« EdellinenJatka »
PHAEDR U S.
I CANNot help maintaining what is here said, notwithstanding what Boeckh adduces (Heid. Jahrb. 1. 1). I can neither discover the coincidence with Philolaus, nor put such firm faith in the genuineness of the fragment ascribed to him. But this is a subject which can only be discussed in another place”.
P. 73. We are not to look for too much.
Ast, in his commentary, has construed this passage very literally. It is, however, too profound for my apprehension how the poetic life above is indeed removed from all real representation of the true and beautiful, when below it forms the fourth kind of real life, and thus appears coordinate with the poetical and gymnastic life. Again, I know not in what sense a higher conception of the true and beautiful can be said to belong to the Xpnuariatikos than to the yewpyikós. And thus I leave it to others to enjoy this philosophy.
L Y S I S.
Whoever reads, with a view to comparing the passages with this dialogue, Eth. Nicom. v1.11. c. 1. 2. 10. (p. 59. A.D. p. 63. B.) Magn. Mor. II. c. 11. (p. 111. E. and 112. C.) and Eudem. v11. 2. 5. (p. 162. B. C. p. 165. B. Ed. Casaub. 1590.) will scarcely continue to doubt of this, although Aristotle neither names Plato nor the dialogue, and one might feel some suprise, if he really had it in view, that this is not done more frequently and thoroughly.
* But see the extract from Boeckh's Philolaus, p. 104, at the end of this volume. (Tr.)
PROT A G O RAS.
I learnt this from an investigation regularly instituted into this family by Heindorf out of the fourth speech of Andocides. Athenaeus, Deipnosophist. v. p. 218, does not adduce this authority, but only concludes from the comedy of Eupolis, brought forward Ol. 89. 3, and in which the extravagance of Callias is exposed, that Hipponicus must have died not very long before this time.
P. 83. To justify Plato.
See Bibl. of anc. Phil. v. 122. Every thing else that this author says about the chronology of the dialogue is very bad, and betrays but little study of the Protagoras, and some ignorance of the history.
P. 84. Absent abroad.
When it is said that Protagoras lodges with Callias, this does not make much against the supposition, as Callias was at an age to superintend his father's house. There is perhaps more difficulty in that subsequent passage which says that Hipponicus had formerly used the chamber as a store-room; which is intended certainly to give us to understand that Callias had introduced more liberal manners than his father. But, perhaps this too might be explained by supposing a somewhat long absence, which, at a time when there were always Athenian armies in the field, is not inconceivable/
P. 85. Banished from Athens.
This is clear from Diog. Laert. Ix. 54. where his accuser Pythodorus is called one of the four hundred, with whom Menagius over-hastily asserts that he is unacquainted. Meanwhile there is a possibility that this accusation may have taken place at a later period, and Pythodorus may only be designated from his participation in this revolution—a possibility however which can scarcely be supported by any probable fact.
P. 108. In his challenges.
Xenophon tells this Mem. Soc. 1. 2, 33.
P. 109. As Xenophon represents it.
Mem. Socr. III. 7. A dialogue which should be compared generally with this, that the reader may convince himself that there is here no such imitation or connection as to render our dialogue liable to suspicion.
The greatest difficulty in understanding the father of Lysias to be the person here meant would be found in the two accounts, supposing them to be true, that Lysias was born at Athens, and that his father had already died before Lysias set out to travel to Thurii. Dionysius agrees with the first account, while the last is only supported by the composer of the Lives of the Ten Orators; an author sufficiently despised by all sound investigators. By it the supposition made in the Republic would be completely destroyed, for Plato's brothers could in that case never have been in conversation with Cephalus. By the first account, Cephalus' immigration would be placed so early that the dialogue between Socrates and Parmenides could not then have taken place. But this would indeed be a subordinate circumstance, which Plato might easily have overlooked. He represents Cephalus as a person who often came to Athens, and even his presence at this time does not look like an immigration, but a visit or a journey on business—whereby the impossibility of this dialogue having taken place, if Cephalus did really settle altogether at Athens before Ol. Lxxx. 2, becomes still greater. Meanwhile it is difficult to decide in such matters about Dionysius, how much is accredited information, or when he only follows an opinion generally adopted. I may take this opportunity of advising the reader that in the Phaedrus likewise, where the question turned upon the chronology of the life of Lysias, that the accounts of Dionysius, and not those in the Lives of the Ten Orators, are universally followed. And upon this point a few words now remain to be said, only for the reason that F. C. Wolf, in his translation of the Republic, has taken the opposite course. Both agree in the date of Lysias' return to Athens, fixing it at the time of the first archonship of Callias, i. e. Ol. xcII. 1. Dionysius adds, that Lysias was at that time forty-seven years old, according to which his birth falls in Ol. Lxxx, 2. On the contrary, the “Lives” place it in Ol. LxxxII. 2. According to both accounts he goes at the age of fifteen years to Thurii; which, according to that of Dionysius, falls in quite correctly with Ol. Lxxxiv. 1, when the colony was actually being founded; according to the other with Ol. Lxxxvi. 1, eight years later, when something important was to be distributed there. The confusion of the last account proceeds also from the circumstance that the author makes Lysias stay at Thurii till his sixty-third year, and consequently contradicts himself; wherefore Taylor's endeavour by means of an emendation to bring the first account to agree with Dionysius is useless. So also the notice of the early death of Cephalus may be only a supposition, because the writers could not explain, what is nevertheless very easy to explain, how Cephalus should have permitted his sons, and one of them so young, to go abroad. And it might be a question whether the assumption, by no means general, or resting upon any sufficient testimony, that Lysias was born at Athens, may not have arisen only from the fact that nothing was known to the contrary. Then, like many others, he may perhaps have travelled to Thurii without coming straight from Athens, and his father may have fixed his residence at Athens after this emigration of Lysias, and not before, being persuaded to do so by Pericles, as indeed Lysias himself so distinctly asserts.
P. 129. Plutarch and Proclus.
See Plutarch de frat. am. 11. 484. E. “As Plato has given his brothers a celebrity by introducing them into the most beautiful of his writings; Glaucon, namely, and Adimantus into the Republic, and Antiphon, the youngest of them, into the Parmenides.” For the rest, Plutarch would hardly have wished that Antiphon to share with this one the celebrity of having transferred his tastes from philosophy to horsebreeding. Proclus also recognises this half-brother, and thence concludes very rightly that the dialogue between Cephalus and Antiphon cannot have been held until after the death of Socrates, without, however, expressly declaring that he considers this Cephalus to be a different person from the father of Lysias.