PHILO OR PHILIO OF LARISSA?*

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


INTRODUCTION
Philo of Larissa (probably 159/8-84/3 B.C.) enjoys a certain popularity beyond scholars with a special interest in ancient philosophy. Charles Brittain labels him 'The last of the Academic Sceptics' in the title of his monograph. 1 Indeed, Philo succeeded Clitomachos as scholarch in 110/9 B.C. 2 and seems to have never questioned the core principles of Academic scepticism, albeit introducing some innovations. The last renowned scholarch of the Sceptical Academy is chiefly famous for having taught the young Cicero in Rome, where he spent the last years of his life (approximately 88-84/3 B.C.). We owe to Cicero, and particularly to his account in the Academica, a good deal of our knowledge on Philo. The controversy with his disloyal Old Academic pupil Antiochus, provoked by the Roman Books, is almost legendary and its exact content has been heatedly discussed among modern scholars. 3 To the best of my knowledge, all the modern literature refers to the Sceptic Academic from Larissa as Philo. The spelling or authenticity of his first name have never been called into question in any major publication or encyclopedia. Here I present some new evidence concerning his name, which puts already existing evidence into a new perspective and makes it seem quite possible that Philo of Larissa is either the wrong name for this philosopher or only an alternative name, while the real name of the Academic scholarch was Philio.

NEW READINGS: TWICE 'PHILIO' IN PHILODEMUS' INDEX ACADEMICORVM
Let us first turn to the new evidence. I am preparing a new edition of Philodemus' Index Academicorum (P.Herc. 1021), which will increase the amount of text available by about 25 per cent. 4 Two passages mentioning Philo are of outstanding interest-on account of a single letter. First, I have restored a passage in col. 25, which probably marks the end of a list of Clitomachus' pupils. The Academic Heraclitus of Tyrus is mentioned as someone who later also attended Philo's lectures (in addition to those of Clitomachus), which is confirmed by Cic. Luc. 16. 5 The passage reads as follows (the context is irrelevant for our purposes): 6 Phld. Ind.  34 The Multispectral Images (MSI) of the papyrus and especially the new Hyperspectral images (HSI) of the Index Academicorum, which display a stronger contrast between 4 The Index Academicorum (also Historia Academicorum or similar) represents a part (book) of Philodemus' Σύνταξις τῶν φιλοσόφων, which consisted of at least ten books (Diog. Laert. 10.3 letters and background, 7 clearly show λιων. The second iota is also depicted in the Oxford and Neapolitan disegno. There are not many errors in the papyrus that were not corrected by the professional corrector (diorthōtēs) and/or another person revising the text. The philosophers' names are normally written correctly, viz. in accordance with their spelling in other ancient authors. This strongly suggests that Φιλίω ⸌ νος ⸍ too was intended to be written in the papyrus-though whether correctly or not remains to be discussed.
The draughtsmen (disegnatori) of the Herculanean papyri did not know Greek and committed countless mistakes, often to be excused on account of the extremely dark and deceptive surface of the carbonized papyri, which makes it difficult to distinguish the carbon-based ink from the carbonized papyrus background. The stroke after the φ is almost a vertical and cannot be the left part of the α. It seems very probable that there was a λ written rather close to the first ι, so that the combination ιλ gave the disegnatore the impression of an α. The missing connection of the middle stroke is a hint that ιλ was in the original. Ink traces of this λ still survive. The disegno, then, has an ι, whose top is still visible in the original. It is highly unlikely that the sequence of letters in the disegno is the miswriting of an original φιλων, especially if we take into account what is still visible in the original. Consequently, the original papyrus had the name Φιλίων; the transcription of the name should be Φι ⌈ λίω ⌉ ν. 10 This means that our earliest source certainly mentioning the name of Philo of Larissa, Philodemus' Index Academicorum (68-57 B.C.), 11 spells the Academic's name on two occasions as 'Philio', a spelling not corrected in either passage, although the papyrus has practically no miswritten words that were not corrected. For the beginning of col. 33 Philodemus might depend on Apollodorus' Chronica, which would suggest that also the Chronica had the name 'Philio'. 12 Indeed, it cannot be excluded that also parts of the passage in col. 25-but certainly not the whole passage-somehow depend on Apollodorus. The Chronica was most likely published between 110 and 105, in any case when Philo was still alive. 13 Philodemus makes an interesting selfreference in col. 34.4-6, which implies that he arrived in Athens around 86 (or shortly afterward), when Philo had already (just) left. 14 Several years ago, a new reading by Blank revealed that Philodemus was on good terms (that is, acquainted) with Antiochus of Ascalon (col. 34.42-35.2). 15 There can hardly be any doubt that in Athenian philosophical circles-even Epicurean ones-the name of Philo was somehow still known. Philodemus' presentation of Philo's biography and of a list of his pupils suggests that some oral information was embedded by Philodemus.
At this point, one should point out that 'Philio' is basically not a proper miswriting of a name but a genuine name, which is attested for seventy-three individuals in the LGPN and appears, for instance, in various Attic inscriptions. None of these 'Philio's was famous enough to deserve an entry in the RE, where, however, many dozens 'Philo's without an iota are included. The LGPN lists just over 1,000 different 'Philo's. 16 The reading/spelling 'Philio' is the lectio difficilior in comparison with 'Philo': rarer, but not exotic.
The more common name 'Philo' was familiar to Eusebius, who, for instance, often refers to Philo of Alexandria and never writes the name with a second iota. This implies that the scribes of the Eusebius manuscripts also read the name 'Philo' very often in the Praeparatio evangelica, even in headings, before copying the above-cited passage. All this strongly suggests that the name variant 'Philio' was already in the original Eusebius manuscript. Even more significantly, it suggests that it was in Numenius' work (written around the mid second century A.D.), or at least that the name was used in the Numenius manuscript which Eusebius exploited. Numenius' treatise Περὶ τῆς Ἀκαδημαϊκῶν πρὸς Πλάτωνα διαστάσεως is an important and rather trustworthy source for many biographical and prosopographical facts on certain Academics. When the information is also transmitted by other sources, Numenius is normally in accordance with them. He mentions many philosophers' personal names and ethnica, which are correctly used and spelled. It seems unlikely that Eusebius corrected the spelling in Numenius from 'Philo' to the rare 'Philio', since he seems to know practically nothing about the Academic philosopher, whom he does not otherwise refer to. 23 There could even be a fourth, very early witness-in fact, the earliest-for the spelling 'Philio'. Toward the end of an exegetical-philological treatise preserved in a Herculanean papyrus (P.Herc. 1012), the Epicurean Demetrius Laco-probably somewhat older than Philodemus and roughly a contemporary of Philo of Larissamentions a certain Philio in an epistemological-sceptical context. 24 Leipzig, 1954], VIII). Even if this were not the case, they would in any case attest to the version 'Philio' in the manuscripts. 23 Even in the unlikely case that Eusebius corrected 'Philo' to the rare 'Philio', he must have known this spelling from another source, since he would not have substituted a rare name for a common name without good reason. 24 Demetrius Laco, P.Herc. 1012, col. 72.7-9: καθὼς γὰρ | ἔλεγεν ὁ Φιλ ̣ίων ̣, οὐδεὶς αἰσθη[---] αυ´[ ---| (E. Puglia, Demetrio Lacone. Aporie testuali ed esegetiche in Epicuro [Naples, 1988]). I have checked the original (MSI) and there can hardly be any doubt that the restoration of the name is assuming a miswriting in both cases. 25 Neither suggestion is convincing, but a sceptical philosopher is likely in this context. In the light of the new reading 'Philio' in Philodemus, it seems possible that the name in the papyrus is spelled correctly and that Demetrius Laco is referring to the Academic philosopher. He is the only 'Philio' fitting such an epistemological-sceptical context and Epicureans were engaged in controversies with Sceptics, so a reference to the most prominent contemporary (Academic) Sceptic is not unexpected at all.

AN APPRAISAL OF THE 'PHILIO' EVIDENCE
Let us draw a provisional appraisal of the positive evidence for the spelling 'Philio'. From two new readings we learn that our earliest (certain) witness for the name, Philodemus' Index Academicorum, gives the name 'Philio' twice, which has not been corrected, although there are several corrections in the papyrus and barely a mistake was left. The reading might even be traced back to Apollodorus. Philodemus arrived in Athens not long after Phil(i)os fled to Rome and was an acquaintance of the latter's pupil Antiochus. Therefore, the two mentions of 'Philio' in the Index Academicorum should enjoy a certain credibility and not be discarded a priori. Numenius too, who is not unreliable in terms of Academic philosophers, most probably had the spelling 'Philio' (second century A.D.). He is an important witness and direct dependence on Philodemus is rather unlikely. A list of scholarchs from a papyrus (c.350), whose spellings are otherwise sound, also contains the name 'Philio'. 26 The new evidence from the Index Academicorum increases the value of the other two sources, as it were, and diminishes the probability of a merely random variant spelling by Numenius and the Duke papyrus. So far, no one has ever pointed out that the spelling of the Eusebius manuscripts is most likely the original spelling by Numenius around 150. Concerning the reading 'Philio', one should point out that it is the lectio difficilior, although this concept has to be used with some restrictions, when it comes to personal names. Probably also Demetrius Laco's mention of one Philio in an epistemologicalsceptical context is very early (and significant) evidence for the spelling of the philosopher's name. correct; it is also supported by the disegni. The article suggests that the philosopher was either well known or had been mentioned before. 25 On the passage and on the philosopher's identity, see R. Polito, The Sceptical Road: Aenesidemus' Appropriation of Heraclitus (Leiden, 2004). W. Crönert, Kolotes und Menedemos (Leipzig, 1906), 119 and M. Gigante, Scetticismo e Epicureismo (Naples, 1981), 170-5 assumed that it was Philinos of Kos, whereas V. De Falco, L'epicureo Demetrio Lacone (Naples, 1923), 52 thought of Philo, a pupil of Pyrrho's, mentioned in Diog. Laert. 9.69. Puglia (n. 24), 312 suggests an otherwise unknown Epicurean. 26 However, Dorandi's statement on Ammonius' education (quoted in the main text above) is somewhat problematic, in so far as Ammonius scholasticus was hardly an expert on Late Academic Scepticism and certainly not very familiar with Philo (and, consequently, with the spelling of his name). He may have copied the text from another source, but if we assume that this source was wrong in giving the name 'Philio', I doubt that Ammonius scholasticus would have been able to correct the name to 'Philo' independently. He would simply have adopted the name found in his source. Philo was no longer a prominent figure in the fourth century and even educated people would hardly have known whether his name was 'Philo' or 'Philio'.

AN APPRAISAL OF THE 'PHILO' EVIDENCE (WITH HIDDEN 'PHILIO' EVIDENCE)
We now have to discuss the negative evidence, compiling testimonies for the name 'Philo' as printed in the main text of modern editions. The basis is Brittain's collection (2001). 27 It becomes clear that there is some hidden 'Philio' evidence.

Cicero
Luc. 11 (5x): phil*onem The vast majority of attestations of the name 'Philo' are to be found in Cicero (32 times), whose first teacher was Philo. Most passages in the Lucullus (12 out of 18) have the reading 'Philio', often corrected to 'Philo', in at least one or more manuscripts. The number (percentage) of cases is rather surprising and one wonders whether all the 'Philio's can be explained away by means of the corruption of an original 'Philo'. In addition, three other passages in Cicero could hint at an original writing with an i, but personal names are always vulnerable to corruption and so that is not entirely certain. One wonders whether the editors of the other texts have at least partly silently corrected 'Philo' or not reported this variant in the apparatus criticus. Moreover, there are three 'Philio' variants in manuscripts H and P for Augustine. Augustine probably depends on Cicero's (lost) Academic treatises for the passage in question. Plutarch too is likely to be drawing on Cicero for the information he gives, and Tacitus only paraphrases Cicero's statement in the Brutus. Galen, Sextus Empiricus, Stobaeus 28 and Ioannes Italos do not depend directly on Cicero, but some intermediary influence cannot be excluded; all Greek authors might go back to a similar doxographical tradition (if not the same one). For sure, it cannot be completely ruled out that the comparatively rare name 'Philio' got corrupted into the more common name 'Philo' in some sources over the course of the transmission, but this was hardly the case in all sources. In other words, 'Philo' may have already been used by some ancient sources and is most probably not an independent corruption occurring in all manuscripts. 29 The assumption that Cicero (and all or most other sources) had the original spelling 'Philo' and that, at the same time, the spelling 'Philio' in the sources discussed in section 4 above is not a blunder would afford a reasonable explanation. Considering that Cicero heard Philo in Rome, should we not assume that he knew his teacher's correct name and, hence, that 'Philio' is not tenable? The name 'Philio' with an i is practically unattested in Latin literature, 30 whereas 'Philo' was more common as a 28 It is very doubtful whether Stobaeus, who alone records Philo's ethnic origin, really drew upon Arius Didymus: Brittain (n. 1), 277 n. 45. 29 Sext. Emp. Pyr. 220 (T 5 Brittain) misspells the name of Charmadas with iota, which is of course no strong hint that he blundered at 'Philo'. 30 Plin. HN 5.135.
Greek name-even a fourth-century B.C. Roman consul had the name Quintus Publilius Philo. 31 Perhaps after settling in Rome, Philo deleted the iota in his name for the benefit of a Roman audience, since 'Philo' was more common (note also 'Philo-' as prefix in many Greek names); and Cicero may then have adopted this alternative form of the name. 32 Our sources do not suggest that Cicero had read any work of Philo's. Apart from the Stobaeus testimony, there are no written remains ('genuine fragments') of Philo's writing, and even the Stobaeus fragment may have been patched together from second-hand excerpts by an intermediary source. Consequently, even if Philo's works were subscribed 'Philio' at the end of the papyrus scrolls, it seems that they were not widely circulated and had no significant Nachleben. For his Academic treatises Cicero relies on sources other than Philo, among them Antiochus, but no work of Philo's can be identified in Cicero's presentation of Academic scepticism. Phil(i)o's name must have been mentioned by Antiochus, but even in this case Cicero may have changed it to the more common Philo. Even Antiochus may have used this alternative short form. The other authors on the list above might have used the more common 'Philo', since they were only aware of this name. Yet one wonders whether the obvious conclusion from the manuscript tradition really is that Cicero had the spelling 'Philo'.

CONCLUSION: THE CASE FOR 'PHILIO' AS GENUINE BIRTH-NAME
What does all this add up to? I would like to discuss three basic hypotheses, based on the evidence presented here, and draw a conclusion.
1. The early sources Philodemus (possibly following Apollodorus), Numenius and the Duke papyrus (and very probably Demetrius Laco) preserve the correct name 'Philio'. These sources are normally reliable and well informed when it comes to historiographical-prosopographical matters. Philio is the lectio difficilior. The manuscript tradition has been corrupted and all or most of the authors with 'Philo' originally had 'Philio' in their manuscripts. In particular, this is supported by the various 'Philio' variants in the manuscripts not only of Cicero's Lucullus but also of other Cicero (and Augustine) passages. 2. The early sources Philodemus (possibly following Apollodorus), Numenius and the Duke papyrus (and probably Demetrius Laco)-normally reliable and well informed when it comes to historiographical-prosopographical matters-preserve the correct name 'Philio'. However, Cicero introduced the more common name 31 A. Drummond, 'Publilius (RE 11) Philo, Quintus', in OCD 4 (Oxford, 2012 4 ), 1239. 32 A rough or remote comparison in modern English might be the names 'Marcus (Philio)' and 'Marc (Philo)'. Both are genuine names, which are given to children. However, many people named Marcus are called by the abbreviated or modified version Marc. This short form of the name will sometimes be used for a person so frequently that most people are unaware that his original name is actually Marcus, not Marc-whereas other Marcs are 'real' Marcs, in so far as this is the name they received at birth. Cicero may have known Philio only under the simplified name 'Philo' or may have used this form because it sounded more familiar to Roman ears than the rare 'Philio'. It is even possible that Philio was already being called 'Philo' in Athens or that both names were used at the same time. To return to our modern example, some Marcuses are only occasionally nicknamed Marc and both names are used more or less in parallel for the same person. The modern comparison may fall short, inasmuch as it does not reflect the relative scarcity of the name 'Philio' compared to 'Philo'.