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！
observed in the Hippias； cannot with certainty be adduced on either side of
the argument。 On the whole； more may be said in favour of the genuineness
of the Hippias than against it。
The Menexenus or Funeral Oration is cited by Aristotle； and is interesting
as supplying an example of the manner in which the orators praised 'the
Athenians among the Athenians；' falsifying persons and dates； and casting a
veil over the gloomier events of Athenian history。 It exhibits an
acquaintance with the funeral oration of Thucydides； and was； perhaps；
intended to rival that great work。 If genuine； the proper place of the
Menexenus would be at the end of the Phaedrus。 The satirical opening and
the concluding words bear a great resemblance to the earlier dialogues； the
oration itself is professedly a mimetic work； like the speeches in the
Phaedrus； and cannot therefore be tested by a comparison of the other
writings of Plato。 The funeral oration of Pericles is expressly mentioned
in the Phaedrus； and this may have suggested the subject； in the same
manner that the Cleitophon appears to be suggested by the slight mention of
Cleitophon and his attachment to Thrasymachus in the Republic； and the
Theages by the mention of Theages in the Apology and Republic； or as the
Second Alcibiades seems to be founded upon the text of Xenophon； Mem。 A
similar taste for parody appears not only in the Phaedrus； but in the
Protagoras； in the Symposium； and to a certain extent in the Parmenides。
To these two doubtful writings of Plato I have added the First Alcibiades；
which； of all the disputed dialogues of Plato； has the greatest merit； and
is somewhat longer than any of them； though not verified by the testimony
of Aristotle； and in many respects at variance with the Symposium in the
description of the relations of Socrates and Alcibiades。 Like the Lesser
Hippias and the Menexenus； it is to be compared to the earlier writings of
Plato。 The motive of the piece may； perhaps； be found in that passage of
the Symposium in which Alcibiades describes himself as self…convicted by
the words of Socrates。 For the disparaging manner in which Schleiermacher
has spoken of this dialogue there seems to be no sufficient foundation。 At
the same time； the lesson imparted is simple； and the irony more
transparent than in the undoubted dialogues of Plato。 We know； too； that
Alcibiades was a favourite thesis； and that at least five or six dialogues
bearing this name passed current in antiquity； and are attributed to
contemporaries of Socrates and Plato。 （1） In the entire absence of real
external evidence （for the catalogues of the Alexandrian librarians cannot
be regarded as trustworthy）； and （2） in the absence of the highest marks
either of poetical or philosophical excellence； and （3） considering that we
have express testimony to the existence of contemporary writings bearing
the name of Alcibiades； we are compelled to suspend our judgment on the
genuineness of the extant dialogue。
Neither at this point； nor at any other； do we propose to draw an absolute
line of demarcation between genuine and spurious writings of Plato。 They
fade off imperceptibly from one class to another。 There may have been
degrees of genuineness in the dialogues themselves； as there are certainly
degrees of evidence by which they are supported。 The traditions of the
oral discourses both of Socrates and Plato may have formed the basis of
semi…Platonic writings； some of them may be of the same mixed character
which is apparent in Aristotle and Hippocrates； although the form of them
is different。 But the writings of Plato； unlike the writings of Aristotle；
seem never to have been confused with the writings of his disciples： this
was probably due to their definite form； and to their inimitable
excellence。 The three dialogues which we have offered in the Appendix to
the criticism of the reader may be partly spurious and partly genuine； they
may be altogether spurious；that is an alternative which must be frankly
admitted。 Nor can we maintain of some other dialogues； such as the
Parmenides； and the Sophist； and Politicus； that no considerable objection
can be urged against them； though greatly overbalanced by the weight
（chiefly） of internal evidence in their favour。 Nor； on the other hand；
can we exclude a bare possibility that some dialogues which are usually
rejected； such as the Greater Hippias and the Cleitophon； may be genuine。
The nature and object of these semi…Platonic writings require more careful
study and more comparison of them with one another； and with forged
writings in general； than they have yet received； before we can finally
decide on their character。 We do not consider them all as genuine until
they can be proved to be spurious； as is often maintained and still more
often implied in this and similar discussions； but should say of some of
them； that their genuineness is neither proven nor disproven until further
evidence about them can be adduced。 And we are as confident that the
Epistles are spurious； as that the Republic； the Timaeus； and the Laws are
genuine。
On the whole； not a twentieth part of the writings which pass under the
name of Plato； if we exclude the works rejected by the ancients themselves
and two or three other plausible inventions； can be fairly doubted by those
who are willing to allow that a considerable change and growth may have
taken place in his philosophy （see above）。 That twentieth debatable
portion scarcely in any degree affects our judgment of Plato； either as a
thinker or a writer； and though suggesting some interesting questions to
the scholar and critic； is of little importance to the general reader。
ALCIBIADES I
by
Plato （see Appendix I above）
Translated by Benjamin Jowett
INTRODUCTION。
The First Alcibiades is a conversation between Socrates and Alcibiades。
Socrates is represented in the character which he attributes to himself in
the Apology of a know…nothing who detects the conceit of knowledge in
others。 The two have met already in the Protagoras and in the Symposium；
in the latter dialogue； as in this； the relation between them is that of a
lover and his beloved。 But the narrative of their loves is told
differently in different places； for in the Symposium Alcibiades is
depicted as the impassioned but rejected lover； here； as coldly receiving
the advances of Socrates； who； for the best of purposes； lies in wait for
the aspiring and ambitious youth。
Alcibiades； who is described as a very young man； is about to enter on
public life； having an inordinate opinion of himself； and an extravagant
ambition。 Socrates； 'who knows what is in man；' astonishes him by a
revelation of his designs。 But has he the knowledge which is necessary for
carrying them out？ He is going to persuade the Atheniansabout what？ Not
about any particular art； but about politicswhen to fight and when to
make peace。 Now； men should fight and make peace on just grounds； and
therefore the question of justice and injustice must enter into peace and
war； and he who advises the Athenians must know the difference between
them。 Does Alcibiades know？ If he does； he must either have been taught
by some master； or he must have discovered the nature of them himself。 If
he has had a master； Socrates would like to be informed who he is； that he
may go and learn of him also。 Alcibiades admits that he has never learned。
Then has he enquired for himself？ He may have； if he was ever aware of a
time when he was ignorant。 But he never was ignorant； for when he played
with other boys at dice； he charged them with cheating； and this implied a
knowledge of just and unjust。 According to his own explanation； he had
learned of the multitude。 Why； he asks； should he not learn of them the
nature of justice； as he has learned the Greek language of them？ To this
Socrates answers； that they can teach Greek； but they cannot teach justice；
for they are agreed about the one； but they are not agreed about the other：
and therefore Alcibiades； who has admitted that if he knows he must either
have learned from a master or have discovered for himself the nature of
justice； is convicted out of his own mouth。
Alcibiades rejoins； that the Athenians debate not about what is just； but
about what is expedient； and he asserts that the two principles of justice
and expediency are opposed。 Socrates； by a series of questions； compels
him to admit that the just and the expedient coincide。 Alcibiades is thus
reduced to the humiliating conclusion that he knows nothing of politics；
even if； as he says； they are concerned with the expedient。
However； he is no worse than other Athenian statesmen； and he will not need
training； for others are as ignorant as he is。 He is reminded that he has
to contend； not only with his own countrymen； but with their enemieswith
the Spartan king