The Wikipedia Article on Plato says:
‘The traditional date of Plato’s birth during the 87th or 88th Olympiad,
428 or 427 BC, is based on a dubious interpretation of Diogenes Laërtius, who
says, “When [Socrates] was gone, [Plato] joined Cratylus the Heracleitean and
Hermogenes, who philosophised in the manner of Parmenides. Then, at
twenty-eight, Hermodorus says, [Plato] went to Eucleides in Megara.” However,
as Debra Nails argues, the text does not state that Plato left for Megara
immediately after joining Cratylus and Hermogenes. In his Seventh
Letter,
Plato notes that his coming of age coincided with the taking of power by the
Thirty, remarking, “But a youth under the age of twenty made himself a
laughingstock if he attempted to enter the political arena.” Thus, Nails dates
Plato’s birth to 424/423.’
***
One thing is certain. If the author of the article is right,
my attempt to understand Plato on the basis of the ancient dating of the Phaedrus as
Plato’s first dialogue, written during Socrates’ lifetime, is laughable. I date
the dialogue to 405 BC, composed during the last year of the democracy before
the oligarchs took over after the defeat of Athens by Sparta and its allies
(See ‘Plato’s first two dialogues’ on my website). On the Wikipedia dating of
Plato’s birth, Plato was nineteen years old at the time.
***
The author of the article quotes
correctly what Diogenes Laërtius
says in his ‘Plato’ (III. 6), but as to Debra Nails argument concerning it, let
me give it in her own words: ‘The text itself gives no reason to infer that
Plato left immediately for Megara and implies the very opposite.’
What Debra Nails missed is the more extensive reference to
Hermodorus, which is given in Diogenes Laërtius’ article on ‘Eucleides’: ‘Eucleides was a
native of Megara (Eukleidȇs apo Megarȏn) … He applied himself to the
writings of Parmenides (houtos kai ta Parmenideia metecheirizeto), and
his followers were called Megareans after him (kai hoi ap’ autou Megarikoi
prosȇgoreuonto) … Hermodorus tells us that, after the death of
Socrates, Plato and the rest of the philosophers came to him (pros
touton phȇsin ho Hermodȏros aphikesthai Platȏna kai tous loipous philosophous
meta tȇn tou Sȏkratous teleutȇn), being alarmed at the cruelty of
the tyrants (deisantes tȇn ȏmotȇta tȏn turannȏn).’(II.106)
Hermodorus, a disciple of Plato who wrote a book about him
(John Burnet, Plato’s Phaedo, ‘Introduction’, n.1), refers to the
leading democrats as tyrants, undoubtedly in harmony with Plato, who viewed
them as such after they put Socrates to death. This is not an unwarranted
guess. Plato in the Seventh Letter describes the attempt of
the Thirty [tyrants] to implicate Socrates in their crimes (324e-325a). Then
he speaks in the same manner of the leading democrats who prosecuted Socrates:
‘But once more it happened (kata de tina tuchȇn au) that
some of those in power brought my friend Socrates, whom I have mentioned, to
trial before a court of law (ton hetairon hȇmȏn Sȏkratȇ touton dunasteuontes
tines eisagousin eis diakastȇrion, 325b.’
Debra Nails appears to have taken her quotation from Diogenes Laërtius III.6 as if it were all from
Hermodorus; only in that way can she take it as an expression of a temporal
sequence: ‘When [Socrates] was gone, [Plato] joined Cratylus the Heracleitean
and Hermogenes, who philosophised in the manner of Parmenides. Then, at
twenty-eight, Hermodorus says, [Plato] went to Eucleides in Megara.’ But this
is not the case, as Diog. II.106 clearly demonstrates. There is no temporal
relationship between the statement concerning Plato’s association with Cratylus
and Hermogenes, and the statement concerning Plato’s stay in Megara; each
refers to what happened after the death of Socrates.
Hermodorus’ statement that after the death of Socrates Plato
and the rest of the philosophers came to Eucleides ‘being alarmed at the
cruelty of the tyrants’ can be corroborated. 1/ When Crito came to prison in
his attempt to persuade Socrates to escape from prison, he said that the escape
had been well prepared by his friends. He named only Simmias and Cebes, who
were from Thebes and thus outside the Athenian jurisdiction, but there can be
little doubt that Plato and the other close friends and followers of Socrates
were involved in those preparations (Plato, Crito, 45a-b), and thus
they had every reason to believe that Anytus and those around him would not be
satisfied with putting Socrates to death; his disciples expected to come next.
2/ Anytus, the man who was directly responsible for Socrates’ death sentence
(Plato, Apology, 18b, 29b-c), made a great diatribe against the
sophists in his discussion with Socrates in Plato’s Meno, accusing
of madness the cities that allow them to enter and to corrupt their young men.
In his view they should be expelled, whether they are strangers or citizens
(92a-b). He didn’t yet count Socrates as one of them, but he resented the way
Socrates pointed out to him that even the best Athenian politicians of the
past, let alone those of the present day, lacked the ability to teach their
political virtues even to their own children, let alone to anyone else; he
ended with a veiled threat: ‘Socrates (Ō Sȏkrates), I
consider you are too apt to speak ill of people (raidiȏs moi dokeis kakȏs
legein anthrȏpous). I for one, if you will take my advice, would warn you
to be careful (egȏ men oun an soi sumbouleusaimi, ei etheleis moi
peithesthai, eulabeisthai): in most cities it is probably easier to do
people harm than good (hȏs isȏs men kai en allȇi polei raion esti kakȏs
poiein anthrȏpous ȇ eu), and particularly in this one (en
tȇide de kai panu); I think you know that yourself (oimai de se kai
auton eidenai).’ (94e3-95a1)
After the death of Socrates his
friends and followers had every reason to emigrate. Unexpectedly, Socrates’
refusal to break the Laws of Athens by escaping from prison fundamentally
changed the situation; Plato wrote the Crito, he and other
Socrates’ friends could return. We have therefore every reason to believe that
it was after their return to Athens that Plato ‘associated with Cratylus the
Heracleitean and Hermogenes who philosophized in the manner of Parmenides’ (proseiche
Kratulȏi te tȏi Hȇrakleiteiȏi kai Hermogenei tȏi ta Parmenidou philosophounti,
Diog. Laert. III, 6).
As can be seen, Debra Nails’
attempt to discredit the traditional date of Plato’s birth during the 88th Olympiad,
in 427 BC, can be dismissed as failed. But what about her reasons for dating
Plato’s birth at 423/424? As has been seen, the Wikipedia article on Plato says
the following: ‘In his Seventh
Letter, Plato notes that his coming of age coincided with the taking of
power by the Thirty, remarking, “But a youth under the age of twenty made
himself a laughingstock if he attempted to enter the political arena.” Thus,
Nails dates Plato’s birth to 424/423.’ – There is no such
remark in Plato’s Seventh Letter.
Debra Nails does not attribute the
sentence ‘But a youth under the age
of twenty made himself a laughingstock if he attempted to enter the political
arena’ to Plato’s Seventh Letter; she refers it to
Xenophon’s Memorabilia 3, 6. Since it plays an important role
in her dating of Plato’s birth, let me quote Xenophon: ‘Ariston’s son, Glaucon
(Glaukȏna de ton Aristȏnos), was attempting to become an orator (hot’
epecheirei dȇmȇgorein) and striving for headship in the state (epithumȏn
prostateuein tȇs poleȏs), though he was less than twenty years old (oudepȏ eikosin
etȇ gegonȏs); and none of his friends or relations could check him (tȏn
allȏn oikeiȏn kai philȏn oudeis edunato pausai), though he would get
himself dragged from the platform (helkomenon te apo tou bȇmatos) and
make himself a laughing-stock (kai katagelaston onta). Only Socrates,
who took an interest in him (Sȏkratȇs de eunous ȏn autȏi) for the
sake of Plato and Glaucon’s son Charmides (dia te Charmidȇn tou Glaukȏnos
kai dia Platȏna), managed to check him (monos epausen).’
Incidentally, on her dating of
Plato’s birth, Nails makes Plato a younger brother of Charmides. In her entry
on Glaucon she nevertheless says: ‘Rather surprisingly, APF [J.K. Davies, Athenian
Propertied Families] goes to some lengths to preserve the accuracy of
Xenophon (Mem. 3.6), according to whom a brash Glaucon, not yet twenty,
is dissuaded from premature political activity by Socrates, who acts out of
regard for Adeimantus and Plato. But Diogenes 3.6 reports that
Plato knew Socrates only from the age of twenty; on this evidence, Glaucon
would be Plato’s younger brother.’ (D. Nails, The People of Plato,
p. 156)
A quibble: Nails says that
according to Xenophon Socrates checked Glaucon ‘out of regard for Adeimantus’,
[Plato’s elder brother], while Xenophon says that he did so ‘for the sake of
Glaucon’s son Charmides [Plato’s uncle] and Plato (dia te Charmidȇn tou Glaukȏnos
kai dia Platȏna). Why E.C. Marchant changes the order of these two men in
his translation of Xenophon’ Memorabilia defies my
understanding. Xenophon refers to Charmides first, for he and Socrates became
friends at the time when Plato was born, if we date his birth at 429 B.C. (see
Diog. Laert. III.3, cf. Plato’s Charmides).
For her date of Plato’s birth Nails
relies on Plato’s Seventh Letter 324b-d. I’ll give the
relevant part of her quotation, adding the original and underlying the lines
only in the two instances, in which she translated the text so as to suit her
dating of Plato’s birth: ‘When I was a young man I
had the same ambition as many others: I thought of entering public life as soon
as I came of age. And certain happenings in public
affairs favoured me, as follows (kai moi tuchai
tines tôn tês poleôs pragmatôn toiaide parepeson).
The constitution we then had, being anathema to many, was overthrown; and a new
government was set up consisting of fifty-one men, two groups – one of eleven
and another ten – to police the marketplace and perform other necessary duties
in the city and the Piraeus respectively, and above them thirty other officers
with absolute powers. Some of these men (toutôn de tines) happened to
be relatives and acquaintances of mine (oikeioi te ontes kai gnôrimoi
etunchanon emoi), and they invited me to join them at once in what seemed
to be a proper undertaking (kai dê kai parekaloun
euthus hôs epi prosêkonta pragmata me). My
attitude towards them is not surprising, because I was young. I thought that
they were going to lead the city out of the unjust life she had been living and
establish her in the path of justice, so that I watched them eagerly to see
what they would do.’ (Letter 7.324b-d)
Debra Nails ‘explains’: ‘Plato
makes his [Plato’s] coming of age congruent with the ascendance of the Thirty …
It thus appears that Plato is turning twenty as the Thirty take control of
Athens; and that he does not immediately accept the invitation to join them is
unexceptional, given his youth. Hence I date Plato’s birth 424/3 [the Thirty
took power in 404 and were overthrown by the democrats in 403].’ (D.
Nails, Op. cit. p. 246)
In fact, there is nothing in
the Seventh Letter that suggests ‘that Plato is turning twenty
as the Thirty take control of Athens’. As the text stands, his desire to enter
politics preceded the Thirty. He does not speak of the Thirty taking control of
Athens in terms of happenings that
favoured him; Harward translates
Plato’s kai moi tuchai tines tôn tês poleôs
pragmatôn toiaide parepeson as follows: ‘And I found
myself confronted with the following occurrences in the public affairs of my
own city’.
With the
words kai moi tuchai tines toiaide parepeson ‘and so it
happened to me’ Plato appears to be casting his eye to the catastrophic
exercise of power by the Thirty, who ‘tried to send a friend of mine, the aged
Socrates to carry off one of the citizens by force to execution, in order that,
whether he wished it, or not, he might share the guilt of their conduct
(324e-325a)’, for he uses a similar expression when he speaks of the
democrats prosecuting Socrates: ‘But
once more it happened (kata de tina tuchȇn au) that some of
those in power brought my friend Socrates, whom I have mentioned, to trial
before a court of law (ton hetairon hȇmȏn Sȏkratȇ touton dunasteuontes tines
eisagousin eis diakastȇrion, 325b5-7).’ Plato’s ‘But once more it happened’ (kata
de tina tuchȇn au) at 325b5-6 appears to be harking back to ‘and
so it happened to me’ (kai moi tuchai tines toiaide parepeson) at
325c1-2).
Furthermore,
Plato does not say that his relatives and acquaintances invited him to join
them at once in what seemed to be a proper undertaking, as
Nails renders his kai dê kai parekaloun euthus hôs epi
prosêkonta pragmata me (324d2-3); he says ‘and they at once
invited me to share in their doings, as something to which I had a
claim’, as Harward translates 324d2-3; or ‘they invited me at once to join
their administration, thinking it would be congenial’, as Bury
translates it; prosêkon means ‘befitting [me]’, ‘appropriate
[for me]’. Presumably, Plato was invited by his relatives and acquaintances
among the fifty-one men – his uncle Glaucon was among the ten that policed the
marketplace and performed other necessary duties in the Piraeus – because of
his activities prior to their access to power. (See for this ‘Plato’s first two
dialogues’ on my website.)
Plato
does not say that he did not immediately accept the invitation to
join the ‘administration of the fifty-one men’ because of his youth; he speaks of it as something that made him pause and
keep on hold his desire to enter politics, as the last sentence in Nails’
quotation indicates: ‘so that I watched them eagerly to see what they
would do’. And Plato goes on to say: ‘And seeing
(kai horôn), as I did (dêpou), that in quite a short time they
made the former government seem by comparison something precious as gold (tous
andras en chronȏi oligȏi chruson apodeixantas tên emprosthen poiteian) –
for among other things (ta te alla) they tried to send a friend of mine,
the aged Socrates, whom I should scarcely scruple to describe as the most
upright man of that day, with some other persons (kai philon andra emoi
presbuteron Sôkratê, hon egô schedon ouk an aischunoimên eipôn dikaiotaton
einai tôn tote, epi tina tôn politôn meth’ heterôn epempon) to carry
off one of the citizens by force to execution (biai axonta hôs
apothanoumenon), in order that (hina dê), whether he wished it, or
not, he might share the guilt of their conduct (metechoi tôn pragmatôn
autois, eite bouloito ê mê); but he would not obey them (ho d’ ouk
epeitheto), risking all consequences (pan de parekinduneusen pathein)
in preference to becoming a partner in their iniquitous deeds (prin anosiôn
autois ergôn genesthai koinônos) – seeing all these things (ha dê
panta kathorôn) and others of the same kind on a considerable scale (kai
ei tin’ alla toiauta ou smikra), I disapproved of their proceedings (eduscherana
te), and withdrew from any connection with the abuses of the time (kai
emauton epanêgagon apo tôn tote kakôn). (324d6-325a5, tr. J. Harward)
That Plato thought of his time of
youth before the oligarchic revolution as the time when he was ‘most strongly
drawn to politics’ becomes clear from what he says about what happened when the
Thirty were overthrown by the democrats: ‘And once more (palin de), though
with more hesitation (braduteron men), I began to be
moved by the desire to take part in public and political affairs (heilken de
me homȏs hȇ peri to prattein ta koina kai politika epithumia, 325a7-b1, tr. J. Harward).’
No comments:
Post a Comment