the chronology of the platonic dialogues

The Chronology of the Platonic Dialogues. BY

Sven LiSnborg.

I .

The German scholar, Hermann Usener, claims for the dialogue Phaedrus that it yields a completely different aspect of the thinker’s inner history, according as it is placed at the beginning, in the middle or at the end of Plato’s literary career. These words, which are particularly applicable to the Phaedrus, can also be applied with more or less aptitude to most of Plato’s dialogues, and it is for this reason that no Platonic scholar can overlook the problem of the dialogues’ dating: it comes to the fore, whatever the detail in Plato’s life and thought the subject of study may be.

It is, therefore, all the more unfortunate that only in the case of a few of Plato’s dialogues (as, for example, in the Menexenus and the Theaetetus) do we possess any data, to help us to estimate the time they were written, while the majority leave us with no indication as to the date of composition. From this follows that Platonic scholars often date the writings on very subjective grounds, according as these conform with their general outlook on the philosopher’s development, and they therefore arrive at very different conclusions. Thus - to take only one example - the dialogue Phaedrus, just mentioned, has been considered by some scholars to be the first of Plato’s dialogues, while others place it as the eighteenth of the series, or even later.

In this welter of subjective conjecture, it came to many as a verit- able revelation when, about seventy years ago, a method was discovered by which it seemed possible to determine the sequence of the writings on purely objective grounds. This was the 1 i n g u i s- t i c s t a t i s t i c s m e t h o d . In 1867, the British classical

142 SVEN LONBORG

scholar, Lewis Campbell, had published an edition of two dialogues of Plato, the Sophistes and the Politicus, in which he concentrated his attention on a number of linguistic characteristics which distingu- ished these two dialogues from most of the others, but which were also largely common to the dialogues Timaeus, Crit ias, Philebus and the Laws.

Prom this Campbell drew the conclusion that these dialogues which, linguistically considered, formed a group for themselves, must belong to one and the same period of Plato’s life, and lie went on to state that this group was composed during I’lato’s old age. Working from the same assumption, he came to the further conclusion that the dialogues next in order to those of the group written in Plato’s old age were the Republic, I’heaetetus, Phaedrus, and Par- menides.

In his contemporary work, ))Die attische Beredsamkeit )), the German scholar Blass had also examined Plato’s style, arid come to more or less the same conclusions. He showed, for example, that Plato in his later works clearly attempted to avoid the h i a t u s . This applies especially to Campbell’s first group, namely the dialogues Politicus, Sophistes, Philebus, Timaezls, Crit ias and the Laws. In these dialogues, the statistics show an average of only four hiatuses to every page - O.GI in the Sofihistes and 5.55 in the Laws - while in the remaining dialogues the average reaches thirty-three - 23.9 in the Phaedrus, and 45.97 in the Lysis.

Campbell’s studies were ignored in Germany for a long time, but having once been brought to the public notice, the linguistic statistics have been pursued with great interest by the German scholars, who hoped that this method would finally enable them to establish a definite chronology for the dialogues. Constantin Ritter has demonstrated the universal applicability of the method by an ana- logous examination of Goethe’s style during three different periods of the poet’s life. Thus he has examined texts from the years 1770- 177.5, from 1794-1804 and from 1812-1827, and has shown by means of statistics that certain words and constructions common to the first period, appeared more and more seldom in the second, to dis- appear in the third, and how, on the other hand, words and construc-

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE PLATONIC DIALOGUES I43

tions which were not to be found in the first period, appear from time to time in the second and come completely into their own in the third.’)

It scarcely requires illustration that the linguistic statistics are an important aid to determining which of two dialogues was written first. On the other hand, i t is quite certain that this method is not infallible as a universal one, and indeed has often put scholars on a false scent. 1 am going to try to survey its limitations from one particular point of view, and that a very important one.

Among the specially characteristic expressions in the dialogues attributed to Plato’s old age is the one z i plju - an affirmative answer signifying ’Yes, why not?’ ’Yes, of course’. Dittenberger, in his researches into the extant fragments of the mimes of Epichar- mus and Sophron, has tried to prove that this expression was a Syracusan colloquialism, and from this he concludes that Plato did not start using it in his works till after his visit to Syracuse.2) To many Platonic scholars, the expression has become almost a &eit- fossilo for fixing the chronology of the dialogues.

The statistics show us that z l pljv is used especially often in the dialogues just enumerated. Thus, i t appears 34 times in the Republic, 11 times in the Phaedrus, 13 times in the Theaetetm, G times in the Parmenides, 12 times in the Soflhistes, 20 times in the Politicus, 2G times in the Philebus, and 48 times in the Laws.

l) Ritter, Platon, I, 232 ff . a) W . Dittenberger, Spachl iche Kriterien fur die Chronoloyie der platonischen

Dialoge. Hermes 1881, p. 334 ff: r) - - dMd - p+~ - - findet sich spora- disch bei vielen Dichtern und Prosaikern. Desto seltener aber ist das als Bejahungsformel gebrauchte t L ,u 6 v. Unzweifelhaft entstammt dies der Con- versationssprache; aber ebenso unzweifelhaft nicht der attrschen. Dafiir biirgt das ganzliche Fehlen der fur den belebten Dialog so sehr geeigneten Wendung sowohl in der attischen Komodie als bei den Rednern. Uberhaupt findet die- selbe sich ausser bei Platon und an ganz wenigen, noch dazu kritisch un- sicheren Stellen des Aeschylus und Sophokles nur in den Fragmenten der sicilischen Schrif tsteller Epicharmos und Sophron. - Also aus der Conversa- tionssprache der sicilischen Dorier stammt jene Wendung. - Mit dieser Nachweisung diirfte wohl jeder Zweifel daran, dass wirklich Platons Aufenthalt in Sicilien die Grenze zwischen den Dialogen der alteren und der jiingeren Gruppe bildet, beseitigt sein. ))

I44 SVEN LONBORG

According to these statistics, then, these dialogues belong to the two final old age groups. But, according to the same statistics, neither the Timaeus nor the Critias can be included in either of the groups since the expression in question is nowhere to be found in these dialogues. The same is also true of the dialogue Symposium.

Now it so happens, however, that the composition of these dialogues - and I refer especially to the Symposium where, as is known, the conversation does not take the form of questions and answers, but of separate speeches - is such as almost entirely to exclude the insertion of a phrase of this kind, and with this in mind it becomes clear that the absence of ti psv cannot have the slightest significance in the determination of the dialogues’ date of composition.

Thus there are many things to be considered before drawing any conclusions from the linguistic statistics, otherwise one may be led astray. Let us assume, for example, that we know nothing of Victor Rydberg’s development, merely having before us his works. A linguistic statistician would easily put his finger on a number of characteristic dissimilarities between those writings dating from before his purism, and the others, and from this he would probably draw the conclusion that the more purist the style the later the date of composition. For the statistics could scarcely show that Rydberg’s most radical purism was confined to a particular period of his activity, and that after this period he reverted to the more usual forms of speech.

We have no guarantee that Plato’s linguistic development was any more consistent. And there is consequently nothing impossible nor even improbable in the supposition that his style was most strongly influenced by the Syracusan element in the decade when D i o n almost uninterruptedly attended the Academy and Plato was consciously or unconsciously affected by his friend’s mode of speech. In any case, the fact remains that the h i a t u s is to be found ten times as often in the Laws as in the Sophistes, but it is impossible from this to prove that the Laws were written long before the Sophistes. The explanation need not necessarily be that the Laws may not have received their final linguistic revision from Plato

.


himself. It is perfectly possible that Plato, while writing this dialogue, no longer looked on the hiatus as that blot on the beauty of literature that he had apparently considered it while writing the Sophistes.1)

I have wanted to make these preliminary remarks on the scope of the linguistic statistics method, since the conclusions I have reached on the question of the dating of the Platonic dialogues are, in some cases, not in accordance with the conclusions reached by the linguistic statisticians. I can only touch on two of the most important dating problems. The first is the position of the dialogue Menexenus in Plato’s works. The second is the order in which the dialogues Phaedrzts and Symposium stand to one another.

11.

It is generally accepted that Plato began writing his dialogues while Socrates was still alive, a conception that we find as early as the Antique time. Diogenes Laertius narrates how Socrates once read Plato’s dialogue Lysis, and was prompted thereby to remark on the foolish tales that Plato had made about him.2) Lately, this conception of Plato’s early Socratic authorship has found sup- porters among Platonic scholars with otherwise very different aspects. I refer to Ritter, Wilamowitz and, here in Sweden, Hans Larsson.

There are two main reasons that usualIy go to support this concep-

l) 1; the dialogues Sophistes and Politicus it is not Socrates but an Elean guest who leads the discourse. In my book Filosofen p. 310 (Dike och Eros 111) I tried t o show that Plato in this Elean stranger wanted to introduce to us D i o n. If this is so, the most obvious presumption must be that Plato, working on these dialogues, consciously or unconsciously reflected not only Dion’s thoughts but also his way of expression.

That Plato - as many think - means himself by the Mean stranger is in any case impossible, This is already obvious in the extraordinarily polite reception that is given to the stranger on his first appearance in the Sophistes. There is no reason whatever to presume that Plato would have been guilty of such bad taste as to flatter himself in this way.

a) Diogenes 1,aertius 111, 35: qaoi Sd xai Zwxedrqv oixodaavta rbv A ~ U L V drvayivhoxovtog IIAcitwvos, u*Hed&Lg, &insit, 6s noALd pov xataysdSEtai d VEavlrrXog 06ros. 8

I 0

146 SVEN LBNBORG

tion. The first is that dialogues such as the Protagoras have such a sanguine and lighthearted tone that it is not easy to believe that they could have been composed after a catastrophe such as Socrates’ death must have been to Plato. The other is that the Apology, which cannot have been written long after Socrates’ death, does not read as the work of a beginner, but as that of a finished artist, and it can also be added that Plato’s literary powers can hardly have lain dormant during the whole of his youth.

As far as the first reason is concerned, it must be admitted that it might equally well hold good in the case of the Symposium, the Phaedrus and the Menexenus, since they, too, contain nothing to suggest a tragic frame of mind in their author.

As to the second reason, it should be remembered that Plato’s uninterrupted military service during these years supplied him with an occupation leaving little time and energy over for literary activity. Speaking from his own experience, Plato says that a great deal of physical exercise and a great deal of sleep are serious checks to mental activity. It must further be remembered that we have Plato’s own word for it that during Socrates’ life, he looked on the statesman’s career as his calling, and did not decide to devote himself to philosophy until later. If he did happen to have any time over for writing in his youth, it is certain that it was not Socratic dialogues that he wrote, but plays. As is well known, Diogenes Laertius narrates how Plato once intended entering his name at the archon eponymous as a competitor for the tragedy prize, and that not until then did he show his play to Socrates for his opinion. The conversation resulted in Plato’s rendering up his play, not to the archon but to the sacrificial fire on Dionysus’ altar by the theatre, with the words:

Hasten, Hephaestus, and come, for Plato has business with thee.‘)

More trenchant reasons, therefore, seem to me to be called for, if we are to make probable the great improbability that Plato began to write dialogues in which Socrates appears as a speaker, while the latter was still walking the streets of Athens.

(11. 18,392). l) Diog. Laert. 111, 5: “Hqa~ats , ngdyol’ r5& IIAcizov vv’ t~ mro X(ITI&L.”

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE PLATONIC DIA~oGUES I47

It seems to me most probable that it was the unjust sentence of Socrates that first put the pen into Plato’s hand, and that Plato’s first Socratic work is the Apology. Next in order to this work comes the Crito. It seems likely that these were both written not long after Socrates’ death, when Plato, together with other of Socrates’ friends and pupils, had taken refuge with Euclides in Megara.

Both these dialogues differ in many ways from all the other Pla- tonic dialogues. They admittedly contain various philosophical matters, but it can escape no reader’s notice that the author’s main aim is to prove that Socrates was innocent of everything of which he had been accused, and for which he had been sentenced. This interest was so fervent in the author that it even made his presentation of Socrates onesided, if not misleading. This applies particularly to his defence in face of Meletus’ accusation that Socra- tes did not believe in the gods of the state, but introduced new dae- monic powers. This accusation was, indeed, not without grounds; in later years Plato himself - especially in the dialogue Eutyphron - has not scrupled to assert that Socrates used to level sharp criticism a t the myths of the gods, which he found objectionable - that is to say, he criticised the people’s faith, and thus the gods of the state. But in the Apology, Plato abstains from any answer whatsoever to Meletus’ charge, merely proving that Socrates believed in gods. He does not say directly that Socrates believed in gods in exactly the same way as did all the other pious Athenians, but he does not dis- abuse the reader of this impression.

A rather similar treatment is accorded to the defence of the usual charge that Socrates had been teacher to Alcibiades and Critias, and that he had criticised Athens’ constitution and thereby inspired the young men with contempt for the laws of the state. Plato does not give a direct answer to this charge, either. He does not touch on Socrates’ usual criticism of the system of electing officials by drawing lots, nor does he refer to Socrates’ relationship to Critias in any other way than by the observation that he, Socrates, stood in direct opposition to the thirty, and that he would in all likelihood have lost his life, if the thirty had been granted a longer reign.

The author’s main trend is the same in the dialogue Crito as in

SVEN LONBORG 148

the Apology. He wants to show that Socrates had so great a respect for the laws of Athens that when his friends urged him to flee from prison and had already prepared everything for flight, Socrates refused point-blank to go with them, suffering death rather than come into conflict with those laws, and this in spite of the fact that he was innocent of the crime for which he was doomed to die. Thus, nothing that Plato says about Socrates in this dialogue is untrue, but his presentation is none the less intended to give the reader an inaccurate interpretation of Socrates. In his other dialogues, Plato has never made any attempt to whitewash Socrates in the way he now does in the Apology and the Crito. In those dialogues he clearly works from the viewpoint that if Socrates were guilty according to the laws of Athens, then the shame of it should be laid not at his door, but a t the door of Athens, for having such unjust laws. Nor does he avoid to mention in these dialogues Socrates’ friendly connections with Alcibiades, Critias and Charmides. It looks rather as though he thought to gain by presenting in as intimate a light as possible this relationship of Socrates to these nobles, so hated of the democrats.

In the Apology, moreover, certain words occur which clearly in- dicate that Plato had not previously occupied himself with any Socratic writings. I am referring to the words put into Socrates’ mouth, on the consequences of the unjust sentence: ,Hereafter shall not only a single man but m a n y rise up and call you to trial and account, men whom I have hitherto restrained, without your noticing that I did so. They shall be all the more troublesome, being younger, and you shall be more than ever provokedo. Here then, is an emphatic statement that the young men whom the author had in mind, and amongst whom he naturally first and foremost counted himself, have not come forward with any social criticism during Socrates’ lifetime. ‘

The two dialogues in question differ in content from the remaining Platonic dialogues in the fact that the author’s concern is not the propagation of some Socratic philosophy; the interest of first importance to him here is to prove that Socrates’ is innocent. And they are different from the other dialogues in f o r m. Strictly speaking,

’


they are not dialogues at all, but rather m o n o 1 o g u e s. In the case of the Apology, this form corresponds to the nature of the piece, but this is not so in the case of the Crito, where the subject does not in itself preclude a more complete carrying out of the dialogue form. In spite of the stirring contents of both the works, they still give the impression that Plato has not yet found his form, nor is he altogether clear of the nature of his mission. All that we can gather is that, by some means or other, he wishes to continue Socrates’ work of bringing the Athenians to trial and account.

When, then, does Plato’s actual S o c r a t i c authorship commence? When does he find that form of letting a ’rejuvenated and refined Socrates’ appear as the mouthpiece of the author, a form which he subsequently uses with such mastery? In my opinion, the dialogue Menexenus throws a great deal of light on this question, all the more valuable since this dialogue belongs to the few dialogues that can be dated. It is written after the Peace of Antalcidas 38716, when Plato had just returned to Athens after his journey to Italy and Sicily.

Socrates is talking to Menexenus - this takes place after the Peace of Antal- cidas, twelve years after Socrates’ own death! Socrates speaks of those who are to be chosen to deliver the speech over the fallen, and what such a speech ought to contain. And he says that he has learnt a suitable speech of’ Aspasia, which he proceeds to deliver, describing not only the earlier history of Athens, but also the events taking place in the twelve years following his own death. Now, this is a pure farce, and nobody reading the dialogue Menexems can have the slightest doubt that the Socrates who appears in this wise, is not the ’real’ Socrates but a literary creation of Plato’s. In my opinion, it is here that we first meet the ’young and refined Socrates’ who, according to Plato’s own words, is the author of all his works?) But it is of particular importance to observe that, in the Menexenus, this literary Socrates is not yet perfected. He has, admittedly, the

The situation in the dialogue is probably unique.

1.50 SVEN ~ O N B O R G

outer forms, the way Of speaking and joking, that he possesses in the later dialogues, but he has not yet the breath of life, the living soul, that we meet with in these latter works. And it seems to me quite inconceivable that, after having created so completely living and individual a Socrates as the one we meet in the Protagoras or the Lys is or, indeed, any of the other dialogues, Plato should have been able to write a dialogue presenting this Socrates in the farcial light in which he is made to appear in the Menexenus.

Furthermore, in the words put into Socrates' mouth in the Menexenus, the politician Plato still overshadows the philosopher, and this seems to me to lend additional support to the supposition that this dialogue was composed earlier than the other Socratic dialogues.

The Menexenus can also give us valuable enlightenment on the clgvelopment of Plato's literary form. We have already maintained that the Apology and the Crito are not dialogues in the real sense of the word. In this one respect, and in spite of the decisive dissimilarities of content and feeling, Menexenus joins the ranks rather of these earlier writings of Plato than those of the other Socratic dialogues. Here also, the main contents take the form of a speech, a monologue, preceded and followed by several short dialogues. When Cicero read the Menexenus, he did not have the impression of reading a dialogue; he speaks of it as a speech - o r a t i o - in contra- distinction to the rest of Plato's d i a 1 o g o i.

Finally, I should like to refer to another circumstance, worthy of note in connection with the Menexenus. Which public had Plato in mind, when he wrote it? When he wrote the Apology and the Crito, he obviously wished to gain the ear of the entire educated public in Athens, both Socrates' friends and his enemies, these last not least, in order to tell them the truth about the unjust sentence.

In this respect, too, the political satire known as the Menexenus has something in common with the Crito and the Apology: it is aimed at everyone in Athens who has any interest in the political questions of the day. But in all the other dialogues, Plato is evidently writing for a public of real listeners, for people who are accustomed to dis- cussing philosophical problems. One is therefore inclined to assume that the dialogues mentioned, the Apology, the Crito and the Mene-

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE PLATONIC DIALOGUES 1.51

xenus, were written before the Academy period, and that the rest of the dialogues have as their backgromd those discussions and conversations with like minds, for which the work a t the Academy was famed; conversations with people who, like Plato, in a lesser or greater degree devoted themselves to what Plato calls the true philosophy. During this time, Plato must surely have felt the need of the formulation and detailed development in writing of those questions on which the discussions were centred, and naturally, a t the same time he wished to achieve a propaganda for his Socratic philosophy against the other intellectual currents in Athens.

If this is true, one is thereby forced to the conclusion that i t was not until the middle of the second decade after Socrates’ death, when Plato was already over forty, that he began his real activity as an author, in which he feels it his mission to abandon politics and continue Socrates’ work in spirit and truth; to teach and compose in Socrates’ spirit - in short, to devote himself to the true philosophy. It is not until then that he had fully learnt that truth: that it was his mission to forsake current politics and devote himself to more vital matters. The political satire in the Menexenus bears witness to the fact that this truth was very difficult to learn.

111.

It has already been said that Platonic scholars have come to very different conclusions as to the dialogue Phaedrus. It has been a question of dispute from antiquity onwards.

Thus we read in Diogenes Laertius that the Phaedrus is assumed to be Plato’s first work, and he himself opines that the work strikes him as immature in certain respects. Cicero takes a completely different view of the matter. Writing of the Isocrates episode at the end of the Phaedrus, he says that ’Socrates says this about the youth- ful Isocrates, but Plato writes it of him in advanced years’. Thus, in Cicero’s opinion, the Phaedrus is no first work but on the contrary belongs to a later period of Plato’s life. These words are, without doubt, an expression not only of the academic tradition of Cicero’s own time, but also of an opinion which held good during the whole

1.52 SVEN LONBORG

of antiquity, whereas Diogenes Laertius’ words - as, amongst others, Ritter has shown - are clearly due to a pure misunder- standing.

In later years, Diogenes Laertius’ assumption of the Phaedrus’ early date of composition has been accepted by Schleiermacher in particular and his successors - Ribbing and Dalsjo here in Sweden. On the other hand, most of the linguistic scholars, and many other scholars, have come to the same conclusion as Cicero - namely that the dialogue belongs to a much later period: 370 at the earliest, according to Ritter, and there is a general tendency to place it even later than that.

But I shall not dwell on this question here. I will, instead, pass on to another, similarly disputed, question, the question of the relationship between the Phaedrus and the Symposium.

These two dialogues are very closely connected with one another. They both deal with Eros, but they handle the subject in a funda- mentally different way. Therefore it is particularly important to the knowledge of Plato’s Eros philosophy to know which was written last, since this would embody the final stage of his philosophy.

I have already shown that the linguistic statisticians cannot pro- vide any watertight means to the solution of this problem. But it seems to me that this solution could be reached through a comparison of the speeches on the Eros which Plato puts into the mouths of the two friends Socrates and Phaedrus both in the dialogue Phaedrus, and in the Symposium.

We may well assume that if Plato in one dialogue has let Socrates and Phaedrus speak of Eros, and then writes another dialogue, in which he lets the very same persons speak of the same subject, but now express quite different opinions from those in the earlier dialogue, he must in some way make i t intelligible to the reader how it is that they now speak differently. Plat0 cannot altogether forget what he wrote previously. To him, too, apply Mephistopheles’ words:

Am Ende hangen wir doch ab von Kreaturen, die wir machten.


Everyone will remember the scene of this dialogue, where Socrates meets Phaedrus outside one of the gates of the town, to the east of Athens, and Phaedrus, full of enthusiasm, tells Socrates that he has just heard an extraordinarily inspired speech by Lysias, a speech which he must now repeat to Socrates. This speech argues that a youth should give his favour rather to one who does not love him than to one who does. The train of thought in the speech is that the lover is importunate and jealous, and thus, as in many other ways, is troublesome to the beloved.

A discussion follows, in which Socrates delivers a speech showing that the Eros Lysias speaks of is nothing but lust and carnal desire, and thus a shameful slander of the real Eros, who is a great g0d.l) No one who has been touched by this divinity can harbour jealousy or any other petty emotion towards his beloved, nor will he feel any wish to harm in any way; he can have no greater desire than that the beloved shall become as good, as godlike, as possible.

He realises that his own speech has been a sin against Eros, whose divine nature he had not before apprehended, and he joyfully accepts Socrates’ interpretation of Eros as a great god.

This is the same Phaedrus who, in the Symposittm, begins the long series of speeches on Eros. This he does by reproducing in exalted terminology the very wisdom that he learnt of Socrates in the dialogue Phaedrus: namely, that Eros is a great god, glorious beyond measure, that he is the oldest of the gods and the one who most enables men to gain virtue and felicity, not ‘only in life but also after death. In direct contradiction of what had inspired his admiration in Lysias’ speech, he maintains that there is no greater good fortune for a youth than to gain a lover. Neither aristocratic

l) Socrates. Well, do you not believe that Eros is the son of Aphrodite and is a god?

Phaedrus. So it is said. Socrates.

We will begin with the Phaedrus.

Phaedrus is convinced by Socrates’ words.

Yes, but not by Lysias, nor by your speech which was spoken by you through my mouth that you bewitched. If Eros is, as indeed he is, a god or something divine, he can be nothing evil. (ei G ’ b t ~ v , &uxee o& Zan, 6& T L &.GOY d y E ~ w g , od&v dv xaxbv etq) . Phaedms, 242 E.

I54 SVEN LONBORG

connections, nor good looks, nor riches nor any other quality can lead and guide the man who will live nobly and well so perfectly as can love: shame for that which is shameful, and eager striving after the beautiful and good.

The speaker immediately before Socrates, Agathon, agrees enthu- siastically with Phaedrus’ eulogy of Eros. He only differs from him in holding Eros to be the youngest of the gods, since the quarrels between the gods, narrated in fairy-tales, could never have come about if Eros had been there with them, for had this been so, love and peace would have reigned among them as now, when Eros is their king. Agathon therefore agrees with Phaedrus that Eros is a great god - indeed, he is the greatest of all the gods.

Then Socrates speaks. He begins with the statement that he himself once held the same view of Eros as that which Phaedrus and Agathon had just given, as a g o d - we remember the speech in the dialogue Phaedrus. But he has now renounced his old conception of Eros as a god, however, for he has learnt differently of the prophetess Diotima - has learnt that Eros is not a god but a great daemon, and from this statement Socrates goes on to unfold his new view of Eros.

If one adopts this order of the four Eros speeches and consequently assumes that the dialogue Phaedrzcs was written before the Sympo- sium, one will find a natural and artistic continuity.

But how will it be affected if we assume that the Symposium was written before the Phaedrus? The four Eros speeches then fall into the following order:

I) Phaedrus speaks of Eros as a great and glorious god, and deve- lops the theme that there is no greater happiness than for two people to be united through this god.

2) Socrates says that he himself once thought the same: that Eros was a god, but that he has renounced his old opinion, after learning from Diotima that Eros is not a god a t all, but a great daemon.

3) Phaedrus, who in his speech in the Symposium glorified Eros in such exalted language, now disparages him, and warns every young man against any person who may love him. 4) Socrates thereupon teaches Phaedrus that E r o s i s a g o d


-the same teaching which,in the Symposium, he says he once believed but had since rejected on learning from Diotima that Eros was no god but a daemon. Thus, Socrates has entirely forgotten all about this new teaching and gone back to his old mistaken ideas, which he now tries to press upon Phaedrus. And the latter now receives the teaching of Eros’ divinity as something quite new, without the least recollection of the enthusiasm and discursiveness with which he had expounded precisely the same theme in the Symposium.

In my opinion, i t is quite inconceivable that any intelligent writer whosoever, still less a Plato, could have concocted anything so pre- posterous. It is therefore impossible to conclude anything except that the Symposium was written after the Phaedrus, and that it contained to a certain extent a revision of the opinion on Eros which Plato puts into Socrates’ mouth in the latter dia1ogue.l)

If this is the case, it is also unlikely that the Symposium was written i m m e d i a t e I y after the Phaedrus. A period of years must divide them, since i t seems that Plato felt himself, as i t were, prompted to resume the Eros theme, and to handle i t from other points of view than those put forward in the Phaedrus.

I n this way, an examination of the four Eros speeches leads to a result of great importance to the knowledge of Plato’s latter activity. The dialogue Phaedrus and the Seventh Epistle of Plato are so in- timately related that it is not possible to imagine any very consi- derable length of time between them. The Seventh EpistZe is, as we

l) See P. Crain, D e ratione quce inter Platonis Phczdrum Symposiumque in- tercedat. Commentationes philologae Ienenses VII, 2, p. 45: R- - Pagina enim 242 D Socrates Phaedrum evocat, u t concedat Amorem deum esse omnes consentire, ac paulo infra diserte asseverat se ipsum illud probare. Ex eo autem, quod Amorem deum divinamque esse vim amandi inter omnes constet, amorem efficit non licere malum existimari. Cui concluso non repugnant, q u c postea sunt in Symposio prsecepta. Sin autem P h d r u s esset post Symposium scrip- tus, quis quaeso potest sibi persuadere Platonem ea opinione, quam in Symposio vehementissime refellit, in Phzedro iterum fuisse argumenti loco usurum? Itaque hac quoque consideratione Phaedrum ante Symposium confectum esse videtur comprobari. I) Cp W. Christ, Platonische Studicn, 472: >) - - wahrend doch selbst ein Blinder, wenn ihm nicht durch grammatische Statistik der Blick getriibt wird, sehen muss, dass das Symposion erst nach dem Phaidros geschrieben sein kann. D

156 ' SVEN LONBORG

know, written after Dion's death in 353. We have therefore reason for placing the Phaedrus not so very many years before this date. It further follows, therefore, that the Symposium must have appeared some years later, and this dialogue thus belongs to some part of the last decade of Plato's life.

This conclusion may astonish those who have grown accustomed to the idea that Plato lost his mental agility and powers of creation in his old age. This is, however, an altogether arbitrary supposition, and is utterly contradicted by the contents and form of his Efiistles, which show him to be in possession of an entirely undiminished vita- lity. Incidentally, these Epistles can also more precisely than the Phaedrus enlighten us on the question of the dating of the Symposium. We remember how, in the Seventh Epistle, Plato takes up the question of the innermost aim of his philosophy, a question which was ani- matedly discussed among the educated public both a t Athens and a t Syracuse. Referring to the many authors who had published works on his philosophy, Plato says that none of those who had written on this subject could have presented the true aim of his work. The simple reason for this was that he himself had never written about it, and never would. It is in this context that his well-known words are found: that the quintessence of philosophy is something that cannot be expressed by words like other disciplines. But when a man has devoted himself to this study in familiar concourse with others also engaged in the same striving, it sometimes happens that his soul becomes illuminated as by the light from a flying spark, a light which from then on lives and shines by its own strength.')

1) iqtdv ydg oir8apBs kativ 6s i i l la pabrjpata, d l l ' kx nollqs a v v o v a I a s yiyvop.4vqs neei td n@iy,ua adtd xal to6 a v 5 fj v E'Ealrpvqq, olov dYzd nu&- nq64aavtog ktap86v rpa?q, kv tfi y v x ~ Y E V ~ ~ E V O V a d d Javtd +Sq tedrpei. - Ei 6C poi erpaivsao yeantdu 6' ixavms elvai nedq 706s noMo3g xai &(i, ti 706-

tow xciMiov EnCneaxt' Eiv ?jpuiv Zv t@ ,!lip 4 t o i s T E aivt9ehnoiai pCya d'rpelos yedyac xai ZT)V rpZ;aw eia rpms to i s nc7aiv neoayayeiv. Ep. V I I , 341 C. D.

The words used here, ovvovala and avcfv, signify, as elsewhere in Plato's works, not only familiarity and living in conjunction with the thing itself, but also that this familiarity is attained in company with like-minded persons. Thus the words have the same meaning as the word avprpdoaorpdw eniployed by Aristotle.


Thus in this E@stle, Plato says that he has never written on the innermost part of his philosophy. But it is very interesting to see how the Epistle goes on. He writes: It would naturally be of the greatest value if I myself, in writing or in words, could express this to the public. For it is not possible to imagine a more glorious task than to leave to literature something so valuable, something that would shed a light over existence for all mankind. But I do not believe that any such attempt would prove of benefit to mankind, except for those who, instigated by a mere hint, are able to find their way to the truth alone. For the others, such an attempt would merely result in some of them becoming contemptous of philosophy, and others swollen with pride, imagining themselves now initiated into the highest and absolute truth.l)

Thus, the seventh Epistle shows us that Plato had not yet for- mulated in words his conception of the innermost part of philosophy, but that on the other hand he did not consider it impossible to give to the public, in words or writing, a rendering of this highest part in such a way as to impart to the few that hint, which would help them to find their way to the truth by themselves. The difficulty was to find some way of preventing the others from becoming con- temptuous of philosophy, or swollen with pride.

When, therefore, Plato takes this view of his mission, there cannot be the slightest doubt that he - when he was finally a t peace from the Syracusan storms - must have made every effort to achieve it, considering it, as he does, to be the most beautiful of all. It is this effort which, in my opinion, is to be found embodied in the Symposium.

This aim of Plato's can be read as clearly as is possible in Diotima's statement that she is now going to initiate Socrates into the highest stage of the mystery, T& 6.4 zktea xai i n o n t ~ x d . (210 A.) It is in the Symposiztm that Plato gives to the few that hint which is to help

158 SVEN L ~ N B O R G

them to reach the truth for themselves, while in his ironical fashion he a t the same time repulses the 'uneducated and uninitiated', who would either have contempt for philosophy or become swollen with pride at being initiated into the highest and absolute truth. Here they are told that what the Symposium relates of the innermost part of philosophy has nothing a t all to do with Plato and his philosophy. Neither Plato nor Socrates are speaking here. The speaker is the strange, half mad Apollodoros, who tells Plato's brother, Glauco, a story of the story another fanatic is said to have told of what Socrates is said to have told about a woman fanatic!

Thus, in the Eros philosophy of the Symposium we have, according to Plato's own words, his philosophy's innermost goal as clearly expressed as it was possible for him to express it. And Plato also asserts in this dialogue that it was not until old age that this highest mysterys was revealed to him. sThe eyes of the s o d do not begin to see clearly until the physical eye has lost its sharpness)), to1

t f js diavoias &pis 6 e p a i 6@ PAimiv Btav +j t6v dppdtwv t+js &xpfjs a4yeiv 2nixeiefi - thus he makes Socrates say to Alcibiades in this dialogue (Symp. 219 A.) This is an almost word-for-word rendering of what the Athenian says in one part of the Laws, that a man's vision of what is best is feeblest in youth, and sharpest when he is old: Neds pdv y d ~ &v ztis d v 6 e w n o ~ t d r toraCta dpfihhata a$& ah&'o'e@, y k ~ w v dd dtdtata (Leges, 715 D).

The part played by Alcibiades in the Symposium, where he is given the esteemed task of describing Socrates' inner self, could perhaps be taken as a further indication of the dialogue's late date of composition. It is known that the young Aristotle during his Academic period wrote dialogues in the spirit of Plato; dialogues of which only fragments have been preserved. In one of these dialogues, the Protrefiticus, Aristotle presents the beautiful Alcibiades with these words: ))He who with Lynceus' eye could see into this so highly admired body, would there behold nothing but a picture hideous and repugnant I).

The question now arises: Is it conceivable that the young Aristotle during his time at the Academy as a pupil of Plato, for whom he had a boundless admiration, would ever have written these words if he


had read the Symposium? Is it conceivable that he would have pro- duced such an uncalled-for criticism of Plato’s dialogue? It seems to me more likely that Aristotle had not read the Symposium when he wrote the Protrepticus. Or, in other words, the Symposium had not appeared a t the time when Aristotle wrote his dialogue. And it seems also conceivable that Plato’s presentation of Alcibiades in Symposium was to a certain extent a friendly deprecation of the way Aristotle had treated him in the Protrepticus.

* * *

If my theory on the order of the Platonic dialogues, advanced above, is correct, then certain fundamental points in the usual aspect of the process of Plato’s philosophical development must undergo a complete revision, and this not least in the question of Plato’s ’theory of ideas’, which was plainly given definitive formulation in the Symposium.

The multitude of ideas which we meet with in the philosopher’s other writings have disappeared in this dialogue. They have all been fused into one single idea: absolute Beauty. In questions of ’the world of ideas’, the aging Plato has reached the same conclusion as the aging Goethe: ))Die Idee ist ewig und einzig; dass wir den Plural brauchen ist nicht wohlgethan )).

This single idea, absolute Beauty, is for Diotima, for the aged Plato something that can neither be derived from sense impressions nor described, nor can it form the subject of any kind of knowledge. But it can be experienced. A man may be privileged to be inspired with it, to be united (&~rdvtos) with it. The initiate in this mystery, as Aristotle subsequently expresses Plato’s view, does not learn something (pa8ei-v) but instead is inspired with something (na8Gv), brought into a certain state.

And so the path to this inspiration and union with absolute Beauty is in the Symposium no longer called episteme or dianoia, and not dialectic, but Eros.

Thus Plato’s ’theory of ideas’ resolves itself into ’mysticism’, but, it must be noticed, it is a mysticism that has nothing to do with

160 SVEN WNBORG

Neoplatonic ecstasy or with static contemplation. The inspiration with the absolute Beauty admittedly comes suddenly (EEahpvqc), but the experience is only the induction to an active and praise- worthy life - nay, more, such a life were not possible without this inspiration.

In this inspiration with the divine, this vita nuova, the aged Plat0 also describes the true immortality - an immortality that has nothing at all to do with time or space1).

l) The question of Plato’s old-age-philosophy is found more closely de- veloped in my book Filosofen p. 516-543 and in Platons Evos, passim. It is obvious that to Plato the word i)philosopherr gradually acquired a more and more practical aspect and that d i a 1 e c t i c s had lost some of its former significance for him. This is excellently demonstrated in his letter to Aristodoros, where he writes athat firmness, faith, and integrity constitute true philosophy 1):

qlav (EP. X , 358 C . ) td yde pLpalov xa6 ntmdv xal Jylks, Z06TO Zyh qqp1 Elvat t?jv (iilqetv?jv qaiiooo-

the chronology of the platonic dialogues

Documents