Hipparchus (dialogue)

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

Hipparchus ( ancient Greek Ἵππαρχος Hípparchos ) is an ancient literary dialogue that supposedly originates from Plato , but is largely believed to be false in research. A fictitious conversation between the philosopher Socrates and an unnamed friend is reproduced . The dialogue is after 514 BC. Named the murdered tyrant Hipparchus , whose reign, long ago, is discussed. An alternative title is "The Profit Lover". The two interviewees pursue the question of what the pursuit of profit is actually aimed at and how it should be judged philosophically.

content

The time and occasion of the interview are not disclosed. Only the fact that Socrates, the 399 BC. Chr. Died at the age of seventy, calling himself old.

The dialogue begins suddenly with Socrates asking his young friend what is meant by the pursuit of profit and by profit-loving (or profit-addicted) people (the Greek word philokerdḗs “profit-loving” does not necessarily imply a negative valuation as does the German “addicted”) . The friend, who fundamentally condemns the pursuit of profit, thinks that those who want to make a profit are those who are addicted to profit. Although they are actually aware of the worthlessness of what they are striving for, because of their bad character they are unable to draw conclusions from this knowledge and to overcome their addiction. On the other hand, Socrates objects that no specialist (such as a farmer, horse breeder or helmsman) uses goods (seeds, fodder, sails and rudders) in his profession that he is aware of being unsuitable. Since nobody expects profit from worthlessness if he knows about the worthlessness, nobody is addicted to profit in the sense of the proposed definition. Socrates argues that a misguided pursuit of profit must be based on ignorance of the lack of worth of what is sought. What is strived for is always considered to be something good. But everyone strives for the good. Seen in this way, everyone is addicted to profit. The friend tries to evade this train of thought by defining gainfulness as the pursuit of dishonest gain. Such gain is in reality damage.

Socrates shows that this objection does not invalidate his argument, according to which every gain is in principle a good and as such is loved and strived for, what the friend has already admitted. The friend then accuses him of trying to trick him with clever debating skills. On the other hand, Socrates protests with longer explanations about the deceased Hipparchus, who was a wise ruler and who took beneficial measures. Hipparchus had put the principle to his subjects to the heart that one should not deceive a friend. He, Socrates, obey this commandment. The exaggerated praise that Socrates gives to the wisdom of the tyrant Hipparchus has an ironic aspect.

Then they turn back to the original topic. Socrates examines the assumption that there is bad profit in order to refute it. He insists on his thesis that profit of any kind is always a good and loss is always an evil. Therefore all righteous people are profit-loving, because their endeavors are directed towards the acquisition of the good and thus - just as with the bad people - towards a profit. Whether it is actually a profit in an individual case can be seen from the real value of the property in question and the relationship between expenditure and income. The real value of the things striven for varies, but this does not change the fact that everyone wants to win what seems good to them. Thus the love of profit is a quality of all people and no one is entitled to accuse anyone else. The friend can no longer counter the arguments of Socrates. But he admits that he is still not convinced that any kind of profit is good.

Author, date of origin and sources

The majority of modern scholars of antiquity assume that Hipparchus was not written by Plato, but by an unknown writer who imitated the style of Plato's dialogues. Against the authenticity, particularities such as the anonymity of Socrates' interlocutor and the abruptness of the beginning as well as linguistic details and literary deficiencies are used. In addition, none of Plato's real dialogues is named after a person who does not take part in the conversation. The researchers, who consider the authenticity to be possible or plausible, try to prove the individual arguments as unsound. Joachim Dalfen believes that Hipparchus 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.

Marsilio Ficino's introduction (argumentum) to his Latin translation of Hipparchus in the manuscript Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana , Urb. lat. 185, fol. 7r (15th century)
The beginning of Hipparchus in the first edition, Venice 1513

It is undisputed in recent research that the work was created during Plato's lifetime. The unknown author apparently belonged to the Platonic Academy . For reasons of style and content, the likely time of origin is the early 4th century.

Points of contact with early dialogues of Plato indicate that the author of Hipparchus was familiar with Plato's work, which was already available at the time. He was also familiar with the history of Thucydides , whose portrayal of Hipparchus' life and death he redesigned literarily.

reception

In the tetralogy order , which apparently in the 1st century BC Was introduced, the Hipparchus belongs to the fourth tetralogy. The doxographer Diogenes Laertios lists it among the real works of Plato. He counts it among the “ethical” dialogues and calls the alternative title “The Profit Loving One”, which is also attested in the handwritten tradition of the work. Diogenes Laertios refers to a now lost script by the Middle Platonist Thrasyllos . Only very occasionally is there a doubt about the authenticity of the work from antiquity: Aelian ends his description of Hipparchus' educational efforts with the words: "This is reported by Plato, provided that Hipparchus really comes from Plato".

In the Arab-speaking world, Hipparchus was not entirely unknown in the Middle Ages; the philosopher al-Fārābī wrote a paper on the philosophy of Plato in which he briefly summarized the subject of the dialogue.

The humanist Marsilio Ficino thought Hipparchus was real and translated it 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, a French translation made by the humanist Etienne Dolet in 1544 in Lyon.

In the 19th century, August Böckh first spoke out in 1806 for the inauthenticity of Hipparchus ; Friedrich Schleiermacher and other ancient scholars followed his assessment . The classification under the pseudo-Platonic scripts prevailed in modern research, although the opposite minority opinion has repeatedly found supporters in the 20th century.

Editions and translations

  • Antonio Carlini (Ed.): Platone: Alcibiade, Alcibiade secondo, Ipparco, Rivali . Boringhieri, Torino 1964, pp. 322–359 (critical edition with Italian translation)
  • Domenico Massaro, Laura Tusa Massaro (eds.): Platone: Ipparco . Rusconi, Milano 1997, ISBN 88-18-70188-6 (introduction, Greek text based on the edition by John Burnet [1901] without the critical apparatus, Italian translation, commentary)
  • Charlotte Schubert : Plato: Hipparchos. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2018, ISBN 978-3-525-35690-6 (introduction, German translation and commentary)
  • Joseph Souilhé (Ed.): Plato: Œuvres complètes , Volume 13 Part 2: Dialogues suspects . Les Belles Lettres, Paris 1930, pp. 44–71 (critical edition with French translation)
  • Franz Susemihl (translator): Hipparchos . In: Erich Loewenthal (Ed.): Platon: All works in three volumes , Vol. 1, unchanged reprint of the 8th, revised edition, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 2004, ISBN 3-534-17918-8 , pp. 872-883 (only translation)

literature

Web links

Remarks

  1. ↑ Michael Erler: Platon , Basel 2007, p. 296; Guido Calogero: L'autenticità dell'Ipparco platonico . In: Guido Calogero: Scritti minori di filosofia antica , Napoli 1985, pp. 293-311, here: 305f .; Paul Friedländer : Platon , Volume 2, 3rd edition, Berlin 1964, p. 114f .; Stefan Schorn: The historical middle part of the pseudoplatonic Hipparchus . In: Klaus Döring, Michael Erler, Stefan Schorn (eds.): Pseudoplatonica , Stuttgart 2005, pp. 228f., 239–242.
  2. ↑ Michael Erler: Platon , Basel 2007, p. 295; Holger Thesleff : Platonic Patterns , Las Vegas 2009, pp. 374f .; Joseph Souilhé (ed.): Plato: Œuvres complètes , Volume 13 Part 2: Dialogues suspects , Paris 1930, pp. 52–54. On the linguistic aspect, see Gerard R. Ledger: Re-counting Plato. A Computer Analysis of Plato's Style , Oxford 1989, pp. 157, 169; he does not consider the linguistic argument against authenticity to be compelling.
  3. ↑ Among the supporters of the authenticity hypothesis are Guido Calogero: L'autenticità dell'Ipparco platonico . In: Guido Calogero: Scritti minori di filosofia antica , Napoli 1985, pp. 293-311, Paul Friedländer: Platon , Volume 2, 3rd edition, Berlin 1964, pp. 108-116, 301-304, Domenico Massaro: Introduzione . In: Domenico Massaro, Laura Tusa Massaro (eds.): Platone: Ipparco , Milano 1997, pp. 12-37 and Jason A. Tipton: Love of Gain, Philosophy and Tyranny: A Commentary on Plato's Hipparchus . In: Interpretation Vol. 26 No. 2, 1999, pp. 201-216. Eugen Dönt pleads for partial authenticity : The position of the digressions in the pseudo-Platonic dialogues . In: Wiener Studien 76, 1963, pp. 27–51, here: 42f. Dönt sees in Socrates' remarks on Hipparchus, which act as a foreign body in conversation, a subsequent insertion by a strange hand in an otherwise genuine work by Plato; however, this hypothesis has not caught on in research.
  4. ↑ 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.
  5. ↑ On the question of dating see Michael Erler: Platon , Basel 2007, p. 295; Stefan Schorn: The historical middle part of the pseudoplatonic Hipparchus . In: Klaus Döring, Michael Erler, Stefan Schorn (Eds.): Pseudoplatonica , Stuttgart 2005, p. 248f. See Gerard R. Ledger: Re-counting Plato. A Computer Analysis of Plato's Style , Oxford 1989, pp. 223f.
  6. ↑ See also Stefan Schorn: The historical middle part of the pseudoplatonic Hipparchus . In: Klaus Döring, Michael Erler, Stefan Schorn (eds.): Pseudoplatonica , Stuttgart 2005, pp. 230-234.
  7. ↑ Diogenes Laertios 3:59.
  8. ↑ Aelian, Varia historia 8.2.
  9. ↑ Muhsin Mahdi : Alfarabi: Philosophy of Plato and Aristotle , 2nd edition, Ithaca 2001, pp. 58f. (English translation of al-Fārābī's work).
  10. ↑ A compilation of the statements from the 19th and 20th centuries is provided by Stefan Schorn: The historical middle part of the pseudoplatonic Hipparchus . In: Klaus Döring, Michael Erler, Stefan Schorn (eds.): Pseudoplatonica , Stuttgart 2005, p. 225.The description of the history of research by Domenico Massaro is more detailed in: Domenico Massaro, Laura Tusa Massaro (eds.): Platone: Ipparco , Milano 1997, pp. 17-24.