PHILO OR PHILIO OF LARISSA?

Abstract

The article argues that the genuine first name of Philo of Larissa was in fact ‘Philio’. This claim is based on two new readings ‘Philio’ in our earliest (certain) source for the name, Philodemus’ Index Academicorum, which put other early evidence into perspective. Three other essentially independent and reliable witnesses have the reading ‘Philio’ too. Furthermore, several Cicero manuscripts preserve various examples of the alternative reading ‘Philio’. The reading ‘Philo’ in some other sources might be a mistake or a kind of nickname.

1. INTRODUCTION

Philo of Larissa (probably 159/8–84/3 b.c.) enjoys a certain popularity beyond scholars with a special interest in ancient philosophy. Charles Brittain labels him ‘The last of the Academic Sceptics’ in the title of his monograph.¹ Indeed, Philo succeeded Clitomachos as scholarch in 110/9 b.c.² and seems to have never questioned the core principles of Academic scepticism, albeit introducing some innovations. The last renowned scholarch of the Sceptical Academy is chiefly famous for having taught the young Cicero in Rome, where he spent the last years of his life (approximately 88–84/3 b.c.). We owe to Cicero, and particularly to his account in the Academica, a good deal of our knowledge on Philo. The controversy with his disloyal Old Academic pupil Antiochus, provoked by the Roman Books, is almost legendary and its exact content has been heatedly discussed among modern scholars.³

To the best of my knowledge, all the modern literature refers to the Sceptic Academic from Larissa as Philo. The spelling or authenticity of his first name have never been called into question in any major publication or encyclopedia. Here I present some new evidence concerning his name, which puts already existing evidence into a new perspective and makes it seem quite possible that Philo of Larissa is either the wrong name for this philosopher or only an alternative name, while the real name of the Academic scholarch was Philio.

2. NEW READINGS: TWICE ‘PHILIO’ IN PHILODEMUS’ INDEX ACADEMICORVM

Let us first turn to the new evidence. I am preparing a new edition of Philodemus’ Index Academicorum (P.Herc. 1021), which will increase the amount of text available by about 25 per cent.⁴ Two passages mentioning Philo are of outstanding interest—on account of a single letter.

First, I have restored a passage in col. 25, which probably marks the end of a list of Clitomachus’ pupils. The Academic Heraclitus of Tyrus is mentioned as someone who later also attended Philo's lectures (in addition to those of Clitomachus), which is confirmed by Cic. Luc. 16.⁵ The passage reads as follows (the context is irrelevant for our purposes):⁶

Phld. Ind. Acad. col. 25.34–6 (Fleischer)

34 Ἡρ^⌉άκλε̣[ι-

τος, ὃς καὶ] Φιλίω^⸌νος^⸍ ⟦^⌈θ^⌉⟧ ὕστερον

36 ^⌈δ̣^⌉ι̣[ή]κ̣ο̣[υ]σ̣[ε]. ^⸆

Figure 1: HSI and MSI for Phld. Ind. Acad. col. 25.35 (second part of the line): the reading is clearly Φιλίω^⸌νος^⸍.

The Multispectral Images (MSI) of the papyrus and especially the new Hyperspectral images (HSI) of the Index Academicorum, which display a stronger contrast between letters and background,⁷ clearly show λιων. The second iota is also depicted in the Oxford and Neapolitan disegno. There are not many errors in the papyrus that were not corrected by the professional corrector (diorthōtēs) and/or another person revising the text. The philosophers’ names are normally written correctly, viz. in accordance with their spelling in other ancient authors. This strongly suggests that Φιλίω^⸌νος^⸍ too was intended to be written in the papyrus—though whether correctly or not remains to be discussed.

Philo's name is also to be read in another passage of the Index Academicorum, specifically in col. 33.1. Bücheler (1869) transcribed it in the editio princeps as Φίλων, and Mekler (1902) followed him by printing Φί̣λ̣ων̣; Mette (1986–7) accepted a preliminary suggestion by Dorandi (Φ{α}ί<λ>ων), who in his edition of the Index Academicorum (1991) chose the transcription Φ<ί>λ̣ων, later adopted by Brittain (2001).⁸ For col. 33 only the Neapolitan disegno exists.⁹ Let us compare it with the images.

Figure 2: Phld. Ind. Acad. col. 33.1 (end of line): HSI, MSI, Neapol. disegno – Φι^⌈λίω^⌉ν

The draughtsmen (disegnatori) of the Herculanean papyri did not know Greek and committed countless mistakes, often to be excused on account of the extremely dark and deceptive surface of the carbonized papyri, which makes it difficult to distinguish the carbon-based ink from the carbonized papyrus background. The stroke after the φ is almost a vertical and cannot be the left part of the α. It seems very probable that there was a λ written rather close to the first ι, so that the combination ιλ gave the disegnatore the impression of an α. The missing connection of the middle stroke is a hint that ιλ was in the original. Ink traces of this λ still survive. The disegno, then, has an ι, whose top is still visible in the original. It is highly unlikely that the sequence of letters in the disegno is the miswriting of an original φιλων, especially if we take into account what is still visible in the original. Consequently, the original papyrus had the name Φιλίων; the transcription of the name should be Φι^⌈λίω^⌉ν.¹⁰

This means that our earliest source certainly mentioning the name of Philo of Larissa, Philodemus’ Index Academicorum (68–57 b.c.),¹¹ spells the Academic's name on two occasions as ‘Philio’, a spelling not corrected in either passage, although the papyrus has practically no miswritten words that were not corrected. For the beginning of col. 33 Philodemus might depend on Apollodorus’ Chronica, which would suggest that also the Chronica had the name ‘Philio’.¹² Indeed, it cannot be excluded that also parts of the passage in col. 25—but certainly not the whole passage—somehow depend on Apollodorus. The Chronica was most likely published between 110 and 105, in any case when Philo was still alive.¹³ Philodemus makes an interesting self-reference in col. 34.4–6, which implies that he arrived in Athens around 86 (or shortly afterward), when Philo had already (just) left.¹⁴ Several years ago, a new reading by Blank revealed that Philodemus was on good terms (that is, acquainted) with Antiochus of Ascalon (col. 34.42–35.2).¹⁵ There can hardly be any doubt that in Athenian philosophical circles—even Epicurean ones—the name of Philo was somehow still known. Philodemus’ presentation of Philo's biography and of a list of his pupils suggests that some oral information was embedded by Philodemus.

At this point, one should point out that ‘Philio’ is basically not a proper miswriting of a name but a genuine name, which is attested for seventy-three individuals in the LGPN and appears, for instance, in various Attic inscriptions. None of these ‘Philio's was famous enough to deserve an entry in the RE, where, however, many dozens ‘Philo's without an iota are included. The LGPN lists just over 1,000 different ‘Philo's.¹⁶ The reading/spelling ‘Philio’ is the lectio difficilior in comparison with ‘Philo’: rarer, but not exotic.

3. ‘PHILIO’ IN OTHER EARLY SOURCES (DUKE PAPYRUS, NUMENIUS, DEMETRIUS LACO)

The testimonies on Philo collected by Mette (1985) and by Brittain (2001) provide more evidence for the spelling ‘Philio’. An Egyptian papyrus with a list of scholarchs from different philosophical schools, copied by the lawyer Ammonius ‘scholasticus’ of Panopolis, has this spelling. Since we have several documents (in papyrological terms, an archive) from Ammonius, the papyrus can be fairly certainly dated to around a.d. 350. There are no misspellings of philosophers’ names on the list. In the ‘Academic’ section we read:

P.Duke. Inv. G 178 = P. Ammon 1, col. II.1–16¹⁷

1–4 desunt

5 Σπεύσιππ̣[ος Ἀθηναῖος

Πλάτων[ος ἀδελφιδοῦς

Ξενοκράτης̣ [Χαλκηδόνιος

Πολέμων Ἀ̣[θηναῖος

Ἀρκεσίλαο̣ς̣ [ἐκ Πιτάνης

10 Καρνεάδης [Κυρηναῖος

Ἀκαδημ[ίας μέσης?

Κλιτόμαχο[ς Καρχηδόνιος

Φιλίων ἐ̣[κ Λαρίσσης

[Ἀ]ν̣τ̣ίοχ[ο]ς̣ [Ἀσκαλωνίτης

τ̣ῶν ἀρχηγ̣[ετῶν ? τῆς

15 τρ[ί]της Ἀκαδ̣[ημίας

κτλ.

The papyrus is also included as the first item in the Cοrpus dei papiri filosofici greci e latini (CPF 1.1.* 1), edited by Dorandi and Willis (1989). Concerning the reading ‘Philio’, Dorandi remarks: ‘The form Φιλίων which also occurs in the MSS of Eusebius PE XIV 8.15; 9.1–3 is noteworthy. Given the education of Ammonius, one may hypothesize that it is not a mistake, but the form he believed to be correct.’¹⁸ Dorandi does not maintain this view in later publications. Goulet (2012) too mentions the variant ‘Philio’ in the Duke papyrus and in Eusebius without further comments.¹⁹

Indeed, all Eusebius manuscripts have the reading ‘Philio’ with a second iota. However, we should be more precise and say that in all ‘Philio’-passages Eusebius is introducing or quoting Numenius’ Περὶ τῆς Ἀκαδημαϊκῶν πρὸς Πλάτωνα διαστάσεως (frr. 24–8 Des Places).²⁰ In the edition by Mette (n. 1), the passages (Euseb. Praep. evang. 14.8.15–9.3) read:²¹

14.8.15 ταῦτα καὶ περὶ Καρνεάδου λέγεται. διάδοχος δ’ αὐτοῦ τῆς διατριβῆς καθίσταται Κλειτόμαχος, μεθ’ ὃν Φίλ{ι}ων, οὗ πέρι ὁ Νουμήνιος μνημονεύει ταῦτα·

θʹ. ΠΕΡΙ ΦΙΛ{Ι}ΩΝΟΣ²²

14.9.1 ὁ δὲ Φίλ{ι}ων ἄρα οὗτος ἄρτι μὲν ἐκδεξάμενος τὴν διατριβήν . . . 14.9.3.1 Φίλ{ι}ωνος δὲ γίνεται ἀκουστὴς Ἀντίοχος, ἑτέρας ἄρξας Ἀκαδημίας. Μνησάρχῳ γοῦν τῷ Στωϊκῷ σχολάσας ἐναντία Φίλ{ι}ωνι τῷ καθηγητῇ ἐφρόνησε μυρία τε ξένα προσῆψε τῇ Ἀκαδημίᾳ.

The more common name ‘Philo’ was familiar to Eusebius, who, for instance, often refers to Philo of Alexandria and never writes the name with a second iota. This implies that the scribes of the Eusebius manuscripts also read the name ‘Philo’ very often in the Praeparatio evangelica, even in headings, before copying the above-cited passage. All this strongly suggests that the name variant ‘Philio’ was already in the original Eusebius manuscript. Even more significantly, it suggests that it was in Numenius’ work (written around the mid second century a.d.), or at least that the name was used in the Numenius manuscript which Eusebius exploited. Numenius’ treatise Περὶ τῆς Ἀκαδημαϊκῶν πρὸς Πλάτωνα διαστάσεως is an important and rather trustworthy source for many biographical and prosopographical facts on certain Academics. When the information is also transmitted by other sources, Numenius is normally in accordance with them. He mentions many philosophers’ personal names and ethnica, which are correctly used and spelled. It seems unlikely that Eusebius corrected the spelling in Numenius from ‘Philo’ to the rare ‘Philio’, since he seems to know practically nothing about the Academic philosopher, whom he does not otherwise refer to.²³

There could even be a fourth, very early witness—in fact, the earliest—for the spelling ‘Philio’. Toward the end of an exegetical-philological treatise preserved in a Herculanean papyrus (P.Herc. 1012), the Epicurean Demetrius Laco—probably somewhat older than Philodemus and roughly a contemporary of Philo of Larissa—mentions a certain Philio in an epistemological-sceptical context.²⁴ So far, scholars have identified him either with Philinos of Cos or with Philo, a pupil of Pyrrho, assuming a miswriting in both cases.²⁵ Neither suggestion is convincing, but a sceptical philosopher is likely in this context. In the light of the new reading ‘Philio’ in Philodemus, it seems possible that the name in the papyrus is spelled correctly and that Demetrius Laco is referring to the Academic philosopher. He is the only ‘Philio’ fitting such an epistemological-sceptical context and Epicureans were engaged in controversies with Sceptics, so a reference to the most prominent contemporary (Academic) Sceptic is not unexpected at all.

4. AN APPRAISAL OF THE ‘PHILIO’ EVIDENCE

Let us draw a provisional appraisal of the positive evidence for the spelling ‘Philio’. From two new readings we learn that our earliest (certain) witness for the name, Philodemus’ Index Academicorum, gives the name ‘Philio’ twice, which has not been corrected, although there are several corrections in the papyrus and barely a mistake was left. The reading might even be traced back to Apollodorus. Philodemus arrived in Athens not long after Phil(i)os fled to Rome and was an acquaintance of the latter's pupil Antiochus. Therefore, the two mentions of ‘Philio’ in the Index Academicorum should enjoy a certain credibility and not be discarded a priori. Numenius too, who is not unreliable in terms of Academic philosophers, most probably had the spelling ‘Philio’ (second century a.d.). He is an important witness and direct dependence on Philodemus is rather unlikely. A list of scholarchs from a papyrus (c.350), whose spellings are otherwise sound, also contains the name ‘Philio’.²⁶ The new evidence from the Index Academicorum increases the value of the other two sources, as it were, and diminishes the probability of a merely random variant spelling by Numenius and the Duke papyrus. So far, no one has ever pointed out that the spelling of the Eusebius manuscripts is most likely the original spelling by Numenius around 150. Concerning the reading ‘Philio’, one should point out that it is the lectio difficilior, although this concept has to be used with some restrictions, when it comes to personal names. Probably also Demetrius Laco's mention of one Philio in an epistemological-sceptical context is very early (and significant) evidence for the spelling of the philosopher's name.

5. AN APPRAISAL OF THE ‘PHILO’ EVIDENCE (WITH HIDDEN ‘PHILIO’ EVIDENCE)

We now have to discuss the negative evidence, compiling testimonies for the name ‘Philo’ as printed in the main text of modern editions. The basis is Brittain's collection (2001).²⁷ It becomes clear that there is some hidden ‘Philio’ evidence.

The vast majority of attestations of the name ‘Philo’ are to be found in Cicero (32 times), whose first teacher was Philo. Most passages in the Lucullus (12 out of 18) have the reading ‘Philio’, often corrected to ‘Philo’, in at least one or more manuscripts. The number (percentage) of cases is rather surprising and one wonders whether all the ‘Philio's can be explained away by means of the corruption of an original ‘Philo’. In addition, three other passages in Cicero could hint at an original writing with an i, but personal names are always vulnerable to corruption and so that is not entirely certain. One wonders whether the editors of the other texts have at least partly silently corrected ‘Philo’ or not reported this variant in the apparatus criticus. Moreover, there are three ‘Philio’ variants in manuscripts H and P for Augustine. Augustine probably depends on Cicero's (lost) Academic treatises for the passage in question. Plutarch too is likely to be drawing on Cicero for the information he gives, and Tacitus only paraphrases Cicero's statement in the Brutus. Galen, Sextus Empiricus, Stobaeus²⁸ and Ioannes Italos do not depend directly on Cicero, but some intermediary influence cannot be excluded; all Greek authors might go back to a similar doxographical tradition (if not the same one). For sure, it cannot be completely ruled out that the comparatively rare name ‘Philio’ got corrupted into the more common name ‘Philo’ in some sources over the course of the transmission, but this was hardly the case in all sources. In other words, ‘Philo’ may have already been used by some ancient sources and is most probably not an independent corruption occurring in all manuscripts.²⁹

The assumption that Cicero (and all or most other sources) had the original spelling ‘Philo’ and that, at the same time, the spelling ‘Philio’ in the sources discussed in section 4 above is not a blunder would afford a reasonable explanation. Considering that Cicero heard Philo in Rome, should we not assume that he knew his teacher's correct name and, hence, that ‘Philio’ is not tenable? The name ‘Philio’ with an i is practically unattested in Latin literature,³⁰ whereas ‘Philo’ was more common as a Greek name—even a fourth-century b.c. Roman consul had the name Quintus Publilius Philo.³¹ Perhaps after settling in Rome, Philo deleted the iota in his name for the benefit of a Roman audience, since ‘Philo’ was more common (note also ‘Philo-’ as prefix in many Greek names); and Cicero may then have adopted this alternative form of the name.³² Our sources do not suggest that Cicero had read any work of Philo's. Apart from the Stobaeus testimony, there are no written remains (‘genuine fragments’) of Philo's writing, and even the Stobaeus fragment may have been patched together from second-hand excerpts by an intermediary source. Consequently, even if Philo's works were subscribed ‘Philio’ at the end of the papyrus scrolls, it seems that they were not widely circulated and had no significant Nachleben. For his Academic treatises Cicero relies on sources other than Philo, among them Antiochus, but no work of Philo's can be identified in Cicero's presentation of Academic scepticism. Phil(i)o's name must have been mentioned by Antiochus, but even in this case Cicero may have changed it to the more common Philo. Even Antiochus may have used this alternative short form. The other authors on the list above might have used the more common ‘Philo’, since they were only aware of this name. Yet one wonders whether the obvious conclusion from the manuscript tradition really is that Cicero had the spelling ‘Philo’.

6. CONCLUSION: THE CASE FOR ‘PHILIO’ AS GENUINE BIRTH-NAME

What does all this add up to? I would like to discuss three basic hypotheses, based on the evidence presented here, and draw a conclusion.

1. 1. The early sources Philodemus (possibly following Apollodorus), Numenius and the Duke papyrus (and very probably Demetrius Laco) preserve the correct name ‘Philio’. These sources are normally reliable and well informed when it comes to historiographical-prosopographical matters. Philio is the lectio difficilior. The manuscript tradition has been corrupted and all or most of the authors with ‘Philo’ originally had ‘Philio’ in their manuscripts. In particular, this is supported by the various ‘Philio’ variants in the manuscripts not only of Cicero's Lucullus but also of other Cicero (and Augustine) passages.

2. 2. The early sources Philodemus (possibly following Apollodorus), Numenius and the Duke papyrus (and probably Demetrius Laco)—normally reliable and well informed when it comes to historiographical-prosopographical matters—preserve the correct name ‘Philio’. However, Cicero introduced the more common name ‘Philo’ (and the Greek sources somehow depend on him). Alternatively, ‘Philio’ was already nicknamed ‘Philo’ by others and this name was adopted by Cicero and several other sources, even though ‘Philio’ was the philosopher's real name (and his works were subscribed with this name).

3. 3. The early sources Philodemus (possibly following Apollodorus), Numenius and the Duke papyrus, though mostly reliable, made a blunder and misspelled the name ‘Philo’ as the rarer ‘Philio’ (and so did Demetrius Laco, unless he was referring to a different Philio). Perhaps these sources somehow belong to the same erroneous ‘Philio’ tradition. Cicero (partly) and other authors preserve the correct name ‘Philo’, which was not a nickname or an alternative name but Philo's only real name.

Given the authoritativeness of Philodemus’ quasi-contemporary Index Academicorum (and probably that of his contemporary Demetrius Laco), as well as the trustworthiness of Numenius and, to a lesser extent, that of the list of scholarchs in the Duke papyrus, I find it hard to reject the spelling ‘Philio’ with an iota as a genuine error. Moreover, the manuscript tradition of Cicero too might suggest that Cicero (correctly) called his teacher ‘Philio’. Consequently, the spelling ‘Philo’ in some other sources might be a simplification or nickname, if not a real mistake. We have to keep in mind that, while the name ‘Philio’ is the lectio difficilior, it is not too rarely attested as a genuine name. Some authors may have turned ‘Philio’ into ‘Philo’, but it is less likely that Philodemus, Numenius, Demetrius Laco and perhaps Cicero turned an original ‘Philo’ into ‘Philio’. The Duke papyrus corroborates the ‘Philio’ tradition. The (wrong) alternative ‘Philo’ may have become popular soon after Philio's death (or already during his lifetime) and may have replaced the genuine birth-name ‘Philio’ to some extent. Hence, I would draw the conclusion that ‘Philio’ was indeed the philosopher's correct name, with ‘Philo’ either being a nickname/variant or even a genuine misspelling.

One of the core arguments of the Sceptical Academy is the impossibility of attaining certain knowledge, since there are no cataleptic impressions and the phenomenal content of any true impression is potentially indistinguishable from that of a false impression—meaning that nothing can actually be known for sure.³³ There is an irony in the fact that the name of the last renowned scholarch of the Sceptical Academy—the one thing modern scholars were sure that they knew about him, regardless of the uncertainty concerning his exact sceptical views and their development—was probably not ‘Philo’ but ‘Philio’. This is almost a kind of unintentional confirmation of his sceptical view, namely that nothing can be so certain that it cannot be false. No doubt, Phil(i)o would have been pleased at the ambiguity concerning his genuine name, an ambiguity ignited by the carbonized remains of the ashes of Vesuvius.