Sivut kuvina

P. 159. For even the Menon.

Other points of resemblance between our dialogue and the Menon are mentioned by Boeckh. (in Minoem, p. 40.)

[ocr errors][merged small]

For an account in Diodorus that an Athenian conqueror at the Olympic games was called so has been already corrected by Boeckh. (See Pref. in Minoem.)

G. O.R. G. I.A.S.
P. 175. In the Protagoras.

Compare the conversation in the Protagoras beginning p. 358. P. 180. From the Lysis.

It must be left for the reader to decide, whether he can more easily conceive this to have been the case, or, on the contrary, that these hints afforded matter for his composition to the composer of the Lysis. Only, in that case, the composer will still remain entitled to be considered a more ingenious person than Ast will allow him to have been.

P. 185. No trace appears.

None, at least, according to my notions. Ast indeed thinks otherwise, and would conclude hence that Plato composed the Gorgias during the Socratic process, when I think it must be allowed he could scarcely have been in the humour for a work so extremely artificial, and, as even Ast will allow upon the whole, so extremely deep. But I refrain from saying more upon this point, and leave the case in the hands of every skilful reader.

In the Ecclesiazusae of Aristophanes.

See the commentators upon different passages of this comedy, and more at length as to the whole of it, Mor

[ocr errors]

genstern, Commentat, de Platonis Republ. p. 76–78. Should it be objected that this comedy did not perhaps contain so many allusions to Plato as is generally believed, it is still clear enough that philosophers, and especially Socraticians, are comprehended under its satire, and among them Plato was more effectively hit, inasmuch as he was distinguished above the rest by reputation and rank.

P. 187. The erample of Archelaus.

Athenaeus, in the well-known passage, x1. 507, Ed. Bip. iv. p. 384, writes strange things concerning this subject, which authors have copied from him, and hence have dreamed of a relation between Plato and Archelaus which is perfectly impossible. The passage runs as follows: “In the Gorgias he censures not only the person from whom the dialogue takes its title, but also Archelaus, the king of Macedonia, both as a man of low descent, and as one who had killed his lord and king. And this is the same Plato of whom Speusippus says, that by means of his close friendship with Archelaus he was the cause of Philip's coming to the government.” Then, after bringing forward the passage of Speusippus referring to this point, Athenaeus continues: “But whether or not this was actually the case, God knows.” In truth God knows how it could be the case not, that is, what Speusippus says, but what, in Athenaeus, is thence inferred. Plato, by means of a confidential relation with Archelaus, who died in the same year with Socrates, is supposed to have been the cause that ten years later Philip came to the government. And how? Listen. Carystias of Pergamus, says Athenaeus, writes as follows in his Memorabilia. When Speusippus learnt that Philip spoke ill of Plato, he wrote in a letter as follows: “As if it were not known that Philip owes even his kingdom to Plato. For Plato sent Euphraeus to Perdiccas, who was influenced by him to assign some province to Philip. And as Philip maintained there an armed force, he had, when Perdiccas died, the means in readiness, and could put himself in possession of the kingdom.” Now is there here a single word about Archelaus, or any relation with him. Unless we do the sophist the injustice of accusing him of a monstrous falsification, he has confused, in the strangest and most ignorant manner, the Alcetas whom Archelaus slew, and the Perdiccas whom he succeeded, and the far later Perdiccas who reigned before Philip, all together. Too many words already for the contradiction of such miserable prattle. Only we see hence what bad authorities Athenaeus followed in what he says against Plato, or what inconsiderate use he has made of his collectanea, without even taking care not to confound names and times. What Speusippus otherwise says must be true, if he really did say it, and may serve for the correction and completion of other accounts, which make Philip remain in Thebes till the death of Perdiccas.


P. 192. A contradiction.

See the Preface to the Laches (p. 100) and Charmides (p. 108), and the passages in each dialogue referring to what is there said.

P. 203. So Proclus.

In the second book of his commentary upon the first book of Euclid.


P. 219. A son of Anthemion.

Plutarch tells a little story about the love of Anytus for Alcibiades, at one time speaking of Anytus the accuser of Socrates, at another of Anytus the son of Anthemion. But it might not be well to build too much upon this story; for it seems to be almost at variance with what is said in the defence of Socrates by Xenophon, that the son of Anytus at the time of that accusation was still a growing boy, and with the conclusion which we cannot help drawing from this passage in connection with the Menon, that the father of Anytus first attained to riches gradually by an extensive trade; hence it could hardly occur to his son in his younger years to fall in love with Alcibiades.

The same of nhom Xenophon. But when Gedike thinks that he can be the same as occurs in the first book of Thucydides, and that this Menon, who in the campaign of Cyrus owed his office of commander to his youthful beauty, also led an army at the beginning of the Peloponnesian war, he may, if he can, come to an agreement with dates as to this point.


P. 220. Though no one.

Even Ast's rejection, since published, does not take up this ground, but only because Plato so often exposes the sophists occasionally, he does not think that he could have dedicated a particular dialogue to this purpose. As if Plato did not treat of many things in this dialogue occasionally, and expressly in the others; and as if his dialogues of this nature had not always a variety of objects, and not one merely. And as to Ast's discovery, that it is but lost labour to look for any other bearing or object in this dialogue, and his accurate method of examining and explaining it in consequence, both are now before the world, together with my introduction, and every reader may try and choose. But any one inclined for a jest might say that he should not be sorry if another author besides Plato were to be found to whom such a dialogue as this could be ascribed.

P. 223. Xenophon. In the third book of the Memorab. of Socrates, chap. 1.

P. 224. In the Cratylus. Just at the beginning.

Aristotle also.

De Soph. El. cap. xx. Ed. Bip. III. p. 599, with which compare Rhet. II. cap. xxiv. Ed. Bip. Vol. Iv. p. 292.

Another passage.

De Soph. El cap. xxxiv. Ed. Bip. Vol. III. p. 639. Tennemann, if I mistake not, has already expressed the supposition that when Plato mentions these duriuateis, Antisthenes is meant. We see how this does, indeed, refer immediately to his Euthydemus; but there are still some other grounds for the supposition.


P. 291. In the speech of Diotima. See Symp. p. 205, 206.
P. 294. To interest itself. Phaedr. p. 246.
*. 301. Here in the Phaedon. See p. 72, e. 73, a.
P. 304. The Protagoras. P. 68, 69.
P. 305. As it is said. Politic. p. 269.

P. 321. In the Apology. P. 33, e.

T'no notices.

The other is in the Republic, B. vi. p. 496, where it is said that his health compelled him to keep to philosophy by withholding him from politics.

A parenthetic digression. P. 150, 151.

In the Apology. P. 31, d.

P. 324. The expressions of Xenophon.
Particularly in the Memorabilia, I. 1, 2–4, 19.

In the Euthyphron. P. 3, b. c.


P. 326. The other professedly.

There is a passage quoted from Thrasyllus in Diog. "aert. Ix. 37, which most persons have understood to imply

« EdellinenJatka »