COMMENTARY ON FRAGMENTA F 1a-b There is really only one independent source for the story of Plato's miraculous birth as told by Speusippus: this is either Diogenes Laertius III, 2, if as Lang thought Jerome depends on him, or as Bickel argued a source ultimately common to both. Even if the latter is the case, however, it is Diogenes who reproduces that source more accurately, as we shall see. 1 The story as we have it in F ra seems to imply that at the time of Plato's conception Perictione was still a virgin, for otherwise there is no reasonable explanation of the words wpoc(ocv o?icrocv TI)v IlepLX't'L6V'Y)V and xoc6ocpliv YrXfLOU Apollo,4 and so he left Perictione free of the marital tie until she gave birth to Plato. The implication is that Apollo was Plato's real father. If Perictione had had sexual relations with Ariston before the time of Plato's con­ ception, the whole point of the story would be lost. If these are the implications, however, the anecdote told by

1 Cf. p. 233 f. and notes 23 and 24 infra. 2 On the eyy{J1J and on y&{Lo~ ( = sexual intercourse) cf. Harrison, The Law of Athens. The Family and Property (Oxford, 1968), pp. 1-9. 3 ~t&~e:cr6oct is a conative imperfect and, hence, Hicks' translation, "made violent love to Perictione," is inaccurate. 4 The words !8e:rv (sc. 't'OV 'Aplcrnuvoc) -ri)v -rou 'Arr6J..J..wvo~ il~tv need not mean, and can hardly mean, more than that, though some translators, e.g. Hicks and Gigante, assume that they refer to a vision in a dream. It is other ancient authors who mention a dream in narrating Plato's alleged miraculous birth (e.g. Plutarch, Quaest. Conviv. VIII, 717 D-E), but then these writers do not refer to Speusippus at all. COMMENTARY ON FRAGMENTA 229

Speusippus contradicts the evidence we have that not Plato but Adeimantus was the oldest son of Ariston and Perictione. That evidence is provided by Plato himself when in the Apology (33 C- 34 A) he has Socrates say that, if he had corrupted the youth, then Adeimantus, being Plato's brother (and standing therefore in loco parentis, as the context shows), would now have come to complain against Socrates, whereas Adeimantus, like others in a similar position, has come to help him. 5 Hence, unless the anecdote narrated by Speusippus has somehow been distorted by later writers (but there is no evidence of this), we must infer that he told a story that was current in Athens (n.b. ~~ 'Ae~v'Y)cnv ~v Myo~), but that he himself could not have attached any credibility to it. For it is highly improbable that Speusippus, who was Plato's nephew, who claimed to know about Plato's early life from documents or in­ formation belonging to the family (cf. F 2 with comm. ad loc.), and who certainly must have been acquainted with the Apology, could have believed not only in the absurdity of Plato's divine parentage but even that he was the oldest son of Ariston and Perictione. The incompatibility of this story with the historical evidence and the fact that Speusippus told it as one which was current in Athens are decisive reasons to reject the attempts that have been made to ascribe to Speusippus the intention of deifying Plato.6

6 Cf. Burnet's note on Apology 34 A 1. On this whole question and on the implication of Republic 368 A also, cf. Burnet, Greek Philosophy, pp. 206-207 and Davies, Ath. Prop. Fam., pp. 332-333, both of whom point out that in all probability Glaucon, too, was older than Plato. 8 That Speusippus, like Plato, may have applied the adjective !le:'Lo~ to human beings (cf. note 25 infra) is a different thing from believing that Plato was actually the son of a god. Among those who think that Speusippus' intention was to make of Plato a divine being in the latter sense cf. Stenzel, cols. 1667, 32-1668, 2, Isnardi Parente, p. 869, and especially Boyance, Le culte des Muses 2, pp. 257-267 who attempts to trace back to Speusippus all the ancient passages that refer to Plato's alleged miraculous birth. This is a highly improbable hypothesis, however, in view of the fact that, with the exception of Diogenes, Jerome, and perhaps the authors they cite (i.e. Clearchus and Anaxilides), no other ancient author refers to Speusippus. Moreover, the story as each of these other authors tells it is not parallel to the version given by Speusippus (cf. the reference to Riginos in p. 234 infra). (In support of his interpretation Boyance, op. cit., p. 255 asserts that for Speusippus three is "le premier nombre proprement dit," whereas Speusippus not only considered, as also Plato and Aristotle did, that two is a number, but even gave a specific argument to show that one is the first number [ cf. on F 28, lines 18-22 infra].) On the other hand, there is no reason why the story of Plato's miraculous