太子爷小说网 > 英语电子书 > menexenus >

第1节

menexenus-第1节

小说: menexenus 字数: 每页4000字

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!






Menexenus

by Plato

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 of

the argument。

返回目录 下一页 回到顶部 0 0

你可能喜欢的