ALBINUS' METAPHYSICS. AN ATTEMPT AT REHABILITATION

BY

J. H. LOENEN ' II. The sources of Albinus' metaphysics. In the first part of this article I have tried to show the originality of Albinus' interpretation of Plato's metaphysics as a whole. It re- mains to inquire in how far originality may be ascribed to him as regards the details of his interpretation. Here we touch on the ticklish subject of the sources. It is often assumed that an indi- cation of the sources is a sufficient explanation of a philosopher's system 1). Yet methodically one ought to start from the presumption of his originality. The question must therefore be put in this way: which certain, or very probable, results have been achieved by the study of the sources of Albinus and to what extent is his originality diminished by it? I shall divide this inquiry into two parts, by studying first the sources of Albinus in general, and then the sources of the elements out of which his metaphysics have been built up. In doing so one must pay special attention to the question what exactly it is one wants to prove and whether the data justify the conclusion. In my opinion scholars have not always been sufficiently discerning in this respect. It is e.g. of fundamental importance whether it can only be proved that a certain thinkers

i ) It is tempting to cite here a passage from P. Thevenaz, L'dme du monde, le devenir et la matiere chez Plutarque (Th6se), Neuchâtel 1938, p. 125-6: "La fameuse m6thode de recherche des sources est venue fausser, me semble-t-il, 1'6tude des philosophes secondaires; elle se fonde souvent. sur un pr6jug6 vivace: un auteur secondaire ou eclectique n'est pas tres intelligent; sa pens6e manque d'unit6 et sa philosophie n'est pas vLcue. L'expliquer consiste a faire la somme de ses sources, a d6couper son oeuvre pour restituer leur bien a ceux qu'il a pilhss. On ne peut m6connattre plus. totalement ce qu'est une influence dans le domaine de 1'esprit. Les id6es ne se transmettent pas comme des pi6ces de monnaie, par simple distri- bution m6canique". He then refers to an inquiry of P. Boyanc6 concerning historical method in the study of Cicero (Rev. Et. latines 14 (1936), p. z88-- 309) and points out that more than one of his observations also applies to. the study of Plutarch. This is no less true for Albinus. 36 knew a preceding one, viz. read him (and was therefore more or less influenced by him), or that he used him in the strict sense as a source. And in the last case the influence may have been worked up into a personal system, so that his predecessor only served as a material source, or the author may have adopted the central thoughts and all the essential elements. The sources of Albinus in general. Two authors have been pointed out as the sources of Albinus: (i) Gaius, and (2) Antiochus of Askalon via Arius Didymus. We do not know anything for certain about Gaius' life and doctrine 1). Yet half a century ago Th. Sinko defended the thesis that Albinus and Apuleius, independently of each other, used Gaius as a source, so that from these two Gaius' doctrine might be reconstructed 2). This would imply for Albinus that he has no originality whatever. This hypothesis was also adopted in a more moderate form by Praechter. He, too, assumes for both authors a common dependence on Gaius, but he denies that in this way Gaius' doctrine might be reconstructed, because "ein unmittelbares Schiilerverhaltnis des Apuleius zu Gaios...., wenn auch moglich, so doch unerweislich ist" 3). Praechter, however, thinks that it "hbchstwahrscheinlich bleibt", that Albinus and Apuleius "in allem Wesentlichen auf Gaios zurfckgehen" (italics mine), because Albinus directly and Apuleius directly or indirectly (via a work of Albinus which cannot, however, have been the ,,Didaskalikos") have borrowed from Gaius'). Br6hier, too, thinks it impossible to dispense with the hypothesis of Sinko 5). In criticizing this hypothesis I do not have to dwell on the extreme thesis of Sinko, because Praechter's objection is fully justified, but I must consider whether the resemblances between Albinus and Apuleius are such that for the two of them dependence on Gaius (for Apuleius possibly in an indirect way) must be assumed 1) I refer to Louis, o.c., p. XIII-XIV, and to K. Praechter, Zum Pla- toniker Gaios, Hermes 51(1916), p. 510-29. 2) Th. Sinko, De Apulei et Albini doctrinae Platonicae adumbratione, Cracov. 1905, p. 42 sq. 3) Ueberweg-Praechter, p. 546. 4) Praechter, o.c. (Zum Platoniker Gaios), p. 510 n. 5) Br6hier, o.c., p. 41.