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！
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。 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 t