Notes on a Commentary on Plato's "Parmenides" ROUECHÃ#, MOSSMAN Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Winter 1971; 12, 4; ProQuest pg. 553 Notes on a Commentary on Plato's Parmenides Mossman Roueche A LITTLE-KNOWN ANALYSIS of the argument in Plato's Parmenides is found in the anonymous scholia which complement Pro­ clus' incomplete commentary on the dialogue in a number of MSS.l The preservation of these scholia in sixteen MSS indicates their in­ terest to students of the dialogue in the XIII to the XVI centuries, while their existence as a Byzantine commentary on the Parmenides and their relation to Proclus' commentary invite us to examine them more closely. The analysis itself will be presented first, and then their position in the history of Byzantine scholarship. The author of the scholia divides Parmenides' argument, unusually, into six Hypotheses. The size of Proclus' commentary on the First Hypothesis being sufficient to discourage the addition of any further material, the scholia begin with the Second Hypothesis, and a detailed exposition of the system of division does not occur until the beginning of the Third Hypothesis. This suggests that the scholia are incomplete as we have them. Nonetheless, the system is pointedly referred to in the discussion of the Second Hypothesis (Cousin p.1267.18:ff), and the way in which it would be applied to the First Hypothesis is described (Cousin p.1289.1ff). The analysis, in its abstract form, is quite simple and is presented by the author of the scholia as follows (Cousin p.1288.4ff): , ,,, ,~, )/ ~, ..... f 1 \',,, £t yap ECTL 'TOO £TL, 'TptXWC £1T£X££POV(-t£V· O(-tOtWC Kat H OVK £CTL, ....., ..... '" ,..... .... 'TP£XWC £1T£X£tPOU(-tEV· ••• TLva £1T£'Ta£, Kat 'TaV'Ta 'TE'TpaxwC" ••• I ,r, \, , ..... I \ r \ , 'Ttva OVX E1TE'Ta£, Kat aV'Ta 'T£'TpaxwC" 'Twa 'T£ 1TpOC £aV'Ta Kat , ,,\ "\ '\ ,,' \ t , ,,' \ \ 'Twa 1TpOC 'Ta al\/\a, Kat aV'Ta 1TpOC EaU'Ta, Ka£ aV'Ta 1TpOC 'Ta 1TpO- 1 ,/ ~ ,," ", """ KEL(-tEva· KaL 'TLVa £1TE'TaL KaL OUX E1TE'TaL, Kat aU'Ta 'TE'Tpaxwc. 1 The text in V. Cousin, Procli Philosophi Platonici, Opera Inedita, Pars tertia (Paris 1864, repro Hildesheim 1961) pp.1257ff (i.e. 2X6AUZ ,ile 'TOV nAa'TWVOe naP/LEVl8'Y}v) has been used for this study. For a discussion of the Proclus-Parmenides MSS, including those containing the scholia, see R. Klibansky, Plato Latinus III (London 1953) xxix f. 553 554 NOTES ON A COMMENTARY ON PLATO'S PARMENIDES Its application to Parmenides' argument is best seen in an outline: I. €l €v ~C7"'V A. Hypothesis I (137c-142A): Ttva oux €1T€Tat. 1. For the One in relation to itself. 2. For the One in relation to the others. 3. For the others in relation to themselves. 4. For the others in relation to the One. B. Hypothesis II (142A-155E): Ttva €1T€Tat. 1.-4. C. Hypothesis III (155E-160B): Ttva €1T€Ta£ Ka~ oux €1T€Ta£. 1.-4. A. Hypothesis IV (160B-163c): Ttva €1T€Tat. 1.-4. B. Hypothesis v (163c-164A): Ttva OUX €1T€Tat. 1.-4. C. Hypothesis VI (164B-166c): Ttva E1T€Ta£ K~ OUX E1T€Tat. The first source for this interpretation is found in the Parmenides it­ self (136A4-c5) where Parmenides indicates the procedure one must follow in an exercise such as is proposed by Zeno. There, he states that in order truly to YVf.LvaclHjvat TOV "\6yov, it is necessary to consider the subject in both a positive and a negative manner (I and II above), and in each case, to examine the results of comparisons of the matter under consideration and its opposites (1-4 above). The three cate- . '" ,. ., d ,., ,." (A-C gones, nva E1TETat, nva OVx E1T€Ta£, an Twa E1T€Ta£ Kat OVX E1TETat above), are not found enunciated in the Parmenides. Parmenides uses only the first, actually in the form Tt CVf.Lf37}C€Ta£, and not in a categori­ cal sense. The three, as categories of analysis, are drawn from another source: Proclus' commentary on this passage of the dialogue (i.e. 136A4-c5). A comparison ofProclus' remarks with those of the author of the scholia cited above reveals this kinship (Cousin p.1001.29ff): " .,. ~t ~ (j' , '" , fI \ , , fI , ECOVTat ovv E~ V1TO ECE£C' Et Ecn, Tt E1TETa£, Ka£ T£ OVx E1TETat, Ka£ Iff ~ I "~ "'''' fl '" T£ af.La E1T€Ta£ T€ Kat OVX €1T€Ta£' Kat €t f.L7J €CT£V, Of.LOtWC • • • 7J , • ~ f3'" ~ "\ \ " • , '" A yap aVTcp n CVI-' aWEt 7J TOK alV\o£C' Kat TOVTWV EKaTEpCP O£XWC' ~ '''"''' \ t ,'It,..... , \ It, \ ,"".." \ '" \ 7J aVTcp 1TpOC EaVTO, 7J aVTcp 1TpOC Ta alV\a, Kat TOtC alV\o£c 7J 1TpOC f I '" \ " €aVTa, 7J 1TpOC aVTO. MOSSMAN ROUECHE 555 This passage from Proclus, or perhaps a descendant of it in a later work (although I find no reference to this analysis anywhere else), was certainly the most significant inspiration for the author of the scholia, for these categories are the foundation of his six Hypotheses and their explication is the primary function of the scholia. Proclus labels this analysis TO AOYlKOV (Cousin p.1000.36), and he fol­ lows it with his.analysisDL(xT~V TWV 7rpaYfLaTwv ¢VClV (Cousin p.1002.35), his major analysis from which nine Hypotheses are derived. At the beginning of his notes to the Second Hypothesis, the author of the scholia indicates that he too is analyzing the dialogue from the stand­ point of logic: 0 llapfL€v{frfJc ... DElKVVC T~V DvvafLLV TfjC DtaA€K'TlKfjC (Cousin p.1257.21), and following the lead indicated by Proclus, he recognizes only six Hypotheses. He does this formally, recalling the original plan at each stage with a reference to the particular category under consideration. By analyzing the Parmenides 'logically', the author distinguishes himself from Proclus, whose commentary is metaphysical. This is not to say that there is no metaphysical com­ mentary in the scholia, but only that they appear more closely akin to the later Aristotelian Platonism common in sixth-century Alexan­ dria than to the Neoplatonism of Proclus and earlier generations. The scholia first appear in a deluxe plato MS of the XIII century (Paris, BN MS gr. 1810)2 which contains eight dialogues, two of which (the Phaedrus and the Parmenides) are accompanied by Neoplatonic commentaries, and the Timaeus Locrus. Located in the margin and in the same hand as the text of the Parmenides, the scholia were not, however, composed for this MS or its exemplar; this is evident when quotations of the dialogue found in the scholia are compared with the text the scholia accompany. The two texts are sufficiently different that both Burnet and Dies, in their editions of the dialogue, and Brum­ baugh in his edition of the text of the hypotheses,3 cite readings from both. At best, it can be said that the scholia entered the MS family sometime around the end of the XII century, for part of the text of the Parmenides in the MS proper is taken from the XII-century Venice MS, Marcianus gr. 185.4 That they are found in the company of proclus' commentary, especially in a fine edition, is an indication of the esteem 2 Klibansky, op.cit. (supra n.1) xxxiv: " ... maiore ornatu instructus maioreque diligentia conscriptus esset quam alii plerique illius aetatis codices." 3 J. Burnet, Platonis Opera II (OCT, Oxford 1901); A. Dies, Platon, Oeuvres completes VIII.1 (Paris 1923); R. S. Brumbaugh, Plato on the One (New Haven 1964). 4 M. Schanz, "Mittheilungen tiber platonische Handschriften," Hermes 11 (1876) 112f. 556 NOTES ON A COMMENTARY ON PLATO'S PARMENIDES in which they were held in the XII century. It is unlikely that the scholia were chosen for inclusion in the MS on the basis of their Proclan flavor, for proclus' name is nowhere mentioned in them, and the bit of Proclus which the author borrowed is small and quite incidental to the mainstream of proclus' argument. Rather, they were probably chosen because of their size, that is, they were a short commentary on the Parmenides which was available in the XII century. The actual time of composition of the scholia can be determined only from internal evidence. On the basis of the combination of quo­ tations from Aristotle and a quotation from the Septuagint found in the scholia, Klibansky5 has suggested that they were composed in Alexandria around the time of John Philoponus. Assuming that the scholia are not an abridgement of a much larger work, they appear unworthy of the ambitious Philoponus, and are probably the work of one of his students. The reliance of the scholia on writings of Damas­ dus6 and Proclus supports this. A comparison, for example, of the reference by the author of the scholia to a passage from Aristotle (De Interpretatione 21a32) with the commentary of Stephanus of Alexan­ dria on that passage suggests a community of interpretation available to both authors: Scholia (Cousin p.1259.18ff): • \. 'A '\ \ R R \ \' A () • • • €t Kat 0 ptC'TOT€I\TJC KaTa CVf.Lt'€t'TJKOC I\€y€t KaTTJYOp€ LC aL \ " ~ \" "\ , \ \"" 7 '" c ,. '" 'c TO €CTt TOV f.LTJ OVTOC, OT€ I\€Yof.L€V, TO f.LTJ ov oo~aCTOV €CTt· oo~a , , .... ,,, ~,\ '\\' rt ,., yap aVTOV OVK €CTtv OTt E"CTtV al\l\ OTt OVK €CTLV. Stephanus, ad Arist. De Int. 21a32:8 \ \"" \:' l:. ,. ~ "\ \:' , • A • \:" \ ••• TO f.LTJ ov 005aCTOV E"CTt. TOVTO OI\OV ovvaf.LaL €L7T€LV, €7T€WTJ TO " ~ \" \ R R \ A ""1: \ €CTt TOV f.LTJ OVTOC KaTa CVf.Lt'€t'TJKOC KaTTJyop€LTat ••• oo~av yap " ,.... ,,, 'fl JI ,'\' rt '" €X0f.L€V 7T€PL TOV f.LTJ OVTOC OVX OTt E"CTLV al\l\ OTt OVK €CTLV ••• tCTEOV OTt {J7T6()€dc €eTt TOU llAaTWVOC • • • In all, it is unlikely that the scholia were composed much after the time of Stephanus. DUMBARTON OAKS, WASHINGTON October, 19]1 5 R. Klibansky, Bin Proklos-Fund und seine Bedeutung (Heidelberg 1929) 5 n.5. 6 Relevant excerpts from Damascius, De Principiis, are provided by Cousin in his notes. 7 TO ov Cousin. 8 Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca XVlII.3, Stephani in librum Aristotelis de Interpretatione commentarium, ed. M. Hayduck (Berlin 1885) p.52.23ff.