Neopythagoreanism and 'Plato's' second letter

Abstract

T he discussion of the &pZaE of the world in Sextus Empiricus 10, 248-284 is very confused. Doctrines appear to be attributed now to the Pythagoreans, now to Plato. It seems probable that either Sextus or his source or both were unaware of the precise origin of many of the ideas they were dealing with. It is certain that in the last century B.C. and the early centuries A.D. there was a mass of writings in circulation which purported to be of early Pythagorean origin and which attempted to bring the Pythagoreans into close relationship with Plato. One can recall the treatise which has come down as the work of Ocellus Lucanus,l but which probably dates from the early first century B.C. According to a letter preserved by Diogenes Laertius (8.80) and attributed by him to Archytas, it was Archytas himself who found the writings of Ocellus Lucanus and sent them to Plato.2 The reply which Plato is supposed to have made to this letter is also preserved it is Epistle Twelve in our collection. It is of interest therefore to examine the credentials of this letter in more detail. On doing so, we find that our earliest knowledge of it comes from Diogenes' report of the grouping of Plato's writings in tetralogies by Thrasyllus. Thrasyllus' ninth tetralogy apparently included the thirteen supposedly Platonic Epistles (D.L.3.61). Diogenes mentions the grouping of the Platonic works by the grammarian Aristophanes and alludes to the letters in this connection, but he does not tell us how many there were. We cannot be sure therefore that our Epistle Twelve was in Aristophanes' collection. Indeed, if it is to be connected, as seems likely, with the appearance of the supposed writings of Ocellus Lucanus in the first century B.C., then Aristophanes could not have known it.