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 M