alcibiades i-第1节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！





Alcibiades　I

by　Plato　（see　Appendix　I）

Translated　by　Benjamin　Jowett






APPENDIX　I。



It　seems　impossible　to　separate　by　any　exact　line　the　genuine　writings　of

Plato　from　the　spurious。　　The　only　external　evidence　to　them　which　is　of

much　value　is　that　of　Aristotle；　for　the　Alexandrian　catalogues　of　a

century　later　include　manifest　forgeries。　　Even　the　value　of　the

Aristotelian　authority　is　a　good　deal　impaired　by　the　uncertainty

concerning　the　date　and　authorship　of　the　writings　which　are　ascribed　to

him。　　And　several　of　the　citations　of　Aristotle　omit　the　name　of　Plato；　and

some　of　them　omit　the　name　of　the　dialogue　from　which　they　are　taken。　

Prior；　however；　to　the　enquiry　about　the　writings　of　a　particular　author；

general　considerations　which　equally　affect　all　evidence　to　the　genuineness

of　ancient　writings　are　the　following：　　Shorter　works　are　more　likely　to

have　been　forged；　or　to　have　received　an　erroneous　designation；　than　longer

ones；　and　some　kinds　of　composition；　such　as　epistles　or　panegyrical

orations；　are　more　liable　to　suspicion　than　others；　those；　again；　which

have　a　taste　of　sophistry　in　them；　or　the　ring　of　a　later　age；　or　the

slighter　character　of　a　rhetorical　exercise；　or　in　which　a　motive　or　some

affinity　to　spurious　writings　can　be　detected；　or　which　seem　to　have

originated　in　a　name　or　statement　really　occurring　in　some　classical

author；　are　also　of　doubtful　credit；　while　there　is　no　instance　of　any

ancient　writing　proved　to　be　a　forgery；　which　combines　excellence　with

length。　　A　really　great　and　original　writer　would　have　no　object　in

fathering　his　works　on　Plato；　and　to　the　forger　or　imitator；　the　'literary

hack'　of　Alexandria　and　Athens；　the　Gods　did　not　grant　originality　or

genius。　　Further；　in　attempting　to　balance　the　evidence　for　and　against　a

Platonic　dialogue；　we　must　not　forget　that　the　form　of　the　Platonic　writing

was　common　to　several　of　his　contemporaries。　　Aeschines；　Euclid；　Phaedo；

Antisthenes；　and　in　the　next　generation　Aristotle；　are　all　said　to　have

composed　dialogues；　and　mistakes　of　names　are　very　likely　to　have　occurred。　

Greek　literature　in　the　third　century　before　Christ　was　almost　as

voluminous　as　our　own；　and　without　the　safeguards　of　regular　publication；

or　printing；　or　binding；　or　even　of　distinct　titles。　　An　unknown　writing

was　naturally　attributed　to　a　known　writer　whose　works　bore　the　same

character；　and　the　name　once　appended　easily　obtained　authority。　　A

tendency　may　also　be　observed　to　blend　the　works　and　opinions　of　the　master

with　those　of　his　scholars。　　To　a　later　Platonist；　the　difference　between

Plato　and　his　imitators　was　not　so　perceptible　as　to　ourselves。　　The

Memorabilia　of　Xenophon　and　the　Dialogues　of　Plato　are　but　a　part　of　a

considerable　Socratic　literature　which　has　passed　away。　　And　we　must

consider　how　we　should　regard　the　question　of　the　genuineness　of　a

particular　writing；　if　this　lost　literature　had　been　preserved　to　us。



These　considerations　lead　us　to　adopt　the　following　criteria　of

genuineness：　　（1）　That　is　most　certainly　Plato's　which　Aristotle　attributes

to　him　by　name；　which　（2）　is　of　considerable　length；　of　（3）　great

excellence；　and　also　（4）　in　harmony　with　the　general　spirit　of　the　Platonic

writings。　　But　the　testimony　of　Aristotle　cannot　always　be　distinguished

from　that　of　a　later　age　（see　above）；　and　has　various　degrees　of

importance。　　Those　writings　which　he　cites　without　mentioning　Plato；　under

their　own　names；　e。g。　the　Hippias；　the　Funeral　Oration；　the　Phaedo；　etc。；

have　an　inferior　degree　of　evidence　in　their　favour。　　They　may　have　been

supposed　by　him　to　be　the　writings　of　another；　although　in　the　case　of

really　great　works；　e。g。　the　Phaedo；　this　is　not　credible；　those　again

which　are　quoted　but　not　named；　are　still　more　defective　in　their　external

credentials。　　There　may　be　also　a　possibility　that　Aristotle　was　mistaken；

or　may　have　confused　the　master　and　his　scholars　in　the　case　of　a　short

writing；　but　this　is　inconceivable　about　a　more　important　work；　e。g。　the

Laws；　especially　when　we　remember　that　he　was　living　at　Athens；　and　a

frequenter　of　the　groves　of　the　Academy；　during　the　last　twenty　years　of

Plato's　life。　　Nor　must　we　forget　that　in　all　his　numerous　citations　from

the　Platonic　writings　he　never　attributes　any　passage　found　in　the　extant

dialogues　to　any　one　but　Plato。　　And　lastly；　we　may　remark　that　one　or　two

great　writings；　such　as　the　Parmenides　and　the　Politicus；　which　are　wholly

devoid　of　Aristotelian　（1）　credentials　may　be　fairly　attributed　to　Plato；

on　the　ground　of　（2）　length；　（3）　excellence；　and　（4）　accordance　with　the

general　spirit　of　his　writings。　　Indeed　the　greater　part　of　the　evidence

for　the　genuineness　of　ancient　Greek　authors　may　be　summed　up　under　two

heads　only：　　（1）　excellence；　and　（2）　uniformity　of　traditiona　kind　of

evidence；　which　though　in　many　cases　sufficient；　is　of　inferior　value。



Proceeding　upon　these　principles　we　appear　to　arrive　at　the　conclusion　that

nineteen…twentieths　of　all　the　writings　which　have　ever　been　ascribed　to

Plato；　are　undoubtedly　genuine。　　There　is　another　portion　of　them；

including　the　Epistles；　the　Epinomis；　the　dialogues　rejected　by　the

ancients　themselves；　namely；　the　Axiochus；　De　justo；　De　virtute；　Demodocus；

Sisyphus；　Eryxias；　which　on　grounds；　both　of　internal　and　external

evidence；　we　are　able　with　equal　certainty　to　reject。　　But　there　still

remains　a　small　portion　of　which　we　are　unable　to　affirm　either　that　they

are　genuine　or　spurious。　　They　may　have　been　written　in　youth；　or　possibly

like　the　works　of　some　painters；　may　be　partly　or　wholly　the　compositions

of　pupils；　or　they　may　have　been　the　writings　of　some　contemporary

transferred　by　accident　to　the　more　celebrated　name　of　Plato；　or　of　some

Platonist　in　the　next　generation　who　aspired　to　imitate　his　master。　　Not

that　on　grounds　either　of　language　or　philosophy　we　should　lightly　reject

them。　　Some　difference　of　style；　or　inferiority　of　execution；　or

inconsistency　of　thought；　can　hardly　be　considered　decisive　of　their

spurious　character。　　For　who　always　does　justice　to　himself；　or　who　writes

with　equal　care　at　all　times？　　Certainly　not　Plato；　who　exhibits　the

greatest　differences　in　dramatic　power；　in　the　formation　of　sentences；　and

in　the　use　of　words；　if　his　earlier　writings　are　compared　with　his　later

ones；　say　the　Protagoras　or　Phaedrus　with　the　Laws。　　Or　who　can　be　expected

to　think　in　the　same　manner　during　a　period　of　authorship　extending　over

above　fifty　years；　in　an　age　of　great　intellectual　activity；　as　well　as　of

political　and　literary　transition？　　Certainly　not　Plato；　whose　earlier

writings　are　separated　from　his　later　ones　by　as　wide　an　interval　of

philosophical　speculation　as　that　which　separates　his　later　writings　from

Aristotle。



The　dialogues　which　have　been　translated　in　the　first　Appendix；　and　which

appear　to　have　the　next　claim　to　genuineness　among　the　Platonic　writings；

are　the　Lesser　Hippias；　the　Menexenus　or　Funeral　Oration；　the　First

Alcibiades。　　Of　these；　the　Lesser　Hippias　and　the　Funeral　Oration　are　cited

by　Aristotle；　the　first　in　the　Metaphysics；　the　latter　in　the　Rhetoric。　

Neither　of　them　are　expressly　attributed　to　Plato；　but　in　his　citation　of

both　of　them　he　seems　to　be　referring　to　passages　in　the　extant　dialogues。　

From　the　mention　of　'Hippias'　in　the　singular　by　Aristotle；　we　may　perhaps

infer　that　he　was　unacquainted　with　a　second　dialogue　bearing　the　same

name。　　Moreover；　the　mere　existence　of　a　Greater　and　Lesser　Hippias；　and　of

a　First　and　Second　Alcibiades；　does　to　a　certain　extent　throw　a　doubt　upon

both　of　them。　　Though　a　very　clever　and　ingenious　work；　the　Lesser　Hippias

does　not　appear　to　contain　anything　beyond　the　power　of　an　imitator；　who

was　also　a　careful　student　of　the　earlier　Platonic　writings；　to　invent。　

The　motive　or　leading　thought　of　the　dialogue　may　be　detected　in　Xen。　Mem。；

and　there　is　no　similar　instance　of　a　'motive'　which　is　taken　from　Xenophon

in　an　undoubted　dialogue　of　Plato。　　On　the　other　hand；　the　upholders　of　the

genuineness　of　the　dialogue　will　find　in　the　Hippias　a　true　Socratic

spirit；　they　will　compare　the　Ion　as　being　akin　both　in　subject　and

treatment；　they　will　urge　the　authority　of　Aristotle；　and　they　will　detect

in　the　treatment　of　the　Sophist；　in　the　satirical　reasoning　upon　Homer；　in

the　reductio　ad　absurdum　of　the　doctrine　that　vice　is　ignorance；　traces　of

a　Platonic　authorship。　　In　reference　to　the　last　point　we　are　doubtful；　as

in　some　of　the　other　dialogues；　whether　the　author　is　asserting　or

overthrowing　the　paradox　of　Socrates；　or　merely　following　the　argument

'whither　the　wind　blows。'　　That　no　conclusion　is　arrived　at　is　also　in

accordance　with　the　character　of　the　earlier　dialogues。　　The　resemblances

or　imitations　of　the　Gorgias；　Protagoras；　and　Euthydemus；　which　have　been

observed　in　the　Hippias；　cannot　with　certainty　be　adduced　on　either　side