C H A R T E R T E N

The Dialectics of Genre:SomeAspects ofSecondary Literature

and Genre in Antiquity

INEKE SLUITER

Products of ancient Greek literature are characterized to a high degree by theirself-positioning vis-ä-vis predecessors and contemporaries, and by their deepconsciousness of forming part of a tradition, whatever their authors' views ontheir relation to that tradition. These elements are all-pervasive, but mostly un-dercover, in the familiär literary strategies of Imitation and emulation. In thispaper, I will deal with literature that is explicit about its second-order Status, itsdirect relation with and dependence on an earlier text or author: those works ofancient scholarship whose explicit purpose is to elucidate a text or an oeuvre.1

This class of scholarly work includes lexica, paraphrases, the so-called "ττβρί-

literature" ("on" specific topics in ancient authors), έπίμ€ρισ-μοί (exhaustive,word-for-word discussions), scholia, ζητήματα Ι άπορήματα Ι προβλήματα-

literature with or without leseis (that is, the identifkation of critical problems

in ancient texts, sometimes with "solutions"), Äpitomafi, and commentaries(conventionally distinguished by the explicit presence of lÖmmata sectionsof the source-text that are then being explained).2 Note that some literary (forexample, poetic) work, while laying claim to independent literary Status, canoften be construed äs a (critical) commentary on a literary example thatfunctions äs a "subtext." By contrast, although their titles seem to claim nomore than secondary Status for the works they designate, some commentariesare the vehicles of independent scholarly thought, so that the choice of genre is

183

184 InekeSluiter

at least in part a rhetorical device, both a topical expression of modesty and ofthe less modest claim that their views are backed up by the füll weight of thetradition.

In the following, I will mainly concentrate on commentaries, and withinthat group especially on those that do not focus primarily on providing ele-mentary help with a text that is mainly studied qua poetry or exemplary lan-guage (for example, scholia on Homer and the tragedians; lexica), but thatrather engage the didactic content of the source-text (for example, Galen's com-mentaries on Hippocrates, the commentators of Aristotle and Plato, the techni-cal commentaries on Aratus). It is in this group that questions of genre äs dis-course strategy are most urgent. Doctors, philosophers, astronomers, and otherancient intellectuals were committed to advancing their disciplines. If theychose to present their often original work under the guise of a "commentary," itis well worth asking why.

Commentaries are an interesting case study on genre in that they bothinstantiate a genre in their own right and contain some of the earliestreflections on genre in Western European literature, both of the texts com-mented on, and their own. I will explore both these aspects. Commentaries areespecially abundant in the time of the Roman Empire. It is less well-known howmuch evidence we have for commentary activities in the Classical and Hellenis-tic periods. Therefore, I will give a brief survey of commentary literature fromthe fifth to first centuries B.C.E, in the first section of my paper. In the secondsection, I will argue that the genre of "the commentary" and the persona of "thecommentator" emerge äs a function of four areas of tension. This will comprisea modern construction of the parameters of the genre. The third section dealswith the efforts of ancient commentators to classify their source-texts and withthe question whether these classifications are based on generic considerations.Thus this section looks at the use of the concept of genre by the ancient com-mentators themselves. The fourth and fifth sections deal with ancient ideas onthe genre of the commentary: in the fourth section, I examine the question ofwhether "secondary literature" itself was ever recognized äs a separate genre inancient classifications of genre (eidographia); in the fifth section, the question iswhether the commentators themselves ever tried formally to define andsubclassify the genre of their own work in their commentaries.

It will turn out that the commentators are aware of the concept of genreand use it in the explanation of their source-texts. As for the "genre" of thecommentators' own work, it is perfectly possible for the modern Student todefine the elements that are constitutive of it, but it hardly plays a role in an-

The Dialectics of Genre 185

cient classifications of genre. Moreover, although the ancient commentators arecertainly engaged in a constant effort of self-positioning, the distinctions theydraw in order to do so are not primarily conceived in terms of "genre."

Early CommentariesGreek commentary literature originates with the exögetai of sacred texts. Theremust have been a long oral tradition of interpreting divine signs, meteorologi-cal phenomena, and possibly even oracles before the focus became purely tex-tual (van Bekkum et al. 1997:163f.). Once "tradition" had been captured inwriting, its preservation and transmission became increasingly embedded inthe creation of a secondary literature (from the fourth Century B.C.E.). Exegesiswas also called for in the context of poetry and philosophy. Homer and Hesiodprovoked reactions on the part of the lonian philosophers and the sophists, butDiogenes Laertius (9.15; compare 6.19) claims that the first actual exegesiswasby Antisthenes, and that its subject was Heraclitus. It is questionable whetherthis refers to a full-blown commentary.

This survey will be restricted to what is known of commentaries whose in-terest is not primarily literary from the fourth to the first centuries B.C.E., com-mentaries on philosophical, medical, and astronomical texts: Xenocrates andSpeusippus recorded ideas about the Interpretation of Plato (it is doubtfulwhether these constituted "commentaries"), Heracleides Ponticus and Crantorcommented on—once again—Heraclitus, äs did Cleanthes and Sphaerus (D.L.9.15). Proclus claims that Crantor was also the first exegetes of Plato but doesnot expatiate on the form that this exegetical activity took (in PL Tim. l 75.30).There are third-century papyrus fragments that apparently contain a commen-tary on Plato's Phaedo (Barnes et al. 1991:5).3 Theophrastus and Eudemus fol-lowed up on the initiative taken by the Platonists, although it is not clearwhether they wrote exegetical commentaries or just reacted to previous schol-arship in independent writings. Posidonius may or, more likely, may not havewritten a commentary on the Timaeus.4 Potamo of Alexandria, a contemporaryof Augustus, composed a commentary on the Republic. Our earliest extantPlato-commentary postdates the period described here: it is the Anonymousin Theaetetum, probably dating from the late first Century B.c.E.5 Later exam-ples of secondary literature on Plato include monographs on particular topics("pen-literature"), concordances, and lexica. Secondary literature on Aristotlepostdates the period described here.6

Turning to Epicurus, we know that in Philodemus's library there were cop-ies of his work with variants and critical tools. Philonides of Laodicea (second

186 InekeSluiter

Century B.C.E.) collected Epicurus's work (vita Philon. PHerc. 1044, fr. 66.6ff.)and maybe used an Athenian archetype that had been kept in the Garden afterEpicurus's death (Puglia 1993:51f.). Philonides also wrote a commentary on themathematical work of his teacher Eudemus, a commentary on book 6 ofEpicurus's De rerum natura, and a work "on the commentary of Artemon." Thelast title is interesting, because it is an early instance of a study provoked by sec-ondary literature, rather than immediately by the primary sources. Philonides'scommentary on book 6 of De rerum natura may also have been a "commentaryon a commentary" by Eudemus. Alternatively, it may have been a report on lec-tures about Epicurus (Puglia 1988:53). Artemo was the author of a commen-tary on 33 of the 37 books of the De rerum natura (maybe supplemented byPhilonides). Philological-philosophical work on Epicurus also included mono-graphs and summaries of the master's works to facilitate their study (Puglia1988:55). Zeno of Sidon (ca. 150-175), a slightly older contemporary ofDemetrius Lacon, revised the transmitted texts and pronounced verdicts onquestions of authenticity.7 Demetrius Lacon writes on textual and exegeticalproblems in Epicurus (PHerc. 1012), ca. second/nrst Century B.C.E.8 His workfollows the aporiai/luseis model. It is not a running commentary but rather acollection of short essays of an exegetical and philological nature on specificpoints and problems in Epicurus's doctrine (Puglia 1988:81).

Like the Alexandrian philologists (notably Aristophanes of Byzantium),Demetrius Lacon shows an interest in lexicographical problems in Hippocrates(Puglia 1988:79). This is an indication that, broadly speaking, we are dealingwith one unique "intellectual network" from the later third Century B.C.E, on-wards: philology is available äs a paradigmatic method, a responsible way oflooking at texts, and (philosophical/technical) commentators avail themselvesof this tool,9 whereas Professional philologists do not restrict their attention topoetic texts but extend it to, for example, Hippocratic studies. The texts thatwere of interest to this "Republic of Leiters" are far more wide-ranging than ourmore narrow conception of "literature" would lead us to assume. However,among the more pur-sang philologists, interest in prose texts was generally lim-ited. The historians were studied to some extent;10 Callimachus worked onDemocritus;11 Hippocrates was studied for interesting phenomena of dialect;and the Suda reports that Asclepiades wrote emendations of philosophicaltexts. But we also hear that Aristophanes of Byzantium criticized Epicurus's useof language (D.L. 10.13) and that the grammarian Diodotus wrote a commen-tary on Heraclitus claiming that his work is not about nature but about the con-stitution of the state (politeia), with phusis just serving äs an Illustration (D.L.9.15). As pointed out before, grammarians—and illustrious ones at that—

The Dialectics ofCenre 187

wrote lexica on Hippocrates (in fact, according to Erotianus, Xenocritus of Koswas the first to do so at all).12 In the third section below, we will see thatAristophanes also worked on Plato.

Hippocratic writings provoked secondary literature at least from Bacchius(end of the third Century B.C.E.), and perhaps even from Herophilus (twogenerations earlier) onwards. Hippocratic studies consisted mainly ofglossography, exegesis, and hints for practical therapy based on Hippocraticprinciples.13

A last group of commentaries deals with astronomical work: Aratus's di-dactic poem, a poetic adaptation of Eudemus's prose work on astronomy, wascommented on in the second Century B.C.E, by Attalus and Hipparchus, amongothers.

All of this illustrates what Geffcken has called the "Kommentar-Atmosphäre" in the Alexandrian era (1932:408). And in fact, we read that whenthe art of grammar was introduced in Rome, so was the genre of the commen-tary (Suet. Gramm. 2). In Alexandria, we find the roots of the Western "GreatTexts" approach to education: the (textual/exegetical) study of great predeces-sors, both in literature and in any other field.

Ancient Commentaries: The Dialectics of GenreIf one constructs a modern picture of the genre of ancient commentaries, foursets of oppositions stand out throughout antiquity. (1) There are two funda-mental assumptions about the source-text, namely (a) that it is a great text but(b) that it needs the commentator's efforts to be optimally effective (authorityversus unclarity). (2) The commentator has to find a balance between (a) mak-ing the most of his source-text (a strategy that is bound to increase the impor-tance of his own work) and (b) maintaining the intellectual attitude of an inde-pendent critical thinker (charity versus criticism). (3) The commentator ischaracterized by having a dual professional affiliation: (a) he is the colleague ofhis source-author, qua philosopher, mathematician, physician, and so on, andat the same time, (b) he belongs in the tradition of commentators, with a spe-cific competence in grammar and exegesis. He will feel the need to downplaythese latter qualifications in favor of the former, in accordance with the ubiqui-tous contempt for the "mere grammarian" ("mere grammarian" versus "realscholar"). (4) Finally, there are the modes of transmission: (a) the stable writtennature of the source-text contrasts with (b) the improvised, oral aspects, andfluid nature, of the commentary (written versus oral).14 In what follows, I shalldiscuss each Opposition in turn.

188 InekeSluiter

Authority versus UndarityThe legitimation of writing commentaries is based on two presuppositions,which are in partial conflict. The first presupposition is that the source-text isvaluable and should be made widely available and accessible. The second is thatwhatever is contained in the source-text is not optimally effective unless it issupplemented by the explanations of the commentator. The partial conflict be-tween these two notions resides mainly in the understanding that greatness en-tails literary, or at least didactic, sophistication; that is to say, a great text shouldbe clear. However, commentary is necessary because it is not clear (compareBarnes 1990).

Aristotle makes the point succinctly (Met. l 8, 989a30ff.): "If one were toinfer that Anaxagoras recognized two elements, the inference would accordclosely with a view which, although he did not articulate it himself, he musthave accepted äs developed by others... (989b4f.) If one were to follow his doc-trine carefully, and articulate what he intends to say, it may turn out he is sayingsomething novel" (transl. Tredennick; my emphasis). The author wants to saysomething, but it takes an Interpreter to articulate precisely what it is. Similarly,a commentator will Supplement any "etceteras" left unresolved in the source-text.15 Writing a commentary is one way of filling the gap that separates the au-thor's text and our own füll understanding of it, an undertaking in a way com-parable to the Alexandrian poets' supplementing and following up possibilitiesleft implicit in their classical examples, and even earlier, the poets of the EpicCycle supplementing (or varying) the subject matter of Iliad and Odyssey.16 Inthat sense, it is not surprising that a major surge of commentary activity coin-cides with the activities of the Alexandrian poets; people like Philetas andCallimachus engaged in both types of work.

It can be upheld that the retelling of the source-text is necessary whetherthat text is clear or not: writing a commentary is also the reproduction and di-gestion of what is considered valuable intellectual and cultural material. Unlessthe Information contained in the source-text, or the skills represented by it, areabsorbed, digested, and reproduced (taught) in every new generation, they canno longer form a live part of the cultural capital of a Community. (Isocrates, forexample, is aware of this reproductive aspect of teaching [Antidosis205f.].) Thephenomenon of "canonization" is a virtual guarantee that a text will be keptalive through study over the generations.

Where the need of clarification is emphasized, lack of clarity in the source-text may be explained in a variety of ways: sometimes the by now archaic lan-guage is held responsible;17 sometimes the obscurity is held to be produced onpurpose18 for the personal safety of the author,19 to ward off the uninitiated,20

The Dialectics of Genre 189

or to be used äs a didactic device to whet the audience's appetite and stimulatetheir curiosity.21

The application of the principle of harmonization, which was populäramong Platonists, illustrates both the weight accorded the tradition and the ne-cessity of its constant clarification.22 Plato's text embodies the best available ex-pression of the truth and is itself a clarification of the partial insights of thesages of old. Attempts to harmonize the poets and Oracles, the ancient non-Greek traditions and customs, and the text of Plato, are the result (compareDörrie 1987:17ff.). The sheer weight of tradition guarantees stability and lackof change. Everyone can attain füll knowledge, but knowledge äs such cannot beincreased. The best one can hope for, therefore, is to shed "new" light on ob-scure elements.

Charity versus CriticismIn a way, the identification of points where the source-text needs clarificationpresupposes critical activity on the part of the commentator, but the way itworks out most often is that the commentator makes an effort to show why bisauthor was right after all. However, the commentator also has to strike a balancebetween the natural adoption of a principle of charity in approaching thesource-text, and the understandable need to express his scholarly independenceand critical faculties. One way of resolving this dilemma is by applying thesetwo conflicting principles to two different objects: the author of the source-textis mostly given the benefit of the doubt; in that author's case, criticism is rela-tively mild and serves to enhance the credibility of the laudatory parts of the ex-egesis. Severely polemical discourse is reserved for dealing with previous exe-getes, especially those not belonging to the same school, and nonspecialists whohave ventured an opinion on the text in question. (See Sluiter 1998 and Barnes1990.) However problematic this approach may seem, it is also a critical neces-sity. Refusing to assume maximal coherence and sense in one's source-text, atleast initially, inevitably leads to a certain intellectual laziness in the commenta-tor. In the hands of the best commentators, the "Principle of Charity" can leadto excellent results—this effect is true for antiquity, äs it is for our modern criti-cal practice.

The late Aristotle commentator David (formerly identified äs Elias) (sixthCentury C.E.) expresses the need for critical independence äs follows (in Ar. Cat.GAG XVIII 1.122.27ff.): "One shouldn't change oneself in accordance withwhatever one is explaining, like actors on stage who put on different roles andimitate different characters. Don't become an Aristotelian when explaining Ar-istotle, don't say that never was there such a good philosopher. Don't become a

790 InekeSluiter

Platonist while explaining Plato's work, don't claim that there was no philoso-pher to equal Plato."

"Mere Grammarian" versus "Real Scholar"The commentator has the Option of directing praise at his author and criticismat other exegetes because his work is fundamentally dual in nature: he has aProfessional affinity to the author of the source-text qua philosopher, mathe-matician, astronomer, or doctor. But at the same time, äs a specialist in linguis-tic Interpretation, he belongs in the exegetical tradition.

Whatever the topic of the text that is being commented on, it is a text. Inev-itably, therefore, philology will have a contribution to make to the successfulunderstanding of the text, either in establishing or defending its correct form,or in explaining its linguistic elements. Indeed, any commentary will provideexamples of remarks on the transmission of the text, lexical explanation(glosses), help in the construction of sentences (το ε£η?, the [natural] order),help with the meaning of larger units or sentences (paraphrase), help with thetext's rhetorical form or function, and appreciation of its literary qualities.

On the other hand, given the low social Status of grammarians in Greco-Roman antiquity and the low intellectual regard in which that discipline wasusually held, it is understandable that the commentators tend to play down ordeny both their own interest in matters of text and language, and that of theirauthor. Content is invariably extolled over form, and an excessive interest in"little words" is denounced, even though the best and most prolific commenta-tors (Galen, Origen, Porphyry) are among the most formidable philologists inantiquity.23

Again, it should be borne in mind that these commentators, qua intellectu-als, formed part of one and the same "network," with a much lesser degree ofscholarly compartmentalization than is familiär to us: the tools of philologywere part of the intellectuals' common stock-in-trade.

Written versus OralMore than any other genre, the class of "secondary literature" presupposes theexistence of a written text of a specific, permanent, stable, and correct character.This is a prerequisite for textual criticism, debates about correct readings, andthe normal usage of a certain author. One needs to be able to check and double-check, and the value of a text is dependent on its reliability äs the ipsissima verbaof its revered author. A commentary always deals with a text, not with a perfor-mance, and in that sense it is a "book-conscious" genre, and it is both instru-mental in, and an indication of, the "canonization" of its source-text.

The Dialectics of Genre 797

But many of the commentaries themselves originated in oral teaching andoften betray their origin äs a performance in the context of the schoolroom.24

The "grammarian" was supposed to have all kinds of information by heart,25

and the impression of Improvisation is often cultivated. Moreover, ever sinceSocrates in Plato's Phaedrus expressed a strong suspicion of the didactic poten-tial of written texts (274b ff.), ancient sources agreed that teaching in the "livingvoice" far outweighed anything conveyable through books.26 Traces of the oralnature of explanatory procedures are still visible in some of our scholia, wherethe text suddenly changes to question-and-answer format (Rutherford1905:3Iff., especially 33). Terms like κατήχησίζ (instruction by word of

mouth) and άττοσ-τοματίζβίν (teach by word of mouth) are reminiscent of the

oral nature of classroom proceedings. Sometimes eyewitness reports of the oral

proceedings penetrate the written commentary.27 Thus, the genre of the com-

mentary is firmly anchored in the ancient (oral) teaching tradition.

The writer of a commentary need not be identical with the exegete.

Amelius was used to taking lecture notes in the seminars of Plotinus (third Cen-

tury C.E.), which Amelius then published in one hundred books under the title

Scholia (Porph. V. Plot. III 22; Plotinus, of course, claimed to be explaining

Plato). Many of the later commentaries indicate their origin in oral teaching in

their titles, with the expression από φωνής τον X: this means that the com-

mentary is based on oral lectures by X (Richard 1950:196f.; 206) but that it has

been written down by someone eise. This method sometimes results in illogical

changes between the first and third persons singular, both of which can refer to

whoever delivered the oral teaching.28

If we remember the essentially oral nature of teaching, the paraphrastic

mode adopted by some commentators takes on an interesting dimension: it

means that the teacher appropriates the voice of "his" author wholesale. This is

signaled in the commentators themselves by their comparison of exegetes to ac-

tors who adopt the persona of the author and perform his or her text.29

Another phenomenon worth mentioning here is not so much a function of

the Opposition between the oral and the written but has to do with the stability

of the written work itself. Although commentaries generally rely on the

unchangeability of their source-texts, they themselves form a much more

"open" genre, particularly if they take the form of scholia or of anonymous an-

notations. Their use in teaching makes it necessary for them to remain up-to-

date, and they tend to accumulate additional material. In this sense, they resem-

ble textbooks like the grammar ascribed to Dionysius Thrax, which similarly

changed significantly over time through the addition of later material, while re-

taining the authoritative name of its "original" author.30

792 InekeSluiter

Commentaries by specific authors sometimes share in this "open" nature ifthey result from multiple lectures on the same subject.31 They also strive to ab-sorb previous scholarship,32 which usually means they will themselves be maderedundant by newer attempts, unless the commentary itself becomes part ofthe teaching tradition, äs happened to Porphyry's introduction to Aristotle'sCategories.

From the former we may conclude that although it is hard to lay down con-clusive formal criteria to define an "ancient commentary" (see note 2), thegenre may be distinguished by the commentator's struggle with four sets of op-posing concepts. Any commentator has to come to terms with the problem ofwhy the source-text is both worthy of selection and in need of clarification; howthe commentator can make the most of the source-text without becoming anuncritical epigone; how the commentator can remain a Professional scholar in atechnical discipline and a true colleague of the authoritative author of thesource-text instead of turning into a mere word-mincing grammarian; and,finally, how the commentator can both emphasize the stable and unchangingnature of the source-text and at the same time, subscribe to the time-honoredpractice of oral, impromptu teaching.

Generic Classifications Made in Secondary LiteratlireAfter this sketch of the arena in which the commentator operated, I now turn toancient secondary literature itself and look at some examples of its use of genreconcepts. First, I will study the relationship between drama and philosophy inconnection with the ordering of Plato's work. I will then look at the attempts ofself-styled serious intellectuals in the Second Sophistic to distinguish their workfrom epideictic oratory. Finally, I will describe a reaction to an attempt at de-priving Christians access to the genres and masterpieces of Classical literature.

Philosophy and DramaThe vast corpora of texts by Plato and Aristotle posed a classificatory challengeto their students. Although clearly the urge to bring order into an unwieldymass of material can take other forms than one inspired by a philological the-ory of genre, yet in the case of Plato, something interesting seems to have beengoing on in this connection. Diogenes Laertius preserves several bits of Infor-mation about ancient classifications of Plato's work. One type of division intoχαρακτήρες (lit. "forms") is entirely diaeretic (D.L. 3.49);33 it consists of sys-tematic binary divisions inspired by Plato's own procedures in the Sophist andthe Politicus. The dichotomies are based on method and subject matter, ratherthan on formal criteria. A second classification reported by Diogenes (D.L.

The Dialectics of Genre 7 93

3.50) is into dramatic (δραματικοί), narrative (διηγηματικοί), and mixed dia-

logues, a division based on literary form, although the categories do not seem to

be entirely clear-cut.34 Presumably, it refers to the fact that some dialogues (for

example, the Euthyphro) are dramatic, that is, those dialogues are written in di-

rect speech,35 and some are reported (for example, the Republic; the narrator

may be one of the interlocutors in the central conversation, äs in the Republic,or not, äs in the Symposium or the Parmenides). A dialogue like the Phaedo canbe considered mixed, since there is an opening scene consisting of direct dia-logue, followed by the report of the conversations held on Socrates' last day. Di-ogenes disapproves of people who order the Platonic dialogues in this way be-cause they "use words that are more suited to tragedy than to philosophy"(τραγικως μάλλον ·η φιλοσόφως) to indicate the difference between the dia-

logues (D.L. 3.50). That is to say, the critical tools used do not fit the genre and

the expectations that come with it. The term δραματικός and Diogenes' com-

ment τραγικών sound a note that will be relevant again later in Diogenes' re-

port. Let us observe here that this second arrangement, too, owes a debt to

Plato's own work, namely to his division of poetry into "simple narrative, im-

personation/imitation (mimesis) or a combination of both" (Rep. III 392d5f).

After this second method of classification, a discussion follows about the

question of whether Plato is a dogmatist. In 3.56 there is an abrupt switch of

topic:

Just äs in the old days in tragedy at first the chorus performed the playby itself, and later Thespis invented one actor in order for the chorus tohave some rest, and Aeschylus invented a second one, and Sophoclesthe third—and thus he perfected tragedy; in the same way philosophi-cal discourse was uniform at first (it was on physics), Socrates addedethical discourse äs a second topic, and Plato added dialectic äs thethird and perfected philosophy. Thrasyllus says that he also publishedhis dialogues in accordance with the tragic tetralogy (for they used tocompete with four plays at the Dionysia, Lenaea, Panathenaea andChutroi; the fourth of these plays would be a satyr play. And the fourplays were called a tetralogy)... (3.61) Some people, Aristophanes thegrammarian among them, forcedly divide the dialogues into trilogies.

This intriguing passage calls for a number of comments. In the first place, itseems to recall ευρήματα (inventions) catalogs, lists of first inventors. Else-

where, Plato is credited with the invention of the literary genre of the dialogue,

although this was a matter of some dispute.36 But, more importantly, this narra-

1 94 Ineke Sluiter

tive also suggests an organic development both within and between differentgenres. Tragedy, a paradigmatic genre since Aristotle,37 functions äs a foil ondifferent levels.38 First, it instantiates an intrageneric, threefold development to-ward a perfected form, a model that can be paralleled within philosophy. In thecase of philosophy, not only was new subject matter being explored in the suc-cessive stages, but the very parallel with tragedy also hints at increasing com-plexity in the literary format, although this tendency is not made explicit.39 Butintrageneric developments do not exhaust the relevance of the tragic model, fortragedy and philosophy can also be regarded äs stages of development betweengenres in one continuous process, tragedy being the earlier, more "primitive"form of intellectual activity.40

It is important to realize that such a hypothetical historical development inGreek Society from tragedy to philosophy finds a special application within thepersonal development of Plato himself ("ontogenesis" replicating "phylo-genesis"). Plato allegedly first wrote dithyrambs or epic, and then tragedy, atetralogy even, which he is said to have burned on his getting acquainted withSocrates and turning to philosophy.41 Even then traces of his former interestslingered: according to one commentary, the Phaedrus should come first in achronological ordering of the dialogues because of its dithyrambic character,"äs if Plato had not quite managed to shake the Muse of dithyramb."42 Indeed,tragedy often functions äs a foil to philosophy in Plato's dialogues. Not onlydoes he explicitly engage tragedy äs a dangerous form of logoi in the Republicand elsewhere, but tragedy provides the subtext for the Gorgias.*3 Even morepertinently, it figures äs a competitor of Plato's work—inferior, but in the samegeneral league—when Plato has his Athenian stranger explicitly propound theview that he can exclude the tragedians from his city because the lawgiversthemselves are a (better) kind of tragedian, and νόμος (law) yields the best kindof δράμα (PL Lg. VII 817a—b). The Stranger will not allow the competition of

these inferior tragedians, since the educative value of the lawgivers' work is

greater.44 Laws are superior to tragedies äs a form of μουσική.45 They resemble

poetry.46 In fact, they are the best kind of literature.47

The life of the philosopher and his oeuvre are obvious sources of mutual In-terpretation and harmonization for an ancient philologist.48 It would not be

surprising if it had been this kind of Information that inspired Aristophanes of

Byzantium to make the trilogical arrangement of some of the dialogues. IfTarrant is correct (1993:105f.), this primarily philologically inspired classificat-

ion led to a philosophical reaction by Thrasyllus, Tiberius's court astrologer,who was eager to emulate Andronicus's work on the Aristotelian corpus: he re-

organized the Platonic corpus into nine tetralogies, probably on philosophical

The Dialectics of Genre 195

grounds, namely, a view of philosophy äs a progressive Initiation into a sacredrite.49 At the same time, the influence of literary factors continued:50 instead ofignoring the connection with tragedy, Thrasyllus corrected its application,changing the incomplete trilogical classification into a complete series oftetralogies.51

Here the question arises whether within the System of ordering Plato'sworks in tetralogies, the individual dialogues were meant to reflect the distinc-tion between tragedies and satyr plays? Tarrant's claim (1993:72; 95) that everytetralogy contained an "odd man out," however, on the analogy of the role ofthe satyr play in a tragic tetralogy, is not convincing. It does not seem to workfor all the Platonic tetralogies, and it certainly does not work for the tetralogicaldivision of the works of Democritus that is also ascribed to Thrasyllus in D.L.9.45. However, although the distinction between tragedy and satyr play seemsto have been irrelevant in the tetralogic ordering, Thrasyllus must have takenon board part of the literary associations between tragedy and philosophy. Thisfact is suggested not just by the tetralogic ordering itself but also by its explicitlinking to the "development narrative" in the passage from Diogenes quotedbefore (3.56ff.): Plato perfected (ετελεο-ιουργησε) philosophy äs the counter-part of the perfection of the tragic genre by Sophocles. This seems the most log-ical explanation for "also" in "Thrasyllus says that Plato also published his dia-logues in accordance with the tragic tetralogy" (D.L. 3.56).

An ongoing tradition for this kind of literary-inspired assessment ofPlato is suggested by the papyrus fragment POxy 3219, which seems to haveinsisted on presenting Plato äs a dramatist along the lines of Aristophanes ofByzantium.52

It would be possible to call especially the first two of the classifications dis-cussed here attempts to distinguish "genres" within the dialogues, since theytake into account subject matter and/or form (the dihaeretic division), or liter-ary form (the division into δραματικοί, διηγηματικοί, and μικτοί, "dramatic,

narrative and mixed dialogues"). The third classification (in tetralogies) usesgenre in that it invokes the analogy with two dramatic genres (tragedy and satyr

play), but otherwise generic considerations are not stressed in what is essen-tially an editorial strategy. However, even in the first two cases, it is questionablewhether description in terms of "genre" is fruitful. The term eT8o? (genre) is not

used (but rather χαρακτήρες [forms]), and it seems we are dealing with cate-

gories intended to make a big, intractable corpus more manageable in whateverway is possible. The same phenomenon is apparent in discussions of the Aristo-

telian corpus. There, too, factors of form and content are combined, and in-creasingly specialized subdivisions are distinguished, until finally every work

796 InekeSluiter

within the corpus can be pigeonholed. Unless we equate every form of drawingdistinctions with distinguishing "genres" (a step that is possible but that rendersthe term "genre" so universally applicable that it loses all descriptive power), wehave to acknowledge that there are ways of creating order that do not invoke theconcept of genre. All of Plato's works are specimens of the genre of the Platonicdialogue, but it is possible to order them in a variety of ways.

Philosophy and RhetoricMore straightforwardly generic considerations come into play if a work or abody of work does not need internal structuring, but rather has to be posi-tioned vis-ä-vis the rest of the literary market. Here the commentator takes itupon himself to perform on behalf of his author something that is endemiceven in the source-texts themselves, namely, an explicit attempt at cornering amarket, Unding a niche, that is, defming an author or a work by Opposition tothe available competition. This phenomenon is ubiquitous, not just in the liter-ary arena, but also in Technical disciplines like medicine or mathematics.53

An obvious example of a battle in the "rhetoric of legitimation" (Lloyd1990:43) occurs in the Second Sophistic, when rhetoric tended to become in-creasingly "literary" and remote from real life, and literature was itselfrhetorized. Hermogenes (second Century C.E.) divides literature into twogroups: the πολιτικό? Xoyo? "political speech," which is the rhetoric of policyrecommendations, and panegyric, which covers all literature that does not servean immediate political purpose—what Hermogenes calls "panegyrical prose"and all poetry. Plato is his designated model for panegyrical prose,54 meaningnot only that Plato was looked at from a stylistic point of view (this had beenthe case ever since Aristotle commented on the intermediate position of hisstyle between prose and poetry, D.L. 3.37) but also that his philosophical workwas classified äs a particular form of rhetoric, namely panegyric.

Of course, there was no denying that this enemy of rhetoric was a master ofthat art. Aristides thinks that Plato should be ashamed of his deprecations ofrhetoric, since clearly he was no stranger to it himself.55 Yet, this move ofHermogenes' flies in the face of philosophical attempts, starting with Platohimself and with Isocrates, to postulate philosophy äs an activity and a type ofdiscourse in its own right, separate and distinct from poetry and (epideictic)rhetoric.56 In view of the attempts on the part of rhetoricians in the second Cen-tury C.E. to appropriate philosophical discourse, it Stands to reason that philos-ophers would emphatically try to set their work apart from epideictic oratory.This is the contextual background of, for instance, the proclamation by the

The Dialectics of Genre 197

commentator Alexander of Aphrodisias about bis own work (in Ar. De Fato,

GAG Suppl. II 2,165.5—7): "Our work does not intend to incline towards being

a show-piece (εττίδει^ι?). It is geared towards inquiry and a more precise expo-

sition of the problem." Alexander's concern was not unjustined. According to

Longinus, Alexander's successors did not write technical work, but rather po-

ems and show Speeches (Xoyoi επιδεικτικοί).57 The distinction between

επίδει^ι? and a more sober or serious form of discourse can be paralleled many

times.58 In this particular constellation ("my work is not an επίδει^ι?, but X"),

εττίδει^ 15 is invariably judged negatively.

Epictetus's diatribe 3.23, "Against those who hold lectures and discussions

in epideictical fashion," draws a distinction between the aim of a philosopher,

which is to benefit oneself and others, and that of the rhetorician, who wants

only to be praised. He distinguishes four philosophical χαρακτήρες (forms):

protreptic (exhortations), elenchic (refutations), didactic (instruction), and

epideictic (showpieces), and he excludes the epideictic genre from the realm of

legitimate philosophical discourse. In fact, protreptic comes to function äs thephilosophical counterpart to epideictic, covering epideictic oratory "with aphilosophical veneer."59

The whole discussion is a reflection of the age-old Opposition between sub-stance and form, but the familiär terminology of πράγματα (things) and

βήματα (words) is here supplemented and displaced, even within philosophical

texts, by a terminology of genre: the genre of the demonstration piece

(βττίδει^ι? or panegyric) is opposed to that of serious teaching (διδασκαλία, vel

sim.). The authors do not just fight about whether or not their work is content-

oriented or style-oriented, but their clairn to work in a specific and distinguish-

able genre is indicative of the fact that the battle is not just about the truth of

doctrinal convictions but also about legitimating one's title to a separate and

valuable corner of the literary marketplace.

Classical Genres and the Bible

In C.E. 362, Julian the Apostate proclaimed an edict that, however innocently

phrased it was, to all practical intents and purposes prevented Christians from

teaching in pagan schools.60 In reaction, two Christian educators who were

both named Apollinaris—father and son, a grammarian and a sophist respec-

tively—created an adaptation of the Bible on the basis of the traditional pagan

genres. The grammarian father turned the Books of Moses into hexameters,

and those parts of the Old Testament that were "in the form (τύπος) of history"

partly into dactyls, partly into tragic drama, using every kind of meter (Socr.

198 InekeSluiter

HE III 16). The similarity with the Iliad and Odyssey was perfected by dividing

the work into 24 books, designated by letters of the alphabet. Menander was themodel for comedies, Euripides for tragedies, and Pindar for lyric (Sozomenus

HE 5.18.3f.). The younger Apollinaris rewrote the gospels and the letters of Paul"in the form (τύπος) of dialogues," taking Plato äs his example. None of theirOutput seems to have lasted beyond Julian's death in 363.

This event is interesting for two reasons: in the first place, it was apparentlyfeit that τέχνη λογική (the art of reasonable speech), imparted by the study ofliterature and necessary for everyone, was inextricably bound up with the ca-

nonical generic forms of Greek literature: if Christians could not have Homer,they should (at least) have a Homeri/ed Bible, a text that might even provide

Homeric τέχνη λογική of a better kind than existing emulations because its

subject matter was more worthy. The presupposition was that a Christian, too,had to be familiär with the forms of epic, history, tragedy, comedy, lyric, and di-alogues.

Second, this incident nuances Rosenmeyer's thesis (1985:81-82) that theGreeks should not really be credited with a concept of genre at all, since whatthey had was rather a literary practice based on Imitation and emulation of aspecific model (for example "Homer," not "epic"). The "Apollinaris project"suggests that one would imitate Homer, when writing epic, and Euripides, whenwriting tragedy.61 First, the Apollinarises, pere etfils, had to decide what parts ofthe Bible were to be reformed into what genres. Only then could they go intoimitative mode. By this time, genre was firmly entrenched in the educators' toolkit.

The Place of Commentaries in Ancient Classifications of GenreIs "secondary literature" a category in ancient classifications of Greek literature?Plato has Socrates sum up the types of texts that are relevant to the well-beingof the polis and that ought therefore to be based on knowledge, but he omitsany kind of scholarship, including even philosophy.62 Isocrates, whose self-positioning on the "literary" map involves elaborate defenses of the values ofprose äs against those of poetry,63 claims that there are equally äs many modes(τρόποι, Antido. 45) or forms (ιδέας, ibid. 46) of prose texts äs there are of po-etry. Among the groups of authors distinguished by him is one consisting ofthose who "have studied the poets" (ττερι τους ττοιητάς έφιλοσόφησαν). This

may be a reference either to scholarship on the poets or to intellectual effortsthat take the poets äs their starting point—or both. lan Rutherford (forthcom-ing) thinks of the Derveni Papyrus, Theagenes of Rhegium, Stesimbrotos ofThasos, and Alcidamas' Mouseion. One might also think of passages like the dis-

The Dialectics of Genre 7 99

cussion about Simonides in Plato's Protagoras (338e-347a), or even of Plato'sdiscussion of Homeric poetry in the Republic (II, III, and X) or the Ion. In anyevent, Isocrates' list lays no claim to being exhaustive.

In fact, we have to conclude that there is no recognition of "secondary liter-ature" äs a separate genre in ancient eidography (the description of genres) be-fore Callimachus, and even then it is doubtful. The prose genres that had beenrecognized by then were history, oratory, and philosophy. Laws also formed aseparate genre. The title of Callimachus's Pinakes was "Registers of those whoexcelled in every form of paideia, and their works."64 The crucial word paideiaseems to leave open the possibility that the "grammarians" (or better, philolo-gists) could have found a place in the classifkation, namely, in the register la-beled "various" (πίναξ των παντο§απων).κ But that is only a possibility.66

In late classifications of the varü auctores, secondary scholarship did find aplace. The Tabula Coisliniana M (tenth Century) lists rhetoricians, historians,"those who dealt with the poets in verse and iamboi, the grammarians, the or-thographers, authors on vowels of two quantities, ethnographers, pinax of ex-cellent doctors, their commentators, and excellent philosophers."67 In general,however, the conclusion must be that in explicit ancient classifications of litera-ture, scholarship played a negligible role.

Generic Self-Reflection in Commentaries?Ancient commentators are aware of working in a distinct genre. Galen (secondCentury C.E.) points out that there is a difference between texts with an inde-pendent (new) didactic message and texts whose purpose it is to elucidate theteaching of earlier teachers. The former concentrate on "the truth," the latter onaccuracy, in rendering the opinions of the source-text (with critical evaluationbeing referred to a subordinate position).68 Jerome (347-420 C.E.) defines thepurpose of a commentary äs expounding the source's words, clarifying obscuri-ties, and reporting the results of previous scholarship with the aim of enablingthe reader to form a judgment.69 But did ancient commentators also conceptu-alize the different forms that secondary literature could take in terms of genre?

In a classic 1909 article, Praechter identifies three loci classici for genericdistinctions among types of commentaries by commentators.701 will argue thatin these texts, the commentators are not interested in generic classification butinstead in justifying their personal contribution to Aristotelian scholarship, astrategy that is a common topos in prologues.

Themistius (fourth Century C.E.) opens his paraphrase of Aristotle's Poste-rior Analytics with the following programmatic Statement: "It seems to me thatto write an explication of Aristotle's works after so many good scholars

200 Ineke Sluiter

amounts almost to useless ambition. One cannot find much that the earliercommentators have left out, and to throw out whole discussions for some smallcorrection is like taking down Pheidias' Athena because one thinks one couldimprove the fastening of the base. But grasping the intention of the content of abook and rendering it concisely, and remedying, äs far äs one can, the tersenessof the philosopher: that seemed to be novel and useful. For we thought it wouldbe a convenient aide-memoire for people who studied Aristotle once, but can-not keep going over his works because they are so long." According toPraechter,71 Themistius is here claiming for himself the invention of the genreof the paraphrase—but is he? Intrinsically, that is not terribly likely: the first"commentaries" on Aristotle we have, a first/second-century-c.E. papyrus(P. Fay. 3) and Aspasius on the Ethics (second Century C.E.), are paraphrases.Paraphrase äs a commentary-type is much older still. In fact, one need onlythink of Plato's paraphrase of Iliad l in the Republic (intended to get rid of di-rect speech) to realize that this must have been a very common school prac-tice,72 an impression that finds confirmation in Theon's use of the paraphrase äsa προγυμνασμα (an elementary exercise in rhetoric). Although Themistius isclaiming some originality for his work (it is "novel" καινόν), he does not claimto be inventing a new genre—he does not even use the term "paraphrase" or"genre" here—instead, he is simply justifying his own work, äs we all do in proj-ect proposals and prefaces, by setting it apart from other work in the field. Hiscontentions are part of a traditional locus modestiae, the prefatory topos par ex-cellence, meant to put the readers in a benevolent mood.73 The novel nature ofthe work is not so much that it is a paraphrase (which could run to a consider-able length) but that it offers a very compact (yet illuminating) Version of Aris-totle's argument. There is certainly some rhetorical self-positioning in this pas-sage, but it does not take the form of generic definition.

The second passage cited by Praechter comes from Simplicius (sixth Cen-tury C.E.), again from the prooemium, this time from his commentary on theCategories, and it can be summed up äs follows: (1) Different people have takendifferent approaches to dealing with this book; some have dealt with its lan-guage only, for example, Themistius; (2) some have dealt with content but haverestricted themselves to Aristotle's own ideas, for example, Porphyrius's work inquestion-and-answer form; (3) others have added "problems" to this approach,that is, they have explained the thought and identified critical issues, for exam-ple, Alexander of Aphrodias; (4) a fourth group have used Aristotle äs a startingpoint for "deep thought," for example, Boethus; (5) another group have simplystated the "problems," raising objections to everything contained in the work,for example, Lucius; (6) Plotinus adds three books of "very important examina-

The Dialectics of Genre 201

tions"; (7) Porphyry gives a complete exegesis plus Solutions to all the problems,plus Information on parallels in Stoic thought; (8) lamblichus follows Por-phyry, often literally, although sometimes he is more accurate, and he is moreconcise; he also demonstrates the similarities and differences between Aristotleand Archytas; (9) and Dexippus gives a short exegesis and enters into a dialoguewith Plotinus's apories. Simplicius rounds off this passage äs follows (2.30ff.):"Therefore, since so much serious work has been done by the most famous phi-losophers on the Categories, I would seem utterly ridiculous from the Start wereI to venture to write something myself without being able to give a very goodreason for the enterprise." This reason is then provided in a Statement of theσκοπός (purpose, intention) of Simplicius's own work (3.4ff.), which is four-

fold: to gain a better understanding of the text himself; to make the elevated

thought content clearer and more comprehensive; to reduce the overwhelming

quantity of the available comments, not to extreme conciseness (like Syrianus),

but to the point where everything that is necessary is there;74 and finalry, to add

what may have occurred to Simplicius himself.

Again, it is clear that if the list just given is one of genres, it is so only acci-

dentally and without a claim to being exhaustive—the "genres" have not even

been given names. In fact, although Simplicius Starts out by describing types of

approaches to the text, it becomes increasingly clear that he is actually giving a

historical survey of the field, focusing on major names (from (6) onwards),

rather than "genres." This is a Status quaestionis, the state of the art of research

on the Categories, the main purpose of which is again the prefatory one of self-

justification. What Simplicius is claiming is not that his work will constitute a

new genre but that it will be a legitimate addition to works within an existing

genre, that of commentaries on the Categories. This is a genre that allows a

ränge of different critical approaches. Simplicius's challenge is to find a way tomake a useful contribution to the genre.

The third text referred to by Praechter is later still. It dates from the thir-teenth/fourteenth-century commentator Sophonias, and in fact this text comesclosest to giving a generalization of types of scholarship, but its general charac-ter is probably due to its extremely derivative nature.

Sophonias also begins with an άλλο? οίλλω? priamel, a survey of different

approaches by different scholars, distinguishing three groups: first come the ex-

egetes in the narrow sense, who concentrates on style and language. They quote

a lemma and then explain it. Their own contribution is only meant to advance

understanding of the author. Second, there are the paraphrasts, who take on the

role of Aristotle himself and appropriate his voice (see the earlier section

"Written versus Oral"). They do not bother to quote and do not care about the

202 Ineke Sluiter

exact words of the author. Their only concern is to convey the gist of the mean-

ing. This group of texts sometimes presents problems and objections, unlike the

Interpreters of the first group who simply follow the author without volunteer-

ing anything unless the λέξις (wording) is unclear.

As Sophonias points out, both groups are problematic. The first approach

is fragmented and makes it hard to grasp the Overall meaning of the text. The

second group does not really offer help with the difficult λέξις, the wording of

the text. Therefore, Sophonias opts for a third type, which is more concise than

that of the exegetes but is longer than that of the paraphrasts,75 and remedies

the problems of both. It is characterized by three features: (a) There is no frag-

mentation; (b) it articulates the λέξις and elucidates the textual cohesion and

coherence; and (c) it assumes the authorial voice. Like Themistius, Sophonias

hopes that his approach will constitute something novel (καίνόν).

From the foregoing discussion, it should be clear that once again, we are

dealing here with a prefatory topos that involves classification of earlier work

with a view to self-positioning of the present author against his predecessors. If

classification in whichever form is what ancient thought on genre is about, this

might be called a discussion of the subgenres of the commentary, but it has to

be borne in mind that its focus is not the distinction of genres, nor a claim to

the invention of a new genre, but rather the unique new achievement of the

present author within a recognized genre, for which he deserves a benevolent

reception.

ConclusionIn ancient eidography (explicit descriptions of "genre"), "secondary literature"

was rarely regarded äs a full-blown genre (είδος) (see the fourth major section,

earlier). However, it is perfectly possible for the modern researcher to identify

the parameters that define the particular niche of the ancient commentator

(second section, earlier). Every commentary must assume both the basic value

of the source-texts and an element of inadequacy in them, which the commen-

tator must redress. The commentator is duty-bound to give an optimal repre-

sentation of his source-text but at the same time he cannot give up his critical

judgment. The commentator has a dual professional affiliation, äs a doctor, aphilosopher, or an astronomer, etc., and äs a "grammarian," an Interpreter ofsomeone eise's work. Since the latter qualification is less impressive socially, thecommentator will be at pains to downplay that part of his work. Finally, the ac-tivities of commentators presuppose the unchangeable nature of the source-text, but their own work is located in the environment of the classroom, with

The Dialectics of Genre 203

emphasis on the oral, almost improvised transmission of ever accumulatingknowledge.

Ancient commentators themselves are familiär with generic distinctionsand apply the notion of genre, borrowed from philology, to their work on thesource-texts (third section, earlier). They are also aware of the fact that theythemselves are engaged in a type of work with distinctive objectives and tasks,they are eager to stress that fact, and they reflect on their position—eventhough they do not call their own work a separate "genre" (fifth section, ear-lier).

There is a risk of reducing the term "genre" to virtual meaninglessness, ifevery subdivision made in ancient texts is described äs the recognition of a newgenre. Ancient commentators are fond of drawing all kinds of distinctions,both in ordering the corpora they are working on and in identifying the specialnature of their own achievement compared with that of their predecessors. Theprefatory passages dealt with in the fifth section earlier undoubtedly exemplifythe rhetoric of self-legitimation, and they are indicative of the reflection of thecommentators on the nature of their activities. However, it is possible to engagein that rhetoric and in self-reflection without conceptualizing it in terms ofgenre.