are to be appreciated as they should. The question to be asked is: Where, if at all, is the judgment and reasoning of Kaibel inadequate? This brings us to the most important and controversial opinion of Kaibel: the problem of the Carmen Physicum. argumento inter se diversa satis antiquo tempore Epicharmi nomine falso inscripta ferebantur." Or again, relative to the authenticity of the Chiron he says, "hoc carmen ut subditicium certo fuit ita ne illud quidem dubitare debebam . . ., num Apollodorus inter spuria rettulisset" Cp. 133). ■^Kaibel, op. cit. , p. 134. 18 Kaibelfs hypothesis of the Carmen Physicum. The importance of the problem of the Carmen Physicum is thus emphasized by Kaibel himself: reliqua est ordine postrema, dignitate haud dubie prima de eis versibus quaestio qui et cogitationis et elocutionis granditate ac antiquitate ita eminent, ut dispari pretio aestimanda videantur.^-6 Acknowledging that scholars have not hesitated to claim authenticity for these fragments, he takes up an opinion already suggested by Wilamowitz, according to whom Euripides would have known some Epicharmean sayings and imitated them in his dramas.-*-® According to Kaibel, first of all, there is no good reason for us to assume that the great tragedian refrained from using ideas borrowed from the older and Sicilian comic poet, nor would it be too much to assume that ideas of a naturalistic sort were handed down in the name of drama. But Kaibel asks why it is (1) that there is nothing similar between the naturalistic sayings reflected in Euripides and Epicharmean sayings which we know by name and (2) that none of these 16Ibid. •L^Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorf f , Einleitung in die Griechische Tragodie, 2nd printing of Herakles (1899), I, chs. 1-4 (Berlin: Weidmann, 1910), pp. 29f. Actually, the hypothesis of a poem "On Nature" forged under the name of Epicharmus goes back to Lorenz (op. cit■, pp. 99ff. But a more meaningful analysis of the problem would begin with the observations of Kaibel. ^-8Kaibel, op. cit. , p. 134. 19 naturalistic sayings were transmitted with the name of any drama? ^ Add to this the fact that there are in Euripides some apparent echoes of the Epicharmus of E n n i u s .2° Kaibel gives two examples. The statement of Euripides (fragment 941), o p $ c t o v oi|foO t& v 6 ' f tx e ip o v a t0 & p a x a i y ^ v nipiZ £ x o v e ' uypclTC £v 6.Yx.(L\aiZ; t o O t o v v 6 p ,i£ e Z?)va, t:& v6’ tiyoO 0e& v. 1 is understood by Kaibel to be Euripides' expression of Ennius’ statement (quoted in Varro), Istic est is Iupiter quern dico, quern Graeci vocant aerem, qui ventus est et nubes, imber postea atque ex imbre frigus, ventis post fit aer denuo. haece propter Iupiter sunt ista quae dico tibi, quando mortalis atque urbes beluasque omnes iuvat.22 And Euripides’ statement (at Bacch. 275), AT)p ,f )T T) p 0e&* y 9 s ' | c r r i v , <5vop,a 5 ' o x 6 're p o v (3o<jAei x&Xei* auTTT) p.£v ev £T]poTcHV ixT pfrtpei ppoToG c*23 should, according to Kaibel, be compared with this 19ibid. 20239-169 B.C. For Ennius the reader is referred to Skutsch, ’’Ennius Z3] Realencyclopadie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft, ed. Pauly-Wissowa (Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 1894--), V, col. 2589f. The fragments of Ennius are collected in Remains of Old Latin, trans. E. L. Warmington (Loeb Classical Library; London: William Heinemann, 1935), I. 2lEuripides, Tragoediae, ed. Augustus Nauck (Leipzig: B. G. TeubnerT 1892), III. 22Varro, de Lingua Latina, trans. Roland G. Kent (Loeb Classical Library; London: William Heinemann, 1938), V, 65. 2^Euripides, The Bacchanals, trans. Arthur S. Way (Loeb Classical Library; London: William Heinemann, 1912). 20 statement of Ennius (provided here in its context in Varro): Terra Ops, quod hie omne opus et hac opus ad vivendum, et ideo dicitur Ops mater quod Terra mater. Haec enim terris gentis omnis peperit, et resumit denuo quae . . . dat cibaria.^4 Kaibel asks if we are to assume that Ennius had collected into one work naturalistic excerpts from the various Epicharmean dramas, and answers that it is far more reasonable to believe that he had imitated a connected poem passing under the name of Epicharmus, Ilepi #6aea)C.25 Kaibel concludes in this way: fuit igitur Epicharmi nomine inscrip turn Ilepi carmen, sive a falsario quodam saeculi quinti (non sane a Chrysogono, cuius miseram artem novimus e Politiae reliquiis) sive quod aegre crediderim ab ipso Epicharmo compositum.2° Thus it is (on Kaibel*s hypothesis) that the several fragments attributed by Kaibel to the Garmen 24yarro, loc. cit. ^5Ennius, indeed, had done the same thing in the case of the Hedyphagetica and Euhemerus, as is noted by Kaibel. Kaibel further justifies his conclusion on the grounds that the grand tone of the naturalistic sayings is incompatible with the parody of the plays: "vates haec loquitur Heraclito similis, non scaenicus philosophus*' (op. cit., p. 135). 26l o c. cit. Kaibel says that what the poet throws in at the end of the poem is more worthy of a forger: xa] Xa(36v tic afc-ta TcepiXOaac to pltpov o vOv etp.a 6odc xal TtopcpGpav Xbyotai notxtXac xaXoTC Qoax&XaicrcoC aG'UoC &XXou<; e{ntaXaicjtouC &no<paveT (fragment K 254 [DK 6]). The case would be complete, according to Kaibel, if the work had been ornamented with an acrostic. 21 Physicum include a goodly number of consequential fragments in the Diels-Kranz "philosophical1' collection which, in all probability, are not genuine. But if Kaibel's construction of the hypothetical poem On Nature could be shown to be in adequate and without justification, a considerable number of important fragments could possibly be "reinstated" and the status of Epicharmus from the standpoint of Pre- Socratic scholarship could be significantly changed. There are, in fact, legitimate grounds for such a criticism, and to these we turn now. The inadequacy of the hypothesis of the Carmen Physicum. The first and perhaps the most effective criticism of the constructions of Kaibel was leveled by 27 Gomperz. His attack is two-fold. First, against Kaibel's hypothesis of a Carmen Physicum in order to account for the sayings of a naturalistic sort, Gomperz summons fragment K 245 (DK 9): <juvexpt9p xai SiexptQr] xaxpXQev o9ev f]X9sv xaXiv, ya ply etc yav, aiveOpa 6* avco* 'Vi Tftvbe xa^exov; ou6e ev. He then emphasizes that (1) here, too, is an instance of a common dependence of Euripides and Ennius upon a fragment no of Epicharmus and (2) "nichts hindert, die Verse, etwa ^Gigante calls this a decisive blow (op. cit. , p. 165). 2^For Ennius see Kaibel o fragment K 245; for Euripides, The Suppliants, trans. Arthur S. Way (Loeb Classical Library; London: William Heinemann, 1912), 531. 22 als Trost an einen Trauernden gerichtet, im Drama verwendet zu denken."^ Gomperz insists that, upon unbiased con sideration, no one would doubt that these lines came from a drama. The technical considerations upon which this judg ment is based are as follows: first, the dialogue form of the lines is obviously more suitable for dramatic than for didactic expression5®; secondly, the hiatus in ouds ev is a peculiarity of comedy; thirdly (Gomperz considers this a ’’small matter”), the metrical anomaly in the third foot is 31 more appropriate for comic than didactic expression. Gomperz*s second criticism of Kaibel is directed against Kaibel*s base principle that the sayings were cited without the name of a drama. He observed that the fragments . . . da sie eben ihrer Natur nach des dramatischen Zusammenhanges entraten konnten, fruhzeitig loci communes und auch bald in Anthologien gesammelt wurden, deren wir jetzt eine erstaunlich fruh verfasste kennen gelernt haben.5^ ^Theodor Gomperz, Hellenika: Eine Auswahl philologischer und philosophiegeschichtlicher kleiner Schriften (Leipzig: Verlag von Veit , 1912) , T~, 339. 50liOC. cit. Add to this the fact that the meter of the Carmen Physicum fragments is iambic, while the in variable meter for didactic poetry was hexameter (Norwood, op. cit. , p. 85). 5^~Lo c. cit. ■ z O Theodor Gomperz*s general disapproval of Kaibel*s systematization of the true and false Epicharmean fragments is evidenced by his several references to Epicharmus in his celebrated Greek Thinkers in which fragments judged 23 Furthermore, Wilamowitz and Kaibel themselves had accepted as genuine some fragments sine nomine tabulae. It seems to me that Gomperz argued soundly and that Kaibel’s hypothesis of a naturalistic poem passing under the name of Epicharmus was thus undermined a long time ago. But to continue our critical analysis of the status of these several fragments attributed by Kaibel to the Carmen Physicum, we turn now to the more recent observa tions of Pickard-Cambridge. He begins his discussion with the rather flat statement, "Kaibel’s argument is not per fectly convincing."33 The whole argument for the fifth century forgery fails without the resemblances to Euripides, and Pickard-Cambridge is not convinced that the resemblances are more than accidentalFor example, the only common point between Euripides, fragment 941, and Ennius in the passage quoted in Varro at de Lingua Latina, V, 65 (considered above as evidence for Kaibel’s position) is the identification of Zeus or Jupiter with the sky, but this idea was not peculiar to Epicharmus anyway, and, if Ennius got it from anyone, it might just as well have been Euripides. Or, to take the other example given by Kaibel: the resemblance between Euripides, Bacch. 275 inauthentic by Kaibel are accepted without hesitation (e.g., Greek Thinkers: A History of Ancient Philosophy, trans. G. G. Berry ^London: John Murry, 1931j, II, 84). 7 7 Pickard-Cambridge (2nd ed.), op. cit., p. 241. 24 and Ennius in the passage quoted in Varro at de Lingua Latina, V, 64. Again, the only common idea in these two passages is that the earth gives food to men. But this doctrine, too, was not peculiar to Epicharmus and, besides, the points of the two passages are clearly different.3^ Now, then, for Pickard-Cambridge, if there must be such a poem at all as Kaibel had proposed, it would be easier to suppose that if Ennius adapted a poem passing under the name of Epicharmus, it was forged later than the fifth century33 and, thus, the "resemblances" between Euripides and Ennius could be accounted for on the grounds that Ennius was reflecting Euripides rather than the pseudo-Epicharmean poem.3^ xt is further certainly rele vant that the passages from Ennius (quoted by Varro) are not known with certainty to come from the Epicharmus. 37 Ennius used the meter of the Epicharmus in other works. Further, the setting of the Epicharmus may not have lent TO itself very well to the purposes of a physiological poem. Actually, T,the case for the existence of an independent physiological poem is not at all strong.”59 For his main 34~Ibid. , pp. 241f. 33The difficulty, otherwise, has to do with the problem of forging an important poem sufficiently soon after Epicharmus’ death so as to be available to Euripides Cwhose unknown work, from which fragment 941 is taken, is not known to be late; Pickard-Cambridge, op. cit., p. 241). 36Ibid. 57Ibid., p. 242. 38Ibid., p. 244. 39Ibid., p. 243. 25 argument against Kaibel’s general hypothesis of the Carmen Physicum, Pickard-Cambridge reinforces GomperzTs idea that many of the fragments attributed by Kaibel to the poem on nature are not incompatible with comic expression: "A considerable number— if not all--of the fragments ascribed by scholars to this supposed poem are passages which it is not impossible to think of as occurring in comedies. After further minor considerations, he concludes that "on the whole, the existence of the supposed poem seems to be an unnecessary hypothesis. We have thus attempted to emphasize how Kaibel’s attribution of a goodly number of what otherwise could have proved to be philosophically important fragments to a poem, Ilepi ^6aeoiCj forged under the name of Epicharmus during the late fifth century, is not necessarily sound and in what sorts of ways it could and, indeed, has been effectively undermined. But because of the importance of this question with respect to the possible status of Epicharmus as a significant Pre-Socratic thinker, it would be relevant to mention quickly still other scholarly judgments regarding this matter. From the very beginning the notion of the 40lbid. 4^-Ibid., p. 245. Further: "There is no hint in antiquity of any forgeries besides the three attributed to Chrysogonus and Axiopistus and, no doubt, treated as for geries by Apollodorus" (loc. cit. , p. 245, n. 1). 26 Epicharmean physical poem was never whole-heartedly received. Mahaffy judged Lorenz’s suggestion (it will be recalled that Lorenz was the first to offer the hypothesis) 42 as "improbable." Nestle believed that Euripides reflects the genuine Epicharmus and has no use for the supposed 43 physical poem postulated by Wilamowitz and Kaibel. Susemihl also rejected it and maintained that it was the 44 forger who utilized Euripides. Rohde, to take another example, points out that Wilamowitz’s assertion that Euripides* allusions to Epicharmus must refer to forgeries because Euripides never quotes comedies is a mere petitio principii. He calls attention to the fact that there is no necessity in the opinion that Euripides’ attitude towards contemporary Attic comedy and his attitude towards the "brilliantly original comic poet of Sicily" were the 45 s ame . — - Perhaps it is fitting to conclude this who-le matter with Norwood’s observation that all this talk about Ennius and Euripides is "unsound and random" and "has been ^J. P. Mahaffy, A History of Classical Greek Literature (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1880), l"7 403 (see also p. 405). ^See Gigante, op. cit. , p. 165. ^^Loc. cit. ^Erwin Rohde, Psyche: The Cult of Souls and Belief in Immortality among the Greeks, trans. W. B. Hillis (New York: Hareourt, Brace and Co., 1925), p. 461, n. 151. 27 disposed of."^ Unfortunately, it would appear that most Pre-Socratic scholars are not aware of this. Kaibel’s case for the supposed Carmen Physicum is,'as we have shown, not strong. And it is probably only because of the utility of Kaibel’s edition that his conclusions on the pseudepi- charmea were able to carry the day. We have been preoccupied with the problem of the Carmen Physicum because it is with respect to its problems that the conclusions of Kaibel relative to the question of the authenticity of the Epicharmean fragments are most consequential. The Gnomai of Axiopistus. In addition to the frag ments which Kaibel derived from the supposed physical poem, there remain two further works which supply a number of philosophically relevant fragments: the Gnomai of Axiopistus and the Politeia of Chrysogonus. We have already emphasized the complete confidence which Kaibel rested in the authority of Apollodorus. But now it is time to ask to what degree this confidence is justified. If it can be shown that somewhere Apollodorus seems to have judged incorrectly, then a reassessment of the possible significance of, at least, some of the frag ments in his list of forgeries would be in order. 46Norwo75d", op. cit., p. 85, n. 4. There is, how ever, a third alternative. There may have been no physical poem, but the source of Ennius* work may still have been pseudo-Epicharmean. E.g., Diels-Kranz believed that the source of Ennius’ work was the Gnomai of Axiopistus. 28 The strongest evidence that there may be something wrong with Apollodorus1 judgments with respect to the authen ticity of these works is the testimony of Plato. However, because of its importance to our thesis, we shall reserve a careful consideration of the evidence of Plato for a separate chapter. But let us anticipate it slightly by pointing out now that several passages which, on the authority of Apollodorus, would be relegated to the domain of inauthentic fragments are clearly regarded by Plato to be genuine. Of course, the question of the authority of Plato in such matters is another problem. In the next chapter 1 shall suggest why Plato would, indeed, be in a position to judge the matter authoritatively. Here I shall assume that such is the case. And, if this is granted, then surely there is something fundamentally wrong in Apollodorus. We find in the Diels-Kranz edition of the fragments the opinion (which is certainly true) that as a whole the work of Axiopistus (the collection of gnomai) ^ is not A O genuine, but "einzelnes darin scheint alt.” That the work as a whole is not authentic is made certain by the ^That the fragments which the Diels-Kranz ed. includes in this collection differ at times from those of Kaibel*s ed. does not matter for my present purposes. ^Diels-Kranz, op. cit ■ , p. 194. 29 acrostics'^ which Diogenes found in it: — ow toS uTEotivfiiiaTa x<n;aX&\o u te v I v o 7 c cpoCTioXoysT, YVcoixoXoyeT, laTpoXoYeT* x a i TcapaaTixtO fl Ye 'ro ^ „ itX et a'toiG t& v 6n:oii.VTipAT:wv T ceitolrptev, o i c SiaaacpeT o tti feaoToCJ ba'Vt to avYYp&mia'ua .50 On the other hand, the form of some of the statements sug gests the power of originality [e.g., K 246 (DK 10), K 249 (DK 12), K 253 (DK 16), K 288 (DK 37)]. Indication of the original dialogue-form remains in some of the fragments [e.g., K 245 (DK 9), K 272 (DK 29), K 274 (DK 31), K 288 (DK 37)J. Some are certified to be old (by sources more ancient than Apollodorus {[e.g., K 262 (DK 19), K 287 (DK 36), K 288 (DK 37)]). And, finally, the contents of these fragments is addressed mainly to the sixth and fifth centuries [e.g., cf. Xenophanes and K 249 (DK 12), Heraclitus and K 258 (DK 1 7 ) ] Thus, though there may be no way of clearly delineating the true from the false Epicharmean sayings, some, at least, probably do derive 52 from Epicharmus himself. Cronert attempted to create a stir over the ^The acrostic does not occur before the Alexandrian age (Pickard-Cambridge, op. cit., p. 235). 5®Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, trans. R. D. Hicks (Loeb Classical Library; London: William Heinemann, 1925), VIII, 78. 51-Die Is-Kranz , loc. cit. ^^It is conjectured that the early gnomologic ex tracts of Epicharmus’ dramas had spread and had made his name popular already in the 4th century when a certain Axiopistus expanded the popular book and rewrote it in a PythagoTean manner (op. cit., p. 194). 30 discovery of a passage contained in the Hibeh Papyri 53 (discovered subsequently to Kaibel’s work), part of which follows: t e T 6 ' 'feveaTi xoXXd x a i xavT oT a, t o T C Xpf)<*ai6 x a x o t I tplXov, x o t ' fex©p6v, fev P l x a i XfeY*ov, & v a X i a i , X O T l X O V T Jp o V , X O T t X aX & V T E X&Ya 0 6 v , I t O T t £ f e V 0 V , x o t I P^crrjpiv, x o t I x & p o iv o v , x o t I p& vauaov, s Y te TlC &XX' £ x e i x a x 6 v t i . x a i T od T oiai,jxfevT p a t e T6' 2 vo, ev 6fe x a i yvSilxai aocpal t s T 6 [ e ] , a i a t v si x s iG o iT o TlC, 6sgiG>Tsp6<; Tfe x ' e'i'ti P sX ticov t ' fee x& vt' a v f)p ._ xou xoXXd 6sT X §y£ 1 v * &XX' ep, p,6vov, t o O t ' < 5 > v Unoe i e o t t P xp&YP'S x o T K p fep o v T a t£ 5 v 6 ' a s I t 6 au|x<pfepov. a i T i a v y&P mXov, &e &XXcoe p,fev s'fT]v 6 s g i 6 c , |iax p o X 6 Y o C 6 ' oiS x a 6 o v a t |x a v fep. p p a x e T yv&\iae XfeYe i v * TaOTa 6fj ' y &v eiaaxoO aaC aoVTi0r)p.i Tdv T&xvctv t &v6 ' &j c c o C e^tetji t i [ c ]' * ErcixapixoC aoq>6e T ie feyfeVETOj,. [ndXX oC eT Joe' d a r e T a x a i xiaVTota xa©' *ev ['^Tcoej XfeYtov, [TtsTpav] auTaoToO 6 t 6 o C e , die x a i p [ p a x § a XfeY^iv fexei] • • . 54 Cronert showed that many of the gnomai attributed to Epicharmus could have been easily distributed under the headings of the early lines of this passage; and he took the work, of which he supposed this passage to be the 55 prologue, to be the major source of the gnomai. ^Wilhelm Crbnert, MDie Spriiche des Epicharm,” Hermes (Berlin: Weidmann, 1912), XL.VII, 402-13. ^^See in Diels-Kranz, op. cit., pp. 193ff.; also in Olivieri, op. cit. , p. 109; and in Bernard P. Grenfell and Arthur S. Hunt, Hibeh Papyri, Part I (London: Egyptian Exploration Fund"^ 1906), pp. 13f. ■^Pickard-Cambridge, op. cit. , pp. 247f^. 31 Cronert, in his optimism, proposed a new arrangement of these fragments, regarding nearly all of them authentic. But the important thing is that, like Diels-Kranz, he did not repudiate the fragments in a block as Kaibel had done. The problem of distinguishing the true from the false gnomai remains. But it may be taken as established (still further proof follows in the next chapter) that, at least, some of the gnomai are genuinely Epicharmean in origin. The Clement-fragments. If fragments K 255-57 (DK 56-57) could be shown to be authentic, then they would 56 prove philosophically important, indeed. Unfortunately, 57 these lines are probably spurious. Surely, one must hesitate before affirming their authenticity on the author' ity of Clement. The fact is that it is characteristic of the Christian writers of the second and third centuries to draw their quotations of classical literature and much of their understanding of Greek philosophy from doxographical collections (like those published in Diels* Doxographi Graeci.)5® or anthologies (like that of Stobaeus). ^It is not clear to me what is intended by Kaibel*s reference to these lines as "illi et tenues versiculi" (op. cit., p. 133), and Norwood's judgment that these fragments are "poor” (op. cit., p. 91). 57Wheelwright (op. cit., p. 23) enigmatically sum mons these fragments to shed light on the problem of the Heraclitean Logos, apparently oblivious of their probable inauthent ic it y. 5®Hermann Diels, Doxographi Graeci (Berlin, 1879), I, 76. - - 32 Notwithstanding the apparent immensity of Clement's understanding of classical culture, it is unlikely that he knew Epicharmus except from secondary sources. Even a glance at Clement's writings reveals how profusely he drew upon classical authors in an attempt to document the philosophical relation between Christian and 60 pagan thought. Epicharmus is no exception in this re gard. On fifteen occasions Clement quotes Epicharmus or, at least, alludes to him. Eight of the philosophical pas sages collected in Diels-Kranz are drawn from Clement, but the two or three passages mentioned above especially attract our attention. These passages (K 255-57 CDK 56- 573) are explicitly introduced by Clement as from the Politeia of Epicharmus: o 're xcojrixoC * oacpGC Ttepl 'ToO X&you fev nrfji IIoA.n:etai X§Ye 1 . Now there is something about several of the other quotations from Epicharmus which may help us to establish some notion as to the Politeia reference. Of the ten different places in Clement where lines of Epicharmus’ poetry are quoted, four are followed immediately by references to still other classical authors: Stromata, IV, 167, 2 (K 265 [DK 22]) ■^Johannes Quasten, Patrology (Maryland: West minster, 1962), II, 6. ^^Stahlin lists over 700 passages from the poets alone (Clemens Alexandrinus [Leipzig: J. G. Hinrichs, 1936], IV, pp. 30ff.;. is followed by a quotation from Pindar; V, 100, 6 (K 266 [DK 23J) is followed by a quotation from Pindar; VI, 13, 3 (K 267 [DK 24]) is followed by a quotation from Euripides; VI, 8, 3 (K 298) is followed by a quotation from Euripides. It should be noticed that there is a similarity between the way in which these passages are followed by quotations and the way in which Philo (at the source for fragment K 299 [DK 46]) quotes Epicharmus and then immediately attaches a quotation from Euripides, also. This suggests the use of an anthology. If this were the case, then it was the anthologist, not Clement, who attributed the passage to the Politeia. It appears that Clement was at times interested in matters of authenticity and that he might well have con sidered the question of the authenticity of this passage. In reality, however, he was probably eager to do one thing: cite ancient writers who employed the notion of Logos, and it may not have even mattered much to Clement who they were.^ The probability is not in favor of establishing the authenticity of the passages by virtue of the authority of Clement. __ It will be remembered thatT Apollodorus did not himself say that Chrysogonus wrote the Politeia but, rather, in turn-depended upon Aristoxenus1 statement to that effect, in the__eighth book of his Politikoi. 61-1 am indebted to Prof. R. M. Grant of the Divin ity School at the Univ. of Chicago for these observations. 34 Aristoxenus seems to have been a highly literate 6 2 character and, though most famous for his contribution to musical theory, passed a great many judgments on a variety 6 3 of subjects. There is one matter which detracts somewhat from his authority to pass judgment on the authorship of the Politeia: he seems to have suggested that Plato plagiarized most of the Republic from Protagoras. Accord ing to Diogenes, T}V noXinretav * Ap tcruogevoe (prjai itaaav a x e 6 o v ev to T c npcaaravopot YeYPa-<pOai ’ AvtiXoyi'X-oIc . 6 ^ Now then, to what extent such an absurd judgment tarnishes Aristoxenus* authority as a critic of such matters, I am not sure. The situation is remedied somewhat by Apollodorus * readiness of accepting the authority of Aristoxenus, but we have already seen that Apollodorus himself is not free from blame. There is always the possibility, of course, that in addition to the tradition, perhaps begun by Aristoxenus and accepted by Apollodorus, there was a separate tradition that passed along the true Epicharmean origin of the ^^For Aristoxenus see C. von Jan, "Aristoxenus [7j,M Real-Encyclopadie der Classischen Altertumswis- senschaft, ed. Pauly-Wissowa (Stuttgart: Metzler, 1894— .), II, Col. 1057ff. 63The fragments of Aristoxenus are collected in Carl Muller, Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum (Paris: Firmin Didot, 1848;, II, 269-92. 64xii} 3 7. 35 Politeia and which came to be, finally, the source of 65 Clement’s reference. But, then, what was Epicharmus doing writing a poem about the state? At this stage of our understanding of the matter, it seems best to me to ac knowledge with the editors that there is some evidence that these brief passages are not to be attributed to Epicharmus. Conclusion. With respect to Kaibel’s important hypothesis of a forged physical poem, Carmen Physicum, passing under the name of Epicharmus in the late fifth century B.C., we have seen that, though this hypothesis has exerted a great influence on the evaluation of Epicharmus, it is both ill-founded and unnecessary. Kaibel was, also, in error in rejecting the Gnomai of Axiopistus as a whole. There is good reason to think that many of the maxims derive from Epicharmus himself, though the problem of dis tinguishing the true from the false will continue to plague us. As far as the Clement-fragments are concerned, it would clearly be best to suspend judgment until something further is discovered concerning either the trustworthiness 65otherwise, why was the pseudo-epicharmean author ship not known also to Clement’s anthologist? 66See further, Eduard Zeller, A History of Greek Philosophy from the Earliest Period to the Time of Socrates, trans. S. F. Alleyne (London: Longmans, Green, and Co. , 1881), I, 532, n. 2. of Aristoxenus or Clement's source or Clement’s critical investigations themselves. None of this is, of course, very likely, and we should probably be content to continue to regard these two most important Clement-fragments as spurious. Still, again, it must be remembered that, even if forged, there must have been some motivation for at tributing the Politeia to Epicharmus. Kaibel has made important contributions to the world of classical scholarship. I feel, however, that his classification of the Pseudepicharmea has misled Pre- Socratic scholarship with respect to the possible importance of Epicharmus. CHAPTER IV THE PLATONIC TESTIMONY Plato’s estimation of Epicharnms. There are three obvious, overlapping reasons why the Platonic testi mony concerning Epichamus is important: authority, chronology,^" and an apparent first-hand knowledge. We may consider the Platonic testimony most effectively in terms of a series of references. The first, and for our purposes the most important, is the passage at Theaetetus 152D-E where Plato’s estimation of Epicharmus is suggested: £<jti p.£v yap o u d ln o T '^ o u 6 £ v , a e i Q& xc“ •jcepi ToO'tou Tiav'teQ oi aocpoi xXfjv 33apn,evi6ou oop.<pepfea9o)V, npcoTaY&paC T8 x a i ^HjpdxXeitoc x a i * EjnceSoxAfy;, x a i a:6iv xonyrfSv oi Stxpoi xoif)aecoe fcxa'r&pac. xcoixwetac |t£v ’ Enix<xpp,oC, T pay^S tac 6i “OirnpoC ... This is, to be sure, the most obvious Platonic reference to Epicharmus. While perhaps not evincing any particular passage as authentic (as may be the case in the references iThe earliest mention of Epicharmus is in Plato. ^Plato, Theaetetus, trans. H. N. Fowler (Loeb Classical Library; London: William Heinemann, 1921). 37 38 to be considered subsequently), it is quite relevant and extremely interesting with respect to the question as to the Heraclitean content of Epicharmus’ writings. While a consideration of this matter belongs elsewhere, it should be pointed out, at least, that fragment K 170: 7-18 (DK 2), the authenticity of which (it will be shown) should not be denied and the Heraclitean content of which is most obvious, may be the very passage to which the Platonic statement given above refers. But, what is more to the point, the Theaetetus passage does seem to attest to Plato's first-hand knowledge of the comic poet. It, thus, helps us to establish some general notion as to the relation between the two men--Plato and Epicharmus. Plato's evaluation of the poet is evinced by the refer ence to Homer: Homer is the greatest representative of Tragedy, Epicharmus that of Comedy.5 We should, no doubt, allow that Plato knew the authentic work of Epicharmus (this is largely the thesis of the present chapter), if for no other reason than the Theaetetus reference. The seriousness of this reference to Epicharmus is, however, another question. Claghorn informs us, correctly, that "these attributions are not taken too •^That Epicharmus is cited as a comic poet is taken by Pickard-Cambridge as evidence that Plato knew of no "physical poem" by Epicharmus (op. cit., p. 235) but the fact is overlooked that Plato apparently intended to cite Epicharmus as a poet, which he could have done Irrespective of whatever else Epicharmus might have been. 39 4 seriously by scholars today.” Runciman tends to regard the passage as a joke^ and, in a way, he is right. Only with difficulty can one fail to see the irony in the pas sage. Plato detested the constant appeal of the Greeks to the authority of the poets (led by Homer) for everything from military strategy, to the proper rules for conducting a drinking party, to the geneology of the gods.6 Plato makes fun of this cultural fact by conceding it. Certainly it is true of his treatment of Homer as the father of philosophical schools. The same may be true of his refer ence here to Epicharmus. A slight difficulty does arise, however, when we realize that there seems to have been an estimation of Epicharmus as a legitimate philosopher, as well as a writer, and that Plato may have even consciously reflected some Epicharmean doctrines in his own philos ophy and (more to the point here) that there is little 4Ge orge S. Glaghorn, Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato?s ’Timaeus,1 Martinus Nijhoff (The Hague, 1954), p. 44. On the other hand, Mario Untersteiner, e.g. (The Sophists, trans. Kathleen Freeman [New York: Philosophical Library, 1954], pp. 44f.), turns the reference to Epicharmus into the key which unlocks the question as to the source of the Protagorean doctrine of flux (i.e., Epicharmus passed the doctrine along from Pythagoras). ^W. G. Runciman, Plato’s Later Epistemology (Cam bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1962), pT 137 ^See Timaeus (trans. R. G. Bury [Loeb Classical Library; London: William Heinemann, 1929], 40D-41A) for an excellent example of Plato’s ironic appeal to the authority of the poets. 40 question that Epicharmus’ writings did include some Heraclitean ideas. I cannot help but feel that in Plato’s mind a distinction would have been made in his philosoph ical estimation of Homer and Epicharmus. Epicharmus' poetry seems to have had more in common with that of, say, Xenophanes, Parmenides and Empedocles than with that of 7 Homer and Hesoid. But, be that as it may, we can concede readily the irony of the passage and still point to the g polemical seriousness of the reference as evidence for our point. That is, however seriously the reference to Epicharmus is to be taken, it is, at least, certain that Plato considered it to be appropriate. He knew Epicharmus as well as he knew Homer. Not only is it likely that Plato had read the dramata of Epicharmus, but it is probable that he had seen 9 them performed during his stay in Syracuse. Someone has gone so far as to suggest the possibility that Plato ^Gf. E. R. Dodds: "Plato considered Epicharmus ’the prince of comedy’ . . . perhaps because of the philo sophical element in his poetry" (Plato: Gorgias, a Revised Text with Introduction and Commentary fOxfordi at the Clarendon Press, 1959J, p. 332). Constantin Ritter says that Epicharmus "spater ein Liebling Platons geworden ist” (Platon: Sein Leben, Seine Schriften, Seine Lehre [Munich: BecFJ 1910^ , I~j 33) ; again” , he speaks of Plato’s ^vorliebe fur Aristophanes, fur Epicharmos und Sophron" (p. 177). O Gigante, op. cit., p. 163. 9The dramata of Epicharmus would not have had diffusion at Athens in the flowering of the Aristophanic Comedy (Gigante, ibid., p. 162). 41 himself was responsible for the introduction of the Epicharmean dramata to the Athenians, in view of the state ment of Diogenes, Soxet nXa/ctov xai fa Scxppovoc ToO jjLi{j,oYpacpou (3ip>aa T]p.eXr)|j,eva xp&TToc etc * AQTivac10 (it is, of course, the force of the xai ("also") which leads to the possibility). At any rate, it is instructive to acknowl edge Plato’s esteem of Epicharmus and his probable first-hand knowledge of his writings (though the extent of the relationship between the two men cannot at this time be determined with any authority) . ^ A direct quotation from Epicharmus. We move now to a consideration of a passage which will reinforce the suggestions of the last section and which will help point out some of the deficiencies of the usual reasoning about ^-°Diogenes , op. cit. , III, 18. LlF. M. Cornford says that Epicharmus achieved such fame that in Plato’s time he could be called the "King of Comedy” and cites Theaet. 152E as evidence (The Origin of Attic Comedy, Anchor Book ed. [Garden City: Doubleday and Co., I961J, p . 156). Paul Shorey: "Epicharmus and Sophron, according to tradition and in the opinion of many modern scholars, were Plato's models in mime and satire” (What Plato Said [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953J, pT 8). Eduard Zeller: "In Sicily he came to know and love the mimes of Sophron and the comedies of Epicharmus which may be have developed his talent for caricature" (Outlines of the History of Greek Philosophy, trans. L. R. Palmer L13th ed.; Meridian Books, 1950J, p. 135). The case for Plato’s knowledge of Epicharmus may be strengthened further in view of the references to Epicharmus in other Attic writers (e.g., see the references to Epicharmus, direct and indirect, collected in John Maxwell Edmonds’ The Fragments of Attic Comedy [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1957-61j). 42 the authenticity of the Epicharmean fragments. The passage is to be found at Gorgias 505D-E: 2S2. T ic oSv iiXXoC feefeXe i ; p,f) y&P 'C 01 i'ceX?} y e X 6yov xa/uaXiincome v . KAAA. AGtoC Se o 6 x a v S G v a io QieXGeTv t o v X&yov, T ) Xfeycov xaTct a a o t o v “ n fcrcoxp i v&p.evoC oaoT ^ ; 2S2. " Iva fioi To^'toO ' E & i : i X&PP-ou Y£v‘ I Tc a i » ' ^ ^P° 'co® 660 tlvfipec 3X 8yov, eiC civ ix a v o c y ^ 05^ 1 • ” ■ L2 We have already seen that there is nothing intrinsically improbable about the possibility that Plato had seen or read the dramas of Epicharmus and, thus, that the above quotation should be genuine. But the really important point seems to me not to be that here, by virtue of the authority of Plato, we have established the authenticity of a certain fragment; the important thing is that the author ity of Plato established the authenticity of a passage which has been rendered inauthentic by the standard editors. Kaibel (K 253) thinks that the line belongs to the Carmen Physicum; Diels-Kranz (DK 16) and Olivieri (0 260) refer it to the Gnomologium of Axiopistus. Accord ing to them, the fragment is spurious, as if (1) the testimony of Plato were worthless, or (2) the line could ■^Some texts (e.g., Loeb) conclude the quotation with the word ^Xeyov* The actual line, preserved bv Atheneus, is: T:d xpd toC 66* ftvSpeC £XeYov* &Y^V &.1EO XP^W (VII, 308C; K 253 [DK 16 J). Following Kaibel’s lead (see his critical note on the fragment), I have con cluded the Platonic quotation with the word Y^vwt Aai since it seems clear enough that Plato meant to reproduce the whole line as accurately as possible. -4-3- not be imagined in the mouth of a character.^ Gigante argues that it is just as legitimate to see here absolutely no evidence of a versus fictus. And, further, it would be incredible that Plato would cite a line from the false Epicharmus if he had a knowledge of the true Epicharmus. Of course, it is a matter of fact that the ancient author ities have been shown to be often misinformed. In this particular case, however, there are several considerations which weigh against it. First, the authority involved is that of Plato himself; secondly, Plato’s testimony of Epicharmus seems to be the earliest; thirdly, we are here talking in terms of a direct quotation.^ This particular question can probably never be judged with certainty and it is not impossible that Plato was wrong; but there seems to be evidence in favor of the correctness of Plato's identification and no good evidence against it. Possible allusions in Plato to Epicharmus. In an attempt to document further the thesis that Plato was well ■^Just the opposite of this latter opinion seems to be suggested clearly by the Scholiast on the Platonic pas sage: oottoC o J Etetx<xpM.oC y^Yov£ xonoSloitoioe (G. Chase Green [ed.], Scholia Platonica [Haverfordiae, 1958], p. 165). See Gigante, op. cit., p. 164. l^Athe naeus also (upon whom Kaibel seems to draw with such confidence) in one place (VII, 308G) ascribes the line to o oo<pdC ’ Brcix<xpp.oC, and in another (VIII, 362D) to o 2upaxoaioC no i TycfjS. It remains perfectly enigmatic to me how the standard eds. could have judged this fragment to be spurious. 44 acquainted with Epicharmus1 works, attention should be called to a number of possible allusions in Plato to Epicharmus. In the first of the following two groups of comparisons, I have drawn a comparison between certain Platonic passages and certain Epicharmean passages, the latter of which, in all probability, genuine. a. Epicharmus, fragment K 180: xapxtvoC . . . riv©' ex puGoO ©aXaaatou. Plato, Euthyd. . 297G: . . . xai xapxtv<p Tivi eT&p<p oo<pto*c$ ex eaX&T'rrje dupiYl-^vco. vetocnri, jioi GoxeTv, xaTaxexXeux&Ti. b. Epicharmus, fragment K 101: a 6* 'Aauxta Xapieaaa yuvfr* xa* SwtppoaOvas xXaTiov oixeT. Plato, Charm., 159B: Charmides attempts to define aoacppoaGvn as 'f}auXt6'rr)C. c. Epicharmus, fragment K 168: oiaxep a G&aftoiva, Tota xa x6mv. Plato, Rap., VIII, 563C: &Texvf&£ yap a? are xOvec xa-ta 'tfjv xapoi{itav oiaixep ai Gfeoxoivai YtYVOVTai ... d. Epicharmus, fragment K 78: . . . ouGeic excbv xovT)pdc ouS’ H'zav ^X“v. Plato, Tim. , 86D: xaxdC ji£v y&P ex&v ouGetC . . . e. Epicharmus, fragment K 201: . . . f i f ) Td izapdv e<3 xoieTv . . . Plato, Gorgias, &99C: . . . xaTa t 6 v xaXaiGv \6yov tto xapov eS xoieTv . . . f. Epicharmus, fragment 220: XctXexd T&. xaXd. Plato, Rep. , IV, 435C: . . . Xa^e^ xaXd. In the following comparisons, the authenticity of the Epicharmean passages is not established: 45 g. Epicharmus, fragment K 249: VotJC op?}i xai vo(5C axoGet* T&XXa xco<pd xai TO<pX&. Plato, Phaedo, 65B: . . . T) T& Ye 'toiaO'ca xai oi TEonryual fjixTv &el GpuXoOaiv, o t i oSt: ’ &xo6o|j.ev axpi(3£c ouQfcv o( 5 t £ opE>p,ev. h. Epicharmus, fragment K 269: xaGapov av ardv voOv 2xt)iC, fixav t6 aG[xa xa0ap6c et. Plato, Charm., 157A: &x 6fc -uQv toioC'Uov \6ywv fev Talc, \j/oxaTc aaxppoaGvriv ^YYtYveCT0ai, ?)C |YY‘ evo! J '^v'n^ xai xapoGary; p&Siov ^6t) eivat 'ctjv oyieiav xai 'ufl xetpaXfl xai ttG ilAXco atop-aTi aiopi^eiv. Epicharmus. fragment K 221: &v0a 6feoC, 6v0aO0a xai56c. Plato, Euthyph. . 12A: ^ Xkyv* y&P ^ fevavTtov T 1 o icoifpf?jce5coir]aev o icoifjaac* ". . . Tva ydp 6£oC, &vGa xai ai56c.n j. Epicharmus, fragment K 263: 9va't& XP"?) tov Gvaarbv, oux &0&vaTa tov 0vaTdv (ppoveTv. Plato, Tim. , 90B-C: 'tQ 6£ xept <piXoji&0eiav xai xepi TaC &\T)0etC tppovf]aeiC ecnrooSax&Ti xai TraOTa jidXicrra tSv ao, uoO Y£Yup<vaap.t;v<fl, (ppoveTv p.£v aQ&va'za xai 0eTa . . . I C McDonald distinguished the ’’probable" from the "possible" allusions. I am not aware of his criteria of "probability” here, and I think at times he is guilty of wishful-thinking in his desire to read Epicharmean allusions into Plato. On the other hand, I do not think that one would deny that the above passages represent some possible allusions to Epicharmus. Everyone realizes, of course, that in some l-^John M. S. McDonald, Character-Portraiture in Epicharmus, Sophron, and Plato (Tennessee: University Press of Sewanee, 1931) , pp. I20ff. 46 instances the two authors may have depended upon a common source or, again, even if a saying had originated with Epicharmus it is not necessary that Plato must have been aware of its origin. Still, I would tend to agree with McDonald, that there may be a sort of cumulative prob ability that some of the Platonic passages are, indeed, 1 - 1 echoes of Epicharmus. The report of Diogenes Laertius. It remains to consider the external evidence. Diogenes Laertius, in his Vita Platonis,-^ has recorded several passages from a work by Alcimus in which Alcimus offers several direct quota tions, supposedly from Epicharmus, as evidence of Plato’s philosophical indebtedness to the Syracusan Master. These quotations have come to be fragments K 170-73 (DK 1-5). The motivation of Alcimus’ work and the authenticity of the fragments are problems to be dealt with in the next chapter. However, on the supposition, which will be re ported in the next chapter, that the fragments are probably genuine, it would be relevant to consider Alcimus* work (through Diogenes) as external evidence for Plato’s knowl edge of Epicharmus. There is a sense in which for this 16Ibid., p. 128. l^Still others (but less likely, I think) may be found in McDonald (ibid., pp. 120ff.). ■*-®Diogenes, op. cit. , III, 9ff. 47 purpose the question of the authenticity of the fragments is neither here nor there; what is important is that there was an ancient tradition, reported by Diogenes, that Plato had "borrowed" from Epicharmus. This may not be a par ticularly fruitful pursuit since (as we shall see in the next chapter) the evidence may rest ultimately on no more than the report of a student of Plato (Amyntas) which upon being received by Alcimus aroused him to document what he understood to be Plato’s debt to Epicharmus by comparing Platonic doctrines with Epicharmean passages. At any rate, let us point out that Alcimus offers fragment K 170 (DK 1-2) as evidence that Plato’s contrast of the sensible world of changing things with the world of immutable and intelligible realities was anticipated by Epicharmus and, not only that, but that Plato had actually taken it (in one way or another) from Epicharmus. Further, fragment K 171 (DK 3) is offered as evidence that Plato took his notion of the independent, absolute, archetypal Idea from Epicharmus. And still other i^The proper interpretation of this fragment (K 170 [DK 1-2J is a matter of dispute. While it seems most obviously to reflect the Heraclitean flux-theory, it has also been taken as an allusion to the Hesiodic theogony (Werner Jaeger, The Theology of the Early Greek Phil osophers , trans. Edward S. Robinson |_0xford: at the Clarendon Press, 1960J, p. 55) to the Eleatics (Karl Reinhardt, Parmenides und die Geschichte der Griechischen Philosophie LBonn: Cohen, 1916J, pp. 118ff.) , to the first Pythagoreanism (Augusto Rostagni, II Verbo di Pitagora [Turin: Fratelli Bocca, 1924J, pp” 24ff.). 48 similarities are drawn in support of the idea that Plato was indebted to Epicharmus. Whatever is decided about all of this as external evidence, it does remain a fact that Diogenes said that Plato xoXXa. xal 'map* * BiciX&PM«oo to(5 xoopxoS ioaroio(5 xpoaco(p6Xr)*tai t& xXeTa'ca p,e/raYP&'lfa£ • • *20 Finally, concerning the external evidence for Plato’s knowledge of the poets (including Epicharmus) Brownson says: . . . it is of extremely slight importance, first, because it is meager and rests upon poor authority, and second, because the internal evidence is so en tirely adequate that it could hardly be strengthened by the fullest and most trustworthy information from other sources.21 Conclusion. First, it seems to me that there is ample evidence that Plato was well-acquainted with the work of Epicharmus. Though the external evidence is question able, the references at Theaet. 152E and Gorgias 505E seem conclusive. And this, in turn, makes it possible (if not probable) that still other passages may be taken as echoes of Epicharmus. Secondly, on the authority of Plato, fragment K 253 (DK 16) is certainly authentic and, thus, there was something wrong with the manner in which the 20Diogenes, op. cit., III, 9. 21-Carleton Lewis Brownson, Plato’s Studies and Criticisms of the Poets (Boston: Gorham Press, 1920), p. 5. In his subsequent analysis of the internal evidence, Epi charmus figures only briefly on pp. 35-36 where Brownson agrees that traditions which make Plato well-acquainted with Epicharmus are confirmed by the Theaetetus-reference. 49 editors (both ancient and modern) went about establishing the authenticity of the fragments since this one they clearly judged spurious. Surely, it is appropriate to suggest in conclusion that there must have been some motivation behind the ancient tradition according to which Plato always slept with a copy of Epicharmus under his pillow. ^^Diogenes , op. cit., III, 18 (though it is pos sible to interpret the pillow-remark as referring to Sophron rather than Epicharmus). CHAPTER V DIELS-KRANZ AND THE ALCIMUS-FRAGMENTS Diels-Kranz and Kaibel. It may be judged (as we have emphasized already in the Introduction) that the general indifference towards the fragments of Epicharmus on the part of Pre-Socratic scholarship may be attributed specifically to the Diels-Kranz edition. Of the three hundred and two fragments contained in the Kaibel edition, Diels sifted out a collection of sixty-five for his "philosophical” edition.^- The fragments of the Diels-Kranz edition are organized in terms of the same groups as in the Kaibel edition (reflecting the original classification provided by Apollodorus) but with two important exceptions. In the Diels-Kranz edition, there is no classification of fragments in terms of a supposed physical poem, such as Kaibel’s Carmen Physicum. Instead, we have a series of fragments (DK 47-54) under the heading EPICHARMUS ENNI, with the explanatory note, "Kaibel . . . und Leo . . . nehmen (nach Wilamowitz) als Vorlage des Ennius ein -*-The introductory discussion with respect to the authenticity of the fragments is to be found only in the later eds. 50 51 pseudepicharmisch.es Gedicht uepi (poaetac an."^ This brings us to the second and most important innovation of the Diels-Kranz edition: its treatment of fragments DK 1-7 (K 170-73, 254, 78), a group of fragments collected under the label EK TS2N AAKIMOY IIPOS AMYNTAN ABrA. It is to be remembered that Diels-Kranz rejected Kaibel*s notion of a forged physical poem and suggesjted the pos sibility that some of the sayings included in the Gnomai (which, according to Kaibel, were to be regarded as clearly spurious) may be "very old" (and thus authentic?). This tended to move the fragments into a more favorable light from the standpoint of the question of authenticity. It is almost ironical, however, that they then proceeded to cast doubt upon the status of fragments DK 1-5 (K 170-73), a most important series of fragments and which were never questioned by KaibelI Certainly, of all the fragments attributed to Epicharmus, these are the best known and philosophically the most consequential. We must, then, look at these fragments carefully. The problems of fragments DK 6-7 (K 254, 78) are Diels, op. cit. , p. 206, n. on line 2. Diels- Kranz, rejecting the hypothesis of a physical poem, indicates that the Gnomai of Axiopistus (DK 8-46) was the source of Ennius’ work (DK 47-54) and that the relation of the Gnomai to Euripides is unclear. Thus, many of the fragments listed under the Carmen Physicum in Kaibel’s ed. are included by Diels-Kranz under the Gnomai of Axiopistus. 52 such as require separate treatment. We will consider, first, fragments DK 1-5 (K 170-73) and then DK 6-7 (K 254, 78) . Diels-Kranz on fragments 1-5. That the Diels-Kranz position regarding fragments DK 1-5 (K 170-73) is actually a mediating one is made clear by the words with which these fragments are introduced: "Echtheit nicht ganz sicher, besonders bei 3, 6, 7.” Generally, fragments DK 1-5 appear free from objection with respect to content, form, style, and language. There is a mild suggestion in Diels-Kranz that the concern of fragments DK 1 and 2 with movement and alteration, problems characteristically Heraclitean and Eleatic, might reflect their authenticity; still again, fragment DK 4 reminds us of the £ovoC X&yoC of Heraclitus. The important thing here is that Diels and Kranz seem to be agreeable to the notion that, while there may be no certain evidence as to the authenticity of these passages, there is nothing intrinsically impossible about it (the "positive" evidence cannot be provided, of course, until Diogenes’ account of the origin and intended use of these fragments is cleared up). Fragment DK 3, however, is another matter. While it seems to be authentic with respect to language, Diels- Kranz judged that it should be placed in the fourth century, in view of its catechetical form and content. 53 Fragment 3, then, becomes the concern of the moment. According to Diels-Kranz the parallelism between certain elements of the fragment and Apology 27B5 is sufficient evidence to lead us to believe that it was inserted by Dionysus into the plays of Epicharmus, which Dionysus had produced for Plato’s benefit. Vermutlich gehort dies Fr., das Platos Apologie zu benutzen scheint . . . zu den Einlagen, die Dionysios bei den wohl zu Ehren Platons veranstalteten Neuauffuhrungen epicharmischer Stiicke scherzhafter Weise zufiigte . . . Further, the Diels-Kranz judgment is strengthened con siderably by an obvious argumentum ex silentio. Gan we believe that Plato (who was not in the habit of concealing such debts ) would have attempted to conceal such an indebtedness,^ especially if the work of Epicharmus was well-known in Athens?^ ^Trans. H. N. Fowler (Loeb Classical Library; London: William Heinemann, 1919). For Dionysius’ acquaintance with the works of Epicharmus, see Pickard- Cambridge, op. cit., p. 193. 4 • Diels-Kranz, op. cit., p. 193. ^Cf. the attribution of his theories to Socrates, his reverence for Parmenides, etc. ^Tf. . . everything in a popular Platonic dialogue is present [in fr. 3j, the Good and the individual par ticipator therein, the examples from handicraft, the acquiescent listener. Are we then to believe that the early Platonic manner flourished before Socrates himself was born?” (Norwood, op. cit., p. 88). ^Ibid., p . 89. 54 Now then, concerning the Diels-Kranz reference to the T T Katechismusfortn" of this fragment, I utterly fail to see why this fragment is any more or less catechetical than fragment DK 1, for example. As for the idea that Dionysius interpolated the passage with Apology 27B in mind, let us make the comparison for ourselves. It is true that there is a linguistic affinity between the two passages: both TtpaYVLtt and aftVrjaiC recur in both passages. It might be a little forced, however, to draw the Diels-Kranz conclusion on the basis of this. The example of aCVpaiC is an obvious one for the purposes of.both passages. And, in cidentally, the purpose or point of each passage is different: the Epicharmus passage is concerned to show that art is something different from the artist and a man becomes an artist, for example, only insofar as he learns art (and so it is with the good), whereas the Plato passage is concerned to show that you cannot have an activity without a subject to practice it. More important, perhaps, is the observation that even if we were to agree that everything in a popular Platonic dialogue is present in the fragment it would not follow necessarily that it must be judged to be post-Platonic.® The suggestion to the ®The observation being made here relative to frag ment DK 3 (vis. its resemblance to the parodies of Platonic dialogue suggests its spuriousness) could be applied loosely to other fragments. But it must be acknowledged that the association between philos. ideas and dialogue 55 contrary simply begs the question. As far as Plato’s silence on the subject of his relation to Epicharmus is concerned, we have emphasized earlier, at length, that he does often consciously reflect Epicharmus in his writings. Such considerations hardly settle the matter once and for all. But we most remember that the positive evidence has yet to be given and that our present concern here is only to show that the Diels-Kranz (and Norwood) judgment is not foolproof.^ I am judging, then, that the hesitation of Diels and Kranz to come out clearly in favor of the authenticity of these important fragments, and especially their reserves about fragments DK 3, 6, and 7 (it will be recalled that we are reserving DK 6 and 7 for special consideration later) have caused many students of Pre-Socratic studies to stumble over Epicharmus. I think that the status of fragment DK 3 is no more problematic than that of the others of the series DK 1-5. And the hesitation over these fragments as a group reflects, perhaps, the ambiguity of the work of Alcimus; and thus probably goes back, at least, to Epicharmus’ play Aoyo<; xai AoytVa which, at least, reflected a personification of two Reasons (Sinclair, op. cit., p. 341). 9 In the original ed. of his work, Pickard-Cambridge was sympathetic to the genuiness of the fragment. Webster, however, editing Pickard-Cambridge, reversed the position and suggested that the fragment was probably not authentic, basing his opinion on certain phrases which would be anach ronisms for Epicharmus (e.g., ycaQ* aoxo £p. 253j) but I think that such evidence is relevant only if everything else is considered equal. 56 we will attempt shortly to settle, once and for all, the status of this group of fragments. DiogenesT report of fragments DK 1-5. At this point it will be necessary to review the contexts in Diogenes Laertius^0 in which these fragments are reported. ~ [Plato] was much assisted by Epicharmus the comic poet, having transcribed a great many things from him, as Alcimus says in his essays to Amyntas, of which there are four. In the first one he says: •'It is clear that Plato expressed many of the words of Epicharmus. Consider. Plato says that a sensible ob ject is that which never remains for a moment the same either with respect to quality or quantity, but is always moving and changing (since if one takes away number from things, they no longer are equal or deter minate nor have they quantity or quality). These are the things which may be characterized as always becom ing, but never attaining unto being. But the intelligible object Is that from which nothing is taken away and to which nothing is added. This is the nature of eternal things, which may be characterized as always alike and the same. And surely Epicharmus has expressed himself clearly concerning sensible and in telligible objects: [Fragments DK 1-2 (K 170) followj. Again, Alcimus makes this statement: "The wise say that there are some things which the soul perceives through the body, such as seeing and hearing and some things which it apprehends through itself without the aid of the body. Therefore, of existing things some are sensible and some are intelligible. For this reason Plato said that if we want to see in one view the principles of the universe it is necessary first to distinguish the Ideas themselves, such as Likeness, Unity, Plurality, Magnitude, Rest, and Motion; second, we must assume the reality of Beauty, Goodness, Justice, and such things as these, each one existing in and for itself; third, it is necessary to see how the Ideas are related to other things, as are 1-Opiogenes , op. cit. , III, 9ff. 57 Knowledge, Magnitude, or Ownership (remembering that the things given to us in sense-experience have the same name as those other things since they partake of them). Each one of the Ideas is eternal, intelligible, and unchangeable. For this reason he says that the Ideas stand in nature like archetypes, and that other things resemble these since they are copies of them. Now then, concerning the Good and the Ideas, Epicharmus says this: ^Fragment DK 3 (K 171) follows]. MPlato in his doctrine of the Ideas says: Since there is memory, the Ideas exist in things because memory is of something stable and permanent, and nothing is per manent except the Ideas. 'For how could animals have been preserved,' he asks, 'unless they were possessed of the Idea and had been endowed by nature with intel ligence for that purpose? In reality, they do recall similarities and recognize what is for them the appro priate subsistence, which shows, therefore, that in all animals there is a natural discernment of what is similar. And thus, further, they perceive others of their kind.' How, then, does Epicharmus put the mat ter? [Fragments DK 4-5 (K 172-73) followj. These and other such instances Alcimus establishes through his four books, pointing out the assistance which Plato derived from Epicharmus„ Wilamowitz and Covotti on fragments DK 1-5. The problematic nature of Alcimus' work comes into focus especially in the treatment of these fragments by Wilamowitz and Covotti, both of whom denied altogether the genuineness of the fragments. For the former, whoever wrote the passages certainly must have possessed a full knowledge of Plato's theory of the Forms and, thus, Alcimus was surely wrong in attributing them to Epicharmus. It is interesting to note, however, how this position unwittingly strengthens the position of those who •L^Platon (Berlin: Weidmann, 1920), II, 28, n. 2. 58 want to maintain the opposite: if there is reason to think that these fragments might be authentic then they do, indeed (on Wilamowitz’s own authority), establish the point which Alcimus wanted to make all along, namely, Plato’s indebtedness to EpicharmusI But, surely, at this point the burden of proof is upon those wanting to defend the authen ticity of the fragments. Pickard-Cambridge reacted to such a thesis. In the first place, the passages are not that 10 Platonic. Moreover, that the passages are, indeed, from the comedies of Epicharmus is, "if not proved, at least strongly suggested" by these facts: Cl) the passages are in dialogue; (2) one can detect in them an element of parody; (3) Diogenes calls the author "Epicharmus the comic poet”; (4) the anonymous commentator on the Theaetetus (152E) says that "he made fun of" (extopttibTiaev) the same notion that is expressed in the long passage quoted by Alcimus. I-5 The Alcimus passages were, also, rejected in a 12p. 247. Norwood: "Alcimus, very stupid or very ignorant of philosophy or very disingenuous, or all three extracted from Epicharmus passages philosophical indeed, but mostly not Platonic: the single Platonic passage was one of those inserted facetiously by Dionysius fit will be remembered that Norwood supports the Diels-Kranz Dionysius - interpolation idea]. Except at this last point, Alcimus has no connexion at all with spurious Epicharmean work" (p. 91). ^Pickard-Cambridge, op. cit. , pp. 247-48. This last point seems to me to be especially evidential. The commentator’s statement may be found in Diels-Kranz (op. cit., p. 197). 59 block by Govotti.^ Covotti bad supposed that the echoes of Epicharmus in Euripides are to be explained in terms of an Epicharmean-forger drawing upon Euripides. Likewise, he supposes that the Theaetetus is the source of fragments DK 1-3 and that the Timaeus is the source of fragments DK 4-5. He takes the motivation for the forgeries to be as follows: Alcimus was eager to prove Plato's lack of originality to Amyntas, the Platonic disciple, and thus forged the passages under the guidance of the dialogues. To this hypothesis Zeller-Mondolfo responded that the birth of a forgery in the service of a controversy can 1 r hardly be that imagined by Covotti. Further, such a position forces the parallelisms and turns upside down the critical use of the testimony of Plato at Theaetetus 152E and draws from his explicit statement not the conclusion that, then, there should be in Epicharmus some passage similar in content to fragment DK 2, but the inverse, that the forger ought to have thus found in Plato the suggestion *i /r for the invention of the Epicharmean flux. The problem of Alcimus. We see, therefore, that a great deal of the trouble revolving around fragments 1-^See in Gigante, op. cit., p. 170. •^La Filosofia dei Greci (Florence, 1938), I, 319ff. 16Ibid., p. 320. 60 DK 1-5 (K 170-73) springs from the ambiguity of who Alcimus was and what he was doing. The usual identification of 17 Alcimus is summarized in Pickard-Cambridge: he was the Sicilian rhetorician and historian, the pupil of Stilpo, he lived about the end of the fourth and beginning of the third centuries B.C., and he was addressing (or contro verting) Amyntas of Hereacleia, a mathematician and pupil of Plato.18 Gigante, however, in a fairly recent and certainly scholarly analysis of this whole matter,^ has, following the lead of Schwartz^9 and Stemplinger,^ refused to identify Alcimus the historian (the Alcimus of DK 1-5) 22 with Alcimus the rhetorician, and suggests that the i^E.g., Diels-Kranz, op. cit., p. 193; Olivieri, op. cit., p. 82. ■^Pickard-Cambridge, op. cit., p. 247. 19The real concern of Gigante’s article is the nature and authenticity of fragments DK 1-6. The question as to who and what was Alcimus is raised specifically on pp. 166ff. Schwartz. ’’ Alcimus [18J,” Realencyclopadie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaf t, e3"I Pauly-Wissowa (Stuttgart: Metzler, 1894--) , col. I543f. 21 Eduard Stemplinger, Das Plagiat in der Griechischen Litteratur (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1912), p. 26. 22For ancient references to Alcimus (the historian and/or rhetorician), in addition to those contained in the quoted passages from Diogenes (above) see: Diogenes, II, 114; Athenaeus, VII, 322A; X, 441A, B. A few remains of 61 author of these passages was a younger contemporary of 23 ^ # Plato. But the question who this Alcimus was2^ is not nearly so crucial as the question of his purpose. And it seems that the motivation behind the report of these frag ments cannot properly be understood to be polemical or hostile. We have already seen that Covotti explained the fragments as resulting from Alcimus wanting to demonstrate to the Platonic Amyntas Plato's lack of originality and, thus, forging Epicharmus under the guidance of the dialogues. Freeman says that the fragments were written "to prove the absurd theory that Plato plagiarized from Epicharmus."^5 Norwood speaks of Alcimus getting up his case "against" Plato. But a polemical purpose could only suggest that, from Alcimus' point of view, Plato had the writings of Alcimus the historian are collected in Muller (op. cit., IV, 296ff.). ^According to Schwartz, Alcimus should be con sidered the most ancient representative of the movement which sought to bring back western Greek culture to the mother country (see Schwartz, op. cit., col. 1543). ^The identification of Amyntas is even less impor tant, except for the fact, not disputed, that he was a disciple of Plato. See Gigante (op. cit., p. 167) for a complete bibliography on Amyntas. ^5Freeman, op. cit., p. 134. Further (p. 133), she says that the passages are either non-Platonic or forged. Unlike Covotti she is not clear that she means forged by Alcimus himself; if not by Alcimus, then there is no in dication at all as to their origin. 2 6 Norwood, op. cit., p. 91 (though he does accept the fragments as genuine, with the exception of DK 3). 62 failed to be cognizant of the merits of the great comedy writer or else he had failed to acknowledge it (especially in view of its affinities with his own). But in either case the interpretation seems hardly compatible with the acknowledged estimation of Epicharmus on the part of Plato, his deliberate and documented use of Epicharmean passages, and (if it is, indeed, true) his attempted popularization 27 of Epicharmus* comedies. Nor are such hostile purposes evident from Diogenes1 statements about Alcimus* report: xai TaOta^iJiev xat^Ta 'toiatfTa 6ta 'tGv 're'TTap&v £i(3?umv 'TCapaarpYVucriv o wA\xiy,oc 7capaar)iJiatvcoy thv ExtXappou IPurtcovi rcepiyi vojjLevrjv &q>e\eiav.2° 29 Rather, I think we must agree that the work of Alcimus is to be seen as an honest attempt to document what he per ceived to be the philosophical indebtedness of Plato to Epicharmus (we must remind ourselves that Plato's actual philosophical relation to Epicharmus may be quite another matter) and, thus, not polemical in origin.^® Amyntas, who heard the lectures of Plato, probably supplied Alcimus with such references or indications as to enable Alcimus to 2^It becomes increasingly evident how strongly the fact of Plato's knowledge of Epicharmus weighs upon the question of the status of the fragments attributed to him. 28III, 17. 2^Gigante, op. cit., pp. 171f. -^In view of Diogenes* statement that the work IIpo^ Ap,uvtaV consisted of four books, we may imagine to what extent the documentation ran. 63 document the philosophical or cultural debt which the great Athenian owed to the great Syracusan and which Plato would have been obliged to state that he derived from EpicharmusGigante concludes: Alcimo amplib certamente la documentazione, per amore del suo grande conterraneo, ne ebbe intento di sminuire 1' originalita del filosofo quanto, invece, di segnare le consonanze spirituali fra i due grandi maestri del vivere umano sotto 1’ etichetta dell’ axp&Aeia . . ,52 The motivation behind Alcimus' work was probably the anxiety to demonstrate the contribution of the genius of his country to the education of the Athenian genius. One might get the feeling, however, that Gigante becomes somewhat carried away by the force of his own hypothesis. Surely, it is not necessary to believe that Plato was actually "indebted" to Epicharmus (however meritorious that notion may be) in order to account for the fragments. All that is necessary is that Alcimus was himself convinced of this idea--and it seems to me clear that he was. With this last qualification, this seems to me to be a sound and adequate explanation of Alcimus' work.^ I think that these fragments should be admitted 5^-Gigante, op. cit., p. 171. 3^Ibid. 33It may, indeed, be that this is the first time that the nature of these fragments has been understood and adequately explained, as Gigante says (ibid., p. 169). as authentic. It should be observed how the discussion finally effects the judgment concerning fragment DK 3. It will be recalled that Webster stumbled over the troubles of this fragment and judged that the difficulty in accept ing it throws doubt on the others (even though he himself had just announced on the previous page that each of the quotations must be considered on its own merits). To which we now reply that if we become satisfied that the others are probably genuine, we can hardly question frag ment DK 3. Furthermore, he concluded that fragment DK 3 could not have been forged by Alcimus since it did not illustrate his point, and thus it belonged to fourth century comedy, with the result that Alcimus was utterly unable to distinguish between Epicharmus and later Dorian comedy. But if the above analysis of the work of Alcimus is at all correct, then such a conclusion is surely incredible . Fragments DK 6 and 7. It remains, finally, to estimate the significance of fragments DK 6 and 7 (K 254, 78). Fragment DK 6 has not even the authority of Alcimus (something, it seems, not understood by Diels-Kranz-5^). ^Though Kaibel (op. cit. , p. 138) had clearly distinguished it from the passages derived from Alcimus. Diogenes concluded the selections from Alcimus before pro ceeding to the presentation of DK 6 (III, 17). 65 It has been regarded by virtually everyone as spurious, and this judgment will be defended here, also. On the other hand, there is an important way in which the fragment lends itself as further relevant information with respect to the authenticity of the Alcimus-fragments and, thus, we will not allow it to go completely unexamined. Whatever Diogenes must have thought about it (he introduces the quotation with these words: OTi 6* ou6* a6'to£ * f)Yv6£l ‘ TT'Pjv autoO ao<ptav, p,a0elv fccrri xax 'roG'Oov fcv Tov £T)Xd)oovTa atpop.av'ueGe'uai35), it seems too much for us not to believe that the lines of DK 6 were 3 6 written with Plato clearly in mind. This, however, has not been the usual interpretation. Before developing it, somewhat, let us indicate that Kaibel, for instance, believed that the passage marked the conclusion to the 7 7 Z Q 7 Q Carmen Physicum. Others (Cronert, Olivieri, and Pickard-Cambridge^®) connected the lines with the passage 35III, 17. - ^ D i o g e n e s could not have thought that the lines were written by Epicharmus with Plato in mind for chrono logical reasons. On the other hand, that Diogenes included the lines here can lead us to believe that they, at least, suggested Plato. Gigante (op. cit., p. 172) speaks of the obvious interpretation (i.e., that the lines refer to Plato) referred to in Diogenes, but I do not think that this can be drawn so explicitly from what Diogenes says. 370p. cit., p. 135. 380p. cit., p. 407. 39pp. cit., pp. 108ff. 400p. cit., p. 245. contained in the Hibeh Papyri (quoted above) which was taken to be a prologue to Axiopistus’ collection. Though the temptation to see the appropriateness of affixing DK 6 to this passage is difficult to resist, one can feel the force of Gigante's insistence that this fragment, trans mitted by Diogenes along with the Alcimus-quotations, and all in the context of his Vita Platonis, should not necessarily be seen to originate in a different order of ideas. It is taken to be a forgery, originating in the Platonic circle in support of the documentations of 41 Alcimus. Concerning Diels-Kranz's belief that the pas sage was forged by Axiopistus in an allusion to Euripides who would have re-written Epicharmus in iambic trimeter (and, indeed, had already re-written the Epicharmean YVSptu, originally set to trocaic tetrameter), it must be answered that 'JcepidCaaC in the statement x a i \a(3&v t i c aunra TteptSflaaC t o {xlnrpov o vOv ~ 2xei, eijxa 6o0c xa i 7cop<pupo0v, X&yoiai xoixtXaC xaXoTC . . . does not suggest that someone will re-write the works in another meter, so much as it suggests that they will be stripped of meter altogether. Now then, especially in view of the accumulating evidence to whom, more than Plato, ^Gigante, op. cit., p. 173. It is suggested that the passage was probably not derived from Alcimus himself in view of the impersonal way in which it was introduced by Diogenes, although it is not impossible (p. 173). 67 42 could the allusion be appropriate? Concerning fragment DK 7, it remains only to say that it is enigmatic why Diels-Kranz regarded its authen ticity to be questionable and, even more so, why it is included with the Alcimus-fragments. We know on the authority of Eustratius^^ that the lines come from the Epicharmean "HpaxArj^ o itapa which probably had to do with Heracles’ bout with the centaurs before he was able to open the cask of old wine which had been intrusted to Pholos by Dionysus and which was to remain sealed until the advent of HeraclesThe lines were probably spoken by Heracles with respect to his labors. Kaibel (K 78) and Olivieri (0 43) regard the lines as authentic. Diels-Kranz treat this fragment in exactly the same manner as DK 3: it was inserted from the Apology into the Epicharmean plays to amuse Plato. But their mistake here is even more evident than in the case of DK 3. Conclusion. Now let us attempt to summarize and express as clearly as possible what we would judge to be the present status of these fragments from the standpoint of their authenticity. 4^Ibid. , p. 174. Gigante rambles on further about a proposed emendation to the text of the fragment, but it has no real bearing on the problems at hand. 4^See Pickard-Cambridge, op. cit. , p. -2-63, n. 6. 44Ibid., pp. 263f. 68 Because of the obvious philosophical nature of the fragments, and because most students are acquainted with them through the Diels-Kranz edition, and because, there fore, we feel that this edition of these fragments has had an effect on students of Pre-Socratic philosophy, we have allowed the present chapter to revolve mainly in terms of Diels-Kranz. Actually, with the exception of fragment DK 3 (K 171), they seemed sympathetic enough to the pos sibility that DK 1-5 could be, indeed, genuine if there were only better positive evidence. With respect to fragment DK 3, we satisfied ourselves that it is intrin sically no more problematic than are the others. Aside from the consideration of the nature of Alcimus and his work, we showed that the theses of Wilamowitz and Covotti were in themselves not particularly convincing. We believe that the analysis of Alcimus* work re-inforced that judgment and, furthermore, provided the necessary explanation that seemed to be demanded by Diels-Kranz before the fragments could be admitted. Fragment DK 6 (K 254) is in all likelihood forged but even then adds, possibly, some support to the authenticity of the others. We must constantly remind ourselves that such matters are never settled conclusively. But at the present it is evident that fragments DK 1-5 (K 170-73) may safely be regarded as genuine and that the work of philosophical 69 analysis of these fragments should begin more seriously. CHAPTER VI CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING AUTHENTICITY Before proceeding further it would be well for us to pause long enough to consider the distance we have come. We established at the very beginning that a proper expo sition of the fragments must be preceded by a critical analysis of their authenticity. We have concluded such an analysis at this point and, indeed, regard that work as the main contribution of this dissertation. The conclu sions concerning the authenticity of the various "blocks" of fragments have already been given at the appropriate places. Nevertheless, at this point we should provide ourselves a summary of the results of the study thus far. The most relevant of the philosophical fragments have descended to us in groups. Kaibel’s systematization of the Pseudepicharmea has stood for many years. KaibelTs hypothesis of the poem Carmen Physicum, forged under the name of Epicharmus during the late fifth century B.C., caused several fragments to become regarded by many students as spurious. But, upon close analysis, the hypothesis proves to be ill-founded and unnecessary, with the result that many of these fragments may be authentic 70 71 after all. The Gnomai of Axiopistus does, no doubt, contain some spurious material, but it is a mistake to 1 reject in a block the fragments belonging to this work. Some of these fragments descend to us as from Epicharmus on the authority of early writers (such as Aristotle, Xenophon, and Plato), and some seem to be directed to Pre- Socratic ideas. While it is not always possible to distinguish with certainty the true from the false Epicharmean maxims, the probability is, nevertheless, in favor of the authenticity of some of these fragments. The two most important fragments deriving from Clement of Alexandria and attributed by him to the Politeia as Epicharmean (judged to be pseudepicharmean by Kaibel on the authority of Apollodorus) are probably not authentic. On this point we shouTcT not accept the authority of Clement (who may have received his information second hand). On the other hand, the ultimate source for the attribution of the Politeia to Chrysogonus goes back to Aristoxenus whose authority in such matters is, at least, suspect. The most important fragments are those which derive from Alcimus1 work To Amyntas. These fragments, accepted by Kaibel, were questioned by Diels-Kranz with respect to their authen ticity. They should be admitted, however, as authentic. When Alcimus’ non-polemical motivation in recording these quotations (as evidence that Plato was indebted 72 philosophically to Epicharmus) is correctly understood, the reasonableness of their genuineness becomes more apparent. Of all the ancient testimonia concerning Epicharmus the most important is that of Plato. Plato had a high estimation of Epicharmus, knew his works, on one occasion quotes Epicharmus, and in several places appears to allude to him. Platofs quotation of Epicharmus, surely, insures its authenticity, yet the standard editors judged this fragment to be spurious. Here is further evidence that there has been something fundamentally wrong with the editors1 canons. For many years there has been an undercurrent of scholarship (especially that of Gomperz, Cronert, Pickard- Gambridge, and Gigante) which has held the conclusions of the standard editors up to question. The trouble is that the whole subject is both obscure and difficult, with the result that the standard editors prevailed. But, having more or less reversed the decision with respect to the question of authenticity, we have now opened the way for a fruitful examination of the fragments. CHAPTER VII TEXT AND TRANSLATION OF THE FRAGMENTS IN DIELS-KRANZ I have elected to include (for the sake of completeness) the text and translation for the sixty-five fragments contained in the Diels-Kranz edition. The at tention of the present dissertation has been directed throughout to the "philosophical’' fragments of Epicharmus. Not all of the fragments contained in the DieIs-Kranz edition are of obvious philosophical relevance and, as we have seen, even fewer of the more relevant fragments may be judged as authentically Epicharmean. Nevertheless, it is wise to include them all. The Diels-Kranz edition has for many years been considered "das Standardwerk der klassischen Philologie." It includes all the important Pre-Socratic passages and its numbering system for the fragments has been univer sally adopted; in a word, it would seem to be a useless burden to follow any other format. The text of the frag ments is produced exactly, except for very minor changes. I have compared the Diels-Kranz text with that of Kaibel and Olivieri and have decided that the differences are so 73 74 few and so slight that I should not clutter the present translations with them but, rather, simply refer the reader to the other editions. This is not in any way a "critical" edition itself and I have deliberately avoided problems of textual criticism. All textual emendations are indicated with brackets. The secondary sources for the fragments have been indicated, though the reader is referred to the Diels-Kranz edition for further bibliographical informa tion . FRAGMENT 1 (K 170: 1-6; 0 152: 1-6). Diog. Laert., Lives; III, 10: aXk* a e t t o t G eo i 'rcaf^aav x w teX irco v ov^Ttawioxaj Ta6^ &* aei napecrQ' o p o i a 6 i a te^tGSv at>T©v a e t , aXXa X e v e T a i % p a v Xao^ “ icpaTov 0 e G v . itQc; 6 e x a ; pip Y co to *rtvo^ prjB e c o t i TcpaTov po'Xo i. o o x &p* tSpoXe ■rcp&Tov o u G ev j - o u 5 e p a A ta eeu'Teoov^ % , ,,, s * , trOvBe y * a p e c vOv <&6e X eY opec» aXX a e t TaS* A: But the gods were always there and have never yet failed. And such things exist always in the same way and always through the same causes. B: But surely it is said that of the gods first Chaos came to be. A: But how could that be? What was "first" had nothing to come from nor to. B: Was there, then, no "first" thing that came? A: Certainly not, by Zeus I Nor was there a "second" of the things of which we have been speaking just now--but such things always were. 75 FRAGMENT 2 (K 170: 7-18; 0 152: 7-18). Diog. Laert., Lives, III, 11: [at] hot: &pi9[xov t i c xepiacr&v, a\ 5& XfjtC— icot &pTiov, xoT0§fAeiv X?]i ij/Stq>ov 7 1 x a i T&v ^Ttapxouattv Xa(3eTv, T ] 5oxeT x& to I y * 3 codToc e tjie v ; - odx fejitv y^ x a * od8£ (xdv o66* at xoti p,§Tpov xaX vatov 'JtoTefetieiv „ XT)i tiC gTepov iiflxoc tj toO x:p6a0' £ovtoC dicoTajieT v, X*^undpxoi x?)vo t o [i^Tpov; - 06 y&P* - d>6e vOv 8p*n x a l toC dvGpfiwccoc* o p.£v y&P at5ge0% 6 6t ya ixdv <p0tvei, fcv aeTaXXaYtti 6& xdvTSC &vti icftvra tov xp&vov. o 6e jieTaXXdaaei xaT& (pdoiv xofiitox' fev TadTffii H&ve i, gTepov sV t j xa t66* f)6 T ] to O icapegeaTaxdToC, xal to 6” ? ) x&y& ttXXoi xai vdv dXXoi. TeX&0oM.ec, xad0iC ftXXot xoiixox* wotoi xaTTov [auTdv ad] X6yov. ' A: If to an odd number, or to an even one, one were to add a pebble or to take one from those already there, would it seem to you to remain the same? B: To me, indeed not. A: Nor if to a large measure one were to add a length, or to cut off one from what was there, would that length yet remain? B: No. A: Now look at human beings in the same way. For ^one grows and another wastes away--all are in the process of changing all the time. And that which changes by nature and remains never in the same state would be different now from what has changed. And both you and I were different and will be different in the future and never the same, according to the same Logos. 76 FRAGMENT 3 (K 171; 0 153). Diog. Laert., Lives, III, 14: ap / &cmv jg t{5 Xr)ai<; r i npayiia; - TC avu p,ev o6v. - ayGpCOTo^ ouv cn5 Xr)ai£ eaT iv; - ou0a|iGJ£. <j>ep(e) V6w, xi 6* auXrjTac; t i c v T o i#5o x e t; avGpcoTCoi;, ou yap; - itavu y,ev ouv. - oux o§v 6oxetc '6^eiv [xa] x a i ice pi TayaGoO; to p,ev ayaGov -to TCpay|j.[a] e'tp.ev xaG* auG*• otrci? 6e xa si6f)i ixaGcoy 'tfiv(o), aya0oc ^5r) y ty y e T a i. Scntep yap sctt* a^Xrjaiv auXiytac % p.a0a>v rj (Spxtjcri v ^op^rjCTTac ^ ic $ 1 icXoxeuc icXoxav, fj}itav;Y* oj-iotm^ t®v toioutcov o Tt to Xf^ic# oux aoToc e'tr] xa Texva, T exvixoc ya |j.av. A: Is, then, flute-playing a thing? B: Certainly. A: Is, then, flute-playing a man? B: Certainly not. A: Come, let me see. What is a flute-player? What does he seem to you to be? A man or not? B: Certainly. A: Therefore don't you think it would be the same with respect to the Good? The Good is a thing in itself. And anyone who has learned and knows it--only then is he good. For just as the flute-player is one who has learned flute- playing, or the dance one who has learned dancing, or a weaver weaving, or in all such things as these, whatever you please, he himself is not the craft but the craftsman. FRAGMENT 4 (K 172; 0 154a). Diog. Laert., Lives, III, 16: E(5y,aie, to aotpov ecrriv ou xaG* ev jjlovov, aXX* S a a a jte p £?}i, x£,VTa xa} yvwp^v £ x e i. x ai yap to 9f)Xu Tav#aXexTopi6cov^yevoo, ai Xfttc xaTay,a9eTv aTevs^, ou t i x t s ^ Texva £{5v T (a ), aXX eraoi^ei x a i atoieT tyuxav ? x s iv . 77 tto 5e aocpov a <puaie 'tob* o'iSev to e; 3x si pova* xe^iat SeuTai yap auTao'tac uito. Eumaius, Wisdom is not in one thing only, but everything whatsoever that lives has intelligence. For the female breed of chickens, if you will observe closely, does not bear living off-spring, but sits on the eggs and causes them to have life. And nature alone knows how she has this wisdom. For she is taught by herself. FRAGMENT 5 (K 173; 0 154b). Diog. Laert., Lives, III, 16: Gaupacrcov ou5ev ape TaO0* outtw Xeyeiv x ai av5a v e iv au T oiaiv ao'cou£ x a i 5oxeTv xaXG<; 7E 6< f> u xj §tv* x a i yap a xo<ov xuvt xaXXicruov e'ipev cpatve'tai, xai Po}> ovo<; 5 (e) &vau xaXXicrrov, §<; 5e O rjv o t . It is not at all remarkable that we speak in this way, and give pleasure to ourselves, and think ourselves beautiful by nature. For dog appears to be beautiful to dog, and ox to ox, and ass to ass, and even pig to pig. FRAGMENT 6 (K 254; 0 218). Diog. Laert., Lives, III, 17: 5 (e) ey^ 6oxeco - Soxeco yap; crcupa tcrapi toOG*, oti t8 v ep&v pvapa tcox' eaaejnrai Xoywy Touttov . xai Xap&v auTa xepiSuaac 'to [xetpoy & vOv ^ x e i, eipa^Sous x a i^ o p ^ u p o ftv , Xoyoicri^'JtoixiXac xaXotc* 5uaXaXaioTo<; &v to ^ a X X o e u x a X a ia to u c axo9a v e i. As I think--yet do I think? Surely I know that there will be someday a remembrance of these words of mine. And someone will take them and stripping off the meter which they now have will give them a purple robe embroidering it with fine words. And being himself an invincible wrestler he will show up the others as easily overcome. FRAGMENT 7 (K 78; 0 43). Eustrat., Arist. Nic. Eth., Ill, 5, 4: 78 aW a p,av^ ey<:ov avayxai TatfTa^xavTa^xoieco* o’fop.at 6* ou6ei<; excov xovrjpoc 0 0 8* an;av ^x^v. But I do all these things of necessity. I think that "no one is willingly oppressed nor willingly unfortunate." FRAGMENT 8 (K 239; 0 219). Stob., Flor., IV, 31, 30: o y,ev * Eiuxapi-ioc ^ovc 0eot$c e'iva} Xeye 1 avep,ouc5t ybcop, yfiv, pTuov, xOp, aatepac* eyto 5* uxeXapov XQ'na^poue eivai^Geoo^ T apytpiov -njxtv xai t o xpvcnov p.ovouc. Epicharmus says that the gods are wind, water, earth, sun, fire, stars. But I have decided that the only useful gods for us are silver and gold. FRAGMENT 9 (K 245; 0 223). Plut., Cons, ad Apoll., 15, 110A: ouvexpiQp xai SiexplQii x^rtfiXQev o9sv fjAGev xaX iv, yet p.ev e i c y a v , xveOpa 6 avco* t i t®v6s xa^tTCov; oo5e ev . It was gathered and dispersed, and returned again to whence it came: earth to earth, breath upwards. What is hard about this? Nothing at all. FRAGMENT 10 (K 246; 0 228). Clem., Strom., IV, 45: a ya cpoai^ av8pGW t i S v; acrxoi xecpuaia{i.evoi. And what, indeed, is the nature of men? Blown up skins! FRAGMENT 11 (K 247; 0 237). Sext., Adv. Math., I, 273: axoQaveTy [p/p e" ]t ), TsQvaxeiv 6* ovx ep-iv [y a ] diacpepe 1. To die would not be pleasant, but to be dead does not bother me. 79 FRAGMENT 12 (K 249; O 224). Plut., de Fort. A1., II, 3, 336B: vou<; op^i xai voOc axooei* TaXXa xtocpa xai Tu<pXa. Mind sees and mind hears; everything else is deaf and blind. FRAGMENT 13 (K 250; 0 240). Polyb., Hist., 40, 4: vape x a i nep-vaa* cwucrreT v* apopa TauTa Tav cppev&v. Keep sober and remember to be distrustful. These are the joints of the thoughts. FRAGMENT 14 (K 251; O 261). Arist., Metaph., XII, 1086a 16: ^aXercov 6* ex jtp xaXffic exovarcov XeYtiv^xaXSS^ xanT^ EJttxapiiov* ap'Tiux; ire y&P XeXexTai xai euQecoc <palvearai ou xaX&£ £xov. It is hard to speak nobly on an ignoble subject, according to Epicharmus; for as soon as it is said its ignobility appears. FRAGMENT 15 (K 252; O 259). Arist., Metaph., III, 1010a 5: 6 io eixotw c |j,ev Xcyouctiv> ttX T jO rj 6e XeYoycriv* ou'TO Y<tp apixotTs i ]j,aXXov eirceTv “ p cocrm ep ^Extxap^ioc e ic Sevopavrjv. Thus they spoke what was likely but not true. And this criticism is more appropriate than what Epicharmus said of Xenophanes. FRAGMENT 16 (K 253; O 260). Athen., Deipno., VII, 308C: TTa ftpo Toft 6u* av6pe< ^Xcyov, eTc eywv anoxpteo. Whereas before two men spoke, I, being one, am sufficient. 80 FRAGMENT 17 (K 258; 0 — ). Stob., Flor., III, 37, 18: 0 TTp67toe AvOp&Jtoiai daijiiDV AygQoC, ° i^ x a i xaxdc. Character for man consists in his good soul, but for some it may be also evil. FRAGMENT 18 (K 261; 0 234). Boiss., Anecd., I, 125: fctp&diov G vaT otC fcO Tiv e(>aepf)C PioC . The most important traveling-money for mortals is a religious life. FRAGMENT 19 (K 262; 0 233). Arist., Rhat., II, 1394b 13: Avdpi 6* UYiatvetv iipicr'u&v kcruiv, &C y fep-iv doxeT. For a man health is best, as it seems to me, at least. FRAGMENT 20 (K 263; 0 239). Arist., Rhet., II, 1394b 25: 0vaT& XP?) 'tov 0var&v, oux A©AvaTa t6 v ©va^ov <ppoveTv. It is necessary for the mert-al to think mortal thoughts, not immortal thoughts. FRAGMENT 20a (K 147; 0 176). Arist., Rhet., III, 9, 1410b 3: td x a ixev &v 'ufjvcov & y& v ?jv, nrdxa de napa t ^ v o iC &Y&v. At one time I was in their home, and at other times 1 was with them. I FRAGMENT 21 (K 264; 0 245). Cic., ad. Quint., III, 1, 23: YV&9t tc&c oAXau xexpTTCcu . . . Observe how he treats anotherI FRAGMENT 22 (K 265; 0 226). Clem., Strom., IV, 170: e6aeP"n£ vowi 7 te(j>uxcoc ou naQotc *•* ouGev^xaxov xaT0avcov* avco to xveOpa Siaiieve'T xaT* oopavov. One who is pious by nature will experience nothing evil after death. His spirit will live on above in heaven. FRAGMENT 23 (K 266; 0 232). Clem., Strom., V, 101: ou&ev ex<psuYti ^o 0elov* to u to y i vmoxei v % cre Gel* auToc saQ* apG3 v enoTCTTjc» advvare'i 5’ ooGev 0eoc. Nothing escapes the divine: this you know of a surety. He himself is our overseer, and nothing is impossible with God. FRAGMENT 24 (K 267; 0 236). Clem., Strom., VI, 12: c o < £ m :o?a3 v £r)aoov xpovov x^c oa1yo v > outwc GiavooO. Order your thoughts thus: as if you may live a long time, or a short time. FRAGMENT 25 (K 268; 0 250). Clem., Strom., VI, 21: eYY^a 1 ctT a<; Cyo] ©OYaTrjp, ^ a p ia . To stand surety is the daughter of recklessness; loss is the daughter of surety. FRAGMENT 26 (K 269; 0 225). Clem., Strom., VII, 27: xaGapdv av t6v voOv &rcav t6 a&|j.a xaeap69 et. If you have a pure mind, your whole body will be pure. FRAGMENT 27 (K 270; O 244 [l]). Cornut., Thaol., 14: a’ i 'Xi x a £ a T l)i< ; a o cp o v , T&9 v u x t 6 9 fev0u|iT )T £ov. If you seek something wise, reflect during the night. FRAGMENT 28 (K 271; O 244 [2]). Cornut., Theol., 14: 7E&vTa t arcouSaTa vuxtoc [jfLXAov fe^supi oxe-tai. All important matters are discovered better at night. FRAGMENT 29 (K 272; O 257). Gell., Noct. Attic., I, 15, 15: oo Xfcysiv 'cG Y * £aal 6eiv& c, k W a chy^v a 6 6 v a to c . You are not skilful at speaking, but just incapable of keeping quiet. FRAGMENT 30 (K 273; 0 248). [Plato], Axioch., 366C: a 6£ xeip t;&v xeipa vt^ei* 6oC ti xaf XdpoiC ti xa. The hand washes the hand: give something and you might receive something. FRAGMENT 31 (K 274; 0 249). Plut., Popl., 15: 83 ou <piXavOpcocfioc w Y* ’ & g o * > voaov* Xatpeic 6 16ouc. You are not philanthropic, you have a disease--you enjoy giving. FRAGMENT 32 (K 275; 0 251). Plut., de Aud. Poet., 4, 21E: oto't» [to v] tcovtjpov ou% axpTlcrcov o t c Xov a rcovrjpia. Against Cthe] evil [man], evil is not a useless weapon. FRAGMENT 33 (K 284; 0 229). Stob., Flor., (III), 29, 54: a b e p.eXeora cpuaioc a y a S a c ftX eova bcopeT'tat, tpiXoi. Practise, my friends, yields more than good natural ability. FRAGMENT 34 (K 285; 0 235). Stob., Flor., (III), 38, 21: ttic be X&itj y e y e a © a i p/n < p 9 o y o u |ie v o c , ^ tX o t; Q^Xov ti> £ avrjp o u b e v I a 9 * o p/p c p 0 ovou p ,evoc* Toq>Xov 71X61)0* ibtov 'Vic* e<p0ovr)cre b' ou b e e i c . Who would not wish to be envied, friends? It is clear that a man is nobody if he is not envied. Seeing a blind man one pities him--but not one person envies him. FRAGMENT 35 (K 286; O 262). Stob., Flor., (IV), 23, 37: oaxppovoc y u v a iu o c apeTra tov auvoVTa p .'n ab iu eT v [ftvbpa] . The virtue of a prudent woman is not to wrong her husband. FRAGMENT 36 (K 287; O 231). Xenoph., Mem. , II, 1, 20: t;0 v tc&vcov hcoX oOc h v r p T v otdvTra y &0* o l G e o t . The gods sell all good things at the price of hard work. FRAGMENT 37 (K 288; O 252). Xenoph., Mem. , II, 1, 20: S T C o v rjp !:, { if) T a T ia X a x d {iO cto, {if) T a < r x X f ) p ' You scoundrel, be not mindful of what is soft unless you want to have it hard. FRAGMENT 38 (K 277; 0 241). Stob., Eel., II, 15, 7: icpoC [ 6 e ] ttoC atfeXac x o p e G o u \a{iT C pov i{ i& T t o v &X“ v , x a i < p p o v e tv tcoXXo T cti 6 & £ e i c , t u x o v IfaioC [ o& 6 £ v cppovG Jv]. Go to your neighbors wearing a bright coat and you will seem to many to have understanding, though perhaps it happens that you understand nothing. FRAGMENT 39 (K 278; O 258). Stob., Eel., II, 18: Tffii X & ywi { i e v e 6 6ifep X T )i Tt&V'ua, t © i 6* £ p y & > i >taxGte. In word you proceed alright in all things, but badly in deed. FRAGMENT 40 (K 279; 0 227). Stob., Eel., II, 31, 25: < p 6 a iv 2 x e i v d tp icrt& v C e O T e p o v 6 £ [ { t a v O d v e i v ] . Best it is to have natural endowment; but the next best is to learn. FRAGMENT 41 (K 280; O 242). Stob., Flor., (III), 1, 10: oo jieTavoetv aXka x p o v o eiv xpi) t o v av6pa t o v crocpov. It is required that the wise man think not after wards but beforehand. FRAGMENT 42 (K 281; 0 253). Stob., Flor., (III), 20, 8: irq (e)tti ix ix p o t c auT oc atrrov o£;uQup,ov d e t x v o e . Do not show yourself quick to anger over little things. FRAGMENT 43 (K 282; O 254). Stob., Flor., (III), 20, 9: sit ix o X a ^ e i v oi5 'Zt XP“ H tov Qujxov, aXka 'zov voov. It is necessary for intelligence, not emotion, to have the upper hand. FRAGMENT 44 (K 283; 0 255). Stob., Flor., (III), 20, 10: o u 6 e et<; o u5 ev penr* opY^C ^ ctta T p o x o v pooX eueTTai. No one in a fit of anger deliberates in a fit manner about anything. FRAGMENT 44a (K 0 255a). Ostrakon 12319 (second half of third century B.C.): TAAEAZ y a p saG* o <gpovip,oc* (0£ 'T T o tS G * outcoc &XSI* X&poc o i x ' i a j u p a v v i c , ^ o 0 t o c t^X^C xaX X ova atppovo^ avQptoacoo Tuxovnra xaTTaYS^-ctcrua Y tv s T a i. a d o v a i 5* e l a i v pqonrojcj^v qvocrioi A a crrn p io j* x a 'T a x e x o v r ic n r a i Yap euQ ue a b o v a T c avrjp a X o o c . 86 - . - is the intelligent man. This is how it is: property, houses, absolute power, wealth, strength, beauty--if these should fall to a stupid man it becomes a laughing matter. Pleasures are for mortals unholy pirates. For by pleasures a man is immediately overpowered. FRAGMENT 45 (K 297; 0 266). Anthol. Mahaff. (third century B.C.): [^ xioT ct y* #oa]Tt < ; §>ocn;uX&v p io v % ’ ^x^v Cy,r)6ev x a X o y ] % 'ue xayaQ ov vjruxa 6 i6 £ 6 i, [eym v p s v %auTo] v o\3t:i <paaft fia x a p io v , [tpuXaxa 6s yJaXXov xptliiaTmv aAXeoi 'tefXe'tv. Anyone who is not at all unfortunate and has the wherewithal, but provides for his soul nothing good--him I would not call happy, but rather a guardian of another's goods. __ FRAGMENT 46 (K 299; 0 268). Philo, Qu. in Gen. IV, 203, 406: quicunque, ait, minus delinquit, optimus est vir: nemo est enim innocens, nemo reprehensionis expers. He who sins least, Epicharmus says, is the best man. No one, to be sure, is innocent; no one free from blame. FRAGMENT 48 (K 0 --). Prise., I, 341: terra corpus est, at mentis ignis est. The body is earth, but the soul is fire. FRAGMENT 49 (K 0 --). Varro, de re Rust., I, 4, 1: aqua terra anima et sol. water, earth, air, sun. 87 FRAGMENT 50 (K 243 [first part]; O 222 [l]). Varro, de Ling. Lat., V, 59: istic est de sole sumptus ignis. This fire is derived from the sun. FRAGMENT 50a (K 243 [second part]; O 222 [2]). Varro, de Ling. Lat., V, 59: isque totus mentis est. And this consists entirely of soul. FRAGMENT 51 (K 244; 0 222 [3]). Varro, de Ling. Lat., V, 60: [Natura] frigori miscet calorem atque humori aritudinem. [Nature] blends heat with cold, and dryness with moisture. FRAGMENT 52 (K 241; 0 221 [a]). Varro, de Ling. Lat., V, 64: [Ops] terris gentis omnis peperit et resumit denuo, quae . . . dat cibaria. [Mother Earth] gave birth to all the races of the earth, and receives them back again, who feeds them. . . . FRAGMENT 52a (K O 241b). Varro, de Ling. Lat., V, 64: quod gerit fruges, Ceres. Because she brings us fruit, [she is called] Ceres. FRAGMENT 53 (K 240; O 220). Varro, de Ling. Lat., V, 65: 88 istic est is Iupiter quem dico, quem Graeci vocant aerem; qui ventus est et nubes, imber postea, atque ex imbre frigus, ventus post fit, aer denuo. haece propter Iupiter sunt ista quae dico tibi, quia mortalis [is] atque urbes beluasque omnis iuvat. This is the Jupiter of whom I speak, whom the Greeks call Air, who is wind and clouds, and afterwards moisture; and out of the wet comes cold, and wind is formed after that, and then air again. There fore these things of which I speak are Jupiter, since he rejuvenates all men and cities and animals. FRAGMENT 54 (K 242; 0 221a). Varro, de Ling. Lat., V, 6 8: Hinc Epicharmus Enni Proserpinam quoque appellat quod solet esse sub terris. Thus the Epicharmus of Ennius calls the moon Proserpina since she is accustomed to being under the earth. FRAGMENT 55 (K 289; 0 270). Tertull., de Anima, 46, 47: ceterum Epicharmus etiam summum apicem inter divinationes somniis extulit cum Philochoro Atheniensi . . . porro quia non est ex arbitrio somniare (nam et Epicharmus ita sentit), quomodo ipsa erit sibi causa alcuius visionis? On the other hand, Epicharmus certainly did exalt dreams to the highest position among divinations, along with Philochorus the Athenian . . . Furthermore, because he is not able to dream at will (and even Epicharmus believes this), how can it itself become the cause of any vision? FRAGMENT 56 (K 255; O 271 [a]). Clem., Strom., V, 119: o p l o e av0p«7coic XoYtojioO xapiGjioO CstTTai ttayu* [6 e j api0p f5i x a i XoYiopGJi* TaOnra y ®P cr&i£ei PpoTovc. 89 Human life altogether requires calculation and number. And we live by means of number and calculation; for these preserve mortals. FRAGMENT 57 (K 256-57; 0 271 [b-c]). Clem., Strom., V, 119: o Xoyo£ avQpcoxouc xu(3epvai x a t a Tpoxov aa>i£e i x* a e i . ^ Ucrttv avGp&iadi Xoyiaiioc,, * 6oxi x a i G stoc Xoyo£* o 6e ye /cavGpowcoo rcemvxev axo ye^Totf Geiou Xoyou, [xai 3 <pepsi [ttopou^ exaaTcai] xepi (3iou x a i Tac , ,^po<pac. o 5s ye xaXc T ex v aic arcacraic cruveTCSTai GeToc Xoyoe, % sx5 iSaoxcov auTo^ aunrouc, o xi rcoietv S et au{j,(j>epov. oo yap avGpoyrcoc "rexvav xiv* eSpev, o 6s Geo^ -roitav. Logos steers men properly and preserves them always. With men there is calculation; and there is a divine Logos. And the Logos of man is sprung from the divine Logos, and it provides for each man the means of life and sustenance. And the divine Logos attends all the arts, itself instruct ing men what one must do for his advantage. For no man has discovered any art, but, rather, it is always God. FRAGMENT 58 (K 290; 0 274). Athen., Deipno., XIV, 648D: xai xieTv u6cop SixXacriov xX iapov, 'qp.ivac 6uo. Also, drink a double portion of warm water--two half-measures. FRAGMENT 58a (K 291; 0 275). Anecd. Bekk. Antiattic., 98, 52: rjViiXi'tpiov. Half a pound. FRAGMENT 59 (K 248; 0 276). Censorin., Nat. Lib., VII, 6: 90 contra eum [Euryphon Cnidus] ferae omnes Epicharmum secuti octava mense nasci negaverunt. Against him [Euryphon of Cnidus], following Epicharmus they generally denied birth during the eighth month. FRAGMENT 60 (K 292; O 277). Columell., de re Rust., VII, 3, 6 : Epicharmus autem Syracusanus, qui pecudum medicinas diligentissime conscripsit, affirmat pugnacem arietem mitigari terebra secundum auriculas foratis cornibus, qua curvantur in flexu. On the other hand, Epicharmus the Syracusan who diligently recorded the art of doctoring animals, affirms that a pugnacious ram may be tamed by boring holes in the horns beside the ears, where they curve round. FRAGMENT 61 (K 293; 0 279). Pliny, Nat. Hist., XX, 89: Epicharmus testium et genitalium malis hanc [brassicam] utilissime inponi . . . According to Epicharmus, affliction of the testes and genitals can be treated effectively by application [of a cabbage leaf] . . . FRAGMENT 62 (K 294; 0 279). Pliny, Nat. Hist., XX, 94: Epicharmus satis esse earn [brassicam silvestrem] contra canis rabiosi morsum imponi, melius si cum lasere et aceto acri, necari quoque canes ea si detur ex carne. Epicharmus thought that the application [of a wild cabbage leaf] is sufficient for the bite of a mad dog; but it is better if it is applied with silphium juice and vinegar. Also, dogs die of it if it is given with meat. FRAGMENT 63 (K 290; 0 274). Anecd. Bekk. Antiattic., 99, 1: “ nvu v a . A half-measure. FRAGMENT 64 (K 296; O 281). Schol. BT, X, 414: v e x p o c * v e x p o c 6 e xorcpoc* “ H xewtpoc e o T i v* 9 el 5 * ii 9 e o c ko'z* , oo v e x p o c * aXka Oeoc. I am a corpse; a corpse is excrement, and excrement is earth. If the earth is God, then I am not a corpse but, rather, God. FRAGMENT 63 (K 295; 0 280). Flut., Num., 8: nuQ ayopctv Tfji, x o X i t e t a i 'P w p a lo i T tpoaeypatyav. The Romans enrolled Pythagoras into citizenship. CHAPTER VIII THE PHILOSOPHICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF EPICHARMUS* WORKS Epicharmus and Pythagoreanism. It has been stressed throughout this dissertation that Epicharmus has been continually neglected as a possibly important Pre- Socratic figure. We have emphasized that the indifference shown Epicharmus is surely a product of the judgment (on the part of the most influential scholars) that nearly all of the fragments are spurious or, at least, suspect. But we have further satisfied ourselves that that judgment has not always been sound and that many of the fragments deserve to be re-instated as authentic, or at least sub jected to continual re-examination. They have become for us an object of serious study in our desire for further illumination concerning the Pre-Socratics. But to say that many of the fragments are authentic is one thing, and to say that they are philosophically important is quite another. In the present chapter, then, an attempt will be made to suggest that Epicharmus was himself philosophically oriented, very much in tune with the various philosophical positions of the day and, thus, possibly an interesting and 92 93 instructive reflection of his philosophical milieu. Three Pre-Socratic positions or schools which (more than any others) seem to appear in the writings of Epicharmus are that of Pythagoras, Heraclitus, and Xenophanes. We will now consider Epicharmus’ relation to these three in an attempt to display the genuinely philosophical content of some of his writings and, thus, their relevance for the study of Pre-Socratic philosophy. In the final analysis^, we will conclude that philosophically Epicharmus was an eclectic of sorts. Still again, he seems to have been identified by the ancients more closely with the Pythagorean movement than with any other school. Consider, for example, the follow ing witnesses from antiquity. Diogenes: 'EjtiXapP-o^ • • • Vjxouae nueay& pou1 ; Plutarch: * ErclXapixoC • . . xaXavoC avfjp x a i n u e a v o p ix f)c 2 ; Clement: ' Erctxapp-oC (n u 0 a y 6 p e 10C 6 £ ?}v) . . . Iamblichus: tGv &£o)0ev axpoaT&v yev&a0a i xai ' Ercl xapp.ov, aAV oux £x toO aocrrfjiJ.aToC t&v avSpSv. &qux&p.evov 6& e ic SopaxoGaae 6 ia Tijv 'I&pcovoC TupavviSa toO p.& v <pavepS>c <piXoao<peTv axoaxfeo0av, e tc n&Trpov fcv'telvat t&c S ia v o ta c t&v avdpGv, p,eT& ataidiCte xp6q>a •^■Diogenes, op. cit., VIII, 78. ^Plutarch, Life of Numa, trans. Bernadotte Perrin (Loeb Classical Library; London: William Heinemann, 1914), VIII, 9. ^Stromata, V, 597C. 94 excpepovTa Ta nuQayopoo doyp-a'Ta.^ Certainly, one does not give unhesitating credence to the testimonies of the ancients regarding the earliest C thinkershowever, in this case the testimony concerning Epicharmus as a Pythagorean is to some degree confirmed by internal evidence. There is nothing unlikely in the rela tion between Epicharmus and Pythagoreanism. 6 Indeed, the only significant treatment of Epicharmus as a philosopher, in recent literature, is Zeller*s account of him as a Pythagorean. According to Zeller, while we cannot at tribute to Epicharmus any definite philosophical system, it is not improbable that the Pythagorean doctrine had something more than a superficial influence on him, and that the inclination to general reflection and apophthegms which may be perceived in the fragments of his works, was fostered by it.^ Now then, what in the fragments confirms the status of ^In Diels-Kranz, op. cit., p. 191 CVita Pyth., 226 J. “ ^Though Lorenz seems to have done so with respect to Diogenes1 account of Epicharmus as a -student of Pythagoras (op. cit., pp. 44ff.). 6Pickard-Cambridge, op. cit., p. 235. ^Zeller, op. cit., p. 529. Zeller is the one exception to the general indifference shown Epicharmus. A section of some 4 pp. is devoted to Epicharmus as a Pythagorean (pp. 529-33). Notice, on the other hand, that W. K. C. Guthrie, in the first vol. of his recent History of Greek Philosophy (Cambridge: at the University Press, 1962), makes only passing references to Epicharmus (what will happen to Epicharmus in the forthcoming vols. remains to be seen). 95 Epicharmus as a Pythagorean? Certainly, the Epicharmean utterances regarding the life after death may reflect Pythagorean influence (cf. fragments DK 9 [K 245], DK 22 [k 265]).^ Fragment DK 26 (K 269), and especially the word xcc0apcri£, may point to the old Pythagorean doctrine of purification; and, in fact, it would appear that this whole strain of Pythagorean thought is mirrored in Epicharmus at many points (cf. also DK 17 [k 258], DK 18 [K 26l]). And notwithstanding fragment DK 20 (K 263) there is throughout the fragments a kind of characteristically Pythagorean notion of assimilation with the divine (cf. DK 9 [K 245]).9 Probably the clearest evidence of this general Pythagorean spirit in the writings of Epicharmus is fragment DK 22 (K 265): euoeP'n^ vowi xeqiuxw^ on x a 0 ot<; x* o b 6 e v ^ x a x o v xaT0avcov* ftvco t o xvet5p.a 6 ia p .e v e t xaT* o u p a v o v . Except for the problems of authenticity, one could hardly deny the Pythagorean-sounding character of fragments DK 56-57 (K 255-57).^ But here, again, we must remind ourselves that even if these fragments are not 8S ee Zeller, History, op. cit., p. 531; Outlines (unrevised ed.), op. cit. , p. 57. ^Cf. Alexander Polyhistorfs statement that the Pythagoreans believed that the soul was an &x&OTtaaiAa atOepoc , that the air in the^uppermost regions was divine, and that pure souls go ext T o v oi[/tcrToV (see in Guthrie, op. cit., p. 203, n. 1). ■L^We have seen already that these lines were accepted by Clement as Pythagorean in nature. 96 authentically Epicharmean, there must have been some motivation behind their ascription to Epicharmus.'*''*' To these evidences (both external and internal) for the relation between Epicharmus and Pythagoreanism, I would like now to add that there seems to me to be a kind of intrinsic probability that this was the case. Even aside from Epicharmus1 merit as a philosopher himself, if his only purpose was to parody in his comedies current philosophical views (an idea to be examined later), then both his dates and his geographical situation would almost necessarily require a relation of some sort to 12 Pythagoreanism. Epicharmus and Heracliteanism. There also appear in the extant writings of Epicharmus clear traces of Heraclitean ideas. And by now the reader will surely not be surprised that we will cite Plato as the best evidence for the Heraclitean content of Epicharmus. We must remind ourselves that whether or not the reference in Plato at H-An attempt was made by Rostagni (op. cit. , pp. 9ff.) to show that the author of fragment DK 2 (K 170: 7-18) must have been thoroughly familiar with the Pythagorean doctrine of the Odd and the Even; but I agree with Guthrie (op. cit., p. 244, n. 1) that such an in ference is far-fetched. Perhaps not so far-fetched is Zeller’s suggestion that fragment DK 4 (K 172) may have a Pythagorean origin (History, op. cit., p. 531). -^See also Wilhelm Christ, Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1898), p. 282. Theaetetus 152E is to be taken seriously, there can be no question that in Plato's mind there was some motivation for the identification of Epicharmus as the founder of the Heraclitean school. Fragment DK 2 (K 170: 7-18), the authenticity of which has already been shown, the Heraclitean content of which is obvious, may be the very passage to which the Platonic statement refers: t o iiev^Y^P c $ £ e 9 * ,#o 6e ^ M-ay cpGivei, ev iieTaXXaySi 6e 'Jtavree,cvth jtaVTa t o v xpovov. o 6c iie'UaAAaacrei xanra cpuaiv xoOTtox* cv nrau'tCSi p,evet ex^pov x a % T o6# 4 V )6r) totf TCjjpe^eaTaxoTroc, x a i t o 5*n xayw X0ecf aAAoj ^xcn vuv aAAo^ ,TeXe9o|xec> xau0i£ &AA01 xoi5atoxf wuto t xa-nrov [aoTov a5] Aoyov. 13 In fact, one can imagine how well the notion of Heraclitus’ flux lent itself to unending jokes, and it appears that this is exactly what Epicharmus did with it. Plutarch explains how Epicharmus did, in fact, parody the Heraclitean flux-theory in his plays: o Y&P Aa(3<Sv ftaXai “ to Xploc v(3v oox ocpeiAei, YeYov“ C ehrepos, o are xA t)0c k eelftvov ex©ec axArproe T)xei Tf)|xcpov# aAAoc Yap e a T i . 14 ■ * - 3It is possible that this statement refers to Heraclitus, fragment DK 8 8, though G. S. Kirk judges it to be improbable (Heraclitus: The Cosmic Fragments [Cambridge at the University Press, 1954 J, p[ 146). Why L. Campbell (The Theaetetus of Plato, Text and Notes [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1883j, p. 41) gives fragments K 245 (DK 9) and K 246 (DK 10) first, as though they might more ap propriately be considered the objects of the reference, I do not know. l^Plutarch, de Sera Numinis Vindicta, trans. Phillip H. De Lacy and Benedict Einarson (Loeb Classical Library; London: William Heinemann, 1959), 559B. Also see 98 While DK 2 (K 170: 7-18) is the only extant fragment with the ring of the flux-theory, I think that it is safe on the basis of all the evidence to generalize that this idea was one of the most prominent in the Epicharmean philosophical plays.^ And closely associated with the flux-doctrine is yet another matter which may point to a relation between the two men: the ever controversial doctrine of the Logos. Again, we cannot look to fragments DK 56-57 (K 255-57) for much instruction concerning the Epicharmean Logos since the authenticity of these fragments is still a matter of dispute, but the Logos-ending of fragment DK 2 (K 170: 7-18), which we do take to be authentic, confirms the presence of this doctrine in Epicharmean thought. I think, further, that it is especially worthy of note that the phrase which occurs at the end of this fragment (x.aTct Xoyov) occurs also in the most famous Logos-fragment of Heraclitus (DK 1): . . . yivopevcov TtaVTtov xcrca tov Xoyov . . . It should be noticed that in both Heraclitus John Burnet, Greek Philosophy: Thales to Plato (London: Macmillan, 1914)” pi 63. ^"" 50n the basis of fragment DK 2 (K 170: 7-18), Heinrich Quiring says, MEpicharmos hat Heraklit richtiger verstanden als Xenophanes und Parmenides” (Heraklit: Worte Tflnen durch Jahrtausende, Griechisch und Deutsch [Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 1959"], p. 39). ^®The old Burnet-type interpretation of the Logos (at least, in Heraclitus) is now universally rejected, and the Logos is regarded as a philos. principle. 99 and Epicharmus the Logos is regarded as a kind of law of change, associated mainly with natural processes. In Heraclitus the Logos is a sort of Formal cause, causing things to change in such a way as to contribute to the ordered unity of all things (for example, DK 1, 41, 50). Now, this last idea is not explicit in Epicharmus, but then, again, it is not explicit in some Logos-fragments of Heraclitus himself (fragment DK 1 is itself a good example of this); that is, the flux-doctrine is combined with the Logos-doctrine in Epicharmus (DK 2 [K 170: 1-18J) in such a way as to lead one rather naturally to think that if we were in possession of more fragments we would find the rest of the characteristically Heraclitean idea.^ But Epicharmus1 philosophical relation to Heracliteanism is not necessarily limited to the flux- theory or the Logos-doctrine. Both Epicharmus (DK 12 [K 249J) and Heraclitus were emphatic in their elevation of voOc to a position superior to that of the senses, and their expressions of the idea are similar. Compare, for example, Heraclitus, fragment DK 34: a^uveoroi axouaaVTec; xw cpotaiv eo ix a cri* <paxic a u T o t a iv {lap-rope? TCapeovTrac a x e t v a i . Some of Epicharmus* utterances concerning the l-^One must ask himself whether it is too much to assume that two rather novel and identical (?) notions could have arisen at virtually the same time in the evolu tion of early Pre-Socratic thought. ■*-®Notice, also, Heraclitus, fragments DK 40 and 107, for further examples. 100 soul remind us of Heraclitus; for example, one should compare Epicharmus, fragment DK 48, with Heraclitus, DK 118: aoy1 ! cjcHpvyvaTf) x a i apian rrj.19 Similari ties (such as these) between Epicharmus and Heraclitus (and between Epicharmus and any others, for that matter) are often difficult to draw out in any great detail. On the other hand, if it is granted that there is a strong likelihood as to the connection between, say, Epicharmus1 flux and Logos-doctrines, and those of Heraclitus, then it would follow rather naturally that we might expect to see still other affinities. In particular, for example, it would indicate that there is probably a real connection, also, between the Epicharmean and Heraclitean notion of the soul as fire (mentioned above). There has always been a feeling that there was something Heraclitean about Epicharmus (scholars have usually acknowledged that the Epicharmean flux-idea reflects Heraclitean influence), but my suggestion is that the connection between the two men may be much stronger than has been suspected. 19Cf., also, Heraclitus, fragment DK 36. 20jt should be mentioned that Kirk in his recent and exhaustive study of the most important fragments of Heraclitus is not particularly sympathetic with the hypothesis that there may be a significant relationship between Epicharmus and Heraclitus (see pp. 2 and 395). I suspect, however, that his estimation of Epicharmus does not rest upon a thorough appreciation of the fragments and 101 Epicharmus and Xenophanes. Surely, Aristotle’s statement at Metaphysics, IV, 5, 1010a 5 is sufficient proof that Epicharmus was acquainted with Xenophanes (it will be recalled that this passage is the source for fragment DK 15 [K 252]): 6 io s'ixStcoC p£v °^x XfeYo u a i v * ou'uw y& P i jxttAXov e tx e T v t) &a*rcep 'E ittX a PP-°£ e t c Sevo{p&VT)V. Some energy has been spent in the attempt to reconstruct from this statement what it was 21 that Epicharmus said to, or against, Xenophanes. The most obvious interpretation is, of course, that Epicharmus must have censured Xenophanes for saying what was true but 22 not likely. In the final analysis, however, it is simply impossible to reconstruct the words of Epicharmus. The fact that Aristotle does not specify the exact nature of Epicharmus’ criticism of Xenophanes, however, may suggest to us that it was familiar to everyone. The most significant contribution of Xenophanes to the stream of western thought consisted in his repudiation and expose of the dogmatic, superstitious, traditional Greek theology. Xenophanes’ two main attacks were their problems (and I suspect the same of Pre-Socratic scholarship in general). ^See Zeller, op. cit. , p. 531, n. 1. 22 According to Alexander Aphrodisiensis, Epicharmus insulted Xenophanes and called him stupid (see in Pickard- Cambridge, op. cit., p. 244). 102 directed against the immoralities of the traditional gods and their anthropomorphic character. With respect to this latter concern, Xenophanes said, for example (fragment DK 14) : aXk* 01 ^poTToi$Soxeouai Yevvao0ai 0eouc* thv a<f>6Tepr)V 6* ea0fyca £ x e t v qxovrjv t e 6ep.ac 'te. and, again (DK 15): aXk' e i x e tp a c $Xov |3oec [itc x o i t* ] rje Xeovnrec ti Ypatyai x e ip e a a i x a i fp Y a j e X e t v cheep <jv6pec, VacTtoi p-ev 9 ' rTCrcotai (3oec 6 e Te f3ooaiy op ,oiac x a t [ x e ] 0effiv ieeac^YQCKpov x a i owp.a't* ercotoov ToiaOQ' o t o v Ttcp xauTroi 6ep.ac etX ov [ e x a a r o i ] . Some have thought that Epicharmus shared in this first formal attack upon the old Homeric, Hesiodic anthropomor phism. Especially does this appear to be the case with Jaeger: Xenophanes is by no means the only Greek poet of his time to be touched by the rising philosophy. The Sicilian Epicharmus . . . has left us some clever verbal fencing over the origin of things, in which one of his characters shrewdly criticizes the venerable Hesiodic Theogony because it speaks of Chaos, the ultimate beginning itself as having come into being. Clearly the playwright had had some acquaintance with the natural philosophers1 conception of a first principle which itself has had no beginning. 3 Clearly, then, Jaeger sees in fragment DK 1 (K 170: 1-6) a conscious echo of Xenophanes1 theological criticisms. Zeller discovers a ”striking analogy” between DK 5 (K 173) ^Jaeger, op. cit., p. 55. He further says, "Epicharmus also bears witness to the whirlpool of doubt into which this conception had drawn the religious thought of the time.” 103 and Xenophanes, DK 15.^ The suggestion, as it seems to me, may be a little forced^^; but it is not out of the question, especially since we may take it as certain that Epicharmus did have a knowledge of Xenophanes, and it is his criticism of the traditional, mythological religion which is Xenophanes’ philosophical claim to fame. Fragment DK 12 (K 249) may be Epicharmus’ answer to Xenophanes’ statement at DK 24 (we have already seen that Epicharmus shares in Heraclitus’ distrust of the senses). It may further be conjectured that Epicharmus (fragment DK 9 fK 245]) may have some relation to the idea expressed 27 in Xenophanes1 fragment DK 27. And, again, the opening lines of Epicharmus, fragment DK 1 (K 170: 1-6), sound very much like Xenophanes, fragment DK 26. As in the case of Epicharmus' relation to Pythagoreanism and Heracliteanism, here also the evidence is not conclusive; nevertheless, there is some evidence supporting the thesis of a relation of Epicharmus to Xenophanes, and no good reason to deny it. ^Zeller, op. cit. , p. 530. ^Especially is this so in the case of Zeller’s ’’striking analogy" where the force of Xenophanes’ statement lies in its theological application and there is no evidence of such in Epicharmus’ statement. 26 See Norwood, op. cit., pp. 56f. 27See Kahn, op. cit., p. 180. 104 Epicharmus and the history of Pre-Socratic philosophy. There can be no question but that Epicharmus reflects in his own writings current philosophical opin ions. I suggest that a renewal of interest in the fragments of Epicharmus could result in further information regarding the Pre-Socratic milieu. First, there is always the possibility of looking to Epicharmus for further instruction regarding, for example, the Heraclitean concept of Logos, or prevailing conceptions of the soul and the hereafter, or the current attitudes concerning the tradi tional religion, and so forth. In view of the energy expended over a single Logos-fragment of Heraclitus, for example, it would seem to me that such scholars would be perfectly delighted to be presented with still another relevant fragment. And this sort of utilization of the Epicharmean fragments would be, of course, perfectly legitimate and would alone justify continued consideration of the fragments. But the broader and more interesting possibilities have to do with the exact dating of Epicharmus (and, thus, the exact dating of these ideas) and the interesting ways in which the various doctrines are combined. Let us indicate, briefly, how further analysis and exposition of the fragments could result in changing our whole notion of how Pre-Socratic philosophy unfolded. 105 In the Introduction we raised this question: "But what if Epicharmus’ fragments are both genuine and early in date (i.e., prior to Heraclitus)?” If the fragments could be dated earlier than Heraclitus, then, indeed, ’'what new vistas would be opened to our imagination." ^ 9 It would mean that EpicharmusT flux-theory was not at all a re flection of Heraclitus but just the opposite; it would mean, perhaps, that the Logos concept did not arise with Heraclitus; it would mean, in a word, that Pythagoreanism was, indeed, a more sophisticated point of view than has been thought. Pythagoreanism has always been one of the most enigmatic philosophies of the Pre-Socratic period, mainly because of the sparseness of proof-texts. There is some good evidence that it was essentially a dualistic philosophy,-^9 but it has never been thought that the Pythagorean dualism of the Limit and the Unlimited might have included the concepts of the unchanging and eternal as opposed to the ever-changing and temporal. And it is precisely this latter that the Epicharmean fragments suggest--if, that is, they can be dated early. If with Rostagni we take the year 470 B.C. as the 28Booth, op. cit., p. 97 (underlining mine). 29Ibid. -^9See J. E. Raven, Pythagoreans and Eleatics (Cambridge: at the University Press, 1948), pp. 9f f.; also, Guthrie, op. cit., pp. 293ff. 106 extreme limit of the life of Epicharmus3- * - and assume that Heraclitus’ book could not have been published before 32 478 B.C., then Heraclitus’ book must have been propagated with lightning velocity in order for Epicharmus to use 33 it. On the other hand, it is not intrinsically impos sible that some conception of the flux-doctrine had already existed, nor is it impossible that it was developed from the old Homeric idea: o ir) -Jiep tptiXTuov Ye v e “ f)» T o tr) 6e x a i &vQp£Sv, cpOXXa jx6v t * SLvejioC x ^ ^ -S iC X&et» 66 ©’ uXtq TT)Xee&tDcra tp 6si, £apo4 6* yiyvs'Ucci coprj. toC iv6p©v Yeve^3 T) 6 6wtoXf)Ye*- Perhaps early Pythagoreanism did entertain such concepts ^■LRos tagni: Epicharmus was a contemporary of Hiero during his last years, otherwise Aristotle’s state ment that he was much earlier than Chienides and Magnet is inexplicable. Plato called him itpXTlY^C of comedy, when in reality he would have been a contemporary of Aeschylus. It is a fact that Epicharmus, having had a very long life till 90 or 97 years, had been active more in the 6th than in the 5th century B.C.; if so, he would have moved in an environ ment of ideas anterior to Heraclitus (op. cit., pp. 20f.). But one should compare Rostagni’s chronological observa tions with Pickard-Cambridge, op. cit., pp. 230ff. 3^Rostagni: The famous allusion in the book to the exile of the aristocratic Hermodorus suggests a period of time in which the democracy had strengthened its grasp in Ephesus in such a way as not to permit expectations of a return of the opposite party; and this did not happen before the loss of the Persian domination in the year 478 B.C. Some have argued the petitio principii that since Epicharmus knew the work of Heraclitus, it must have been circulated in Sicily before 470 B.C. (op. cit., pp. 18f.). 33Ibid., p. 2 1. 34iiiad? vi, 146-49 (suggested by Booth). 107 and did attempt to reconcile the unchanging with the changing. MIn this case, it would be easy to see how both Parmenideanism and Heracliteanism would arise on the ashes 35 of such a system.1’ Still, again the Pythagorean dualism may be regarded as a legitimate anticipation of the Platonic Form-Matter dualism. Now, if there is any merit at all in the suggestion made above, then it should be immediately enhanced by the argument of Alcimus that the Platonic theory (especially the opposition between the worlds of Being and Becoming) was, in fact, suggested earlier in the (what we have judged to be authentic) writings of Epicharmus. One hesitates before making these daring sugges tions. But, on the other hand, it is only my desire to show the possible relevance of Epicharmus and to inspire continued consideration of his role and contribution to Pre-S ocratic thought. The philosophical character of Epicharmus1 writings. Nor must one allow himself to be misled into thinking that Epicharmus can be of no real philosophical importance since his plays only parodied philosophical opinions. Unfortunately, the seriousness with which we may take Epicharmus as a philosopher can probably never be -^Booth, op. cit., p. 97. 108 estimated accurately, at least not on the basis of the available information. There are some important observa tions, however, which tell against our seeing Epicharmus* words entirely in terms of bufoonery, parody, farce, burlesque, or ridicule for the sole purpose of making fun. ^ The best evidence is the fragments themselves. There is nothing about them (at least, a great many of them) which suggests that they were not intended to be taken seriously. And there is no reason why the comic 7 0 expression could not give rise to serious judgments. Indeed, it is only this assumption which can account for the existence of the Epicharmean maxims which were cer tainly taken by his audiences as examples of serious and wise counsel and passed along to subsequent generations as such. Plutarch has already shown us how Epicharmus parodied the flux-theory under the guise of the debtor who insisted that he was not responsible for the debt since he ^®Once again the reader may be reminded that, surely, it is appropriate to call Epicharmus the "father of philosophical burlesque'* while it is not so certain that he was, technically, the "father of comedy." It may be that we should not expect to find Epicharmus* motivation in the x&iioc (see Sinclair, op. cit. , p. 287 and n.). 57perhaps Plato’s quotation of Epicharmus at Gorgias 505E is of some relevance here, also. 38in fact, some have thought that the gnomic motive may have stood at the very heart of the Epicharmean comedy (see Gigante, op. cit., p. 161). 109 is no longer the man to whom the money was loaned; the debtor is pleasantly surprised, thereupon, to be invited by the creditor to dinner, but only to find himself turned away upon his arrival, the creditor insisting that he is no longer the man who invited him. Now, while one can imagine the laughter provoked by such scenes , it does not suggest to me, necessarily, that Epicharmus himself saw no cogency in the doctrine. It can suggest, rather, that Epicharmus was a master and genius at expressing current philosophical opinions to the interest of the common herd. Gomperz's comment is excellent: No other comic poet ever displayed equal skill in the combination of jest with earnest, or commended the philosophical tenets of his day to the ear and brain of his audience with such subtle drollery.^9 Add to this the suggestion that it was the manner of the time to express scientific opinions in satiresIt is difficult for me to believe that Epicharmus did not take seriously the ideas of his comic expression.^ ^^Gomperz, op. cit., II, 265. ^Ojohn Burnet, Early Greek Philosophy (2nd ed.; London: Adam and Charles Black, 1908) , p. 129. Cf. Wilhelm Windelband’s statement: "The poets, as Euripides and Epicharmus, began already to translate into their language scientific conception and views" (A History of Philosophy, trans. James H. Tufts [New York: Harper and Brothers, 1958}, I, 6 6). See, also, Robert Scoon's remark, Greek Philosophy before Plato (Princeton: Prince ton University Press, 1928), pp. 293F. ^But even if this were not the case, it would not necessarily mean that there would be nothing to learn 110 Further, there can be no doubt that Epicharmus was regarded by the ancients themselves as a philosopher, as well as a dramatist, and I think that this is extremely important for our attempt to display the philosophical significance of the man. Hippobotus, for example, listed Epicharmus in his catalogue of philosophers.^ According to Iamblichus, anyone needing counsel concerning life could draw upon the maxims of Epicharmus.^ And at this point, one could cite once again the many ancient evidences that Epicharmus was a Pythagorean. But, finally, let us call to witness the Eighteenth Epigram of Theocritus, an inscription written in honor of Epicharmus, his compatriot, for a bronze statue erected at Syracuse: VA Te qwva Awpio^ X&vrjp o Tav xM|jxo5iav eopcov _ ^ 'E iu x a p iio c . , „ 5 B auxe, XaXxeov v t v aVT* aAaOtvotS or tv §5* aveGrptav t o t Zopaxoo create e v tS p o v r a t, xeX w ptara rcoXet, o l ' &v6pa xoXtTav. aocpG Sv £ o ix e p'np.aTC ov p.ep.vap,evoo<; TeXetv ettt^eipa* ^ % icoXXa y?P “ rcoTTav £oav toTq x a t a tv e'txe xpTJcrnia. peyaXa X&PK auTO. from Epicharmus. Is nothing to be learned, for example, from Aristophanes’ portrayal of Socrates? ^2Diogenes, op. cit., I, 42. ^3See in Diels-Kranz, op. cit., p. 191 [Vita Pyth., 166] . ^A. S. F. Gow, Theocritus (edited with a Transla tion and Commentary; Cambridge: at the University Press, 1950), I, 248. I judge that Epicharmus was regarded in antiquity as who, in one way or another, said important things. Ill a man — - _ . CHAPTER IX CONCLUSION The various conclusions of this dissertation have already been drawn and indicated at appropriate places. What follows here is a brief summary of the general con clusions and an estimation of the significance of the present work. In the first part of the dissertation, we con sidered at length the problem of the authenticity of the fragments. It was our firm conclusion that the reasoning employed by the most influential editors in judging most of the fragments inauthentic was not always sound. To show this was the first task to be accomplished in our desire to display the significance of Epicharmus. It has been pointed out already, however, that this in itself is not enough. If the fragments are of no consequence for Pre- Socratic scholarship, then one hardly cares about their authenticity. But the fact is that the fragments are important. The preliminary work of vindicating their authenticity is, therefore, legitimate and necessary. The importance of the present dissertation should yet be evident had it done nothing more than indulge in problems 112 113 of authenticity. I believe, however, that as the result of our efforts the door has been opened to the study of Epicharmus as a possibly important figure in Pre-Socratic philosophy. Epicharmus has emerged as a philosopher, of sorts, as well as a writer. It is true that his genius lay more in the originality of philosophical expression rather than in the originality of ideas. On the other hand, it is precisely the manner in which he mirrored his philosophical world that provides for us important illumination of the always obscure Pre-Socratic milieu. Especially is this true with respect to Pythagoreanism and Heracliteanism. The exciting possibilities of the continued study of Epicharmus were anticipated in the last chapter where his relation to his philosophical contemporaries was displayed; and especially the possibility that the placing of Epicharmus in his proper perspective could change our whole understanding of the development of early Greek philosophy. There is a real sense in which the conclusions of this dissertation mark but the beginning of the serious study of Epicharmus. But if the present study has, at least, opened the way, then its purpose has been fulfilled. BIBLIOGRAPHY Athenaeus. The Deipnosophists. Vol. VI. Translated by- Charles Burton Gulick. (Loeb Classical Library.) London: William Heinemann, 1937. Apollodorus. The Library. Translated by James George Frazer" (Loeb Classical Library.) 2 vols. London: William Heinemann, 1921. Aristotle. Metaphysics. Vol. I. Translated by Hugh Tredenmck. (Loeb Classical Library.) London: William Heinemann, 1958. (First published in 1935.) _______The "Art" of Rhetoric. Translated by John Henry Freese. (Loeb Classical Library.) London: William Heinemann, 1926. _________. The Poetics. Translated by W. Hamilton Fyfe. (Loeb Classical Library.) London: William Heinemann, 1960. (First published in 1927.) Booth, N. B. "Were Zeno’s Arguments directed against the Pythagoreans?" Phronesis, II, No. 2 (1957), 90-103. Edited by D. J. Allan and J. B. Skemp. Brownson, Carleton Lewis. Plato’s Studies and Criticisms of the Poets. Boston: Gorham Press, 1920. Burnet, John. Early Greek Philosophy. 2nd ed. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1908. (First published in 1892.) _________. Greek Philosophy: Thales to Plato. London: Macmillan, 1914. Campbell, L. The Theaetetus of Plato. Text and Notes. Oxford! Oxford University Press, 1883. Christ, Wilhelm. Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1898. 114 115 Claghorn, George S. Aristotle^ Criticism of Plato*s * Timaeus.* The Hague: Martlnus Nijhoff, 1954. Clement of Alexandria. Stromata. Vols. II and IV of Clemens Alexandrinus. "Edited by Otto Stahlin. Leipzig: J\ C. Hinrichs, 1906-36. Cornford, F. M. The Origin of Attic Comedy. Anchor Book ed. New York: Doubleday and Co., 1961. Covotti. I Presocratici. Naples: Saggi.... A. Rondinella, 1934: : Cronert, Wilhelm. "Die Spuche des Epicharm," Hermes. Vol. 47. Berlin: Weidmann, 1912. 402-13. Diels, Hermann (ed.). Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. Vol. I. 2nd ed. Berlin: Weidmann, 1906. Diels, Hermann. Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. Edited by Gert Plambock. Hamburg: Rowohlt, 1963= Diels, Hermann, and Kranz, Walther (eds.). Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. Vol= I. 10th ed. Berlin: Weidmann, 1961. Diels, Hermann. Doxographi Graeci. Berlin, 1879. Diogenes Laertius. Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Trans lated by R. D"! Hicks. (Loeb Classical Library.) 2 vols. London: William Heinemann, 1925. Dodds, E. R. Plato: Gorgias. A Revised Text and Intro duction and Com. Oxford: at the Clarendon Press, 1959. Edmonds, John Maxwell (ed.). The Fragments of Attic Comedy. Augmented, newly edited with their con texts, annotated, and completely translated into English verse. 3 vols. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1959. Ennius. Remains of Old Latin. Vol. I. Translated by E: H- ! Warmington. (Loeb Classical Library.) London: William Heinemann, 1935. Euripides. The Bacchanals. Translated by Arthur S. Way. (Loeb Classical Library.) London: William Heinemann, 1912. 116 _________. The Suppliants. Translated by Arthur S. Way. (Loeb Classical Library.) London: William Heinemann, 1912. _________- Tragoediae. Vol. III. Edited by Augustus Nauck. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1892. Freeman, Kathleen. Ancilla to the Pre-Socratic Philos ophers . Oxford: Blackwell's, 1956. Gigante, M. "Epicarmo, Pseudo-Epicarmo e Platone," La Parola del Passato. Vol. VIII. Edited by V. Arangio Ruiz, et. al. Naples: Gaetano Macchiaroli, 1953. 161-75. Gigon, 0. Diogenes. No. 3. Edited by Roger Caillois. Interculture Publications, 1953. 102-04. Gomperz, Theodor. Greek Thinkers: A History of Ancient Philosophy. Vol. II. Translated by G. G. Berry. London: John Murry, 1931. (First published in 1905.) _________. Hellenika: Eine Auswahl philogischer und philosophiegeschichtlicher kleiner Schnften. Vol. I. Leipzig: Verlag von Veit, 1912. Gow, A. S. F. Theocritus. Vol. I. Edited with a Transla tion and Commentary. Cambridge: at the University Press, 1950. Green, G. Chase (ed.). Scholia Platonica. Haverfordiae, 1938. Grenfell, Bernard P. and Hunt, Arthur S. Hibeh Papyri. Part I. London: Egyptian Exploration Fund, 1906. Guthrie, W. K. C. A History of Greek Philosophy. Vol. I. Cambridge: at the University Press, 1962. Homer. The Iliad. Vol. I. Translated by A. T. Murray. (Loeb Classical Library.) London: William Heinemann, 1942. (First published in 1924.) Jan, C. von. "Aristoxenus ( 7 Real-Encyclopadie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Vol. II. Edited by Pauly-Wissowa. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1894--. Col. 1057ff. 117 Jaeger, Werner. The Theology of the Early Greek Philosophers. Translated by Edward S. Robinson. Oxford: at the Clarendon Press, 1960. (First published in 1947.) Kahn, C. H. Anaximander and the Origins of Greek Cosmogony. New York: Columbia University Press, 1960. Kaibel, George (ed.). Comicorum Graecorum Fragments. Vol. I, Part 1. Berlin: Weidmann, 1899. Kaibel, George. "Epicharmos [2},1’ Real-Encyclopadie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Vol. VI. Edited by Pauly-Wissowa. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1894— . Col. 34ff. Keil, Heinrich (ed.). Grammatici Latini. Vol. VI. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1857-80. Kirk, G. S. Heraclitus: The Cosmic Fragments. Cambridge: at the University Press, 1954. Kirk, G. S., and Raven, J. E. The Presocratic Philosophers. A Critical History with a Selection of Texts. Cambridge: at the University Press, 1960. Liddell, Henry George, and Scott, Robert. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. Revised by Henry Stuart Jones and Roderick McKenzie. Oxford: at the Clarendon Press, 1948. (First published in 1940.) Lorenz, Aug. 0. Fr. Leben und Schriften des Koers Epicharmos, nebst einer Fragmentensammlung. Berlin: Weidmann, 1864. Mahaffy, J. P. A History of Classical Greek Literature. Vol. I. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1880. McDonald, John M. S. Chracter-Portraiture in Epicharmus, Sophron, and Plato. Tennessee: University Press of Sewanee, 1931. Minar, Jr., E. L. "A Survey of Recent Work in Pre- Socratic Philosophy," The Classical Weekly. Vol. XLVII. The Classical Association of the Atlantic States, 1954. 161-70, 177-82. 118 Muller, Carl. Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum. Vols. II and IV. Paris: Firmin Didot, 1883-85. Norwood, Gilbert. Greek Comedy. Boston: John W. Luce and Co., 1932. Olivieri, Alessandro (ed„). Frammenti della commedia greca e del mimo nella Sicilia e nella~Ma^ne Grecia. I: Frammenti della commedia dorica sicTTTana, testo e commento. Naples: Libreria Scientifica Editrice, 1946. — Pickard-Cambridge, Arthur. Dithyramb, Tragedy and Comedy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1927. _________. Dithyramb, Tragedy and Comedy. 2nd ed. Revised by T. B. L. Webster. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962. Plato. Apology. Translated by H. N. Fowler. (Loeb Classical Library.) London: William Heinemann, 1919. (First published in 1914.) ________ . Charmides. Translated by W. R. M. Lamb. (Loeb Classical Library.) London: William Heinemann, 1927. ________ . Euthydemus ♦ Translated by W. R. M. Lamb. (Loeb Classical Library.) London: William Heinemann, 1932. (First published in 1924.) _________. Euthyphro. Translated by H. N. Fowler. (Loeb Classical Library. London: William Heinemann, 1919. (First published in 1914.) _________. Gorgias. Translated by W. R. M. Lamb. (Loeb Classical Library.) London: William Heinemann, 1932. (First published in 1925.) ________ o Phaedo. Translated by H. N. Fowler. (Loeb Classical Library.) London: William Heinemann, 1919. (First published in 1914.) _________. Republic. Vols. I and II. Translated by Paul Shorey. (Loeb Classical Library.) London: William Heinemann, 1935. (Vol. I first published in 1930 and reprinted in 1953; Vol. II first pub lished in 1935 and reprinted in 1956.) 119 _________. Theaetetus. Translated by H. N. Fowler. (Loeb Classical Library.) London: William Heinemann, 1921. _________. Timaeus. Translated by R. G. Bury. (Loeb Classical Library.) London: William Heinemann, 1929. Plutarch. de Sera Numinis Vindicta. Translated by Phillip H. De Lacy and Benedict Einarson. (Loeb Classical Library.) London: William Heinemann, 1959. _________. Life of Numa. Translated by Bernadotte Perrin. (Loeb Classical Library.) London: William Heinemann, 1914. Quasten, Johannes. Patrology. Vol. II. Maryland: Newman, 1962. Quiring, Heinrich. Heraklit: Worte Tonen durch Jahrtausende, Griechisch und PeutschT Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 1959. Raven, J. E. Pythagoreans and Eleatics. Cambridge: at the University Press, 1948. Reinhardt, Karl. Parmenides und die Geschichte der Griechischen Philosophie. Cohen: Bonn, T916. Ritter, Constantin. Platon: Sein Leben, Seine Schriften, Seine Lehre. Munich: Beck, 1910. Rohde, Erwin. Psyche: The Cult of Souls and Belief in Immortality among the Greeks. Translated from the 8th ed. by W. B. Hillis. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1925. Rostagni, Augusto. II Verbo di Pitagora. Turin: Fratelli Bocca, 1924. Ruciman, W. G. PlatoTs Later Epistemology. Cambridge: at the University Press, 1962. Schwartz, E. "Alcimus [18]," Realencyclopadie der Classischen Altertumswissenchaft. Vol. I. Edited by Pauly-Wissowa. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1894--. Col. 1543f. 120 _________. "Apollodorus C6l]," Realencyclopadie der Classischen A1terturnswissenschaft. Vol. I. Edited by Pauly-Wissowa. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1894--. Col. 2855f. Scoon, Robert. Greek Philosophy before Plato. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1928. Shorey, Paul. What Plato Said. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 193 3. Skutsch. "Ennius [3]," Realencyclopadie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Vol. V. Edited by Pauly- Wissowa. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 1894--. Col. 2589f. Sinclair, T. A. A History of Classical Greek Literature from Homer to Aristotle. Routledge: Broadway House: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1949. (First published in 1934.) Stemplinger, Eduard. Das Plagiat in der Griechischen Litteratur. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1912. Tertullian. De Anima. Edited with introduction and commentary by J. H. Waszink. Amsterdam: Meulenhoff, 1947. * Untersteiner, Mario. The Sophists. Translated by Kathleen Freeman. New York: Philosophical Library, 1954. Varro. de Lingua Latina. Vol. I. Translated by Roland G. Kent. (Loeb Classical Library.) London: William Heinemann, 1938. Wheelwright, Philip. Heraclitus. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1959. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Ulrich von. Einleitung in die Griechische Tra^odie. Vol. I. 2nd. printing of Herakles. Berlin: Weidmann, 1910. _________. Platon. Vol. I. Berlin: Weidmann, 1920. Windelband, Wilhelm. A History of Philosophy. Vol. I. Revised ed. of 1901 translated by James H. Tufts. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1958. Xenophon. Memorabilia. Translated by E. C. Marchant. (Loeb Classical Library.) London: William Heinemann, 1923. 121 Zeller, Eduard. A History of Greek Philosophy from the Earliest Period to the Time of Socrates. Vol. I. Translated by S. F. Alleyne. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1881. _________. Outlines of the History of Greek Philosophy. 13th ed. Revised by Wilhelm Nestle and translated by L. R. Palmer. Meridian Books, 1950. (First published in 1931.) _________. Outlines of the History of Greek Philosophy. Translated by Sarah Frances Alleyne and Evelyn Abbott. Henry Holt and Co., 1908. Zeller, Eduard, and Mondolfo, R„ La Filosofia dei Greci. I, 2. Florence: "La Nuova Italia,'1 1938.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

An Analysis Of The Philosophical Beliefs Implicit Within General Semantics And Their Relevance For Educational Theory

PDF

A Critical Examination Of Heidegger'S And Jasper'S Interpretations Of Nietzsche

PDF

The Relation Of Moral Ideology To Dynamic Moral Philosophy

PDF

A Critical Study Of Some Early Novels (1911-1920) Of Sir Compton Mackenzie: The Growth And Decline Of A Critical Reputation

PDF

A Philosophical Critique Of F. R. Tennant'S Empirical Approach To Theism In The Light Of Current Science

PDF

The Logic Of Obligation

PDF

A Critical Appraisal Of The Prevalent Model Of Scientific Explanation

PDF

Teleology And Purpose In Recent Anglo-American Philosophy

PDF

The Philosophical Anarchism Of William Godwin: His Philosophy Of Man, State And Society

PDF

Towards A Metaphysics Of Value: A Critical Study Of The Axiological Implications Of The Metaphysics Of Saint Thomas Aquinas

PDF

The Implications Of Cultural Anthropology For The Question: What Is The Basis Of Moral Obligation?

PDF

A Philosophical Model For Counseling Systems

PDF

Intellect After Lobotomy In Schizophrenia: A Factor-Analytic Study

PDF

Value And Obligation: An Integration Of The Theories Of Ralph Barton Perry, C. I. Lewis, Dewitt Parker, And Charles L. Stevenson

PDF

The Development And Evaluation Of A Personal Management Program And Its Effects Upon The Self-Concept And Perceived Locus-Of-Control Of Blind Adolescent Females

PDF

A Perspective Of Values Of Education As Portrayed By Articles In Periodical Literature Published In The United States Between 1940 And 1960

PDF

Some Implications For The Doctrine Of God Of Hegel'S Concept Of Thought As Mediation

PDF

Hegel And Dewey And The Problem Of Freedom

PDF

Husserl And Merleau-Ponty And The Problem Of The Cultural Studies

PDF

The Problem Of Moral Authority In Modern Jurisprudence

Asset Metadata

Creator Miller, Eddie Leroy (author)

Core Title A Critical Analysis Of The Philosophical Fragments Of Epicharmus

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Philosophy

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,Philosophy

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Werkmeister, William H. (committee chair), Engel, S. Morris (committee member), Graff, Richard L. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-596027

Unique identifier UC11360023

Identifier 6805871.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-596027 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 6805871.pdf

Dmrecord 596027

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Miller, Eddie Leroy

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA