No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
II. The Platonic Corpus
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2016
Extract
The Platonic corpus as we have it (in the Oxford Classical Text, for instance) reflects a stability dating back at least to the second century A.D. when Thrasylus arranged the material available to him—probably in the Academy library—into groups of four items. We are told of an earlier Alexandrian ordering by trilogies. Some writings which were associated with Plato’s name followed after Thrasylus’ tetralogies, but these can safely be left aside as spurious. Within the scheme of tetralogies we find dialogues (though the Apology is of course a monologue, and so largely are the Timaeus and the Laws; while the Menexenus is a curious speech enclosed in minimal dialogue), letters and ‘definitions’.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1976
References
Notes
1. See Hoerber, R. G., ‘Thrasylus’ Platonic Canon and the Double Titles’, Phronesis 2 (1957), 10-20CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2. In an important article in Phoenix 24 (1970), 296-308, J. A. Philip insists that the tetralogies must be earlier than Thrasylus. I agree that the Academy library would have the material: I am not clear that the Diogenes Laertius account is to be faulted on the question of the date of our present arrangement.
3. R. S. Bluck’s edition of Letters 7 and 8 in the Pitt Press series gives in the introduction an account of judgments on authenticity up to that time (1947).
4. See further Stark, R., Aristotelesstudien (2nd ed. Munich, 1972), 29–37 Google Scholar. E. Howald published an edition with (German) introduction and translation of 6, 7 and 8 (Bern, 1951). He explains why he regards these three as alone authentic, and also gives a text and translation of 2 explaining why he denies its authenticity.
A similar defence of 6, 7 and 8 (with claims that 3, 4 and 5 come from the Academy after Plato’s death) was made by Isnardi, Margherita in La Parola del Passato 10 (1955), 241-73Google Scholar.
Attempts to authenticate 2 have not been convincing, though J. N. Findlay seems to accept it. Bluck (whose scepticism over it is moderate but all the more notable for that) has the better of Stannard, Jerry in the debate in Phronesis 5 (1960), 53—5CrossRefGoogle Scholar and 140—51.
5. Perhaps one ought to mention the rejection of the seventh Letter by Ryle, Gilbert in Plato ‘s Progress (Cambridge, 1966)Google Scholar. But I can only endorse the criticism of this book by (inter alios) Easterling, H.J. in CR N.S. 17 (1967), 332-6Google Scholar.
6. One ought also to mention another significant negative judgment, that of Misch, G., A History of Autobiography in Antiquity (Eng. trans. London, 1950) vol. 1, 110—54Google Scholar. He concludes that the seventh Letter was written by a member of the Academy, not by Plato.
7. See Lacey, A. R., Phronesis 1 (1956), 81—104 Google Scholar, for general criticism as well as detailed discussion of 990c5—991b4. N. B. Booth criticizes Lacey’s views in Phronesis 2 (1957), 160-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
8. One may perhaps say that the dramatic situation of the Parmenides, though possible historically, is so improbable as to show that Plato could for dramatic reasons feel free to play with times and seasons.
9. The unwillingness of von Arnim to place the Timaeus and Critias is interesting as is also the earlier desire to treat Republic 1 as distinct from the rest of the work. The later scholars cease to accept this view, or at least do not accept it of the dialogue as now constituted.
10. ‘Analysing Plato’s Style with an Electronic Computer’, BICS 3 (1956), 45–54 Google Scholar.
11. Two of these tests, hiatus avoidance and the paeon clausula of sentences, seem to be conscious. J. Billig (JPh 35 [1920] ) did not treat the latter as conscious, and Professor Owen, G. E. L. (CQ N.S. 3 (1953), 82)Google Scholar would seem to accept Billig’s view; but Aristotle at Rhetoric 3. 8 says that this clausula was a rhetorical device ‘from the time of Thrasymachus onwards’, and Plato could have been aware of it and employed it in spite of his contempt for the orators’ ‘box of tricks’ (Phaedrus 266d ff.), just as he avoided hiatus in spite of his humorous contempt at Republic 6 498e for other rhetorical devices promoted by Isocrates.
12. Dr. Brandwood’s PhD thesis for the University of London was entitled The Dating of Plato ‘s Works by the Stylistic Method- a Historical and Critical Survey. Unfortunately it has not been published. He has published articles: the more relevant are ‘On a discriminatory problem concerned with the works of Plato’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 21 (1959), 195-200; and ‘Plato’s Seventh Letter’, Revue 4 (1969), 1–25 Google Scholar. Reviews in JHS (1965), 206-7, and 88 (1968), 160-1 are also relevant.
13. There is, in fact, a considerable difference in percentage even between the Phaedrus speeches and the Timaeus.
14. For a careful discussion of this matter, see Greene, W. C., HSCP 60 (1951), 23–59 Google Scholar.
15. The protagonist of this school of interpretation was H.-J. Krämer, who published his Arete bei Piaton und Aristoteles in 1959. Reference should also be made to Findlay, J. N., Plato: The Written and Unwritten Doctrines (London, 1974)Google Scholar. I have discussed this question more fully in the final section of this survey.
16. An outstanding example is the Symposium. What can be seen in only one of its speeches is brought out for us by Dover’s, K.J. brilliant exegesis of the speech of Aristophanes in JHS 86 (1966), 41–50 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.