Menexenus (Plato)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The beginning of Menexenus in the first edition, Venice 1513

The Menexenos ( ancient Greek Μενέξενος Menéxenos ) is a work of the Greek philosopher Plato written in dialogue form . The content is a fictional, literary conversation between Plato's teacher Socrates and his pupil Menexenus , a young Athenian of distinguished descent. Their topic is not philosophical, but political: they critically examine the manipulative aspects of Athenian politics.

The ambitious Menexenos wants to become a politician and exercise government power in Athens. In the Attic democracy , this requires above all an impressive appearance as a public speaker. However, Socrates is very skeptical of the oratory , and especially the eulogies based on the exploitation of vanity. He considers rhetoric to be a manipulation technique and describes it with drastic irony as a hoax. According to him, he owes his expertise in this field to Aspasia , the companion of the famous statesman and brilliant speaker Pericles . To show how easily one can be effective with fine words, he praises the homeland and the fallen warriors, claiming that Aspasia is the author. The latter, however, Menexenus does not believe him. Finally, Socrates holds out the prospect of further such state speeches to his pupil.

Place, time and participants

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

In Athens, the conversation takes place in a public place, probably on the street or in a square. A dating of the fictional plot is not possible because the chronological information is contradictory. However, Debra Nails, who considers a chronologically inconsistent piece of text to be spurious and wants to remove it from the text as an interpolation, thinks the action falls in the winter of 401/400 BC. Chr.

Only Socrates and Menexenus are involved in the dialogue. Their encounter is fictitious, and Menexenus is nowhere attested outside of Plato's works, but research does not doubt that he is a historical person. Plato also lets him appear in his Lysis dialogue . In Lysis he is still a boy, in Dialogue Phaedo he is mentioned among those present at the death of Socrates. In the dialogue named after him, he is a young man from a traditionally influential family who is about to enter public life and who hopes for political advancement. The historical Menexenus was possibly related to Socrates; suggests that Socrates gave one of his three sons the rare name Menexenus.

Plato's dialogue figure Socrates is a literary figure. The extent to which his views agree with those of the historical Socrates is difficult to determine and highly controversial in research. In conversation with Menexenos, his appearance is characterized by a playful, at times comedy-like tone.

content

The introductory talk

Socrates is out and about in the city and by chance meets his student Menexenos, who has just come from the agora - the market and assembly place - where he has attended a council meeting . Socrates immediately begins to tease the young man: Menexenos can probably be found on such a political occasion because, after completing his schooling, he now believes that he has learned and is now called to rule over the older generation, as is a tradition in his family correspond. Menexenus admits his political ambition, he is aiming for a government office, but only wants to take this path with the consent of Socrates. He says that he was at the council meeting because he wanted to know who will be assigned the task of delivering the public speech at the funeral in honor of the Athenians who died in battle. With this he shows his great interest in state speeches.

Socrates reacts ironically with mocking remarks about the encomiastic rhetoric, the eulogy. He portrays death on the battlefield as a stroke of luck: It must be something beautiful to die like this, because then, even as a poor person, you get a splendid state funeral. Even if you were a good-for-nothing during your lifetime, you are glorified by an excellent rhetorician in a rousing eulogy. Such a speaker knows how to charm a congregation. He not only praises the state, the fallen and the ancestors, but the Athenians as a whole, so includes his audience in the praise. In this way, he gives the citizens the uplifting feeling of a special grandeur of their city and a dignity which they themselves also have due to the mere fact that they are Athenians. The whole city then seems more wonderful to the audience than before and they feel bigger and nobler. In the eyes of foreign guests, too, as citizens of such an excellent city, they gain in stature. Since you are an important person as an Athenian, you have a corresponding self-confidence. He himself, says Socrates ironically, enjoys an euphoria that lasts for days after such a speech . He then believes he is living on the paradise islands of the blessed until everyday life catches up with him again.

Menexenus is already familiar with Socrates' habit of mocking speakers. He points out, however, that this time the rhetorician chosen by the council will face a particular challenge, as he has little time to prepare. Socrates objects that every rhetorician has speeches prepared for such occasions and that even if one had to improvise it would not be difficult. Only if the virtues of foreigners were to be presented would a good speaker be needed; if the praise goes to those present, it is easy to find their approval. Menexenus then wants to know whether Socrates would trust himself to master this task if the council entrusted it to him. Socrates affirmed this with great certainty: he learned the art of speaking from Aspasia, the partner of the statesman Pericles, the best speaker in all of Greece. Pericles, too, owes his rhetorical persuasiveness to the lessons Aspasia gave him. In addition, first-class training is not even necessary for a successful eulogy; Even as a student of a less important rhetoric teacher, one could impress the audience if one praised the Athenians in front of the Athenians. The day before, Aspasia had given him an impromptu example of a speech from the fallen. She probably already put together the material used for this when she was writing Pericles' speech to the fallen . With this casual, disparaging remark, Socrates makes Aspasia the true author of one of the most famous rhetorical achievements of antiquity. At the request of Menexenus, he agreed to reproduce Aspasia's remarks from memory.

The speech

The excellence of Attica

The state funeral honors the fallen through action, but the word should also show them due respect. Three things are to be praised: their descent, their upbringing and the great deeds worthy of their origins that they have accomplished. In terms of ancestry, they are distinguished by being well-born, because they are not descendants of immigrant foreigners, but their ancestors were the natives of Attica , the home region of the Athenians. Therefore, Attica's earth is her mother, in whose lap she now rest again after death. This mother country deserves to be praised not only by its inhabitants, but by all people. It is a land loved by the gods. While all other regions of the world have produced wild animals, such animals have never been native to Attica; man, on the other hand, the only rational being, is a child of this land, here is the origin of mankind. Therefore Attica is also characterized by the fact that it was the first country to produce wheat and barley, because these are the best foods for humans. This is how the Attic earth looked after its children; besides, she gave them the olive tree as a refreshment.

The Athenian state order

Thanks to divine instruction, the Athenians had the aristocratic state system from the beginning , which they still have. The constitution of Athens is called democratic by some, because the decision-making power rests mainly with the people, but in reality it is aristocratic in the sense that the fittest rule in agreement with the people (aristocracy literally means "rule of the best"). The people entrust the leadership positions to those citizens whom they consider the best. As in other countries, nobody is discriminated against because of physical deficiency or because of poverty or low origin; what counts is the qualification alone. Offices are only given to those who have a reputation for wisdom and efficiency. There is no arbitrary exercise of power, no stratification between rulers and rulers, but all citizens are equal before the law, because they are all of the same origin and therefore siblings. Athenians grow up in complete freedom and only subordinate themselves to those who are considered outstanding because of virtue and insight.

The Athenians as heroic champions of freedom

One of the main features of Athenian history is that the Athenians have always appeared as pioneers of freedom from the very beginning - even in the early mythical times. From the more recent past, her achievements in the Persian Wars should first be emphasized. The Persian king Darius I sent a fleet of three hundred warships and an army of five hundred thousand men to subdue Eretria and Athens. First Eretria was conquered and the entire population carried away into captivity. The other Greeks were so intimidated that no one but the Spartans dared to rush to the aid of the Athenians, and the Spartans arrived too late. So it came about that the Athenians alone won the decisive victory at Marathon (490 BC). This success became a turning point, because from then on the Greeks no longer shrank from facing the Persians in battle. In the sea battles at Salamis and Artemision (480 BC), the Athenians showed that they were superior to the superior strength of the Persians not only on land but also at sea. The victory in the Battle of Plataiai (479 BC), in which the Athenians and Spartans fought together, rounded off the series of military successes. Later, the sea ​​victory on Eurymedon put a definite end to the danger of Persian expansion into Greece.

After the threat posed by the “barbarians” (non-Greeks) had been averted, wars broke out among the Greeks, as Athens' leading role was viewed with resentment by envious powers and even provoked hatred. So the Athenians were drawn into internal Greek conflicts against their will. They again stood up for freedom, this time in the fight against Greek subjugation of Greeks. At first they helped Boiotians who were besieged by Sparta and Thebes . They fought for their Boiotic allies in the battles of Tanagra and Oinophyta (457 BC). Athens won this war too. In the "Archidamian War" (431–421 BC), the first phase of the Peloponnesian War , the Athenians were also successful, although they had to fight alone against all other Greek powers. They showed themselves to be noble towards the Spartan prisoners, since in the fight against the Greeks they only aimed at victory, not the annihilation of the enemy. A new war - meaning the second phase of the Peloponnesian War - broke out when the Athenians, who once again acted as champions of freedom, undertook their expedition to Sicily to support the beleaguered Leontines against Syracuse (415-413 BC .). They suffered defeat in the process, but were recognized even by the enemy for their prudence and bravery. Finally all the remaining Greeks allied themselves with the Persians against Athens. Nevertheless, when the Athenians seemed already defeated, they achieved a brilliant victory in the Battle of the Arginus (406 BC). In doing so, they showed that Athens cannot even be defeated by the rest of humanity. The fact that the Peloponnesian War finally ended with an Athenian defeat is only due to the disagreement among the Athenians. They have not been conquered by their enemies, but have conquered themselves.

Then it came under the Athenians to the civil war between oligarchs and democrats (404-403 BC). This conflict could, however, be ended with a sensible, measured peace agreement, since the Athenians did not forget their brotherly friendship among one another even during the civil war. It was not malice or hatred that led to the internal conflict, it was only caused by unfavorable circumstances. When hostilities ceased, a full reconciliation was achieved.

After the Spartans, the main victors of the Peloponnesian War, subjugated Greece to their hegemony , the Argives , Boiotians and Corinthians they oppressed turned to the Athenians for help, and even the Persian king, who was threatened by Spartan supremacy, put his hope in Athens. Once again the Athenians, out of pity, vigorously advocated the liberation of the subjugated; in the Corinthian War (395–387 BC) they fought successfully against the Spartans. Since, in view of their role in the Persian Wars, they did not want to officially ally themselves with the Persian "barbarians" against the Greeks, they only supported the Persian king indirectly by allowing volunteers to come to his aid and save him.

As always, it was still the goal of the Persian king to bring all Greek cities in western Asia Minor under his rule. To this end, he wanted to cut them off from any support from Greece. He demanded that his allies in Greece give him a free hand in Asia Minor. All the Greek powers allied against Sparta except Athens were ready for this; only the Athenians refused to abandon the Greeks of Asia Minor. The Athenians' freedom and solidarity is due to the fact that they are pure Greeks by descent. Unlike the inhabitants of other Greek cities, they never mixed with “barbarians”. Eventually they managed to end the war with an honorable peace.

The responsibilities of the bereaved

For the bereaved - the parents and children of those who fell in the last fighting - it is now a matter of showing themselves worthy to their loved ones who have gloriously sacrificed their lives and to continue the tradition of Athenian heroism. Here Socrates lets the fallen have their own say and addresses their surviving relatives as he knows they would if they could. The message that he proclaims in the name of the dead is: Whoever wants to act in the spirit of the brave fallen, should adopt in his own life the ability or virtue ( aretḗ ) as best he can. He should strive for fame, compete with his ancestors and even outdo their achievements if possible. It is disgraceful, as the descendants of famous ancestors, to draw on their fame instead of performing great deeds yourself. The dead are not honored by complaining about their passing, but by bravely bearing the misfortune. The city provides for the material needs of the bereaved, takes care of the upbringing of the orphans and keeps the memory of their glorious dead alive with annual celebrations.

The conclusion of the conversation

Menexenos is very impressed by the speech and is amazed that Aspasia, whom he knows well, is said to have achieved such a feat. He indicates that he does not trust her to do that, but believes that Socrates has tied a bear for him. He would like to hear more such speeches in the future. Socrates promises him that, but asks him to keep quiet.

Question of authenticity and time of origin

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

Since the 19th century, the question of whether the Menexenos actually comes in its entirety from Plato or whether at least part of the dialogue is spurious has been discussed in research . In particular, the possibility was considered that the framework discussion and the speech are of different origins and were only combined afterwards. A blatant anachronism seems to speak for this, the mention of the King's Peace of 386 BC. In a speech of 399 BC. Executed Socrates. Chronological inconsistencies often appear in Plato's dialogues, but none was as evident to contemporaries as this one. One explanation could be that the framework discussion and the speech came from two different authors and the speech was not originally conceived as part of a dialogue and had nothing to do with Socrates and Aspasia. Then the anachronism can be explained by the fact that the person who combined the two parts into a dialogue overlooked the chronological impossibility.

One circumstance that has fueled doubts about authenticity is the figure of Menexenus , which is atypical for a Platonic dialogue : by far the largest part is made up of an eulogy, i.e. a literary text of a genre rejected by Plato and mocked by his Socrates in the framework of a discussion.

The main argument for the authenticity is the mention by Aristotle , who was well informed as a pupil of Plato. Aristotle quoted the speech of the fallen repeatedly, referring to Socrates as the speaker. He was therefore already familiar with the dialogue in its present form and was not offended by the anachronism. Although he did not name Plato as the author, he also expressed no doubts about his authorship. Therefore, the more recent research almost unanimously assumes that it is a real work, even if doubts are expressed in isolated cases. The analysis of style and vocabulary does not reveal any serious suspicions, but also no indications that speak clearly in favor of Plato as the author.

Because of the mention of the King's Peace, Menexenus cannot be named before 386 BC. Originated in BC; some scholars believe that Plato wrote it this year or soon after. An important clue for the dating of the dialogue can be its controversial relationship to 380 BC. Panegyrikos of Isocrates published in the celebratory speech . According to a research hypothesis, the Menexenus represents Plato's reaction to the Panegyricus , so it was written in 380 at the earliest. Other researchers believe that the Menexenus was written first and that Isocrates makes reference to it in the Panegyricus , from which a dating of Plato's writing between 386 and 380 results.

interpretation

The "Speech of Aspasia" shows points of contact, but no extensive correspondence with the traditional version of the famous speech of the fallen by Pericles, a state speech in honor of the fellow citizens who died in the Peloponnesian War. What Pericles actually said is unknown; posterity only has his speech in a literarily freely designed version by the historian Thucydides . Plato had this text in mind when he named Aspasia as the author of Pericles' speech in the Menexenos , and he referred to it indirectly and critically in his dialogue. In contrast to Thucydides, who admired Pericles, Plato disapproved of the politics of the Pericles, especially the politics of sea ​​power , which he considered fatal. This resulted in an antagonistic relationship to Thucydides and his view of history.

A series of false claims, or at least falsifying historical reality, about Athenian history in the "Speech of Aspasia" and the anachronistic inclusion of the Corinthian War have led to a research discussion about the author's intention in presenting the history of his hometown. Plato's Socrates idealized Athens as a basically “aristocratic” state despite democracy, in which an elite ruled according to the will of the people and only efficiency counted. According to his account, the Athenians always chose their officials according to reasonable criteria and made their foreign policy decisions for noble, often selfless motives. This picture contrasts with the very distant attitude of the philosopher towards the Athenian constitution and democratic politics, known from other works by Plato.

Exaggerated rhetoric in the speech, the drastic irony in the framework discussion and the historical discrepancies show that the script is at least partially conceived as a parody of the literary genre of the funeral oration - especially the speech of Pericles in Thucydides. As is often the case with Plato, there is a mixture of seriousness and joke here. The differentiation and weighting of the serious and the ironic aspects is controversial in research. A distorted presentation of historical and political facts was common in Plato's time and could be expected of the uncritical public in this regard, especially if it served the glory of one's own city. In the Menexenos , however, it must be judged against the background of the “irony signals” in the framework discussion. In any case, it is certain that Plato judged the Athenian conditions and the political maturity of his fellow citizens far less favorably than his Socrates in Menexenus . It is also obvious that the dialogue should make the reader aware of the dubiousness of flattering rhetoric. Plato's references to the speechwriters' approach are enlightening. They were based on common recipes and patterns and combined existing set pieces as required. The reference to the specific occasion of the speech and thus the truth of the matter were insignificant. In this context it also belongs that Plato's Socrates in the "Speech of Aspasia" cites the mythical divine dispute between Athena and Poseidon over Attica as a fact in order to prove the love of the gods for this landscape. However, such a dispute is in fact impossible, according to Plato. As can be seen from other dialogues, he considered the mythical tales of gods quarreling to be blasphemous lies. It is therefore clear that his view in no way corresponds to the presentation in the "Speech of Aspasia". Rather, the reference - common in eulogies to Athens - to the battle of the gods over Attica is, from Plato's point of view, an example of the rhetorical flattery without truth content, which is denounced in the Menexenos .

The anachronism of the treatment of the Corinthian War seems to some researchers inexplicable, others see in it a deliberate alienation effect, which is intended to point to the most irrelevant aspect of the parodic work. Debra Nails and Jules Labarbe consider the piece of text, which deals with the events after Socrates' death, to be an insertion not from Plato.

A particular irony is that Aspasia, the alleged author of the extremely patriotic speech, was a foreigner. She came from Miletus and was viewed with suspicion and severely hostile in Athens, which was partly due to her origin. Her status as a suspicious foreigner contrasts sharply with the content of the speech, in which the uniqueness of Attica as the motherland of an ethnically homogeneous and therefore particularly noble population is praised.

reception

Ancient and Middle Ages

A number of mentions and quotations attest to the renown of Menexenus in antiquity. It is possible that Plato's contemporary Isocrates reacted indirectly to the dialogue in his programmatic celebratory speech Panegyrikos . The oldest clear evidence for the reception of Menexenus can be found in the rhetoric of Aristotle , who quoted a passage from the introductory conversation twice - apparently from memory - and gave the source "Socrates in the funeral oration". The most irrelevant aspects of speech were apparently not recognized by ancient posterity.

Cicero quoted Menexenus in his works De officiis and Tusculanae disputationes . He reported in his 46 BC Written Orator , in his day Plato's funeral oration was given in Athens every year in a popular assembly on the occasion of a celebration in honor of the fallen.

In the tetralogical order of the works of Plato, which apparently in the 1st century BC Was introduced, the Menexenus belongs to the seventh tetralogy. The historian of philosophy Diogenes Laertios counted it among the “ethical” writings and gave “funeral speech” as an alternative title. In doing so, he referred to a now-lost script by the Middle Platonist Thrasyllos .

In the 2nd century the rhetor Aelius Aristides cited Menexenus in his defense of rhetoric , to whom he gave unreserved praise: Here Plato, the distinguished critic of the art of speaking, wrote an excellent speech himself and thus recognized the legitimacy of the rhetoric.

In his polemic against Plato, the anti-philosophically minded scholar Athenaios named Menexenus among the works in which the philosopher, who was “envious of all people”, had defamed.

The connection between the speech in Menexenus and the speech of the fallen in Pericles in Thucydides was often pointed out. It was thought that Plato wanted to rival Thucydides, and it was even alleged that he wrote the Menexenus specifically to criticize and outdo the famous historian. The rhetorician and literary critic Dionysius of Halicarnassus , who considered the speech in Menexenus to be Plato's most successful work from a rhetorical point of view, saw it as an attempt to imitate Thucydides. Dionysius analyzed the literary quality of Plato's fallen speech thoroughly and critically. He classified it as a secondary performance because he felt that it had numerous stylistic deficiencies. He carefully compared two long passages from the speech in Menexenus and from Demosthenes ' “wreath speech ” , reproducing the texts verbatim. From his point of view, the comparison undoubtedly revealed the rhetorical superiority of Demosthenes. However, he considered Plato an author with considerable oratorical skills and assigned him and Isocrates the second rank after Demosthenes. He praised the beginning of the speech in Menexenos for the beautiful sound and excellent rhythm of the sentence.

From information provided by the influential Neo-Platonist Proklos in late antiquity, it emerges that some Plato commentators, whom Proklos does not name, admit the imitation of Thucydides and the rivalry with the historian, but found nothing to be criticized in it. They said that Plato had improved and supplemented the explanations in Thucydides with his work. He had succeeded in surpassing the model, both with a better structure and clearer language and with regard to the quality of the argumentation. The author of the anonymously handed down late antique "Prolegomena to Plato's Philosophy", however, denied the rivalry. He emphasized that Plato never wrote a dialogue with the intention of reacting to a foreign script and contradicting its author. It is wrong to interpret the Menexenus as Plato's answer to the speech written by Thucydides and to imply that the philosopher wanted to compete with the historian. The late antique philosopher and writer Synesius of Cyrene was of the opinion that Thucydides's speech in the dead should be judged according to different criteria than that of Plato. Each of the two speeches, if viewed from the relevant point of view, is far superior to the other.

No ancient text witnesses have survived. The Menexenus is missing in the oldest medieval Plato manuscripts, which were written in the 9th century and which have incomplete collections of the works of the philosopher . The oldest surviving Menexenos manuscript, now known as Codex T, was not written until the middle of the 10th century . In the context of the late medieval Platonist Georgios Gemistos Plethon († 1452), the "Speech of Aspasia" was valued as a document of ancient Greek patriotism. Dialogue was unknown to the Latin- speaking scholars of the West in the Middle Ages.

Early modern age

In the West, the Menexenos was rediscovered in the age of Renaissance humanism . The first Latin translation was done by the Italian humanist Marsilio Ficino . He published it in Florence in 1484 in the complete edition of his Plato translations.

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 .

Modern

In the 19th and 20th centuries, the study of Menexenos was largely the domain of ancient scholars; It was not until the end of the 20th century that dialogue also received greater attention in political science .

The modern judgments about literary quality and philosophical content have largely been negative. One of the reasons for this, as Ronald B. Levinson points out , is that such an extreme interpenetration of joke and seriousness does not appeal to modern readers. The opinion expressed by Alfred Edward Taylor and Charles H. Kahn, among others , that the Menexenus is Plato's most enigmatic work is widespread ; Paul Friedländer called it "the most confusing work of Plato", which draws "the most paradoxical of his many pictures of Socrates". As early as 1809, the Plato translator Friedrich Schleiermacher stated in the introduction to the first edition of his translation of the Menexenos that the purpose of the dialogue was puzzling and that the introduction was completely unsuccessful and possibly spurious. Friedrich Nietzsche said that there was "no reason to discern why the philosopher should have written such a piece"; this speaks against the authenticity. The renowned philologist and Plato connoisseur Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff initially considered the work to be fake, like many of his contemporaries, but later changed his mind. He judged that although the scriptures contained something witty and witty, they retained something ambivalent and therefore unsatisfactory; she challenged the comparison with Thucydides, which she did not tolerate. The part of the speech addressed directly to the bereaved was "remarkably cool and conventional". Karl Praechter and Franz von Kutschera flatly denied that the script had a philosophical benefit. William KC Guthrie was one of the philosophical historians who rated the dialogue as insignificant .

Karl Popper emphasized the anti-democratic thrust of the work. He saw the version of Pericles' speech on the fallen by Thucydides as "practically authentic". As an opponent of Athenian democracy, Plato wanted to counter the program of the democrats, which Pericles formulated in his speech, with a caricature with the "undisguised parody" in Menexenos .

For Olof Gigon , the Menexenos is the one of all the dialogues that are considered to be genuine, who “is furthest from the actual Plato in terms of structure and content”. The speech is beautiful and worthy, but not outstanding, and the dialogic framework that includes it is “more than poor”. A philosophical return is completely lacking.

In addition, very positive judgments have been made. Charles H. Kahn thought that Plato's speech about the fallen was on a par with Thucydides' speeches and perhaps the best product of Greek rhetoric before Demosthenes. Robert Clavaud came to a positive assessment of the literary quality in his thorough investigation of the dialogue published in 1980, which he substantiated in detail. He paid tribute to the abundance of stylistic devices used in Menexenos and the ironic effects, which in some cases are only understandable to those familiar with Plato's thinking. The dialogue is not written for a broad audience, but for readers who can understand its intricacies. Lucinda Coventry saw the Menexenos as a rich inventory of the dark sides of the rhetorical practice of the time.

Editions and translations

  • Stavros Tsitsiridis: Plato's Menexenos. Introduction, text and commentary (= contributions to antiquity , vol. 107). Teubner, Stuttgart / Leipzig 1998, ISBN 3-519-07656-X (critical edition with detailed commentary).
  • Otto Apelt (translator): Plato's dialogues Charmides, Lysis, Menexenos . 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 2nd, reviewed edition, Leipzig 1922).
  • Vera Binder et al. (Ed.): Epitaphien. Death, funeral speech, rhetoric. Selection, translation and commentary . Leidorf, Rahden 2007, ISBN 978-3-86757-182-1 , pp. 92-141 (Greek text without critical apparatus with translation by Binder).
  • Gunther Eigler (ed.): Platon: Works in eight volumes , Volume 2, 5th edition, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 2005, ISBN 3-534-19095-5 , pp. 221-267 (reprint of the critical edition by Louis Méridier, 4th edition, Paris 1964, with the German translation by Friedrich Schleiermacher, 2nd, improved edition, Berlin 1826).
  • Ludwig Georgii (translator): Menexenos . In: Erich Loewenthal (Hrsg.): Platon: Complete Works in Three Volumes , Vol. 1, unchanged reprint of the 8th, revised edition, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 2004, ISBN 3-534-17918-8 , pp. 459-480 .
  • Rudolf Rufener (translator): Plato: Frühdialoge (= anniversary edition of all works , vol. 1). Artemis, Zurich / Munich 1974, ISBN 3-7608-3640-2 , pp. 351–373 (with an introduction by Olof Gigon).

literature

Overview display

Investigations

  • Robert Clavaud: Le Ménexène de Platon et la rhetorique de son temps . Les Belles Lettres, Paris 1980, ISBN 2-251-32590-5 .
  • Christoph Eucken : The ambiguity of the Platonic Menexenos . In: Hyperboreus 9, 2003, pp. 44-55.
  • Ernst Heitsch : Thucydides, Aspasia and Plato's Menexenos . In: Philologus 153, 2009, pp. 229-236.
  • Franco V. Trivigno: The Rhetoric of Parody in Plato's Menexenus . In: Philosophy and Rhetoric 42, 2009, pp. 29-58.

Web links

Remarks

  1. ↑ Michel Narcy: Ménexène . In: Richard Goulet (ed.): Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques , Vol. 5, Part 1, Paris 2012, pp. 784–788, here: 784.
  2. ↑ Debra Nails: The People of Plato , Indianapolis 2002, pp. 319f.
  3. ↑ Debra Nails: The People of Plato , Indianapolis 2002, pp. 202f. On the historical Menexenos Stavros Tsitsiridis (ed.): Platons Menexenos , Stuttgart 1998, pp. 53–56.
  4. ↑ Stavros Tsitsiridis (Ed.): Platons Menexenos , Stuttgart 1998, p. 57f.
  5. ^ Plato, Menexenus 234a-b.
  6. ↑ See Robert Clavaud: Le Ménexène de Platon et la rhetorique de son temps , Paris 1980, p. 111.
  7. ↑ Plato, Menexenus 234c-235c.
  8. ↑ See also Carl Werner Müller : Plato and the Panegyrikos of Isokrates . In: Carl Werner Müller: Small writings on ancient literature and intellectual history , Stuttgart 1999, pp. 440–462, here: 453f.
  9. ↑ See Ernst Heitsch: Thukydides, Aspasia and Plato's Menexenos . In: Philologus 153, 2009, pp. 229-236; Madeleine M. Henry: Prisoner of History , New York 1995, p. 35.
  10. ↑ Plato, Menexenus 235c-236d.
  11. ↑ Plato, Menexenus 236d-238a.
  12. ↑ See on this aristocratic interpretation of democracy Ernst Heitsch: Thucydides, Aspasia and Plato's Menexenos . In: Philologus 153, 2009, pp. 229-236, here: 232f.
  13. ↑ Plato, Menexenus 238b-239a.
  14. ↑ Plato, Menexenus 239a-241e.
  15. ↑ Plato, Menexenus 241e-243d.
  16. ↑ Plato, Menexenus 243e-244b.
  17. ↑ Plato, Menexenus 244c-245b.
  18. ↑ Plato, Menexenus 245b-246a.
  19. ↑ Plato, Menexenus 246b-249c.
  20. ↑ Plato, Menexenus 249d-e.
  21. ↑ Stavros Tsitsiridis (ed.): Platons Menexenos , Stuttgart 1998, pp. 21–41, provides an overview of the authenticity debate .
  22. ↑ Holger Thesleff : Platonic Patterns , Las Vegas 2009, pp. 265f., 327f .; David Engels : Irony and Plato's Menexenus . In: L'Antiquité Classique 81, 2012, pp. 13–30, here: 24–30.
  23. ↑ This is the argument based on Eduard Schwartz : Kallisthenes Hellenika . In: Hermes 35, 1900, pp. 106–130, here: 124f.
  24. ↑ Aristotle, rhetoric 1367b, 1415b.
  25. ^ Alfred Edward Taylor: Plato. The man and his work , 5th edition, London 1948, p. 41; Stavros Tsitsiridis (Ed.): Platons Menexenos , Stuttgart 1998, p. 34f.
  26. ^ William KC Guthrie: A History of Greek Philosophy , Vol. 4, Cambridge 1975, pp. 312f .; Stavros Tsitsiridis (Ed.): Platons Menexenos , Stuttgart 1998, p. 21.
  27. ^ Gerard R. Ledger: Recounting Plato , Oxford 1989, pp. 163f .; Stavros Tsitsiridis (Ed.): Platons Menexenos , Stuttgart 1998, pp. 37-40.
  28. ↑ Michel Narcy: Ménexène . In: Richard Goulet (ed.): Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques , Vol. 5, Part 1, Paris 2012, pp. 784–788, here: 784f.
  29. ↑ See on the dating Christoph Eucken: Isokrates , Berlin 1983, p. 141.
  30. ^ Alfred Edward Taylor: Plato. The man and his work , 5th edition, London 1948, pp. 42-44, 517; Carl Werner Müller: Plato and the Panegyric of Isocrates . In: Carl Werner Müller: Small writings on ancient literature and intellectual history , Stuttgart 1999, pp. 440–462. Franz von Kutschera agreed to this hypothesis: Platon's Philosophy , Vol. 1, Paderborn 2002, p. 213f., Michael Erler: Platon , Basel 2007, pg. 163f. and Ernst Heitsch: On the dating of Menexenos . In: Philologus 152, 2008, pp. 183-190; Stavros Tsitsiridis (ed.) argued against this: Platons Menexenos , Stuttgart 1998, pp. 44-48.
  31. ↑ Christoph Eucken: Isokrates , Berlin 1983, pp. 162-165; Christoph Eucken: The Platonic Menexenus and the Panegyrikos of Isocrates . In: Museum Helveticum 67, 2010, pp. 131–145; Klaus Ries: Isokrates and Plato in the struggle for Philosophia , dissertation Munich 1959, pp. 62–68.
  32. ↑ Thucydides 2.35-46.
  33. ↑ Christoph Eucken: Thucydides and Antiphon in the Platonic Menexenos . In: Göttingen Forum for Classical Studies 11, 2008, pp. 7–51 ( PDF ); Charles H. Kahn: Plato's Funeral Oration: The Motive of the Menexenus . In: Classical Philology 58, 1963, pp. 220-234, here: 221-224; Reinhard Thurow: The platonic epitaph , Tübingen 1968, p. 54f .; Reginald E. Allen : The Dialogues of Plato , Vol. 1, New Haven / London 1984, pp. 323-327; Stephen G. Salkever: Socrates' Aspasian Oration: The Play of Philosophy and Politics in Plato's Menexenus . In: American Political Science Review 87, 1993, pp. 133-143, here: 133-135; Susan Sara Monoson: Remembering Pericles. The Political and Theoretical Import of Plato's Menexenus . In: Political Theory 26, 1998, pp. 489-513, here: 489-495. See Thomas M. Kerch: Plato's Menexenus: A Paradigm of Rhetorical Flattery . In: Polis (Exeter) 25, 2008, pp. 94-114, here: 99-105.
  34. ↑ See Gregory Vlastos : Ίσονομία πολιτική . In: Jürgen Mau , Ernst Günther Schmidt (Ed.): Isonomia. Studies on the concept of equality in Greek thought , Berlin 1964, pp. 1–35, here: 23–25; Louis Méridier (Ed.): Plato: Œuvres complètes , Volume 5, Part 1, 3rd edition, Paris 1956, pp. 59–64; Robert Clavaud: Le Ménexène de Platon et la rhetorique de son temps , Paris 1980, pp. 127–167; Magnus M. Henderson: Plato's Menexenus and the Distortion of History . In: Acta Classica 18, 1975, pp. 25-46, here: 33-45.
  35. ↑ See Gregory Vlastos: Ίσονομία πολιτική . In: Jürgen Mau, Ernst Günther Schmidt (Ed.): Isonomia. Studies on the concept of equality in Greek thought , Berlin 1964, pp. 1–35, here: 25–28; Robert Clavaud: Le Ménexène de Platon et la rhetorique de son temps , Paris 1980, pp. 124-126.
  36. ↑ See Robert Clavaud: Le Ménexène de Platon et la rhétorique de son temps , Paris 1980, pp 37-77 (detailed description of the history of research); Michael Erler: Platon , Basel 2007, p. 163f .; Alfred Edward Taylor: Plato. The man and his work , 5th Edition, London 1948, pp. 41-45; Michel Narcy: Ménexène . In: Richard Goulet (ed.): Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques , Vol. 5, Part 1, Paris 2012, pp. 784–788, here: 786f .; William KC Guthrie: A History of Greek Philosophy , Vol. 4, Cambridge 1975, pp. 314f., 317-320; Gregory Vlastos: Ίσονομία πολιτική . In: Jürgen Mau, Ernst Günther Schmidt (Ed.): Isonomia. Studies on the concept of equality in Greek thought , Berlin 1964, pp. 1–35, here: 22–33; Louis Méridier (Ed.): Plato: Œuvres complètes , Volume 5, Part 1, 3rd Edition, Paris 1956, pp. 64–66, 74–79; Rosalind Thomas: Oral tradition and written record in classical Athens , Cambridge 1989, pp. 210f., 214, 229; Christoph Eucken: Thucydides and Antiphon in the Platonic Menexenos . In: Göttingen Forum for Classical Studies 11, 2008, pp. 7–51, here: 9f .; Dorothee Haßkamp: Oligarchical arbitrariness - democratic order , Darmstadt 2005, p. 70f .; Franco V. Trivigno: The Rhetoric of Parody in Plato's Menexenus . In: Philosophy and Rhetoric 42, 2009, pp. 29-58; Susan D. Collins, Devin Stauffer: The Challenge of Plato's Menexenus . In: The Review of Politics 61, 1999, pp. 85-115, here: 88-92; Nicole Loraux : The Invention of Athens , Cambridge (Massachusetts) 1986, pp. 311-327.
  37. ↑ Plato, Menexenos 237c-d.
  38. ↑ Christoph Eucken: The ambiguity of the Platonic Menexenos . In: Hyperboreus 9, 2003, pp. 44-55, here: 46f .; Stavros Tsitsiridis (Ed.): Platons Menexenos , Stuttgart 1998, pp. 206-208.
  39. ^ Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff: Platon. His life and his works , 5th edition, Berlin 1959 (1st edition Berlin 1919), p. 207; Alfred Edward Taylor: Plato. The man and his work , 5th Edition, London 1948, pp. 41-45; Herwig Görgemanns : Platon , Heidelberg 1994, p. 66f .; Franz von Kutschera: Plato's Philosophy , Vol. 1, Paderborn 2002, p. 213.
  40. ↑ Debra Nails: The People of Plato , Indianapolis 2002, p. 319; Jules Labarbe: Anomalies dans le Ménéxène de Platon . In: L'Antiquité Classique 60, 1991, pp. 89-101, here: 97f.
  41. ↑ This aspect emphasizes u. a. Paul O'Mahoney: The Origin of the Olive: On the Dynamics of Plato's Menexenus . In: Polis (Exeter) 27, 2010, pp. 38–55, here: 39–41.
  42. ↑ This view is Christoph Eucken: The Platonic Menexenos and the Panegyrikos of Isocrates . In: Museum Helveticum 67, 2010, pp. 131–145.
  43. ↑ Aristotle, rhetoric 1367b, 1415b. See also Stavros Tsitsiridis (Ed.): Platons Menexenos , Stuttgart 1998, p. 34f .; Robert Clavaud: Le Ménexène de Platon et la rhetorique de son temps , Paris 1980, pp. 17-21.
  44. ^ William KC Guthrie: A History of Greek Philosophy , Vol. 4, Cambridge 1975, pp. 319f .; Louis Méridier (Ed.): Platon: Œuvres complètes , Volume 5, Part 1, 3rd edition, Paris 1956, pp. 76f .; Robert Clavaud: Le Ménexène de Platon et la rhetorique de son temps , Paris 1980, pp. 17-35.
  45. ↑ Cicero, De officiis 1.63 and Tusculanae disputationes 5.36.
  46. ↑ Cicero, Orator 151. See Robert Clavaud: Le Ménexène de Platon et la rhetorique de son temps , Paris 1980, pp. 24f.
  47. ↑ Diogenes Laertios 3: 57-60.
  48. ↑ Aelius Aristides, To Plato on Rhetoric 112–114; see the edition by Charles A. Behr: Aristides in Four Volumes , Vol. 1, London 1973, pp. 480-484. See Robert Clavaud: Le Ménexène de Platon et la rhetorique de son temps , Paris 1980, p. 31f.
  49. ↑ Athenaios 11,506a-507a.
  50. ↑ Prolegomena to the Philosophy of Plato 22, ed. von Leendert G. Westerink : Prolégomènes à la philosophie de Platon , Paris 1990, p. 35; see also p. 72.
  51. ↑ Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Demosthenes 23.7–33.4. See the commentary by the editor Germaine Aujac: Denys d'Halicarnasse: Opuscules rhétoriques , Vol. 2: Démosthène , Paris 1988, pp. 169–172; Heinrich Dörrie , Matthias Baltes : Platonism in antiquity , Volume 2, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1990, pp. 134–147, 395–398; Robert Clavaud: Le Ménexène de Platon et la rhetorique de son temps , Paris 1980, pp. 25-29.
  52. ^ Dionysius of Halicarnassus, De compositione verborum 18.9-12.
  53. ^ Proclus, In Platonis Parmenidem 631.
  54. ↑ Prolegomena to the Philosophy of Plato 22, ed. von Leendert G. Westerink: Prolégomènes à la philosophie de Platon , Paris 1990, p. 35.
  55. ↑ Synesios of Cyrene, Dion 1:13.
  56. ^ Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana , app. Cl. IV.1 = coll. 542. For the dating, see Elizabeth A. Duke et al. (Ed.): Platonis opera , Volume 1, Oxford 1995, p. VII.
  57. ^ Carl Werner Müller: Small writings on ancient literature and intellectual history , Stuttgart 1999, p. 442, 640–643.
  58. ↑ Ronald B. Levinson: In defense of Plato , Cambridge (Massachusetts) 1953, p. 335. Cf. Stavros Tsitsiridis (Ed.): Platons Menexenos , Stuttgart 1998, p. 82, 84.
  59. ^ Alfred Edward Taylor: Plato. The man and his work , 5th edition, London 1948, p. 41; Charles H. Kahn: Plato's Funeral Oration: The Motive of the Menexenus . In: Classical Philology 58, 1963, pp. 220-234, here: 220.
  60. ^ Paul Friedländer: Platon , Vol. 2, 3rd, improved edition, Berlin 1964, p. 202.
  61. ^ Friedrich Schleiermacher: Menexenos. Introduction . In: Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher: About the philosophy of Plato , ed. by Peter M. Steiner, Hamburg 1996, pp. 326-330.
  62. ^ Lecture recording in: Friedrich Nietzsche: Werke. Critical Complete Edition , Department 2, Vol. 4, Berlin 1995, p. 146.
  63. ^ Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff: Platon. Supplements and text criticism , 4th edition, Dublin / Zurich 1969 (1st edition Berlin 1919), p. 126.
  64. ^ Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff: Platon. His life and his works , 5th edition, Berlin 1959 (1st edition Berlin 1919), pp. 206, 208.
  65. ^ Karl Praechter: The philosophy of antiquity , 12th, revised edition, Berlin 1926, p. 259; Franz von Kutschera: Plato's Philosophy , Vol. 1, Paderborn 2002, p. 213.
  66. ^ William KC Guthrie: A History of Greek Philosophy , Vol. 4, Cambridge 1975, p. 320.
  67. ^ Karl Popper: The open society and their enemies , Volume 1, 7th, revised edition, Tübingen 1992, pp. 223, 318.
  68. ↑ Olof Gigon: Introduction . In: Platon: Die Werke des Aufstiegs (= anniversary edition of all works , vol. 2), Zurich / Munich 1974, pp. CII – CV.
  69. ^ Charles H. Kahn: Plato's Funeral Oration: The Motive of the Menexenus . In: Classical Philology 58, 1963, pp. 220-234, here: 232.
  70. ↑ Robert Clavaud: Le Ménexène de Platon et la rhétorique de son temps , Paris 1980, pp 229-251.
  71. ↑ Lucinda Coventry: Philosophy and rhetoric in the Menexenus . In: Journal of Hellenic Studies 109, 1989, pp. 1–15, here: 4f.
This article was added to the list of excellent articles on December 3, 2013 in this version .