mail: Bill Thayer	Italiano	Help	Up	Home
previous: Chapter 17 This webpage reproduces a chapter of A History of Philosophy by Frederick Copleston, S. J. as reprinted by Image Books — Doubleday New York • London • Toronto • Sydney • Auckland 1993 The text, and illustrations except as noted, are in the public domain. next: Chapter 19

Part III: Plato

 p133  Chapter XVIII
Plato's Works

A. Genuineness

In general it may be said that we possess the entire corpus of Plato's works. As Professor Taylor remarks: "Nowhere in later antiquity do we come on any reference to a Platonic work which we do not still possess."​1 We may suppose, then, that we possess all Plato's published dialogues. We do not, however, as already remarked, possess a record of the lectures that he delivered in the Academy (though we have more or less cryptic references in Aristotle), and this would be all the more to be regretted if those are right who would see in the dialogues popular work designed for the educated laymen, to be distinguished from the lectures delivered to professional students of philosophy. (It has been conjectured that Plato lectured without a manuscript. Whether this be the fact or not, we have not got the manuscript of any lectures delivered by Plato. All the same, we have no right to draw an oversharp distinction between the doctrines of the dialogues and the doctrine delivered within the precincts of the Academy. After all, not all the dialogues can easily be termed "popular" work, and certain of them in particular show evident signs that Plato is therein groping after the clarification of his opinions.) But to say that we most probably possess all the dialogues of Plato, is not the same as to say that all the dialogues that have come down to us under the name of Plato are actually by Plato himself: it still remains to sift the genuine from the spurious. The oldest Platonic MSS. belong to an arrangement attributed to a certain Thrasyllus, to be dated round about the beginning of the Christian era. In any case this arrangement, which was by "tetralogies," seems to have been based on an arrangement in "trilogies" by Aristophanes of Byzantium in the third century B.C. It would appear, then, that the thirty‑six dialogues (reckoning the Epistles as one dialogue) were generally admitted by scholars of that period to be the work of Plato. The problem can thus be reduced to the question: "Are the thirty‑six dialogues all genuine or are some of them spurious; and, if so, which?"

 p134  Doubts were cast upon some of the dialogues even in antiquity. Thus from Athenaeus (flor. c. 228 B.C.) we learn that some ascribed the Alcibiades II to Xenophon. Again, it would seem that Proclus not only rejected the Epinomis and Epistles, but even went so far as to reject the Laws and Republic. The assigning of spurious works was carried much further, as might be expected, in the nineteenth century, especially in Germany, the culmination of the process being reached under Ueberweg and Schaarschmidt. "If one includes the attacks of ancient and modern criticism, then of the thirty‑six items of the tetralogies of Thrasyllus, only five have remained free from all attack."​2 Nowadays, however, criticism runs in a more conservative direction, and there is general agreement as to the genuineness of all the important dialogues, as also a general agreement as to the spurious character of certain of the less important dialogues, while the genuineness of a few of the dialogues remains a matter of dispute. The results of critical investigation may be summed up as follows:

(i) Dialogues which are generally rejected are: Alcibiades II, Hipparchus, Amatores or Rivales, Theages, Clitophon, Minus. Of this group, all except the Alcibiades II are probably contemporary fourth-century work, not deliberate forgeries but slighter works of the same character as the Platonic dialogues; and they may be taken, with some degree of justification, as contributing something to our knowledge of the conception of Socrates current in the fourth century. The Alcibiades II is probably later work.

(ii) The genuineness of the following six dialogues is disputed: Alcibiades I, Ion, Menexenus, Hippias Maior, Epinomis, Epistles. Professor Taylor thinks that the Alcibiades I is the work of an immediate disciple of Plato​3 and Dr. Praechter, too, thinks that it is probably not the authentic work of the Master.​4 Praechter considers the Ion to be genuine, and Taylor remarks that it "may reasonably be allowed to pass as genuine until so good reason for rejecting it is produced."​5 The Menexenus is clearly taken by Aristotle to be of Platonic origin, and modern critics are inclined to accept this view.​6 The Hippias Maior is most probably to be taken as the genuine work of Plato, as it seems to be alluded to, though not by name, in the Topics of Aristotle.​7 As to the Epinomis, though Professor Jaeger ascribes it to Philippus of  p135 Opus,​8 Praechter and Taylor deem it authentic. Of the Epistles, 6, 7 and 8 are generally accepted and Professor Taylor thinks that the acceptance of these Epistles leads logically to the acceptance of all the rest, except 1 and possibly 2. It is true that one would not like to relinquish the Epistles, as they give us much valuable information concerning Plato's biography; but we must be careful not to let this very natural desire influence unduly our acceptance of Epistles as genuine.9

(iii) The genuineness of the remaining dialogues may be accepted; so that the result of criticism would seem to be that of the thirty‑six dialogues of the tetralogies, six are generally rejected, six others may be accepted until proved unauthentic (except probably Alcibiades I and certainly Epistle I), while twenty-four are certainly the genuine work of Plato. We have, therefore, a very considerable body of literature on which to found our conception of the thought of Plato.

B. Chronology of Works

1. Importance of determining the chronology of the works.

It is obviously important in the case of any thinker to see how his thought developed, how it changed — if it did change — what modifications were introduced in the course of time, what fresh ideas were introduced. The customary illustration in this connection is that of the literary production of Kant. Our knowledge of Kant would scarcely be adequate, if we thought that his Critiques came in his early years and that he later reverted to a "dogmatic" position. We might also instance the case of Schelling. Schelling produced several philosophies in the course of his life, and for an understanding of his thought it is highly desirable that one should know that he began with the standpoint of Fichte, and that his theosophical flights belong to his later years.

2. Method of determining the chronology of the works.​10

(i) The criterion that has proved of most help in determining the chronology of the works of Plato is that of language. The argument from language is all the surer in that, while differences of content may be ascribed to the conscientious selection and purpose of the author, development of linguistic style is largely  p136 unconscious. Thus Dittenberger traces the frequent use of τί μήν and the growing use of γε μήν and ἀλλὰ μήν, as formula of agreement, to the first Sicilian journey of Plato. The Laws certainly belong to Plato's old age,​11 while the Republic belongs to an earlier period. Now, not only is there a decreased vigour of dramatic power visible in the Laws, but we can also discern points of linguistic style which Isocrates had introduced into Attic prose and which do not appear in the Republic. This being so, we are helped in assessing the order of the intervening dialogues, according to the degree in which they approach the later style of writing.

But while the use of linguistic style as a criterion for determining the chronology of the dialogues has proved to be the most helpful method, one cannot, of course, neglect to make use of other criteria, which may often decide the matter at issue when the linguistic indications are doubtful or even contradictory.

(ii) One obvious criterion for assessing the order of the dialogues is that afforded by the direct testimony of the ancient writers, though there is not as much help to be had from this source as might perhaps be expected. Thus while Aristotle's assertion that the Laws were written later than the Republic is a valuable piece of information, the report of Diogenes Laërtius to the effect that the Phaedrus is the earliest of the Platonic dialogues cannot be accepted. Diogenes himself approves of the report, but it is evident that he is arguing from the subject-matter (love — in the first part of the dialogue) and from the poetic style.​12 We cannot argue from the fact that Plato treats of love to the conclusion that the dialogue must have been written in youth, while the use of poetic style and myth is not in itself conclusive. As Taylor points out, we should go far wrong were we to argue from the poetical and "mythical" flights of the second part of Faust to the conclusion that Goethe wrote the second part before the first.​13 A similar illustration might be taken from the case of Schelling, whose theosophical flights, as already mentioned, took place in his advanced age.

(iii) As for references within the dialogues to historical persons and acts, these are not so very many, and in any case they only furnish us with a terminus post quem. For example, if there were a reference to the death of Socrates, as in the Phaedo, the dialogue must clearly have been composed after the death of Socrates, but does not tell us how long after. However, critics  p137 have obtained so help from this criterion. For instance, they have argued that the Meno was probably written when the incident of the corruption of Ismenias of Thebes was still fresh in people's memory.​14 Again, if the Gorgias contains a reply to a speech of Polycrates against Socrates (393/2), the Gorgias would probably have been written between 393 and 389, i.e. before the first Sicilian journey. It might, naïvely, be supposed that the age ascribed to Socrates in the dialogues is an indication of the date of composition of the dialogue itself, but to apply this criterion as a universal rule is clearly going too far. For instance, a novelist might well introduce his detective-hero as a grown man and as an already experienced police officer in his first novel, and then in a later novel treat of the hero's first case. Moreover, though one may be justified in supposing that dialogues dealing with the personal fate of Socrates were composed not long after his death, it would be clearly unscientific to take it for granted that dialogues dealing with the last years of Socrates, e.g. the Phaedo and the Apology, were all published at the same time.

(iv) References of one dialogue to another would obviously prove a help in determining the order of the dialogues, since a dialogue that refers to another dialogue must have been written after the dialogue to which it refers; but it is not always easy to decide if an apparent reference to another dialogue really is a reference. However, there are some cases in which there is a clear reference, e.g. the reference to the Republic that is contained in the Timaeus.​15 Similarly, the Politicus is clearly the sequel to the Sophistes and so must be a later composition.​16

(v) In regard to the actual content of the dialogue, we have to exercise the greatest prudence in our use of this criterion. Suppose for instance, that some philosophical doctrine is found in a short summary sentence in dialogue X, while in dialogue Y it is found treated at length. A critic might say: "Very good, in dialogue X a preliminary sketch is given, and in dialogue Y the matter is explained at length." Might it not be that a short summary is given in dialogue X precisely because the doctrine has already been treated at length in dialogue Y? One critic​17 has maintained that the negative and critical examination of problems precedes the positive and constructive exposition. If this be taken as a criterion, then the Theaetetus, the Sophistes, the Politicus, the  p138 Parmenides, should precede in date of composition the Phaedo and the Republic, but investigation has shown that this cannot be so.

However, to say that the content-criterion has to be used with prudence, is not to say that it has no use. For example, the attitude of Plato towards the doctrine of Ideas suggests, that the Theaetetus, Parmenides, Sophistes, Politicus, Philebus, Timaeus, should be grouped together, while the connection of the Parmenides, Sophistes and Politicus with the Eleatic dialectic suggests that these dialogues stand in a peculiarly close relation with one another.

(vi) Differences in the artistic construction of the dialogues may also be of help in determining their relation to one another in regard to order of composition. Thus in certain dialogues the setting of the dialogue, the characterisation of the personages who take part in it, are worked out with great care: there are humorous and playful allusions, vivid interludes and so on. To this group of dialogues belongs the Symposium. In other dialogues, however, the artistic side retreats into the background, and the author's attention is obviously wholly occupied with the philosophic content. In dialogues of this second group — to which the Timaeus and the Laws would belong — form is more or less neglected: content is everything. A probably legitimate conclusion is that the dialogues written with more attention to artistic form are earlier than the others, as artistic vigour flagged in Plato's old age and his attention was engrossed by the theoretic philosophy. (This does not mean that the use of poetic language necessarily becomes less frequent, but that power of conscientious artistry tends to decrease with years.)

3. Scholars vary in their estimate of the results obtained by the use of criteria such as the foregoing; but the following chronological schemes may be taken as, in the main, satisfactory (though it would hardly be acceptable to those who think that Plato did not write when he was directing the Academy in its early years).

I. Socratic Period

In this period Plato is still influenced by the Socratic intellectual determinism. Most of the dialogues end without any definite result having been attained. This is characteristic of Socrates' "not knowing."

II. Transition Period

Plato is finding his way to his own opinions.

III. Period of Maturity

Plato is in possession of his own ideas.

IV. Works of Old Age

Note

Plato never published a complete, nicely rounded‑off and finished philosophical system: his thought continued to develop as fresh problems, other difficulties to be considered, new aspects of his doctrine to be emphasised or elaborated, certain modifications to be introduced, occurred to his mind.​18 It would, therefore, be desirable to treat Plato's thought genetically, dealing with the different dialogues in their chronological order, so far as this can be ascertained. This is the method adopted by Professor A. E. Taylor in his outstanding work, Plato, the Man and his Work.  p141 In a book such as this, however, such a course is scarcely practicable, and so I have thought it necessary to divide up the thought of Plato into various compartments. None the less, in order to avoid, as much as can be, the danger of cramming together views that spring from different periods of Plato's life, I will attempt not to lose sight of the gradual genesis of the Platonic doctrines. In any case, if my treatment of Plato's philosophy leads the reader to turn his attention to the actual dialogues of Plato, the author will consider himself amply rewarded for any pains he has taken.

---

The Author's Notes:

1 Plato, p10.

❦

2 Ueberweg-Praechter, p195. Dr. Praechter's invaluable work does not, of course, represent the hypercritical fashion of the time of Ueberweg.

❦

3 Plato, p13.

❦

4 Ueberweg-Praechter, p199.

❦

5 Plato, p13.

❦

6 Arist., Rhet., 1415b30.

❦

7 Topics Α 5, 102a6; Ε 5, 135a13; Ζ 6, 146a22.

❦

8 Aristotle, e.g. p132. Cf. Diog. Laërt., 3.37. Taylor (Plato, p497) thinks that Diog. only means that Philippus transcribed the Epinomis from wax tablets.

❦

9 Ritter accepts Epistles 3 and 8 and the main narrative of 7.

❦

10 Cf. Ueberweg-Praechter, pp199‑218.

❦

11 Arist., Pol., Β 6, 1264b27.

❦

12 Diog. Laërt., 3.38.

❦

13 Plato, p18.

❦

14 Meno, 90A.

❦

15 17 ff.

❦

16 Polit., 284b7 ff., 286b10.

❦

17 K. Fr. Hermann.

❦

18 Cf. the words of Dr. Praechter, Platon ist ein Werdender gewesen sein Leben lang. Ueberweg-Praechter, p260.

◂ previous						next ▸
Images with borders lead to more information. The thicker the border, the more information. (Details here.)
UP TO:		A History of Philosophy	LacusCurtius	Home
A page or image on this site is in the public domain ONLY if its URL has a total of one *asterisk. If the URL has two **asterisks, the item is copyright someone else, and used by permission or fair use. If the URL has none the item is © Bill Thayer. See my copyright page for details and contact information.