Harpocration's Commentary on Plato John Dillon

7/28/2019 Harpocration's Commentary on Plato John Dillon

1/22

JOHN DILLON

Harpocration's CommentarynPlato:Fragments of aMiddle Platonic Commentary

I.Our evidence for the form and content of pre-Neoplatonic(pre-Porphyrian) commentaries on Plato is not great. Apart from onevaluable fragment of a commentary on the Theaetetus,we have only anumber of essays on particular subjects-Plutarch on The Immortality ftheSoul in theTimaeus, and Theo of Smyrna's work "An Exposition ofMathematicalMatters Usefulfor theReading of Plato"-and the evidencederivable from the doxographies of the Neoplatonists. Calcidius'

Commentaryn theTimaeusI believe also to be essentiallyMiddle Platonic,but his status is still controversial.1In reading the commentaries of Proclus, Hermeias, andOlympiodorus one isdriven again and again to the conclusion, from theform inwhich pre-Porphyrian references are given, that normally it isto the vast researches of Porphyry that his successors are indebted fortheir references to earlier opinions. This is especially clear in Proclus'

1J. H. Waszink, in his StudienzumTimaioskommentaresCalcidius(PhilosophiaAntiqua,vol. 12, Brill 1964), and in his great edition of Calcidius' Commentaryn theTimaeus(CorpuslatonicumMedii Aevi, vol. IV, 1962) has argued for a dependence of Calcidius on thework of Porphyry. I am unable to see that the possible dependences on Porphyry, all ofwhich I feel can equally well be taken to be a commonMiddle Platonic heritage, can outweigh the total lack in Calcidius of the characteristicNeoplatonic metaphysics and form ofcommentary, both of which appear to be largely thework of Porphyry.


2/22

126 John DillonCommentaryon the Timaeus, where we often find Porphyry's viewsfollowing immediately on those of his predecessors.2One derives from the evidence the impression that the

Middle Platonist commentators are direct forerunners of the Neoplatonists in all respects except in the elaboration of theirmetaphysics,and in the symbolical interpretation of the characters, and the introductory portions of the dialogues (the prooemia),which are such notablecharacteristics of theNeoplatonist commentaries. Like their successors,the Middle Platonists discussed matters of antiquarian, historical orphilological interest, gave an "ethical" interpretation of the text, andcarefully distinguished the formal logical steps, the syllogisms, bothcategorical and hypothetical, which they discerned latent in Plato'sargumentation. Their determination in unveiling these is well illustrated in Albinus' Didascalicus. The form of their commentaries, tojudge from the TheaetetusCommentary, consisted of almost continuousexegesis of the text, sometimes with sections of the text forming lemmatafor separate sections, sometimes with the text integrated into thecommentary. Calcidius exhibits the latter format. This is less formallystructured than the Procline commentary, but we cannot be sure thatPorphyry's or Iamblichus' method was not nearer to that of theMiddlePlatonists than that of Proclus or Olympiodorus.The commentaries of the Middle Platonists in generalreveal the combination of Plato's metaphysics, Stoic-Academic ethicsand Peripatetic-Stoic logic for which Middle Platonism iswell known.

My aim in the present investigation is to try to reconstruct somethingof the form and content of one commentary by a neglected MiddlePlatonist, the Commentary nPlato ofHarpocration of Argos.Harpocration was a pupil of Atticus (Procl. In Tim.1.305.6),3 who was head of the Platonic Academy in themid-second

2E.g., Procl. In Tim. 1.77.6ff on Atlantis; 1.219.21ff; 1.306.31ff, on theidentity of the Demiurge; 3.234.18ff, etc. The doxographic pattern "Anonymi (Plutarch,Atticus, Numenius, etc.) Porphyry (and/or Iamblichus, who seems to have largely copiedhim) " is a common one inProclus' InTimaeum, hich isby far ourmost comprehensive source.3Von Arnim in P-W s.v. Harpokration 2), and Zeller, Phil. d. Gr. 112: 2,p. 200 summarize Harpocration's philosophical position. The Suda describes him asavPltBwrsKadaapos,but one cannot safely infer from thishis identitywith theHarpocrationwho is listedby Julius Capitolinus (Script.Hist. Aug. VerusII 5) as a tutor of the future emperorVerus. This Harpocration is serving as a grammaticus,hile Verus' tutors inphilosophyare listed as the StoicApollonius, and Plutarch's nephew Sextus of Chaeroneia, both teachersofMarcus Aurelius. It isalways possible, of course, thatHarpocration accepted the humblerposition of grammaticus,orwant of anything better. He may have been young at the time.


3/22

Harpocration's Commentary on Plato 127century A.D. It seems implied by Proclus in the passage abovementioned (ibid. 304.24) that Harpocration is referring to Numeniusin his commentary at thispoint, so that hemay be placed afterNumenius in time and also in influence.4 Suidas (s.v. Ap7oKparTwv,ApyEZoS)credits him with: VT7rd'tvwxa s HActrwv ev 3it#Afot KS', A4etSgnAdrwvos ev tClALoHs''. Of these works it is obviously the former withwhich we have to do. Suidas plainly envisages one continuous work, oftwenty-four books, containing a commentary on Plato's dialogues,presumably dialogue by dialogue. We have no indications on thispoint, but we have comments by Harpocration preserved on thefollowing dialogues: Alcibiades I, Phaedo, Phaedrus, Timaeus, andRepublic. I feel that it is worthwhile dealing individually with everyreference to this commentary, in order to gain as extensive a notion aspossible of the range of it. I will accordingly examine in turn allHarpocration's comments on the dialogues listed above, including alsothe references to Harpocration in Iamblichus' De Anima, where theconnection with a particular dialogue is not so clear. (I number thefragments consecutively for convenience in later reference.)

II. ALCIBIADES I1. Ad Alcibiadem 104 E. (ap.01. InAlc. 48.26ff).

Olympiodorus quotes Harpocration on the lemma rdcAatdv d7rrMAdyrlqvnwhat forOlympiodorus is the lexis as opposed to thetheoria, he detailed commentary on the text, as opposed to the generaldiscussion of the philosophical content. Socrates is saying that if hehad felt thatAlcibiades was satisfiedwith his present situation, he wouldlong since have abandoned his love for him:

EVraTOa YEVdo0EVoS 0 Ap7ToKparWt)V KaL KaAWcoVrpoaoaX71KWs r7? pr71r, ypalltKais vVayKaoS fSete roV?wKpaT7'V EVOEOVEPoCTpdrV ELk 7tV EVTaVOccOrt ir dAccc avv4 Proclus gives, at In Remp. 2.96 Kroll, the following list of Middle Platonists

who commented on the Myth of the Republic: "Numenius, Albinus, Gaius, Maximus ofNicaea, Harpocration, Eucleides." Neither Maximus of Nicaea nor Eucleides are otherwiseknown, except that they must be prior to Porphyry, as Proclus ends his list " Kal m 'rrtaav

Hopbvplosr." Ancient doxographies are notoriously loose about chronological order, but thisone may, I think, be taken, in conjunction with In Tim. 1.305.6, to indicate that Harpocration is later than Numenius, and thus later also than Gaius and Albinus, who are more orless contemporary with Numenius (ca. A.D. 150).


4/22

128 John DillonaCqTAAcayL-v', J Sbe opTrKos epaar71s ovx ore O6eAe araAATrreTraae rdOovs rooro. c -v,'f 7TraO-V o fx oe dAo EvCTE EK 7T7OVS TO&OVTOSg ,ToV 6E UVW oVXV OTE UoALEcra7TaAcTTOl,0a, KaOerrEp OVTE apXolfeEa, Ajhov OrT EyvOeoEC(TlVepaCTasr. OvTOS'yap OTe OeAel apXETat, 0EAet 6E OTeaocepaTra e WraI 7TCL&KCa'VKOVVK(XIlOr OeAELtTraeCrC,KaOaTrep Kal EVTraV( CtVio 'EOTteL (EpWV oreaAAs6Ws rTcvO(awvo1LEVWVyaOwov E(ftELEVov, Trdat cvdtV TAAar4'/rov oovEPWcTOS'

What were these ypatLpuKacvdayKcahat Harpocration isemploying here? A statement of proportion, perhaps, which attainsgeometrical rigor.5 Proclus does not mention Harpocration in thecorresponding passage in his commentary (In Alc. 134.11ff), but herefers to ol yecwE'rpOcaibid. 15). The question is, by what proportiondoes the &veoS Epaar7rs urpass the qoprKos-?As Proclus sets it outthere are >vaIKa& rAEOveKTrJtLcaCTand VXtKac:KtV7)tmcaa; the latter aresuperior to the former. The divine lover is capable of resisting not only"physical allurements" but also "spiritual impulses"; the vulgar loveris ensnared not only by spiritual impulses but also by physical allurements. At the riskof indulging in a scholastic romp (which neverthelessmay represent good Middle Platonic procedure), we may express the

proportion, e.g., oJ opTLK6S e'pacTrS < UVUctK&TrEVEKTorVTaTa < XfvtKaKavr7FLatr o E'VOeosaoat-rs < signifying "is inferior to" or "subjectto" ). The divinely-inspired lover is thus superior to the vulgarlover in the following proportion: if the "divine" lover isA, and thevulgar B, the physical allurements X, and the "activities of the soul"Y; then B < (is subject to)X, X < (are of less value or power than)Y, and A > (is superior to, in control of) Y (orY < A). ThereforeB


5/22

Harpocration's Commentary on Plato 129III. PHAEDO2. Ad Phaedonem 3 E (ap.01. In Phaed. 20.4ffNorv.) dv'ip

T1) O'VT'EV btAoaooi?aoaTpltas rov fLov.79C)OVwTLlAOUOOV AhyEt oV vpOS &VlOrttaTuoAq'V

T.7o1prooT 'rovo'vov X ov Aoaoi ov,C:o 7OlTXf''OV aO^IaTOU V'7TOSVOPE'VOV rOV (Ot2 o(f)OV, W)9 ot 7v~pl

pITOKlpaTc)ova i7 twaav KOVEVew' ovro yap TroppcU T7js1XHrcovosLEyaAovo's7XccAapoksvrt8tcaaroA7vov roAXpKov .KaOapTLKoS'ap O SLaAhoyog.

We would surely agree with Harpocration as againstOlympiodorus, who represents the Iamblichean "higher criticism,"according to which the skoposof this dialogue is the "purificatoryvirtues"; these follow upon the "political virtues," which are the subjectof the Gorgias,which preceded the Phaedo in Iamblichus' pedagogicscheme.6 Harpocration had no such scheme, so that nothing hinderedhim from giving the more natural interpretation to the text.The phrase "ol 7replAp7roKpaTrowvaould, but need not,signify the existence of a school of followers of Harpocration. Thisexpression isused loosely byNeoplatonic commentators, and seems often

merely a stylistic variation of the writer's simple name, e.g., ol 7Tep'NovpuLov, Procl. In Tim. 3.196.18; ol' reptHop6vptov ibid. 234,18;ol 7TEpt tr7KOv, ibid. 37.12. All these men had followers-indeedamong those ofAtticus we might includeHarpocration-but the chanceof the phrase referring to independent commentaries is slight.

3. Ad Phaedonem66 C (ap. "Ol." In Phaed. B pO' 106.11)tol yap Tr7v TCV XP7J YiMrWV KTr7a(V 7TrVTrES Ol T0roAEkO ylvovrat.

IIs ol r7daXPjClara 7rdvrTEs o0t 7T0rAEJLO yIvovrTLt;iroXAol yap Kal &i' 'AAas alrt'las ye'vovro. pf7qrov oiv, cs ECv

Ap7TroKpaTrlIo), -7 OTrLT 7TEOrTACaov, OTt Kcal q(rv AavpwovEA=gs E7LTELVEt TOVTOAE(LOV

Harpocration here is quoted not by Olympiodorus himself, but by one of the anonymous commentaries (B) attached to his6 See further on this subject A-J. Festugiere, "L'ordre de lecture desdialogues de Platon aux Ve/VIe siecles,"Mus. Helv. 26 (1969) 281ff.


6/22

130 John illoncommentary, which are suspected by Westerink,7 with considerableplausibility, of being records of the lectures of Damascius. Olympiodorus himself discusses the point raised, in 6.8, p. 36, 25ff, and refers toHarpocration at p. 37, Iff:

MAAotfativ, OTr 7TArvTESol oEfh t LtaXP7o/LaTaylvoVTra, TovTeaUTln ia AaKcdvpaCAAa ytvovrait WroAEdhEKat, oLAoLoCTav,ElapEcpas Kal Tav7rrl EOeAELIEyetvAadcvpov.

Obviously this was an aporia, of the class which I wouldterm eristic aporiai,many examples of which are dealt with, e.g., inProclus' Commentary n theTimaeus. These are always anonymous, butmust stem from non-Platonist critics who were giving Plato the samesort of treatment as, for instance,Nicostratus gave Aristotle's Categories.Harpocration doubtless dealt explicitly with the aporia,making twosuggestions. The first utilizes the old argument that a thing may benamed from itspredominant element-in this case, war is said to arisefrom concern for material goods, because it generallyarises from this.He then contributes a second, somewhat less impressive suggestion, thatit is because of the fact that hope of booty incites war. Olympiodorusamalgamates the two suggestions, and criticizes the second one. Theproblem exercised the later commentators also, Longinus and otATrrtKOe-yr-7rai being also mentioned by B, who gives a solution ofhis own.

The answering of aporiai, real or invented, should also bereckoned as a regular component of theMiddle Platonic commentary.4. Ad Phaedonem,68BC (ap.01. In Phaed. 41.17f): OVKoOv

lKoVOVc(OLTEKLrlptLOV, , 70oVroaVpoS, OV cV loS aXyaVaKTOvVTaXMOVrrroOave-Waca, rOT OVKCap XV iLtAdo


7/22

Harpocration's Commentary on Plato 131ITpoTlOeVTaL 8E Kal or aAOL. ) EV TOLS 7rpoaev Trorova7reOrKEvacaro, vvv 8E Trapat'feTCt Tovs rore VTapaA;\le'VTCS.OVTWOSLEV pTTOKpaTlwVEJ7yEZat.It sounds from Olympiodorus' words as ifHarpocrationhad introduced this aporia himself. As it turns out, Olympiodorus

oversimplifies in saying merely that Harpocration "did not solve theproblem." He in fact offers two solutions, though he adopts neither. (1)The "lover of pleasure" does not need to be furthermentioned sincehe is implied in the "lover of body" in the first sentence. (2) Plato hasalready mentioned and rejected the love of pleasure in 64D, and onlyneeds now tomention what he left out then. Somebody isconfused here,sinceOlympiodorus (loc.cit.) attributes this second solution to Proclus:o e ye lpdoKAooS /O7alv, OTl& rtAi7ovov OVK ELvJ1)7)LOVevceV,T' avcoVWTEpWEtirev,O'T 8Se bEV'YEVas qSov'S.There is no difficulty, perhaps, inassuming merely that Proclus adopted Harpocration's second suggestion, but it shows an interesting independence of sources on the partofB.

5. Ad Phaed. 69AC. 'Q?(LaKapLEZqtlla, . . . t KaOaplOS'This is the passage inwhich Socrates speaks of po'vatnL sthe proper ethical unit of exchange, and deprecates the balancing of

pleasures and pains and fears against each other, without making use ofthis one valid element. With qpodvraLuhe virtues are true virtues,without it they are shadows of virtue. To describe these latter, laterPlatonists, if the present passage may be trusted, seem to have fatheredupon Plato the term OEEvS&wvuoL.lato himself calls such capEr'aKtaypoala rts' (67B7). The pseudo-virtues are such courage andself-control and justice as result from a nice calculation of advantage;the real virtues are these same virtues practiced now only with referenceto "wisdom," which for Plato here was perhaps a covert, or halfformulated, reference to the Good.This being the situation given, the question was raised asto what virtues Plato wished to distinguish from what, and which

virtues the purified sage (o KEKaOCppEVOS TEKaI rereAEaLe'vos of 69C)should retain.Let us now consider Harpocration's position ("Ol." B p.115, 8ffN):


8/22

132 John Dillon0' (T On7oTvroTa7roS&aKp&vacal WsAXvcOws

KaCOpat Tas KaOapTLcKaCperas' Tv KcoaTa&eEepWv iTwCOvaPETwv,

ov 6vov VTWV fV8(tvvvLWV,Ws AplTOKpaT&WV, dCAAaKao wC V EaKLaypa.CPLEVWV,OloV ToWvaLKWVV TE KOl '7OLKcUV,OVSETOVTvWYLOVOV,AA'aKal Twv TEAEtWVTOAtLKwV.TOKpivaSyap 7as KaKtSa ELKOTCWSVVKal Tas XEipOVS!pETaS aITOKaWILpEt.This seems tome a profoundly confused note, perhaps thefault of the student who copied itdown. The true contrast to bemade isbetween the ,ev&vvLwotor EaKLaypxaFLevatirtues, that is, the physicaland ethical, which Harpocration (surely correctly) believes are herebeing distinguished from the purificatory virtues, and on the other handthe political virtues, which the Neoplatonic commentators also considered to be here rejected. I would excise the first &AAAKMai,eforerWvEacKtaypapt'evwv,if I did not suspect the corruption of beingbasic to the text. The translation should run as follows:

Plato's aim here is to distinguish off and intruth purify the purificatory virtues from all the inferiorvirtues, notonlythe "pseudonymous " ones, asHarpocrationdeclares-the "shadow-virtues," such as the physical andethical-not only these, but also the strictly political ones;for having separated off the vices, it is reasonable forhim now to purge away the inferior virtues.

The basis of the quarrel of the later commentators withHarpocration here, as inFr. 2 above, is simply their dependence on theamblichean table of the virtues, togetherwithamblichus' order of ethedialogues, which was based on this table. Iamblichus laid down, in all,seven grades of virtue, which the B commentary sets out at 113.14114.25 (BpAs'-ppj3').Iamblichus' fullest statement of his arrangementseems to have come in the lost HEp Apterwv which is referred to at113.21, and is doubtless being summarized here.The levels of virtues are as follows:

(1) ovawKac, uch as are common to us and the beasts, e.g.,lions are courageous, oxen prudent, storks just, and cranes wise (cf.01.InPhaed. 45.19ff). These are closely involvedwith one's physicalmakeup,andmay bemutually opposed to one another. They are discussed in theStatesman (306A) and in the Laws (VII 807C, XII 963E).


9/22

Harpocration's Commentary on Plato 133(2) rj'LKal. hese are acquired by practice (Eatoaos) andcorrect belief (opSooo'ia), and are proper towell brought-up childrenand also to some animals. They also are dependent on one's physicalmake-up and may conflict with one another. They are a joint productof the reason and the unreasoning element of the soul (Aoyosand

caAoyla). hese are also discussed in theLaws (BooksVII toVIII 842A).(3) oTTOXtTKa'.hese are products of the reason alone, for

they involve knowledge (E'rlart,-), but of reason as administering theunreasoning element as its instrument, i.e., using wisdom to bring orderto the knowledge-acquiring element, courage to the spirited element,self-control to the libido, and justice to all of them. The politicalvirtues do not oppose, but complement each other. They are discussedin the Republic (e.g., 4.441A), and are the subject of the Gorgias.(4) KaOaprTKal.hese are virtues proper to the Reasonalone. They are the virtues of one who has turned towards himself andcast aside all material instruments and the activities connected withthem. These are primarily discussed in the Phaedo.

(5) 0EWPprTLKal.hese are the virtues of a soul which hasalready abandoned itself and turned to what is above itself. These arethe converse of the "political" virtues, inasmuch as the latter concernthe Reason insofar as it directs itself towards what is inferior to it,whereas the former are concerned with the Reason's striving towardswhat is superior to it. These are the subject of the Theaetetus (172C176E).

(6) rrapaSyelyuaTtKal.hese are virtues of the soulwhen itis no longer contemplating the Intellect (for this implies separation).These virtues are properly those of the Intellect. It is not clear inwhichdialogue these virtues are discussed, but I suspect the Phaedrus (247Eff),with the account of the irepovpc'vWosOTos.

(7) LpaTrKal. These come into being in the godlike(GeoeSeoA)lement of the soul, surpassing all the aforementionedvirtues, as being proper to theOne (evla&ci), hereas they are properto Being (ovmalScoe).It seems probable that these were thought tohave been discussed in the Philebus.

This digression may perhaps seem excessive, but it servesto reveal a range of complexities of which Harpocration could have nonotion, and which make Neoplatonic criticism of his interpretation soirrelevant. In general, for the post-Iamblichean commentators, the


10/22

134 John DillonPhaedo, being next "above" the Gorgias, must be referring to, anddistinguishing itself from, the subjectmatter of the Gorgias, that is tosay, o roAL7tKoSnd the "political" virtues.Harpocration, then, made a simple distinction betweenthe pseudonymous or "shadow" virtues, and the true "pure" virtues ofthe philosopher, surely the distinction which Plato is in factmaking.He also, it seems, answered an aporia posed by thePeripatetics (p. 115, 19ff):

"'0 dc'ropovatv ol HnepltarqTFiKol TJS av TXareXopuEvopTpSOEcplaVpfLaOOtLY

Ov a MaLA pets (sc. aperac)OVTEarOCtcas TWV 1avXOEVKE V7rOKEILEpqSvr TvAWS &oylas'7raOCOv,daA' ovSe evepyeLwv TOv Aoyov TOv 7rpOS TraVraKaTtovaUCw Kal SEOpVbtwV Sl& TOVro7, KaOaTep oTrAXv, revXPETCOVtSTOY7A ovEYEUEWSTOAE~LOV.LOoL 7)8E9o- Oeso cvrsdpeT'v els rov Trrs yevcaew groAepzov. 8io pe/$ e roLs ?o's aCVras'eveCvaL, arTe Lr)Sev aCvrTv SeouE'voLg.

o pLEV OVAp7TOKpaTIlav E as'gKAc EvravOa Trs EvO17ALrela lr]al TrapaSscoaOac . . .

Why does the Sage require these other virtues, avSpeia,awopoav'vq, &8KatOviovq, any more than the gods will, if he is to have nocontact with the physical world? Harpocration's reply is interesting,though not satisfactory to the B commentator, since it seems tomake thevirtues as set out in the Republic pure forms of the virtues such as aresuitable to a sage (or a philosopher-king). Harpocration would thus,presumably, accept the formula for the political virtues as set out in thetable above that they are virtues of the logos n itsadministration of whatis below it.While in the body, the sage cannot divest himself of thelower parts of himself; he can only bring them under proper control.The difficulty raised by the Peripatetics is thuswithout force.Whetherthe gods (or the disembodied souls) have need of these three virtues, isanother question, andwe do not have Harpocration's verdict on it.The

Neoplatonists did ascribe all the virtues to the gods as well, but exercised in amode proper to gods, a piece of metaphysical double-talk towhich Harpocration was not equal.The matter is raised again at B pe#', p. 120, 1ff,where weare told that ot ATTLKOLeyr?'ai (the Athenian School) ranked theperfect virtues exercisable on earth as "purificatory," while Harpocration ranked them all as "political"-in other words, the virtuesas described in the Republic.


11/22


12/22

136 John Dillonsuggests, that there is a continuous creation of souls, ad infinitum.Theprocess of generation could then continue, even though souls dissolvedupon death. This was a most heretical notion from the Platonic pointof view (though an orthodox Christianone), and Harpocration is notproposing it, except as a possibility, but it is, after all, only an extensionof the heretical view of Plutarch andAtticus that theworld was createdinTime. Where there is one creation exnihilo, a presumption is createdthat theremay be more.8We may introduce at this point an interesting testimonyfromAeneas ofGaza, very possibly reflectingHarpocration's commentson Phaedo81.d9-82.b8:

7. Aen. Gaz. Theophr. 12.1ff Colonna:01 P.v rahAatol pvaaywyoyl rT AEyo/evoWv

PfETEKLV7UaV OVV, EVS el8Tres OT't Trov AlyTwrlVowv HlXcrwv nV7TrtLoEav 8&ElsaXwJ Kal 7Tap' eKEtLVWVtarLEOpvMAAtpevosacS7a, s 27 TycovovOpvwT;rwv bvX- 7vT ra r ca Ea TJralavel,7ravTaXoV Trv Aoywv S&aMrOWElE T ooy'ta. HAWTcrvos yow KaOAp7rOKpOaTrItv, &aELAe KaC Bor)7oS Kat NovuyvtogS rov rovIIHATovos IK-rvOV rapaCAaovE, T VKTLrVOV7TapaSt&iol Kat rTvXAKOV AVKOV KMal vov rTOv OVO' Kal O Trlr7Kos CVTOLS 0VK aXAO 7TOVO7 Kal 0 KVKVOS OVK OEAAo 27 KVKVOS VOtly?Tarl KaCl rrpO TOVaWC1LaTroaKtas' LU7l7TAar0aL7/V itvX)jVvvaTrovtvCa e'yovatKat rotS aAoyoLS ;ELKOKEaOalO' YOVVCOw40L0l, KaraTovro#EpETaC,aAAMy AMo rwov v7ro08aa.

Most of the animals mentioned here-the kite, the wolf,the ass-are mentioned in Phaedo 81d8ff, along with wasps, bees, andants, which are probably reflected in the "ants and flies" whichHarpocration is accused by Hermeias of immortalising inFr. 10 below.The swan and the ape are taken, of course, from the Myth of theRepublic (620Aff), where Orpheus and Thersites are seen in the formsofswan and ape respectively.

This question of metempsychosis into animals was ahotly debated one in later Platonism. Aeneas goes on to say (12.11ff)8We know in fact thatHarpocration followed hismaster Atticus inholdingthat the world was created in Time. (Schol.Cod. Vat. in Procl. In Remp. 20.377.15f. Kroll= Frag. 13 below.)


13/22

Harpocration's Commentary on Plato 137that both Porphyry and Iamblichus later rose above this literalinterpretation, and declared that Plato was referring in fact only todifferent styles of human life. Nemesius of Emesa (DeNat. Hom. ss.50-52, p. 115, 4ffMatth.) discussing the same point, gives a somewhatdifferent doxography. He does not mention Harpocration or Boethusor Numenius or Plotinus for the literal interpretation, but he refersinstead (p. 117, 1Matth.) to an essay by Cronius Iept raAtyyevealas,as well as to Porphyry and Theodorus of Asine, as all supporting theliteral interpretation. He then represents Iamblichus (117.5ff) asopposing all these, and drawing a strict division between human andanimal souls.

The C commentator on the Phaedo discusses the controversy ad loc. (p. 166, 24ffN.), but without mentioning names:

0OT rvy ef &Ta AAa ELS) terqEufvXwaV ol Lv7raAaLo'rpot HAarTWV KoL KaTa aviArrXrpowav e7lyovVTat, o tsoXAAc&Ev or aKpL./3eaTepol 'avrTAEyovacv, EKELVOe yUEyarovTrKpEOrjpOvrtIA ow'OS eLprtraL, TOElS 0E?V yEvoS aKvelta atTrvas- wC OSv T Otro ov avp7rAnqpovat eovs, ove EKEwot Ta aAaA5a.The argument from avtrArpwaLsneeds elucidation, whichit receives from what follows. The earlier Platonists argued that theremust bemetempsychosis into animals from the necessity of filling up the

quota for each species. They must have derived this notion fromTimaeus 42BC, where one might assume that at first only souls formale humans are created, then souls forwomen, and then those forirrational animals. The argument against this, by "the more accurate,"is thatwe agree that certainmen become gods, but that does not implythat the quota of divine souls needed filling up.C next mentions those who give a metaphorical, or"ethical" explanation, towhich he appends a refutation by hismaster.He then brings forward a third group of literal interpreters, of whomhe seems to approve (p. 167, 5ff):

TrpTOL SE oL Kcara CTraKoAoutovlwv Tv orVTv roFaAoyoitS S)OLS 4(0EV ytlVOUEV V,&CV T7VYO6OCaVEaOIO TOd EOfLOIOV(r tOtOUCOE)V flOVAOUEVOVal TOOVTWaafwss ElOfOVsotaLEvatKal ovv8IaplptLv OEOLS'V'S ETlpfrpEVOVTpOTEPOV,


14/22

138 John DillonKac El 7rEptTo /lvparj a aayKdeovriat 7avauai v~ rnrs7J7XS,s&LT&OVXLKaClrrept T&aEoya eLa,l Ka'MorptPa OVTr, SLtSKaCAAl TO}v vEKpawv autpaTrov.

An argument from the "natural consequence," Kar'E&TaKoAOV'81qUw,s here proposed, which may also be termed an argument from OlolwLatS.ike tends to like, sowhy may not the soul of ahuman "ass" tend towards the body of a real ass? It is no stranger,after all, than the fact of impure souls frequenting graveyards.Somewhere within these two types of literal interpreter,almost certainly, lurksHarpocration. Iwould tend to place him in thesecond group, on the basis of the phraseology of Aeneas, who is admittedly speaking generally of the whole group Boethus-Numenius

Harpocration-Plotinus, but who does say "SvvarTvEval XE'yovaL alTroLaAoyosI EELKaECoL (X yOVVCL'OW)0r7, KarE TOVITOCEperTaC,XAAX aAo


15/22

Harpocration's Commentary on Plato 139suggestions in the next sentence: "7rporTSv7raWTs Ao'y a rppTeov, urTeplTnj avrtS TolSy7ewypad(oCs staAeyerca d COKpaTTrS."That is the extent ofHarpocration's recorded comments onthe Phaedo.We can see, I think, even from this meager collection,something of the nature of his commentary, chiefly concerned with theinterpretation of words and phrases, usually in the form of aporiaiandluseis,often defending Plato from hostile criticism. The more generalsubstance of his commentary, the explanation of Plato's teaching, was,I suggest, largely absorbed without acknowledgement into the generalstream of later commentary, with only an occasional "r7ss,""rwes'" or"o VIev" showing through, where the Neoplatonists themselves hadevolved amore elaborate interpretation of the same passage.

IV. PHAEDRUSThis said, let us turn to the Phaedrus. Our source now is

Hermeias, the pupil of Syrianus, who quotes Harpocration in hisCommentary n thePhaedrus.9. Ad Phaedrum 230BC: (ap. Herm. In Phaedr. 32.1ff.

Couvreur): Socrates embarks on a praise of the spot beneath the planetreewhich Phaedrus has chosen. Harpocration remarked that Socratesishere seeking to outdo Phaedrus's original praise of the place in 229B:HoLEZlTal 6a 7-Oo7TXLVOV TOv 7o7TOV OVK avnoi-'

AortoLvJLoEVosrcj oCLaSpO, s (f7ratv 6AprrOKpa'rl)v, &AA& ros&arlqeavErwravost XptLaevogAll that Hermeias seems to be denying was any intentionon the part of Socrates to outdo Phaedrus, and since I cannot imaginethat Harpocration used the word avrtqtAorntuotlvos, if he used it, to

express any malicious intent by Socrates, it is hard to see what thesubstance of Hermeias' objection is, except perhaps that Socrates'praise

is quite spontaneous and without any relation to Phaedrus'previous remarks.

10. The second quotation concerns the famous statement#vX' TraTaaOdvaros, 245C. Hermeias begins his comment as follows(p. 102, 10ff.Couvreur):


16/22

140 John DillonHpc rov 7rTpl To'tas tvXjS 6 ;yosS Trp7E' v. o(UJLEVap 7TEpl7jsTOVKoTJUovOVP)SrflrlOavELvo ovAo'yovic

TO elp7iCKEva aVTOY f7T&Ora KaII ET oXya ETryetV 7'7yraVaTE

ovpavov 7ria yevVEVETV vTreaoav oarr'vca' vEOVaHoaeL&Svtos o0ZTrWKO'S.O SeTiEpl vraos? ar7TrAWKal rTj? Tro

fJLVp/LrKOS KaatILViS, Vec rTV AprTOKparTLWV TO yp raa em7raMCs VXX)jS'KOvLE.Posidonius and Harpocration are here quoted as representatives of two extreme interpretations. Hermeias, no doubt simply

representing Syrianus, takes "soul" here to refer only to the rationalsoul, but would agree with Harpocration that themeaning is "everysoul is immortal," rather than "soul as a whole is immortal," which isPosidonius' rather strained interpretation.Harpocration must, then, have extended immortality evento souls of "ants and flies," asHermeias disparagingly suggests. In doingso he was taking sides in an age-old debate among Platonists. The BCommentator on the Phaedogives a good survey of the range of views

(InPhaed. p. 124, 13ff.Norvin):OnTt o0 LEV oT TsAOyLKrjS SOY iVXS a TXPi TjSufsIv(Xov {?WS aEraoavaTlS0ovaLv, &csNov vtosgs iS PXpt

Tr7s WvaWSs,WS HAwTLvos EvIOi7TOV-t e uEIXPLtrr7Soyas, osTrCv uEV TraAwCv ZEVoKpadrTn Kal EETT(VTmTroS, Trv eVOEWpTEPVIftAlXOS,KaClIovTapXOS. oL CXplXPt LOVOVOVvovO,OElpovat ap TrVSo6;av,WS 7roAAotTv17epLrcpaTCqTLKwV'o0l f IeLXP TTrSoA')S /fV7XjS. fEtpOVUaLap ras /tepLKaCS LST7rV

Posidonius would fit into the last category, but whereshould we fit Harpocration? It depends, I think, on what is to beunderstood by 7 v',uXos ets. For the Stoics, e'4sswas the lowestprinciple of coherence of a compound body, proper to sticks and stones,below bi5tsm,Aoyos vXr}and AoyLtKjW/VXi. Plut. QuodDeus sit immut.35, S.E. Adv. Math. 9.81-85). The 'xvXo 'etSwill be the existentialdetermination of a living being while inhabited by soul. The materialelement itself cannot be immortal, but, for Numenius, it seems, thepart of the life-principlewhich inhabits itwas. I do not think that one isjustified on the evidence for taking it that Harpocration extended


17/22

Harpocration's Commentary on Plato 141immortality any further than j &Aoyc'a,t least ifHermeias' referenceto ants and flies is a technically accurate reflection of Harpocration'sviews. Yet we know from Iamblichus' De Anima that in respect at leastto the origin of evil in the soul, Harpocration largely agreed withNumenius and his student Cronius. We have two references to this:

11. ap. Stob. Anth. I p. 373, 12ff.Wachsmuth:TC)v

'a38uaTaL~EVV 7TpoS TOVTOVS Kay adTO TJV

'{eWE0v 7TpoU)CVvopLvEv TpOcTLOEaVTWevWv7raov j ivX, TOKaKOV,arTo iev rds vAsblNovlrviov

KaCKpov'ov 7roAAacKLs, rooE TrV W/oaTcw avrwv TroVTCOV EaTV OTE Ka' ApiPOKpaTCrvoS .

While of thosewho are at variance with thesethinkers (Plutarch and Atticus, and some others) and whowould attach evil to the soul in some way from elementswhich have accrued to it from outside, Numenius andCronius in many places derive it fromMatter, Harpocration also on occasion from the very nature of thesebodies of ours.Iamblichus has been saying that there has long been acontroversy in the Platonic school as to whether there are or are notirreconcilable elements in the soul. Plotinus and Numenius he singlesout (374.22ff) as protagonists in this debate. Certain others, such asPlutarch and Atticus, recognise a struggle of warring elements, but

postulate a reconciliation of them. All these, and Albinus as well, itseems (375.10) must assume a flaw in judgement, a "sin," within thesoul itself; the group to which Harpocration belongs imagine evil asexternal to the soul, and thus consider theworld a totally evil place. Itis indeed an important problem inPlatonism, andHarpocration ishereplaced in the ranks of theworld-negaters. His position seems to be evenmore extreme than that of Numenius and Cronius, if he regards thebody itself as the source of evil, instead of matter in general. It is thusnot likely that he followed Numenius in extending immortality to theluvXo.s fils. It is surprising, indeed, that he extended immortality tothe souls of irrational animals, but perhaps he felt that in all animatebeings there was a spark of immortal soul-stuff that could be salvaged.He is linked again with Numenius and Cronius in the viewthat all incarnation is evil, in a passage where Iamblichus is dealing


18/22

142 John Dillonwith the varieties of union which the soul may have with the body.Harpocration, it seems, felt that therewere no significant varieties.

12. ap. Stob. 1.380.14ff. Wachs:


19/22

Harpocration's Commentary on Plato 143while the Platonist Severus, probably contemporary with Harpocration(ca. A.D. 200), produced a Stoic-influenced solution (ap.Procl. In Tim.I.289.6ff), holding that the cosmos in general was eternal, but that thesystem inwhich we presently exist had come into being. He appealedto the avaKVKArcaetsescribed in the Politicus (270B), and argued thateach alternate cycle could be said to " come tobe," and that that iswhatPlato must mean here.

We have the evidence forHarpocration's view preservedin a scholion on Proclus' InRempublicam2.10.6 Kroll, where Proclus iscriticising tvE'sor asserting that the cosmos is destructible by naturebut indestructible by decree of God. The scholiast explains thatreference (InRemp. 2.377.15ff Kroll):

13. '0 Ap7OoKpaCTwv KaCl ATTLKOS 01 TO yEV7)TOV AEyEtr6Oa rOvKoaOUov eV TLull VTO TroV lAarTvosV KaTra Xpovov aKOVOVTES, eTreSrfq4AptaTOTeA7)s- yKaAe Tw)Oel) IlATwhvt EV 1IIEpl oVpavov, &6TL AyoWVKaoaI ttt wi t tXpovov OV KoaJLovev7ro'v, cOs EKELvoSCrEL, Aeyel avrov cIOaprov ElvaL,7JroAoylciV olovTraL evpl`KefV 1Tpos avrov AEyovTres, OTLt f6apToS (LEVE(TtLSiLrv 'Eav',rov fv tv, acifuOapTosbe SLa/LesELSc Trjv -rov OEO Pov Xraiv.The Aristotle reference is to De Caelo I 10, p. 280a 28ff.

Harpocration is here firmly linked with his master Atticus in thiscontroversy. Proclus mentions, and criticises, Atticus explicitly in theIn Timaeum, ad 28BC, (I.283.27ff), and ad 30A, on a kindred matter,(1.391.4ff). Since the second criticism of Atticus is expressly lifted from

Porphyry, we may conjecture that the formerwas also. The mention ofol TrepITT'KOVt 391.7 might be taken to include Harpocration, butone cannot be certain. Harpocration no doubt on this subject repeatedand summarized Atticus' position.

He is ranked with Numenius, however, and againstAtticus, in his view of the nature of theDemiurge, which may or maynot be a comment on Tim. 28C: rodvxLevoVv TrotL'rv KaL rTarepa TrovOTOV rTarVTOS EVpE v TE EpyOV Kal EVpOVTIX ES kXcaVTS aOVVaTOV A eyv.Proclus (In Tim. I.303.27ff) quotes the views of Numenius, Harpocration and then Atticus in the course of his exegesis of this lemma, but notnecessarily from comments of theirs on this particular place.10

10After these Middle Platonists, he refers to Plotinus (Enn. 3.9.1), and thentoAmelius, Porphyry, Iamblichus, Theodorus of Asine, and finally toSyrianus, presumablyin these cases quoting from formal commentaries. It is a most comprehensive doxography.


20/22

144 John DillonNumenius' view is as follows. He distinguishes three gods,ofwhom he calls the first "Father," the second "Creator," and the third

"Creation," by which he means the cosmos. He thus, says Proclus,postulates two demiurges. Whether this is a fair description ofNumenius' first god, who was in fact freed by Numenius from activeservice, is another matter. What is interesting is that Numenius took7rotlrj}vand rareapas referring to two different beings. In this he wasfollowed by Harpocration (I.304.22ff):

14. Ap7roKpaTto v Se OavLaacratp, acv, EL Kal OVTrOS EaTOV yeapeoaKOLTOLCVra7TEptl01ro IlOVpyOV 8a7arT7fOLEV0o'ETETaLIR-EVap Tr8e r7dvSpl (sc. Numenius) KCarartv Trav rpiuv OEwVrrapdoawV KaLKaOacov Strrov7TOLELoYv8ryjtopyov, arTOKaAELe Tv ieLvrpCUTov OeOdOvpavov KC Kpo'vov,rov &e 8evTepovLtca KaCZrva, Trv 8e Trplov oVpavdvKat KO:JoOV.TcrdA 8' aiLeuraflcco3c Tov 7TpWroV lLa 'rpporaVyopevetKal flaaltA'a tro vorrov, rov 8E8EvTEpOVapXovra, Kat 0 avrod avrT) yLyvEra ZEvs Kal Kpovos Kal Ovpavos.This is an interesting piece of testimony. Where it cameinHarpocration's Commentarys not certain, though some presumptionis created that it concerned Tim. 28C. (Numenius' theory is obviouslyexplicitly related to this passage.) It is interesting, though, that Harpocration is portrayed as contradicting himself. He calls his first godnow Uranos and Cronos, and his second Zeus and Zen, says Proclus,and then again, changing his ground, he calls his first god Zeus and"the King of the intellectual realm," and the second "the Ruler." It ishardly credible that Harpocration contradicted himself in the samepassage. What I think we have here is a conflation made either byProclus, or already by Porphyry. The places in Plato which spring tomind are Cratylus 396A-C, for the first identification, and Phaedrus246Eff, for the second. Itmay indeed be thatwe have a garbled recordof three different comments by Harpocration, if we assume that hecommented on Timaeus28C aswell, adopting Numenius' interpretation,and perhaps relating it to the first of the identifications mentionedabove. Numenius does not seem to have made any identifications herewith the traditional gods, but invented names of his own, of whichProclus disapproves (304.3ff), "raCTrros" or his first god, "Eyyovos"for his second, and "drrdyovos"for his third.If I am right in assuming that Harpocration also dealtwith the Phaedruspassage, then he took the Zeus there described asrepresenting his firstgod, and a being which he denominates "Archon"


21/22

Harpocration's Commentary on Plato 145as his second, the Demiurge proper. Whence he derived this term isobscure tome (atPhaedr.247a3 theOlympians are termed Eol opXovres,but this plural does not help us much); it has a Gnostic ring. TheGnostic Basilides (ca. A.D. 130) called the Demiurge o LeeyaspXwv, i7KEfxrnAr o KCoaTovHipp. Ref. X 14,6).We may recall also that Satanis repeatedly termed o apXcovrov KoaLovro7roV in St. John's Gospel(12.31; 14.30; 16.11). Harpocration's view of thisworld tends in otherrespects towards Gnosticism, as we have seen (frr. 10 and 11), thoughwe cannot conclude on the evidence that he considered his second godto be amalevolent force, since he is prepared to identify him with theZeus of the Cratylus.

VI. REPUBLICWe have had occasion tomention above (n. 3) a list ofcommentators on theMyth of Er which Proclus gives In Remp. 2.96.10ff,which includesHarpocration. I give it again here, as a testimony.

15. Kal tdeXtaO'oTt Trool T7rs epl avrov E/nbavyro KaCrCaVO7jaUEWSal TWVIjAaTrvLKWv oL Kopva-lot, NovpmVLOS!,XAAPfvos, ratZos,MCdftLos o6NtKaev'S, Ap7roKparClv,, EVKAEtXeKS, atl r raiatv H7oprvpLosf, 'oeyCO7trcvTov LaAhLara TWv v T )o[pHto KEKpVyL.kEVOjVevea'atL fypl rTeAEovE 7iyrlrqv. From this we derive the bald fact that Harpocrationcommented on the myth. We may also suspect that, for Proclus,Porphyry is the immediate source for his knowledge of all theMiddlePlatonic commentators. We may note further that Numenius is hererecorded as having written on themyth, and a little furtheron (p. 110.4)we find Cronius quoted on a question pertaining to it,whereas Atticusis not mentioned by Proclus in this connection. We might concludefrom this that Harpocration is here following Numenius and Cronius,rather than hismaster. We do have a record of Numenius' interpretation of the Toros tS aXIvlLOS of Rep. 614C1 (Procl. InRemp. 2.128.26),which Harpocration may have followed. However, since there is nonecessity that he did, I leave thematter there.

VII.We have now set out all that survives of the work of

Harpocration. There is no reason not to assume that all the referencespreserved are to his voluminous CommentarynPlato. I suspect thiswork


22/22

146 John Dillonto have been primarily a repository for all of the scholarly activityconcerning Plato's dialogues that had taken place up to that time,along with some original comments by Harpocration himself, whichare, not surprisingly, all that has been preserved to us. The rest, Isuggest, being regarded as gemeingut,was plundered without acknowledgement by the Neoplatonic commentators, primarily, perhaps,Porphyry. How the twenty-four books of this commentary weredivided up, orwhy there were twenty-four books, isof course not clear.Possibly, Harpocration ran to twenty-four books with the Iliad and theOdyssey inmind. Certainly a compendium of Platonic scholarship uptoA.D. 200 or so could be extended to twenty-four bookswithout muchdifficulty.

Harpocration's own philosophical position turns out to beinteresting, as constituting a linkbetween theAthenian Academy, in theperson of his teacher, Atticus, and the Syrian school of Numenius, whooffered amuch more exotic Platonism. Harpocration subscribes to the"heresy" of Plutarch and Atticus, as to the creation of the world intime, but on the subjects of the soul, the nature of theworld, and theidentity of the Demiurge he sided rather with Numenius and Cronius,revealing world-negating tendencies.As to how long his work survived, or to whom it wasavailable, the evidence is inconclusive. The latest writer to quote himisAeneas of Gaza, but it hardly sounds as ifAeneas had direct accessto his work. Nor in fact can one be certain about Olympiodorus,Damascius, Proclus, Hermeias, or even Iamblichus. All our referencestoHarpocration are doxographical in nature, and sound second-hand.Inevitably one thinks of the industrious Porphyry as middle-man. Thefact thatHarpocration isquoted at second hand by later commentatorsdoes not, of course,mean that his work was not available to them, but

merely that they did not take the trouble to take it down from the shelf,being satisfiedwith the second-hand evidence of what they consideredto be a reliable witness. I suggest that after a full set of Neoplatoniccommentaries on Plato had emerged, by the middle of fifth centuryA.D., or even earlier, the work of Harpocration ceased to be recopiedand crumbled to dust.11

University of CaliforniaBerkeley11 I am indebted to Dr. Michael Frede for many helpful criticisms.

Harpocration's Commentary on Plato John Dillon

Documents

Transcript of Harpocration's Commentary on Plato John Dillon