Plato in the Academy: some cautious reflections

Abstract

In recent years, some new evidence has come to light concerning Plato's relation, in his last years, to Philip of Opus, and the last days of Plato's life. No new evidence has come up concerning Plato's activity in the Academy. As shown long ago by John Lynch and myself, Plato did not – could not – own the Academy, a public institution, but had his own οἰκίδιον, a small house and garden, near that gymnasium. Apart from the famous fragment of Epicrates, which takes place ἐν γυμνασίοις Ἀκαδημείας and/or ἐν λέσχαις τοιαῖσδε, our sources indicate that the activity of Plato and his colleagues took place on Plato's private property near the Academy, ἀρχιτεκτοῦντος καὶ προβλήματα διδόντος τοῦ Πλάτωνος. This seems to indicate a research ‘institute' rather than a school with proper teaching and seminars. Aristotle's evidence (transmitted through the testimonies of Aristoxenus and Simplicius) concerning Plato's περὶ τ᾿ἀγαθοῦ ἀκρόασις is couched in terms of one single (and memorable, to those present) occasion rather than to regular Lehrvorträge or seminars. Aristotle seems to know about some Platonic doctrines which go beyond what can be deduced from the dialogues, but his expression (Phys. Δ, 209b14-15) ἐν τοῖς λεγομένοις ἀγράφοις δόγμασι (emphasis mine) is puzzling in any case, and would be even more so if Aristotle were referring to some continuous public teaching by Plato. Apart from Epicrates, Aristotle's is the only serious primary evidence for Plato's doctrines. It presents some combination of the Ideas and the One and the Indivisibe Dyad. As to the mathematical part of this amalgam, it seems to be supported by the evidence about περὶ τ᾿ἀγαθοῦ ἀκρόασις, indicating, perhaps, a later stage in Plato's thought. But Aristotle's language in relation to the initiators and upholders of the theory of ideas has been, I fear, too easily dismissed. Of the many places in Metaphysics (I have counted at least ten), apart from A 6, where Plato is mentioned by name, only twice (1028b19f.; 1070a18f.) is he mentioned in connection with τὰ εἴδη (not αἱ ἰδέαι). In many places, we have οἳ τὰς ἰδέας λέγουσιν/τιθέασιν/ποιοῦσιν and the like. What is more baffling is Aristotle's account at M 4, 1078b 7f., of οἱ πρῶτοι τὰς ἰδέας φήσαντες εἶναι. I am not the first or the hundredth to notice that this account is verbally very similar to the account of Plato at A 9. This has puzzled those (most scholars, I suppose) who are firmly convinced that Plato was the ‘only begetter" of the Theory of Ideas. Cherniss dismisses this ‘small detail': "The attempt by Burnet and Taylor to refer οἱ πρῶτοι τὰς ἰδέας φήσαντες εἶναι to persons other than Plato no longer requires consideration" – citing articles by Adam, Field, Robin and De Vogel. Field simply states that "the use of the plural (οἱ πρῶτοι) proves nothing in Aristotle". Why? Because. But Aristotle can mention Plato's name when he so wishes – he does so dozens of times in his works. Moreover, at A 9 he ascribes that same things to Plato which at M 4 he ascribes to these πρῶτοι. Add to it that he does something similar in Nicomachean Ethics, where Plato is mentioned three times by name (1093a32; 1104b12; 1172b28); but when it comes to the Ideas, we have at A 6 1096a13 διὰ τὸ φίλους ἄνδρας εἰσαγαγεῖν τὰ εἴδη. I think such facts need reconsidering.(John Glucker, University of Tel Aviv)