Durham E-Theses Dissoi Logoi: A New Commented Edition MOLINELLI, SEBASTIANO How to cite: MOLINELLI, SEBASTIANO (2018) Dissoi Logoi: A New Commented Edition, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/12451/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk Abstract Sebastiano Molinelli Dissoi Logoi: A New Commented Edition What in 1897 Ernst Weber first called ‘Dissoi Logoi’ is an untitled work written by an anonymous author in a peculiar kind of Doric dialect and which was handed down at the end of a few manuscripts of Sextus Empiricus. Since Thomas Robinson’s authoritative edition in 1979, most scholars have regarded Dissoi Logoi as a collection of lecture notes by a sophist lived between the 5th and 4th century BCE. In this thesis, articulated in five chapters, I will analyse and, where necessary, rethink the standard view about the most salient historical, philological and philosophical matters concerning Dissoi Logoi. After briefing the reader on the theoretical and methodological framework of my research (Preface), I will devote the first chapter (Introduction) to the transmission, language, literary influences, date, place, and nature of the work. In the second chapter (Critical Text and Translation), I will offer my critical Greek text of Dissoi Logoi and a parallel English translation of it. In the third chapter (Commentary), I will closely analyse the most relevant lemmas, from a linguistic, rhetorical and philosophical viewpoint. In the fourth chapter (The Author’s Message), firstly, I will investigate the work as a whole, thus tackling the highly debated problem of its unity; then, I will draw an overall outline of the author’s sophistic thought; finally, I will assess the possible theoretical connections between this work and the later Pyrrhonean tradition. At the end of this journey, I will summarize the various conclusions which I have reached throughout the thesis and which delineate a new portrait of Dissoi Logoi, alternative to that of the standard view (Conclusion). Dissoi Logoi: A New Commented Edition Sebastiano Molinelli A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Classics and Ancient History Durham University 2017 Table of contents Statement of copyright………………………………………………………………2 Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………….2 Dedication…………………………………………………………………………….2 Abbreviations of works of reference……………………………………………….3 Preface………………………………………………………………………...……....4 1. Introduction………………………………………………………..........................7 § 1. Textual transmission………………………………….………………..…...7 § 2. Language of the work………………………………………………….......14 § 3. Defining Dissoi Logoi…………………………………………………….....24 § 3.1 The Standard View……………………………………….……….......24 § 3.2 Literary influences…………………………………….…………........25 § 3.3 Date and place………………………………………….………….…..35 § 3.4 Nature of the work……………………………….…….………...…....44 2. Critical Text and Translation…………………………….………………........…50 3. Commentary……………………..……………………………………………..…90 4. The author’s message……………………………………………………..……..267 § 1. Two parts, one work: the structural duality and conceptual unity of Dissoi Logoi………………………………………………………….……267 § 2. The author’s sophistic ideology……..……………………………….…...272 § 3. Within the first section…………………………..…………………….…..277 § 3.1 Chapters 1-6……………………………………………..….…….........277 § 3.2 Chapters 1-5 and 6………………………………………….……........279 § 3.3 Chapters 1-4………………………………………………….………...285 § 4. A Pyrrhonian sophist?..................................................................................286 5. Conclusion…………………………………………………...……………….…...296 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………298 1 Statement of copyright The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without the author's prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged. Acknowledgements I thank Professor George Boys-Stones for having accepted to supervise this work at the end of the second year of my programme, and for the invaluable quality of the comments he has made on my drafts. I also thank Professor Luca Castagnoli, my former supervisor, for his help in my first two years, and Professor Edward Harris for the time he devoted to me when I was working on Dissoi Logoi 7. I am thankful to the whole Department of Classics and Ancient History for the wonderful opportunity they gave me of carrying out this research, and to my beloved parents, for the economic support necessary for its actualization. I owe a thank to the ancient philosophy community of the department for the cheerful times we spent around the library table at the reading-group, as well as to all the friends I have found at St Aidan’s College in these four years, Purrnoor above all. Dedication I dedicate this thesis to the memory of my grandparents Veris and Giacomina, who passed away during these four years. 2 Abbreviations Works of reference BNP = Brill’s New Pauly, Antiquity volumes edited by: Hubert Cancik and Helmuth Schneider. Consulted online on 1 August 2017. DELG = Chantraine, P. (1968), Dictionnaire Étymologique de la Langue Grecque, Paris: Éditions Klincksieck. LSJ = Liddel, H. G., Scott, R. and Jones, H. S. (1996), A Greek-English Lexicon: With a Revised Supplement, Oxford: Clarendon Press. OED = Simpson, J. and Weiner, E. (eds.) (1989), The Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford: Clarendon Press. TLG = Thesaurus Linguae Graecae® Digital Library. Ed. Maria C. Pantelia. University of California, Irvine. Consulted online on 1 August 2017. Greek authors are abbreviated as in LSJ and Latin ones as in Glare, P. G. W. (1996), Oxford Latin Dictionary [1968-1982], Reprinted with Corrections, Cary: Oxford University Press. Critical Apparatus Bl. = Blass Ro. = Robinson codd. = codices Roh. = Rohde Di. = Diels Scha. = Schanz DK = Diels/Kranz Schu. = Schulze Fa. = Fabricius St. = Stephanus Mu. = Mullach Va. = Valckenaer No. = North Wi. = Von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Or. = Von Orelli 3 Preface Thomas M. Robinson’s full-length edition of Dissoi Logoi (with critical text, English translation and commentary), first published in 1979, marked a watershed in the history of the scholarship on this work.1 The interpretation of Dissoi Logoi as a sophistic text had already been hinted by Lodewijk C. Valckenaer in 1802, was firstly defended with adequate detail by Theodor Bergk in 1883, and consensus grew around it in the 20th century, among scholars such as Heinrich Gomperz, Max Pohlenz, Walter Kranz, Adolfo Levi, and Mario Untersteiner, just to name few.2 However, only with Robinson the sophistic attribution proved at once likely and preferable to the other alternatives which had been suggested over the centuries and which he first scrupulously analysed and refuted. Before quickly passing in review over these former attributions, we must recall how this text was handed down to us at the end of Sextus Empiricus’ manuscripts, and how in 1570 it was initially printed within an appendix to Henricus Stephanus’ edition of Diogenes Laertius’ De vitis philosophorum devoted to Pythagorean fragments.3 From then, it was attributed, in the chronological order of the scholars, to the Stoic Sextus of Chaeronea (Johann A. Fabricius), to the writer who forged the fragments of Archytas (Otto F. Gruppe), to the Socratic Simmias of Thebes (Friedrich Blass), to Simon the shoemaker, friend of Socrates (Gustav Teichmüller), to Miltas of Thebes, former rhetor and then Platonic philosopher (Theodor Bergk), and to a semi- Eleatic thinker of the Socratic circle (Alfred E. Taylor).4 As always, the value of a study is measured not just in how much it breaks with the past, but also in the duration of its acceptance within the scholarly community. From this perspective too, Robinson’s edition proves outstanding, because although a lot of ink has been spilled on Dissoi Logoi since its publication, its answers to some 1 Robinson (1979). 2 Gomperz (1912), Pohlenz (1913), Kranz (1937), Levi (1940), Untersteiner (1954), Untersteiner (1967). 3 Stephanus (1570). 4 Fabricius (1724), Gruppe (1840), Blass (1881), Teichmüller (1884), Bergk (1883), Taylor (1911). 4 fundamental questions concerning the work’s composition — namely ‘by whom?’, ‘when?’, ‘where?’, ‘with what goal?’, ‘under whose influence?’ — are still held as correct by the vast majority of scholars, and they still represent the standard view on these matters. The sole exception is Thomas M. Conley’s supposition, in 1985, that the work is actually a forgery from a Byzantine school, and to which Robinson replied in 2003.5 One may also want to recall that in 1998 Myles Burnyeat gave the idea for exploring the possibility of a reception of Dissoi Logoi by Pyrrhoneans;6 a suggestion which, too, albeit new, did not contrast with Robinson’s views in any way, the two being compatible. When four years ago I started