Objev, informace, a Platón na české Wikipedii

Před necelým rokem, 29. března 2022 (viz „Socrates – Meletus and Anytus“, příspěvek publikovaný na mém blogu 1. dubna 2022), jsem poslal sedmnácti klasicistům krátký e-mail pod hlavičkou ‚a discovery, an information‘: ‚Allow me to inform you that in Diogenes Laertius I discovered a passage according to which Anytus was bent on prosecuting Socrates, incensed by the mockery and disparagement to which Socrates subjected him in Plato's Meno. See 'Socrates – Meletus and Anytus' on my blog, published on April 1.’(Dovolte, abych Vás informoval, že jsem v Diogenovi Laertském objevil pasáž, podle které se Anytus rozhodl soudně stíhat Sokrata, popuzen zesměšněním, jemuž ho Sokrates vystavil v Platónově Menonu. Viz „Socrates – Meletus a Anytus“ na mém blogu z 1. dubna.‘

V příspěvku, na který odkazuji, danou pasáž cituji v anglickém překladu od R. D. Hickse publikovaném v Loeb Classical Library vydání Diogena Laertského:

‚Diogenes gives examples of Socrates’ wisdom, which he ends, at the end of II. 37, with a testimony concerning it, which the Pythian priestess gave to Chaerephon (emarturȇthȇ Chairephȏnti): ‘Of all men living Socrates most wise’ (andrȏn hapantȏn Sȏkratȇs sophȏtatos). Then comes II. 38: ‘For this he was most envied (aph’ hou dȇ kai ephthonȇthȇ malista); and especially because (kai dȇ kai hoti) he would take to task (diȇlenche) those who thought highly (tous mega phronountas) of themselves (eph’ heautois), proving them to be fools (hȏs anoȇtous), as to be sure he treated Anytus (kathaper amelei kai ton Anuton), according to Plato’s Meno (hȏs kai en tȏi Platȏnos esti Menȏni). For Anytus could not endure to be ridiculed by Socrates (houtos gar ou pherȏn ton hupo Sȏkratous chleuasmon), and so in the first place (prȏton men) stirred up (epȇleipsen) against him (autȏi|) Aristophanes and his friends (tous peri Aristophanȇn); then afterwards (epeita) he helped to persuade Meletus (kai Melȇton sunepeisen) to indict him (apenenkasthai kat’ autou) on a charge of impiety (graphȇn asebeias) and corrupting the youth (kai tȏn neȏn diaphthoras).’

Překládám: ‚Diogenes uvádí příklady Sokratovy moudrosti, jež končí na závěr paragrafu II. 37 svědectvím Delfské kněžny Pýthie, které dala Chairefontovi: ‚Sokrates je ze všech mužů nejmoudřejší.‘ Pak přichází paragraf II. 38: ‚Pro to mu bylo nejvíce záviděno, zejména pak pro to, že vyvracel ty, kteří si o sobě moc myslili, a dokazoval jim, že nemají rozum, jak to učinil zejména s Anytem, jak to je v Platonově Menonu. Protože tento nesnesl Sokratův posměch a nejprve proti němu popouzel ty kolem Aristofana [tedy pisatele komedií], a pak spolu-přesvědčil Meleta, aby ho obžaloval z bezbožnosti a z kažení mládeže.‘

Aspoň někteří z těch sedmnácti, které jsem na tuto pasáž upozornil, si zřejmě uvědomili, že tato pasáž jasně prokazuje, že dialog Menon byl napsán před Sokratovou smrtí. Proč ono neurčité ‚aspoň někteří‘? Na mail, v němž jsem o svém objevu oněch sedmnáct klasicistů informoval, jsem nedostal žádnou odpověď. Nicméně, během času se z příspěvků na Googlu, věnovaných Platonovi, vytratila jakákoli zmínka o tom, kdy Platon začal své dialogy psát. Nikde jsem nenašel žádnou zmínku o té pasáži z Diogena Laertského, tedy II. 37-38. Samozřejmě by mě zajímalo, jak těch sedmnáct – respektive někteří z těch sedmnácti – vysvětlili těm ostatním platonistům, jak se stalo, že ona tak důležitá zmínka o tom, že Platon začal své dialogy psát až po Sokratově smrti, z příspěvků o Platonovi vymizela.

A tak mě dnes napadlo podívat se na Platona v české Wikipedii. Ku poctě českých znalců Platona třeba říci, že tak jako v anglicky psaných příspěvcích zmínka o tom, že Platon začal své dialogy psát až po Sokratově smrti, z příspěvku o Platonovi na české Wikipedii vymizela. Z českého příspěvku je však zřejmé, že nikdo české odborníky na Platona neupozornil na to, proč bylo nutné, aby ta zmínka z příspěvků o Platonovi zmizela. To je zřejmé ze závěrečné části věnované chronologii dialogů. Tuto část otevírá devět ‚raných dialogů‘, pak na řadu přicházejí dialogy ‚přechodné‘ k dialogům ‚středním‘. Tato skupina dialogů ‚středních‘ se skládá ze tří dialogů: Gorgias, Protagoras, Menon.

Socrates and Anaxagoras

In the preceding post I discussed how Socrates exculpated Meno from any real effect on sentencing him to death. As Socrates says at the trial: ‘I think, so far as Meletus is concerned, I have even now been acquitted, and not merely acquitted, but anyone can see that, if Anytus had not come forward to accuse me, he would have been fined a thousand drachmas for not receiving a fifth part of the vote.’ (Pl. Ap. 36a-b)

Socrates asked Meletus whether in his view he did not believe in gods at all and was teaching this disbelief to other people. Meletus replied that this is what he was saying most decidedly. In the preceding post I omitted Socrates’ immediate response:

Socrates: ‘You amaze me, Meletus! Why do you say this? Do I not even believe that the sun or yet the moon are gods, as the rest of mankind do?’

Meletus: ‘No, by Zeus, judges, since he says that the sun is a stone and the moon earth.’

Socrates: ‘Do you think you are accusing Anaxagoras, my dear Meletus, and do you so despise these gentlemen and think they are so unversed in letters as not to know, that the books of Anaxagoras the Clazomenian are full of such utterances? And forsooth the youth learn these doctrines from me, which they can buy sometimes (if the price is high – ei panu pollou) for a drachma in the orchestra and laugh at Socrates, if he pretends they are his own, especially when they are so absurd (allȏs te kai houtȏs atopa onta)! But for heaven’s sake, do you think this of me, that I do not believe there is any god?’

Meletus: ‘No, by Zeus, you don’t, not in the least (Ou mentoi ma dia oud’ hopȏstioun).’ Pl.Ap. 26d1-e5).

In the Apology Socrates did not explain why he believed sun and moon were gods. He simply says that he believes sun and moon are gods ‘as the rest of mankind do (hȏsper hoi alloi anthrȏpoi). Yet when Meletus justified his assertion by saying that ‘Socrates says that the sun is a stone and the moon earth’, Socrates, after identifying such view as that of Anaxagoras, called that view ‘patently absurd’ (houtȏs atopa onta). We may suppose that if anybody from ‘the rest of mankind’ were asked why they believed sun and moon were gods, would be hard pressed to answer it, let alone explain why the views of Anaxagoras on this matter were patently absurd. In Socrates’ defence speech there was no time and place for it. But Plato does not face these questions, concerning Socrates, in any of his other works. Socrates and early Plato appeared to have different views concerning Anaxagoras. Socrates’ negative view, so strongly expressed in the Apology, is in dissonance with Plato’s unbounded admiration of Anaxagoras expressed in the Phaedrus (269e-270a).

If we want to find why Socrates considered Anaxagoras’ views patently absurd, we must turn to Xenophon’s Memorabilia:

‘In general, with regard to the phenomena of the heavens, he deprecated curiosity to learn how the deity contrives them. He said that he who meddles with these matters runs the risk of losing his sanity as completely as Anaxagoras, who took an insane pride in his explanation of the divine machinery.

For that sage, in declaring the sun to be fire, ignored the facts that man can look at fire without inconvenience, but cannot gaze steadily at the sun; that their skin is blackened by the sun’s rays, but not by the fire. Further, he ignored the fact that sunlight is essential to the health of all vegetation, whereas if anything is heated by the fire it withers. Again, when he pronounced the sun to be a red-hot stone, he ignored the fact that a stone in fire neither glows nor can resist it long, whereas the sun shines with unequalled brilliance for ever.’ (Xenophon, Memorabilia IV.vii.6-7, tr. E. C. Marchant)

Socrates knew more about sun than Anaxagoras, yet he was well aware that he did not really know how sun works, what makes it be what it is.

Socrates’ post mortem concerns

In the ‘Life of Socrates’ by Diogenes Laertius we can read: ‘he would take to task those who thought highly of themselves, proving them to be fools, as to be sure he treated Anytus, according to Plato’s Meno. For Anytus could not endure being ridiculed by Socrates, and so in the first place he stirred up against him Aristophanes and his friends; then afterwards he helped to persuade Meletus to indict him on a charge of impiety and corrupting the youth,’ (Diog. Laert. II. 38)

Socrates believed that the Athenians would soon repent their sentencing him to death. After the trial, he said to those, who voted for his death sentence: ‘Shortly, men of Athens, you will be given the name and blame (onoma hexete kai aitian) of having killed Socrates (hȏs Sȏkratȇ apektonate).’ (Pl. Ap. 38c) Thus reviled, the Athenians. would seek a scape goat. There were two obvious candidates for this: Plato, the author of the Meno, and Meletus, who brought the indictment. I shall argue that Socrates did not want this to happen and in his Defence speech did his best to prevent it. Concerning Meletus, the task was simple; Socrates achieved it within the framework of his interrogation of him.

Socrates asked Meletus: ‘How do you say, Meletus, that I corrupt the youth? Or is it evident, according to the indictment you brought, that it is by teaching them not to believe in the gods the state believes in, but in other new spiritual beings? Do you not say that it is by teaching this that I corrupt them?’

Meletus: ‘Very decidedly that is what I say’ (Panu men oun sphodra tauta legȏ).

Socrates: ‘Then, Meletus, for the sake of these very gods about whom our speech now is, speak still more clearly both to me and to these gentlemen. For I am unable to understand whether you say that I teach there are some gods, and myself then believe that there are some gods, and am not altogether godless and am not a wrongdoer in that way, that these, however, are not the gods whom the state believes in, but others, and this is what you accuse me for, that I believe in others; or you say that I myself do not believe in gods at all and that I teach this unbelief to other people.’

Meletus: ‘That is what I say, that you do not believe in gods at all.’ (Pl. Ap.26b-c)

Socrates: ‘This man appears to me, men of Athens, to be very violent (panu einai hubristȇs) and unrestrained (kai akolastos), and actually to have brought this indictment in a spirit of violence and unrestraint and rashness (kai atechnȏs tȇn graphȇn tautȇn hubrei tini kai akolasiai kai neotȇti gegraphthai). For he seems, as it were by composing a puzzle to be making a test: “Will Socrates, the wise man, recognize that I am joking and contradicting myself, or shall I deceive him and the others who hear me?” For he appears to me to contradict himself in his speech, as if he were to say, “Socrates is a wrongdoer (adikei Sȏkratȇs), because he does not believe in gods (theous ou nomizȏn), but does believe in gods (alla theous nomizȏn).’ And yet this is the conduct of a jester (kaitoi touto esti paizontos).’ (Pl. Ap. 26e-27a)

Who has read this piece of Socrates’ Defence speech can hardly believe that it was on account of Meletus that the Athenians sentenced Socrates to death; the ‘name and blame’ concerning it lies fairly and squarely with Anytus. This is not a conjecture; Socrates says, reflecting on his death sentence: ‘I think, so far as Meletus is concerned, I have even now been acquitted, and not merely acquitted, but anyone can see that, if Anytus had not come forward to accuse me, he would have been fined a thousand drachmas for not receiving a fifth part of the vote.’ (Pl. Ap. 36a-b) (Translation from Plato’s Apology H. N. Fowler)

Už ani do svého blogu nemohu psát, aniž by mi do toho nebylo zasahováno

 

Gratulaci Davidu Šťáhlavskému jsem si předem připravil ve „Wordu“, na svůj blog jsem tedy dal připravenou kopii. Na závěr textu jsem chtěl dodat, že mi můj computer, tedy počítač s ním normálně pracuji, nedovolil mou gratulaci Šťáhlavskému mailem odeslat, že tedy stále trvá zásah do mého počítače, jemuž jsem věnoval několik předchozích příspěvků na mém blogu. Za užívání Internetu a tedy i mailu si platím, a už z tohoto hlediska je třeba se pozastavit nad tím, jak takovéto zásahy hrubě narušují samotné principy svobodného podnikání.

Gratulace Davidu Šťáhlavskému k osmi letům v Českém rozhlase

 Vážený pane Šťáhlavský,

gratuluji Vám k osmi letům v Českém rozhlase.

Dovolte, abych Vás při této příležitosti informoval o věci z hlediska platonistů zcela nehorázné a neodpustitelné. Nehorázné a neodpustitelné bylo jistě již to, že jsem po návštěvě Dr Kennyho v mém pražském filosofickém semináři dospěl k názoru, že má cenu a je nezbytné se pokusit Platona nahlédnout na podkladě zprávy v jeho životopise od Diogena Laertského, že dialog Faidros byl prvním dialogem, který Platon napsal. Všichni se mě od toho snažili odradit, marně. Argumenty, kterými operovali, měly svou váhu. V roce 1913 významný německý badatel v díle Aus Platos Werdezeit prokázal, že Platon začal své dialogy psát až po smrti Sokrata. Pochybuji, že někdo ze současných platonistů Pohlenze četl, všichni si však byli jisti tím, že Faidros je dílem vyzrálého Platona. Vždyť v tom dialogu je přednesena Platonova teorie idejí, k nimž Platon přišel až po návštěvě pythagorejských filozofů v Italii, kam se odebral, když mu bylo čtyřicet.

Před nějakými třemi lety jsem se dal do četby Xenofontovy Anabáze. Nebylo to poprvé, co jsem Anabázi četl, a hned od první četby mi bylo jasné, že Platon nemohl dialog Menon napsat poté, co se do Řecka dostala zpráva o tom, jak se Menon dopustil hanebné zrady na řeckých žoldnéřích, kteří pod Kyrovým vedením táhli přes Malou Asii do Persie, kde Kyros hodlal odstranit svého bratra Artaxerxe z vedení perské říše, a stát se tak sám Velkým Králem. K té zradě došlo poté, co Kyros byl v bitvě zabit.

Portrét Menona podaný v dialogu je, celkově vzato, velice pozitivní. Je nemyslitelné, že by byl Platon mohl dialog Menon napsat poté, co se zpráva o Menonově zradě dostala do Řecka. Věnoval jsem té věci řadu příspěvků na svém blogu, to však bylo, jako když člověk hází hrách na zeď.

Před nějakými dvěma či třemi měsíci mě však napadlo se podívat, zda Diogenes Laertský ve svém životopise Sokrata něco nenapsal o Anytovi, předním athénském politikovi, jehož přičiněním soud Sokrata odsoudil k smrti. Diogena Laertského vydal Harvard University Press, takže je tam slušný rejstřík. A tak jsem se pod kolonkou „Anytus, accuser of Socrates“ dočetl:

„he [i.e. Socrates] would take to task those who thought highly of themselves, proving them to be fools, as to be sure he treated Anytus, according to Plato’s Meno. For Anytus could not endure to be ridiculed by Socrates, and so in the first place stirred up against him Aristophanes and his friends; then afterwards he helped to persuade Meletus to indict him on a charge of impiety and corrupting the youth.“ (Diog. Laert. II. 38)

Upozornil jsem na tuto pasáž několik klasicistů v Oxfordu. Výsledek? Z příspěvků na internetu Platona se týkajících zmizelo podání, že Platon své dialogy začal psát až po Sokratově smrti; nikde však žádný odkaz na danou pasáž v Diogenovi Laertském, žádná zmínka o tom, kdy Platon začal své dialogy psát.

Vážený pane Šťáhlavský, ještě jednou Vám gratuluji k osmi letům v Českém rozhlase.

S přáním všeho dobrého,

Julius Tomin

My computer does not allow me to send any emails

I wanted to send a friend a simple message:

"Good morning,

I am trying to send an e-mail to my daughter, but the computer does not allow me to scroll down to the 'Send' button. Would you come and look at it?

Julius"

The same problem; the computer does not allow me to scroll down to the 'Send' button.

My computer still does not allow me to send the e-mail to my daughter

 Now it is Wednesday February 8, 05:030 in the morning; my computer still does not allow me to send the 'I am better' e-mail to my daughter. 

My computer still does not allow me to send an e-mail to my daughter

I went to bed, slept for an hour. When I woke up, I read a bit of Bacchae, lines 847-861. It's a gripping bit; Dionysus tells the Chorus what he is to do with Pentheus, the Lord of Thebes, who is determined to exterminate Dionysus, and Dionysius' orgiastic religion in Thebes. I wanted to put here the translation of these lines, for Ian Johnston prefaces his translation with the words 'Students, teachers, artists, and members of the general public may download and distribute this document without permission and without charge.' But nothing with Euripides' Bacchae is simple.

Johnston translates the introductory line 'My women! that man’s now entangled in our net.' But instead of referring to it as line 848 - as it stands in the Oxford edition - he refers to it as line 1040. Johnston explains the discrepancy in his short introduction: 'Note that in the following text the normal line numbers refer to this text [i.e. to the translation] and the ones in square brackets refer to the lines in the Greek text.' As it happens 'the normal line numbers' appear in the text only episodically - thus in our short piece the normal line number reappears once again, this time it is number 1050. The lines in square brackets appear twice as well, notably [850] and [860]. It may be aesthetically pleasing, but one must go to the Oxford text to realise that line indicated as 1040 corresponds to the line [848], and that the line indicated as 1050 corresponds to the line [855] in the original. Furthermore, the line indicated by Johnston as [860] - 'son of Zeus, born in full divinity,' makes the desired sense only as part of lines [859-861]: 'He’ll come to acknowledge Dionysus, son of Zeus, born in full divinity, most fearful and yet most kind to men.'

Since similar problems bedevil every line of this short piece of Bacchae, after long and painful deliberation I have decided to forget about it.

I began my deliberations on this piece of Bacchae at 8.45, now it's 12.23. From time to time I tried again and again to send my e-mail, to no avail.

My computer does not allow me to send an e-mail to my daughter

I wrote a letter to my daughter. Subject: 'I am better'. On December 3, I had a serious cycling accident. Earlier this day I went for a mini cycling trip. The two days before I went for my first mini walks. 

My daughter mailed me, she asked, how I am. The e-mail was fine, only the two attached photos were very blurred. Miraculously after all the 'palaver' described in my preceding post, the attached photos began to be clear and fine.

I would like my daughter to know that I am fine. So in the last few hours I tried to send her my 'I am better' e-mail again and again. To no avail.

It's time to go to bed. After I get some sleep, I shall try again.

My computer is again interfered with

 The interference began on 4 February. I wanted to send the text of my article on Plato's Meno to a few friends. The computer did not allow me to screw down to the 'Send' button. I tried again and again; I tried to forward the original letter, which forms the basis of the article on the blog. The same problem. And so I tried again and again; I felt like a fool, but I believed that it was not just a problem with my computer. So, in the end, I decided to write about it on my blog. Miraculously, my computer began to work flawlessly.

This time I have no time to repeat the whole procedure. That's why I decided to write 'My computer is again interfered with'. I hope the interference will stop. I have better things to do. At the moment I read Euripides' Bacchae.

On the dating of the Meno

 

I read the whole of Plato's Meno again. I think I've told you about the piece from Diogenes' "Life of Socrates", which makes it abundantly clear that Plato wrote and published (circulated a few copies) the Meno prior to Socrates' trial and death:

"Socrates would take to task those who thought highly of themselves, proving them to be fools, as to be sure he treated Anytus, according to Plato's Meno. For Anytus could not endure to be ridiculed by Socrates, and so he helped to persuade Meletus to indict him on a charge of impiety and corrupting of youth." (Diog. Laert. II. 38). Anytus was a prominent Athenian politician, and in the Meno Socrates exposed to ridicule his political credentials. 

As we know from Plato's Euthyphro and Apology, Socrates' official accuser was Meletus, a nincompoop, who could never have won the case against Socrates if it were not for Anytus. After the court found Socrates guilty, as charged, Socrates commented on the verdict: 'Now, it seems, if only thirty votes had been cast the other way, I should have been acquitted. And so, I think, as far as Meletus is concerned, I have even now been acquitted, but anyone can see that, if Anytus had not come forward to accuse me, he would have been fined a thousand drachmas for not receiving a fifth part of the votes.' 

You might ask, why does Socrates bother with Meletus at this stage; what's the point? For an answer to this question we must go to Plato's Euthyphro. Plato wrote it before there was any indication that Anytus would decide to support Meletus' accusation at openly at the court. In the Euthyphro Socrates exposes to ridicule Meno's accusation. But when at the court Anytus backed the accusation with all his political power, the matter became serious, and Socrates believed that Athenians would soon repent and turn against Socrates' accusers. It was likely, that the main fault would be found with Meletus, the official accuser, and Socrates didn't want that. So in his interrogation of Meletus at the court he showed that Meletus had nothing to do with the actual accusation.

Socrates therefore quotes the accusation: 'Socrates is a wrongdoer because he corrupts the youth and does not believe in the gods the state believes in, but in other new spiritual beings.' (Ap. 24b8-c1)  (I'll drop Socrates' lengthy investigation concerning his alleged 'corruption of the youth', and come to the accusation concerning gods. Socrates says to Meletus: 'I am unable to understand whether you say that I teach that there are some gods, and myself then believe that there are some gods, and am not altogether godless [atheos in the original, that's how we've got our atheist], or you say that I do not myself believe in gods at all  and that I  teach this disbelief to other people. Meletus replies: 'That is what I say, that you do not believe in gods at all,' Socrates then exposes to light the accusation and Meletus' actual belief concerning him: 'Meletus appears to me to contradict himself, as if he were to say, "Socrates is a wrongdoer, because he does not believe in gods, but does believe in gods."

It's time for me to try and get some sleep.

 

PS

Until recently you could read in Google articles on Plato that Plato began to write his dialogues after Socrates died; for a German scholar Max Pohlenz "proved" this to be the case in his work Aus Platos Werdezeit, published in 1913 . In a number of articles on my blog I argued that Plato must have written the Meno prior to Socrates' death. For from Xenophon's Anabasis it is clear that Meno heinously betrayed the army of Greek mercenaries, who went to Asia minor in support of Cyrus. This happened more than a year prior to Socrates' trial and death, and must have been known in Greece soon after it happened, i.e. more than a year prior to Socrates' trial and death. In the Meno Plato ends with a very positive picture of Meno; I argued that Plato could not have depicted Meno as he did in the Meno; to no avail (there is a good Czech saying "Jako když házíš hrách na zeď" "as if you were throwing peas on a wall"). Then it occurred to me to look at Diogenes Laertius, to see if there is any mentioning of Anytus. To my great pleasure, I found the lines I quoted to you above (Diog. Laert. II. 38). So I informed about it some 17 or 18 classicists at Oxford. The result? Any mentioning concerning the time Plato began to write his dialogues disappeared from the Google articles on Plato. But nowhere any reference to Diog. Laert. II. 38, nowhere any reference to the fact that Plato began to write his dialogues during Socrates' lifetime, which would necessitate a complete rethink of Plato.