Diogenes
Laertius in his “Life of Plato” dates Plato’s birth in the year 427: ‘Apollodorus
in his Chronology fixes the date of Plato’s birth in the 88th
Olympiad, on the seventh day of the month Thargelion, the same day on which the
Delians say that Apollo himself was born.’ But he could have been born in 427
only if he was born in the first year of that Olympiad, which Apollodorus in
Diogenes’ rendering does not specify. So how do we know?
Diogenes continues:
‘He died, according to Hermippus, at a wedding feast, in the first year of the 108th
Olympiad, in his eighty first year. (R.D. Hicks, the translator, notes simply:
427-347 B.C.) Diogenes goes on: ‘Neanthes, however, makes him die at the age of
eighty-four. He is thus seen to be six years the junior of Isocrates. For
Isocrates was born in the archonship of Lysimachus (Hicks notes: 436-435 B.C.),
Plato in that of Ameinias, the year of Pericles’ death (Hicks notes: 429 B.C.).
Thus we arrive at the year 429 as the year of Plato’s birth, which is preferred
by modern Platonists; this is the year of Plato’s birth given in The Oxford
Classical Dictionary.
I shall
argue that we should consider an earlier date, the year 433 as the date of
Plato’s birth. I found this dating on two documents. In the first place it is
Aristophanes’ comedy The Ecclesiazusae, which B.B. Rogers views as a
comic persiflage of Plato’s Republic, and which he dates in 393. It is
in the 5th Book of the Republic that Plato bases his ideal
state on the community of men, women, and their children, which can be made
possible only if philosophers become the rulers. These ideas form the backbone
of the state governed by women as devised by Praxagora, their leader. I shall
therefore begin by discussing Rogers’ dating of The Ecclesiazusae in its
historical setting, followed by his detailed account of the textual affinities
between Aristophanes’ comedy and Plato’s Republic.
Next, I
shall turn my attention to Plato’s Seventh letter, in which he says that
he was ‘about forty years old’ (sxedo\n e1th tessara/konta gegonw&j, 324a6) when he first arrived in Sicily, and that he first went to
Sicily after realising that ‘the classes of mankind will have no cessation of
evils’ (kakw~n
ou]n ou0 lh/cein ta\ a0nqrw&pina ge/nh,
326a7-b1) until
philosophers become the rulers, the principle he arrived at in Republic
v. The year of Plato’s birth I then get by a simple computation; if Plato arrived
at the idea of the community of men, women, and their children, safeguarded by
philosophers becoming the rulers, at 393 B.C. – in that year it became known to
the Athenians, for only on that basis could Aristophanes meaningfully persiflage
those ideas in his comedy – and if Plato arrived at those ideas when he was
about forty, 393 plus 40 takes us to the year 433 as the year of Plato’s birth.
1. The original design of The
Ecclesiazusae, expressed in the first part of the play
In their
assembly in Skirois women decided to take the City of Athens in their hands,
for they had enough of men’s vacillations, always changing their policies, choosing
bad leaders, things getting from bad to worse. They decided to intervene in the
assembly convocated to save the city. On that occasion they would change into
men’s clothes, go to the assembly very early – the assemblies were convocated at
dawn – and propose to give the power into women’s hands.
And so, on
that day they assembled well before dawn to make their preparations. Their
leader, Praxagora, rehearsed what was to be her speech:
‘I have, my friends, an equal stake
with you
In this our
country, and I grieve to note
The sad
condition of the state affairs.
(173-5)
…..
Ye are to
blame for this, Athenian people,
Ye draw your
wages from the public purse,
Yet each man
seeks his private gain alone.
So the state
reels, … (205-208)
…..
Still, if
you trust me, ye shall yet be saved.
I move that
now the womenkind be asked
To rule the
state. In our own homes, ye know,
They are the
managers and rule the house.
(209-212)
…..
That they
are better in their ways than we
I’ll soon
convince you. First, they dye their wools
With boiling
tinctures, in the ancient style.
You won’t
find them, I warrant, in a hurry
Trying new
plans. And would it not have saved
The Athenian
city had she let alone
Things that
worked well, nor idly sought things new?’
(214-220)
***
Translations
from Aristophanes B.B. Rogers.
Rogers notes
on ‘First, they dye their wools …’: ‘All will remember Plato’s famous comparison,
in the fourth book of the Republic, of education with the process of dyeing,
which commences Ou0kou=n oi]sqa, h]n d’ e0gw_, o3ti oi9 bafei=j,
e0peida\n boulhqw~si ba/yai e1ria w#st’ ei]nai a9lourga\,
k.t.l.’ [429d4-5]. B.
Jowett translates: ‘You know, I said, that dyers, when they want to dye wool
for making the true sea- purple …’
***
2. The historical situation
Praxagora
said in her speech:
‘This League
(to\
summaxiko\n) again, when
first we talked it over,
It seemed
the only thing to save the state.
Yet when
tey’d got it, they disliked it (h1xqonto). He
Who pushed
it through was forced to cut and run.’
(193-6)
Rogers explains:
‘Praxagora is beyond all doubt referring to the momentous Anti-Spartan League
of B.C. 395, which was inaugurated by the battle of Haliartus and the death of
Lysander, which at once raised Athens from the position of a mere dependency of
Sparta into that of a free and leading Hellenic state; and which in its results
altered the whole current of Hellenic history. Originally struck between Thebes
and Athens, it was quickly joined by Argos, Corinth, and other important states,
and became so powerful that the military leaders proposed at once to march upon
Sparta and “destroy the wasps in their nest.” But in the following summer the
great battle of Corinth resulted in a Lacedaemonian victory; and no contingent
suffered so severely as the Athenian, which was assailed both in front and on
the flank by the Spartan troops. And shortly afterwards Agesilaus won another
victory in the well contested battle of Coronea. No wonder that the Athenians
were disgusted, h1xqonto, at this discomfiture of the League from which they had expected so
much.’
In the
‘Introduction’ to The Ecclesiazusae Rogers says: ‘The play was exhibited
in February or March, B.C. 393, after the reverses sustained by the
Anti-Spartan League, and before the arrival of Conon, and the rebuilding
of the Long Walls of Athens.’ (p. xxi)
3. The second part of the play.
As soon as
the women got the power, they brought in a change so radical and fundamental
that until then people didn’t even think about it. For this the spectators were
prepared by the Chorus admonishing Praxagora:
‘Now waken
your intellect bright,
Your soul
philosophic’ (nu=n dh\ dei= se puknh\n fre/na kai\ filo/sofon e]gei/rein)
(571-2)
‘Now show us
what things you can do!
It is time;
for the populace now
Requires an
original new
Experiment;
only do you
Some novelty
bring from your store
Never spoken
or done before.
The audience
don’t like to be cheated
With humours
too often repeated (misou=si ga\r h2n ta\ palaia\ polla/kij qew&ntai)’
(577-581)
Praxagora
declares:
‘The rule
which I dare to enact and declare,
Is that all
shall be equal, and equally share
All wealth
and enjoyments, nor longer endure
That one
should be rich, and another be poor,
That one
should have acres, far-stretching and wide,
And another not
even enough to provide
Himself with
a grave: that this at his call
Should have
hundreds of servants, and that none at all.
All this I
intend to correct and amend:
Now all of
all blessings shall freely partake,
One life and
one system for all men I make.’
(590-594)
Rogers
notes: ‘This abolition of private property is very prominently put forward by
Plato, though of course in the Republic it applies not to the citizens
generally, but only to one particular class, the fu/lakej, or warders of the state. “Must they
not live in some such fashion as this?” asks Socrates at the end of the third
book (chap. xxii, 416 D), prw~ton me\n ou0si/an kekthme/non mhdemi/an mhde/na
i0di/an, ei0 mh\ pa=sa a0na/gkh: e1peita oi1khsin kai\ tamiei=on mhdeni\ ei]nai
mhde\n toiou=ton, ei0j o4 pa=j o9 boulo/menoj ei1seisi . . . foitw~ntaj de\
ei0j cussi/tia, w#sper e0stratopedeume/nouj, koinh|\ zh=n (‘In the first place, none of them should have
any property of his own beyond what is absolutely necessary; neither should
they have a private house or store closed against any one who has a mind to
enter . .. and they will go to mess and live together like soldiers in a camp.’,
tr. B. Jowett.) And in the twelfth chapter of the fifth book (464 B) he refers
back to this statement, e1fame/n
pou ou1te oi0ki/aj tou/toij (sc. toi=j fu/laci) i0di/aj dei=n ei]nai, ou1te gh=n, ou1te ti kth=ma (‘we were affirming that the guardians were
not to have houses or lands or any other property’, tr. B. Jowett.)
I find particularly telling the
following correspondence between Aristophanes’ Ecclesiazusae and Plato’s
Republic. Praxagora:
‘All women and men will be common and
free,
No marriage or other restraint there
will be.’
In these two lines Rogers very freely
translates Praxagora’s words kai\
tau/taj ga\r koina\j poiw~ toi=j a0ndra/si sugkatakei=sqai kai\ paidopoiei=n
tw~| boulome/nw| (‘and these
[young and beautiful women] I make common to men to sleep with and make
children to whoever wishes’) Rogers comments: ‘With this suggestion we pass
over to another branch of the Platonic scheme, that which is called in the Republic
h9 tw~n gunaikw~n
te kai\ pai/dwn koinwni/a toi=j fu/laci (‘the
community of women and children for the guardians’).
Rogers comments on koina\j: ‘This
is, in truth, the very language of Plato in the fifth book of the Republic.
There will be a law, he says, ta\j
gunai=kaj tau/taj tw~n a0ndrw~n tou/twn pa/saj ei]nai koina\j, i0di/a| de\
mhdeni\ mhdemi/an sunoikei=n: kai\ tou\j pai=daj au] koinou\j, kai\ mh/te gone/a
e1kgonon ei0de/nai to\n au9tou= mh/te pai=da gone/a, chap. vii 457 C. Jowett translates: ‘that the
wives of our guardians are to be common, and their children are to be common,
and no parent is to know his own child, nor any child his parent.”
Blepyros, Praxagoras husband, asks:
‘But how, may I ask, will the children
be known?
And how can a father distinguish his
own?’
Rogers thus versifies Blepyros’ pw~j ou]n ou3twj zw&ntwn h9mw~n
tou\j au9tou= pai=daj e3kastoj e1stai du/natoj diagignw&skein; ‘But how, if we live like this, each of us
will be able to distinguish his own children?’
Praxagora replies:
‘They will never be known: it can
never be told.
All youths will in common be sons of
the old.’
ti/ de\
dei=; pate/raj ga\r a3pantaj tou\j presbute/rouj au9tw~n ei]nai toi=si
xronoi=sin nomiou/sin. ‘What’s the need?
All the older men they will regard as fathers, ascertaining it by time.’
Concerning Blepyros’ pw~j diagignw&skein Rogers notes: ‘Here again we are treading in
the footsteps of the Platonic Socrates. pate/raj de\ kai\ qugate/raj pw~j diagnw&sontai a0llh/lwn; Ou0damw~j,
h2n d’ e0gw&. But in what way, said he, will they distinguish the
respective fathers and daughters? In no way, said I. – Republic, v,
chap. ix. 461C, D.’
At 637-640 Blepyrus asks:
‘At present I own, though a father be
known,
Sons throttle and choke him with
hearty goodwill;
But will they not do it more cheerily
still,
When the sonship is doubtful?’
ou0kou=n
a1gcous’ eu] kai\ xrhstw~j e9ch=j to/te pa/nta
gero/nta
dia\ th\n
a1gnoian, e0pei\ kai\ nu=n gignw&skontej pa/ter’ o1nta
a1gxousi,
ti/ dh=q o3tan a1gnw_j h]|, pw~j ou0 to/te ka0pixesou=ntai;
Paxagora replies:
‘No, certainly not.
For now if a boy should a parent
annoy,
The lads who are near will of course
interfere;
For they may themselves be his
children, I wot [archaic ‘I know’].’
Rogers: ‘Praxagora is still borrowing
the arguments of Plato, who draws precisely the same conclusion from the same
considerations. “A youth will not now,” he says, “strike or insult his senior;
he will be deterred by two considerations, viz. reverence and fear: reverence
lest he should perchance be striking his own parent; and fear lest the bystanders
should come to his victim’s assistance, some as sons, some as brothers, some as
fathers.” de/oj de\
to\ tw~| pa/sxonti tou\j a1llouj bohqei=n, tou\j me\n w(j ui9ei=j, tou\j de\
w(j a0delfou\j, tou\j de\ w(j pate/raj. – Rep. v. chap. xii. 465 B.’
At 657 Praxagora proclaims a0ll’ ou0de\ di/kai e1sontai ‘our people won’t know such a thing as an
action.’ Rogers notes: ‘She is again borrowing from the Republic. di/kai te kai\ e0gklh/mata pro\j
a0llh/louj, says the Platonic Socrates, ou0k oi0xh/setai e0c au0tw~n, w(j
e1poj ei0pei=n, dia\ to\ mhde\n i1dion e0kth=sqai plh\n to\ sw~ma, ta\ d’ a1lla koina/; - V. chap. 12 (464D) Jowett translates: ‘And as
they have nothing but their persons which they can call their own, suits and complaints
will have no existence among them.’
Finally, Blepyrus asks
‘But what is the style of our living
to be?’
Th\n de\
di/aitan ti/na poih/seij
Praxagora replies
‘One common to all, independent and
free,
All bars and partitions for ever
undone,
All private establishments fused into
one.,
koinh\n
pa=sin. to\ ga\r a1stu mi/an oi1khsi/n fhmi poih/sein surrh/caj’ ei0j e4n a3panta, w#ste badi/zein
ei0j a0llh/louj
Rogers comments: ‘This again is based upon
the arrangements which Plato proposed for his warders. oi0ki/aj te kai\ cussi/tia koina\
e1xontej, i0di/a| de\ ou0deno\j ou0de\n toiou=to kekthme/nou. – Book v. chap. vii. (458 C). Jowett translates
‘and they must live in common houses. None of them will have anything specially
his or her own.’
4. Seventh Letter and Republic
In
the first paragraph of his Seventh Letter Plato says that he was ‘about forty years
old’ (sxedo\n
e1th tessara/konta gegonw&j, 324a6) when he first arrived in Sicily.
Then he speaks about political ambitions with which he was preoccupied since
his youth (ne/oj e0gw& pote w@n,
324b8), which promised
to be fulfilled when the aristocrats took the power in their hands, of which
some were his friends (gnw&rimoi), some his relatives (oi0kei=oi). ‘They immediately invited me to join them in their
activities as something congenial to me’ (kai\ dh\ kai\ pareka/loun eu0qu\j w(j
e0pi\ prosh/konta pragmata/ me, 324d2-3). Because of his youth (u9po\ neo/thtoj), Plato ‘thought (w)hqhn) that they would so manage the city as
to bring men from a bad way of life to a good one (au0tou\j e1k
tinoj a0di/kou bi/ou e0pi\ di/kaion tro/pon a1gontaj dioikh/sein th\n po/lin), and so he gave his mind to them
very diligently, to see what they would do’ (au0toi=j sfo/dra prosei=xon to\n
nou=n, ti/ pra/coien, 324d6). And ‘seeing that in reality these
men within a short time showed the previous government as precious as gold’ (kai\ o9rw~n
dh/pou tou\j a1ndraj e0n xro/nw| o0li/gw| xruso\n a0podei/cantaj th\n e1mprosqen
politei/an, 324d7-8), he became indignant (e0dusxe/rana/ te) and withdrew himself from the evils
of those days (kai\ e0mauto\n e0panh/gagon a0po\ tw~n to/te kakw~n, 325a4-5). But in a short time (xro/nw| de\ ou0 pollw~|) the Thirty were overthrown (mete/pese ta\ tw~n
tria/konta/ te) and the
whole form of government that then existed (kai\ pa=sa h9 to/te politei/a). Again, although less urgently (pa/lin de\
bradu/teron me/n), he
was driven nevertheless (ei3lken de/ me o#mwj) by the desire to get involved in the public and political
affairs (h9 peri\ to\ pra/ttein ta\ koina\ kai\ politika\ e0piqumi/a, 325a5-b1). But by some ill-luck again (kata\ de/ tina tu/xhn au]) some men in power (dunasteu/onte/j
tinej) summoned Socrates
before the law-courts (ei0sa/gousin ei0j dikasth/rion) on the charge of impiety (w(j a0sebh=), and others condemned and executed
him (oi9
de\ kateyh/fisan kai\ a0pe/kteinan,
325b5-c2). As he observed
these incidents (skopou=nti dh/ moi tau=ta/ te) and the men engaged in public
affairs (kai\ tou\j a0nqrw&pouj tou\j pra/ttontaj ta\ politika/), the laws too (kai\ tou\j
no/mouj ge) and the
customs (kai\ e1qh), the
more closely he examined them (o3sw| ma=llon diesko/poun) and advanced in life (h9liki/aj te ei0j
to\ pro/sqe prou/bainon),
the more difficult (tosou/tw| xalepw&teron) it seemed to him to handle the public affairs aright
(e0fai/neto
o0rqw~j ei]nai/ moi ta\ poli/tika dioikei=n,
325c5-d1). So that he (teleutw&nta de/, 326a2) was forced to say (le/gein te h9nagka/sqhn, 326a5) that the classes of mankind will have no cessation of evils
(kakw~n
ou]n ou0 lh/cein ta\ a0nqrw&pina ge/nh) until either the class of those who are right and true
philosophers (pri\n a2n h2 to\ tw~n filosofou/ntwn o0rqw~j ge kai\ a0lhqw~j ge/noj) attains political supremacy (ei0j a0rxa\j
e1lqh| ta\j politika/j),
or else the class of those who hold power in the States (h2 to\ tw~n
dunasteuo/ntwn e0n tai=j po/lesin) becomes, by some dispensation of Heaven, really philosophic
(e1k
tinoj moi/raj qei/aj o1ntwj filosofh/sh|,
326a7-b4).
This is the point at which Plato arrived in Republic
v. 473c11-e2. Thanks to Aristophanes’ EKKLHSIAZOUSAI (The Ecclesiazusae), and thanks to B.B.
Rogers’ detailed explanation, we know that this happened in 393 B.C.
In the Seventh Letter Plato says what he did next: ‘With
these thoughts in my mind (Tau/thn dh\ th\n dia/noian e1xwn) I came to Italy and Sicily (ei0j I0tali/an te
kai\ Sikeli/an h]lqon), on
my first visit (o3te prw~ton a0fiko/mhn,
326b5-6).’ In the
opening paragraph of the Seventh Letter Plato says that he was ‘about
forty years old’ when he first arrived in Sicily. This means that Plato was
born in the year 433.
