While
scholars seldom agree on much, one of the few things about which
there is a consensus concerns the pieces of the puzzle that we do
possess. It is widely held that Plato=s texts are the earliest
body of continuous prose philosophical writing to survive intact.
Since none of the ancient authors refers to any Platonic work that
has not come down to us, it appears that, as Richard Kraut has put
it, "we possess every philosophical work he ever composed."[1]
In fact, Plato's writings survived transmission better than the
works of nearly all other ancient authors.[2]
In this case, then, we are not faced with a situation involving lost
works. Instead, we have a circumstance in which a number of
texts that could not have been written by Plato were preserved as
part of the collection. For the most part, these works lack
the artistry and complexity of the dialogues that are considered
genuine. We do not know who wrote them or why they were
included from so early on with Plato's own writings. For even
in antiquity, it was known that certain books were not authentic.[3]
In the first century C.E., or about four hundred years after Plato=s
death, all the writings that make up the canon were published by
Thrasyllus, a Platonist and astrologer from Alexandria. Most
of the medieval manuscripts derive from his collection, which is the
basis for all modern complete editions. Apparently in line
with earlier tradition, Thrasyllus organized the works credited to
Plato into nine tetraologies -- groups of four books -- consisting of
thirty-five dialogues in which the thirteen Letters were counted as
one work, thereby making a total of thirty-six. He also
included in his edition an appendix containing nine works that were
passed down with the collection but which he regarded as spurious.
To each dialogue, Thrasyllus affixed a double title. One was
frequently taken from the name of the interlocutor, the other from
the topic (for example, the Euthyphro was also entitled, On
Holiness, the Statesman was called On Monarchy, and the Timaeus was
known as On Nature). Apparently, these topics were popular
with many ancient writers. Lists of books credited to other
authors and recorded by Diogenes Laertius or known from other
sources indicates that a number of different philosophers all wrote
works with these same titles.[4]
Since Thrasyllus included all the books considered authentic plus
many whose legitimacy was disputed (for a total of forty-five
works), and since none of the ancient authors refers to any Platonic
work that we do not possess, it appears that everything Plato ever
published has survived.[5]
In
piecing together the puzzle of this philosophy, then, we are faced
with a most unusual situation. Numerous works in the corpus
cannot have been Plato's own. Hence, one subject of perennial
debate in Platonic scholarship has been the question of drawing the
line between spurious works and texts whose authority seems
indisputable. Since the spuria frequently contain
philosophical notions clearly at odds with the major texts, a
solution to inconsistencies in supposedly authentic dialogues has
often been to contest their legitimacy. At one point in the
mid-nineteenth century, all but nine dialogues were declared
apocryphal.[6]
Today, the pendulum seems to have swung in the opposite direction.
Strong arguments have been advanced for reinstating a great deal of
the corpus, including works long regarded as having been written by
other ancient authors.[7]
Thus, not only is Plato significant as the author of the first
comprehensive collection of prose philosophy to be put "on
paper,"
he is also unique among authors of the classical age in that all of
the written works credited to him by the ancients have been
preserved. One of the difficulties in reconstructing Plato's
philosophy, then, is that we are dealing with a puzzle that contains
extra pieces.
[1]
Kraut, "Introduction to the Study of Plato," p. 20; also Cooper
and Hutchinson, eds., Plato: Complete Works, p. x; Giovanni
Reale, A History of Ancient Philosophy: II. Plato and Aristotle,
ed. and trans., John R. Catan (Albany: State University of New
York Press, 1990), p. 8; John Burnet, Greek Philosophy, I:
Thales to Plato (London, 1914), pp. 220-221; A. E. Taylor,
Plato: The Man and His Work (New York, 1927), p. 503; G.C.
Field, Plato and his Contemporaries (New York, 1930) p. 38; Léon
Robin, Platon (Paris, 1935), p. 13.
[2]Wincenty
Lutoslawski recites the historical factors which he believed led
to the accurate preservation of Plato's texts. Plato's
Academy continued for nearly a millennium after his death, under
the direction of a "golden chain" of scholarchs until the school
was closed following an order from the emperor Justinian in 529
C.E. That there was a Platonic school permanently fixed in
one place over centuries "explains the preservation of his works
in so remarkable a state of correctness and purity." The
probability that the school was a kind of religious
association gave it a stability greater than if it was simply an
educational institution. These associations were respected
by the Romans and lasted until Plato's writings were deposited
in Christian monasteries. According to Lutoslawski,
this continuity of religious protection was unusual for authors
of the fourth century B.C. Plato's school continued for
more than nine hundred years, outliving those of Aristotle and
Epicurus. In addition, during the fourth and fifth
centuries C.E., there was an improvement of writing materials
and the papyrus rolls were copied onto parchment. Whereas
the papyri have been preserved only in fragments, the texts
copied onto parchment have come down to us intact. Since
Plato's works were copied onto parchment while his Academy was
still in existence, Lutoslawski reasoned, they are more likely
to be accurate than texts of other writers whose works were not
continually read. He continued: "We also know that many
leaders of Plato's Academy spent their lives writing
commentaries on the dialogues. Such commentaries as
those of Proclus . . . show great care for the correctness of
the text." In contrast with many other Greek works which
came through Alexandria and Rome, indications of the copyists
show that the oldest of Plato's manuscripts were written in
Greece, thereby increasing the probability of their descent from
the copies of the Academy. Further, while other ancient
writers were despised by the early Christian clergy, Plato was
admired by St. Augustine and many others. The monks who
copied the works of Plato in the ninth century transcribed with
care, knowing that Plato was held in esteem by the greatest
authorities of the Church. "These unique circumstances
explain the survival of Plato's text in a state more correct and
authentic than that of contemporary poets or orators, and they
further explain why not one of the works written by Plato has
perished. There is no valid testimony as to the existence
of a single work by Plato not contained in our collection"
[Wincenty Lutoslawski, The Origin and Growth of Plato's Logic (London, New
York and Bombay, Longmans, Green, and Co., 1897), pp. 4-7].
See also George Grote, Plato and the Other Companions of
Socrates, Vol. I. (London: John Murray, 1867), especially
Chapter 4, "Platonic Canon, as Recognized by Thrasyllus,@" and
Chapter 5, "Platonic Canon, as Appreciated and Modified by
Modern Critics." In a more recent study, D.H. Fowler found
the evidence for this view to be "either lacking or
distorted,"
and "the whole line of interpretation unfounded" [The
Mathematics of Plato's Academy: A New Reconstruction (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1987), pp. 197-8].
[3]A
list of the dialogues regarded as genuine and dubious by the
ancient world is recorded in Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent
Philosophers, Vol. I, trans., R.D. Hicks (1925; rpt. Cambridge,
MA and London, England: Harvard University Press, LCL 184,
1991), pp. 331-332. For background concerning the
authentic and in authentic works, see J.A. Philip, "The
Platonic Corpus," Phoenix 24: 296-308, as well as Thomas L.
Pangle, ed., The Roots of Political Philosophy: Ten Forgotten
Socratic Dialogues (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press,
1987), pp. 1-18.
[4]To
give some selected examples listed by Diogenes, to Heraclitus is
attributed a composition, On Nature. Dialogues entitled
the Republic and Of Law were written by Zeno.
Of Beauty,
On Law, Of Wisdom and On Knowing were written by Crito, a
student of Socrates. Demetrius of Phalerum wrote a Defense
of Socrates. Another friend of Socrates, Simon, wrote Of
the Good, On the Just, Of Virtue, On Law, On Philosophy and On
Knowledge. Simmias wrote On Wisdom, On Philosophy, and
On
the Soul. Democritus composed On Nature and Of
Reason.
Among the works attributed to Protagoras were Of Virtues and
Of
the State. Dialogues with the titles, Of Justice, On
Philosophy, Of the Statesman, the Sophist, Of the Soul, Of the
Good, On Nature, and the Laws were written by Aristotle.
Antisthenes, a pupil of the sophist Gorgias is credited with Of
the Good, Of Law, Of Nature, and Of Kingship. Diogenes,
Antisthenes friend and a critic of Plato, wrote a Republic,
On Virtue, and On Good. Of Laws, Sophisms, On Nature, On the
Soul, Of Kingship, and Of Piety were authored by
Aristotle's
pupil, Theophrastus. His successor, Strato, wrote Of
Kingship, Of Justice, Of the Good, On the Philosopher-King, and
Of the Soul. Speusippus, Plato's nephew and successor at
the Academy wrote On Justice, On Legislation, and On
Philosophy.
His student, Xenocrates, is said to have written works with the
titles, On the Soul, On Nature, On Holiness, and That Virtue Can
Be Taught. Cleanthes wrote the Statesman, Of
Knowledge,
and Of Kingship. His follower is credited with writing a
Republic, and the works: On Justice, Of Virtue and
Of the Good.
To Epicurus is attributed the titles: Of Piety, Of Justice and
the Other Virtues, and Of Kingship. As far as I know, only
one commentator has noted that all the ancients gave the same
titles to their works. Gilbert Ryle mentioned a comment in
Isocrates to the effect that orators chose their themes from an
authorized list, and wonders if competitors at festivals chose
themes for their dialogues out of such a list as well [Plato's Progress (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966),
p. 35].
[5]John
M. Cooper and D.S. Hutchinson, eds., Plato: Complete Works
(Hackett Publishing Company: Indianapolis/Cambridge, 1997), pp.
viii-ix.
[6]Alan
C. Bowen, "On Interpreting Plato," Platonic Writings, Platonic
Readings, ed., Charles L. Griswold, Jr. (New York: Routledge,
Chapman & Hall, 1988), p. 52; and Cooper and Hutchinson,
Plato: Complete Works, pp. x-xi.
