¹ For the death of Socrates note, most memorably, Plato, Phd. 118a.5–14. For that of Proclus, see Marinus, , Life of Proclus 36.Google Scholar

² Diogenes Laertius does twice mention a tradition, attributed to Hermodorus of Syracuse, that Plato and τούζ λοιποζ φιλοσόφουζ fled to Megara following the death of Socrates (Diog. Laert. 2.106, 3.6; cf. Dillon, J., The Heirs of Plato. A Study of the Old Academy (Oxford 2003) 199CrossRefGoogle Scholar). The significance of this tradition will be discussed below.

³ One can note, for example, the wide variety of ‘Socratics’ described by Diogenes Laertius. They range from Plato and Xenophon (2.48–59) to the rhetorician Aeschines (2.60–4), the Cyrenaic Aristippus (2.65–105) and miscellaneous figures like Phaedo (2.105–6), Crito (2.121) and Simon the Cobbler (2.122–4).

⁴ Socrates responds to Crito's rather open-ended request for further guidance with the statement: ‘You will please me and mine and yourselves by taking good care of your own selves in whatever you do’ (Phd. 115b).

⁵ For the final five years of his life Proclus was consumed by the task of finding a healthy and able successor because he was ‘fearful that the truly Golden Chain of Plato might abandon our city of Athens’ (Vit. Is. fr. 98E Athanassiadi). For a discussion of this selection process, see Watts, E., City and School in Late Antique Athens and Alexandria (Berkeley 2006) 112–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ Direct institutional succession seems not to have been a concern in sophistic schools of the fifth and early fourth centuries BC. Though the schools had pupils who, in some cases, identified closely with the methods of a particular master, they do not seem to have marked out clear intellectual successors (note, for example, de Romilly, J., Les grands sophistes dans l'Athènes de Périclès (Paris 1988) 60Google Scholar). One exception to this may be the Sicilian sophists Corax and Tisias, though note Cole, T., The Origins of Rhetoric in Ancient Greece (Baltimore 1991) 22–7Google Scholar, as well as ‘Who was Corax?’, ICS 16 (1991) 65–84; Robinson, E., ‘Democracy in Syracuse 466–412 BC’, HSCP 100 (2000) 203–4Google Scholar; and, on their possible teaching connection to Gorgias, Consigny, S., Gorgias. Sophist and Artist (Columbia, SC 2001) 7.Google Scholar Pythagoreans obviously were concerned with the broad continuity of their system of thought, but there is no evidence that the school of Pythagoras maintained a linear succession. Iamblichus, drawing upon Aristoxenus’ fourth-century BC text, describes the scattering of Pythagoreans following an attack by Cylon of Croton near the end of Pythagoras’ life (VP 249–51 = Aristox. fr. 18; cf. Porph. Vit. Pyth. 55; on these traditions note now Riedweg, C., Pythagoras. His Life, Teaching, and Influence (Ithaca 2005) 18–20, 104–6).Google Scholar Aristoxenus does suggest that Pythagorean teaching circles persisted in Italy and mainland Greece (Lysis is said to have established a circle in Thebes with which Epaminondas was associated), but this is a different sort of phenomenon from the strict spatial and institutional continuity created by the early Academics. Indeed, Aristoxenus presents the surprise attack of Cylon in such a way that one could see in this narrative an attempt to explain away Pythagoras’ failure to create an intelligible succession process.

⁷ On Peripatetic biographical traditions, see the nuanced study of Momigliano, A., The Development of Greek Biography (2nd edn, Cambridge, MA 1993) 65–85Google Scholar as well as the classic survey of Leo, F., Die griechischrömische Biographie nach ihrer literarischen Form (Leipzig 1901).Google Scholar Early Academic biographical works are discussed in more detail below.

⁸ Diog. Laert. 2.106; cf. Diog. Laert 3.6 which classifies the remaining philosophers as ἄλλοι τινέζ Σωκρατικοί.

⁹ Diog. Laert. 3.6; cf. Iambl. VP 3–27.

¹⁰ For this marvellously improbable story, see Diog. Laert. 3.19–21.

¹¹ Diog. Laert. 3.7. For discussion of the area, see Baltes, M., ‘Plato's School, the Academy’, Hermathena 155 (1993) 6Google Scholar; Glucker, J., Antiochus and the Late Academy (Göttingen 1978) 227Google Scholar; Dillon (n.2) 2. Note the descriptions of Plut. Cim. 13.7 and Pliny, HN 12.5.9 as well as the earlier comments of Thuc. 2.34.

¹² De exil. 603 B10-C5. Note as well Glucker (n.11) 228–9.

¹³ Note, for example, Epicrates fr. 11 (Kock) and Aelian, VH 3.19. These passages will be discussed further below. For discussion of the locations of teaching, see Dillon (n.2) 3–4 and Baltes (n.11) 7. It seems that Plato also gave public lectures to a general audience on occasion (e.g. his lecture On the Good described in Aristox. Harm. 30–1; cf. A.S., Riginos, Platonica. The Anecdotes Concerning the Life and Writings of Plato (Leiden 1976) anecdote 79).Google Scholar

¹⁴ In late antiquity these were the akroatai, who were contrasted with the more intimate circles of gnorimoi or hetairoi (cf. Watts (n.5) 31–5). For a discussion of the gradations within Plato's Academy, see Baltes (n.11) 107–11. His larger point about the two distinct types of Platonic students is certainly sound but, given our evidence, it seems difficult to establish the specific terms used to refer to each group in the Platonic Academy.

¹⁵ On this fragment, note the discussions of Baltes (n.11) 14–15 and Dillon (n.2) 7–8.

¹⁶ άγέλην μειρακίων έν γυμνασίοιζ ’Aκαδηίαζ (Epicrates fr. 11.9–11).

¹⁷ ούδ’ έμέλησεν το⋯ζ μειρακίοιζ./ ⋯ Πλάτων δέ παρών καί μάλα πρἄωζ/ ούδέν όρινθείζ, έπέταξ’ αύτο⋯ζ πάλιν (Epicrates fr. 11.34–7).

¹⁸ It is tempting to think that Speusippus and Menedemus offer up two of the comical classifications of a pumpkin, but they are not named and Epicrates gives three such definitions. These appear to be the thoughts of some still rather confused junior students.

¹⁹ Cf. Dillon (n.2) 3.

²⁰ Cf. Baltes (n.11) 8, 18. Especially interesting is the suggestion that Plato used the dialogues to introduce his ideas about a topic proposed for discussion.

²¹ Ael. VH 3.19.

²² ό’ Aριστέληζ, καί φιλοτίμωζ πάνυ τάζ έρωτήσειζ ποιύμενοζ καί τρόπον τινά καί έλεγκτικɷζ, άδικɷν ⋯ν δ⋯λοζ (Ael. VH3.19.22–5).

²³ Ael. VH (3.19.34) says ένοχλɷν δέ αύτόν ’Aριστοτέληζ.

²⁴ Ael. VH 3.19.37–40.

²⁵ The anecdote is dismissed as unreliable by Tarán, L., Speusippus of Athens. A Critical Study with a Collection of the Related Texts and Commentary (Leiden 1981) 221Google Scholar, and defended by Dillon (n.2) 3–4. It presents an Academic world broadly consistent with the general, hands-off management style that Plato seemed to prefer, but the disagreements between Plato and Aristotle seem overemphasized. It is now accepted that Aristotle remained a member of the Academy at the time of both Plato's death and that of Speusippus eight years later (note the discussion of Merlan, P., ‘The successor of Speusippus’, Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 77 (1946) 103–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

²⁶ Dillon (n.2) 205–6 provides a brief discussion of intellectual factionalism within the Platonic Academy.

²⁷ Aelian uses the term όμιλητήζ.

²⁸ Mnason seems to be the son of the Mnaseas, one of the Phocians responsible for the start of the Sacred War (Arist. Pol. 1304a10–13).

²⁹ ⋯σαν δέ μάλα συχνοί καί ἄξιοι λόγου καί οί μάλιστα δοκουντεζ τɷν νέων έπιφανε⋯ζ (Ael. VH 3.19.39–40)

³⁰ On Philippus, see Tarán, L., Academica, Plato, Philip of Opus and the Pseudo-Platonic Epinomis (Philadelphia 1975) as well as Dillon (n.2) 178–95.Google Scholar Diogenes Laertius (3.37) describes his work with Plato's texts, especially the Laws.

³¹ On Heraclides, note the study of Gottschalk, H.B., Heraclides of Pontus (Oxford 1980) and the discussion of Dillon (n.2) 204–14.Google Scholar

³² Plut. Adv. Col. 1114F-1115A = Heraclides fr. 68 in Wehrli, F. (ed.), Die Schule des Aristoteles 7 (2nd edn, Basel 1969)Google Scholar; cf. Dillon (n.2) 208.

³³ On his caretaker role during Plato's Sicilian trip, see Suda H 486 = Heraclides fr. 2 (Wehrli). For his near selection after the death of Speusippus, see Philodemus, Hist. Acad. 7 = Heraclides fr. 9 (Wehrli). On the text of Philodemus’ History of the Academy, see the important study of Gaiser, K., Philodemus Academica. Die Bericht über Platon und die Alte Akademie in zwei herculanensis-chen Papyri (Stuttgart 1988Google Scholar), and the more complete text of Dorandi, T., Filodemo, Storia dei Filosofi. Platone e l'Academia (Naples 1991Google Scholar). This article draws upon the edition of Dorandi for all of its references to this text.

³⁴ Perhaps also suggested by Philodemus, , Hist. Acad. 7.Google Scholar

³⁵ Dillon (n.2) 89 speaks aptly of a ‘philosophical grapevine’.

³⁶ Proxenus is mentioned as the responsible party in Vita Arabica 4.3 (Düring); cf. Dion. Hal. Amm. 5. Nicomachus is named by Vita Arabica 2.3–9 (Düring). Also notable is the tradition that Aristotle came to study under Plato after receiving an oracle (e.g. Vita Marciana, 34–47). For a discussion and analysis of these various traditions, see Gigon, O., Vita Aristotelis Marciana (Berlin 1962) 41.Google Scholar

³⁷ Aelian, VH 4.9.10–13. Its general conformity to Aelian's broader picture of an abstentious and humble Plato makes the specific historicity of this incident some what suspect.

³⁸ On the importance of the place of study, one should note Ammonius Hermiou's curious observation about the source of the name ‘Academics’ (In Porphyrii isagogen 46.9–17).

³⁹ Dillon (n.2) 16.

⁴⁰ Diog. Laert. 3.41. Between the lists given by Diogenes Laertius and Philodemus, this seems to have amounted to at least twenty-one students (Dillon (n.2) 13–14). This may have been the size of the group, though the Epicrates fragment mentioned above and the trial of Plato's students Menedemus and Asclepiades (Ath. 4.168 AB) suggests a much larger number may be possible.

⁴¹ On Speusippus’ succession, see Philodemus, , Hist. Acad. 6Google Scholar; Diog. Laert. 4.1; Vita Aristotelis Marciana 3.69–73. Though one may find Speusippus’ uncontested succession implausible given Aristotle's presence in the Academy, Tarán (n.25) 8–9 makes the reasonable point that, in 347, a 60-year-old Speusippus was in all likeli-hood a far more accomplished philosopher than the 37-year-old Aristotle. For discussion of Speusippus and his career, see the valuable surveys of Tarán (n.25) 3–11 and Dillon (n.2) 30–8.

⁴² Diog. Laert. 3.41–3. There exists an abundant discussion of this will and the question of which property constitutes the buildings associated with the Academy. Among the most important contributions are Lynch, J.P., Aristotle's School. A Study of a Greek Educational Institution (Berkeley 1972) 106–34Google Scholar; Glucker (n.11) 229–34; and Dillon (n.2) 6–9.

⁴³ Speusippus’ house may have been a part of the gift given to him by Dio when he left for Sicily (Plut. Dion 17.3–4, 964E; cf. Glucker (n.11) 229).

⁴⁴ For Speusippus and the Graces, see Diog. Laert. 4.1. On Xenocrates, see Diog. Laert. 4.7.

⁴⁵ It has been argued that, under Athenian law, neither Speusippus nor anyone else at the school could inherit Plato's property (e.g. Glucker (n.11) 231). Note, however, the discussion of Todd, S.C., The Shape of Athenian Law (Oxford 1993) 216–27.Google Scholar Todd argues for the possibility of non-agnate inheritance in Athens, creating a situation in which Speusippus could have been designated an heir. I thank Matt Christ for this reference.

⁴⁶ For discussion of these, see Tarán (n.25) 12–85 as well as the collection of Speusippan fragments in the same study. Note as well, Dillon (n.2) 40–88.

⁴⁷ Speusippus’ influence on Aristotle is particularly evident in his discussions of classification and diaresis; cf. Tarán (n.25) 64–77 and 109–11.

⁴⁸ On Heraclides’ atomist ideas, see Gottschalk (n.31) 37–57 and Dillon (n.2) 204–11.

⁴⁹ Diog. Laert. 5.86. On this passage, note as well the comments of Gottschalk (n.31) 3–4.

⁵⁰ This is Plato's Funeral Feast, an otherwise lost work. For discussion about the possibility that Diogenes Laertius has confused Speusippus’ title with that of another author's work, see Tarán (n.25) 230–2, 236–7.

⁵¹ Diog. Laert. 3.2. Note as well the similar narrative in Jer. Adv. Iovinian. 1.42.

⁵² Speusippus must have known that Plato had older siblings, a fact suggested by Ap. 33C-34A. Both Speusippus’ statement that he worked out the early life of Plato through family documents (Apul. De dog. Plat. 1.2) and his epigram to Plato suggest that he was aware of his uncle's true parentage. On this, see Dillon (n.2) 38 n.21.

⁵³ In a funerary epigram, Speusippus wrote ‘Earth conceals in her bosom the body of Plato, but the soul of the son of Ariston has its immortal station amongst the Blessed. Him every good man, even if he dwells far away, honours as one who discerned the divine life.’ This is Anth. Pal. 7.61 = Tarán (n.25) fr. 87a = Diog. Laert. 3.44.

⁵⁴ Dillon (n.2) 38.

⁵⁵ Note, for example, [Iamblichus], Theologoumena Arithmeticae 82.10–85.23 = Tarán (n.25) fr. 28 as well as Tarán's commentary on 259–61.

⁵⁶ For discussion of Xenocrates’ text, see Simplicius, in Phys. 10.1165 and in Cael. 7.12 = Isnardi Parente, M., Senocrate-Ermodoro. Frammenti (Naples 1982) frr. 264–6Google Scholar (Xenocrates). For Hermodorus, see Parente, Isnardi, Senocrate-Ermodoro fr. 6 (Hermodorus) and her commentary on 438–9.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ In Diog. Laert. 1.2, this material is attributed to the Περί μαθημάτων of Hermodorus. On the possibility that this is a misattribution on the part of Diogenes Laertius (and a discussion of the possible implications of an identification of this with Hermodorus’ Life of Plato), see Dillon (n.2) 199–201.

⁵⁸ See Proclus, , In Eucl. 67.23–68.6.Google Scholar For the extant sources referring to Philippus of Opus, see Tarán (n.30) 115–39. His publications are also described by Dillon (n.2) 181. The Epinomis, the most important of these, will be discussed below.

⁵⁹ Diog. Laert. 3.37, cf. Anon. Proleg. 10.24.10–15, Philodemus, Hist. Acad. 3.36–41. On this passage as well as the curious phrase ⋯νταζ έν κηρɷ, see the discussion of Tarán (n.30) 128–33.

⁶⁰ For the history of the text and its disputed place in the Platonic corpus, see the excellent discussion of Tarán (n. 30) 3–47.

⁶¹ Epimonis 973 b2–4 (Tarán): τί ποτε μαθών θνητόζ ἄνθρωποζ σοφόζ ἄν ε⋯η. On this passage as well as its connection to the Laws, note the discussions of Tarán (n.30) 203, 206; and Dillon (n.2) 183.

⁶² Dillon (n.2) 182–97.

⁶³ For a discussion of the relationship of the dialogues to the ‘oral doctrines’ of Plato, see Dillon, J., The Middle Platonists (Ithaca, NY 1977) 2–11.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Proclus, Comm. in Eucl. 67.23. The translation is that of Dillon (n.2) 180–1.

⁶⁵ E.g. Diog. Laert. 3.37.

⁶⁶ Aside from some possible engagement by Xeno-crates in his Life of Plato (Xenocrates frr. 264–6, Isnardi Parente), there is little that remains of this discussion.

⁶⁷ Quoted by Philodemus, Hist. Acad. 3–5 (Dorandi). The nature of this work is unclear but, like the efforts of Hermodorus and Xenocrates, it may have contained a discussion of Plato's doctrines along with an account of his life.

⁶⁸ Dillon (n.2) 181 n. 6.

⁶⁹ See, for example, the discussion of Tarán (n.30) 39–40, 152 and that of Dillon (n.2) 193–5. It is possible that each of these were based upon different representations of Plato's oral teaching, though Tarán's objections to this idea are convincing.

⁷⁰ οί δ[έ] νεανίσκοι Ψηφ[ο]φορή|σαν[τ]εζ ⋯στιζ αύτɷν ήγή{ζ}|σετα[ι], Ξενοκράτη[ν] ε*dout*λοντο | τòν [Kα]λχηδóνιον, ’Aρι[σ]το∥τέλουζ [μ]έν άπο*dout*εδημη| κότοζ ε*dout*ζ Mακεδονίαν, Mε|νεδήμου δέ το*dout* Πυρραίου | καί ‘Hρακλείδου ‘Hρακλε|ώτου παρ’ *dout*λίγαζ ψήφουζ *dout*ττηθέντων. [⋯] μέν ‘H’ρα|κλείδηζ *dout*π*dout*[ρ]εν ε[ἱζ τ]όν | Πόντον, ⋯ δέ [Mενέδημ]οζ ἕ|τερον περίπατον καί [*dout*ι]α|τριβήν κατε[σ]κευάσατο· | [τἰ δ’[ ⋯ν | ’Aκαδημείαι [λ]έ[γ]οντ[αι] | προκρ*dout*να {σ}ι [τòν] Ξενοκρ[ά]την | ⋯γασθέντε[ζ] αὐτο*dout* τ[ή]ν σωφροσύνην (Philodemus, Hist. Acad. 6–7 = Isnardi Parente (n.56) fr. 1.15–24 = Tarán (n.25) Test. 2.14–31). Note as well on this passage the discussion of Gaiser (n.33) 465–9.

⁷¹ Philodemus says simply that he διεδέξατο τήν διατριββήν (Hist. Acad. 6 = Tarán (n.25) Test. 2.2).

⁷² Note Dillon (n.2) 15–16 on the voting procedures in the Academy.

⁷³ Temperance plays a large role in much of the surviving discourse of the Xenocratean Academy and, for this reason, Philodemus’ statement is not unproblematic. All the same, it does seem broadly consistent with what can be reconstructed of the historical reality of Xenocrates’ school.

⁷⁴ For Aristotle's ostentation, note Ael. VH 3.19. We are also told that Heraclides was called ‘Pompikos’ behind his back (Diog. Laert. 5.86), an evident play on his arrogance and Pontic origins.

⁷⁵ Various traditions describing Heraclides’ attempts to have himself recognized as a blessed figure are found in Diog. Laert. 5.89–91; cf. Heraclides frr. 14a, 16 (Wehrli). The reliability of this can be questioned, however (e.g. Wehrli (n.32) 63–4; Dillon (n.2) 205 n.73).

⁷⁶ Clement, Strom. 2.22 = Isnardi Parente (n.56) fr. 232. For discussion of this idea, see Dillon (n.2) 141–9. This seems to have been a part of a larger ethical system in which perfected virtues derive from natural impulses. These ideas are described further below.

⁷⁷ Philodemus, Hist. Acad. 7. As Philodemus suggests, some of them formed new teaching circles after breaking with the Academy. Aristotle, of course, founded the Lyceum. Menedemus founded some sort of school, though none of his pupils are known. Heraclides taught Dionysius ‘the Renegade’ and, perhaps, Chamaileon (Diog. Laert. 7.166 = Heraclides fr. 12 (Wehrli); Gottschalk (n.31) 2, 4), but it is unclear whether this teaching occurred within the context of a newly founded school.

⁷⁸ Dillon (n.2) 89 speaks convincingly of Xenocrates’ efforts to systematize Platonic thought. Our concern here is the way in which he simultaneously crafted a distinctive Academic philosophical and institutional identity.

⁷⁹ As Dillon has suggested (n.2, 136–7), his ethical system probably owes much to his understanding of Plato's teaching, with some attempts to develop further these ideas in his own direction. As only the slightest traces of Xenocrates’ system survive, it is impossible to know how well formed these ideas were when Xenocrates assumed control of the school.

⁸⁰ On these, note Isnardi Parente, M., ‘Per la biografia di Senocrate’, Rivista di filologia classica 109 (1981) 129–62.Google Scholar

⁸¹ This story appears often (e.g. Diog. Laert. 4.8; Ath. 10.437 b-c; cf. Isnardi Parente (n.80) 132–3).

⁸² See, for example, Val. Max. 4.3 ext. 3a and Diog. Laert. 4.7.

⁸³ Diog. Laert. 4.8; Cicero, Tusc. Disp. 5.32.91; Stobaeus, Flor. 3.5.10; Val. Max. 4.3 ext. 3b; and Isnardi Parente (n.56) frr. 23–9. Note as well the comments of Isnardi Parente (n.80) 156–7 on the implied contrast between Academic and Peripatetic attitudes towards Macedon.

⁸⁴ For versions of this story, see Isnardi Parente (n.56) frr. 43–7 and, more exhaustively, Gigante, M., ‘I Frammenti di Polemone Academico’, Rendiconti dell' Accademia di archeologia, lettere e belle arti di Napoli 51 (1976) 91–144Google Scholar, frr. 15–33. The most detailed versions of the anecdote are found in Diog. Laert. 4.16 = Gigante fr. 16 and Val. Max. 6.9 ext. 1 = Gigante fr. 20. For discussion of the ways in which this story is connected to Polemo's views of practical ethics, see Dillon (n.2) 158. This tradition was so memorable that, in the Roman period, it became emblematic of the transformative effect of Academic teaching (e.g. Lucian, Double Indictment 17 = Gigante fr. 25).

⁸⁵ On his background, see Gigante, frr. 10–12 (on his family) and 13–14 (youthful vices).

⁸⁶ Val. Max. 6.9 ext. 1 (trans. D.R. Shackleton Bailey, LCL).

⁸⁷ This is perfectly consistent with other descriptions of Xenocrates’ demeanour. It was said that Xenocrates was such a man that, throughout his life, ‘never did the expression of his face dissolve, nor did he alter his bearing or the tone of his voice, but he preserved these things even if he was angry’ (Philodemus, Hist. Acad. 13.10ff.).

⁸⁸ Diog. Laert. 4.17. Note as well Suda, Lexicon Διοένηζ = Gigante fr. 106. the anecdote are found in Diog. Laert. 4.16 = Gigante fr. 16 and Val. Max. 6.9 ext. 1 = Gigante fr. 20. For discussion of the ways in which this story is connected to Polemo's views of practical ethics, see Dillon (n.2) 158. This tradition was so memorable that, in the Roman period, it became emblematic of the transformative effect of Academic teaching (e.g. Lucian, Double Indictment 17 = Gigante fr. 25).

⁸⁹ Diog. Laert. 4.18; cf. Philodemus, Hist. Acad. 13 = Gigante fr. 109.

⁹⁰ Diog. Laert. 4.17; cf. Philodemus, Hist Acad. 13 = Gigante fr. 107.

⁹¹ Diog. Laert. 4.18; cf. Philodemus, Hist. Acad. 13.41–14.3 = Gigante fr. 100. For a larger discussion of Polemo's ethical doctrines (or, at least, such of them as can be recovered), see Dillon (n.2) 159–66. Of particular interest is the possibility that Polemo provided a philosophical foundation upon which Zeno could construct the Stoic idea that virtue alone was sufficient for happiness.

⁹² Diog. Laert. 3.26; cf. Riginos (n.13) anecdote 106.

⁹³ This is an extremely popular anecdote. For a list of ancient references to it, see Riginos (n.13) anecdotes 113a-c. Speusippus is substituted for Xenocrates in Plut. De Liberis Educandis 10 D; Seneca, , De Ira 3.12.5–7Google Scholar; and Val. Max. 4.1.15.

⁹⁴ Note Riginos (n.13) 156 n.16; cf. Iambl. VP 197.

⁹⁵ Plut. De frat. amor. 491F-492A (trans. Loeb, slightly adapted).

⁹⁶ ‘Plato used to say that he admonished Speusippus by his way of life, just as Polemo, when he saw Xeno-crates in the lecture room, was converted to it [i.e. his way of life] and changed’ (Quomodo adulator ab amico internoscatur 71E).

⁹⁷ It is notable that Arcesilaus ultimately seems to have abandoned this discourse when he turned towards scepticism. In so doing, he opened himself up to charges of intemperance from Stoics and Peripatetics (e.g. Diog. Laert. 4.40–2).

⁹⁸ Plato's pride is largely the subject of Cynic attacks. See Riginos (n.13) anecdotes 46, 71. His gluttony is suggested by the Peripatetic Hermippus (in Diog. Laert. 3.2); note on this also the Cynic traditions about Plato that make up Riginos (n.13) 68, 69. Hermippus is the immediate source for the plagiarism charge (in Diog. Laert. 8.85), though Aristoxenus may be the ultimate source. Riginos sees this as a particularly hostile version of the materials represented by anecdote 127.

⁹⁹ Note, for example, Diog. Laert. 4.1. He mentions Speusippus throwing a dog into a well and charges him with making a trip to Macedonia in order to sample the buffet at the wedding of Cassander. The ultimate source for each is unclear. On the historicity of these anecdotes, see Dillon (n.2) 31–2.

¹⁰⁰ On his clumsiness, see Diog. Laert. 4.6 and Plut. Coniug. praecept. 141F = Isnardi Parente (n.56) fr. 5. On the charges of stupidity, see Plut. De recta ratione audi-endi 47E = Isnardi Parente (n.56) fr. 4. For discussion, see Isnardi Parente (n.80) 130–1. Many of the negative traditions associated with Xenocrates seem to recall the initial contested election for Speusippus’ successor and, while they concede to Xenocrates the unique authorita tive attributes that he claimed, they also highlight how he lacked qualities possessed by rivals like Aristotle. By the same token, Academic counter-attacks against Aristotle and his immediate successors highlight their intemperance while implicitly conceding their grace and intellectual flair. Examples include Plut. Alex. 668 and, more remotely, Ath. 12.547D–548B.

¹⁰¹ Some of this emphasis can be seen in Diogenes Laertius' account of his early life (Diog. Laert. 4.16). Note as well the account of Philodemus, , Hist. Acad. 4–13Google Scholar and the discussion of Dillon (n.2) 156–7.

¹⁰² Diog. Laert. 4.6 = Isnardi Parente (n.56) fr. 2.

¹⁰³ It is extremely difficult to reconstruct how Socrates was seen by the Academy of Xenocrates or that of Polemo. Though he certainly occupies a central place in the Platonic corpus as well as later Academic historical traditions, the limitations of our evidence would seem to make it impossible to distinguish what role, if any, he played in the particular historical discourse promoted by these two scholarchs. It is worth remarking on the important work that has been done on the pseudo-Platonic Theages, a dialogue that uses the character of Socrates to develop a particular idea about the importance of erôs in the most effective educational relationships. Tarrant, R. (‘Socratic synousia: a post-Platonic myth?’, Journal of the History of Philosophy 43.2 (2005) 131–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar) has argued plausibly that this text seems to arise out of the Academy of Polemo, a moment when scholarchs and their successors lived together. If he is correct, one has strong evidence that the Academic manipulation of its Socratic past continued well into the third century. On the Theages and its context, note as well Joyal, M., The Platonic Theages. An Introduction, Commentary, and Critical Edition (Stuttgart 2000), especially 121–34.Google Scholar On Aristoxenus’ Socrates as well as his general anti-Academic attitudes, see Cox, P., Biography in Late Antiquity. A Quest for the Holy Man (Berkeley 1983) 10.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ For discussion of his background, see Momigliano (n.7) 81. The best larger study of Antigonus remains that of von Wilamowitz-Möllendorff, U., Antigonos von Karystos (Berlin 1881).Google Scholar Note as well the comments of Gaiser (n.33) 129–31.

¹⁰⁵ Note Momigliano (n.7) 81.

¹⁰⁶ Momigliano (n.7) 81 holds that he was a student of Menedemus. This Menedemus must be distinct from Plato's student Menedemus of Pyrrha. On this, note the comments of Dillon (n.2) 14 n.26.

¹⁰⁷ Diog. Laert. 2.136, 140. Though Diogenes Laertius indicates that this comes from Lycophron and not Antigonus, the description of Menedemus’ deliberately meagre dinner parties (Diog. Laert. 2.139) suggests that Menedemus styled himself as a most moderate individual.

¹⁰⁸ Diog. Laert. 4.17.

¹⁰⁹ Diog. Laert. 4.16. Dillon (n.2) 157, with good reason, sees this as originally derived from Antigonus. Note as well Philodemus, , Hist. Acad. 4–13.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Diog. Laert. 4.17.

¹¹¹ Diog. Laert. 4.16.

¹¹² Dillon (n.2) 157 n.5 first notes this by calling attention to Athenaeus’ version of the story (2.44E). Athenaeus, who explicitly draws upon Antigonus for this account, says that Polemo was 30 at the time of this law suit.

¹¹³ On Aristoxenus, note the thorough treatment of Momigliano (n.7) 73–6.

¹¹⁴ Momigliano (n.7) 74.

¹¹⁵ E.g. his Elementa harmonica and Elementa rhyth-mica. The fragments of his biographical works are found in Wehrli, F. (ed.), Die Schule des Aristoteles 2 (2nd edn, Basel 1967) 10–41.Google Scholar On the interrelationship between these portraits, see as well Cox (n.103) 10–11.

¹¹⁶ Aristox. fr. 67 (Wehrli); cf. Riginos (n.13) 165 n.3.

¹¹⁷ Note Riginos (n.13) 71, drawing upon Aristox. fr. 62 (Wehrli).

¹¹⁸ Riginos (n.13) 166, drawing upon Aristox. fr. 131 (Wehrli). This seems not to have come from the Platonic life but from another lost text.

¹¹⁹ Aristoxenus' ideas had an impact; it seems that, in Clearchus' Encomium of Plato, a more favourable response to this hostile tradition was rapidly framed. On this, see Momigliano (n.7) 77.

¹²⁰ On this ethical system, see Dillon (n.2) 137–45.

¹²¹ This is on the basis of Cicero, Fin. 4.17–18. Note here the ideas of Dillon (n.2) 144–5.

¹²² Aristox. fr. 54a-b (Wehrli) = Cyril, Contra Julianum 6, Theodoret, Graec. affect. curatio 12.61; cf. Aristox. fr. 57 = Ath. 13.555D and Aristox. fr. 58 = Plut. Arist. 27.

¹²³ Aristox. fr. 53 (Wehrli) = Euseb. Praep. evang. 11.3. See as well, Aristoxenus, fr. 55 = Plut. De Herodoti malignitate 856.

¹²⁴ Aristox. fr. 54b (Wehrli) = Theodoret, Graec. affect. curatio 12.61; cf. Aristox. fr. 56 = Synesius, Encomium calvitatis 81 a cap. 17.

¹²⁵ Aristox. fr. 54b (Wehrli) = Theodoret, Graec. affect. curatio 12.61.

¹²⁶ Aristox. fr. 59 (Wehrli) = Diog. Laert. 2.20.

¹²⁷ ‘Although the wives battled one another, when they were stopped, they turned their attention to Socrates and, on account of this, he never again prevented their fights, but they laughed with one another and fought with him’ (Aristox. fr. 54b).

¹²⁸ MεγαλοΨυχία. On this term in Xenocrates, see Dillon (n.2) 144.