The Wikipedia entry on Plato’s 2nd Letter says: ‘R. G. Bury
argues of the Second Letter that it
is “fairly certain” that it is inauthentic, based primarily upon conflicts he
sees between “the general tone” and Plato’s Seventh
Letter.’
In his Prefatory Note to the Second Letter Bury says: ‘As regards the
authenticity of this letter, it may
be taken as fairly certain that it is not by Plato. The following
considerations, amongst others, tell strongly against it. The Olympic Games
mentioned in the opening paragraph cannot well be those of 360 B.C. (as some
have supposed), since the general tone of the letter shows that it must be
earlier than Plato’s return from his third visit to Syracuse in that year. The
reference, then, must be to the games of 364 B.C.; and if so, the Syracusan
visit alluded to in 312 A can only be the second visit of 367-366 B.C. But the
account there given of the failure of that visit owing to the suspicious
attitude of Dionysius plainly contradicts what we are told of Dionysius’
hospitable treatment of Plato in Ep.
vii. (329 D ff.). Moreover, there is no other evidence that Plato visited
Olympia in 364 B.C.; although we are told (Ep.
vii. 350 B) that he did so in 360 B.C.’ (Plato IX, LCL 234, p. 399).
Plato speaks of his visit to Olympia (in 364 B. C.) in the opening
paragraph of his Second Letter to
Dionysius: ‘I hear from Archedemus (Bury notes: ‘A disciple of Archytas of
Tarentum, the Pythagorean scientist’) that you think that not only I myself
should keep quiet but my friends also from doing or saying anything bad about
you; and that “you except Dion only.” Now your saying this, that Dion is
excepted, implies that I have no control over my friends; for had I had this
control over you and Dion, as well as the rest, more blessings would have come
to us all and to the rest of the Greeks also, as I affirm. But as it is, my
greatness consists in making myself follow my own instructions. However, I do
not say this as though what Cratistolus and Polyxenus (Bury notes: ‘Polyxenus
was a Sophist and a disciple of Bryson of Megara. Of Cratistolus nothing
further is known.’) have told you is to be trusted; for it is said that one of
these men declares that at Olympia he heard quite a number of my companions
maligning you. No doubt his hearing is more acute than mine; for I certainly
heard no such thing. For the future, whenever anyone makes such a statement
about any of us, what you ought, I think, to do is to send me a letter of
inquiry; for I shall tell the truth without scruple or shame.’ (Plato, Second Letter 310 B-D, tr. Bury)
In the Seventh Letter,
addressed ‘to Dion’s associates and friends’ after Dion’s death, Plato writes
concerning his visit to Olympia after his return from Sicily: ‘On arriving at
Olympia (Bury notes: ‘i.e. for the festival of 360 B.C.’), in the Peloponnese,
I came upon Dion, who was attending the Games; and I reported what had taken
place. And he, calling Zeus to witness, was invoking me and my relatives and
friends to prepare at once to take vengeance on Dionysius – we on account of
his treachery to guests (for that was what Dion said and meant), and he himself
on account of his wrongful expulsion and banishment. And I, when I heard this,
bade him summon my friends to his aid, should they be willing – “But as for
me,” I said, “it was you yourself, with the others, who by main force, so to
say (biai tina tropon), made me an
associate of Dionysius at table and at hearth and a partaker of his holy rites;
and he, though he probably believed that I, as many slanderers asserted, was
conspiring with you against himself and his throne, yet refrained from killing
me, and showed compunction. Thus, not only am I no longer, as I may say, of an
age to assist anyone in war, but I also have ties in common with you both, in
case you should ever come to crave at all for mutual friendship and wish to do
one another good; but so long as you desire to do evil, summon others.” This I
said because I loathed my Sicilian wandering and its ill-success.’ (Seventh Letter 350 B 6-D 5, tr. Bury)
In the Seventh Letter Plato
had a very good reason to speak of his visit to Olympia after returning from
his 3rd visit to Sicily, but no reason whatsoever to speak of his
previous visit to Olympia. In the Second
Letter Plato mentions his visit to Olympia only because of Dionysius’
complaint concerning it. To consider Plato’s silence in the Seventh Letter about his visit to
Olympia in 364, to which he refers is the Second
Letter, as an argument against the authenticity of the Second Letter is preposterous.
Bury argues that the account of the failure of Plato’s second visit to
Sicily of 367-366 B.C. owing to the suspicious attitude of Dionysius, given in
the Second Letter, ‘plainly
contradicts what we are told of Dionysius’ hospitable treatment of Plato in Ep. vii. (329 D ff.)’.
On account of that visit Plato says in the Second Letter: ‘I came to Sicily with the reputation of being by
far the most eminent of those engaged in philosophy; and I desired, on my
arrival in Syracuse, to gain your testimony as well, in order that I might get
philosophy held in honour even by the multitude. In this, however, I was
disappointed. But the reason I give for this is not that which is commonly
given; rather it was because you showed that you did not fully trust me but
wished rather to get rid of me somehow and invite others in my place; and
owing, as I believe, to your distrust of me, you showed yourself inquisitive as
to what my business was. Thereupon it was proclaimed aloud by many that you
utterly despised me and were devoted to other affairs. This certainly was the
story noised abroad.’ (311 C 5-312 B 2, tr. Bury)
Concerning the ‘contradictory’ account in the Seventh Letter Bury refers to 329 D ff. To properly compare the two
accounts, I shall quote Plato’s account of the visit that begins at 329 B 7 in
its entirety: ‘On my arrival – I must not be tedious – I found Dionysius’
kingdom all full of civil strife and of slanderous stories brought to the court
concerning Dion. So I defended him, so far as I was able, though it was little
I could do; but about three months later, charging Dion with plotting against
tyranny, Dionysius sent him aboard a small vessel and drove him out with
ignominy. After that all of us who were Dion’s friends were in alarm lest he
should punish any of us on a charge of being accomplices in Dion’s plot; and
regarding me a report actually went abroad in Syracuse that I had been put to
death by Dionysius as being responsible for all the events of that time. But
when Dionysius perceived us all in this state of mind, he was alarmed lest our
fears should bring about some worse result; so he was for receiving us all back
in a friendly manner; and, moreover, he kept consoling me and bidding me be of
good courage and begging me by all means to remain. For my fleeing away from
him would have brought him no credit, but rather my remaining; and that was why
he pretended to beg it of me so urgently. But the requests of tyrants are
coupled, as we know, with compulsory powers. So in order to further his plan he
kept hindering my departure; for he brought me into the Acropolis (Bury notes: ‘The
citadel of Syracuse, where Plato was housed during both his visits, the tyrant
thus having him under his eye.’) and housed me in a place from which no skipper
would have brought me off, and that not merely if prevented by Dionysius but
also if he failed to send them a messenger charging them to take me off. Nor
would any trader nor any single one of the officers at the ports of the country
have let me pass out by myself, without arresting me on the spot and bringing
me back again to Dionysius, especially as it had already been proclaimed
abroad, contrary to the former report, that “Dionysius is wonderfully devoted
to Plato”. But what were the facts? For the truth must be told. He became
indeed more and more devoted as time advanced, according as he grew familiar
with my disposition and character, but he was desirous that I should praise him
more than Dion as my special friend, and this triumph he was marvellously
anxious to achieve. But the best way to achieve this, if it was to be achieved
– namely, by occupying himself in learning and in listening to discourses on
philosophy and by associating with me – this he always shirked owing to his
dread of the talk of slanderers, lest he might be hampered in some measure and
Dion might accomplish all his designs (Bury notes: ‘Philistus and the
anti-reform party alleged that Dion was plotting against the tyrant, aided and
abetted by Plato.’). I, however, put up with all this, holding fast the
original purpose with which I had come, in the hope that he might possibly gain
a desire for the philosophic life; but he, with his resistance, won the day.’ (Seventh Letter 329 B 7-330 B 7, tr.
Bury)
As can be seen, Bury’s claim that Plato’s account of the failure of his
second visit to Sicily of 367-366 B.C. given in the Second Letter ‘plainly contradicts what we are told of Dionysius’
hospitable treatment of Plato in Ep.
vii. (329 D ff.)’ does not bear scrutiny.
Following the passage ‘as regards the authenticity’ of the Second Letter, quoted in full at the
beginning, Bury says: ‘In addition to these historical inconsistencies there is
much to arouse suspicion in the tone and matter of the letter. Can we imagine
the real Plato saying that his object in visiting Syracuse was “to make
philosophy honoured by the multitude”?’ (Bury, p. 399) In the note on the
quoted words Bury says in his translation of the letter: ‘A most un-Platonic
sentiment: contrast Republic 493 E
ff.’ (Bury, p. 408)
In the Republic 493 E-494A
Socrates asks Adeimantus (Plato’s brother): ‘You recognise the truth of what I
have been saying (Tauta toinun panta
ennoêsas)? Then let me ask you to consider further (ekeino anamnêsthêti) whether the world will ever be induced to
believe in the existence (esth’ hopȏs plêthos
anexetai ê hêgêsetai einai) of absolute beauty rather than of the many
beautiful (auto to kalon alla mê ta polla
kala), or of the absolute in each kind rather than of the many in each kind
(ê auto ti hekaston kai mê ta polla
hekasta)?’ – Adeimantus: ‘Certainly not.’ – Socrates: ‘Then the world
cannot possibly be a philosopher? – Adeimantus: ‘Impossible’ – Socrates: And
therefore philosophers must inevitably fall under the censure of the world?’ –
Adeimantus: ‘They must’ – Socrates: ‘And of the individuals who consort with
the mob and seek to please them?’ – Adeimantus: ‘That is evident.’ (Jowett’s
translation. Jowett gets the gist of what Plato wants to say, but his
translation is very loose. I have therefore given the Greek of Socrates’
introductory entry in full, yet changing the word sequence so as to follow, and
thus to elucidate, Jowett’s English.)
***
Allow me a digression. Although in what immediately follows the quoted
passage Plato had presumably in mind Socrates’ beloved Alcibiades, the lines
sound uncannily prophetic in view of Plato’s subsequent experience with
Dionysius.
Socrates: ‘Then, do you see any way in which the philosopher can be
preserved in his calling to the end? And remember what we were saying of him,
that he was to have quickness (eumatheia)
and memory (mnêmê) and courage (andreia) and magnificence (megaloprepeia) – these were admitted by
us to be the true philosopher’s gifts.’ – Adeimantus: ‘Yes.’ – Socrates: ‘Will
not such an one from his early childhood be in all things first among all,
especially if his bodily endowments are like his mental ones? – Adeimatus:
‘Certainly.’ – Socrates: And his friends and fellow-citizens will want to use
him as he gets older for their own purpose?’ – Adeimantus: ‘No question.’ –
Socrates: ‘Falling at his feet, they will make requests to him and do him
honour and flatter him, because they want to get into their hands now, the
power which he will one day possess.’ – Adeimantus: ‘That often happens.’ –
Socrates: ‘And what will a man such as he is be likely to do under such circumstances,
especially if he be a citizen of a great city, rich and noble, and a tall
proper youth? Will he not be full of boundless aspirations, and fancy himself
able to manage the affairs of Hellens and of barbarians, and having got such
notions into his head will he not dilate and elevate himself in the fullness of
vain pomp and senseless pride?’ Adeimantus: ‘To be sure he will.’ – Socrates: ‘Now,
when he is in this state of mind, if someone gently comes to him and tells him
that he is a fool and must get understanding, which can only be got by slaving
for it, do you think that, under such adverse circumstances, he will be easily
induced to listen?’ – Adeimantus: ‘Far otherwise.’ – Socrates: ‘And even if
there be some one who through inherent goodness or natural reasonableness has
had his eyes opened a little and is humbled and taken captive by philosophy,
how will his friends behave when they think that they are likely to lose the
advantage which they were hoping to reap from his companionship? Will they not do and
say anything to prevent him from yielding to his better nature and to render
his teacher powerless (kai peri ton
peithonta, hopȏs an mê hoios t’ êi), using
to this end private intrigues (idiai
epibouleuontas) as well as public prosecutions (kai dêmosiai eis agȏnas kathistantas)?’ – Adeimantus: ‘There can be
no doubt about it.’ – Socrates: ‘And how can one who is thus circumstanced ever
become a philosopher?’ – Adeimantus: ‘Impossible.’ (494 A 11-495 A 3, tr.
Jowett)
Let me bring in for comparison what Plutarch says in his Life of Dion concerning Dion, Plato, and
Dionysius: ‘Dion had hopes, as it seems likely, that by means of the visit of
Plato he could mitigate the arrogance and excessive severity of the tyranny,
and convert Dionysius into a fit and lawful ruler; but if Dionysius should
oppose his efforts and refuse to be softened, he had determined to depose him and
restore the civil power to the Syracusan people; not that he approved of a
democracy, but he thought it altogether better than a tyranny in lack of a
sound and healthy aristocracy. Such was the condition of affairs when Plato
came to Sicily, and in the first instances he met with astonishing friendliness
and honour. For a royal chariot, magnificently adorned, awaited him as he left
his trireme, and the tyrant offered a sacrifice of thanksgiving for the great
blessing that had been bestowed upon his government. Moreover, the modesty that
characterized his banquets, the decorum of the courtiers, and the mildness of
the tyrant himself in all his dealings with the public, inspired the citizens
with marvellous hopes of his reformation. There was also something like a
general rush for letters and philosophy, and the palace was filled with dust,
as they say, owing to the multitude of geometricians there (the translator
Bernadotte Perrin notes: ‘Geometrical figures were traced in loose sand strewn
upon the floor.’). After a few days had passed, there was one of the customary
sacrifices of the country in the palace grounds; and when the herald, as was
the custom, prayed that the tyranny might abide unshaken for many generations,
it is said that Dionysius, who was standing near, cried: “Stop cursing us!”
This quite vexed Philistius and his party, who thought that time and
familiarity would render Plato’s influence almost irresistible, if now, after a
brief intimacy, he had so altered and transformed the sentiments of the
youthful prince. They therefore no longer abused Dion one by one and secretly,
but all together and openly, saying that he was manifestly enchanting and
bewitching Dionysius with Plato’s doctrines, in order that the tyrant might of
his own accord relinquish and give up the power, which Dion would then assume …
And some pretended to be indignant that the Athenians, who in former times had
sailed to Sicily with large land and sea forces, but had perished utterly
without taking Syracuse, should now, by means of one sophist, overthrow the
tyranny of Dionysius, by persuading him to dismiss his ten thousand
body-guards, and abandon his four hundred triremes and his ten thousand
horsemen and his many times that number of men-at-arms, in order to seek in
Academic philosophy for a mysterious good (en
Akadêmeiai to siȏpȏmenon agathon zêtein), and
make geometry his guide to happiness, surrendering the happiness that was based
on dominion and wealth and luxury to Dion … As a consequence of all this,
Dionysius became at first suspicious, and afterwards more openly angry and
hostile …’ (Plutarch, Dion xii. 2 -
xiv. 4, tr. Bernadotte Perrin)
As we can learn from Plutarch’s Life
of Dion xxxvi, he drew on the best available historical sources: Ephorus of
Cume (c. 405-330 B.C.) and Timaeus of Tauromenium (c.356-260 B.C.). Of the
former The Oxford Classical Dictionary
says that he was a pupil of Isocrates and, ‘except for Xenophon, the most
important historian of the fourth century.’ Of the latter it says that his ‘History in thirty eight books was
primarily concerned with Sicily, and its importance was great in standardizing
previous accounts of Sicilian history.’
***
Let me now return to Plato’s Republic,
so that we may properly assess the validity and force of Bury’s argument
against the authenticity of the Second
Letter presented as a rhetorical question ‘Can we imagine the real Plato
saying that his object in visiting Syracuse was “to make philosophy honoured by
the multitude”?’ accompanied by his remark ‘A most un-Platonic sentiment: contrast
Republic 493 E ff.’
Socrates argues that philosophy is thus left desolate of men endowed by
nature conducive to it, and that characters unworthy of it ‘take a leap out of
their trades into philosophy … For, although philosophy be in this evil case,
still there remains a dignity about her which is not to be found in arts. And
many are thus attracted by her whose natures are imperfect and whose souls are
maimed and disfigured by their meannesses.’ (495 D-E) He says that all this
explains ‘why philosophy is in such an evil name … But if philosophy ever finds
in the State that perfection (ei de
lêpsetai tên aristên politeian) which she herself is, then will be seen
that she is in truth divine’ (497 A 6 – C 2, tr. Jowett).
What is the State in which true philosophy can flourish? Socrates
explains: ‘Neither cities nor States nor individuals will ever attain
perfection until the small class of philosophers are providentially compelled
to take care of the State; or until kings, or if not kings, the sons of kings
or princes, are divinely inspired with a true love of true philosophy.’ (499 B
2 – C 2) – Adeimantus: ‘My opinion agrees with yours.’ – Socrates: ‘But do you
mean to say (ereis) that this is not
the opinion (hoti ouk au dokei) of
the multitude (tois de pollois)?’ –
Adeimantus: ‘I should imagine not.’ – Socrates: ‘O my friend, do not attack the
multitude (mê panu houtȏ tȏn pollȏn katêgorei): they
will change their minds, if, not in an aggressive spirit, but gently and with
the view of soothing them and removing their dislike of overeducation (apoluomenos tên tês polumathias diabolên),
you show them your philosophers as they really are and describe as you were
just now doing (kai diorizêi hȏsper arti) their
character and profession, and then mankind will see that he of whom you are
speaking is not such as they supposed – if they view him in this new light,
they will surely change their notion of him, and answer in another train.’ (490
D 7 – 500 A 4, tr. Jowett)
Pace Bury,
when Plato says in his Second Letter
‘I came to Sicily with the reputation of being by far the most eminent of those
engaged in philosophy; and I desired, on my arrival in Syracuse, to gain your
testimony as well, in order that I might get philosophy held in honour even by
the multitude’, his words are in perfect harmony with what he says about the
true philosophy and the true philosopher in the Republic.
No comments:
Post a Comment