Axiochos

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The beginning of the Axiochos in the oldest surviving manuscript: Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Gr. 1807 (9th century)

The Axiochos ( Greek  Ἀξίοχος Axíochos , Latinized Axiochus ) is an ancient literary dialogue in ancient Greek, which was ascribed to the philosopher Plato , but certainly did not come from him. The inauthenticity was already recognized in antiquity.

The content is a fictional conversation between the philosopher Socrates and the terminally ill politician Axiochus. The fear of death and the question of the survival of the souls of the deceased are discussed . Socrates tries to help the terminally ill to overcome the fear of death. He uses arguments of various kinds, which are partly based on a materialistic worldview, partly on the assumption that there is an immortal soul. Only the latter considerations prove to be comforting.

The unknown author lived in the epoch of Hellenism . The work enjoyed considerable popularity in the early modern period because it met a widespread need for consoling literature. In the modern age, however, the author is chalked up for allowing his Socrates to put forward arguments that are based on mutually incompatible assumptions.

content

The fictional dialogue takes place in Athens in the period 406–403 BC. From. Initially, Socrates appears as the narrator who reports on a past incident, then he only gives the course of the conversation in direct speech.

Socrates is on the way to the Kynosarges High School. At the river Ilissos he meets a group of three friends: Kleinias, his lover Charmides and the music teacher Damon. Kleinias is the son of Axiochus, who is an uncle of the famous statesman Alkibiades . He tells Socrates that his father is near death and asks him to give consolation to the despondent. The group rushes to the house of Axiochus. Socrates finds the once proud, courageous man in a state of desperation. Now the dialogue between the philosopher and the terminally ill begins, the others are silent.

Socrates introduces his remarks, which aim to overcome the fear of death, with two arguments of different kinds. The first is a materialistic consideration. According to her, suffering can only affect who is there. Just as the evils that existed before a person was born did not cause him any harm, so what happens after his death no longer affects him. Death ends all feelings and with it all suffering. The second argument is the Socratic-Platonic conviction that the soul is immortal and is freed from the body through death. The two lines of thought are based on opposing assumptions, but lead to the same result: the fear of death turns out to be inappropriate, death is not deplorable.

For some of the considerations subsequently put forward, Socrates invokes the sophist Prodikos von Keos , from whom he heard them. Prodikos has explained in detail that human life from birth to death is a chain of hardships, hardships and sufferings of all kinds. Therefore an early death is a sign of special favor from the gods. The misery of life affects ordinary people - day laborers, artisans, seafarers and farmers - as well as members of the upper class who are active in politics and warfare. Even famous statesmen suffer extremely painful humiliations and defeats and are dependent on the favor of the mob. The fate of those who reached old age and experienced the frailty associated with it was particularly hard. You would have to accept the loss of sight, hearing or mental abilities.

Axiochos confirms from his experience the unpleasantness of life as a politician. Socrates reminds him that the existence of the materially supported, politics-shaping upper class is considered to be the best form of human life. If even this is so painful, all the rest must be worse. In addition, Socrates again cites the materialistic argument: Prodikos said that death does not concern either the living or the dead, because it is not there for the living and the dead are no longer there as soon as it occurs. Axiochus, however, is unimpressed by these explanations. He thinks they are empty words that cannot alleviate his grief over the loss of the goods of life.

Socrates then moves on to another line of thought. He justifies his conviction of the immortality of the soul with reference to the enormous abilities of the human being. A being that is far superior to stronger animals and can cross seas, build cities, found states and research the laws of nature, must have something divine within itself. Such a being could therefore not be mortal. Rather, those who have led a good life are faced with a suffering-free future in a paradisiacal world. Socrates illustrates his expectation of the afterlife by telling a myth of the judgment of the dead . With this he succeeds in cheering Axiochos up and putting him in an optimistic mood.

Author and date of origin

From the inclusion of Hellenistic ideas and from linguistic peculiarities it is clear that it cannot be a work of Plato. The earliest time for writing is around 300 BC. In consideration. Most classical scholars place the dialogue in the 2nd or 1st century BC. In recent research there is a tendency towards late dating.

Nothing more can be determined about the person of the author. Apparently he was a rhetorician with no deeper interest in philosophy. He was familiar with the real dialogues of Plato, because he followed their example in terms of form and content. In contrast to the real dialogues, however, the Axiochos does not seek truth together, but only teaches and gives consolation. The work belongs to the genre of consolation writings . In addition to the Platonic doctrine of the soul, the author has used an Epicurean argument for his purpose, without taking offense at the incompatibility of the two approaches. The Platonic concept of immortality stands suddenly next to the materialistic thought of the Epicureans that everything ends with death. Also Stoic and Cynic influence is evident. Some researchers suspect that the author, as a Platonist, wanted to polemicize against Epicureanism, because he lets his Axiochos contemptuously reject the Epicurean argument as newfangled chatter, but ultimately accept the Platonic doctrine of immortality as real consolation. If this is the case, it is an indication that the dialogue began in the early epicurean era around 300 BC. Chr.

Mauro Tulli sees the unknown author as a member of the Platonic Academy in Hellenistic times. He tried to adapt the teaching content of Platonism to the intellectual climate of his epoch. At that time, unlike in the times of Socrates and Plato, an incessant, open-ended intellectual search for truth was no longer required. Rather, under conditions that seemed hopeless and created a pessimistic mood, philosophy was only expected to offer consolation and guidance. The work was addressed to readers who had no more hope in life and yet feared death.

reception

The beginning of the Axiochus in the first edition, Venice 1513

Since the axiochus was considered spurious in antiquity, it was not included in the tetralogy of the works of Plato. The historian of philosophy Diogenes Laertios listed it among the writings that were unanimously regarded as not coming from Plato. Nevertheless, the dialogue received considerable attention, as a number of quotations show. One of the few scholars who believed in Plato's authorship was John Stobaius , who quoted the Axiochus extensively.

No ancient text has survived. In the Middle Ages, the work was not accessible to the Latin-speaking scholarly world of the West. In the Byzantine Empire, however, it was known to a number of scholars. The oldest surviving manuscript dates from the 9th century.

After its rediscovery in the age of Renaissance humanism , the Axiochos was one of the most valued writings of antiquity. In fact, it was widely believed to be a genuine work by Plato. The early modern readers, like the ancient audience, were concerned with the therapeutic, comforting effect in the face of death.

The humanist Rinuccio da Castiglione made the first Latin translation in the early 15th century. The second concerned Cencio de 'Rustici, who believed in Plato's authorship and titled his Latin version “On contempt for death” ( De morte contemnenda ). He probably completed it in 1436/1437 and dedicated it to Cardinal Giordano Orsini († 1438). It has survived in at least 38 manuscripts and was printed in Paris in 1557. This was followed by a Latin translation by Antonio Cassarino († 1447). The humanist Pero Díaz de Toledo († 1466) translated the Latin text de 'Rusticis into Spanish. Another translation of the Greek original into Latin was made by the famous humanist Marsilio Ficino . He created them at the request of his patron, the statesman Cosimo de 'Medici , who was impressed by the dialogue. Ficino, who titled the work in Latin De morte ("About Death"), did not believe in the authorship of Plato, but rather thought his pupil Xenocrates was the author. His translation was published by Aldo Manuzio in Venice in 1497 . Another Latin translation made by the humanist Rudolf Agricola had already been printed in Deventer around 1480 . The first edition of the Greek text appeared in Venice in September 1513 by Aldo Manuzio as part of the complete edition of Plato's works published by Markos Musuros . The Latin translation created by the humanist Willibald Pirckheimer and published in Nuremberg by his printer Friedrich Peypus in 1523 is based on this edition . In the 16th century, the Axiochos was also published in French and Italian. The first English version appeared in 1592; whether it comes from the famous poet Edmund Spenser or from Anthony Munday is controversial.

Michel de Montaigne contradicted the widespread appreciation of dialogue in his essays ; he missed substance in the “work without strength”.

In modern research, the judgments about the axiochos are mostly unfavorable and often even devastating. Above all, it is criticized that the author puts forward Platonic and Epicurean conceptions of death regardless of the incompatibility of their foundations, as if they complement each other. Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (1895) saw in the dialogue - like Hermann Usener and Erwin Rohde before him - “a work that was unfortunate in terms of both content and form”, the author of which “could neither write nor think”. Alfred Edward Taylor made a similar statement .

Classical scholars, who emphasize that it belongs to the genre of consolation literature, rate the work somewhat more favorably. Tim O'Keefe explains the lack of coherence with the fact that Socrates the Axiochus author is not concerned with the truth of the philosophical statements, but only with the desired comforting effect. To achieve this goal, he used the entire reservoir of arguments known to him. Michael Erler comments similarly , emphasizing that Axiochos is treated like a disturbed child.

Editions and translations

  • Jackson P. Hershbell (Ed.): Pseudo-Plato, Axiochus . Scholars Press, Chico 1981, ISBN 0-89130-354-5 (Greek text after the edition of Souilhé without a critical apparatus, English translation, introduction and commentary)
  • Irmgard Männlein-Robert et al. (Ed.): Ps.-Plato: About death . Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2012, ISBN 978-3-16-151904-8 (uncritical edition of the Axiochos with German translation, introduction and interpretive essays)
  • Hieronymus Müller (translator): Axiochos . In: Erich Loewenthal (Ed.): Platon: Complete Works in Three Volumes , Vol. 3, unchanged reprint of the 8th, revised edition, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 2004, ISBN 3-534-17918-8 , pp. 853–862 (only translation)
  • Joseph Souilhé (ed.): Plato: Œuvres complètes , vol. 13, part 3: Dialogues apocryphes . 2nd edition, Les Belles Lettres, Paris 1962, pp. 116–149 (critical edition with French translation)

Latin (Renaissance)

  • Marsilio Ficino: Marsilii Ficini Opera . Volume 2, Phénix Éditions, Paris 2000 (reprint of the Basel 1576 edition), ISBN 2-7458-0386-7 , pp. 1965–1968

literature

  • Michael Erler : Platon ( Outline of the history of philosophy . The philosophy of antiquity , edited by Hellmut Flashar , Vol. 2/2). Schwabe, Basel 2007, ISBN 978-3-7965-2237-6 , pp. 333-335, 674
  • Michael Erler: "Arguments that reach the soul". The axiochus and an ancient dispute over the purpose of philosophical arguments. In: Klaus Döring , Michael Erler, Stefan Schorn (Eds.): Pseudoplatonica . Franz Steiner, Stuttgart 2005, ISBN 3-515-08643-9 , pp. 81-95
  • Elizabeth Irwin: The Platonic Axiochus: the politics of not fearing death in 406 BC. In: Sandrine Dubel, Sophie Gotteland (eds.): Formes et genres du dialogue antique. Ausonius, Bordeaux 2015, ISBN 978-2-35613-126-3 , pp. 63-85
  • Mark Joyal: Socrates as σοφὸς ἀνήρ in the Axiochus . In: Klaus Döring, Michael Erler, Stefan Schorn (Eds.): Pseudoplatonica . Franz Steiner, Stuttgart 2005, ISBN 3-515-08643-9 , pp. 97-117
  • Tim O'Keefe: Socrates' Therapeutic Use of Inconsistency in the Axiochus . In: Phronesis 51, 2006, pp. 388-407

Remarks

  1. ↑ For the dating of the fictional plot, see Michael Erler: Platon , Basel 2007, p. 333.
  2. ↑ On the historical Axiochos, see Debra Nails: The People of Plato , Indianapolis 2002, pp. 63–66; Peter J. Bicknell: Axiochos Alkibiadou, Aspasia and Aspasios . In: L'Antiquité Classique 51, 1982, pp. 240-250. For the meeting place, see Marie-Françoise Billot: Le Cynosarges . In: Richard Goulet (ed.): Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques , Vol. 2, Paris 1994, pp. 917–966, here: 950f .; Jackson P. Hershbell (Ed.): Pseudo-Plato, Axiochus , Chico 1981, p. 53; Irmgard Männlein-Robert et al. (Ed.): Ps.-Plato: About the death , Tübingen 2012, pp. 60f.
  3. ↑ Axiochos 364a-365a.
  4. ↑ Axiochos 365a-366b.
  5. ↑ Axiochos 366c-369a.
  6. ↑ Axiochos 369a-e.
  7. ↑ Axiochos 370b-372.
  8. ↑ See the dating of Irmgard Männlein-Robert: Introduction to Scripture . In: Irmgard Männlein-Robert et al. (Hrsg.): Ps.-Platon: Über den Tod , Tübingen 2012, pp. 3–41, here: 5–7; Michael Erler: Platon , Basel 2007, p. 333f .; Jackson P. Hershbell (Ed.): Pseudo-Plato, Axiochus , Chico 1981, pp. 10-21; Mark Joyal: Socrates as σοφὸς ἀνήρ in the Axiochus . In: Klaus Döring et al. (Ed.): Pseudoplatonica , Stuttgart 2005, pp. 97–117, here: p. 97 and note 4.
  9. ^ Mark Joyal: Socrates as σοφὸς ἀνήρ in the Axiochus . In: Klaus Döring et al. (Ed.): Pseudoplatonica , Stuttgart 2005, pp. 97–117, here: 100–110.
  10. ↑ Jackson P. Hershbell (Ed.): Pseudo-Plato, Axiochus , Chico 1981, pp. 16-18; Tim O'Keefe: Socrates' Therapeutic Use of Inconsistency in the Axiochus . In: Phronesis 51, 2006, pp. 388-407, here: 388-393.
  11. ^ Alfred E. Taylor: Plato. The Man and his Work , 5th Edition, London 1948, pp. 551f .; Jackson P. Hershbell (Ed.): Pseudo-Plato, Axiochus , Chico 1981, p. 2.
  12. ↑ Mauro Tulli: The Axiochos and the tradition of the consolatio in the academy . In: Klaus Döring et al. (Ed.): Pseudoplatonica , Stuttgart 2005, pp. 255-271. Cf. Irmgard Männlein-Robert: Introduction to Scripture . In: Irmgard Männlein-Robert et al. (Hrsg.): Ps.-Platon: Über den Tod , Tübingen 2012, pp. 3–41, here: 7–9.
  13. ↑ Diogenes Laertios 3.62.
  14. ↑ See also Jackson P. Hershbell (Ed.): Pseudo-Plato, Axiochus , Chico 1981, p. 6.
  15. ↑ Irmgard Männlein-Robert: Introduction to Scripture . In: Irmgard Männlein-Robert et al. (Ed.): Ps.-Platon: Über den Tod , Tübingen 2012, pp. 3–41, here: 39.
  16. ↑ Michael Erler: "Arguments that reach the soul". The axiochus and an ancient dispute over the purpose of philosophical arguments. In: Klaus Döring et al. (Ed.): Pseudoplatonica , Stuttgart 2005, pp. 81–95, here: 81. Cf. Jacques Chevalier: Étude critique du dialogue pseudo-platonicien L'Axiochos sur la mort et sur l'immortalité de l 'âme , Paris 1915, pp. 117–129 (with a compilation of relevant source texts).
  17. ↑ On Cencio's translation and its reception, see James Hankins: Plato in the Italian Renaissance , Leiden 1990, Vol. 1, pp. 82–84, 96f. and Vol. 2, p. 769.
  18. ^ See on Ficino's translation by James Hankins: Plato in the Italian Renaissance , Vol. 2, Leiden 1990, pp. 473f.
  19. ↑ James Hankins: Plato in the Italian Renaissance , Vol. 2, Leiden 1990, pp. 739f., 742.
  20. ↑ On Pirckheimer's translation, see Niklas Holzberg : Willibald Pirckheimer , Munich 1981, pp. 301–311.
  21. ↑ Andrew Hadfield: Edmund Spenser. A Life , Oxford 2012, pp. 79-82.
  22. ↑ On Montaigne's judgment, see Jacques Chevalier: Étude critique du dialogue pseudo-platonicien L'Axiochos sur la mort et sur l'immortalité de l'âme , Paris 1915, p. 129 and note 2.
  23. ↑ Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff: Kleine Schriften , Volume 3, Berlin 1969, p. 149 (review, first published in 1895).
  24. ^ Alfred E. Taylor: Plato. The Man and his Work , 5th Edition, London 1948, pp. 550-552.
  25. ^ Tim O'Keefe: Socrates' Therapeutic Use of Inconsistency in the Axiochus . In: Phronesis 51, 2006, pp. 388-407, here: 394-406.
  26. ↑ Michael Erler: "Arguments that reach the soul". The axiochus and an ancient dispute over the purpose of philosophical arguments. In: Klaus Döring et al. (Ed.): Pseudoplatonica , Stuttgart 2005, pp. 81–95. See Michael Erler: Platon , Basel 2007, pp. 334f. and Mark Joyal: Socrates as σοφὸς ἀνήρ in the Axiochus . In: Klaus Döring et al. (Ed.): Pseudoplatonica , Stuttgart 2005, pp. 97–117, here: 113.
This version was added to the list of articles worth reading on May 3, 2014 .