menexenus-第2部分

快捷操作: 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! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！



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　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　enoug