« EdellinenJatka »
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.
P. 131. If any one.
As Ast has notwithstanding lately done: see his Essay on Plato's life and writings, p. 250. I may add, that I should not envy those readers their opinion to whom Ast has satisfactorily proved that the Parmenides was written at the earliest after the Theaetetus, since in the latter the solution is at once so decidedly commenced of those problems which in the Parmenides are but slightly indicated. For, Ast has by no means distinctly shown in what respect the Parmenides completes the Theaetetus, and even the Sophist and Statesman. Nor even if we allow that Socrates here, in the pains he takes and the problems he enunciates, shows himself to have arrived at the summit of dialectics, will, therefore, the investigations which Parmenides conducts and in which Socrates is perfectly passive, constitute the completion of those in the above-mentioned dialogues. The notion that from that perfection in the enunciation of the problems, and the success of Socrates' endeavours, Parmenides may be intended to represent the erring philosopher, must appear to all persons accurately acquainted with Plato too ridiculous for anything to be said about it. I agree, however, with Ast, that in this dialogue the representation of virtuosity in investigation is the principal point, and it is upon this, as well as upon the circumstance that it contains only germs, that the arguments rest for the position which I have assigned to it, so that I find it unnecessary to enter more accurately into what Ast alleges in favour of his own opinion.
P. l34. Let not the reader start.
These words seem now no longer suitable after Ast's total and uncompromising excommunication of this dialogue. But I believe there are very many persons to whom even my opinion will at first sight seem too bold, and hope that few only will allow themselves to be persuaded by Ast's intricate criticism, that the Socrates here upon the stage is a
conceited sophist, and that the whole of this defence belongs to the common and counterfeit art of rhetoric/
These imperfections are, in Ast's opinion, among the sufficient grounds for excommunicating the piece; but an imitating sophist, and one who proceeded according to the rules of rhetoric, must have been far worse than the one here otherwise is, to commit such faults. But Socrates may commit them, because on every occasion he is hurried onwards by his higher objects, and the whole defence in particular
looks like an occasion, such as common life might present, for following his calling.
Of the actual defence.
For Socrates must have defended himself, and I should have wished Ast to have given us some slight hint as to how, in his opinion, Socrates dispensed with this task,
HIPPAR CHU S.
P. 157. Two great Masters.
Even Ælian mentions his doubts whether the Hipparchus is really a work of Plato; but this, in itself, would be but of little importance.