First Alcibiades

Part 1.

Alcibiades 1.

By Plato.

Translated by Benjamin Joyt.

Certainly not Plato, whose earlier writings are separated from his later ones by as wide an interval of philosophical speculation as that which separates his later writings from Aristotle.

The dialogues which have been translated in the first appendix, and which appear to have the next claim to genuineness among the Platonic writings, are the Lesser Hippias, the Menexenus or Funeral Oration, the First Alcibiades.

Of these, the Lesser Hippias and the Funeral Oration are cited by Aristotle, the first in the Metaphysics, the latter in the Rhetoric.

Neither of them are expressly attributed to Plato, but in his citation of both of them he seems to be referring to passages in the extant dialogues.

The funeral oration of Pericles is expressly mentioned in the Phaedrus, and this may have suggested the subject, in the same manner that the Cleitophon appears to be suggested by the slight mention of Cleitophon and his attachment to Thrasymachus in The Republic, and the Theages by the mention of Theages in The Apology and Republic, or as the second Alcibiades seems to be founded upon the text of Xenophon, Memorabilia.

A similar taste for parody appears not only in the Phaedrus, but in the Protagoras, in the Symposium, and to a certain extent in the Parmenides.

To these two doubtful writings of Plato, I have added the first Alcibiades, which, of all the disputed dialogues of Plato, has the greatest merit, and is somewhat longer than any of them, though not verified by the testimony of Aristotle, and in many respects at variance with the Symposium in the description of the relations of Socrates and Alcibiades.

Like the lesser Hippias and the Menexenus, it is to be compared to the earlier writings of Plato.

Or who can be expected to think in the same manner during a period of authorship extending over above fifty years, in an age of great intellectual activity, as well as of political and literary transition? Certainly not Plato, whose earlier writings are separated from his later ones by as wide an interval of philosophical speculation as that which separates his later writings from Aristotle.

The dialogues which have been translated in the first appendix, and which appear to have the next claim to genuineness among the Platonic writings, are The Lesser Hippias, The Menexenus, or Funeral Oration, The First Alcibiades.

Of these, The Lesser Hippias and The Funeral Oration are cited by Aristotle, the first in the Metaphysics, the latter in the Rhetoric.

Neither of them are expressly attributed to Plato, but in his citation of both of them, he seems to be referring to passages in the extant dialogues.

The funeral oration of Pericles is expressly mentioned in the Phaedrus, and this may have suggested the subject, in the same manner that the Cleitophon appears to be suggested by the slight mention of Cleitophon and his attachment to Thrasymachus in the Republic, and the Theages by the mention of Theages in the Apology and Republic, or as the second Alcibiades seems to be founded upon the text of Xenophon, Memorabilia.

A similar taste for parody appears not only in the Phaedrus, but in the Protagoras, in the Symposium, and to a certain extent in the Parmenides.

To these two doubtful writings of Plato, I have added the first Alcibiades, which, of all the disputed dialogues of Plato, has the greatest merit, and is somewhat longer than any of them, though not verified by the testimony of Aristotle, and in many respects at variance with the Symposium in the description of the relations of Socrates and Alcibiades.

Like the lesser Hippias and the Menexenus, it is to be compared to the earlier writings of Plato.

on the whole not a twentieth part of the writings which pass under the name of plato if we exclude the works rejected by the ancients themselves and two or three other plausible inventions can be fairly doubted by those who are willing to allow that a considerable change and growth may have taken place in his philosophy That twentieth debatable portion scarcely in any degree affects our judgment of Plato, either as a thinker or a writer, and though suggesting some interesting questions to the scholar and critic, is of little importance to the general reader.

Alcibiades I Introduction The first Alcibiades is a conversation between Socrates and Alcibiades.

socrates is represented in the character which he attributes to himself in the apology of a know-nothing who detects the conceit of knowledge in others the two have met already in the protagoras and in the symposium in the latter dialogue as in this the relation between them is that of a lover and his beloved but the narrative of their loves is told differently in different places for in the symposium alcibiades is depicted as the impassioned but rejected lover here as coldly receiving the advances of socrates

who

for the best of purposes lies in wait for the aspiring and ambitious youth alcibiades who is described as a very young man is about to enter on public life having an inordinate opinion of himself and an extravagant ambition socrates who knows what is in man astonishes him by a revelation of his designs but has he the knowledge which is necessary for carrying them out he is going to persuade the athenians about what not about any particular art, but about politics, when to fight and when to make peace.

Now, men should fight and make peace on just grounds, and therefore the question of justice and injustice must enter into peace and war, and he who advises the Athenians must know the difference between them.

Does Alcibiades know? If he does, he must either have been taught by some master or or he must have discovered the nature of them himself if he has had a master socrates would like to be informed who he is that he may go and learn of him also alcibiades admits that he has never learned then has he inquired for himself he may have if he was ever aware of a time when he was ignorant but he never was ignorant for when he played with other boys at dice he charged them with cheating and this implied a knowledge of just and unjust according to his own explanation he had learned of the multitude why he asks should he not learn of them the nature of justice as he has learned the greek language of them to this socrates answers that they can teach greek but they cannot teach justice for they are agreed about the one but they are not agreed about the other and therefore alcibiades who has admitted that if he knows he must either have learned from a master or have discovered for himself the nature of justice is convicted out of his own mouth rejoins that the athenians debate not about what is just but about what is expedient and he asserts that the two principles of justice and expediency are opposed socrates by a series of questions compels him to admit that the just and the expedient coincide alcibiades is thus reduced to the humiliating conclusion that he knows nothing of politics even if as he says they are concerned with the expedient however he is no worse than other athenian statesmen and he will not need training for others are as ignorant as he is he is reminded that he has to contend not only with his own countrymen but with their enemies, with the Spartan kings and with the great king of Persia, and he can only attain this higher aim of ambition by the assistance of Socrates.

Not that Socrates himself professes to have attained the truth, but the questions which he asks bring others to a knowledge of themselves, and this is the first step in the practice of virtue.

They may have been written in youth, or possibly, like the works of some painters, may be partly or wholly the compositions of pupils, or they may have been the writings of some contemporary transferred by accident to the more celebrated name of Plato, or of some platonist in the next generation who aspired to imitate his master not that on grounds either of language or philosophy we should lightly reject them some difference of style or inferiority of execution or inconsistency of thought can hardly be considered decisive of their spurious character for who always does justice to himself or who writes with equal care at all times certainly not plato who exhibits the greatest differences in dramatic power in the formation of sentences and in the use of words if his earlier writings are compared with his later ones say the protagoras or phaedrus with the laws or who can be expected to think in the same manner during a period of authorship extending over above fifty years in an age of great intellectual activity, as well as of political and literary transition, certainly not Plato, whose earlier writings are separated from his later ones by as wide an interval of philosophical speculation as that which separates his later writings from Aristotle.

The dialogues which have been translated in the first appendix and which appear to have the next claim to genuineness among the platonic writings are the lesser hippias the menexenus or funeral oration the first alcibiades of these the lesser hippias and the funeral oration are cited by aristotle the first in the metaphysics the latter in the rhetoric neither of them are expressly attributed to plato but in his citation of both of them he seems to be referring to passages in the extant dialogues.

From the mention of Hippias, in the singular by Aristotle, we may perhaps infer that he was unacquainted with a second dialogue bearing the same name.

Moreover, the mere existence of a greater and lesser Hippias, and of a first and second Alcibiades, does, to a certain extent, throw a doubt upon both of them.

The Menexenus, or funeral oration, is cited by Aristotle and is interesting as supplying an example of the manner in which the orators praised the Athenians among the Athenians, falsifying persons and dates and casting a veil over the gloomier events of Athenian history.

It exhibits an acquaintance with the funeral oration of Thucydides and was perhaps intended to rival that great work.

if genuine the proper place of the menexenus would be at the end of the phaedrus the satirical opening and the concluding words bear a great resemblance to the earlier dialogues the oration itself is professedly a mimetic work like the speeches in the phaedrus and cannot therefore be tested by a comparison of the other writings of plato the funeral oration of pericles is expressly mentioned in the phaedrus and this may have suggested the subject in the same manner that the clitophon appears to be suggested by the slight mention of clitophon and his attachment to thrasymmachus in the republic and the theages by the mention of theages in the apology and republic or as the second alcibiades seems to be founded upon the text of xenophon memorabilia a similar taste for parody appears not only in the phaedrus but in the protagoras in the symposium and to a certain extent in the parmenides To these two doubtful writings of Plato I have added the first Alcibiades, which, of all the disputed dialogues of Plato, has the greatest merit, and is somewhat longer than any of them, though not verified by the testimony of Aristotle, and in many respects at variance with the Symposium in the description of the relations of Socrates and Alcibiades.

Like the lesser Hippias and the Menexenus, it is to be compared to the earlier writings of Plato.