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！
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 Demosthenes is a bad and spurious
imitation of Thucydides and Lysias）； conformed to a regular type。 They
began with Gods and ancestors； and the legendary history of Athens； to
which succeeded an almost equally fictitious account of later times。 The
Persian war usually formed the centre of the narrative； in the age of
Isocrates and Demosthenes the Athenians were still living on the glories of
Marathon and Salamis。 The Menexenus veils in panegyric the weak places of
Athenian history。 The war of Athens and Boeotia is a war of liberation；
the Athenians gave back the Spartans taken at Sphacteria out of kindness
indeed； the only fault of the city was too great kindness to their enemies；
who were more honoured than the friends of others （compare Thucyd。； which
seems to contain the germ of the idea）； we democrats are the aristocracy of
virtue； and the like。 These are the platitudes and falsehoods in which
history is disguised。 The taking of Athens is hardly mentioned。
The author of the Menexenus； whether Plato or not； is evidently intending
to ridicule the practice； and at the same time to show that he can beat the
rhetoricians in their own line； as in the Phaedrus he may be supposed to
offer an example of what Lysias might have said； and of how much better he
might have written in his own style。 The orators had recourse to their
favourite loci communes； one of which； as we find in Lysias； was the
shortness of the time allowed them for preparation。 But Socrates points
out that they had them always ready for delivery； and that there was no
difficulty in improvising any number of such orations。 To praise the
Athenians among the Athenians was easy；to praise them among the
Lacedaemonians would have been a much more difficult task。 Socrates
himself has turned rhetorician； having learned of a woman； Aspasia； the
mistress of Pericles； and any one whose teachers had been far inferior to
his ownsay； one who had learned from Antiphon the Rhamnusianwould be
quite equal to the task of praising men to themselves。 When we remember
that Antiphon is described by Thucydides as the best pleader of his day；
the satire on him and on the whole tribe of rhetoricians is transparent。
The ironical assumption of Socrates； that he must be a good orator because
he had learnt of Aspasia； is not coarse； as Schleiermacher supposes； but is
rather to be regarded as fanciful。 Nor can we say that the offer of
Socrates to dance naked out of love for Menexenus； is any more un…Platonic
than the threat of physical force which Phaedrus uses towards Socrates。
Nor is there any real vulgarity in the fear which Socrates expresses that
he will get a beating from his mistress； Aspasia： this is the natural
exaggeration of what might be expected from an imperious woman。 Socrates
is not to be taken seriously in all that he says； and Plato； both in the
Symposium and elsewhere； is not slow to admit a sort of Aristophanic
humour。 How a great original genius like Plato might or might not have
written； what was his conception of humour； or what limits he would have
prescribed to himself； if any； in drawing the picture of the Silenus
Socrates； are problems which no critical instinct can determine。
On the other hand； the dialogue has several Platonic traits； whether
original or imitated may be uncertain。 Socrates； when he departs from his
character of a 'know nothing' and delivers a speech； generally pretends
that what he is speaking is not his own composition。 Thus in the Cratylus
he is run away with； in the Phaedrus he has heard somebody say something
is inspired by the genius loci； in the Symposium he derives his wisdom from
Diotima of Mantinea； and the like。 But he does not impose on Menexenus by
his dissimulation。 Without violating the character of Socrates； Plato； who
knows so well how to give a hint； or some one writing in his name；
intimates clearly enough that the speech in the Menexenus like that in the
Phaedrus is to be attributed to Socrates。 The address of the dead to the
living at the end of the oration may also be compared to the numerous
addresses of the same kind which occur in Plato； in whom the dramatic
element is always tending to prevail over the rhetorical。 The remark has
been often made； that in the Funeral Oration of Thucydides there is no
allusion to the existence of the dead。 But in the Menexenus a future state
is clearly； although not strongly； asserted。
Whether the Menexenus is a genuine writing of Plato； or an imitation only；
remains uncertain。 In either case； the thoughts are partly borrowed from
the Funeral Oration of Thucydides； and the fact that they are so； is not in
favour of the genuineness of the work。 Internal evidence seems to leave
the question of authorship in doubt。 There are merits and there are
defects which might lead to either conclusion。 The form of the greater
part of the work makes the enquiry difficult； the introduct