Sisyphus (dialogue)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The beginning of Sisyphus in the oldest surviving manuscript: Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Gr. 1807 (9th century)

The Sisyphus ( Greek Σίσυφος Sísyphos , Latinized Sisyphus ) is an ancient literary dialogue in ancient Greek, which was ascribed to the philosopher Plato , but certainly did not come from him. The inauthenticity was already recognized in antiquity.

The content is a short conversation between the philosopher Socrates and the noble Thessalian Sisyphus. The question of what is the point of a consultation and what actually happens is discussed. This is why the dialogue in the manuscripts bears the alternative title “About deliberation”.

Place, time and participants

The historical Socrates, Plato's teacher, was in the habit of having conversations with his acquaintances, friends and students as well as with strangers and foreign visitors, which he directed to philosophical questions of interest to him. The author of Sisyphus also lets Socrates take up a remark made by his interlocutor and use it as an opportunity to begin a philosophical discussion.

The day before, Sisyphus took part in a council meeting in the Thessalian city of Pharsalos , of which he is a citizen. This indicates that the dialogue is taking place there, which implies a trip by Socrates to Thessaly. This is very noticeable because Socrates did not leave his hometown Athens - apart from his military missions in the Peloponnesian War ; the setting for all Platonic dialogues in which he appears is Athens or the vicinity of that city. Therefore, the interpretation has been suggested in research that the author of Sisyphus was thinking of a stay of the Thessalian in the home of the philosopher. But Sisyphus cannot have covered the distance between Pharsalos and Athens (187 km as the crow flies) in such a short time, especially since the council assembly took up the whole day before. This suggests that the author of the dialogue invented a stay for Socrates in Thessaly.

Sisyphus apparently belongs to the ruling class of his hometown, as he is consulted by its archons . Apparently the dialogue figure is identical to the historical noble Sisyphus of Pharsalus, who belonged to an old Thessalian family. The father of the historical Sisyphus, Daochus I , held the office of Tagos , the commander of the armed forces of the Thessalian League. Sisyphus' son Daochus II later played a leading role as the confidante of King Philip II of Macedonia in Thessaly.

The historical Sisyphus of Pharsalos has at the beginning of the 4th century BC Apparently exercised an important military function, so he was at least thirty years old at the time. An encounter with Socrates, the 399 BC. Chr. Died, is therefore possible chronologically. But it is unlikely; it can be assumed that it is a literary fiction of the dialogue author.

content

A framework plot is missing, the course of the conversation is reproduced in direct speech. Socrates informs Sisyphus, who has just arrived, that the day before, when the two wanted to hear a speech together, he had been waiting in vain for him. Sisyphus gives the reason for his absence that he was prevented from attending a council meeting due to a legal obligation. Therefore Socrates assumes that Sisyphus is a good advisor to his fellow citizens.

It is known from Plato's works that Socrates, in conversations with experts who were considered competent in their fields, used to ask about the knowledge on which the competence claim of his interlocutor was based. He is heading towards this here too. Sisyphus is valued as an advisor; So the obvious question would be what constitutes good advice. Socrates put this topic on hold for the time being, as it would require too much time. At first it only raises the simpler question of what a deliberation actually consists of. Sisyphus is astonished at the supposed triviality of this question.

Consultations, as Socrates knows them, consist in people who do not know what to do, talk about their hunches and speculations and try, by chance, to find out what is appropriate in the current situation. It may be that you happen to come across the right thing. Sisyphus, who does not want to appear so incompetent as a counselor, does not agree with this definition of counseling, he presents his work differently. He thinks that the participants in counseling already have a certain knowledge that only needs to be completed, since certain details are still unclear. Socrates compares this to the efforts of mathematicians who already know what a cube is and now want to figure out how to double it (" Delic problem ").

But the fact remains, as Socrates emphasizes, that one is always looking for something that one does not know. All counselors strive for a knowledge that they do not have; they are always looking for the best option. Advice is therefore nothing more than a common search, guesswork and speculation. When an ignorant consults with other ignorant, he is only a seeker among seekers and not an advisor. For Socrates, the alternative to common guesswork is to be taught by someone who already has knowledge. Only those who can teach based on what they already know are real advisors.

Socrates suggests that he believes there are those in the know whom one could turn to when it comes to political issues such as those discussed at the Pharsalos assembly. With this he obviously means - according to the Platonic understanding of philosophy - philosophers. On the other hand, he does not trust the participants in the council meeting in Pharsalos to have such expertise. In them he only sees perplexed people who hope to recognize something at random instead of being instructed by competent experts. Sisyphus cannot contradict this assessment.

Finally, Socrates draws attention to the subject of deliberation. This is always something in the future. The purpose of counseling is to grasp the future in the present, even though the future does not yet exist. That seems paradoxical. Since the future has no quality in the present, the question arises as to how it can be an object of knowledge at all. If it is undetectable, it has serious consequences: there is no criterion for the quality of advice, and the statement that someone is a good or bad advisor is pointless. This problem remains unsolved; the dialogue ends with the invitation to Sisyphus to think about it further. Thus, as in some real dialogues of Plato, the confrontation with the topic leads to aporia (perplexity), a solution is not in sight for the time being.

Author and date of origin

The dialogue is probably in the 4th century BC. BC originated. Michael Erler thinks more of the first half of the century, while Joseph Souilhé advocates writing after the middle of the century. Carl Werner Müller believes the period of origin to be between 361 and about 350 BC. To be able to limit; a number of researchers have subscribed to his view.

The beginning of Sisyphus in the first edition, Venice 1513

Nothing more can be determined about the author. He was probably a member of the Platonic Academy and evidently wanted to achieve a protreptic effect on the reader , that is, to promote the Platonic philosophy. It can be seen that Plato's dialogue Menon , where the problem of the search for the unknown is discussed, influenced him. Alfred Edward Taylor thinks that Sisyphus may come from the unknown author of the text group summarized under the name Demodokos ; there, too, the purpose of advising is critically discussed. Margherita Isnardi sees the author of Sisyphus as an opponent of Athenian democracy, whose criticism of deliberations aims to discredit the principle of democratic decision-making.

reception

Since Sisyphus was considered spurious in antiquity, it was not included in the tetralogy of the works of Plato. The historian of philosophy Diogenes Laertios and the author of the anonymously handed down late antique “Prolegomena to the Philosophy of Plato” listed him among the writings that were unanimously regarded as not coming from Plato.

There was very little interest in the small work in antiquity. The only evidence of literary reception comes from the Roman Empire : the speaker Dion Chrysostomos (Dion of Prusa) took up ideas from the dialogue in his 26th speech.

In the Middle Ages, dialogue was unknown to Latin-speaking scholars of the West. In the Byzantine Empire, however, it was accessible to some scholars. The oldest surviving manuscript dates from the 9th century.

In the age of Renaissance humanism , Sisyphus was rediscovered, but received little attention from the humanists. 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 . The Latin translation created by the humanist Willibald Pirckheimer and published in Nuremberg by his printer Friedrich Peypus in 1523 is based on this edition .

In modern research, the literary and philosophical value of Sisyphus is underestimated. Alfred Edward Taylor describes the style as awkward and complains that the author has a weakness for "childish" refutation art in disputes ( eristics ).

Editions and translations

  • Joseph Souilhé (ed.): Plato: Œuvres complètes , vol. 13, part 3: Dialogues apocryphes . 2nd edition, Les Belles Lettres, Paris 1962, pp. 55–75 (critical edition with French translation)
  • Franz Susemihl (translator): Sisyphus . In: Erich Loewenthal (Ed.): Platon: All works in three volumes , Vol. 3, unchanged reprint of the 8th, revised edition, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 2004, ISBN 3-534-17918-8 , pp. 825-831

literature

  • Francesco Aronadio (translator): Dialoghi spuri di Platone . Unione Tipografico-Editrice Torinese, Torino 2008, ISBN 978-88-02-08022-2 , pp. 57-59
  • Michael Erler: Platon ( Outline of the history of philosophy . The philosophy of antiquity , edited by Hellmut Flashar , Vol. 2/2). Schwabe, Basel 2007, ISBN 978-3-7965-2237-6 , pp. 328f., 673
  • Carl Werner Müller: The short dialogues of the Appendix Platonica. Philological contributions to post-Platonic Socratics. Wilhelm Fink, Munich 1975, pp. 45-106

Remarks

  1. ^ Plato, Crito 52b.
  2. ^ For this, Carl Werner Müller advocates: Die Kurzdialoge der Appendix Platonica , Munich 1975, pp. 48–50.
  3. ↑ Sisyphus 390b.
  4. ↑ Carl Werner Müller: The short dialogues of the Appendix Platonica , Munich 1975, p. 48f.
  5. ↑ See also Carl Werner Müller: Die Kurzdialoge der Appendix Platonica , Munich 1975, p. 45f .; Henry D. Westlake: Thessaly in the Fourth Century BC , London 1935, pp. 61, 202f., 209f .; Bruno Helly: L'État thessalien , Lyon 1995, pp. 51f., 63-66.
  6. ^ Carl Werner Müller: Die Kurzdialoge der Appendix Platonica , Munich 1975, p. 45f .; Michael Erler: Platon , Basel 2007, p. 328.
  7. ↑ Sisyphus 387b-c.
  8. ↑ Sisyphus 387c – d.
  9. ↑ Sisyphus 387d-389a.
  10. ↑ Sisyphus 388e; see also Carl Werner Müller: Die Kurzdialoge der Appendix Platonica , Munich 1975, pp. 105f .; Malcolm Brown: Plato on Doubling the Cube: Politicus 266 AB . In: Brian P. Hendley (Ed.): Plato, Time, and Education , Albany 1987, pp. 43-60, here: 43.
  11. ↑ Sisyphus 389a-390d.
  12. ↑ Sisyphus 390a – d.
  13. ↑ Sisyphus 390d-391d.
  14. ↑ Michael Erler: Platon , Basel 2007, p. 328f .; Joseph Souilhé (Ed.): Plato: Œuvres complètes , Vol. 13, Part 3, 2nd edition, Paris 1962, pp. 59, 61. See William KC Guthrie : A History of Greek Philosophy , Vol. 5, Cambridge 1978 , P. 398.
  15. ^ Carl Werner Müller: Die Kurzdialoge der Appendix Platonica , Munich 1975, pp. 94-103; Hans Krämer : The older academy . In: Hellmut Flashar (ed.): Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of antiquity , Volume 3, Basel 1983, p. 127; Holger Thesleff : Platonic Patterns , Las Vegas 2009, p. 375; Francesco Aronadio: Dialoghi spuri di Platone , Torino 2008, p. 59.
  16. ↑ Francesco Aronadio: Dialoghi spuri di Platone , Torino 2008, p. 59.
  17. ↑ Joseph Souilhé (Ed.): Plato: Œuvres complètes , Vol. 13, Part 3, 2nd edition, Paris 1962, pp. 61–63.
  18. ^ Alfred Edward Taylor: Plato. The man and his work , 5th edition, London 1948, p. 548. Joseph Souilhé (ed.), However, has a different opinion: Plato: Œuvres complètes , vol. 13, part 3, 2nd edition, Paris 1962, p. 57 .
  19. ↑ Margherita Isnardi: sugli apocrifi platonici, Demodoco 'e, Sisifo' . In: La Parola del Passato 9, 1954, pp. 425-431, here: 429-431.
  20. ↑ Diogenes Laertios 3.62; “Prolegomena to Plato's Philosophy” 26, ed. von Leendert G. Westerink: Prolégomènes à la philosophie de Platon , Paris 1990, p. 38.
  21. ↑ See also Michael Trapp: Plato in Dio . In: Simon Swain (ed.): Dio Chrysostom. Politics, Letters, and Philosophy , Oxford 2000, p. 234, note 60; see. Josef Pavlu : The pseudoplatonic Sisyphus . In: Communications of the Association of Classical Philologists in Vienna , Vol. 3, 1926, pp. 19–36, here: 19–22.
  22. ↑ Parisinus Graecus 1807; see on this manuscript and its date Henri Dominique Saffrey: Retour sur le Parisinus graecus 1807, le manuscrit A de Platon . In: Cristina D'Ancona (Ed.): The Libraries of the Neoplatonists , Leiden 2007, pp. 3–28.
  23. ↑ On Pirckheimer's translation, see Niklas Holzberg : Willibald Pirckheimer , Munich 1981, pp. 301–311.
  24. ^ Alfred Edward Taylor: Plato. The man and his work , 5th edition, London 1948, p. 548.