Seventh letter (Plato)

The beginning of the seventh letter in the oldest surviving medieval manuscript: Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale , Gr. 1807 (9th century)

The seventh letter is an ancient Greek literary work dating from around the middle of the 4th century BC. And names the philosopher Plato as its author, but may not have come from him. According to the text, the letter is addressed to a group of Sicilian Greeks to whom the author provides political advice, but it may be a literary fiction. The letter of Plato explains in detail and justifies controversial activities in Syracuse , which aimed to reform the tyrannically ruled Syracuse city-state according to philosophical principles. The author describes the failure of this project and tries to explain the failure. It also deals with the question of how philosophical knowledge can be obtained and communicated. These versions are apparently intended for a wider reading public.

The work is the seventh in a collection of thirteen letters, all under Plato's name, but for the most part certainly or probably not written by him. The authenticity of some is doubtful, but none is certain. The seventh letter is by far the longest and the most weighty in terms of content in the collection and the one that has found the most supporters of its authenticity. If it is fake, the prevailing scholarship suggests that it comes from a well-informed philosopher close to Plato. Therefore, it is considered a valuable source for the life and political aspirations of the philosopher and for the history of Sicily. From the point of view of the history of ideas , the statements about Platonic epistemology and the inadequacy of the written philosophical discourse are significant . If Plato is actually the author, it is one of the oldest autobiographical texts in European literary history.

The authenticity of the seventh letter was hardly doubted in antiquity, but has been disputed by a number of ancient scholars since the late 18th century. After a long, intensive discussion, the voices that argue for authenticity dominate in research today. However, a strong minority continues to reject or doubt Plato's authorship, and the assumption that the author is at least a contemporary philosopher from the Platonic Academy has also met with opposition.

Prehistory and historical background

Plato's political agenda

Plato was very interested in politics. He was convinced that one of the tasks of a philosopher is not only to deal theoretically with questions of legislation, constitutional doctrine and state governance, but also to intervene in an advisory and creative manner when the opportunity arises. He saw no chance for this in his hometown of Athens , as its democratic constitution did not offer favorable conditions for such a project. The situation was different in Syracuse, the most important city in the Greek-populated part of Sicily. There was a tyranny there, a de facto unlimited hereditary sovereignty. Plato vehemently rejected this form of government, but he also saw in it a great opportunity if a tyrant was willing to open himself to philosophical influence and then to change the constitution. According to Plato's hope, such a tyrant could use his unlimited power to reshape his state according to the suggestions of a qualified state philosopher . Then the ideal of an optimal constitution or at least an approximation of the best possible form of government could be realized.

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

The Philosopher's Travels to Syracuse

Plato's three trips to Syracuse, on which he visited the court of tyrants each time, were marked by his political goals. On the first voyage around 388 BC He got to know Dion , then only about twenty years old brother-in-law of the tyrant Dionysius I. He made a lifelong friendship with the young man. According to the description in the seventh letter, Dion was already a staunch supporter of Platonic philosophy and therefore internally opposed the prevailing way of thinking and the state order. However, the sources indicate that Dion's relationship with Dionysius was excellent. He enjoyed the full confidence of the tyrant, who not only gave him his daughter as a wife, but also gave him important embassies.

When the tyrant in 367 BC Died, his eldest son, Dionysius II , who was around thirty years old, succeeded him and became sole ruler. Dionysius II had two half-brothers, Hipparinos and Nysaios , who came from his father's marriage to Dion's sister Aristomache , that is, Dion's nephews. You got nothing with the succession plan. Dion had tried in vain to persuade the terminally ill tyrant to issue an order that would have allowed his two young nephews to participate in power, which would have given him a very strong position himself.

At first, Dion was able to maintain his position at the court of tyrants under the new ruler. He persuaded Dionysius II to invite Plato to the court as an advisor; he could hope that this would strengthen his influence. Plato was won over to the project because Dion offered him the opportunity to transform the political situation in line with the Platonic philosophy of the state. So it came to the second trip to Sicily Plato in the year 366 BC. However, there was also an opposing party at court, whose spokesman Philistus , a loyal supporter of the tyrant family and the tyrannical form of government, suspected Dion of lacking loyalty. When Plato arrived, there was already strong tension between the two hostile groups at court. The power struggle between them was related to a foreign policy difference: Dion maintained good relations with the Carthaginians, who ruled western Sicily, and sought a compromise with them, while the group around Philistus steered an anti-Carthaginian course. This group probably wanted to continue the policy of military confrontation that Dionysius I had emphatically pursued and, if possible, drive the Carthaginians out of Sicily.

Apparently Dion intended even then to either bring Dionysius II under his influence with the help of Plato or to overthrow him. The first possibility seemed to be within reach, because Dionysius was at least superficially interested in philosophy and was very impressed by Plato's personality. However, he was also suspicious. The opposing circles tried to convince him that Dion only wanted to distract him from politics with philosophy, in order to finally give his nephews power or seize them himself. When the tyrant came into possession of an incriminating letter that seemed to prove a treasonous cooperation between Dion and the Carthaginians, he sent him into exile.

Dion went into exile in Greece. Out of consideration for the numerous relatives, friends and followers of the exile, including the wife of the tyrant and Plato, Dionysius held out the prospect of a reconciliation and did not touch Dion's great fortune. Nevertheless, Plato decided to leave, since under these circumstances he initially saw no more possibility of realizing his plan to transform the political situation.

For the third time, Plato drove in 361 BC. To Syracuse. In doing so he fulfilled a wish of the tyrant who valued him and hoped to win him over. But again he achieved nothing. He could neither bring about the rehabilitation of Dion nor convert Dionysius to a way of life according to philosophical principles. When Dionysius got the impression that Dion was working towards his overthrow together with students of Plato, he confiscated the exile's possessions. So it came to a final break. Plato returned to Athens because he no longer saw any basis for cooperation with Dionysius and was himself suspected of sympathizing with the opposition.

The military conflicts

Dion decided to overthrow Dionysius by military force. He recruited mercenaries for a campaign. Plato stayed out of the way, but the project found strong support among his students. 357 BC Dion went to Sicily with a small fleet. He succeeded in driving out Dionysius, who was hated by the population of Syracuse, and thus ending the tyrannical rule. The city returned to its previous democratic constitution. Dion was elected military leader with unlimited authority. He set up a college to act as the legislative assembly to draw up a new constitution. In the citizenry, however, he encountered growing resistance. Since he was considered an aristocrat and had long been a pillar of the fallen dynasty, the Democrats suspected him. He was suspected of striving for tyrannical rule and was defeated in the power struggle with circles with radical democracy. One of his officers, the Athenian Callippus , let him in 354 BC. Assassinated, appeared as the savior of democracy and took on the role of the decisive politician.

Then the supporters of the defeated side left Syracuse. The previous companions of Dion joined his nephew Hipparinos, the older of the two half-brothers of the overthrown tyrant Dionysius II. In Leontinoi the supporters of this branch of the disempowered tyrant family gathered. 353 BC BC Hipparinos succeeded in taking Syracuse with a surprise attack and establishing himself as a new tyrant. In doing so, he reasserted the dynasty's claim to power, but ignored the claims of the expelled Dionysius, who had withdrawn to Lokroi , his mother's hometown, and ruled there as a tyrant. The rule of Hipparinos lasted two years. After his death - he is said to have been murdered - occurred in 351 BC. His younger brother Nysaios succeeded him.

The current situation

The situation discussed in the seventh letter is that of turmoil after Dion's death. According to the letter, the relatives and companions of the murdered man asked Plato for assistance. Thereupon he now writes them the letter, which contains his detailed statement on the past events and a proposal for the reorganization of the political situation. It is controversial in research whether Callippus is still in power at this point in time or whether Hipparinos is already in power.

Lionel J. Sanders sees an important historical background for the writing of the letter in the contrast between “nationalist” forces, which advocated a Greek settlement program in Sicily and a confrontation with the Carthaginians, and a direction friendly to the Carthaginians. The historical Dion not only pursued a policy that was friendly to the Carthaginians, but through his association with the Carthaginians even committed treason. Since his opponents had accused him of this, Plato tried in the seventh letter to portray him as a patriot whose goal was the founding of new Greek cities and the annihilation of Carthaginian power.

content

introduction

Plato, who has been in Athens since returning from his third trip to Sicily, writes to the relatives and companions of his murdered friend Dion in Sicily. At the beginning he greets you with his usual greeting eu práttein , literally acting well , a traditional formula roughly equivalent to “Farewell”. The connection between ethically correct behavior and well-being, which is important in Platonism, is implicitly indicated. The recipients of the letter, who were not named, asked him for support "in word and deed" and assured him that their attitude was the same as that of the murdered man. He takes this as an opportunity to elaborate on Dion's attitude, emphasizing that, after many years of experience, he is well informed about it. He first met him when Dion was at the age "that Hipparinos now have". It is unclear and controversial in research whether Hipparinos Dion's nephew ("Hipparinos II") is meant, who rose to become the new tyrant of Syracuse, or a son of Dion ("Hipparinos III"), who apparently did not emerge politically. The core of Dion's political program consisted, according to Plato, in the demand that the Syracusans should be “free” and be governed “according to the best laws”. So you shouldn't be at the mercy of a tyrant, but rather benefit from the advantages of a philosophically conceived constitution.

The history

First, Plato goes into his personal history. According to him, when he reached the age of majority, he wanted to intervene in the politics of his hometown immediately. But the conditions were extremely unfavorable for his project. Neither under the " rule of the thirty ", a short-term oligarchic terror regime, nor after the subsequent restoration of the democratic state order did he find suitable circumstances. He was particularly shocked that his revered teacher Socrates was badly treated in both oligarchically ruled and democratic Athens and ultimately fell victim to an arbitrarily imposed death sentence. From these experiences he concluded that the direction of the state should not be left to politicians of one direction or the other, but should be entrusted to philosophers. An improvement can only occur when either philosophers have reached leadership positions or those in power who are already in power begin to philosophize.

The first and the second Sicily trip

It was with this conviction that Plato undertook his first trip to southern Italy. There, too, he deeply disliked the political and social conditions: all the efforts of the Greeks there seemed to be aimed at short-term material gain, nowhere did he find any understanding of the need for far-sighted planning and a sensible state system. In Syracuse, however, he met Dion at the court of tyrants, who was completely different from the others. Understanding Plato's thoughts and goals, Dion became the most attentive student the Athenian philosopher ever had. He decided to adopt a philosophical way of life and thereby alienated himself from the other courtiers. So, as he now finds out in retrospect, Plato set in motion a development that ultimately brought about the downfall of tyranny.

When Dionysius II came to power, Dion believed that the time had come for a change. He thought it possible to convert the young, influenceable and enthusiastic ruler to Platonic philosophy and then to reshape the entire state according to philosophical principles. Then the citizens would live a life of happiness and truthfulness. In order to achieve this, he persuaded Dionysius to invite Plato to a second stay. After some hesitation, Plato decided, despite his concerns, to accept the proposal, considering it to be his ethical duty under the circumstances.

At the court of Syracuse, Plato found a very tense atmosphere, as Dion was accused by his enemies of lacking loyalty to the ruler. Just a few months after Plato's arrival, Dion was sent into exile. The tyrant was strongly impressed by the personality of the philosopher and tried to keep him in his environment and to win him over to a friend, but he was not prepared to seriously study philosophy and to embark on a philosophical life. In addition, he sought an exclusive friendship with Plato and thus entered into a rivalry with Dion, who as a true philosopher was much closer to the guest from Athens. Plato's departure put an end to these unfortunate circumstances. In his letter, Plato now adds general considerations to the report on the events described: One should not act as an advisor if he who asks for advice has no insight and no serious effort. Anyone who wants to achieve something in the state should first practice self-control in everyday life, be in harmony with oneself and make reliable friends and like-minded people; that is the prerequisite for significant statesmanship. In this sense he had advised Dionysius at the time and that is now his advice to the recipients of the letter.

Opinion on the betrayal of Dion

Having said this, Plato touches on a sensitive subject that is obviously very important to him. In Athens the exiled Dion made friends with Callippus and his brother and made these men his confidante. Since Kallippus, who is not mentioned by name in the letter, later had Dion murdered, Plato attaches great importance to emphasizing that the friendship between the two was only superficial and not philosophically founded. In doing so, he rejects the possible accusation that his philosophy school, the Platonic Academy , shares responsibility for the murder because its author came from the Athenian philosophical milieu and, despite his philosophical education, had become a traitor. With indignation, Plato condemns the bloody deed, which had a catastrophic effect on all of Sicily. It prevented the implementation of Dion's excellent legislative plan, which would have brought peace, freedom and prosperity to the country.

The reform program

Then Plato sets out the program, which he regards as Dion's legacy for Sicily and which he recommends to the recipients of the letter. The devastating internal conflicts of the Sicilian Greek cities, in which the respective victors take revenge and banish or kill their opponents, must stop. They can be settled if the victors exercise restraint and observe legality. Efficient, righteous settlers are to be fetched from the existing settlements in Sicily, the Peloponnese and Athens, and new cities are to be founded with them. Everywhere, after the end of hostilities, the constitutions are to be revised and the new settlements are to be given just constitutions. Every city has to convene a constituent assembly made up of impartial external experts. These are supposed to be respected older men, whose life performance and social background prove their suitability. With a population of ten thousand, fifty members are sufficient for such a body. If the leading circles voluntarily submit to the new laws, supporters of oppositional tendencies also become loyal citizens, since they then see that equality before the law ( isonomy ) applies.

The occasion of the last trip to Sicily

Then Plato turns back to the past and addresses the occasion of his last trip to Sicily. Both Dionysios and Dion urged him to take the trip, and his friends in Taranto also urged him to do so for a political reason. Dionysius had promised him the rehabilitation of Dion, but made the journey a condition for this concession. He, Plato, could not have ruled out that the tyrant, after a change of heart, was now willing to turn seriously to the study of philosophy. Therefore he could not refuse his help. Dionysius then proved to be unqualified; he had wrongly imagined that he had already understood the most important things. Later the tyrant even wrote a book on philosophy and passed off foreign teachings as his own knowledge.

The "philosophical excursus"

On this occasion, Plato takes a general position on the problem of the written communication of philosophical teachings. This part of the letter deals with the fundamentals and is therefore referred to in research as a "philosophical digression". According to Plato's account, it is in principle impossible to communicate in writing what is important to him - i.e. the core content of his philosophy. Therefore, he never put this knowledge down in writing and never will. Anyone who writes about it proves that they have not understood anything about the matter. This material cannot be put into words like other learning objects. The essentials cannot be grasped by reading, but can only be conveyed through a long time together between teacher and student. Only when one has dealt with the topic in frequent conversations in a research and living community and has thoroughly examined it, suddenly the knowledge arises in the student's soul like a light ignited by a jumping spark and from then on nourishes itself. The student brings this knowledge itself emerges, he does not take it from a verbal communication from the teacher. A written record would be harmful. It would either tempt you to despise something not understood, or create sham knowledge and thus arouse arrogance.

To explain the problem, Plato goes into more detail on his epistemology, giving five steps in knowledge. The widespread term “levels of knowledge” is criticized as problematic in research. The first step consists in naming the object of knowledge you are looking for, which must first have a name; for example, a circle is labeled with the word "circle". Second, the definition of the term follows; the circle is defined by the fact that the distance between its points and the center is the same everywhere. The step mentioned in the third place (which does not necessarily take the third place) is the illustration through an image; the object is drawn or a material model is made. Fourth, there is the mental comprehension of the presented object, whereby one gets a "true opinion" about it. That is an achievement which the soul accomplishes in itself. Only when these four steps have been carried out correctly, the actual knowledge in the philosophical sense becomes possible as the fifth step. It relates to the “Platonic Idea ” of the object in question. According to Plato's doctrine of ideas , every kind of object of sense perception has an associated "idea", an intelligible (only spiritually comprehensible) archetype, which is the authoritative pattern for all sense objects of the respective kind. So behind all drawn circles is the "idea" of the circle. While drawn circles are diverse and destructible, there is only one "idea of ​​the circle" that is perfect and exists beyond time. Everything that can be perceived by the senses has impurities in terms of its properties. Therefore all statements about the nature of sense objects are tainted with a certain falsehood. For example, a visible circle is never completely round, but always contains something straight, i.e. something opposite to the nature of the circle. Only the invisible idea of ​​the circle is completely round and thus in accordance with the definition. Because the first four steps of cognition are not about ideas but about individual things, the opposite applies to everything that is asserted; the circle drawn is out of round, the sensually perceived beautiful is mixed with the unattractive, the practiced justice also contains the unjust. This leads to errors, contradictions and uncertainty when expressing the facts verbally. Only in the last step - capturing the idea - is real knowledge and thus security achieved. Getting there is an active, arduous process that cannot be replaced by reading.

A key feature of the fifth step is that intelligence and memory are required, but not sufficient. The philosopher who wants to grasp the ideas cannot be an astute but internally indifferent observer of external facts. Rather, he must show and cultivate a quality in himself that aligns him with the idea he is looking for and thus enables him to relate to it. For example, he has to be personally righteous in order to approach the idea of ​​righteousness. For this reason, too, no written communication can help to recognize ideas, but only intensive intellectual work in connection with appropriate life practice. No teacher can help an untalented or mentally depraved pupil to see properly, even if he himself has the astuteness of the mythical Lynkeus .

The fateful outcome

After this digression, Plato goes on to describe his third visit to Syracuse. He emphasizes again that Dionysius could not have any philosophical knowledge. This can be seen from the fact that he would otherwise have behaved differently. According to the description in the seventh letter, Dionysius wanted to prevent Plato's departure and therefore negotiated with him for a partial or partial release of Dion's property, but then he tacitly confiscated everything. Ultimately, Plato became embroiled in the turmoil that arose after the outbreak of a mercenary rebellion and found himself in a perilous position. Now his relationship with Dionysius was completely broken. It was only thanks to the intercession of influential friends, above all Archytas of Taranto , that he obtained permission to travel home.

After his return, Plato met Dion in Greece, who was now determined to take military action and asked for assistance. However, the philosopher could not make up his mind to actively support this project; he pleaded for an attempt at arbitration. In retrospect, however, he now shows a lot of understanding for Dion's approach. He appreciates the good intentions of his friend who wanted to achieve the best for his homeland. Finally, Dion was brought down because he did not see through the extent of the evil of his opponents. The result of his murder is enormous suffering in Sicily. With this, Plato ends his presentation in the hope that the recipients of the letter will now better understand the motives and events described.

Question of authenticity and time of origin

In the course of the intense debate on authenticity, which has been going on for more than two centuries, numerous historical and philological arguments have been put forward, but none of them are considered conclusive. The style investigation reveals no essential difference from the style of Plato's late dialogues . It points to the particular proximity of the letter to the certainly genuine Dialogue Nomoi , but also to the Dialogue Epinomis , which in recent research is largely viewed as spurious. Today most experts consider the seventh letter to be the authentic work of Plato, but representatives of the majority opinion also tend to point out the continuing uncertainty. A compelling proof of authenticity cannot be provided. Since Plato's authorship was considered indubitable in antiquity, the burden of proof rests on the opponents of authenticity. These continue to form a large minority. You have raised a variety of observations and considerations. The arguments of those who advocate authenticity are largely defensive; They see their task mainly in rebutting the opposing arguments and showing that there are no weighty indications that stand in the way of authenticity. They also doubt that a “forger” or literary imitator could write such a long and detailed work and portray the fictional author's emotions so successfully. Some of the objections of the skeptics and the opponents of authenticity could be refuted, others are also taken seriously in more recent discussions. In order to justify the view that Plato could not be the author, the following considerations were given and discussed:

• There is no reliable evidence that the letter was written before the 1st century BC. Was known. Aristotle did not refer to the content, although it would have been of interest to him. In his politics in particular , he would have had reason to respond. It can therefore be assumed that he did not know the letter. This is seen as an indication of later development.
• The plan to found new cities in Sicily is reminiscent of Timoleon's repopulation policy . From this it is assumed that Timoleon's intervention in Sicily, which only took place after Plato's death, inspired the author of the letter. It is a matter of a vaticinium ex eventu .
• The author of the letter shows an intense interest in Dion's vast private fortune, the rescue of which is particularly important to him. He also names the acquisition of wealth as one of the “most important matters” in life. This contrasts with the much lower appreciation of material goods in Plato's certainly genuine works.
• The self-praise of the author of the letter is described as suspicious, as it does not go with Plato's other reluctance.
• The letter has two political purposes: to advise recipients in the light of the current situation and to justify Plato's and Dion's behavior in the past. According to the opponents of authenticity, these two purposes are assigned to different audiences and cannot be combined in a meaningful way. Therefore, the letter is to be classified as literary fiction and not as a historical document. - On the other hand, the objection is made that Dion's supporters did not seek advice from Plato, but rather political support through a commitment to their cause. Plato actually wanted to support them with his answer, but not in the sense they meant, but through philosophical advice. Seen in this way, the text forms a unit in terms of content; Plato was not primarily concerned with self-justification, but with bringing about a rethink. The overemphasis on the aspect of justification, which is widespread in research, is an expression of a tendency towards questionable motivational research.
• The author of the letter assumes that an adverse power of fate ( týchē ) thwarted the good plans of Plato and Dion. The idea of ​​such a superhuman power, which at least in some cases confronts well-meaning people with ill will and thus prepares them a tragic fate, is described by opponents of authenticity as incompatible with Plato's thinking.
• As proof of the inauthenticity it is stated that the author not only cites passages from Plato's dialogues, but also misunderstood them in some cases.
• In the opinion of those who oppose authenticity, the author of the letter advocates a political philosophy that is incompatible with that of Plato's dialogues. In this context, among other things, his use of the term isonomy in a positive sense is pointed out, which does not correspond to Plato's understanding. - On the other hand, it is argued that these are not fundamentally irreconcilable positions, that Plato was not a rigid dogmatist and that comparable discrepancies can also be found within his certainly authentic oeuvre.
• In the letter, a fundamental criticism of the usual philosophical communication of knowledge - above all of the written fixation of essential content - is presented, which is formulated more radically than the criticism of the written form in Phaedrus' dialogue . In particular, the statement that there was no writing by Plato on what is important to him in philosophy, and its justification, are asserted as a weighty suspicion against the authenticity. In addition, the author of the letter also includes oral teaching in his criticism and thus takes a position that cannot be found in the dialogues. - Representatives of the contrary opinion deny a content-related discrepancy between the seventh letter and the Phaedrus .
• Josef Derbolav argues that Plato's philosophy of language in his earlier dialogues reached a theoretical level that was not given in the critique of linguistic knowledge transfer in the seventh letter. Therefore, if the letter is genuine, one has to assume a fallback to what has already been achieved, which is not plausible. Derbolav concludes from this that the most philosophically relevant passages could not have come from Plato.
• In the model of the five steps of knowledge and in the representation of the philosophical handling of the means of knowledge, opponents of authenticity believe that they can point out a number of inconsistencies and contradictions to Plato's view in the dialogues. - On the other hand, the objection is made that these problems only appear to exist and are due to misunderstandings or are not so serious that the inauthenticity must be inferred from them. Rosemary Desjardins even says that there is a complete correspondence between the letter and the dialogues.

One proposed solution, which, however, has not met with much approval, is that the text that has survived is only partially authentic. It has been suggested that a real letter from Plato was later enhanced by an interpolator . According to a research hypothesis, the main part of the “philosophical digression” is an addition by someone else's hand that was inserted into a real “original letter” of Plato. According to the variant of this hypothesis proposed by Harold Tarrant, the "philosophical excursus" was not made until the late 1st century BC. Originated in BC or in the early 1st century AD; Tarrant considers the scholar Thrasyllos as the author . Malcolm Schofield considers a longer piece of text outside of the "philosophical excursus" to be interpolated.

The time when the seventh letter was written can, if it is genuine, be narrowed down. Only the period between 354 (Dion's death) and 351 (Hipparinos death) comes into consideration. Accordingly, the writing falls in the last years of the life of the elderly philosopher who died in 348/347. If the letter is bogus, it is likely to have been written after Plato's death - perhaps around 340 or in the 330s.

There is widespread agreement today that in the case of inauthenticity, only a very well-informed contemporary of Plato - probably a philosopher from the surroundings of the academy's founder - can be considered as the author of the letter. The defense of Plato against accusations and suspicions circulating at the time can then be assumed as his motive. However, this hypothesis is also contested; Myles Burnyeat rules out the author's proximity to Plato.

interpretation

The author and his audience

Many researchers have emphasized that it is in fact an open letter . In this sense, Ernst Howald called the letter a "manifesto". Heinrich Weinstock called it a "public letter to the entire cultural world of that time". Plato - if he is the author - addressed his remarks not only to a group of politicians in Sicily, but also - perhaps even primarily - to a broad, especially Athenian, public. His aim was to explain his position, justify his actions and counter accusations. He defended himself against criticism of both his political activity and his philosophy. Plato's attempt to use an existing tyrannical rule as a basis for the realization of his state ideal was bound to cause offense in democratic Athens. The very fact that he was involved with a tyrant made him suspicious, and his seemingly unrealistic goal of turning the tyrant into a philosopher was difficult to make plausible to a skeptical public. Critics to whom he referred in the letter questioned the purity of his motives. The total failure of his efforts in Syracuse was apparently blamed on him as a failure by the opposing side.

The broad space that contemporary history and concerns of the author occupy in the letter has led some researchers to believe that the stated purpose of advising recipients is rather marginal. It has even been suggested that the letter of support to which the author claims to be responding was a literary fiction. According to this hypothesis, the seventh letter was in fact not intended to be sent to Sicily, but from the outset only intended for the Athenian public. In any case, the literary and journalistic character of the work must be taken into account when assessing the source value.

The problem of imparting knowledge

The “philosophical digression” is an important source for the controversial discussion about the hypothesis that the core of Plato's philosophy is not to be found in his dialogues, but in the so-called “ unwritten teaching ” which he reserved for oral lessons. The meaning of the claim in the letter that there are no writings of Plato on what is important to him in philosophy is disputed. Accordingly, if he wrote the letter, his dialogues are not to be understood as statements of what is primarily essential from his point of view. The scholars of the "Tübingen and Milan School" attach importance to this conclusion. You see in the letter passage proof of the existence and central importance of unwritten teaching or principles. Philosophical historians of this direction cite a passage in the seventh letter where it is stated that what is essential, which cannot be recorded in writing, cannot be forgotten because it has the very briefest form. In their opinion, this can only refer to the polarity of the two highest principles, the “ one ” and the “indefinite duality”, dealt with in the doctrine of principles .

Leo Strauss thinks that in his seventh letter Plato did not want to absolutely rule out the communication of a serious teaching concerning the highest things in writing. Rather, he himself gives subtle references to his esoteric teaching in his dialogues. These are intended for the few readers for whom they could be helpful.

The description of the sudden breakthrough to the realization after a long effort is interpreted differently. The question here is what is meant: an intuitive perception of a reality that is inaccessible to the rational discourse - the Platonic dialectic - or a rational knowledge as the fruit of methodical efforts. According to a direction of interpretation that refers to the complaint about the inadequacy of linguistic - including oral - means of expression in the seventh letter, it is something fundamentally “unspeakable” that can only be experienced, not articulated. Christina Schefer thinks that the “unspeakable” is a religious experience that cannot be communicated, to which Plato alludes and which he compares with the experience in the Mysteries ; the “sudden” realization is a kind of initiation . This can be inferred from Plato's formulations. Another interpretation says that Plato thought it was entirely possible to write on this subject. But he rejected this as a useless and above all harmful way, because he feared that such writings would only create misunderstandings and illusions for the majority of readers, which could not be eliminated because of the absence of the author. With the restriction to oral communication to qualified listeners, he wanted to avoid this disadvantage of the written form. Against this, however, the objection is made that Plato's criticism does not only concern the written fixing of philosophical statements, which he considered particularly problematic, but also expressly includes the oral word. His view is that reality - the nature of the objects of knowledge - can be described in words, but only in an inadequate way, since it cannot be grasped in this way and a certain personal experience is essential for a real understanding. In the sense of the modern epistemological distinction between “propositional” knowledge (“knowing that”) and knowledge with a direct object (“knowing”), the knowledge meant here is to be described as nonpropositional. All propositional knowledge is hypothetical for Plato. According to this interpretation, Plato's position can be reproduced as follows: All words, statements and even images with which one tries to approach reality tends to place oneself in the place of the reality sought and thus to hide it. Still there is a solution. Propositional knowledge itself cannot reveal reality, but a certain way of dealing with this knowledge can lead the philosopher to a point at which insight comes. This process of dialectical examination of the inadequate propositional knowledge finally activates a higher-level knowledge in the soul of the seeker that is already latent in it. Such a process is dialogical and cannot be replaced by reading. If a written text gives the impression that it can do this, it creates illusions and is therefore reprehensible. Discursive thinking and its verbal expression are indeed transcended in the process called for by Plato, but it is by no means superfluous, it is essential for the process.

Florian Finck does not consider the different interpretations to be incompatible. It is not about a contradiction between absolute and relative negation of the sayability, because between these extremes lies the possibility of an inadequate reproduction of the subject. Even Rafael Ferber believes the author of the letter have seen the difference between sayability and ineffability than gradually. Ferber believes that the author of the letter took a skeptical position with regard to the comprehensibility of the essence - the ideas and principles themselves. Therefore, in this regard, he not only rejected the authors' claim to knowledge of philosophical writings, but also made no such claim for himself.

reception

Antiquity

Walter Burkert suspects that an early Hellenistic writer of the late 4th century BC BC, Neanthes of Kyzikos, who knew the seventh letter. However, clear evidence of knowledge of the letter is only from the 1st century BC. BC: Cicero referred to him several times.

In the tetralogical order of the works of Plato, which apparently in the 1st century BC The thirteen letters belong to the ninth tetralogy. The philosophy historian Diogenes Laertios counted them among the "ethical" works. In doing so, he referred to a now lost script by the scholar Thrasyllos († 36).

For Plutarch , who wrote a biography of Dion, the seventh letter was an important source.

The rhetorician and sophist Aelius Aristides wrote a speech in the 140s in which he defended the rhetoric against Plato's criticism presented in Gorgia 's dialogue . He also used the seventh letter for his argument.

Plotinus († 270), the founder of Neoplatonism , relied on the statement in the seventh letter that the essentials of philosophy cannot be expressed in words. By the unspeakable he understood the absolutely transcendent and undifferentiated one , in which he saw the origin of everything. He equated the “sudden” knowledge mentioned in the letter with the “vision” of the One, an experience of the highest reality that transcends thinking.

According to a late antique source, the Neo-Platonist Proklos († 485) considered the letters attributed to Plato to be spurious because of the simplicity of their style. This claim is not correct, however, because Proclus quoted the seventh letter in his comments on the Parmenides and Timaeus dialogues , assuming that it was authentic.

Middle Ages and Early Modern Times

In the Middle Ages, a few copies of the letter collection existed in the Byzantine Empire . The oldest manuscript that has survived, the “Codex A”, was created in the 9th century. In the absence of a Latin translation, the seventh letter was unknown to Latin-speaking scholars in the West.

The beginning of the Seventh Letter in the first edition, Venice 1513 (bottom six lines)

The Italian humanist and statesman Leonardo Bruni probably created the first Latin translation in 1426. He dedicated it to Cosimo de 'Medici in 1427 in the hope that he would heed Plato's ethical advice. The translation found widespread use and was printed in Paris around 1474. Pier Candido Decembrio , a younger contemporary of Bruni, said that the letters were spurious because they were not worthy of Plato. The unknown author was well informed. Decembrio's statement is the first documented denial of the authenticity of the seventh letter in modern times.

The humanist Marsilio Ficino made a new Latin translation of the letter. He provided it with an introduction (argumentum) and published it in Florence in 1484 in the complete edition of his Plato translations. In the introduction he particularly went into Plato's concept of imparting philosophical knowledge and the suddenness of knowledge. The first edition of the Greek text appeared in Venice in September 1513 by Aldo Manuzio as part of the first complete edition of Plato's works. The editor was Markos Musuros .

The philosopher Petrus Ramus (1515–1572) created a Latin translation of the thirteen letters attributed to Plato, which was printed in Paris in 1549.

In 1697, the influential philologist Richard Bentley spoke out in favor of the authenticity of all letters handed down under Plato's name. The first modern scholar to dispute the authenticity of the seventh letter was Christoph Meiners . In 1782 he declared all thirteen letters to be false.

The first German translation of the collection of letters appeared in Königsberg in 1792. The translator was Johann Georg Schlosser , who made a current reference to the political events of the time after the French Revolution. Schlosser hoped that Plato's explanations would counter the revolutionary sentiment. In the preface to the second edition, which he published in 1795, he attacked Immanuel Kant without naming him. He accused him of separating metaphysical reality from empirical reality to such an extent that it became factually irrelevant. On the other hand, Kant defended himself in 1796 in his work On a recently raised noble tone in philosophy . In doing so, he also strongly criticized the seventh letter, which he read in Schlosser's translation, but which Meiners did not consider to be a work by Plato. The Greek philosopher had become the “father of all enthusiasm for philosophy” through the letter that was wrongly attributed to him “through no fault of his own”. For Kant, the author of the letter was a " mystagogue " who "is noble with his alleged philosophy". Kant took particular offense at the elitist attitude of the author of the letter; he differentiates between his adepts and the people, by which he understands all uninitiated.

Modern

The course of the authenticity debate

In the 19th century the prevailing view was that Plato could not be the author of the letters. The false hypothesis met with broad approval, especially in German-language research. In this sense, among others, Friedrich Ast (1816), Karl Friedrich Hermann (1839), Friedrich Ueberweg (1861) and Hermann Thomas Karsten (1864). In a thorough, highly regarded investigation, Karsten came to the conclusion that the entire collection of letters had a common origin. The Plato translator Friedrich Schleiermacher did not include the letters in his translation of the works of the ancient philosopher. Friedrich Nietzsche agreed with Karsten's verdict in 1871. Even Eduard Zeller rejected all the letters in his manual The philosophy of the Greeks in their historical development , which went through several editions in the 19th and 20th centuries. An isolated defender of the authenticity of all letters was George Grote (1865). August Boeckh (1808) made a differentiated judgment ; he thought three of the letters, including the seventh, were genuine.

A change was primarily brought about by the authority of the renowned Graecist and Plato expert Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff , who advocated the authenticity of the seventh letter from 1919 after having denied it in 1898. The influential ancient historian Eduard Meyer spoke out in favor of the authenticity of the letter in his often reissued history of antiquity . Other well-known defenders of authenticity were Max Pohlenz (1913), Giorgio Pasquali (1938) and Richard S. Bluck (1949). The opposite view, however, continued to have supporters mainly in the English-speaking world ( Paul Shorey and Harold Cherniss , both 1933; George Boas, 1948), also in Italy (Antonio Maddalena, 1948) and also in Germany ( Gerhard Müller , 1949).

Numerous researchers have spoken out in favor of authenticity since the middle of the 20th century. They include scholars from the "Tübingen and Milan School" ( Hans Krämer , Konrad Gaiser , Giovanni Reale) who use the seventh letter as evidence for their interpretation of the "unwritten teaching". Helmut Berve (1957), Kurt von Fritz (1966), Rainer Thurnher (1975), Uvo Hölscher (1975), William KC Guthrie (1978), Kenneth M. Sayre (1995), James M. consider the letter to be genuine. Rhodes (2003), Rainer Knab (2006) and Michael Erler (2007). On the opposite side are Ludwig Edelstein (1966), Olof Gigon (1980), Gregory Vlastos (1981), Jaap Mansfeld (1989), Terence Irwin (1992 and 2009), Michael Zahrnt (1997), Walter Burkert (2000) and Michael Frede (2001). A third group abstains from judgment. Rafael Ferber (1991) writes that the question is “not objectively decidable”, since “most of the arguments for authenticity can also be used as arguments against it”, and Kai Trampedach (1994) sees himself forced “after weighing all the probabilities” to leave the question open; nothing could be proven; under the given circumstances the answer would amount to a judgment of taste. Julia Annas (1999) expresses a similar view . Malcolm Schofield (2005) "reluctantly" assigns himself to the skeptical camp.

The meaning of the "philosophical digression"

If Plato is actually the author of the seventh letter, the “philosophical excursus” it contains is the only place in his oeuvre where he expresses himself about his philosophy. Otherwise, his view can only be inferred from the theses of his dialogue characters, which often leads to different interpretations and speculative hypotheses. Therefore the letter receives a lot of attention in research on the history of philosophy.

Ernst Cassirer dealt in his Philosophy of Symbolic Forms (1923) with the "philosophical excursus". According to Cassirer's understanding, Plato attempted there for the first time in the history of thought to determine and delimit the cognitive value of language in a purely methodical sense. He recognized a basic element of all language, representation , "for the first time in its principled determinateness and in all its significance". Only in this way has the relationship of representation - the representation of a specific meaning through a sensual sign - achieved a truly central systematic relevance. In the doctrine of ideas, the “things”, the sense objects, themselves become “images” whose truth content does not lie in what they are directly, but in what they express indirectly. The concept of the image, which Plato uses in the excursus, creates “a new spiritual mediation between the form of language and the form of knowledge”. For Plato, "the physical-sensual content of the word becomes the carrier of an ideal meaning" that remains beyond the limits of language. Language and word can never achieve the expression of the pure being they strive for, because in them the designation of this pure being is always mixed with the designation of an accidental “quality” of the object. As a result, “what constitutes the real power of language is always also its real weakness”. Cassirer states that Plato's sharp boundary between the term “in itself” and its linguistic representative was threatened with blurring in the later history of philosophy.

In 1964 Hans-Georg Gadamer published his study Dialectics and Sophistics in the seventh Platonic letter . There he explained that Plato's letter was not about specific contents of his philosophy, but about propaedeutics ; the excursus does not offer any epistemology, rather the topic is a theory of teaching and learning. Plato wants to show that there can be no compelling argumentation in the field of the philosophy of ideas. The knowledge of the "fifth", the thing itself only recognized in the fifth step, is constantly threatened, and it is one of Plato's greatest insights that this threat comes from the weakness of the logoi , the linguistic means of communication. In the seventh letter he describes "how in all finiteness and limitation of our human existence insight is nevertheless achieved".

The tension between politics and philosophy

See also Dion of Syracuse

In his lectures on the history of philosophy, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel went into the description of Plato's life on the biographical information in the seventh letter. He judged that it was "an aberration of Plato" to "want to adapt the state constitutions to the demands of his philosophical idea through Dionysius". Theoretical is not enough in a constitution. A constitution is not the work of an individual, but of something divine, spiritual, which works in history and is so strong that "the thought of an individual against this power of the world spirit means nothing".

The failure of the attempt to pursue politics according to philosophical principles and the reasons for this are an aspect of the remarks in the seventh letter that is often discussed in research. In this context the question is asked to what extent the picture of the personality and motives of Dion drawn in the letter corresponds to historical reality. Opinions vary widely on this. Some ancient scholars see Dion as a sincere idealist and enthusiastic Platonist, others consider him a pure opportunist.

Regardless of these contrary assessments, there is broad consensus that Plato's attempt to intervene in politics was from the outset futile. This finding is sometimes generalized in terms of a fundamental opposition between realpolitik and philosophical ideals. Kurt von Fritz , referring to Kant, writes that Plato's involvement in Sicilian politics vividly demonstrates the "corruption of the free use of reason, which does not only arise from the possession of unrestricted power, but is already connected with the association with political power". The seventh letter shows that Plato, against his better foresight, allowed himself to be drawn into the intrigues at the court of tyrants because of the feeling of obligation to his friend Dion. However, Plato made an immortal contribution to the debate about right and wrong in politics. Kai Trampedach considers Dion to be an unphilosophical power politician and with this assessment stands in sharp contrast to von Fritz, but basically comes to a similar conclusion as this one. He thinks that with Plato and Dion, philosophy is in a political constellation, characterized by the friend-foe contrast, which is alien to its nature and in which it basically cannot assert itself: “In open political competition, whether for favor of the people or the tyrant, the rational argumentation is inferior to a genuinely political strategy that uses deception, threats, slander, powerful or flattering advertising, etc. The rule of the philosophers therefore (...) already presupposes an end to politics. ” Helmut Berve states that it is impossible to impose doctrinally on an unwilling population an order that has emerged from philosophical thinking and that neglects real circumstances. History hardly ever allows the institutional realization of a high ideal through direct action. The attempt at “abrupt execution” leads to internal contradictions and catastrophes. An ideal can only become politically effective after it has gradually spread and adapted to the different living conditions. Jürgen Sprute sees in Plato a politically incompetent philosopher who was biased because of his close friendship with Dion and who never saw through the true intentions of his friend. Dion only pursued personal and oligarchical interests. Politics and legislation based on Platonic principles have never been on the agenda of political actors in Syracuse.

When assessing Plato's Sicilian project, it is emphasized that he was not interested in realizing an ideal state in Syracuse such as the one he had outlined in Dialog Politeia . There is nothing to indicate that he ever believed that he could transform Dionysius II into a “ philosopher ruler ” in the sense of the model of the Politeia . From the beginning his goal was much more modest: he wanted to convert the young tyrant to a philosophical way of thinking and living and thus to exert a beneficial influence on political and social conditions.

Literary aspects

From a literary point of view, if the seventh letter is authentic, it is particularly important for the history of autobiographical literature. The question is whether such a literary genre already existed in this epoch or whether it is only possible to speak of autobiographical elements in some texts. Rainer Thurnher opposes an overestimation of the autobiographical aspect.

Some researchers consider the whole corpus of the thirteen letters ascribed to Plato as a literary unit, as a “letter book” with the seventh letter in the middle. In the opinion of Franz Dornseiff , it is not a question of actual letters to the respective recipient, but rather literary fiction analogous to Plato's freely invented dialogues. Dornseiff as well as Niklas Holzberg and Hartmut Längin use the term "letter novel" for the collection. Even Julia Annas assigns the seventh letter into the literary genre of art letters. She deduces from this character of the work, which is intended for the public, that one cannot gain a reliable insight into Plato's personality or his state of mind at the time of writing, as would be the case with an frank private letter.

Werner Jaeger thinks that reading the seventh letter is "of the greatest attraction for the historical observer"; He gives special praise to the “vitality flowing from within” of the text. Ernst Howald found that the text was “of a passionate, often impatient nature”, that it spoke “with all the strength of self-assertion, discontent and contempt for human beings”. Here Plato is writing in defense in many directions, undisguised, without literary disguise. The bitterness of the tone was also a consequence of the tremendous uproar which the events described had caused in Greece; Plato's political failure has discredited his theory of the state. Stylistically, the letter does not show the smoothness typical of rhetorical forgers, but is rather clumsy and unbalanced. These are characteristics of living writing, which speak for authenticity. According to Michael Erler's judgment, the letter is "clearly structured and rhetorically a masterpiece".

The scholars, who consider the letter to be fake, rate the literary quality far more negatively. Olof Gigon writes that the actors lack unmistakably individual traits, the portrayal of Dionysius II is characterized by the common tyrant topics , a scene is “downright embarrassingly melodramatic” and Dion is described “in the most general and banal expressions”. George Boas considers the author of the letter to be “extremely bad”, the sentences are long and cumbersome, the syntax is loose and the tone is dogmatic.

Editions and translations

Critical edition without translation

• Jennifer Moore-Blunt (Ed.): Platonis epistulae . Teubner, Leipzig 1985, pp. 16–43 (authoritative critical edition)

Editions with translation

• Gunther Eigler (Ed.): Plato: Works in eight volumes. Vol. 5, 4th edition, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 2005, ISBN 3-534-19095-5 , pp. 366-443 (reprint of the critical edition by Joseph Souilhé, 3rd edition, Paris 1960; also German translation by Dietrich Kurz )
• Ernst Howald (ed.): The real letters of Plato . Artemis, Zurich 1951, pp. 17–36, 42–49, 56–137, 175–177 (uncritical edition with introduction and translation by the editor)
• Margherita Isnardi Parente , Maria Grazia Ciani (Ed.): Platone: Lettere . Fondazione Lorenzo Valla, Rome 2002, ISBN 88-04-50666-0 , pp. 63–135, 215–256 (contains the critical edition by Jennifer Moore-Blunt in a version slightly edited by Isnardi Parente with commentary as well as an Italian translation by Ciani)
• Rainer Knab (Ed.): Plato's Seventh Letter. Introduction, text, translation, commentary. Olms, Hildesheim 2006, ISBN 3-487-13168-4 (uncritical edition with translation by the editor)
• Willy Neumann, Jula Kerschensteiner (Ed.): Plato: Briefe . Heimeran, Munich 1967, pp. 44–115, 185–212 (contains a slightly revised version of the edition by John Burnet , Oxford 1907, with translation and explanations by the editors)

Translations

• Otto Apelt : Plato's letters. In: Otto Apelt (Hrsg.): Platon: Complete Dialogues , Vol. 6, Meiner, Hamburg 2004, ISBN 3-7873-1156-4 (with introduction and explanations; reprint of the 2nd, reviewed edition, Leipzig 1921)
• Ernst Howald : The seventh letter . Reclam, Stuttgart 1964, ISBN 3-15-008892-5
• Johannes Irmscher : Plato: letters . Akademie-Verlag, Berlin 1960, pp. 49–92
• Heinrich Weinstock : Plato: The letters. Kröner, Stuttgart 1954, pp. 33-81
• Wilhelm Wiegand: Seventh letter. In: Erich Loewenthal (ed.): Plato: Complete works in three volumes. Vol. 3, unchanged reprint of the 8th, revised edition, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 2004, ISBN 3-534-17918-8 , pp. 717-758

literature

Overview display

• Michael Erler : Platon ( Outline of the history of philosophy . The philosophy of antiquity , edited by Hellmut Flashar , volume 2/2). Schwabe, Basel 2007, ISBN 978-3-7965-2237-6 , pp. 314-318, 669-672

comment

• Rainer Knab (Ed.): Plato's Seventh Letter. Introduction, text, translation, commentary. Olms, Hildesheim 2006, ISBN 3-487-13168-4 , pp. 119-327

Investigations

• Myles Burnyeat, Michael Frede : The Pseudo-Platonic Seventh Letter. Oxford University Press, Oxford 2015, ISBN 978-0-19-873365-2 (edited by Dominic Scott after Fredes death; contains recordings from a joint course by the two authors in 2001)
• Adriana Cavarero : Plato: Il filosofo e il problema politica. La Lettere VII e l'epistolario , SEI (Società Editrice Internazionale), Turin 1976.
• Andreas Graeser : Philosophical knowledge and conceptual representation. Comments on the epistemological excursus in Letter VII . Franz Steiner, Stuttgart 1989, ISBN 3-515-05471-5
• Maria Liatsi: Plato's semiotic epistemology in the Seventh Letter. An introduction to the so-called philosophical excursus . Beck, Munich 2008, ISBN 978-3-406-57771-0
• Rainer Thurnher: The seventh letter from Plato. Attempt a comprehensive philosophical interpretation. Hain, Meisenheim am Glan 1975, ISBN 3-445-01155-9

Web links

• Seventh letter , Greek text based on the edition by John Burnet, 1907
• Seventh letter , German translation after Wilhelm Wiegand, 1859, edited
• The seventh letter , German translation by Peter Denker, 2010

Remarks

1. ↑ Malcolm Schofield provides an overview of Plato's political views: Plato and practical politics . In: The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political Thought , Cambridge 2005, pp. 293–302 (on practice) and Michael Erler: Platon , Basel 2007, pp. 441–449 (on theory).
2. ^ Plato, Seventh Letter 327a – b .
3. ↑ Kai Trampedach: Plato, the Academy and contemporary politics , Stuttgart 1994, p. 107; Jürgen Sprute: Dion's Syracusan politics and the political ideals of Plato. In: Hermes 100, 1972, pp. 294-313, here: 296 f.
4. ↑ Jürgen Sprute: Dion's Syracusan politics and the political ideals of Plato. In: Hermes 100, 1972, pp. 294–313, here: p. 297 and note 3; Kai Trampedach: Platon, the academy and contemporary politics , Stuttgart 1994, p. 109; Kurt von Fritz: Plato in Sicily and the problem of the rule of the philosophers , Berlin 1968, p. 65 f.
5. ↑ Considerations on this background to the conflict can be found in Lionel J. Sanders: Nationalistic Recommendations and Policies in the Seventh and Eighth Platonic Epistles . In: The Ancient History Bulletin 8, 1994, pp. 76-85, here: 78-85. See Helmut Berve: Dion , Wiesbaden 1957, pp. 27–31, 38.
6. ↑ Jürgen Sprute: Dion's Syracusan politics and the political ideals of Plato. In: Hermes 100, 1972, pp. 294-313, here: 297-299; Kurt von Fritz: Plato in Sicily and the problem of the rule of the philosophers , Berlin 1968, p. 68 f. Note 110; Helmut Berve: Dion , Wiesbaden 1957, p. 33.
7. ↑ Jürgen Sprute: Dion's Syracusan politics and the political ideals of Plato. In: Hermes 100, 1972, pp. 294-313, here: 299 f .; Kai Trampedach: Plato, the academy and contemporary politics , Stuttgart 1994, p. 109 f .; Hermann Breitenbach : Platon and Dion , Zurich 1960, p. 28 f .; Helmut Berve: Dion , Wiesbaden 1957, pp. 32-38.
8. ↑ Helmut Berve: Dion , Wiesbaden 1957, pp. 38-44.
9. ↑ Helmut Berve: Dion , Wiesbaden 1957, pp. 45-60.
10. ↑ For the details see the opposing interpretations of Kurt von Fritz: Platon in Sizilien und das Problem der Philosophenherrschaft , Berlin 1968, pp. 70-107 and Kai Trampedach: Platon, die Akademie und die contemporary politics , Stuttgart 1994, p. 111– 124.
11. ↑ Helmut Berve: Dion , Wiesbaden 1957, pp. 120-125; Helmut Berve: Die Tyrannis bei den Greeks , Vol. 1, Munich 1967, pp. 272-274 and Vol. 2, Munich 1967, pp. 661 f.
12. ↑ Luc Brisson : Lectures de Platon , Paris 2000, p. 16 f .; Uvo Hölscher: The requirement of philosophy . In: Würzburg Yearbooks for Classical Studies New Series 1, 1975, pp. 93-102, here: 98 f .; Kai Trampedach: Plato, the Academy and contemporary politics , Stuttgart 1994, p. 256.
13. ^ Lionel J. Sanders: Nationalistic Recommendations and Policies in the Seventh and Eighth Platonic Epistles . In: The Ancient History Bulletin 8, 1994, pp. 76-85. Cf. Kai Trampedach: Plato, the Academy and contemporary politics , Stuttgart 1994, p. 270 f .; Jürgen Sprute: Dion's Syracusan politics and the political ideals of Plato. In: Hermes 100, 1972, pp. 294-313, here: 299, 308 f .; Helmut Berve: Dion , Wiesbaden 1957, p. 37 f.
14. ↑ Luc Brisson: Plato. Lettres . In: Richard Goulet (ed.): Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques , Vol. 5, Part 1 (= V a), Paris 2012, pp. 829-832, here: 829.
15. ↑ On this question, see Rainer Knab (Ed.): Platon's Seventh Letter , Hildesheim 2006, pp. 123–125; Eva Baer: The historical information in Plato's letters VII and VIII in the judgment of modern research since Eduard Meyer , dissertation Berlin 1957, pp. 146–160, 197–200.
16. ↑ Seventh Letter 323d – 324b.
17. ↑ Seventh Letter 324b – 326b.
18. ↑ Seventh Letter 326b – 327b.
19. ↑ Seventh Letter 327b – 329b.
20. ↑ Seventh Letter 329b – 333d.
21. ↑ Seventh Letter 333d – 336b.
22. ↑ Seventh Letter 336c – 337e.
23. ↑ Seventh Letter 337e – 341b.
24. ↑ Seventh Letter 341b – 342a. See Andreas Graeser: Philosophical knowledge and conceptual representation , Stuttgart 1989, p. 4 f., 33.
25. ↑ Harald Patzer : Communicability of knowledge and the regiment of philosophers in the 7th letter of Plato . In: Archive for Philosophy 5/1, 1954, pp. 19–36, here: 20 f.
26. ↑ See William KC Guthrie: A History of Greek Philosophy , Vol. 5, Cambridge 1978, p. 404.
27. ^ See also William KC Guthrie: A History of Greek Philosophy , Vol. 5, Cambridge 1978, pp. 406 f.
28. ↑ Seventh Letter 342a – 343d. See Hans-Georg Gadamer: Gesammelte Werke , Vol. 6, Tübingen 1985, pp. 99–108; Klaus Oehler : The doctrine of noetic and dianoetic thinking in Plato and Aristotle , 2nd edition, Hamburg 1985, p. 82 note 1; Florian Finck: Plato's foundation of the soul in absolute thinking , Berlin 2007, pp. 137–156. Cf. Gregor Schneider: Mathematischer Platonismus , Munich 2012, pp. 103-106.
29. ↑ Seventh Letter 343e – 344d. See Florian Finck: Plato's Justification of the Soul in Absolute Thinking , Berlin 2007, pp. 157–167. For a comparison of the teacher with Lynkeus, see Kurt von Fritz: Writings on Greek logic , Vol. 1, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1978, pp. 229-234.
30. ↑ Seventh Letter 344d – 350b.
31. ↑ Seventh Letter 350b – 352a.
32. ↑ Gerard R. Ledger: Recounting Plato , Oxford 1989, pp. 148-150, 199. Cf. Carl A. Huffman: Archytas of Tarentum , Cambridge 2005, p. 43.
33. ↑ Thomas Alexander Szlezák : Plato and the writing of philosophy , Berlin 1985, p. 388 f .; Frank Leslie Vatai: Intellectuals in Politics in the Greek World , London 1984, p. 28.
34. ↑ Florian Finck: Plato's justification of the soul in absolute thinking , Berlin 2007, pp. 123–127.
35. ^ Norman Gulley: The Authenticity of the Platonic Epistles . In: Pseudepigrapha I (= Entretiens sur l'Antiquité classique , vol. 18), Vandœuvres-Genève 1971, pp. 103–130, here: 105–107, 110–112.
36. ^ Norman Gulley: The Authenticity of the Platonic Epistles . In: Pseudepigrapha I (= Entretiens sur l'Antiquité classique , vol. 18), Vandœuvres-Genève 1971, pp. 103–130, here: 127 f .; Ludwig Edelstein: Plato's Seventh Letter , Leiden 1966, pp. 36–39. Compare the counter-argumentation by Peter Brunt : Studies in Greek History and Thought , Oxford 1993, p. 341 f.
37. ↑ Olof Gigon: The letter in Greek philosophy . In: Didactica Classica Gandensia 20/21, 1980, pp. 117-132, here: 122 f .; Elizabeth Gwyn Caskey: Again - Plato's Seventh Letter . In: Classical Philology 69, 1974, pp. 220-227, here: 225.
38. ↑ Seventh Letter 341d and 345c. See Gerhard Müller: Platonische Studien , Heidelberg 1986, p. 161; Olof Gigon: The Letter in Greek Philosophy . In: Didactica Classica Gandensia 20/21, 1980, pp. 117-132, here: 120; Friedrich Solmsen : Review of Ludwig Edelstein, Plato's Seventh Letter . In: Gnomon 41, 1969, pp. 29-34, here: 32; Bertha Stenzel: Is Plato's Seventh Epistle Spurious? In: American Journal of Philology 74, 1953, pp. 383-397, here: 393 f.
39. ^ Gerhard Müller: Platonic Studies , Heidelberg 1986, p. 175.
40. ↑ Uvo Hölscher: The requirement of philosophy . In: Würzburg Yearbooks for Classical Studies New Series 1, 1975, pp. 93-102. See Kurt von Fritz: Plato in Sizilien und das Problem der Philosophenherrschaft , Berlin 1968, pp. 48–50. The opposing position is represented by Kai Trampedach: Plato, the Academy and contemporary politics , Stuttgart 1994, pp. 103, 259 f., 264 f. and Jürgen Villers: Das Paradigma des Alphabets , Würzburg 2005, pp. 163–167.
41. ^ Gerhard Müller: Platonische Studien , Heidelberg 1986, p. 181 f .; Ludwig Edelstein: Plato's Seventh Letter , Leiden 1966, pp. 53–55.
42. ↑ George Boas: Fact and Legend in the Biography of Plato . In: The Philosophical Review 57, 1948, pp. 439–457, here: 455 f. Richard S. Bluck argues against this: Plato's Biography: The Seventh Letter . In: The Philosophical Review 58, 1949, pp. 503-509, here: 503-506.
43. ^ Norman Gulley: The Authenticity of the Platonic Epistles . In: Pseudepigrapha I (= Entretiens sur l'Antiquité classique , vol. 18), Vandœuvres-Genève 1971, pp. 103–130, here: 112–129 (cf. the relevant discussion pp. 135–139, 142); Gregory Vlastos: Platonic Studies , 2nd, corrected edition, Princeton 1981, pp. 202 f.
44. ^ Friedrich Solmsen: Review of Ludwig Edelstein, Plato's Seventh Letter . In: Gnomon 41, 1969, pp. 29-34, here: 29-31.
45. ^ Gerhard Müller: Platonische Studien , Heidelberg 1986, pp. 148 f., 155–161, 185–188; Olof Gigon: The Letter in Greek Philosophy . In: Didactica Classica Gandensia 20/21, 1980, pp. 117-132, here: 121, 123; Ludwig Edelstein: Plato's Seventh Letter , Leiden 1966, p. 82 f.
46. ^ Hermann Gundert : Platonstudien , Amsterdam 1977, p. 116 f .; Kurt von Fritz: The philosophical passage in the seventh Platonic letter and the question of the 'esoteric' philosophy of Plato . In: Phronesis 11, 1966, pp. 117-153, here: 120-122.
47. ↑ Josef Derbolav: From the conditions of just rule , Stuttgart 1979, p. 111-125.
48. ^ Gerhard Müller: Platonische Studien , Heidelberg 1986, pp. 149–156; Ludwig Edelstein: Plato's Seventh Letter , Leiden 1966, pp. 85-108.
49. ↑ Kurt von Fritz: The philosophical passage in the seventh Platonic letter and the question of the 'esoteric' philosophy of Plato . In: Phronesis 11, 1966, pp. 117-153, here: 121-135; Harald Patzer: Communicability of knowledge and the regiment of philosophers in the 7th letter of Plato . In: Archive for Philosophy 5/1, 1954, pp. 19–36, here: 20–31, 36.
50. ↑ Rosemary Desjardins: Plato and the Good , Leiden 2004, pp. 203-227.
51. ^ Walter Bröcker : The philosophical excursus in Plato's seventh letter . In: Hermes 91, 1963, pp. 416-425; Walter Bröcker: Addendum to the philosophical excursus in Plato's seventh letter . In: Hermes 93, 1965, p. 132. Brocker considers the section from 342a1 to 344c1 to be an interpolation.
52. ↑ Harold Tarrant: Middle Platonism and the Seventh Epistle . In: Phronesis 28, 1983, pp. 75-103.
53. ↑ Malcolm Schofield: Plato and practical politics . In: The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political Thought , Cambridge 2005, pp. 293–302, here: 301.
54. ↑ See on the dating approaches Michael Erler: Platon , Basel 2007, p. 315 f .; Kai Trampedach: Plato, the academy and contemporary politics , Stuttgart 1994, p. 256 f.
55. ↑ See the discussion contribution by Walter Burkert in: Pseudepigrapha I (= Entretiens sur l'Antiquité classique , vol. 18), Vandœuvres-Genève 1971, p. 177 and Ludwig Edelstein: Plato's Seventh Letter , Leiden 1966, pp. 60-62.
56. ^ Gerhard JD Aalders: Political Thought and Political Programs in the Platonic Epistles . In: Pseudepigrapha I (= Entretiens sur l'Antiquité classique , vol. 18), Vandœuvres-Genève 1971, pp. 144–175, here: 148 f. (see the discussion by Walter Burkert p. 177).
57. ↑ Myles Burnyeat, Michael Frede: The Pseudo-Platonic Seventh Letter , Oxford 2015, p. 121 f.
58. ↑ Ernst Howald (Ed.): The real letters of Plato , Zurich 1951, p. 17.
59. ^ Heinrich Weinstock (translator): Plato: Die Briefe , Stuttgart 1954, p. 33.
60. ↑ Jürgen Villers: Das Paradigma des Alphabets , Würzburg 2005, pp. 163–167; William KC Guthrie: A History of Greek Philosophy , Vol. 5, Cambridge 1978, pp. 402 f .; Glenn R. Morrow: Plato's Epistles , Indianapolis / New York 1962, pp. 45-63.
61. ↑ Rainer Thurnher: The seventh Plato letter , Meisenheim am Glan 1975, p. 9 f.
62. ↑ Julia Annas: Platonic Ethics, Old and New , Ithaca 1999, pp. 74-77.
63. ↑ Giovanni Reale: To a new interpretation of Plato , 2nd, expanded edition, Paderborn 2000, pp. 85 f., 96, 98-105; Thomas Alexander Szlezák: Plato and the writing of philosophy , Berlin 1985, pp. 386–405; Hans Joachim Krämer: Arete in Plato and Aristoteles , Heidelberg 1959, pp. 22-27, 403 f., 463 f. Criticism of the interpretation of the seventh letter by the Tübingen and Milan schools is criticized by Franco Trabattoni: Oralità e scrittura in Platone , Milano 1999, pp. 93–125.
64. ↑ Seventh Letter 344d – e.
65. ^ Konrad Gaiser: Plato's enigmatic lecture 'On the Good' . In: Konrad Gaiser: Gesammelte Schriften , Sankt Augustin 2004, pp. 265–294, here: 278; Hans Joachim Krämer: Arete in Plato and Aristoteles , Heidelberg 1959, p. 460. Mauro Tulli disagrees: Dialettica e scrittura nella VII lettera di Platone , Pisa 1989, p. 43.
66. ↑ See also Clemens Kauffmann : The hermeneutics of the "third dimension" in the Plato interpretation by Leo Strauss . In: Ada Neschke-Hentschke (Ed.): Argumenta in dialogos Platonis , Part 2, Basel 2012, pp. 285–297, here: 292 f.
67. ^ William KC Guthrie: A History of Greek Philosophy , Vol. 5, Cambridge 1978, pp. 403 f., 411 f.
68. ↑ This interpretation is represented by James M. Rhodes: Eros, Wisdom, and Silence , Columbia 2003, pp. 168–181 and Andreas Graeser: Philosophical knowledge and conceptual representation , Stuttgart 1989, pp. 4 f., 8, 33–37.
69. ↑ Christina Schefer: Plato's unspeakable experience , Basel 2001, pp. 63–71.
70. ^ Giovanni Reale: To a new interpretation of Plato , 2nd, expanded edition, Paderborn 2000, pp. 106-109; Rafael Ferber: The ignorance of the philosopher or why did Plato not write the “unwritten teaching”? , Sankt Augustin 1991, pp. 35-37; Thomas Alexander Szlezák: The Acquiring of Philosophical Knowledge According to Plato's Seventh Letter . In: Glen W. Bowersock et al. (Ed.): Arktouros , Berlin 1979, pp. 355–363, here: 358–363; Hans Joachim Krämer: Arete in Platon and Aristoteles , Heidelberg 1959, pp. 21-27, 464-467.
71. ↑ Francisco J. Gonzalez: Dialectic and Dialogue , Evanston 1998, pp. 252 f., 256-274; Kenneth M. Sayre: Plato's Dialogues in Light of the Seventh Letter . In: Charles L. Griswold (ed.): Platonic Writings, Platonic Readings , New York / London 1988, pp. 93-109, here: 95-97, 109; Eugen Dönt : Plato's Late Philosophy and the Academy , Vienna 1967, pp. 23-27.
72. ↑ Florian Finck: Plato's justification of the soul in absolute thinking , Berlin 2007, pp. 128-137.
73. ↑ Rafael Ferber: The ignorance of the philosopher or why did Plato not write the “unwritten teaching”? , Sankt Augustin 1991, pp. 33-61. See the review by Thomas Alexander Szlezák in Gnomon 69, 1997, pp. 404–411.
74. ^ Walter Burkert: Neanthes of Kyzikos on Plato . In: Museum Helveticum 57, 2000, pp. 76–80.
75. ↑ Cicero, Tusculanae disputationes 5,100; De finibus bonorum et malorum 2.92; Epistulae ad familiares 1, 9, 18, however with reference to the 5th letter 322a, b.
76. ↑ Diogenes Laertios 3.60 f.
77. ↑ Aelius Aristides, To Plato on Rhetoric 285–298.
78. ↑ Plotinus, Enneades VI 9.4.
79. ↑ Prolegomena to the Philosophy of Plato 26, ed. von Leendert G. Westerink : Prolégomènes à la philosophie de Platon , Paris 1990, p. 39.
80. ↑ Proklos, In Platonis Parmenidem 985; In Platoni's Timaeum I 303.
81. ^ Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Gr. 1807.
82. ↑ On this translation and its dating see James Hankins: Plato in the Italian Renaissance , 3rd edition, Leiden 1994, pp. 74–80, 384–387, 739.
83. ↑ James Hankins: Plato in the Italian Renaissance , 3rd edition, Leiden 1994, p. 421 and note 18.
84. ↑ See Margherita Isnardi Parente (ed.): Platone: Lettere , Rom 2002, pp. 11-13. Meiners presented his results on April 27, 1782 in a lecture that was published in 1783 ( digitized version ).
85. ↑ Immanuel Kant: From a recently raised noble tone in philosophy . In: Kant's collected writings , Bd. 8, Berlin 1912, pp. 387-406, here: 398. See on this and on the dispute between Kant and locksmith Rafael Ferber: Platon und Kant . In: Ada Neschke-Hentschke (Ed.): Argumenta in dialogos Platonis , Part 1, Basel 2010, pp. 371–390, here: 376–384.
86. ↑ See Margherita Isnardi Parente (ed.): Platone: Lettere , Rom 2002, pp. XIII f .; Eva Baer: The historical details of Plato's letters VII and VIII in the judgment of modern research since Eduard Meyer , dissertation Berlin 1957, pp. 4-6.
87. ^ Lecture recording in: Friedrich Nietzsche: Werke. Critical Complete Edition , Department 2, Vol. 4, Berlin 1995, pp. 30–32.
88. ^ Eva Baer: The historical information in Plato's letters VII and VIII in the judgment of modern research since Eduard Meyer , dissertation Berlin 1957, pp. 4-6.
89. ^ Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff: Platon. His life and his works , 5th edition, Berlin 1959 (1st edition Berlin 1919), pp. 510-517 and Plato. Supplements and text criticism , 4th edition, Dublin / Zurich 1969 (1st edition Berlin 1919), pp. 281–300.
90. ^ Eduard Meyer: Geschichte des Altertums , Vol. 3, 2nd edition, Stuttgart / Berlin 1915, p. 287.
91. ^ Max Pohlenz: From Platos Werdezeit , Berlin 1913, pp. 113-122.
92. ^ Giorgio Pasquali: Le lettere di Platone , Firenze 1938, pp. 47-50.
93. ^ Richard S. Bluck: Plato's Biography: The Seventh Letter . In: The Philosophical Review 58, 1949, pp. 503-509.
94. ↑ Margherita Isnardi Parente (ed.): Platone: Lettere , Rom 2002, p. XV and note 3.
95. ↑ George Boas: Fact and Legend in the Biography of Plato . In: The Philosophical Review 57, 1948, pp. 439-457, here: 455-457.
96. ^ Antonio Maddalena (translator): Platone: Lettere , Bari 1948, pp. 77–346.
97. ^ Gerhard Müller: The philosophy in the pseudo-Platonic 7th letter . In: Archive for Philosophy , Vol. 3, Issue 3, 1949, pp. 251-276.
98. ↑ Hans Joachim Krämer: Arete in Platon and Aristoteles , Heidelberg 1959, pp. 19-26, 401, 403 f. Note 41.
99. ^ Konrad Gaiser: Plato's enigmatic lecture 'On the Good' . In: Konrad Gaiser: Gesammelte Schriften , Sankt Augustin 2004, pp. 265–294, here: 281.
100. ^ Giovanni Reale: On a new interpretation of Plato , 2nd, expanded edition, Paderborn 2000, p. 85.
101. ↑ Helmut Berve: Dion , Wiesbaden 1957, p. 7 f.
102. ↑ Kurt von Fritz: The philosophical passage in the seventh Platonic letter and the question of the 'esoteric' philosophy of Plato . In: Phronesis 11, 1966, pp. 117-153.
103. ↑ Rainer Thurnher: The seventh Plato letter , Meisenheim am Glan 1975, pp. 1-8.
104. ↑ Uvo Hölscher: The requirement of philosophy . In: Würzburg Yearbooks for Classical Studies New Series 1, 1975, pp. 93-102.
105. ^ William KC Guthrie: A History of Greek Philosophy , Vol. 5, Cambridge 1978, p. 402 note 1.
106. ↑ Kenneth M. Sayre: Plato's Literary Garden , Notre Dame 1995, pp. XVIII – XXIII.
107. ↑ James M. Rhodes: Eros, Wisdom, and Silence , Columbia 2003, pp. 119-130.
108. ↑ Rainer Knab (Ed.): Plato's Seventh Letter , Hildesheim 2006, pp. 1–6, 50.
109. ↑ Michael Erler: Platon , Basel 2007, p. 310.
110. ↑ Ludwig Edelstein: Plato's Seventh Letter , Leiden 1966, pp. 166–169.
111. ↑ Olof Gigon: The letter in Greek philosophy . In: Didactica Classica Gandensia 20/21, 1980, pp. 117-132, here: 120-123.
112. ^ Gregory Vlastos: Platonic Studies , 2nd, corrected edition, Princeton 1981, pp. 202 f.
113. ↑ Jaap Mansfeld: Greek Philosophy in the History of Antiquity . In: Elenchos 10, 1989, pp. 23-60, here: 56-59.
114. ^ Terence H. Irwin: Plato: The intellectual background . In: Richard Kraut (ed.): The Cambridge Companion to Plato , Cambridge 1992, pp. 51-89, here: pp. 78 f. Note 4; Terence H. Irwin: The Inside Story of the Seventh Platonic Letter: A Skeptical Introduction . In: Rhizai 6/2, 2009, pp. 127-160.
115. ↑ Michael Zahrnt: The demos of Syracuse in the age of the Dionysioi . In: Walter Eder , Karl-Joachim Hölkeskamp (ed.): People and Constitution in Pre-Hellenic Greece , Stuttgart 1997, pp. 153–175, here: 158 f.
116. ^ Walter Burkert: Neanthes of Kyzikos on Plato . In: Museum Helveticum 57, 2000, pp. 76–80, here: p. 80 note 33.
117. ^ Myles Burnyeat, Michael Frede: The Pseudo-Platonic Seventh Letter , Oxford 2015, pp. 1-84 (Fredes' posthumously published study from 2001).
118. ↑ Rafael Ferber: The ignorance of the philosopher or why did Plato not write the “unwritten teaching”? , Sankt Augustin 1991, p. 72 note 79.
119. ↑ Kai Trampedach: Plato, the Academy and contemporary politics , Stuttgart 1994, p. 258.
120. ↑ Julia Annas: Platonic Ethics, Old and New , Ithaca 1999, p. 75.
121. ↑ Malcolm Schofield: Plato and practical politics . In: The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political Thought , Cambridge 2005, pp. 293–302, here: 299–301.
122. ^ Ernst Cassirer: Philosophy of symbolic forms , part 1, 2nd edition, Oxford 1954 (first published in 1923), pp. 64–66.
123. ^ Hans-Georg Gadamer: Dialectics and Sophistics in the seventh Platonic letter . In: Gadamer: Gesammelte Werke , Vol. 6, Tübingen 1985, pp. 90–115, here: 95 f., 110, 114.
124. ^ Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: Lectures on the History of Philosophy II , ed. by Eva Moldenhauer , Karl Markus Michel (= works , vol. 19), Frankfurt 1971, p. 18 f.
125. ↑ A discussion of the opposing interpretations of Dion's behavior is offered by Jürgen Sprute: Dion's Syracusan politics and the political ideals of Plato. In: Hermes 100, 1972, pp. 294-313. Sprute's very negative assessment of Dion's motives contradicts Wolfgang Orth : The Syracusan Herakleides as a politician . In: Historia 28, 1979, pp. 51-64, here: 56-58, 63 f. Karl-Wilhelm Welwei considers him an idealistic reformer, enthusiastic about philosophy : Greek History , Paderborn 2011, p. 387.
126. ↑ Kurt von Fritz: Plato in Sicily and the problem of the rule of philosophers , Berlin 1968, pp. 140, 143.
127. ↑ Kai Trampedach: Platon, the Academy and contemporary politics , Stuttgart 1994, p. 266.
128. ↑ Helmut Berve: Dion , Wiesbaden 1957, p. 141.
129. ↑ Jürgen Sprute: Dion's Syracusan politics and the political ideals of Plato. In: Hermes 100, 1972, pp. 294-313.
130. ↑ Susan Sara Monoson: Plato's Democratic entanglements , Princeton 2000, pp 147-153.
131. ↑ Luc Brisson: Lectures de Platon , Paris 2000, pp. 15, 22, 24; Michael Erler: Philosophical autobiography using the example of Plato's 7th letter . In: Michael Reichel (Ed.): Antike Autobiographien , Cologne 2005, pp. 75–92, here: 75–81.
132. ^ Rainer Thurnher: The seventh Plato letter , Meisenheim am Glan 1975, p. 14 f.
133. ^ Franz Dornseiff: Plato's book 'Briefe' . In: Hermes 69, 1934, pp. 223-226; Franz Dornseiff: Questions of authenticity in ancient Greek literature , Berlin 1939, pp. 31–36; Niklas Holzberg: The Greek letter novel , Tübingen 1994, pp. 8–13, 47 f .; Hartmut Längin: Storytelling and Philosophy in the Plato Letters . In: Grazer contributions 22, 1998, pp. 101–115.
134. ↑ Julia Annas: Platonic Ethics, Old and New , Ithaca 1999, pp. 75-77.
135. ↑ Werner Jaeger: Paideia , Berlin 1989 (reprint of the 1973 edition in one volume; first publication of the 3rd volume in 1947), p. 1147.
136. ↑ Ernst Howald (Ed.): The real letters of Plato , Zurich 1951, pp. 17, 21.
137. ^ Ernst Howald: The Seventh Letter , Stuttgart 1964, p. 57.
138. ↑ Michael Erler: Philosophical autobiography using the example of Plato's 7th letter . In: Michael Reichel (Ed.): Antike Autobiographien , Cologne 2005, pp. 75–92, here: 80.
139. ↑ Olof Gigon: The letter in Greek philosophy . In: Didactica Classica Gandensia 20/21, 1980, pp. 117-132, here: 120.
140. ↑ George Boas: Fact and Legend in the Biography of Plato . In: The Philosophical Review 57, 1948, pp. 439–457, here: 457.

This article was added to the list of excellent articles on November 1st, 2014 in this version .