Chapter 2: A critical review of doctrinal arguments for and against the late dating of the Phaedrus
Chapter 2 Notes
1. P. Natorp, Herm. xxxv, 1900, pp. 385 ff.
. M. Pohlenz, Aus Platos Werdezeit, Berlin, Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1913, p. 355.
. H. von Arnim, Platos Jugenddialoge und die Entstehungszeit des Phaidros, Leipzig, B. G. Teubner, 1914, p. 5.
. R. Hackforth, Plato’s Phaedrus, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1952, p.3.
. W. K. C. Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1975, vol. iv, p. 43.
. M. C. Nussbaum, The Fragility of Goodness, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1986, p. 471.
. ‘Available to think’, The Economist, August 27, 1988, p.20.
. ‘Der Transzendentalen Methodenlehre Viertes Hauptstueck: Die Geschichte der reinen Vernunft’, Kritik der reinen Vernunft, Hamburg, Felix Meiner Verlag, 1956, pp. 763-766, which corresponds to pages 852-856 from the first edition of the Critique of 1781.
. W. G. Tennemann, System der Platonischen Philosophie, Leipzig, J. A. Barth, 1792, vol. i, pp. iii-iv; 117-137; 203-207.
10. Schleiermacher, Platons Werke, 2nd ed. Berlin 1817, i. vol. p. 72
11. Hermann, Geschichte und System der Platonischen Philosophie, Heidelberg, 1839, p. 374.
12. In the Seventh Letter Plato says that he left Athens on his journey to Italy and Sicily when he was forty (324a6), after he had abandoned his political ambitions concerning the Athenian political scene, and that he did this having conceived of the fundamental principle on which to found true politics, i. e. that philosophers should become rulers or rulers adopt true philosophy (326a-b). This is the principle on which he founded the ideal state in the Republic (473c11-e2).
13. H. von Arnim, ‘Sprachliche Forschungen zur Chronologie der Platonischen Dialoge’, Sitzungsberichte d. K. Akad. d. W. Phil-Hist. Klasse, Wien, 1912, 3. Abh. pp. 2-7.
14. M. Pohlenz, Aus Platos Werdezeit, Berlin, Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1913, p. 355-8.
5. H. von Arnim, Platos Jugenddialoge und die Entstehungszeit des Phaidros, Leipzig, B. G. Teubner, 1914.
16. M. Pohlenz, ‘Ulrich v. Wilamowitz, Platon’, Goettingische gelehrte Anzeigen, 1921, pp. 19-21.
17. Gregory Vlastos, ‘Creation in the Timaeus; is it a fiction?’ in R. E. Allen (ed.), Studies in Plato’s Metaphysics, New York, 1965, 415-16.
18. ‘Respicitur manifesto ad disputationes in Phaedro ac Phaedone’. G. Stallbaum, note ad loc. in PLATO, Opera omnia. Rec. et comm. instr. G. Stallbaum, Gotha, Erfurt, Lpz., W. Hennings, Teubner, 1836-91.
19. L. Robin, La Théorie Platonicienne de l’Amour, Paris, 1908, repr. 1964, p. 70-71.
20. M. F. Burnyeat, 'The Truth of Tripartition', The Presidential Address, Proceedings of The Aristotelian Society, 2006, pp. 4-7.
21. The translation of eite hopêi echei kai hopôs as ‘or what is the truth about it and how’ is Burnyeat’s translation. Jowett’s ‘or what her nature is’ is certainly better, but Jowett obviously takes hopêi and hopôs as if they meant one and the same, simply reinforcing each other. In doing so Jowett is in accord with Liddell & Scott under hopêi II, but it seems to me that hopêi echei might mean here ‘what is its nature’, to which the answer might be ‘it is composed of three parts’, whereas hopôs might mean di’ hôn or hotôi tropôi, to which the answer might be ‘created by Demiurge by forcing the three parts together, hard as they were to mingle’, to paraphrase Timaeus 35a-b. What is particularly misleading in Burnyeat’s translation is the ‘how’ appended to ‘what is the truth about it’, for even if ‘how it is the truth about’ made sense, it would mean something very different from Plato’s hopôs echei, which refers to the soul, not to the truth about it.