Anterastai

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The beginning of the Anterastai in the oldest surviving medieval manuscript, the Codex Clarkianus written in 895

Anterastai ( ancient Greek Ἀντερασταί Anterastaí "The rivals", "The rivals", also Erastaí "The lovers", Latin Amatores ) is the title of an ancient literary dialogue about the definition and purpose of philosophy and the right way to operate it. The main character is the philosopher Socrates . As a fictional reporter, he reproduces the course of the fictional conversation in which he appears as a discussion partner of two young men. The clearly structured dialogue was considered to be the work of Plato in antiquity , but in modern research it is largely regarded as inauthentic for reasons of content and style.

The background to the conversation is a homoerotic rivalry: the two men are in love with the same boy, and he is present as a listener during the conversation. Since one of the rivals focuses his interests on intellectual and the other on physical training, they represent the contrast between gymnastics and education, the two traditional fields of education. At the same time, they stand for two different life plans, because one strives for knowledge, the other directs his attention to physical pleasure.

content

The dialogue takes place in Athens , in the school of the grammarist Dionysius, whom the doxographer Diogenes Laertios describes in his biography of Plato as the grammar teacher of Plato. The time does not appear from the text; possibly the thirties of the 5th century BC. A frame plot is missing, Socrates suddenly appears as the reporter and tells the fictional course of the plot.

At Dionysius, Socrates meets two boys who - as far as he understands their conversation from a distance - are busily talking about astronomical views of Anaxagoras or Oinopides , drawing diagrams. Sitting next to Socrates are two young men, the lovers or rivals addressed in the title of the dialogue, both of whom are in love with one of the boys and are rivaling for his favor. Their names are not mentioned. Socrates asked one of them about the subject that so fascinated the boys, and he replied that it was about gossip about celestial studies and philosophical stuff. Socrates then asks the man why he speaks so contemptuously about philosophy. Without waiting for the answer, the other man steps in and explains that his rival is only interested in wrestling and food, so it is pointless to ask him about philosophy. He himself, however, deals with mousikḗ ("music"). In ancient Greek, this expression denotes not only music in today's sense, but all "arts of the muses ", that is, the entirety of artistic, literary and scientific education and activity. The lover of the arts of the muses wants to present himself as a cultivated person. With him Socrates now begins a debate about the meaning of philosophy. The boys do not take part in the conversation, but listen. This turns the discussion into a test of cleverness and debating skills for the education lover in the face of the listener with whom he is in love. His rival, on the other hand, does not show any nakedness, but is content with the passive role that has fallen to him.

The education lover begins by stating that he does not consider a despiser of philosophy to be a human being. By making philosophy a characteristic of being human, he wants to defame his rival as subhuman. Socrates replies that such evaluations can only be meaningful if one knows what the evaluated actually is. The education lover then assures that he knows very well what philosophy is. He relies on a saying by the sage Solon , who said: “I keep learning a lot, I age.” The philosopher is made up of the willingness to constantly expand knowledge, philosophy consists in the most comprehensive knowledge possible.

Socrates opposes this view. By making comparisons with gymnastics and nutrition, he makes it plausible to his interlocutor that in all efforts it is important not to overdo anything, but to find the right balance. Just as with physical exercise and health care, an excessive, careless approach is inexpedient for mental training. The education lover sees this.

At this point, Socrates asks which areas of knowledge the philosopher should concentrate on, since he has to make a selection. Again the lover of education advocates that the philosopher, if he cannot be an expert in all areas, should try to control as many as possible. He should give priority to the knowledge that promises to bring him the most fame. What is essential are those areas of knowledge worthy of a free man, which do not include manual or physical work-related skills.

In the course of further discussion of this question, equating philosophy with the most comprehensive possible education is rejected and knowledge, a mere accumulation of the most diverse knowledge possible, is found to be useless. The conclusion to which the discussion leads is: Whoever acquires knowledge in many areas is inferior to the respective specialist in each of these areas of knowledge. Since his qualification is thus second class, he is not efficient, but useless, because he is not a master of the subject, and if a specialist is needed, you will not turn to him, but to a professional expert, for example a doctor in the event of illness . Therefore, the philosopher should not engage in senseless competition with such experts, but should pursue what belongs to his own subject. That is the pursuit of prudence and justice. The prudence that is connected with self-knowledge helps to a right understanding of human nature. Justice is shown in the correct application of the insights gained in the administration of a household, in the administration of justice or in the governance of a state. That is the job of the philosopher. Here he must not be satisfied with second-rate skills and secondary roles, but must be the competent specialist. As such, he has to take responsibility and play a decisive role in accordance with his philosophical qualification.

In the end, Socrates' interlocutor has to admit, ashamed, that his previous way of thinking was wrong. His uneducated rival takes the opportunity to take the side of Socrates and thus stand there as the victor, although he has not contributed to clarifying the question. The boys also agree with Socrates' judgment. Thus, the arrogant education lover, who has let himself be carried away to fail against his rival on various occasions, has to accept a sensitive humiliation. This corresponds to the course of a conversation known from authentic dialogues by Plato: Participants in the discussion who appear confident at the beginning are later forced to admit that their opinions are inadequate.

Author, date of origin and sources

In modern research, the authenticity of the dialogue is predominantly doubted or disputed. According to the prevailing view today, the work was not written by Plato, but by an unknown writer who imitated the style of Plato's dialogues. This is justified with the stylistic and content-related characteristics of the Anterastai . Nevertheless, the possibility of authenticity is repeatedly considered. Julia Annas considers the dialogue to be an early work by Plato.

It is not possible to reliably determine who actually wrote the dialogue and when this happened. It can be assumed that the author belonged to the Platonic Academy . One assumption is that it was probably an academic who lived at the time of the Scholarchen (head of the school) Arkesilaos († 241/240 BC), i.e. in the initial phase of the "Younger Academy" era beginning with Arkesilaos. According to another hypothesis that has found more resonance in research, the author was active in the late phase of the "Older Academy", in the late 4th or early 3rd century BC. Other researchers advocate earlier approaches. Holger Thesleff thinks that the work was created during Plato's lifetime and was only intended for internal use in the academy. Joachim Dalfen believes that the anterastai and other spurious dialogues are works that Plato commissioned his first students to create. With this hypothesis, Dalfen explains the proximity of these works to Plato's early writings and the lack of elements that are typical of the later real dialogues.

If the late dating is correct and the dialogue did not emerge until the early Hellenistic period, the sharp criticism of useless accumulation of knowledge can be interpreted as a polemic against Aristotle's concept of education .

The sources that inspired the author of the Anterastai are real dialogues by Plato with an erotic background comparable to that of Charmides and Lysis .

reception

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

In ancient times, dialogue was mostly viewed as an authentic work of Plato. However, even then there were occasional doubts, as can be seen from a remark in Diogenes Laertios, who quotes a now-lost work by the Middle Platonist Thrasyllos . Accordingly, Thrasyllos was of the opinion that if it was actually a matter of a writing by Plato, Socrates' anonymous interlocutor could be identified with the philosopher Democritus . So Thrasyllos was unsafe.

In the tetralogical order of the works of Plato, which apparently in the 1st century BC Was introduced, the anterastai belong to the fourth tetralogy. Diogenes Laertios counts it to the “ethical” dialogues and gives “About philosophy” as an alternative title. In doing so, he cites Thrasyllos. The oldest surviving manuscript dates from the 9th century.

In the Arabic-speaking world, the anterastai were not entirely unknown in the Middle Ages; the philosopher al-Fārābī wrote a pamphlet on the philosophy of Plato in which he briefly discussed the results of the dialogue.

The humanist Marsilio Ficino thought the anterastai was real and translated the dialogue into Latin. He published the translation in Florence in 1484 in the complete edition of his Latin translations of Plato. The first edition of the Greek text appeared in 1513 by Aldo Manuzio in Venice. In the early modern period , the work was usually considered real.

In 1699 André Dacier published a French translation of ten dialogues handed down under Plato's name, including the Anterastai . Floyer Sydenham published an English translation in 1769.

In the early 19th century, doubts about authenticity began to arise in research; August Boeckh started in 1806. In the course of the debate, the assumption of inauthenticity largely prevailed. However, it still does not meet with unanimous approval.

Editions and translations

  • Antonio Carlini (Ed.): Platone: Alcibiade, Alcibiade secondo, Ipparco, Rivali . Boringhieri, Torino 1964, pp. 360–399 (critical edition with Italian translation)
  • Joseph Souilhé (Ed.): Plato: Œuvres complètes , Volume 13 Part 2: Dialogues suspects . Les Belles Lettres, Paris 1930, pp. 104–126 (critical edition with French translation)
  • Franz Susemihl (translator): The rivals . In: Erich Loewenthal (Ed.): Platon: All works in three volumes , Vol. 2, unchanged reprint of the 8th, revised edition, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 2004, ISBN 3-534-17918-8 , pp. 841–852 (only translation)

literature

Web links

Remarks

  1. ↑ Diogenes Laertios 3, 4.
  2. ↑ This hypothesis is represented by Irmgard Männlein-Robert: On the literary staging of a philosophy concept in the pseudo-Platonic Anterastai . In: Klaus Döring, Michael Erler, Stefan Schorn (eds.): Pseudoplatonica , Stuttgart 2005, pp. 119–133, here: 120–122.
  3. ↑ On the meaning of the term mousikḗ see Joseph Souilhé (ed.): Plato: Œuvres complètes , Volume 13 Part 2: Dialogues suspects , Paris 1930, p. 114, Note 2.
  4. ↑ See Michael Davis: Philosophy and the Perfect Tense. In: Christopher Dustin, Denise Schaeffer (eds.): Socratic Philosophy and Its Others , Lanham 2013, pp. 265–285, here: 279–283.
  5. ↑ Michael Erler: Platon , Basel 2007, p. 297; Margherita Isnardi: Note al dialogo pseudoplatonico Anterastai . In: La Parola del Passato 9, 1954, pp. 137-143, here: 137; Joseph Souilhé (Ed.): Plato: Œuvres complètes , Volume 13 Part 2: Dialogues suspects , Paris 1930, p. 107f .; Bruno Centrone: The Anterastai and Plato's erotic dialogues . In: Klaus Döring, Michael Erler, Stefan Schorn (eds.): Pseudoplatonica , Stuttgart 2005, pp. 37–49, here: 37–39; Gerard R. Ledger: Re-counting Plato. A Computer Analysis of Plato's Style , Oxford 1989, pp. 120f., 144f., 169 (doubtful).
  6. ↑ Julia Annas: Self-knowledge in Early Plato . In: Dominic J. O'Meara (Ed.): Platonic Investigations , Washington (DC) 1985, pp. 111-138, here: 112. Michael Davis: Philosophy and the Perfect Tense is also among those who advocate authenticity . In: Christopher Dustin, Denise Schaeffer (eds.): Socratic Philosophy and Its Others , Lanham 2013, pp. 265–285, here: 284 and Josep Monserrat Molas: Rivals i amants: rivals d'amor. Comentari al platònic Anterastai . In: Anuari de la Societat Catalana de Filosofia 11, 1999, pp. 19-55. William KC Guthrie : A History of Greek Philosophy , Vol. 5, Cambridge 1978, pp. 390-392 considers Plato's authorship at least possible.
  7. ↑ Antonio Carlini: Alcuni dialoghi pseudoplatonici e l'Accademia di Arcesilao . In: Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa. Classe di Lettere, Storia e Filosofia , Volume 2 Vol. 31, 1962, pp. 33-63, here: 58f., 62.
  8. ↑ Joseph Souilhé (ed.): Plato: Œuvres complètes , Volume 13, Part 2: Dialogues suspects , Paris 1930, pp. 110–112; Margherita Isnardi: Note al dialogo pseudoplatonico Anterastai . In: La Parola del Passato 9, 1954, pp. 137-143; Irmgard Männlein-Robert: On the literary staging of a philosophy concept in the pseudo-Platonic Anterastai . In: Klaus Döring, Michael Erler, Stefan Schorn (eds.): Pseudoplatonica , Stuttgart 2005, pp. 119-133, here: 120, 124; Michael Erler: Platon , Basel 2007, p. 297.
  9. ↑ Holger Thesleff: Platonic Patterns , Las Vegas 2009, p. 13, note 25 and p. 365f.
  10. ↑ Joachim Dalfen: Observations and thoughts on the (pseudo) Platonic Minos and other spuria . In: Klaus Döring, Michael Erler, Stefan Schorn (eds.): Pseudoplatonica , Stuttgart 2005, pp. 51–67; Joachim Dalfen: Plato: Minos , Göttingen 2009, pp. 29–67.
  11. ^ Hubertus Neuhausen: The second Alcibiades. Investigations on a pseudoplatonic dialogue , Berlin 2010, pp. 120–127; Irmgard Männlein-Robert: On the literary staging of a philosophy concept in the pseudo-Platonic Anterastai . In: Klaus Döring, Michael Erler, Stefan Schorn (eds.): Pseudoplatonica , Stuttgart 2005, pp. 119–133, here: 120f .; Philip Merlan: The problem of the rest . In: Joseph Frank et al. (Ed.): Horizons of a Philosopher , Leiden 1963, pp. 297-314, here: 300-308; Antonio Carlini: Alcuni dialoghi pseudoplatonici e l'Accademia di Arcesilao . In: Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa. Classe di Lettere, Storia e Filosofia , Volume 2 Vol. 31, 1962, pp. 33-63, here: 57-59. In this regard, however, Joseph Souilhé (ed.) Is skeptical: Plato: Œuvres complètes , Volume 13 Part 2: Dialogues suspects , Paris 1930, p. 111. Cf. also Bruno Centrone: Die Anterastai and Plato's erotic dialogues . In: Klaus Döring, Michael Erler, Stefan Schorn (eds.): Pseudoplatonica , Stuttgart 2005, pp. 37–49, here: 43–47.
  12. ↑ The matches between Anterastai and Charmides investigate Joseph Souilhe (ed.): Plato: Oeuvres complètes , Volume 13 Part 2: Dialogues suspects , Paris 1930, pp 108-110 and Antonio Carlini: Alcuni dialoghi pseudoplatonici e l'Accademia di Arcesilao . In: Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa. Classe di Lettere, Storia e Filosofia , Volume 2 Vol. 31, 1962, pp. 33-63, here: 49-52.
  13. ↑ Diogenes Laertios 9:37. On the passage from Antonio Carlini see: Alcune considerazioni sulla tradizione testuale degli scritti pseudoplatonici . In: Klaus Döring, Michael Erler, Stefan Schorn (eds.): Pseudoplatonica , Stuttgart 2005, pp. 25–35, here: 27.
  14. ↑ Diogenes Laertios 3:59.
  15. ↑ Muhsin Mahdi : Alfarabi: Philosophy of Plato and Aristotle , 2nd edition, Ithaca 2001, p. 60 (English translation of al-Fārābī's work).
  16. ↑ August Boeckh: In Platonis qui vulgo fertur Minoem eiusdemque libros priores de legibus , Halle (Saale) 1806, p. 33.
This version was added to the list of articles worth reading on March 30, 2013 .