3.6.1 Euthydemus (145v – 152v)

 

3.vi..20

Causing a string of letters to come apart, but only at that word’s joints may be just one thing.  But it is quite another to ignore internal articulations, as Julian Barnes wrote recently in his book “Nothing[ness] to be Frightened of”.  It is a book about various ways of coming to terms with one’s own dying.   He has a dramatic flair, Julian does, and has an author busily doing his writing activity when, — FLASH — he dies at once.  In mid-word even:  it gets logged on his typescript at the word-torso  ‘wor’   The END, finis, that’s all he wrote, and was.  Prodicus the seductive would be proud of such a wordsmith, or (pardon the expression) a wordsm  .

So would Philip of Opus, who wants to recite names, in his p. Kosmou , and to create clever variants on public or intra-academy schemes of naming, often drawn from the hypercleverness of Cratylus — which manages to decompose ‘swphrosyne’ into a pair, SWTERIA+PHRONESIS.  Or, equally overclever, decompose ‘noEsis’ into ‘tou neou+Hesis’    Amongst the various meanings of this last phrase is  this rather naughty one:  OF THE YOUNG MAN, A CRAVING (!).

Plato seems to have had a personal craving for a young man Aster, whom he nicknames as Iros in ILIAD is nicknamed too, after his expertise, in our case Astronomy.   So it is written in Epigram1 attributed to Plato by John Cooper (Hackett 1997)  Can Aster have been a disciple very near Plato personally, like the certified astronomer Philip ?   In any case it is Philip who calls himself in the final chapter, one filled with astronomy, the final chapter of EPINOMIS, by phrasing we could render: the ’eminently wise, sophwtatos truly astronomer man‘  [=Ὁ σοφώτατος ἀληθῶς ἀστρονομος ]

In Philip’s account in p. Kosmou, some individual gods experience decay of consonants within their names, ‘Kronos’ decaying into ‘Chronos.’  One prominent individual is the chief sufferer under his own ‘polyonymy’ [this is a rare word in classical Greek],  Zeus SWTHR or Zeus HETAIRIOS/PHILIOS (Bekker 401).

Do  please consider the ms. evidence of some super-refined, we may even call it Rococo in its Prodican mannerism, of lengthening a word by inserting an Iota above the line in the middle of a 3-letter long word.   Maybe its phoneme is nearly a hiccup or gastric belch ?   Our best ms. of Philip’s work, the one some have facetiously nicknamed ‘the thirteenth book of Plato’s 12-book work NOMOI’   That is, Philip’s Epinomis.  It is a central point at this present website, the equating of Philip, Amphinomus and Younger Socrates.   Speusippus must have known all 3 men well, and known also if more than a single name was taken on by one or another, or still another.

There may be in addition a sly allusion to a man sometimes called ‘the Aster who can attract all eyes, including those 10,000 eyes of the star-struck man Plato.  This allusion seems to come near the surface in a stretch of the Astronomy chapter (i.e. Chapt 10) of Republic VII  a man whose name-fragments trace to the word-pair  SWZEIN+KRATHS, at Steph 527e2, just 2 lines above the manifest allusion to the man there called the ‘true astronomer’, namely EU+DOKEIN:  Philip=(SocratesAlternate).  Part of the proof is this flock of supra lineam Iota marks, a mere quarter of the 4-letter word AIEI:

 

(bis5) semi-Aeolic AIEI in final chapt. of Epinomis, at 992c1 length=3.5, rev6

 

Consider further this evidence, based on a persistent unorthodoxy of Attic spellings:

(bis9) Plato’s AIEI citation from Hesiod at Symp. 178b6, with note to Euthyd 296ab

 

 

(bis5) semi-Aeolic AIEI in final chapt. of Epinomis, at 992c1 length=3.5, rev6

 

flocking unit, a flock of AIEI in Venice’s ms., Euthydemus, Chapt 22 296a r2

 

 

Aristotle and-or Philip doing Bonitz-collected etymologies 10-v-20

Aristotle, etymologies amphi- swzi- epi-

 

Even if we  here venture to draw from a later source,  — from late-ancient times of The Church Fathers, also a later time for the Greek language’s development — still and yet this snapshot from the Patristic Lexicon is of great interest.   John Adam’s remark to Republic’s Book 7 is of great general interest.   It was about Plato’s wisdom, its sometimes saying of the ‘Saviour’ aspect of our Socrates.   Adam writes that it was of ‘prophetical import’ gets clearer from glossing of προφήτης [‘prophEtEs’] .   We seem to shift perspective, to a standpoint at least as close to our day as The Church Fathers.

Now that era which was is regularly referred to as ”fifth Century”.   Socrates death sentence at 399 BC could not be much later, without so to speak slipping into the fourth, the century of (most of) Plato’s life.    finishing at elder Socrates’s trial and death — that era stands distant from our present time by fewer than 18 of the units which  DeMorgan helpfully gives to  100 year sub-intervals of prior time periods.  DeMorgan defines his ‘centenary’ as a count of 100 years.   Flavius Clemens or Clement of Alexandria thus writes at a time fewer than 18 centenaries now.

It is such units, of course, entirely elevated above our division B.C. from A.D. (RK Sprague expressed it to me viva voce in A.D. 2004 that she found deeply alarming when I had shown her a photo of Alfred Edward Taylor’s gravestone.  Alarming to her that the word ‘dominus’ substituted for ‘pater’  on that stone engraved in 1946 A.D.  Cited from the phegma from the just-crucified Jesus, addressing his father, this will have been one of the more poignant uses Aristotle could have possibly made of his newly coined word ἀμία

We may usefully compare Plato time of writing (h.e. 354 ‘BC’).    We are as historians duty bound to re-paganise his personal calendar, to make it recognizeable more clearly to himself — and also three other published quasi-theologians Empedocles, Plato Philip of Opus and Aristotle.    To reach what ER Dodds called the “later years of the fifth century” (his Gorgias edition, p. 14).  To be sure, Dodds was      early eighties’ appropriately = a total backward interval smaller than the 23.5 centenaries backwards from now and into Earliest Academy

Even if we  here venture to draw from a later source,  — from late-ancient times of The Church Fathers, also a later time for the Greek language’s development — still and yet this snapshot from the Patristic Lexicon is of great interest.   John Adam’s remark to Republic’s Book 7 is of great general interest.   It was about Plato’s wisdom, its sometimes saying of the ‘Saviour’ aspect of our Socrates.   Adam writes that it was of ‘prophetical import’ gets clearer from glossing of προφήτης [‘prophEtEs’] .   We seem to shift perspective, to a standpoint at least as close to our day as The Church Fathers.

Now that era which was is regularly referred to as ”fifth Century”.   Socrates death sentence at 399 BC could not be much later, without so to speak slipping into the fourth, the century of (most of) Plato’s life.    finishing at elder Socrates’s trial and death — that era stands distant from our present time by fewer than 18 of the units which  DeMorgan helpfully gives to  100 year sub-intervals of prior time periods.  DeMorgan defines his ‘centenary’ as a count of 100 years.   Flavius Clemens or Clement of Alexandria thus writes at a time fewer than 18 centenaries now.

It is such units, of course, entirely elevated above our division B.C. from A.D. (RK Sprague expressed it to me viva voce in A.D. 2004 that she found deeply alarming when I had shown her a photo of Alfred Edward Taylor’s gravestone.  Alarming to her that the word ‘dominus’ substituted for ‘pater’  on that stone engraved in 1946 A.D.  Cited from the phegma from the just-crucified Jesus, addressing his father, this will have been one of the more poignant uses Aristotle could have possibly made of his newly coined word ἀμία

We may usefully compare Plato time of writing (h.e. 354 ‘BC’).    We are as historians duty bound to re-paganise his personal calendar, to make it recognizeable more clearly to himself — and also three other published quasi-theologians Empedocles, Plato Philip of Opus and Aristotle.    To reach what ER Dodds called the “later years of the fifth century” (his Gorgias edition, p. 14).  To be sure, Dodds was’ fully aware of the oddity of his own phrasings, such as the phrase ‘the early eighties’   He makes us clear on this point p. 34 note 1 on what Plato’s contemporaries and any ‘conscious transition’ they cannot have understood.            appropriately = a total backward interval smaller than the 23.5 centenaries backwards from now and into Earliest Academy

 

prophet defined as ( pan-)sophwtatos, by Clement

 

+++++++++++++

ἀμία

prophet defined as ( pan-)sophwtatos, by Clement

 

+++++++++++++

ἀμία

Aristotle and-or Philip doing Bonitz-collected etymologies 10-v-20

Aristotle, etymologies amphi- swzi- epi-

 

 

 

 

 

EUTHYDEMUS

[30.iii.20]

To draw from Plato’s passage about the ‘pa[n]sophos’ in Euthyd 271c6, we may keep the wordplay and bantering tone, and especialy highlight the all-wise or all-powerful theme here in this opening chapter of Euthydemus:  Crates will at least be a ‘cratistic’ as the text of 271a2 puts it, a powerful combatant, conceivably invincibly so, thus practitioner of the remarkable ‘pa[n]cratistic art’, sophistry.  This would make of him the superlative of a KratEs, like the mysterious Mr. Cratistus (Proclus seems to know who this is, but recent scholars are skeptical).  This philological byplay continues throughout Chapt 1 of this dialogue.

As a whole the dialogue appears to be a bearer of the surviving ‘art of Dialectic’ which Ryle’s papers on the Academy report to have been lost.   This would account for Chrysippus’s writing, in his Peri DialektikEs, Bk III, that a surviving art of dialectic, listed after Aristotle.   It would also account for the deeply for the very surprising fact of Chrysippus’s attributing the surviving art to ‘Socrates’.  It might have been certain men like Philip under Plato’s description ‘megalophronetic’ astronomers [ μεγαλοφρονούμενοι :Rep. VII,10  528c1 notice also the word jealous at 528a2 —φθονοῖς , a2] .  Temperamental men, some of these, and we might call them headstrong or self-willed or even jealous men.    Thus these stand sharply opposed to the well-known graciousness  of Eudoxus, who had been pointedly alluded to a few lines earlier, 527 e4.   When attributing a hedonist position to his teacher Eudoxus, Aristotle exhibits his allusive style:   my Eudoxus ends with an adoxon when he puts forward the endoxon that the good is pleasure.  Again nicknaming is at play here, as with the nearby nicknaming of ‘Theo-phratus’    Eudoxus is reliably reported to have earned the petname ‘Endoxus’ at the Academy.  The Famous One.

It is not an overbold thought to say further:  it will have been Plato himself, if he was author of platonic lyric #1 declaring his deep admiration for his stargazing man ‘Aster’, Plato himself alluding in a thinly veiled way to 3 principal academicians and mathematicians near him here in the Astronomy chapter of Book VII.   Reports of distance and disagreement with Eudoxus may point a different direction.   Towards a jealous rival, Younger Socrates.

Do please try this thought-experiment: take the position of an academic Crates, or another local -oCrates man [Aristotle remarks in his early work on rhetoric that the pair of names ‘Socrates’ and ‘Isocrates’ are too close to avoid confounding the two then and there .  Do also look at some late-medieval manuscript evidence.   We have Ephraim’s own tenth Century hand his copy of the opening chapter of Euthydemus:

3-6-1-euthd-271a1-272b6-273c7-145v-begin-euthyd PA[N]SOPHOS

This same forced spelling, with its mid-word  ‘-nst-‘ is in our best ms. relaying Theaetetus’s summary statements about the so-called Five Platonic Solids:

Euclid XIII, 18a, with its double-consonant phonetic awkwardness, the midword -nst-

[30.iii.20]

To draw from Plato’s passage about the ‘pa[n]sophos’ in Euthyd 271c6, we may keep the wordplay and bantering tone, and especialy highlight the all-wise or all-powerful theme here in the opening chapter:  Crates will at least be a cratistic powerful combatant, conceivably an invincible and so to say pa[n]cratistic like Mr. Cratistus (Proclus seems to know him, but recent scholars are skeptical).  Do please take on the mask of a Crates, or a -oCrates {Diog. Laert says in his chapter on Crates the cynic that he was sometimes confounded with Eury-Crates of Corinth].  Do look at some late-medieval manuscript evidence.   We have Ephraim’s own hand here:

3-6-1-euthd-271a1-272b6-273c7-145v-begin-euthyd PA[N]SOPHOS

This same forced spelling, with its mid-word  ‘-nst-‘ is in our best ms. relaying Theaetetus’s summary statements about the so-called Five Platonic Solids:

Euclid XIII, 18a, with its double-consonant phonetic awkwardness, the midword -nst-

Aristotle on ‘anacyclic’ turning of human fortunes, EN 1,11

 

[8.iii.20]

Experts such as Julian Mendez-Dosuna of Salamanca Univ. have paid close attention to mid-word clusters of certain consonants.   Notable among these is the great rarity of a mid-word  ‘-ns-‘     This rarity is in evidence a Euthydemus 287 c10, and the Venetus T reading is neither printed nor noted as to its omission , the Burnet OCT ad loc.   Do have a confirmatory look at fol. 148v, in both columns B and A:

Euthyd chapt. 16, pansophos — split-line reading in Col B r2

[3 0.x.19]

Prof. Joseph Arel of No. Arizona State has published an insightful piece elaborating on recollection in Meno and bringing in connections between self-awareness and blindness averted or inverted.   He does this with much vigor and clarity and makes ample references to Derrida on the ‘aveugle’

Here, in this pair of links, you will see a set of curious signs of A. De Morgan’s achieving  deeply witty results with subjects in ancient physics, especially Thales.  He plays artfully on a word like ‘niemand‘ and/or Odysseus’s adopted proper name : ‘ou-tis‘   Odysseus is not often credited with a Sisyphus kind of  wit there in Polyphemus’s auditorium.   The giant’s infinite appetite (alas for us all, anthropophagous !) is heard to reach its final course (the end) with this very mortal — with the man quasi-named Outis !    Thales’s publications  are the front of the atomists’s physics, h.e.  the ou- part of their ou-den.

A major point Slings was fond of in his interpreting of Rep. was his bringing out the elaborate wordplay on ‘ourano’ and sound-alike words, related to seeing.  Here Slings can rely on the strength of the witty byplay, in that Plato’s text confesses to the peccadillo in point.   That is the little prank on the reader which is to shift about amongst the cognate sounds and near-cognate meanings.  Here in our Anglo-America it is customary to have speakers offering their ‘apologies’ for seeming to perpetrate a pun or play a trick of words.   And clearly in Plato’s Athens one could find those offended by exhibits of philological theatrics.    Plato locates this wicked word-play in the penultimate chapter of the key middle Book 6 of his masterwork, Republic.   Notice Plato’s signalling his own self-consciousness and conscientiousness over this  remark near this ‘seeing-or-heaven’ play on words:

εἰπὼν σοι σοφίζεσθαι περὶ τὸ ὄνομα [509d3]  [=  ‘I seem to you to be speaking a sophism over the word.’ ]

In the myth at the end of Phaedo, recall, the soul is meant to see with newfound power after being freed from its erstwhile body; it is calculated to be advantaged with a new heaven-specific clarity.   One will see well soon enough, we think.

Plato’s own wit, especially when challenged by his two students Aristotle and Philip of Opus, gave rise to published writing.   To include the π. κοσμου.   I judge the little work to have been authored by Philp of Opus, a.k.a. Younger Socrates.   Some of my arguments are supplied elsewhere.  In any case this work makes efforts at witty etymologies, especially in its seventh and final chapter, analysing the names of gods.  I refer to Chapt.. 7 of the π. κοσμου (=De Mundo).

youngersocrates admonished by Plato, for his plundering the corpus platonicum (qu.)

One argument is as follows.   We are entitled to a good decipherment of the little anacoluthon of our best texts of Timaeus 28b, a little aside which  seems to be executing a play of wit:   call your book what you may, they both look to me to be about The All.   This little aside continues ‘. . . or whatever else we may opt to entitle it’.   The text uses the optative of urbanity here, a usage which earned the title optativus urbanitatis.  It is a common urbanity within Plato, often one he has issuing from an Athenian and addressing another speaker from that same city.    But it is just as fitting if a Londoner such as Jonathan Barnes is addressing a fellow Oxonian J. Annas.    Something we might imagine Plato to have added here might read this way :  ‘. . .my good and early editors might one day want to add the alternate title :  π. πύσεως ( p, Physews ) .

This last title would match nicely our Timaeus phrase ‘or whatever else we may opt to name it’  Were Plato to emulate Philodemus and his tradition he might opt for the Latin version, De [rerum] Natura.    Each of you two, my early academic disciples may opt differently, Aristotle in certifiable fact opting for  Π. οὐρανοῦ  (De Caelo) and Philip on my authorship hypothesis Π. κόσμου   It now appears in Aristotle’s Bekker edition, the roughly 10 Bekker pages prior to and including the final theological chapter, on p. 401.  There continues to be lively scholarly debate, including by J. Barnes of France about its true authorship.  A moderate view mediating between those who have it written centluries after Aristotle, and the extreme view that it comes directly from Aristotle is the position here:  it comes direct from Aristotle’s early days at the Academy, near to the date of his DeCaelo, from the hand neither of Aristotle nor his famous teacher.  Rather from the teacher assigned him by the Vita Marciana, Socrates Alternate.

An additional follower of Plato, Holger Thesleff, has for many decades now admired Plato’s wit.   There are many of us Plato-admirers, both “Quick and Dead”  as A.E. Taylor wrote.  He exercised a specialist wit in thus including himself as one amongst the dedicatees, even today.   Some of us are still quick today.  Plato, the man and his work.    One can reasonably say even that Holger is a major participant in the Ideal of Platonic Wit.   Thesleff’s admiration of Plato is very durable indeed, and he exhibits many of the virtues of Plato-lovers all.   A notable virtue, which Thesleff is witty in his own naming of it.    I feel sure he will plead guilty, before St. Peter, of the seeming vice, ‘The Over-Attentive Reader’.    Where do we find a more worthy subject for such extreme reading, than the writer Plato ?   An author of very distinctly lower value, the author of Epinomis and De Kosmou, one of whose polyonymous modes of being is ‘Amphinomus’ can be compared as follows.   This one of his many names is clearly drawn from the list of Penelope’s suitors — thus what we rightly call a ‘successor’ to our many-guises voyager Odysseus.    Each name  stands as a  ‘pseudigraphos’ in Amphinomus’s various appendings, — one to Plato’s corpus and one to Aristotle’s.   Even still a third short appendix by him will have been appended to the famous Elements, now manifested as Books IVA, XIIIA and XIIA.

This third group of appendices, all mathematical, will have arrived in Alexandria some three human generations after Plato’s death.   This means it is unlike the first two, both fastened directly by Philip, an immediate successor of Plato’s, and when Plato will have been in midcourse of writing both Euthydemus and the late edition of Lysis.  [much more on this point of late editions below I follow the example of Einarson’s letter to me from Chicago, October 22 1974 here and indulge myself in a variety of ink colours, only one of which is black ! see further below]  This last item of the 3 appendices is in many respects  different, naturally.  All are early editions in geometry or stereometry, thus by mathematicians JL Heiberg was fond of calling ‘elementorum antiquiores’.    Further, this third set can be traced back via that master editor of Platonising mathematics, Euclid of Alexandria.   In this case, we have an editor quite different from the known editor of LAWS, by which I refer to Philip of Opus.   There are many and various signs of Philip’s having written the extremely short IVa, the middle-length XIIIa and (a quite specialised variety of signs here, much of the expository work remaining to be uploaded to youngersocrates.com as of this date (22.2.20) .   I believe the author of all of these appendings to be the same blood and bone same man, namely Philip of Opus, a.k.a. Younger Socrates.

Einarson ltr to me of 22 Oct 1974, p. 2 & env, copy2

Denniston’s posthumous book  Greek Prose Style made various depreciatory remarks about Plato’s writing as a very old man, especially in LAWS and EPINOMIS (if Plato wrote this).  One could hardly seek out in a more likely place for samples of what Denniston calls puerille writing by Plato near the end of his life.  Consider a case, here exhibited in our best ms. (75 years prior to Ephraim’s fine ms. T).   It manifests at the end of the end chapter (#14) of the end book (#12) of all Plato’s writings.  Philip of Opus can well be awaiting the two events, Plato’s writing his final lines and his personal death, so that he can both add on his own little piece ‘Epinomis’, and perhaps trim away mercifully any embarrassing childishnesses on the part of his teacher.   Denniston has it that puns and overelaborate wordplay, such as he had formerly mocked mocking when critically of Gorgias or Prodicus  are signs of the very old man indulging himself in juvenilities ?  Consider this example where so hyperrefined a wordplay as shortening a word’s initial vowel, then pleonastically letting it redound in the listener’s ear with near nothing added to the content:   ἤθεσιν καὶ ἔθεσιν·   It is only a minor addition to the cognitive vacuousness of this formula that its author, — perhaps a Plato very near his death — seems to want to locate it at the endpoint of this sentence, near the entire work’s ending chapter.

Let me permit myself a small excursus here, by way of innoculating this website against an alas not uncommon error of judgment.   I mean the error which amounts to the overbold and even arrogant manner sometimes found here on the American side of the Anglo-American field of Plato scholarship,   Some brash youngster presuming that he or she can command respectful attention in the larger world just by levelling sharply critical remarks about a writer so masterful as Plato (or Homer).   This rashness is alas not restricted to us ‘overseas’ anglicans: witness the overbold and harsh deprecation of Plato words from KJ Dover in his recent edition of Symposium.   AJ Ayer was after all English.

Please take it as an innoculant against any such rashness here on the worldwide web [such a grand claim — I am old enough to remember confidently asserting to many friends in the late 1950s,  HUMBUG, how can this little coterie of dreamers, writing in their multi-versioned Whole Earth Catalogue in San Francisco, how can they possibly delude themselves to think such a science-fiction world-wide network can sprint up in my lifetime ?   These self-deluders (so I used to continue my rant)  —  they will have it sprouting up and becoming so vast as to put Kiev and San Francisco into a kind of worldwide ‘neighborhood’, etc., etc.   Skeptical wisdom, as deeply wrong as I was then emphatic in offering it to my listeners.   Now today I experience a parallel skepticism — which I really want to be as deeply wrong as that other — the current skepticism is centered on what can be called ‘neighbourhoods’ by the school of Abraham Robinson.   These followers, R. Goldblatt among them, think with a wondrous coherence about making a kind of ‘neighbourly’ gathering, pairs that are all-but-continuous, only infinitesimally disjoined.   Hyperreally close neighbours, in other words.    We must look ahead to a descendant of one or another of today’s Socrates-Alternates to get a good grasp of all of this.   Meantime let me say here that an offprint I sent Robinson in 1972 provoked a short but non-dismissive reply from him — he mentioned Euclid’s Book 5.

Well these words I used to utter some 60 years ago now went something like this.   How can they possibly be so bold, to write in their  Whole Earth Catalogue  this claim about anything  worldwide of such an unimaginable sort?    Surely the www people are bold, but also delirious.    But do look at the gracious words from Cornford’s student WKC Guthrie, so gracious and urbane even as he condemns a work by Plato as follows:

Guthrie ltr abt Plato nodding, 31 Jan 72

I may cite this remark written in a letter of date nearly 58 years ago (January 31, 1972).   [a recently written podcast bears the provocative title “Back when I was older”.   Is its pronoun non-referring ?   Dover’s edition of Symposium came out some decade later, when Guthrie’s volumes on Plato and Aristotle had been finished.   Citing Guthrie’s letter now:  “I don’t see why Plato shouldn’t nod if Homer could”.a little to a youngish man by an elderly scholar, W.K.C. Guthrie of Cambridge.  I will insert here a facsimile of his letter, to give it some context.   Certainly the gracious manner of his disparagement is vastly less unfriendly to Plato than that in K.J. Dover’s 1980 edition of Symposium.  Dover’s deprecating preface leaves the reader  wondering why he even troubled to put out an edition of a writer whose cherished doctrine of Forms might be meaningless.   Dover writes as if he thought: “Plato is forever, maybe even eternally, nodding”.      It bears repeating, about Guthrie’s humble remarks.   They are respectful and even gracious as he expresses his disapproval.

Guthrie ltr abt Plato nodding, 31 Jan 72

Here at the very end of Plato’s LAWS, where this same disciple was to fasten on his respectful but divergent appendage to the work (=Epinomis) may have been already doing some editing.   It is not one of the more common opinions in Plato scholarship, but still there are a few of this number who even suppose Philip to have been the primary author of the LAWS themselves.

Here is our best ms. which I am so bold as to say, either Plato did not himself write them or Philip did, or Plato was nodding :

final 2 cols. of LAWS XII, 14, near 968d2

In any case it can be reasonably proposed that it was this same Philip with such broad expertise in astronomy that his name is cited repeatedly in F. Lasserre’s collection of ‘Die Fragmente des Eudoxos’, this same Philip will have written appendages books of ‘Elements’ due to be assembled and edited into more finished form by Euclid in Alexandria two generations later.   There are strong evidences that someone attached to the ends of to Books IV and VI and XIIA of this later work, Elements.  In this last case — that of Euclid XIIA —  he published a tract which we could rightly give the title ‘stereometric Episkepseis, based on its repeated application of its specialist usage of the phrase ‘toioutes gignomenEs episkepsews’ [].  In bulk it contains more than Euclid’s standard Book XII, in that it supplies duplicates of the final theorems of stereometric Book XI, as well as the ‘episkepsis‘ version, which has no episkepsis arguments at all.

He contrived to make it over-attentively Platonistic.   I spell out elsewhere more about this last case.   It may be that the Academic-sounding neologism ‘epidhmiourgein’, now found in scholia to Euclid, is also responsibly traced back to the writings of Philip.   If so, he will have earned our descriptive name ‘pseudo-Eudoxus’.   One very modernistic way to put a formula on his Episkepsis arguments is to say of them that they at once stand as falsely Eudoxus-like arguments, which contrive to claim a kind of hyper-platonic position in number theory where, in the words of Feynman ‘we find a way to sweep infinities under the rug.    Current day work in mathematics, cosmology and logic is continuing.   Some of this research today proudly claims to prosper,  ‘without any need to sweep infinities under the rug.’   But this 2019 speculation seems to me ‘over the top’, especially its efforts at ‘neutrosophic’ logic not limiting itself to 2 values. and best left at some distance from speculations offered here,  grounded in solid texts from the early Academy.

De Morgan, blind on right side since 1806, birth year

De Morgan, blind on right side since infancy

 

please consider (by clicking this link) whether the standard Burnet Oxford text needs revision in its forthcoming edition The use of AIEI at Euthydemus 296 a-c:

Twelve specimens of AIEI in one ms. column (Euthyd. 296a, f.)

if we are to guide by the standard set by Marcellinus and Dionysius of Halicarnassus (reporting about Thucydides, Plato's contemporary, both model Attic writers), we ought to 
edit Plato's texts so as to show the preference clearly favored by our Venice ms. T.  Please click on the Marcellinus link at the beginning of the page for Cratylus 


Chapt 1:  271 a1   Τίς ἦν, ὦ Σώκρατες,...
Chapt 2:  272 d7   Ὀὐκ ἂν φθάνοις ἀκούων...
3-6-1-euthd-271a1-272b6-273c7-145v-begin-euthyd-col-a-line-11
Chapt 3:  273 e1   Ὦ Ζεῦ, οἷον, ἦ δ' ἐγώ,...
Chapt 4:  274 d4   Εἶπον οὖν ἐγώ·...
Chapt 5:  275 c5   Τὰ δὴ μετὰ ταῦτα,...
3-6-1-euthyd-273c7-274d5-276a1-146r
Chapt 6:  276 d1   Ἐνταῦθα δὴ καὶ...
Chapt 7:  277 d1   Ἔτι δὴ ἐπὶ τὸ τρίτον...

3-6-1-euthyd-276a1-277b4-278b8-146v

Chapt 8:  278 e3         Ἆρα γε πάντες ἄνθρωποι...
Chapt 9:  280 a6 (sic)   Ἡ σοφία ἄρα πανταχοῦ...

3-6-1-euthyd-278b8-279d1-280d6-147r

Chapt 10:  282 a1  Ἔτι τοίνυν, ἔφην,...
Chapt 11:  282 d4  Κἀγὼ ταῦτα ἄσμενος...

3-6-1-euthyd-280d6-282a2-283b5-147v

Chapt 12:  283 e1  Καὶ ὁ Κτήσιππος ἀκούσας...
Chapt 13:  285 a2  Ἐγὼ οὖν, ἐπειδὴ μοι...
Chapt 14:  285 d7  Καὶ Διονυσόδωρος,...

3-6-1-euthyd-283b5-284c7-285d8-148r

Chapt 15:  286 b7  Καὶ ὁ μὲν Κτήσιππος...
Chapt 16:  287 b2  Εἶτ', ἔφη, ὦ Σώκρατες,...

3-6-1-euthyd-285d8-287a6-288b7-148v

Chapt 17:  288 d5  Σὺ δέ, ὦ Κλεινία,...
Chapt 18:  290 e1  Τί λέγεις σύ,...

3-6-1-euthyd-288b7-289c7-290e2-149r

Chapt 19:  291 d5  Σὺ κρινεῖς, ὦ Κρίτων,...
Chapt 20:  293 b1  Πότερον δή σε, ἔφη,...
3-6-1-euthyd-290e2-292a12-293c5-149v
Chapt 21:  294 b11 Καὶ ὁ Κτήσιππος ὑπολαβών·...
Chapt 22:  295 e4 Ἀποκρίνου δὴ, ἔφη, πάλιν...

3-6-1-euthyd-293c5-294d6-296a4-150r
please click this link. Various pointers to neo-Socratic 'dialectic' Barnes & JBrunschvig find strong evidence in Chrysippus. p. dialektikEs, BkIII:

Euthydemus, chapt XXII 296 a4, ff, to Brunschvig-Chrysippus question, proto-Organon. ἀποκρίνου δή
                  

    PLEASE LOOK CAREFULLY AT THIS SET OF SPECIMENS, ALL FULLY CONFORMABLE TO LEON ROBIN'S TASTE, I BELIEVE.
       THEY ARE NEARLY ALL AIEI'S HERE, AND ALL ARE IN A SINGLE COLUMN (ELSEWHERE THAN WHERE ROBIN NOTICED MANY.  THIS IN his 1930s edition of Symp. chiefly.)
       [CAN IT BE THAT THE FINAL ACADEMIC EDITION OF EUTHYD. WAS COMPOSED NEAR IN TIME TO THE FINAL ONE OF SYMP. ?  plausibly so. Later than writing Cratylus.]

                        Twelve specimens of AIEI in one ms. column (Euthyd. 296a, f.)

(bis9.5) Phdo 81bc, Aeolic punning on eternal-invisible-infernal plus stellar specimen of half-H char (smooth!), double consonant ks (22v) rev3

Superscripted Iota in AIEI of Epin, final chapter, notes on Symp Phdr Euthyd and Minos


Chapt 23: 296 d5   Ἀλλὰ βουληθείης ...
Chapt 24: 297 d3   Ἀπόκριναι δή, ...

3-6-1-euthyd-296a4-297b7-298c8-150v

Chapt 25:  298 e8   Καὶ ὁ Κτήσιππος γελάσας ...
Chapt 26:  300 b1   Ἦ γὰρ οὐχ οἷόν τ',... Chapt 27:  300 e1   Κἀγὼ εἶπον·...

3-6-1-euthyd-298c8-299d6-301a4-151r

Chapt 28:  301 e1   Ὦ Πόσειδον, ἦν δ' ἐγώ,...
Chapt 29:  303 b1   Ἐνταῦθα μέντοι, ὦ φίλε Κρίτων,...

3-6-1-euthyd-301a5-302b5-303c7-151v

Chapt 30:  304 b6   Ταῦτα, ὦ Κρίτων,...
Chapt 31:  305 b4   Ὦ Κρίτων, θαυμάσιοί εἰσιν...
3-6-1-euthyd-303c7-304d9-306a6-152r
Chapt 32:  306 d2   Καὶ μήν, ὦ Σώκρατες,...

3-6-1-euthyd-306a6-307c4-152v-end-of-euthydemus-col-a-line-50-152v