Ion (Plato)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A page of an Ion manuscript from the 15th century (Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana , ms. 85,9, fol.202r)

The Ion ( Greek  Ἴων Íōn , Latin Io ) is an early work by the Greek philosopher Plato , written in dialogue form . The content is a fictional conversation between Plato's teacher Socrates and the otherwise unknown Ion of Ephesus , after whom the dialogue is named. Ion is a rhapsodist , which means that he professionally recites and interprets epic poetry on festive occasions .

The topic of the conversation is the question of what the competence of a rhapsodist is based on. In addition, it is also about the source of the creative activity of the poet. The background is - expressed in modern terms - the unexplained relationship between literary technique and outstanding artistic quality in the field of fine literature .

Socrates asks about the professional knowledge that enables Ion to interpret poetry. In doing so, he starts from the assumption that it is a matter of fundamental specialist knowledge about sealing. If so, the rhapsodist must be able to understand and judge each poem. But Ion is not able to do this, because he only specializes in Homer's epics . So he has no general knowledge of poetry. But it cannot be any other specialist knowledge either. Neither poets nor rhapsodes master their subjects scientifically. For example, the rhapsode fulfills the task of bringing poetry about acts of war to his audience, but he does not understand warfare.

Accordingly, a special professional knowledge of the poets and the rhapsodes cannot be named, and there is no field in which they can compete with the respective experts. Thus, neither poetry nor its interpretation is a product of knowledge. As an alternative, there is the assumption that divine inspiration enables the poets and the rhapsodes to perform which they could not achieve on their own. Ion is satisfied with this explanation proposed by Socrates.

The dialogue, which was little noticed in antiquity, has evoked a wide range of echoes in modern times, with contrary interpretations of the concept of inspiration leading to conflicting results. The spectrum of interpretations ranges from the assessment as pure parody to the assumption that it is a homage to poetic emotion.

Place, time and participants

Socrates (Roman bust, 1st century, Louvre , Paris)

The dialogue takes place on a day between May and August at an unspecified location in Athens . The time is not given, but can be narrowed down: Athens is in the Peloponnesian War , the 431 BC. B.C., and since Ion's hometown Ephesus is still under the control of Athens, the period from 412 onwards is out of the question. A plausible point in time is 413, because Athens suffers from an acute shortage of capable troop leaders, which was the case after the catastrophic outcome of the Sicily expedition (415-413). It should be noted, however, that Plato, as a writer, made use of his literary freedom and placed no value on historical accuracy.

The conversation starts suddenly, it has no framework. Only Socrates and Ion are involved. Whether Ion is a figure invented by Plato or a historical person is unknown, because apart from the dialogue named after him, there are no sources that mention him. In any case, he represents the rhapsody profession, who at that time were influential in cultural life as a mediator of poetry to broad strata. Rhapsodes knew the works of Homer by heart and could achieve great fame if they won competitions. When they performed, they wore brightly colored clothes and were adorned with gold wreaths, and there could be around twenty thousand listeners. Like other successful figures in Plato's dialogues, Ion, who recently won a victory, looks very self-confident. The description of his appearances shows that he behaves like an actor in front of the crowd. The only information about his origin is that he comes from Ephesus.

In terms of nature, the two personalities are opposed: Ions way of thinking is naive and unphilosophical, while the experienced debater Socrates argues from a strictly philosophical perspective. According to his custom, Socrates stubbornly exposes the false knowledge of his interlocutor and deliberately embarrasses him. The Rhapsode shows himself to be respectful and willing to learn despite his strong self-confidence, as he recognizes the intellectual superiority of the philosopher.

content

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

The introductory talk

Socrates greets Ion, who has come to Athens from Epidaurus . In Epidauros ion has, as he proudly reported on the occasion of the Rhapsodenwettkampf Asklepieia mentioned Panhellenic Games won the first prize. Now he wants to take part in the competition in Athens , which will be held in August at the “great Panathenaeans ”, an important festival. Socrates expresses his admiration for the rhapsodes. In doing so, he encourages the self-conscious competition winner to openly show his vanity. At the same time, however, he also sets out the high demands that he places on Ions profession: According to his understanding, it is the task of the rhapsode to convey the thoughts of the poet to the audience, and that assumes that he not only knows the wording of the epics but also has completely penetrated the content. Ion agrees and lets himself be carried away into claiming that neither among the living nor among the deceased is anyone to be found who is equal to or superior to him in Homer's interpretation. With this self-assessment, he offers Socrates the opportunity to submit the justification of his claim to comprehensive knowledge to a philosophical investigation - the Elenchos .

The term téchnē , which is often imprecisely translated as “art”, plays a key role in the philosophical investigation . What is meant is not specifically art in today's narrower sense ("fine arts"), but generally a systematically ordered practical ("technical") knowledge related to a certain, clearly delimited area, for example the expertise of craftsmen, doctors or troop leaders. The techne gives the knower the ability to work successfully in the relevant field (“skill”) and to teach others correctly about it. The question now is what the rhapsodic techne consists of.

The relationship between general and specific competence

After the Rhapsode had praised the uniqueness of his understanding of Homer, Socrates began his investigation with the question of whether Ion could also interpret the works of other important poets such as Hesiod and Archilochus . Ion has to say no, and he adds that studying Homer is enough for him. He knew his way around Homer so well that he could also explain utterances by other poets, insofar as their statements corresponded to Homer's content. But what is not to be found in Homer, he does not want to be responsible for that. Socrates points out that the other poets deal with the same subject areas as Homer, in particular war and encounters of different people as well as the interaction of the gods with one another and with people. According to this, an excellent connoisseur of Homer who has mastered such topics should also have a corresponding understanding of non-Homer poems.

Ion justifies his limitation to Homer with the outstanding quality of his epics. In doing so, he provides Socrates with an important argument: whoever can recognize the best as such in a field, has a standard of quality that enables him to compare. If he is able to understand and judge the best, it can be expected that his competence will extend to the less demanding. Ion does not deny this in principle, but he reports that, strangely enough, things happen very differently to him: When poetry outside of his specialty is talked about, he does not feel in his element and cannot contribute, his concentration drops and he even nods off .

Socrates finds a simple explanation for this phenomenon: He sees the reason in the fact that the Rhapsode has no real understanding of the Homeric epics either. Otherwise he would be able to correctly interpret any poetry that also deals with subjects of the current kind. As a field of knowledge, poetry is a unit; Technical competence, if it actually exists, must therefore extend to the entirety of the subject. Anyone who can explain what the virtues of the best painters, sculptors or musicians are, must therefore necessarily be able to competently judge the worse ones. For Socrates, special, case-by-case knowledge results exclusively and inevitably from general knowledge. Ion agrees, but sticks to his claim to be the best interpreter of Homer. Everyone else was of the opinion that he could speak well about Homer, but not about the other poets. He cannot explain why he has such a one-sided ability.

Inspiration as an alternative to expertise

With a longer explanation, Socrates tries to make his solution to the riddle plausible. To explain it, he first looks at the creative activity of the poets. According to his understanding, it is a completely irrational process. It is not the mastery of a technique that defines the poet; no expertise is the basis of poetry. Rather, the poet creates his works when a divine force seizes him and makes him enthusiastic. Then it is light, elated and holy, and the understanding ( nous ) no longer dwells in it. As long as he holds on to his mind, he cannot get into this state and is unable to write poetry. The poet himself does not understand what he is doing when this inspiration has caught him. He is only a mediator of what the deity gives him.

Socrates supports his theory with several considerations. He refers to the self-image of the poets: They express themselves in this sense when they express themselves about their work and their relationship to the muse , the inspiring authority. They compare what they do to that of the honey-giving bees that fly around collecting. According to her description, they are winged like bees in the gardens and valleys of the Muses to collect their songs. In addition, Socrates points to the specialization among poets. The verse is composed of different genres: dithyrambos , enkomion , dance song, epic, iambic poetry . Every poet is committed to a certain genre, only in it can he create something significant. It is the muse that drives him to this determination. If that which enabled him were poetic expertise, he could produce works of equal rank in every genre. Finally, Socrates gives another example. He believes that he has found the best evidence for the correctness of his view in the life's work of Tynnichos of Chalkis. Tynnichos is a historical person, a poet whose work is now lost. He has composed a paian that is sung by everyone and that Socrates considers the most beautiful of all songs. The poet himself described this paian as the find of the muses. Otherwise, however, Tynnichos has not created anything worth mentioning in his entire life. Socrates sees this as the most impressive confirmation of his thesis that great poetry is of divine origin. He is convinced that the deity has given the most insignificant poet the most beautiful verses in order to show people that it is she who speaks here and that the human author is only a transmitter.

Ion agrees with this interpretation. It follows from it that rhapsodes like him are also innocent; they only act as a transmitter for a transmitter. His experience offers him ample illustrative material that supports the inspiration hypothesis, because he himself gets beside himself when he recites moving passages from Homeric epics: he cries or his hair is on the brink and his heart pounds. Since nothing special happens to him during his performance, this reaction, as Socrates explains, is irrational. It is carried over to the audience, who are also seized by violent emotions. The emotion spreads in a chain reaction that leads from the divine author of the poetry to the listener of a recitation. Socrates compares this process with the effect of a magnetic force: the deity or muse is like a magnet that attracts iron rings and at the same time gives them the power to attract other rings, so that a chain of rings is formed. This also makes Ions exclusive bond to Homer understandable: His narrowly limited ability is a special divine gift. His success has nothing to do with understanding, he is not a knower.

Rational and intuitive competence

Ion is not yet convinced of the interpretation that the philosopher wants to convey to him. He wants to hold on to his claim to knowledge and asserts that he can speak rationally about Homer, so not only acts as a medium of a divine message in a state of emotion, but also uses his intellect. Socrates then turns to the examination of the knowledge that the rhapsodus claims to have. He draws attention to the fact that numerous positions at Homer can only be correctly recorded and assessed with the appropriate specialist knowledge. For example, only a charioteer will be able to properly appreciate a scene in which advice is given on how to properly turn a car in a competition. A rhapsode who has never driven a car understands nothing about it. Likewise, he is unable to judge statements in an epic based on his own expertise that concern foreign areas of knowledge such as medicine, fishing or divination. Ion has to admit that. But if all of this is beyond his competence, the question arises as to what exactly falls within his competence. The discussion thus returns to its starting point: What needs to be clarified is what the specific specialist knowledge of a rhapsodus consists of.

Now Ion determines the particular area of ​​responsibility of his profession as knowing what is appropriate or appropriate. He thinks he can judge whether the characters in the epic behave as they should, whether they say what is appropriate for their roles as men or women, free or slaves, rulers or obeys. Socrates points out, however, that the essential thing in the action of the characters is not their gender or status, but the correct fulfillment of their respective special tasks. He shows this with examples: A man does not act as a man, but, for example, as a helmsman or a doctor, giving instructions that a non-specialist cannot judge, and a slave does not act as a slave per se, but, for example, as a cattle herder who knows how to deal with a wild herd. When a woman is a weaver, her knowledge of weaving, not her femininity, is the factor on which her behavior depends. All of this requires special knowledge and is therefore outside the responsibility of the Rhapsoden.

Finally, Socrates names an area of ​​competence that plays an important role for the Homeric heroes: the art of the military leader, who is responsible for cheering on his fighters. This is the area Ion is most likely to be knowledgeable in. As a master of public speaking, he believes he knows how to make an effective address to the army. Since he has mastered the influence of the masses, he believes he has the ability to fill a military leadership position. Socrates would like to show him the absurdity of this presumption through provocative questions, but only tempts him to make the grotesque assertion that a good rhapsode is inevitably also a good general. Ion holds to this claim. He believes that he has acquired the knowledge required for warfare through his homework. However, he does not need to provide practical proof of his ability, because nobody offers him a military command.

In conclusion, Socrates takes stock. He tells his interlocutor to either withhold his knowledge or to pretend that he does not have specialist knowledge. Ion could not even say what area his alleged knowledge relates to. But if he renounces the claim to knowledge and traces his activity back to inspiration rather than to his own achievement, he is a legitimate herald of Homer's greatness. Ion decides relieved for this way out.

The conversation

As usual in Plato's early dialogues, Socrates dominates the situation and confidently steers the conversation in the direction he wants. The focus is on his goal of cornering Ion in order to force the vain man to admit ignorance. In contrast, the philosophical search for truth takes a back seat. Some approaches are not worked out, although this would be important for a more in-depth analysis of the problem discussed. This includes above all the concept of the appropriate, brought into play by Ion, which could open up a way out for the rhapsode to save his claim to knowledge.

In contrast to other early dialogues of Plato, the ion does not end in aporia (perplexity after unsuccessful efforts to gain knowledge), but leads to a clear result. Ions presumption is rejected and his ignorance exposed, but at the same time Socrates offers him the opportunity to put his self-confidence on a new, irrational basis.

Philosophical balance sheet

Plato (Roman copy of the Greek Plato portrait of Silanion , Glyptothek Munich )

The rejection of unjustified claims to knowledge

An important concern of Plato is the rejection of the claim that poets or rhapsodes are in possession of truths which he believes fall within the purview of philosophy. The aim is to show that someone who has a reputation for having produced or interpreted significant verses or who is extremely knowledgeable about literary facts is not to be regarded as a knower or a sage for that reason. Anyone who has not developed a real philosophical understanding is not entitled to act as a teacher.

In fact, in Plato's time there was a view, particularly widespread in circles of the sophistic educational movement, according to which all essential knowledge is contained in Homer's epics and can be extracted from them through correct interpretation. It is not about philological or literary aesthetic aspects of poetry, but about a general knowledge of the norms of correct behavior and a successful lifestyle. Accordingly, homer interpreters have a key to comprehensive wisdom and competence. Plato allows his Socrates to counter such claims in the Ion by revealing their absurd consequences. Against this background, some statements that seem strange to modern readers can be understood in dialogue.

In the history of literary criticism , the ion is one of the most important early texts. In modern research it has even been described as the first literary-critical work in European cultural history. However, this designation is misleading, since in the dialogue a scientific literary criticism is declared to be non-existent. The fundamental possibility of a literary criticism that meets scientific requirements is not ruled out in the Ion , but when using other dialogues Plato shows that he denied it in practice.

Plato's fundamental criticism of the rhapsody, the then common form of presentation and interpretation of poetry, aims at its character of deception. Ion is presented as a very successful rhapsodist, he masters the demands of his job excellently; his ignorance and vanity do not stand in the way of this; they do not prevent him from introducing the Homeric heroes theatrically to his audience. Its success is based on pretense and deception; he himself does not embody what he represents and praises. Thus, like an actor, the rhapsode only conveys an empty appearance, not a knowledge of the qualities with whose representation he impresses his audience. Since he himself - as his attitude shows - does not have such knowledge, from Plato's point of view he is not a legitimate herald of a corresponding message.

The philosophical understanding of inspiration

It is controversial in research whether or to what extent Plato pursues goals in the Ion that go beyond the derision of Ions and the criticism of the excessive self-confidence of rhapsodes. Connected with this controversy is the question of whether all statements on inspiration are meant exclusively ironically and what Plato actually thinks of this phenomenon.

In any case, it is clearly recognizable that Plato viewed the inspiration of the Rhapsodes critically. He indicates that Ions enthusiasm is purposeful and fake, because he frankly shares that he thinks about his hoped for income during his emotional appearances and calculates its effect on the audience accordingly. On the other hand, Plato's attitude to poetic inspiration is not so clearly evident from the text. Some ancient scholars believe that he only wanted to ironic and expose presumptuousness, both with regard to the rhapsodes and with regard to the poets. Accordingly, the respectful-sounding utterances about the poets' divine emotion are not an expression of the author's own convictions. Another direction of interpretation takes seriously the “enthusiasm” described in Ion of the gifted creators of great poetry, gripped by divine enthusiasm. She sees this as a concept that forms the basis of an authentic doctrine of poetry by Plato.

In recent research, there are increasing voices in favor of the assumption that the ion has more than just the entertaining debunking of questionable claims to knowledge. A number of researchers believe they can see a positive, philosophically relevant goal of the author. For Gene Fendt and David Rozema, this consists of leading the reader into an apparent dilemma - the alternative of professional competence or irrationality. In doing so, the author sets his audience the task of finding a way out of the wrong alternative, a solution that does justice to the function of language and poetry. Rana Saadi Liebert takes a similar view of the meaning of dialogue; for them the ion is the first examination of the fictional character of poetry. Hellmut Flashar also emphatically pleads for a philosophical relevance of the discussions about the ignorance and inspiration of the poets. For Flashar the ion is “one of the most interesting and strangest dialogues of Plato”. He sees the little work as more than “a youthful product of a joking mood”. The really important thing behind the personal polemic is the discussion of a factual question, the question of knowledge. It is about the delimitation of the area of ​​sealing from technical expertise; dialogue provides the foundation for a theory of the ingenious. Flashar thinks that the philosophical content is only revealed when one sees all the details in connection with the thought movement of the whole dialogue. It is also essential to integrate the lines of thought of the dialogue into the whole of Platonic philosophy. Even for Marcel van Ackeren , the ion is no vacillation . Rather, it is about the presentation of the basics of the Platonic conception of professional competence.

In the dialogue, Heinz Schlaffer finds a confrontation between two ways of thinking. Ion represents the traditional view still prevalent at the time, according to which poetry teaches worth knowing and the poet is at the same time a sage and as such is a high authority. This unreflective veneration of poets is challenged by the new philosophical view, which makes poetic knowledge appear questionable. Accordingly, two epochs meet in Ion and Socrates. Their approaches are contradictory: Ion stands for experience, Socrates for exploring the phenomenon of poetry. Socrates does not want to be carried away by Ions lecture, he creates distance from the poetic enthusiasm in order to be able to analyze it. In doing so, he initiates a process that leads to a scientific approach to poetry: poetry becomes literature. However, tracing poetry back to divine inspiration, if it is meant seriously, puts the philosopher Plato into a dilemma: the poetic contents, if they are of divine origin, must be absolutely true, since the gods do not lie. But then the truth claim of poetry competes with that of philosophy, which only recognizes as true what autonomous reason gains from itself.

Question of authenticity

Even the influential Plato translator Friedrich Schleiermacher suspected in 1805 in the introduction to the first edition of his translation of Ion that it was an unfinished draft by Plato or a work by a student of the philosopher based on such a draft. The renowned philologist Immanuel Bekker classified the Ion 1816 in his Plato edition among the spurious works; Schleiermacher followed his opinion in 1818. For inauthenticity u. a. also the Plato researcher Friedrich Ast (1816) and the well-known philosophy historian Eduard Zeller (1889). The classical scholar Karl Friedrich Hermann, on the other hand, strongly advocated authenticity in 1839. The Graecist Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff - at that time a leading authority in his field - was long convinced of the inauthenticity, but then changed his mind; In his Plato monograph published in 1919, he hesitantly decided on the view that it was a matter of a youth work by Plato, a “journeyman's piece”, the defects of which were due to the author's inexperience.

Even in later research, doubts about authenticity have not died down. Joseph Moreau (1939) and Holger Thesleff (2009) denied the authenticity, Ernst Heitsch (1992) held the question open, Hans Diller (1955) decided on Schleiermacher's initial presumption of partial authenticity. Diller said that the traditional version of Ion was probably a draft of Plato revised by a student. One of the main arguments for the inauthenticity or at least incompletion of the work is the lack of an in-depth examination of the nature and function of poetry. Particularly offensive is the problematic, superficial approach of the Platonic Socrates at a point where he categorically rejects the suggestion of a formal consideration of poems. According to a research opinion critical of authenticity, this passage speaks against the fact that the work was created by Plato in the form in which it is available today. The classification of the writing and interpreting of poetic works as purely irrational activities, the radical denial of the personal contribution of the authors and interpreters of important poems, fed doubts about Plato's authorship. However, even before the middle of the 20th century, the majority of researchers had spoken out in favor of authenticity, and this view remains the predominant one.

Time of origin

Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff and Paul Friedländer believed that Plato had the Ion while Socrates was still alive, i.e. before 399 BC. Written in BC. Wilamowitz thought it was probably the first work of the young Plato; the background is his departure from poetry under the influence of Socrates. Ernst Heitsch also suspects that Plato created the Ion before the death of Socrates. The dominant view in research, however, is that the drafting falls in the 390s. Individual historical facts mentioned in the dialogue, such as the organization of competitions in Epidaurus, were taken into account as clues for dating, but ultimately turned out to be useless for this purpose. The classification among Plato's early works is accepted by the vast majority of classical scholars.

Text transmission

No ancient text has survived. The oldest surviving medieval manuscript of the dialogue was made in the 10th century in the Byzantine Empire ("Codex T" of the Plato text tradition). Three manuscripts, including the "Codex S", which is important for textual criticism , come from the library of Cardinal Bessarion († 1472).

reception

Ancient and Middle Ages

In ancient times there was no doubt about the authenticity of the ion . In the tetralogical order of the works of Plato, which apparently in the 1st century BC Was introduced, it belongs to the seventh tetralogy. The historian of philosophy Diogenes Laertios counted him among the "examining" writings and gave "About the Iliad" as an alternative title. In doing so, he referred to a now-lost script by the Middle Platonist Thrasyllos .

The ancient reception of the Ion was relatively sparse, and nothing is known of any commentary. The anti-philosophically minded scholar Athenaios delivers an anti- Plato interpretation, according to which the philosopher disparaged all poets and the military leaders elected by the Athenians in the dialogue; from this his general resentment towards people can be seen.

In the Latin- speaking world of scholars in the West, the ion was unknown in the Middle Ages; it was only rediscovered in the age of Renaissance humanism .

Early modern age

The beginning of Marsilio Ficino's Latin Ion translation in a 15th century manuscript (Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, ms. 82,6, fol. 116r)

The humanist Lorenzo Lippi da Colle made the first Latin translation of the Ion around 1465. He dedicated it to the Florentine statesman and patron Piero di Cosimo de 'Medici . The second translation is by the famous humanist Marsilio Ficino ; it was ready by 1466 at the latest. Ficino was friends with Lippi, he used his text. In 1484 Ficino published his Latin Ion in the complete edition of his Plato translations, which appeared in Florence. In his introduction (argumentum) to the translation, he set out his understanding of poetic inspiration (Latin furor poeticus ) and other forms of emotion or ecstasy .

The first edition of the Greek text was published in Venice by Aldo Manuzio in September 1513 as part of the complete edition of Plato's works published by Markos Musuros . In 1546 Richard de Blanc published the first French translation of the Ion in Paris . Dialogue influenced the doctrine of poetic emotion in sixteenth-century French poetics . In 1548 an Italian Ion translation (Il furore poetico) made by Niccolò Trivisani was printed in Venice . Plato's description of poetic enthusiasm in the Ion was considered a serious homage to poetry and was opposed to his poetic criticism in Dialogue Politeia . In Italy, France and England well-known personalities of cultural life interpreted Plato's relationship to poetry in this sense.

The scholar Julius Caesar Scaliger contradicted Plato's criticism of the rhapsody in his influential Poetics (Poetices libri septem) published in 1561 .

Modern

Count Friedrich Leopold zu Stolberg-Stolberg translated the Ion into German along with other Platonic dialogues . He published his translation in 1796 with a preface that made Goethe react violently. In the same year, Goethe's review with the title Plato appeared as a fellow member of a Christian revelation . There, as well as in letters to Friedrich Schiller and Wilhelm von Humboldt, Goethe polemicized against Stolberg and his "hideous preface". He interpreted the Ion as an “obvious satirical” that Stolberg had shamelessly dared to “present as a canonical book to be worshiped”. Stolberg did not recognize the irony of the Platonic Socrates at all; In reality, the whole Ion has nothing to do with poetry, but only serves to mock Ion’s narrow-mindedness. Plato's Socrates, like his interlocutor, the naturalist Ion, lacked an understanding of the task and achievement of a poet. In the end, Ion will be given the alternative of thinking of himself as either a rag or a demigod. Goethe's devastating judgment subsequently contributed significantly to a negative assessment of the dialogue.

The poet Percy Bysshe Shelley , who considered himself a Platonist , translated the Ion into English in 1821 . This translation was not published until 1840 - long after his death. Together with Shelley's translation of Plato's Symposium for a broad English-speaking audience without knowledge of Greek, it subsequently formed the starting point for studying Plato's work. It still had a strong effect in the 20th century. In his influential work A Defense of Poetry , published posthumously in 1840 , Shelley explained his understanding of the Platonic doctrine of poetry, which corresponded to the view prevailing among romantics . He did not take the concept of poetic inspiration presented in the Ion in an ironic sense, but took it seriously and used it to justify his poetry. When translating Plato's text into English, he was influenced by his interpretation, which resulted in a falsification of the content.

The literary and philosophical evaluation of the ion is linked to the assessment of the question of authenticity. Contestants and doubters of the authenticity refer to serious deficiencies, some supporters arrive at a more favorable judgment. In 1805, Friedrich Schleiermacher reprimanded the "unclear and poor execution". Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff initially said, when he still considered the dialogue to be spurious, that the author was being compromised by his clumsy scholarship. Later, after hesitantly deciding whether it was authentic, he classified the dialogue as a swank or satire, as a youth work that was unsatisfactory in content, but funny. In the Ion, the author's youthful exuberance and intolerance break out, he is a "graceful testimony to the mood of the beginner". The colors are brightly applied; it is a comedy-like work and not a philosophical dialogue. Kurt Hildebrandt , an advocate of authenticity, was of a different opinion . He praised the "delicate conversation (almost rococo-like in shape)" in which Plato emphasized the contrast between inspired poetry and incomprehensible interpretation. The philosopher testifies to his admiration for Homer and, with the concept of inspiration, moves poetry “to a lonely height”. The Ion editor Louis Méridier, who also advocated authenticity, defended the dialogue against accusations of incoherence and inconsistency and gave the portrayal of poetic emotion a high literary rank. Paul Friedländer said that in the Ion Plato took the first step "to delimit the way of being of the knowing man from that of the poet". Alfred Edward Taylor saw a legitimate concern of Plato in the protest against a widespread misunderstanding of the meaning of poetry: the philosopher wanted to refute the assumption that poets and their interpreters pursued a primarily didactic goal. William KC Guthrie, however, interpreted the Ion as a work created for entertainment only. The discussion of the question of joke and seriousness continues in recent research.

Formally, the ion is recognized. Hans Diller points out the simplicity and clarity of the structure; Plato placed “literary gems” in the middle of the dialogue. Hellmut Flashar and Konrad Gaiser praise the artful structure of the work. Even Michael Erler thinks the dialogue leave "an elaborate formal design seen". Olof Gigon judges similarly : The composition is impeccable, the structure is clear.

Editions and translations (some with commentary)

  • Otto Apelt (translator): Plato: Hippias I / II, Ion . In: Otto Apelt (Ed.): Platon: Complete Dialogues , Vol. 3, Meiner, Hamburg 2004, ISBN 3-7873-1156-4 (translation with introduction and explanations; reprint of the 3rd edition, Leipzig 1935).
  • Gunther Eigler (Ed.): Platon: Works in Eight Volumes , Volume 1, 4th Edition, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 2005, ISBN 3-534-19095-5 , pp. 1–39 (reprint of the critical edition by Louis Méridier, 3rd edition, Paris 1956, with the German translation by Friedrich Schleiermacher, 2nd, improved edition, Berlin 1818).
  • Lorenzo Ferroni, Arnaud Macé (eds.): Plato: Ion . Les Belles Lettres, Paris 2018, ISBN 978-2-251-44828-2 (critical edition with introduction, French translation and commentary)
  • Hellmut Flashar (Ed.): Plato: Ion . Reclam, Stuttgart 2002, ISBN 978-3-15-008471-7 (uncritical edition with translation).
  • Ernst Heitsch (translator): Plato: Ion or About the Iliad. Translation and commentary (= Plato: Works , edited by Ernst Heitsch et al., Vol. VII 3). Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2017, ISBN 978-3-525-30402-0
  • Albert Rijksbaron (Ed.): Plato: Ion. Or: On the Iliad . Brill, Leiden 2007, ISBN 978-90-04-16321-8 (critical edition with introduction and commentary).
  • Rudolf Rufener (translator): Plato: Frühdialoge (= anniversary edition of all works , vol. 1). Artemis, Zurich / Munich 1974, ISBN 3-7608-3640-2 , pp. 331-350 (with an introduction by Olof Gigon ).
  • Franz Susemihl (translator): Ion . 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. 129–148 .

literature

Overview representations

Investigations into the work

  • Hellmut Flashar: The Dialogue Ion as a testimony to Platonic philosophy . Akademie-Verlag, Berlin 1958.
  • Joachim Dalfen : Polis and Poiesis. The examination of poetry by Plato and his contemporaries . Wilhelm Fink, Munich 1974, pp. 85-112.
  • Egert Pöhlmann : Enthusiasm and Mimesis: On the Platonic Ion . In: Gymnasium 83, 1976, pp. 191-208.
  • Marcel van Ackeren: Knowledge of the good. Significance and continuity of virtuous knowledge in Plato's dialogues . Grüner, Amsterdam 2003, ISBN 90-6032-368-8 , pp. 36-40.
  • Hartmut Westermann: The intention of the poet and the purposes of the interpreter. On the theory and practice of the poet's interpretation in the Platonic dialogues (= sources and studies on philosophy , vol. 54). De Gruyter, Berlin 2002, ISBN 3-11-017006-X .
  • Ursula Wolf : The search for the good life. Plato's early dialogues . Rowohlt, Reinbek 1996, ISBN 3-499-55570-0 , pp. 52-59.

reception

  • Paola Megna: Lo Ione platonico nella Firenze medicea . Centro interdipartimentale di studi umanistici, Messina 1999, ISBN 88-87541-02-7 (contains pp. 143–190 a critical edition of the Ion translation by Marsilio Ficino).

Web links

Remarks

  1. ↑ Debra Nails: The People of Plato , Indianapolis 2002, pp. 175, 316; Monique Canto: Plato: Ion , Paris 1989, pp. 26-32; Michael Erler: Platon , Basel 2007, p. 147.
  2. ↑ See on the role of the Rhapsoden Rudolf Pfeiffer : Geschichte der Klassischen Philologie , 2nd, reviewed edition, Munich 1978, pp. 24–28, 79; Michael Erler: Platon , Basel 2007, p. 147.
  3. ↑ Plato, Ion 535d.
  4. ↑ Plato, Ion 530a.
  5. ↑ On the rhapsodic competition in the great Panathenaic Mountains, see Gregory Nagy: Plato's Rhapsody and Homer's Music: The Poetics of the Panathenaic Festival in Classical Athens , Cambridge (Massachusetts) 2002, pp. 22-25, 33-35.
  6. ↑ Plato, Ion 530a-531a.
  7. ↑ See on Plato's understanding of techne Charles H. Kahn: Plato and the Socratic Dialogue , Cambridge 1996, pp. 102–113; Hartmut Westermann: The intention of the poet and the purposes of the interpreters , Berlin 2002, pp. 52–57.
  8. ^ Plato, Ion 530d-531d.
  9. ↑ Plato, Ion 531d-532c.
  10. ↑ Plato, Ion 532c-533c.
  11. ↑ On the loss of the nous, see Hartmut Westermann: Die Intention des Dichters and the purposes of the interpreters , Berlin 2002, pp. 152-167.
  12. ↑ Plato, Ion 533c-534e.
  13. ↑ See on this genus Stephan Schröder : History and theory of the genus Paian , Stuttgart 1999, p. 141 f.
  14. ↑ Plato, Ion 534a-535a.
  15. ↑ Plato, Ion 535a-536d.
  16. ↑ Plato, Ion 536d-540b.
  17. ↑ Plato, Ion 540b-d.
  18. ↑ Plato, Ion 540d-541d.
  19. ↑ Plato, Ion 541e-542a.
  20. ↑ Michael Erler: Platon , Basel 2007, p. 147 f.
  21. ↑ Hellmut Flashar: The Ion Dialogue as a testimony to Platonic philosophy , Berlin 1958, pp. 82–85; Hellmut Flashar (Ed.): Platon: Ion , Stuttgart 2002, p. 63 f .; Hans Diller: Problems of the Platonic Ion . In: Hermes 83, 1955, pp. 171–187, here: 185 f.
  22. ↑ Hellmut Flashar (Ed.): Platon: Ion , Stuttgart 2002, pp. 57–59; Alfred Edward Taylor: Plato. The man and his work , 5th Edition, London 1948, pp. 38-40; William KC Guthrie: A History of Greek Philosophy , Vol. 4, Cambridge 1975, pp. 205-209; Willem J. Verdenius: L'Ion de Platon . In: Mnemosyne 11, 1943, pp. 233-262, here: 245-258, 261 f. See Carlotta Capuccino: Plato's Ion and the Ethics of Praise . In: Pierre Destrée, Fritz-Gregor Herrmann (Ed.): Plato and the Poets , Leiden 2011, pp. 63–92.
  23. ↑ See Rana Saadi Liebert: Fact and Fiction in Plato's Ion . In: American Journal of Philology 131, 2010, pp. 179-218, here: 179; Jerrald Ranta: The Drama of Plato's "Ion". In: The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 26, 1967/1968, pp. 219-229, here: 219, 228.
  24. ↑ Christopher Bruell: On the Socratic Education , Lanham 1999, p. 161 f .; Christopher Janaway: Craft and Fineness in Plato's Ion . In: Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 10, 1992, pp. 1–23, here: 1 f., 13–15; Christopher Janaway: Images of Excellence. Plato's Critique of the Arts , Oxford 1995, pp. 16 f., 28 f .; Dirk C. Baltzly: Plato and the New Rhapsody . In: Ancient Philosophy 12, 1992, pp. 29–52, here: 29 f., 38.
  25. ↑ Hartmut Westermann: The intention of the poet and the purposes of the interpreters , Berlin 2002, pp. 86–95, 145–148, 230 f.
  26. ^ Giovanni RF Ferrari: Plato and Poetry . In: George A. Kennedy (ed.): The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism , Vol. 1: Classical Criticism , Cambridge 1989, pp. 92-148, here: 97-99. See Dirk C. Baltzly: Plato and the New Rhapsody . In: Ancient Philosophy 12, 1992, pp. 29–52, here: 37 f.
  27. ↑ For older research opinions on this question, see the overview in Hellmut Flashar: The Dialogue Ion as a testimony to Platonic Philosophy , Berlin 1958, pp. 6–9, 91–95.
  28. ↑ Plato, Ion 535e.
  29. ↑ This opinion is, for example, Nickolas Pappas: Plato's Ion: The Problem of the Author . In: Philosophy 64, 1989, pp. 381-389. He attributes a position consistently hostile to poetry to Plato. Joachim Dalfen: Polis and Poiesis , Munich 1974, pp. 95–112 and Suzanne Stern-Gillet: On (mis) interpreting Plato's Ion also judge in this sense . In: Phronesis 49, 2004, pp. 169–201, here: 182–194.
  30. ↑ See on this subject Michael Erler: Platon , Basel 2007, p. 148 f .; William KC Guthrie: A History of Greek Philosophy , Vol. 4, Cambridge 1975, pp. 209-211; Kurt Hildebrandt: Plato. Logos und Mythos , 2nd, reviewed edition, Berlin 1959 (1st edition Berlin 1933), pp. 45–47; Hellmut Flashar (Ed.): Platon: Ion , Stuttgart 2002, pp. 54-57, 59-62; Paul Friedländer: Platon , Vol. 2, 3rd, improved edition, Berlin 1964, pp. 120 f .; Stefan Büttner: Plato's theory of literature and its anthropological justification , Tübingen 2000, pp. 356–361; Holger Thesleff: Platonic Patterns , Las Vegas 2009, p. 368 f .; Charles H. Kahn: Plato and the Socratic Dialogue , Cambridge 1996, p. 107 f .; Konrad Gaiser: Introduction to Plato's 'Ion' . In: Konrad Gaiser: Gesammelte Schriften , Sankt Augustin 2004, pp. 343–352, here: 343, 345 f.
  31. ^ Gene Fendt, David Rozema: Platonic Errors , Westport 1998, pp. 13-37. Cf. Steven Lowenstam: Is Literary Criticism an Illegitimate Discipline? A Fallacious Argument in Plato's Ion . In: Ramus 22, 1993, pp. 19-32, here: 24, 29.
  32. ^ Rana Saadi Liebert: Fact and Fiction in Plato's Ion . In: American Journal of Philology 131, 2010, pp. 179-218. See Thomas F. Morris: Plato's Ion on What Poetry Is About . In: Ancient Philosophy 13, 1993, pp. 265-272.
  33. ↑ Hellmut Flashar (Ed.): Platon: Ion , Stuttgart 2002, pp. 54–56.
  34. ↑ Hellmut Flashar (Ed.): Platon: Ion , Stuttgart 2002, pp. 59, 71.
  35. ↑ Hellmut Flashar (Ed.): Platon: Ion , Stuttgart 2002, pp. 56-71.
  36. ↑ Marcel van Ackeren: The knowledge of the good , Amsterdam 2003, p. 40.
  37. ^ Heinz Schlaffer: Poetry and Knowledge. The emergence of aesthetic awareness and philological knowledge , Frankfurt a. M. 1990, pp. 11-25. See Carlotta Capuccino: Plato's Ion and the Ethics of Praise . In: Pierre Destrée, Fritz-Gregor Herrmann (ed.): Plato and the Poets , Leiden 2011, pp. 63–92, here: 91 f.
  38. ↑ Friedrich Schleiermacher: Ion. Introduction . In: Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher: About the philosophy of Plato , ed. by Peter M. Steiner, Hamburg 1996, pp. 157-161, here: 160 f.
  39. ↑ Immanuel Bekker: Platonis dialogi , Part 1, Vol. 2, Berlin 1816, pp. 169–196.
  40. ^ Friedrich Ast: Platon's life and writings , Leipzig 1816, pp. 466–469.
  41. ^ Eduard Zeller: The philosophy of the Greeks in their historical development , Part 2, Division 1, 4th edition, Leipzig 1889, pp. 480-483.
  42. ^ Karl Friedrich Hermann: History and System of the Platonic Philosophy , Part 1, Heidelberg 1839, pp. 431, 435-439.
  43. ↑ Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff: Aristoteles und Athen , Vol. 1, Berlin 1893, S. 188 f. Note 4; Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff: Plato. His life and his works , 5th edition, Berlin 1959 (1st edition Berlin 1919), pp. 98-100; Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff: Plato. Supplements and text criticism , 4th edition, Dublin / Zurich 1969 (1st edition Berlin 1919), pp. 32–36, 42–46. On the early research history, see Hellmut Flashar: The Ion Dialogue as a testimony to Platonic philosophy , Berlin 1958, pp. 3–11; Michael Erler: Platon , Basel 2007, p. 146.
  44. ^ Joseph Moreau: Les thèmes platoniciens de l '"Ion" . In: Revue des Études grecques 52, 1939, pp. 419–428; Holger Thesleff: Platonic Patterns , Las Vegas 2009, p. 368 f .; Ernst Heitsch: Paths to Plato , Göttingen 1992, p. 89 f.
  45. ↑ Hans Diller: Problems of the Platonic Ion . In: Hermes 83, 1955, pp. 171–187, here: 187.
  46. ↑ Plato, Ion 540b.
  47. ↑ Hans Diller: Problems of the Platonic Ion . In: Hermes 83, 1955, pp. 171-187, here: 185-187; see. Michael Erler: Platon , Basel 2007, p. 146.
  48. ↑ Michael Erler: Platon , Basel 2007, p. 146; William KC Guthrie: A History of Greek Philosophy , Vol. 4, Cambridge 1975, p. 199; Gerard R. Ledger: Recounting Plato , Oxford 1989, p. 157; Eugène N. Tigerstedt: Plato's Idea of ​​Poetical Inspiration , Helsinki 1969, p. 18. Cf. Willem J. Verdenius: L'Ion de Platon . In: Mnemosyne 11, 1943, pp. 233-262, here: 233.
  49. ^ Paul Friedländer: Plato , Vol. 3, 3rd, reviewed edition, Berlin 1975, p. 422 f.
  50. ^ Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff: Platon. His life and his works , 5th edition, Berlin 1959 (1st edition Berlin 1919), pp. 98, 100; Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff: Plato. Supplements and text criticism , 4th edition, Dublin / Zurich 1969 (1st edition Berlin 1919), p. 45 f.
  51. ^ Ernst Heitsch: Dialogues of Plato before 399 BC Chr.? , Göttingen 2002, pp. 330-345; Ernst Heitsch: Plato and the beginnings of his dialectical philosophizing , Göttingen 2004, pp. 17-19.
  52. ↑ Michael Erler: Platon , Basel 2007, p. 146 f .; William KC Guthrie: A History of Greek Philosophy , Vol. 4, Cambridge 1975, p. 199; Ernst Heitsch: Paths to Plato , Göttingen 1992, p. 90 and note 8.
  53. ↑ Michael Erler: Platon , Basel 2007, p. 146 f.
  54. ↑ A different opinion, however, take John D. Moore: The Dating of Plato's Ion . In: Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 15, 1974, pp. 421–439 and Albert Rijksbaron (Ed.): Plato: Ion , Leiden 2007, pp. 2–8. Moore considers the classification among Plato's first dialogues to be inadequately justified; Rijksbaron assigns the Ion to Plato's middle creative period.
  55. ↑ On the transmission of the text, see Albert Rijksbaron (Ed.): Plato: Ion , Leiden 2007, pp. 26–36, 74.
  56. ↑ Diogenes Laertios 3: 57-60.
  57. ↑ Athenaios 11,506a.
  58. ↑ On Lippi's translation, see Paola Megna: Lo Ione platonico nella Firenze medicea , Messina 1999, pp. 17–55; James Hankins: Plato in the Italian Renaissance , 3rd edition, Leiden 1994, pp. 486-488.
  59. ↑ James Hankins: Plato in the Italian Renaissance , 3rd edition, Leiden 1994, p. 475 f .; Paola Megna: Lo Ione platonico nella Firenze medicea , Messina 1999, pp. 57-106.
  60. ↑ See Michael JB Allen: The soul as rhapsode: Marsilio Ficino's interpretation of Plato's Ion . In: Michael JB Allen: Plato's Third Eye. Studies in Marsilio Ficino's Metaphysics and its Sources , Aldershot 1995, No. XV; Paola Megna: Lo Ione platonico nella Firenze medicea , Messina 1999, pp. 107-142.
  61. ↑ See on this edition Albert Rijksbaron (Ed.): Plato: Ion , Leiden 2007, pp. 52–57.
  62. ↑ See also Philipp Jeserich: Legitimität und Kontingency. On the doctrine of furor poeticus in French Renaissance poetics (Sebillet, Du Bellay, Ronsard, Peletier du Mans) . In: Romanistisches Jahrbuch 60, 2009, pp. 108–144, here: 116.
  63. ^ František Novotný: The Posthumous Life of Plato , Den Haag 1977, pp. 436 f., 443-445.
  64. ↑ Julius Caesar Scaliger: Poetices libri septem 1,1,2a.
  65. ↑ Compilation of the relevant texts by Goethe in Ernst Grumach : Goethe und die Antike , Vol. 2, Berlin 1949, pp. 758–762. Cf. Hellmut Flashar: The Dialogue Ion as a testimony to Platonic philosophy , Berlin 1958, pp. 1-3.
  66. ↑ Roger Ingpen, Walter E. Peck (Ed.): The Complete Works of Percy Bysshe Shelley , Vol. 7, London 1965, pp. 231–248, 362. See James A. Notopoulos: The Platonism of Shelley , Durham ( North Carolina) 1949, pp. 462-467.
  67. ↑ Suzanne Stern-Gillet: On (mis) interpreting Plato's Ion . In: Phronesis 49, 2004, pp. 169–201, here: 176 f., 192–194.
  68. ↑ Friedrich Schleiermacher: Ion. Introduction . In: Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher: About the philosophy of Plato , ed. by Peter M. Steiner, Hamburg 1996, pp. 157–161, here: 159.
  69. ↑ Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff: Aristoteles und Athen , Vol. 1, Berlin 1893, S. 188 f. Note 4.
  70. ^ Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff: Platon. His life and his works , 5th edition, Berlin 1959 (1st edition Berlin 1919), pp. 98-100; Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff: Plato. Supplements and text criticism , 4th edition, Dublin / Zurich 1969 (1st edition Berlin 1919), pp. 42 f., 45 f.
  71. ↑ Kurt Hildebrandt: Plato. Logos und Mythos , 2nd, reviewed edition, Berlin 1959 (1st edition Berlin 1933), pp. 44–47.
  72. ↑ Louis Méridier (Ed.): Plato: Œuvres complètes , Volume 5, Part 1, 3rd Edition, Paris 1956, pp. 19-22, 27.
  73. ^ Paul Friedländer: Platon , Vol. 2, 3rd, improved edition, Berlin 1964, p. 124.
  74. ^ Alfred Edward Taylor: Plato. The man and his work , 5th edition, London 1948, pp. 40 f.
  75. ^ William KC Guthrie: A History of Greek Philosophy , Vol. 4, Cambridge 1975, pp. 210 f.
  76. ↑ Gene Fendt, David Rozema: Platonic Errors , Westport 1998, pp. 13-37; Hellmut Flashar (Ed.): Platon: Ion , Stuttgart 2002, pp. 54-71; Marcel van Ackeren: The knowledge of the good , Amsterdam 2003, p. 40; Rana Saadi Liebert: Fact and Fiction in Plato's Ion . In: American Journal of Philology 131, 2010, pp. 179-218, here: 180 f.
  77. ↑ Hans Diller: Problems of the Platonic Ion . In: Hermes 83, 1955, pp. 171–187, here: 173.
  78. ↑ Hellmut Flashar (Ed.): Platon: Ion , Stuttgart 2002, p. 61; Konrad Gaiser: Introduction to Plato's 'Ion' . In: Konrad Gaiser: Gesammelte Schriften , Sankt Augustin 2004, pp. 343–352, here: 349. Cf. Egert Pöhlmann: Enthusiasmus und Mimesis: Zum platonischen Ion . In: Gymnasium 83, 1976, pp. 191–208, here: 193: “the structure that is as transparent as it is artistic”.
  79. ↑ Michael Erler: Platon , Basel 2007, p. 148.
  80. ↑ Olof Gigon: Introduction . In: Platon: Frühdialoge (= anniversary edition of all works , vol. 1), Zurich / Munich 1974, p. V – CV, here: CI.
This article was added to the list of excellent articles on January 22, 2014 in this version .