RE: [neoplatonism] Re: Enneads Companion
- Jan Opsomer writes:
>I am troubled by this line of reasoning generally. First, I don't think
> Actually the argument against the authenticity is based on more than
> lexical data.
> Having looked at the evidence myself and having studied the arguments
> pro and contra, I had come to the conclusion that the Theages is
> Mark Joyal has studied the Theages much more extensively than anyone
> before. He is a very able classicist and he does take the Theages
> seriously, yet he too thinks it is spurious (the one does not exclude
> the other).
> Some of his conclusions in this matter are:
> - the Theages draws heavily on dialogues considered as late, but is
> stylistically and lexically closer to dialogues considered to be early.
> - the Theages is to a considerable extent compiled from other
> dialogues, in a way that is not typical of Plato.
> - the author misunderstood the way Socrates' divine sign is used in
> Of course one should look at all of his arguments in detail (which it
> is not the place to do here). No single argument constitutes
> conclusive evidence, as he admits, but together they are quite
> For the full discussion see
> Joyal, Mark, 2000. The Platonic "Theages". An introduction,
> commentary and critical edition (Philosophie der Antike, 10),
> Stuttgart, Steiner.
there is any real way to determine a time line of Platonic dialogues. Each
dialogue has its own necessities, and it appears to me that the Theages has
a rather profound argument worthy of Plato. Style is mutable, and there
really is no one Platonic style. All the dialogues very individual. Some are
hilariously written, some have a great outward solemnity. As for the divine
sign, one might also point out that Plato is critiquing that very notion as
well. So, I don't think that it is so easy to regard as spurious. In my
view, it is better to err on the side of it being genuine.