menexenus-第2章

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！



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。　　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。





MENEXENUS



by



Plato　（see　Appendix　I　above）



Translated　by　Benjamin　Jowett





INTRODUCTION。



The　Menexenus　has　more　the　character　of　a　rhetorical　exercise　than　any

other　of　the　Platonic　works。　　The　writer　seems　to　have　wished　to　emulate

Thucydides；　and　the　far　slighter　work　of　Lysias。　　In　his　rivalry　with　the

latter；　to　whom　in　the　Phaedrus　Plato　shows　a　strong　antipathy；　he　is

entirely　successful；　but　he　is　not　equal　to　Thucydides。　　The　Menexenus；

though　not　without　real　Hellenic　interest；　falls　very　far　short　of　the

rugged　grandeur　and　political　insight　of　the　great　historian。　　The　fiction

of　the　speech　having　been　invented　by　Aspasia　is　well　sustained；　and　is　in

the　manner　of　Plato；　notwithstanding　the　anachronism　which　puts　into　her

mouth　an　allusion　to　the　peace　of　Antalcidas；　an　event　occurring　forty

years　after　the　date　of　the　supposed　oration。　　But　Plato；　like　Shakespeare；

is　careless　of　such　anachronisms；　which　are　not　supposed　to　strike　the　mind

of　the　reader。　　The　effect　produced　by　these　grandiloquent　orations　on

Socrates；　who　does　not　recover　after　having　heard　one　of　them　for　three

days　and　more；　is　truly　Platonic。



Such　discourses；　if　we　may　form　a　judgment　from　the　three　which　are　extant

（for　the　so…called　Funeral　Oration　of　Demo