Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [neoplatonism] Re: Enneads Companion

Expand Messages
  • Icastes
    ... I am troubled by this line of reasoning generally. First, I don t think there is any real way to determine a time line of Platonic dialogues. Each dialogue
    Message 1 of 7 , Mar 30, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Jan Opsomer writes:
      >
      > 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
      > spurious.
      > 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
      > Plato.
      > 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
      > convincing.
      >
      > For the full discussion see
      > Joyal, Mark, 2000. The Platonic "Theages". An introduction,
      > commentary and critical edition (Philosophie der Antike, 10),
      > Stuttgart, Steiner.

      I am troubled by this line of reasoning generally. First, I don't think
      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.

      Best regards,

      Kalev Pehme
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.