Platonic Chronology

Author(s): Holger Thesleff

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Phronesis, Vol. 34, No. 1 (1989), pp. 1-26
Published by: BRILL
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4182317 .
Accessed: 05/08/2012 03:02

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Phronesis.

http://www.jstor.org
 Platonic Chronology
HOLGER THESLEFF

Although and because far too much is being written on Plato, a brief
restatementand readjustmentof the issues in my 1982Studiesin Platonic
Chronology(= SPC) seems warranted.'To the best of my knowledge,
none of the vital points of my line of argumenthas been refuted so far.2
While the interest taken in Plato's early and middle periods is again in-
creasing,the traditionalview of the "earlyperiod"has, as before, received
only apparentsupportfromthe ever-changinginterpretationswhich (with
or withoutreferenceto SPC) use the conventionalchronology,selectively,
in suitable parts.3Among alternativechronologies suggested in recent
' CommentationesHumanarumLitterarum70, Societas ScientiarumFennica, Helsin-
ki 1982. - It is unavoidable, since SPC is not easily available in ordinarydepartmental
libraries, that in the present paper the book should be quoted at length.
2 To be sure: philologa sunt, non leguntur.I am not surprisedthat few seem to have
studied the book, and that criticismhas sometimes taken the frustratedand frustrating
form of "His bold suggestionsare not convincing(see especiallyhis concludingchronolo-
gical sketches, pp. 236-38)" (Rev. Met. 39, 1985/86, 730 n. 2).
3 Cf. SPC18-19.This is not the place to continue the list in SPC8-17 of the variationsin
the chronologies employed for constructinglines of development in Plato's philosophy.
Such selective and eclectic approachesmay yield results that are philosophicallyquite
interesting,though their bearingon historicaltruthis questionable. Normallythe "early
group" is now considered as a whole and little emphasis is put on internal chronology.
Conflicts arise from discussingwhether this or that dialogue (e.g. Chrm, Cra, Euthphr,
HpMa, Prt) is sufficiently "advanced" as to be placed later than the rest. This occurs
easily with "analytical"and "positivistic"interpretationsof the dialogues as if they were
philosophical treatises (see the somewhat sweeping, but pertinent remarks of Ronna
Burger, The Phaedo, 1984, 218 n. 1, about this [now] predominantlyBritishand Ameri-
can approach;cf. also Rossetti's recent bibliographyLa Filosofia Greca, Milano [s.a.],
113 f., 125 f.). The greatest stumbling-blockseems still to be the theoryof Forms(among
recent disputants, note N.P. White, Annas, Moline, Teloh, Wieland, Jordan, Ferber,
Patterson, Prior, Penner): in what sense are Forms present or implied in the "early"
dialogues? Sometimes, but too rarely, it is complained that our view of Plato's philo-
sophy is unnecessarilyanachronistic(e.g. R.W. Jordan, Plato's argumentsfor Forms,
Cambr. Philol. Soc., Suppl. Vol. 9, 1983, 1). Furtherdifficulties are occasionally seen
elsewhere, as in the supposedly early layers of Plato's theory of knowledge and argu-
mentation (again White, etc., and Maccioni, Montano, Gerstmeyer, Lafrance, Klosko,
Puster, Mohr). Cf. also the very different positions of H. Kuhn, Philos. Rundschau24,

Phronesis 1989. Vol. XXXIVII (AcceptedAugust 1988) 1

years,the most remarkableis CharlesH. Kahn's(notably1986).He differ-
entiates the "earliestgroup" of Platonic Writings,Apology, Crito, Ion,
Hippias, Gorgias(!), Menexenus,froma "secondgroup"supposedlycom-
posed afterthe foundationof the Academyabout385 B.C., Laches,Char-
mides,Euthyphro,Protagoras(!), Meno, Lysis, Euthydemus.4 It is not now
my intentionto enter into polemicswith Kahn,or anybodyelse. I mention
his new theoryas an interestingand typicalexampleof the flux in Platonic
studies, and of a constructionthe resultsof which I find myself in partial
agreementwith even though its premisesare disputable.Rather it is the
premisesand criteriaof Platonicchronologywith which I am concerned
here.
Apart from the well-knowndifficultyof gettingcolleaguesto readwhat
one has written,I am verymuchawareof the additionalcomplications,in a
field as heterogeneousas Platonicstudies, of questioningon some crucial
point or another the basic beliefs of practicallyevery specialist. I can
certainlynot hope to reachfull agreementwithanyoneat all. But I feel sure
that by discussingthe foundationsof this complex of questionsit will be
possibleto arriveat more stable commonplatformsfor furtherresearch.

Amongthe newtrendswhichI notedin SPC (5-17), the tendencyto dismiss

or minimizethe notion of a "Socraticperiod"in Plato's oeuvre has now
becomemoremanifest.Moreor less independentlyof Kahn'stheoryandits
earlierversions,thiscanbe seen, forinstance,in variousquarterswherethe
refinementsof the literary(dramatic,etc.) art of the dialoguesare being
studied in relation to their philosophicalcontents,5and in Tubingen-in-
spired approachesto Plato's "protreptics".6In particular,it is now quite
1977, 187 ff. and the Tubingen scholarson the one hand, and G. Vlastos on the other.
' Kahn has, since 1981, elaborated his argumentin an article publishedin Rev. Intern.
de Philos. 40, 1986, 7-21, and in a paperof which I have only seen a preliminarydraft. He
knows of course SPCbut does not actuallyuse it.
s Among recent studies, note those of Havelock, Tejera, Ulrike Zimbrich (Ant. u.
Abendl. 31, 1985, 35 ff.), Stokes (below, n. 7), and Erler (below, n. 8). Erler, however,
is not rightin suggesting(p. 6) that this line seems now to be largelyaccepted. An "early
Socraticstage" is very commonlytaken for grantedboth among "unitarians"of different
shades, and in the (chiefly) Anglo-American "analytical"and "revisionist"schools of
which Viastos is a famous representative.
6 See now the references in Rossetti (above, n. 3) 137-140; add notably K. Gaiser,
Platone come scrittorefilosofico, Napoli 1984 (cf. A. Schmitt, Anz. f. d. Alt.wiss. 40,
1987, 214 ff.); G. Reale, Per una nuova interpretazionedi Platone, Milano 1984 (and
later editions); M.D. Richard, L'enseignementoral de Platon, Paris 1986; Szlezlk
(below, n. 8); H.J. Kramer,La nuova immaginedi Platone, Napoli 1986;Comelia J. de
Vogel, RethinkingPlato and Platonism, Mnem., Suppl. 92, 1986(posthum.); and Erler.

2
often agreed that the aporiasand logical mistakesin the so-called "early
dialogues"are not on the whole real aporiasor mistakes, and that these
dialoguesimply(or mayimply)a fairlysophisticatedphilosophicalframeof
reference.7I do not knowanycase of a text beinginterpretedas particularly
"primitive"and, hence, early:scholarstoday do not seem to be interested
in pre-PlatonicPlato. Yet the writingstraditionallyregardedas "early"are
still providedwith this label, whetherthey are supposedto be somehow
"advanced"or not; in otherwords,whethera "development"in thoughtor
expression is envisaged or not.
This is also true of two recentandcomprehensivestudiesof Plato'saims
and methods:Szlezaik(1985) and Erler (1987). From somewhatdifferent
(but Tubingen-inspired)angles, both elaboratethe idea that Plato "knew
andimplied' andalso expectedhis initiatedreadersto "know",muchmore
about the topic than is explicitlywritten out in the dialogues.8Both are
mainlyconcernedwiththe so-calledearlydialogues,but"early"is usedas a
conventionalgeneral term and questions of chronologyare not seen as
really relevant.9ObviouslyPlato's distancingattitudeto writingas a sec-
ondaryaid for oral koyog (Szlezik), howeverSocraticit may be, and his
composingbasicallyprotrepticdialoguesoperatingon differentlevels of
initiation(Erler), could not have been typicalof Plato in his youth only.
Such attitudeswould equally well, and even better, suit the Academy. I
Note the new Dikaiarchos fragment PHerc 1021 on the protreptic function of Plato's
dialogues (Gaiser, CronacheErcol. 13, 1983, 53 ff.). Adverse comments on the "Tub-
ingen" approachare less violent today, though common enough (e.g. Wieland, Sayre,
Ferber, Rowe, de Rijk).
Cf. SPC 45; further references in Rossetti 121, Erler 1-18. "Reading between the
lines" is recommended in many modem discussionsof Plato (see notably L. Tarin in
Platonic investigations,ed. O'Meara, Studies in Philos. 13, 1985, 85 ff.; M.C. Stokes,
Plato's Socraticconversations,Baltimore 1986, 444 ff.; and Szlezdk and Erler, below),
though all consequences of this recommendationare apparentlynot seen; and in special
studies of the various dialogues this is normally the direction chosen for the inter-
pretation, which in fact tends to suggest that all "early" dialogues are somehow
"advanced".
8 Th.A. SzlezAk,Platon unddieSchriftlichkeitderPhilosophie,Interpretationenzu den
friihen und mittleren Dialogen, Berlin 1985 (cf. also Neschke-Hentschke, Gnomon 59,
1987, 673 ff.); M. Erler, Der Sinn der Aporien in den Dialogen Platons, Ubungsstucke
zur Anleitung im philosophischen Denken, Unters. zur ant. Lit. u. Gesch. 25, Berlin
1987 (an expanded doctoral thesis). Szlezak's work is by far the more learned and
"difficult"of the two, but they supply interestingcomplementaryevidence. Both avoid
the controversialproblems of the "oral doctrine", though they emphasize the essential
background importance of the oral discussions in Plato's circle. For the theory of
"knowledge implied" in the dialogues, cf. also SPC 45 f.
9 See esp. SzlezAk329, Erler 96 n. 62.

3
thinkit is fairto say that both scholarshave considerablystrengthenedthe
case for the "esoterist"interpretationof Plato,'"but they have in fact
weakenedour groundsfor believingthat the "early"dialoguesare early.
This I hope will become clear in the followingpages.

No systematicnew contributionsto Plato's biography(SPC 20-38) have

appearedin recentyears. For the presentpurpose,I would call particular
attentionto Plato'sobviouspoliticalfrustrationsin Athens before his first
voyage to the West," his reluctanceto appearin public,"2and the philo-
sophicalinfluencesfromothersthanSocrateswhichmusthavereachedhim
beforethe deathof the latter,andin the 390s.The roleof Socratesas Plato's
principal"teacher"is easilyoverrated.Apartfromthe factthatsome of the
prominent"minor"Socraticswere olderthanPlatoandprobablyinfluenc-
ed him,"3he must have been reflecting about Heraclitus, Anaxagoras,
Parmenides,Pythagoreansandsophistslong beforehe publisheddialogues
such as Protagoras,Cratylus,Phaedo, and Parmenides.The "two-level
model" of Being/Becomingand Kosmos as a harmonyof unequaloppo-
sites, whichI personallyregardas an essentialbackgroundof his theoriesof
Forms,Principles,soul, recollectionandknowledge,analyticandsynthetic
dialectic,etc.,4 can be seen as a combinationof the variousPresocraticand
contemporarytrendsof thoughtthatwereprevalentaroundhimat an early
date.15From such elements, including"Socratic"ethics and methods of
10 For my part I am now inclined to accept the main lines of the "Tiibingen"tenets,
though I remaina scepticalphilologist at heart and my view of the relationsof Principles
and Forms is somewhat different (below).
" Commonly also admitted when Ep VII 324b ff. is rejected as evidence; but the
consequences for Platonic chronology are not usually seen.
12 For the fiasco of the "Proto-Republic",and Aristyllos, see below (esp. n. 40).
13 See now G. Giannantoni'simportantSocraticorumReliquiaeI-IV, Roma 1983-85,

which unfortunatelydoes not include Aischines. The role of Antisthenes as a precursor

and inspirer(or irritant)of Plato is still controversial(cf. the referencesin Giannantoni;
H.D. Rankin'sbook, Amsterdam 1986, does not deal with this question). I am sure the
Antisthenean problem is worth a detailed re-assessment;it has some bearing on many
dialogues, includingHpMa.
4 "Two-level model" is a better term than "two-world model": Plato was no real
dualist(cf. now de Vogel [above, n. 6] 159 ff.). I shall returnto this model below, p. 24f.
and n. 45.
15 The Presocraticimpacton Plato's thought has of course been taken for grantedsince
Zeller, but the process is normallythoughtof as a gradualre-workingand re-readingon
Plato'spart (for instance, roughly,Heractitusat the stage of Cra, Pythagoreanswith Grg
and Phd, Anaxagoraswith Phd, Protagoraswith Tht,Eleaticswith Prm, Democritusand
Pythagoreans again with Ti); cf. now N.P. White, Plato on knowledge and reality,
Indianapolis1976, 22 f. (admittingproblematics);Jordan(above, n. 3); R.G. Tumbull

4
searchandquestioning,Platois likelyto haveformeda generalphilosophi-
cal modelof thoughtalreadyin the 390s.I believethismodelconstitutedthe
basis and frame of the "Proto-Republic"(below) and the Gorgias.
As to the circumstancesof Plato'sfirstvoyageto the Westin 388, andthe
foundingof the Academy soon after this (SPC 27-32), note the following
points. It is not probablethat Plato was invitedby DionysiusI becausehe
was a famousphilosopher:he was not very well knowneven in Athens at
that time,16 and his political and ethical views could not have amused
Dionysiusat all."7Was it perhapsyoungDion who arrangedPlato'sstay at
the Syracusancourt while Dionysius was occupied with his Italian con-
quests?18At any ratePlatoseems to have come andstayedas a tourist.The
politicalinstitutionsof the West certainlyinterestedhim,'9but Archytas'
influenceon himat thisstagehasprobablybeen overrated:Platomusthave
received from Simmias, Kebes and Echekratesmore informationabout
Pythagoreanismthan we read in Phaedo, and the give-and-takebetween
the Academy and the 4th centuryPythagoreansbegan later.20The story
aboutDionysius'irritationwith Plato, the latter'svoyagehome on a Spart-
an ship, andhow he was boughtbackinto freedomin Aegina by Annikeris,
Dion then providingthe money for reimbursementand, when Annikeris
refusedto take it, usingit for the purchaseof land at Akademeia- all this
seems to be historicallytrue, as Gaiserhas recentlymade clear.2'The last
portion of the story is particularlyinterestinghere. Plato's intimacywith
Dion continued after the Syracusanepisode. He now decided to live in

in Essays in Ancient Greek Philosophy II, ed. Anton & Preus, Albany 1983, 279 ff.; R.
Patterson, Image and reality in Plato's metaphysics, Indianapolis 1985. R.G. Tanner,
Prudentia 18, 1986, 31 ff., speculates on Plato's early Pythagorean contacts; cf. also
Demand, below, n. 38. I find it obvious that such persons as Kratylos, Hermogenes,
Eukleides, Simmias, Kebes and Echekrates, and the book of Anaxagoras, had provided
Plato with importantinformationabout Presocraticthinking,and that Plato had had time
to digest it, long before 388 B.C.; for Theaitetos, see below, n. 67.
16 Note the fact that Isocrates XIII, from the late 390s, knows Socratics (probably
Antisthenes), but does not refer to Plato in particular;see SPC 114 f., 126, and Eucken
(below, n. 23) 5 ff. Aristophanes'allusionsdo not seem to apply to a well-knownwriter
(below, n. 40).
17 L.J. Sanders, Kdxakog 25, 1979, and in his book of 1987, has not produced very
substantial evidence for his assumption that Plato and Dionysius I were on friendly
terms.
18 Diod. XIV 105.4, Strabo VI p. 261.
19 The fame of Zaleukos and Charondasmust have reached him in Greece. But the
Italian dolce vita obviously disappointedand shocked him, cf. Ep. VII 326b.
' See the classicmonographby W. Burkert(Engl. transl.Lore and science, 1972). This
is not the place to review the few points relevant here on which I disagree.
21 Festschr.f. R. Muth, InnsbruckerBeitr. 22, 1983, 111 ff.

5
comparativeseclusion extramuros, and Dion very probablyvisited him
there. An earlyversionof the Phaedrus,withits themesof the temptations
of the countryside,personalrhetoric,and love,22 would suit these happy
early days of the Academy.
The pamphletof Polykrates(SPC32 f.), whichhassome relevanceto the
chronologyof the Platonicwritings,has been not very convincinglydated
by Euckento the 380sinsteadof 392or 391as is usuallytakenfor granted.23

The shortcomingsof the attemptsto determinethe chronologyof Plato's

writingsprincipallyfromtheoriesof "development",and the unreliability
of the apparentaccumulationof secondarychronological"evidence"from
constructionsof linesof developmentbasedon the traditionalchronology-
howeverelegantsuchconstructionsmay appearto be froma mainlyphilo-
sophicalpoint of view - requireno more comments.24
The literaryaspectsof Plato'sdialoguetechniquedo not seem to have
been studiedin recentyearsas chronologicalcriteria,exceptfor occasional
referencesto the complicationsof this issue.' My suggestionin 1982that
the direct "dramatic"form of prose dialogue(namely, in pieces intended
for publication)is secondaryin relationto the indirect"reported"("narrat-
ed") form, has not met with approval.I would stress, however, that the
differencein techniquebetween, say, Laches and Charmidesis quite re-
markableand calls for a generaltheory to explainit; ad hoc explanations
willnot do.6 Untilsomebodyprovesme to be wrong,I shallretainmybelief

SPC 173. Cf. below, n. 56.

3 C. Eucken, Isokrates,Unters. zur ant. Lit. u. Gesch. 19, Berlin 1983, 174 ff., 195 if.
His main argument is the reference to Polykrates' pamphlet in Isocrates XI (Busiris)
which he dates to the 370s on insufficientgrounds(such as its supposed dependence on
Plato's R, but cf. below, n. 43); he does not note the probableallusionsto Polykratesin
Grg (SPC 126), Prt (129), Cri (below, n. 76), and elsewhere in Plato. In general,
Eucken's datingssuffer from his preconceivedview of the reliabilityof the conventional
Platonic chronology, but the book contains many valuable observations.
24 See above, n. 3, and SPC, 40-52.
2 Cf. SPC53-67 and above, n. 5.
2 In SPC 56 ff. I propounded serious objections to the old view that the "mimetic"
("dramatic")dialogue form is necessarilythe primaryone, but this is still on the whole
taken for granted, and reviewers of my book generally underrate the scope of this
problem. I am thinkingof pieces intended for "publication",of course. On the specific
question of the "performances"of the dialogues, see the opposite opinions of G.J. de
Vries, Mnem. 37, 1984, 143 ff. and Stokes (above, n. 7) 441. For additionalevidence of
marginal marks in manuscriptsindicating change of speakers, see M. Untersteiner,
Problemi difilologia filosofica, Milano 1980, 61 ff. Add to my observations in SPC 60
references to a narrated dialogue by Antisthenes discussed by Giannantoni (above,

6
that one of the trendsof change in Plato'smannergoes from speech and
reportof dialogueto directdialogueform.
By rejectingstylometry,except for establishingthe "late group"(SPC
67-82), I touched on a controversialissue hotly debated in the days of C.
RitterandV. Lutoslawski,but now often, andwrongly,regardedas settled
in favour of the stylometrists.In fact I believe many scholarswould be
preparedto acceptmy arguments.I have little to add for the moment.27
The suggestionin SPC (83-87)thatsome dialogueshavebeen revisedand
successivelyremodelled, by Plato himself or his associates, is also less
revolutionarythansome thinkit to be. Again I insistthat this possibilityis
worthponderingin variousspecialcases, and I have little to add.28

The theoryof "semi-authenticity" (SPC 89-96)- the assumptionthatsome

texts of the Corpuswere inspiredor otherwiseoccasionedby discussionsin
Plato'scirclebut not formulatedby himpersonally- appearsto be a harder
nut to crack.It wouldsurelyhave been easierto accept,had I not ventured
to applyit to those preciouspieces, Crito,Laches, and Euthyphro,and to
n. 13) III 273 and to the interestingdramaticpiece, PKoln 205, which is connected with
the theme of Cri; the repeated use of o065e( in the latter suggests that this is not avery
early dialogue (cf. Schwyzer GrGr I 408 6 and SPC232).
7 Opinions are still divided, though the discussion now chiefly concentrates on the
Owen controversy (see e.g. N.A. Greenberg, A.J. Ph. 106, 1985, 227 ff.). Few seem to
be aware of the fact that stylometryis one of the main supportsof the theory of Plato's
"early Socraticperiod". - For some time, the statisticianK. Loimarantaand I carriedon
the tests of the type referred to in SPC 82 n. 25, but the results were statistically
disappointing:the more words of high frequencywere included, the less uniform were
the trends (and hence, the positive indicationsof Platonic or non-Platonicauthorship).
Positively, this still seemed (ibid., under (f) ) "to corroboratethe theories propounded
in the present book of a ratherundifferentiatedlinguistic"flow" in the Corpus Platoni-
cum, of "revision", and of "semi-authenticity",though the outputs (c) and (g) (ibid.)
had become blurred. Indeed, it corroborated my personal scepticism as regards the
practicalapplicabilityof stylometryin cases of this category. Obviouslythe timbreof the
style of the dialogue and the possibly relevant distributionof rare words, phrases, and
syntacticphenomena, are more profitablystudiedby conventionalphilologicalmethods.
' Revision of Grg has recently (but independentlyof SPC) been arguedby H. Tarrant,
Prudentia 14, 1982, 3 ff., who makes a strong case for it; revision of Prt by Dorothea
Frede, Rev. Met. 39, 1985/86,729 ff. (who otherwise is not impressed by my theories).
To de Vries (above, n. 26) 144, who is not convincedbymy argument(86 f.) that Grgwas
originally a narrated dialogue, I would reply, first, by quoting myself (84): "Is it not
probable that a revision may sometimes even improve a work?"; and second, that a
dialogue of the Grg kind (as also the R) is particularlylikely to be subject to gradual
revision and "improvement". To the details which might indicate that the text was
originallyprovided with a naffative, I would add the somewhat curious xa'Lty& 496d1
(BTPF, secl Ast alii).

7
Ion and the two Hippias's. Who else but Plato could have writtensuch
dialogues?My firstreplywouldbe: There has been a misleadingtendency
since the 19thcenturyto connectdoubtfulauthorshipwith the idea of late
forgery.Do we not, on the other hand, underratethe capacitiesof Plato's
friends, if we assumethat he alone was capableof producingelegant and
philosophicallyinterestingtexts?29 Also whatI havecalled"schoolaccumu-
lation"musthavebeen quitenormalin Plato'sdays,beforethe establishing
in the Hellenisticage of moremodernnotionsof an author'sindividuality.30
It is even possible that Plato's associatesnormallydid not publishtexts
undertheir own name before the death of their Master,or at least before
the slackeningof his initiativein the 350s.31I shall not repeat the other
argumentswhichled to my 1982theory, except one which I shall come to
presently.
Team work seems to be ratherout of the questionin cases such as the
dialoguesjust mentioned,32thoughI am quite preparedto imaginedrafts
producedby Plato and oral discussionsconductedby him and later elab-
orated by others. I have a candidatefor the authorshipof Crito(below).
And I still thinkLaches,EuthyphroandHippiasMaiormusthavethe same
author,whomI find it very difficultto identifywith the authorof Critoor,
say, Theagesor Minos.
More palpable than these largely hypothetical speculations are the
followingfacts. Withthe exceptionof AlcibiadesII, Axiochusand most of
the Letters,the PlatonicCorpusappearsto have come into beingin Plato's
lifetime and, with the exception of Eryxiasand Demodocus,in the very
close vicinityof Plato.33Withthe exceptionsmentioned,and in spite of its
enormousregisterof thoughts,mannersof approach,literaryforms, and
language,the Corpusanywayforms a single complex to which unambig-

I It should be rememberedthat before 347 Plato's position in the Academy was hardly
that of a veneratedsage (though Speusipposlater triedto make him the son of Apollo) or
an authoritativeteacher: he was rather the first among equals (cf. the pertinent ob-
servationsof J.P. Lynch, Aristotle'sSchool, Berkeley 1972, 55 ff.).
`0 SPC 95.
31 Note Plato's violent reactionon the attemptof Dionysius lI to appearas an indepen-
dent writer, Ep VII 341b. But I know that the generalizationof this hypothesis to the
generationof Aristotle would evoke as violent protestsfrom manyAristotelianscholars.
32 As K. Gaiser rightlyobserves (in a letter); also Crombie, Cl. R. 33, 1983,54. Yet e.g.
Aic I, Prm, or Lg, are ratherlikely to reflect the work of different hands.
" In SPC, I argued this separatelyfor the variousdubia and spuria. The first standard
"edition" must have been produced in the Early Academy (by Xenokrates?); cf. F.
Solmsen, Illinois Class. Stud. 6, 1981, 102 ff.; Rossetti 117. - Cf. above, n. 27, and
below, n. 51.

8
uouscriteriaof authenticityor spuriousnessareverydifficultto apply.Most
of the featuresof contentsand expressionin the dialoguescan be arranged
on slidingscales extendingfrom the "certainlyPlatonic"throughthe less
dubious and the more dubious to the "certainlyun-Platonic";and the
differentlines of criteriaseldomcoincideso as to suggestreliablepatterns.
To drawa sharpline between what Plato wrote (or said) and what he did
not, appears today impossible- as is also shown by the continuingdis-
agreementbetween specialists.I was perhapsover-criticalin SPC. It may
be advisableto regard,say, the LachesandEuthyphro,or even the Crito,as
correspondingmore closely to Plato'sintentionsthan the chapterheading
"Dubia and Spuria"(SPC 204) suggests.
Yet, since I am here concernedwithauthorship,I shouldpreferthe label
"'semi-authentic" for such works. Some additionalobservationswill be
made below. For the momentit is sufficientto referto the almostcertain
datingof SisyphusandMinosto the 350s, andwhatI regardas the probable
datingof HippiasMaiorin approximatelythe same period. Who is able to
trace one and the same finishinghand in these dialogues,and the Sophist,
and the Laws?

There seems to have occurredsome misunderstandingabout my "new

model" (SPC 97-99) and its applicationto the chronologyof the Corpus.
My theories of the priorityof narrateddialogueform and the "spurious-
ness" of some much-appreciatedtexts are not the principalbasis of the
model. It is because of what on closer inspection appeared to be the
doubtful reliabilityof the conventionaltheories of the development of
Plato'sthoughtandstyle, thatI felt free to constructan alternativechronol-
ogy. Startingfrom the few more or less certain facts we have, including
biographicalfacts and inferences,I workedinto the framethusestablished
variousargumentsof the above type, givingin the firstplace observations
on the formaland structuralaspectsof the dialogues,while avoidingsty-
lometryaltogether,andreserving"internal"(thematic)criteriafor second-
ary tests. Then, by confrontingthe contents(ideas, mannersof argument,
etc.) of two dialoguesat a time, andby analyzingsome of the most obvious
points of contact, it seemed sometimespossible to extract indicationsof
whichof two passagesis the laterone. Thoughin manycases this "method
of confrontation"merely led to a non liquet,_4most of the pieces of the
puzzle did after all fall naturallyinto place. I believe the principlesof this

3 See the paradigmcase of La - Prt, SPC 46-52.

9
methodaresoundas faras they go - namely,to providean alternativebasis
for a seriousdiscussion.
On the followingpages I shallonly commenton some centralor partic-
ularlycontroversialissues in my construction.

The possibilitythatthe rootsof the Republicand Gorgiasreachbackto the

390s, but that the Apology is the only Platonictext fromthis periodwhich
has been preservedto us approximatelyin its originalshape (SPC 100ff.),
seems to me quite feasible in view of the biographicalconsiderations
referredto above, andparticularlyPlato'sobviousreluctanceto writefor a
general public. The Apology was meant for "publication",of course;
speechesof defense, and"improved"versionsof them, normallywere;and
the fact that the Apology does not answerPolykratesis one of the reasons
for datingit to the 390s (SPC 110-114).The Critoconstitutesa problemof
its own (below). But minordialoguesof the typesof Ion, HippiasMinor,or
Charmides,which seem to combine a "protreptic"functionwith a more
"esoteric"challengeto the resourcesof initiatedreaders,35 can muchmore
naturallybe dated to the early days of the Academy- if linearchangesin
style and apparentdoctrinalcontent are not taken as primarycriteria.
Whetherit wasPlatohimselfor hisyoungerassociateswho sawto the actual
publicationof the dialogues, the Academy, as an institution, certainly
provideda better and more suitable environmentfor such "publishing"
activitiesthan Plato'srootless and restlesslife in the 390s. I do not in the
least doubt Plato's literaryinclinationssince his early youth. But I think
there are manyindications(some of them noted above), that he preferred
to read those manuscriptshe composed himself at closed gatheringsof
friends,suchas symposiaor hetaireiameetings,withno thoughtsof having
themcopiedfor generalcirculation(the Apologywasan exception),before
the Academybecameinstitutionalized.
Regardingthe questionof the gradualgrowthof the Republic,I havenot
seen any recent contributionsthat would cause me to abandonmy main
theses (SPC 101-110, 137-140, 184-186),though I admit the problem is
I Soon after 399 B.C., no Socraticis likely to have presentedSocratesto the Athenian
publicas a mocker, ironistand good friendof Kritias(given thatthe dialoguesin question
were reallyintended for "publication";and if they were not, the Academy suggestsitself
again); and I would add that such dialoguesdo not seem to matchPlato'sown attitudesin
those days (cf. Ap, Grg, Mx). In SPC, especially 100 n. 2, I somewhat underratedthe
protreptic aspect of the dialogues about which the Tubingen scholars, and later e.g.
SzlezAkand Erler, have made some very good points. And to this I would note now that
protrepticimpliesthe existence of some kindof institutionalized"school", i.e., in Plato's
case (after the Megarianepisode), most probablythe Academy.

10
wortha more detailedreconsiderationthan can be made here. Like many
others, I regardthe Republicas Plato'scentralwork- this is why I thinkhe
hadto returnto its issuesagainandagain-, butunlikemanyothersI cannot
see it as a monolithicwhole.' Here I shallconcentrateon two problems,the
"Proto-Republic",and what becamelater Book I of the work.

The reconstructionof the "Proto-Republic"(SPC 102-107)dependschief-

ly, but not solely, on the referencesin Aristophanes'Ecclesiazusae(prob-
ably 392 B.C.), Isocrates' Busiris (Or. XI), and the opening section of
Plato's Timaeus.Aristophanes'parodyis of coursethe most problematical
part of the evidence.
Some kind of connection between the utopian scheme presented by
Praxagora(especiallyEccl571ff.) andPlato'sRepublic(especiallyBook V)
seems practicallycertain. And those who deny the possibility of Aris-
tophanes'havingPlatoin mind37 probablyhave not consideredall parallels
found, or the existingindicationsthat Plato had a distinctpoliticalphiloso-
phybefore388, long beforethe Republicreceivedits finalshape, or the fact
thata comicparodyis likelyto exaggerateanddisfigureto the pointof sheer
nonsense. For my part, in SPC, I did not take into accountthe possible
relationshipof Aristophanes'parodywith the so-calledFourthSpeech of
Pythagoras.It is sufficienthere to note thatwhateversourcesAristophanes
may have had, the points of contact with the PythagoreanSpeeches are
anywayquite peripheral.' Praxagora'sscheme is decidedlynon-Pythago-

3 For the monolithic interpretation, see now e.g. White's commentary (1979); G.
Muller, Sitz.ber. d. Wiss. Ges. an d. J.W. Goethe-Univ., Frankfurta.M., 18:4, 1981,
153 ff.; D. Babut, Bull. d'Ass. G. Budd1983, 31 ff. (esp. againstElse'svery late datingof
parts of R X, still argued by the latter in his posthumous book Plato and Aristotle on
poetry, 1986); Szlezak, Ant. u. Abendl. 30, 1984, 38 ff.; Tarin 1985 (above, n. 7). Julia
Annas, in her Introduction(1981), separates Book I but stresses the coherence of the
rest. In fact the traditional view that Plato "wrote and published the Republic in the
mid-370s"is quite commonlyagreedon today;for instance, Eucken (above, n. 23) uses it
for his Isocrateanchronology. My considerationsin SPC of course concernedthe genesis
of the present R; to read it as a single philosophicalwhole is both naturaland reasonable,
if it is seen as a forty years' intellectual adventurereshaped at a given moment.
' To the referencesin SPC 104, add now E. David, Mnem. Suppl. 81,1984,20 ff.,who
however considers only part of the relevant details.
3 Partly following de Vogel, Nancy Demand (Gr., R. & Byz. St. 23, 1982, 179 ff.)
argues that Eccl 446 ff. refers to the Fourth Speech, IambI. V.P. 55, and that the three
hags at the end of the comedy give a nonsensical echo of the three Graiae in the latter
passage. She also thinks that the Socraticsknew the traditionabout the Four Speeches.
This last point seems very probable, in fact (cf. also Isocr. XI (Bus.) 28-29, and perhaps
the emphaticaluse of 6LaoUravin the Second Speech, V.P. 49, recurringin Pi. R V 462b,

11
rean, though there are traits in it which may have a Pythagoreanback-
ground.39 If the womanin a youngman'sdisguise(427ff.) "represents"any
particularpersonthispersonis Plato, I believe, seen as a young,effeminate
intellectual revolutionary.' Aristophanesmade the "equal" women of
Plato'scommunisticsocietyplan a take-overof the leadership.4'Basically,
however,he operateswith reminiscencesof whatBusirisandthe summary
464c, and parodically in Eccl 1076; but what is the relation of ALoL1'ULa &vdyxni
meaning a "tearingasunder", Eccl 1029and R VI 493d? cf. schol. Arist. ad 1., Apollod.
Bibl. 115.8, ). I am also willingto admit that AristophanesincludedSocraticsother than
Plato in his parody (note e.g. the repeated referencesto Laconianshoes and to cobblers
keeping in the shadow 269, 282, 345, 385 ff., 428 ff, 496, cf. Antisthenes' explicit
laconism, GiannantoniIII 363 ff., cobblers as a favourite topic of Socrates, Dio Chrys.
III 26, and "pale Socratics"Nub 120, 262; ideas "born"529, 549, cf. Nub 137, 747; aq[Og
705; Antisthenes 366, 806; cf. SPC 104 n. 12): obviouslyAristophanesregardedPlato as
a member of Socrates' mysterious "school". I am not, however, prepared to accept
Demand's suggestion that the Speeches were written by an orthodox Pythagoreanin
replyto currentSocraticpoliticaltheories andthat the comedy reflectsthis contemporary
discussion. Plato appears to have been the only Socratic to develop explicit political
theories (apart from such loose laconism, power ethics, and dreams about rulers as we
know from Antisthenes and Xenophon), and he was the first to set forth such a
"communistic"scheme as Aristophanes here "revises" for his own ends (see SPC 104
n. 10); and the Speeches do not sound polemical at all (to be sure, they may have been
re-writtenlaterin the 4th century,cf. Burkert,Lore 115). PerhapsAntistheneshad made
the "Pythagorean"point about the Graiaein one of his speeches before the Pythagorean
Speeches as we know them from Iamblichushad been publishedfor general readers?
3 Notably the "henology"can be regardedas an originallyPythagoreanidea taken up
by Plato; see SPC 104 n. 10, and below, n. 45. Some additionalcommentscan be found
in my contributionto Equalityand Inequalityof Manin Ancient Thought,ed. I. Kajanto,
Comm. Hum. Litt. 75, Helsinki 1984, 17 ff.
' Certainlynot Socratesor any other Socratic,cf. above, n. 38; the point about Nikias
428 is unclear (nervous timidity? cf. Plut. Nic., esp. 2.4). As I noted in SPC 103 f.,
Praxagora,after some nonsensicalpreliminaries(but not the section 170-240,ending up
in the emphatic MbaILovoire;g T6v P(ov ML6?e?E), presents her manifesto as a piece
of "philosophy" (571 ff., cf. 1155) with five or six leading ideas, all having some
correspondencein Plato's Republic.- If Aristyllos (647) also representsPlato (SPC 104
and n. 11), the allusionis slightlycomicalif the publichas already"identified"Praxagora
with Plato. The referenceis to an effeminate young man, because XwXu'Otseems to imply
womanly behaviour (Ussher ad 1.) and xctkaXL'vOperfume (not ordure) in the first
place. Again, in the nonsensical context of Plutus 427 ff., Aristyllos can be taken to
"follow still his mother" (i.e., to preach feminism?) though he has been punished (in
Eccl?); note IttLv6ooMvhere (not unambiguouslyreferringto a pervert, though this is
probablyimplied), and the tone of the hypocoristicform of the name.
" Possibly this trick is also meant to reflect contemporarynon-Socraticfeminist theo-
ries; cf. Demand (above, n. 38) 182 n. 8. It is interestingthat TUvaLxoxnatLa occursas a
title of plays by Amphis (frg 8) and Alexis (frgs 41-42), but that these comedies do not
seem to allude to Plato; probablythey linked up with Aristophanes.

12
in the Timaeusprove to be an early version of Plato's Republic,Books
II-III, V and VII. And this "manifesto"must have been sufficientlywell
knownin Athens to motivatea parody.42 Thisis whatthe evidencesuggests
to me.
The date of the Busirisis still controversial,but puttingit later than the
370s seems out of the question,and for variousreasonsits Platonicechoes
are likely to come from the Proto-Republicrather than from the final
version (or the Timaeus).43
A specificproblemwith a considerablebearingon the interpretationof
Plato, is how muchof explicitphilosophy(and, notably,metaphysics)this
Proto-Republicincluded. Plato cannot have meant his proposals to be
realizedin practicallife, andthe finalRepubliccertainlyis a Utopia." What
do the phrasings ptX6ooqpov (qovTLba Eccl571and b=LvdV 'v 6(QV
Ep VII 326a (or for that matter, a'xs
qpLXocoqnpLav t n6XEw;Ap 36c8)
imply?Withoutnow enteringinto details,I suggestthatthe basicpatternof
Plato's theory of the Ideal State - the upper level of society manifesting
Unity andtheoreticalknowledge,the lowerlevel representingPluralityand
practicalskill, everybodyspecializingand yet feeling bound together and
actingfor the benefit of the whole - presupposesPlato'stypicaltwo-level
view of Universeand Being which,as was said above, can be regardedas a
synthesisof the Presocraticinfluencesthat reachedhim at an early date.
The Spartan echoes are less essential. Of course the complex macro/
microcosmicparallelsbetween the universeon the one hand and the ideal
state andits socialclasseson the other, the soul andits aspects,the levels of
knowledge, etc., as recorded and discussed in the final version of the
Republic,are the resultof successiveelaboration;andso is presumablythe
"esoteric"doctrine of the ultimate Principles'Ev and 'A6QLOro; AUdg
knownfrom the secondarytradition.But the roots of all this must, in my

42 I imagine that the "manifesto"was a speech which Plato had read in his own name
(note ktyetv Avayx6a"v Ep VII326a, cf. SPC 106 n. 16) at a gatheringof a more or less
private character (cf. e.g. Prt and the two Symposia). His ideas were soon abroad,
however, and copies or notes of the speech were circulating,with or without the author's
consent (cf. Ps.-Lysias in Phdr). The speech must have been remodelled for the final
version of our RepublicV, though the essence remainedthe same (cf. SPC 103).
" See SPC 105 f. (where I was slightlymore scepticalthan I am now); Eucken (above,
n. 23) 172 ff. The latterdoes not take properaccountof the Proto-Republiccomplex, but
he admits that Isocrates might have had access to a "not-yet-published"text of R (!). I
cannot see why the (alleged) echoes of R in Isocr. ad Nicocl and Euag (Eucken 181 if.,
216 ff., 255 ff.) could not come from the Proto-Republicas well.
4 See my Equality paper (above, n. 39) with references.

13
view, reach back to the 390s. And the glimpses of metaphysicsin the
Gorgiassuggestthe same.45
The separationof Book I of the Republic(SPC 107-110)is an altogether
differentquestion:althoughmanycriticsdo not thinkso, it hasverylittle to
do with the problemof the "Proto-Republic".As far as I can see, there is
reasonable proof of the dialogue "Thrasymachus" IHEQi TOV btxaioV hav-
ing existed, at least as a draft,independentlyandlong beforethe restof the
Republicreceivedits presentshape;andthereis littleor no evidenceto the
contrary.' It is the relativeand absolutedate of this earlytext that is more
problematic.
My attemptto date it to the 390s admittedlyrestson somewhatprecari-
ous grounds,such as the lack of sophisticationin the contents,47the sup-
posed developmentof the standardtheme of "Socratesat Kallias"',the
nameof Thrasymachossupposedlyalludingto Thrasybulos(while"Kalli-
kles"mayalludeto Kallistratos)and,in particular,theindicationsof Repub-
lic I beingearlierthanthe largelysimilardialogueGorgias.4I amtodayless
optimisticaboutthis issuethanI wasin 1982,thoughI still feel the prosand
cons point to the 390s for the "Thrasymachus",49 and to the early 380s

4 It is typical of the "pythagorizing"aspect of Plato's two-level model, as I see it, that

the upper level (which stands for Unity, the Same, the God-Like, Stability, tQEQa, 6v,
bta>LcR, etc.) and the lower level (which represents Plurality, the Different, the
Human, Change and Motion, 6nct(Qov, y?veoi, b66a, etc.) yet combine "harmo-
niously"in Kosmos so as to formtogethera well-balancedwhole where the upper level is
alwayssomehow primaryand "leading",as the first column is in the PythagoreanTable
of Opposites (Arist. Met. A 986a23 ff., cf. Burkert, Lore 51 f.). I repeat that Plato's
theory of the philosophers as a united and "communistic"ruling class can be best
explained againstthe backgroundof this model. But I would not insist that the theory of
Principles,or the theory of Forms, had taken shape in Plato's mind at this early period.
4 The old argumentthat the entire R appearsto be a well-plannedcoherent whole (cf.
above, n. 36) of course does not exclude the possibilityof successiveelaboration,or the
remodelling of an early draft to make a 7QootL'Rov. Such points of symmetricalcorres-
pondence as R I 330b wlFoog- X 618b Rtooiv may be due to the final redaction.
4 The confusing kinks in the argumentation(cf. Annas' Introduction,39, 48 ff.) may
result from the secondaryremodelling.At least they are not the same kind of hide-and-
seek for initiated readers as in many other dialogues.
4 The outcome of the "confrontation"made in SPC108 is not in my view a mere non
liquet, but a re-examinationwould be useful. For the Kalliastheme, see SPC119 ff. The
assumptionthat both dialogues have undergone revision complicates matters, but not
hopelessly, I should think.
4 Assuming also that the original version (with its general theme of "Making harm
cannot be right") had a more pointedly political, anti-democratand anti-imperialist,
tendency than the final version has; Thrasymachosis a representativeof power-politics

14
(before or after 388) for the Gorgias. Some further argumentsmight
perhapsbe extractedfromthe fact thatRepublicI on the whole is also more
"Socratic"than Gorgias in the sense that it operates with topics and
approachesknown from the writingsand fragmentsof the minor Socrat-
ics.? But the absolutedate remainsvery mucha matterfor conjecture.

So it is in the twenty-years'periodbetweenPlato'sfirstand secondvoyage

to Sicily, approximately387-367B.C., that we are to find a place for those
of the presumably authentic works - except the Apology - which do not
belong to the late group.5"
In SPC (116-157)I suggestedfor this series the relativeorder Gorgias'
(narrateddialogue) - Menexenus'(a speech) - Phaedrus'(narrateddia-
logue) - Protagoras'(withoutprologue)- Symposium'(withoutprologue)
- Republic I (remodelled from an early draft) + II (the whole work
gradually taking shape) - Meno- Gorgias2(reportby Socrates dropped) -
Phaedo - Euthydemus - Symposium2, Protagorasi, Menexenus2 (prologues
added)52- Lysis - Charmides- Theaetetus' (narrated dialogue) - Cratylus-
Phaedrus2(latter part added) - Theaetetus2(remodelled and report by
Socratesdropped). I remainin the opinion that the considerationswhich
led me to adopt this order are no less reliable than the conventional
argumentsfor putting Lysis, Charmidesand Euthydemusearly and for
disregardingthe possibilityof revision(of Gorgias,Phaedrus,Symposium,
Republic, Theaetetus)and of the later additionof dramaticprologues(to
Menexenus,Protagoras,Symposium).53 With the main lines of the above
hypothesesgranted,the bitsof the puzzleseem to fit in quitewell. Note the
followinggeneralfeaturesof the picturethus emerging.
rather than rhetoric, and note the backgroundpresence of Lysias the democrat and his
father, the friendof Pericles, cf. SPC109 n. 24. Grg deals with rhetorsand manipulators
(as do the unambiguouslydateable Mx and the early version of Phdr), not so pointedly
with politics.
s Notably Antisthenes suggests himself in connection with R I; note e.g. the com-
plicated pattern of contacts between R I, the theme of "Socrates at Kallias' ", X.Smp,
X.Mem. IV 4, HpMa, Clit, and Antisthenes;SPC110n. 28. This specific complex would
be worth a detailed re-examination.
51 The "late group"was long ago establishedand defined beyond any reasonabledoubt;
cf. below, p. 20. - The criteria of authenticity are on the whole less fragile than the
criteriaof spuriousness.Taking, say, Grg, Smp, Phd, Thtand R as standards,it is quite
possible to delineate a "Platonic"range of themes, manners, idioms, approaches, and
methods. Writingswhich do not conspicuouslybreak this core pattern (with due allow-
ance to "Platonic" play) can be provisionallytaken as authentic.
52 The relative date of these additions is very conjectural;cf. n. 53.
S SPC 180 ff. The latter point is no essential part of my theory.

15
 Gorgias' andMenexenus55 stilldealwithAtheniandemagogyversustrue
philosophy.However, when Plato had left the city definitelyand settled
downin the Academy,morepersonalthemesof persuasionandpsychagogy
come to the fore withthe earlyPhaedrus.56 Then, havingdistancedhimself
from rhetoricand his failuresin Athenian politics, and havingsomehow
institutionalizedhis own school, Platorealizedthat he had to deal with the
sophists as teachersof "virtue".In a ratherplayful mood he wrote the
dialogueProtagoras.57 Probablyit was a success, and copies were passed
aroundoutside the Academy. This caused Plato to plan and publishhis
literarymasterpiece,the Symposium(about 384, no doubt),58and to start
planningand elaboratingthe Republic:59 at this stage he certainlyhad a
widerpublicin view. Themesof the Protagoraswere takenup in the more

-4 Eucken, esp. 36-43, has convincinglyand independentlyof SPC126 arguedthat Grg

must be later than Isocr. XIII (contraSoph.,about 390 B.C.). Still, largeportionsof the
dialogue may have been composed before Plato left for Italy and Sicily.
ss The date soon after387 is beyond doubt. I would interpretthis jamngly ironicalpiece
as Plato's funeral speech to Athenian politics. Cf. now R. Clavaud'smonograph,Paris
1980.
' SPC 171-180. I imagine "Lysias" has something to do with Antisthenes, but I am
scepticalregardingthe attemptsto relate the first partof the dialogue, and the palinode,
to variousIsocrateanwritings(SPC 174n. 42; add now a referenceto Eucken 115 ff. who
is also too optimistic). The second half of the work is very different, and parts of the
palinode (such as the proof of immortalityand the chariot imagery) are not likely to be
early.
57 I would interpret the relaxed, humorous touch in Prt, versus the aggressivenessof
Grg (cf. also "Thrasymachus"whose Kephalos may have become more serene with the
revision, cf. above, n. 49), as one of the signs of a relativelylate date; cf. SPC 128-134.
The TQrlTLx1npassage Prt 350c ff. with its possible allusions to Principles, is hardly a
very much later interpolation(as has been suggested, cf. SPC 128), though it is curious
that there seems to occur a reminiscenceof Prt in Epin (976e, cf. 979c). Several critics,
among them Kahn (above, n. 4) and L. Goldberg in his commentary (1983), have
emphasized"advanced"details in Prt. Frede's suggestion (above, n. 28) is interesting;
however, I believe a renewed analysis of Socrates' speech and its alluding to Being/
Becoming, as an ironicalcounterpartto the Great Speech of Protagoras,would be worth
while.
' SPC 135 f. Most interpretationsof Smp attemptto trace its symbolismand allusions.
Contraryto V. Tejera (Plato's dialogues, New York 1984, 340 ff.) who considers Arist-
ophanes' speech as pivotal, I would prefer the traditionalview of Diotima's Mysteryof
Love as the pedimentalcentre of the work. so66yaO6v is here approachedvia I6 xak6v
whichmakes the erotic metaphorwork. This is probablyPlato'sfirstexplicit referenceto
the theory of Forms in a written text. The ambiguous sense of ezbog at 210b2 is
significant.
59 SPC 137-140.

16
esoteric MenoWwhich apparentlyintroduceda new manner of literary
technique:the directdramaticdialoguewithcharacterizationof the speak-
ers and the situation.The much-readGorgiaswas re-writtenin this man-
ner61and some prologueswere possiblyadded.62In the Phaedo,whichwas
composedin a moodverydifferentfromthatof the Symposium,yet like the
latterconcentratingon the portraitof the ideal Philosopher,we can see the
two techniques,narratedand dramaticdialogue,interwoven.63
By now we have probablyreachedthe mid-370s,though this is pretty
conjectural.Plato'sfame as a writerand leaderof difficult"seminars"was
well-establishedamongGreek intellectuals;yet relativelyfew felt inclined
to visitthe Academyandto riska personalconfrontation.Therewas always
a distancebetweenPlato andhis public.The activitiesof the Academyhad
two main aspects. The esoteric, oral discussionsdeveloped methods of
dialecticand doctrinaltopicssuch as the theoriesof Principlesand Forms,
the theoryof soul andanamnesis,the theoryof knowledgeandpsychagogy,
the theoriesof virtue,mathematics,cosmology,andthe role of the philoso-
pher in society. The exoteric activitiesmust have consistedchiefly of the
publishingof literarydialogueswhichfunctionedas "protreptic"exhorta-
tions to philosophyand at the same time as a challengefor the initiatedto
reflect on controversialissues.' The writingof Gorgias, Protagorasand
Symposiumhad provedworthwhile.

' SPC 163-167.This dialogue is primarilyintended for initiated readers (see now also
SzlezAk[above, n. 81 179 ff., and note the dramaticform), and hence it is more soph-
isticatedthan, say, Smp. Obviously it operates with the theory of Forms, the "doctrine"
of anamnesis,and the hypotheticalmethod, as ratherfresh "discoveries"(SPC166;here
I agree with what is almost a consensus). But the aporiaof the conclusion is hardlya real
one (as has been recently again arguedby J.T. Bedu-Addo, A.J. Ph. 104, 1983, 228 ff.):
very probably it is meant to challenge readers to think for themselves (like the end of
Prt). Perhaps it initiated the aporetic mode of the minor dialogues?
61 SPC 86 f., 162 f. Cf. above, n. 28.
6 Cf. above, n. 53.
3 SPC 140-144; add a reference to Burger's comprehensive running commentary
(1984). The discussionof the Form is somewhat more explicit in Phd than in Men (and
Smp), but the traditionalexplanationthat this discussionrepresentsa new stage (i.e., in
relation to the supposedly "preliminary"stage in Euthd, Cra, Men and some minor
dialogues) hardlyholds good. Some polemic against different views is traceable, as has
been often noted, but the targetsare not to be found in any of the writtenworksas far as I
can see.
'4 Cf. esp. Szlezak and Erler, above, n. 8.

17
 This many-levelfunction- somethingfor everybody- is very typicalof
the Euthydemus,writtenin one of Plato'swhimsicalmoods,65andthe minor
dialoguesLysisand Charmides.fI see no reasonto doubtthatthe latterare
by Plato'shand;and the earlyversionof Theaetetuswhichclearlylinksup
with Charmides,is certainlyauthentic.Suchshortishdialoguesof a mixed
didactic/protreptic naturerepresenta new mannerand attitudeand prob-
ablyconstitutethe modelfor the HippiasMinortype (below). In factthere
is little to suggest that Plato started his literarycareer by writingsuch
dialogues.
It seems that Plato now beganto abandonthe notionof composinglarge
pieces for predominantlyexotericuse, and the ever-growingproblemsin-
volved with the Republic (below) may have had a share in this. The
remodellingof the Phaedrusremainedan exception.
The backgroundand genesis of Theaetetusis a more complicatedques-
tion than is commonlyrealized. By dating the final version soon before
Plato's second voyage to Sicily in 367 (or 366) B.C., I do not differ very
muchfromwhatseems to be the generalconsensustoday. It is the process
which terminatedin this final version that I would explain differently.
Havingbegunthe dialogueas a Charmides-like piece in the mid-370s,Plato
some years later, I believe, remodelledit for internaluse in the Academy
61 SPC 144 147. I still insist that Euthdcan be naturallyexplainedas coming after Phd.
The playful references to dialectic, Forms, and the Kingly Art, are of course not
"preliminary"(see also R.S.W. Hawtrey'scommentary, Mem. Am. Philos. Soc. 147,
1981, and Szlezak49 ff.), and severalcriticshave seen some advancefromthe positionof
Men (which is more explicit; cf. SPC 167, add L. Maccioni, Filosofia e matematicain
Platone, Napoli 1978; Szlezak ibid.).
I SPC 147-152. Many scholars have in recent years pointed out "advanced"traits in
both; for Ly, add to my references e.g. R. Laurenti,Atti della Acc. di Sc. mor. e pol.,
Soz. naz. di Napoli, 87, 1976,7 ff.; H.Kuhn (above, n. 3); Szlezak 117 ff.; for Chrm,e.g.
N. van der Ben, The Charmides,Amsterdam 1985; R. McKim, T. A. Ph. A. 115, 1985,
59 ff.; Szlezak 127, 149 f. R.W. Puster'sanalyses of the forms of argument(Zur Argu-
mentationsstrukturplatonischer Dialoge, Munchen1983)suggeststo me that Chrmin this
respect, too, has served as the model for Tht, La, and Euthphr.
67 SPC 152-157, 182 f., 188. H. Tarrant(in a paper known to me from a draft) has now
propounded a new theory about the early version which he would connect with the
Chrm. I find it essential to note that the historiansof mathematicswho take for granted
that Theaitetos was still active in the 370s must be wrong. He made some important
discoveriesas a young man, and Plato and his friendswere deeply impressedby this. But
he is likely to have died in 390 B.C. (add a reference to X.Hell IV 5.14 ff.: Athenian
hoplites under Kalliasjoined Iphikrates'peltastsin 391/0), and not likely to have written
anything.When Plato wrote his firstdraftof the dialogue, presumablyin the 370s, he saw
this friend of his youth from an idealizing perspective, somewhat in the way he
rememberedhis uncle Charmides.

18
andincludedup-to-datereferencesto histheoryof knowledgeandpolemics
againstvariousrecenttrendsof criticism.'
Before this final version took shape, however, Plato had producedtwo
importantandpuzzlingworks.One of them, Cratylus,is evidentlyesoteric,
provocativelyplayful,and full of allusionsof variouskinds.69The other is
the finalversionof the Phaedrus.Thisis an odd literaryexperiment,Plato's
last semi-exotericwriting(disregardingthe SeventhLetterand, in a sense,
the Laws). The themes of seduction and persuasionand the play with
rhetoricderivefromthe 380s, in my view, but the criticismof prosewriting
in the latter part, and various referencesin passing to dialectic, Forms,
cosmologyand psychologysuggestthe later 370s. It is also an interesting
fact that Plato here againintroducesa new literarytechniqueby lettingthe
speakersthemselvespresentthe backgrounddescriptionwhich originally
and properlybelongedto the report.70

Betweenthe second andthirdvoyageto SicilyI wouldtentativelyplace the

Parmenides.It was apparentlybegun as an exoteric dialogue but became
eventuallya very esotericpiece.7'The firstpartof Parmenides,and partic-
ularly the opening, suggests that the Republic was now approximately
finishedthoughpartsof Book X and some passagesin earlierbooks may
havebeen addedlater.Stylisticconsiderationsprovethatthe presenttext of
the Republic,andnotablysome of the sectionsultimatelyderivingfromthe
' "Megarians"(Antistheneans?), "Protagoreans"(includingEudoxos?), and others.
It is interesting that he attempts to argue without seeking support from the theory of
Forms, just as in Prt he tried to move entirely on the M6ealevel. These much-disputed
questions cannot of course be dealt with here.
9 SPC 167-171. Like Men, Cra seems to have been written in dramaticform from the
start. There has been a tendency in recent years to interpret it as a very sophisticated
piece or, at any rate, as inauguratingor foreshadowingthe criticalworks beginningwith
Tht. On the whole this fits in with my view. Cf. e.g. F.C. White, South. J. Philos. 16,
1978, 259 ff.; Th.W. Bestor, Phron. 25, 1980, 360 ff.; E. Heitsch, Ak.d.Wiss., Mainz,
Abh. d. Geisteswiss. Kl. 1984:11;Szlezdk208 ff.; and in particularMaryM. Mackenzie,
Cl. Q. 36, 1986, 124 ff. Erler273 n. 26 refersto the interestingfact that there are obvious
points of contact between Cra and the philosophicaldigressionin Ep VII. I find nothing
to defend the old dating to the pre-Phd period.
7' See again SPC 171-180, and cf. Lg, SPC 187. I have seen no recent contributionsof
relevance to my arguments,except Eucken's combinations(cf. above, n. 23 and 56).
7" SPC 157-161. This date is conjectural, but accepted by many; see now also S.
Panagiotou, Cl. & M. 33, 1981/82, 97 ff. (additional biographicalconsiderations). The
second part of the dialogue may of course be later, but I feel K.M. Sayre (Plato's late
ontology, Princeton 1983, esp. 256 ff.) has not adduced sufficient argumentsto put the
whole dialogue after Ti (a variantof Owen's thesis, in fact). Greenberg (above, n. 27),
again, relies too much on stylometryfor his early dating of Prm.

19
"Proto-Republic", were not writtendownin thisfinalshapebeforethe 350s.
Plato'sreluctanceto publishthis ever-growingworkis understandable.72
I shall not now proceedby commentingon my views, andothers'views,
of Plato's "late works".Nobody will be shockedby my opinionthat their
order of composition is Timaeus - Critias - Sophist - Politicus - Seventh
Letter- Philebus- Laws.But I haveto addthatI am now, stillmorethanin
1982,inclinedto tracea "secretary'sstyle"in Plato'sso-called"latestyle"
(compareespeciallythe style of the Laws and Epinomis)and, hence, to
think that his youngerassociatesparticipatedin the formulatingof these
worksto a greaterextent than is usuallybelieved.73However, thoughthe
SeventhLetterperhapsis not entirelywritten(or dictated)by Platohimself,
and thoughits tendencyis clearlyapologetic,I would regardit as a fairly
reliabledocument.74

I shallconcludethis somewhatroughexpos6by makinga few commentson

the seeminglymosteccentricpartof my 1982contribution:the "degrading"
to semi-authenticity,and the datingnot earlierthanthe 370s, of severalof
the minor dialogues- includingCrito, Laches, Euthyphro,and Hippias
Maior.
To regardClitophoas an earlypseudepigraphonis in no wayodd, if it is
placed between Books I and II of the Republic,and if its Antisthenean
backgroundis accepted.75The case of Critois rathermore challenging.In
SPC I arguedthatCrito,post-Polykratesas it mustbe, andlegalisticallyand
non-ironicallypro-Athenianas it is (cf. on the other handMenexenus),is

n SPC 159, 184 ff. Eccentricallyagain, I doubt that the final R, however magnificent
the composition is, ever in Plato's lifetime reached the extra-Academicpublicfor whom
it was (originally and partly) intended. It was too large, too difficult, and certainlytoo
provocative a work to be digested by "general readers". There are no unambiguous
references to the final version in contemporarysources (cf. above, n. 36), including
Middle Comedy and Isocrates (cf. above, n. 43). Instead of publishingR, Plato set out
planning the more down-to-earthLg (below) which, however, others finished for him
and which did not turn out a best-seller, either.
73 SPC 186-203.But in the very late Phlb,"Socrates"standsfor Plato, I believe, rather
more than Timaios, The Elean Guest, and the Athenian Guest do. Probably"Socrates
the Younger" somehow represents Plato, too, as a former pupil of mine hopefully is
going to prove.
7 SPC 200 f.; cf. also Szlezak's interpretation386 ff. The notorious digression, which
tends to make criticsover-suspicious,can in my view be easily regardedas authentically
Platonic (cf. above, n. 69) if it is assumedthat it serves the same kind of slightly playful
mystificationas the lecture "On the Good" (in my view) probablydid:it makesit plainto
the reader that these points are indeed exceedingly difficult.
71 SPC 205 if.; see now also S.R. Slings' commentary(Amsterdam 1981).

20
hard to accept as genuinely Platonic but, consistentlywith my theory,
comparativelyeasy to explainas writtenby a close associateof Plato in the
370s. Some additionalevidence could be adduced.76The case of Laches,
again, is not so difficulttoday when the label "very early" seems to be
fading away from it: its relationshipwith (I should say: dependenceon)
Charmides,its protrepticbut not very sophisticatedgrip, the somewhat
clumsyeffortsto characterizethe speakersat lengththroughthe dramatic
76 SPC 208-210. The main points, with additionsproducedin various oral communica-
tions, are the following. Cri'slack of philosophicalinterest (unless it is over-interpreted,
as by R. Kraut, Socrates and the State, 1984), and its portrait of Socrates as a very
respectableold gentlemanwith patrioticsentiments, have misled generationsof scholars
to date it soon after the events described in it. In fact, since Cri is partly a reply to
Polykrateswho accused Socratesof despisingthe laws of Athens and who seems to have
used the curious word bLap0oQElvS, Cri 53b, cf. Themistius Or. 23, 296bc (Plato,
however, was not very embarrassedby this pamphlet;cf. e.g. Smp and Men), it belongs
to a period when Plato had turnedhis back on Athens or was, at least, stronglycriticalof
its institutions(Plato's respect for humaninstitutionsas such is very disputablein view of
passagessuch as Ap 36c, R VI 501a ff., Plt 294a ff., and the whole of Mx, but the laws of
the Best or Second Best State are different;this point is not made quite clear by e.g. F.L.
Lisi, Einheit und Vielheitdes platonischen Nomos-Begriffes, Beitrage z. klass. Philol.
167, 1987). Cri would suit this period better if it were mockinglyironical like Mx, or at
least provocative like Ap. To try to explain why Socrates refused to leave prison was a
common topic (see now also PKoln 205), but Cri lacks specifically Platonic arguments
(present already in Ap, such as the need of moral reform to be accomplished by the
Socratics,the unique conditions of a Philosopher,or the bal5vLov of Socrates), and the
religious points at the beginning and the end are plainly not typical of Plato (before the
period of Lg). Some recent critics have interpreted Cri as an (insincere?) attempt to
idealize Socratesin terms acceptableto ordinaryAthenian citizens (e.g. L. Straussin the
'70s, cf. his posthumous Studies in Platonic political philosophy, Chicago 1983; M.
Montuori, Socrate, Firenze 1974, Engl. transl. 1981; R.E. Allen, Socrates and legal
obligation, 1980; J. Kostman in New Essays on Socrates, ed. Kelly, 1984, 107 ff.; also
Lisi), but this again stresses the difference, not only from Ap, but from Grg, Mx, or Prt
(not to speak of otherwise suspect pieces such as HpMi; but Thg would offer a kind of
parallel, as Straussnoted). Cri49a seems to implythe complicateddiscussionsin Grg and
R I; the background situation in Cri seems to imply Phd rather than vice versa. The
details of Attic legislation dealt with in Cri (cf. Plato's comments on petty legislation, R
IV 425a ff.) may reflectpost-387discussionsof Solonianlaw (cf. Cri50de: Aeschin. Or. I
9 ff., Plut. Sol. 22). The structure of the argument is climactic (as in Grg where it is
motivatedby Socrates'growingself-assertion,and in variousdubia, as Thg, Min; also Ep
VIIIwhere there is a fictitious speech at the end), not pedimental (as in most of the
authentic works and also some dubia, as Alc I, Ion). Language and style are quite
"Platonic"(as in most dubia, too), with a somewhathighrate of rareidioms and hapaxes.
I find it probable that the author is Speusippos who took an interest in law-givingand
religion (cf. also Lg and Ep VIII) andwho in social matterswas more of a conformistthan
Plato ever was. Plato perhaps accepted with a benevolent smile this portrait of a
bourgeois Socrates whose fate, from the perspective of the 370s, was legend anyway.

21
dialogue, and varioussuspectdetails, make me rathersure aboutits semi-
authenticity.' By consideringAlcibiadesI, Theages,Amatores,Eryxias,
Hipparchus,Minos, Sisyphus,Demodocus,De Virtute,De Justo,andAlci-
biadesII, as semi-authenticand/oras spurious,I feel myselfto be in very
good company.78And nobody could seriouslyarguetoday that Plato has
writtenthe Definitions,Halcyon,Axiochus, and most of the Letters."
Withthe ratherabsurdlyironicalHippiasMinor,Ion, andEuthyphro,we
mayagainfeel to be close to Menexenus,butat leastHippiasandEuthyphro
includesuchplaywith technicalitiesas to point to the Academy,and there
areothersignsalso to suggestthatEuthyphrobelongsto the environmentof
Cratylus.Y'
Finally, there is the notoriouslycontroversialHippias Maior. In 1982
(SPC 226-228) I regardedthe question of its semi-authenticityas settled
and, indeed, as an importantcorner-stonefor my "new model". Yet the
problemmay now appearto be far from settled. Woodruff'sfresh (1982)
interpretationof the dialogueas a comparativelyearly authentictext has
been largely accepted - but on very weak grounds,it seems to me.8"A

T SPC 210-214. I did not note there that the rejection of jitookoyLaLa 188cdand the
reommendationof xoLvt lt-eiv at the end are much more appropriateto their context
in Phd 89d ff. "Advanced" features have sometimes become emphasized in recent
interpretationsof La, e.g. H. Kay, Diss. ColumbiaUniv. 1980, Puster (above, n. 66),
SzlezAk 151 ff., and especially Kahn (above, n. 4) who takes La as introducingthe
Academic groupof "early"dialogues. I have not seen D. L. Blank'snew commentary(in
preparationin '87).
78 SPC 214-220, 228-232. Regarding these dialogues, I have seen no recent com-
prehensive arguments for full authenticity;J. Ketchum, Diss. State Univ. New York
1981, only deals with a structuralaspect of Alc I; and Annas, PlatonicInvestigations,ed.
O'Meara, Studies in Philosophy 13, 1985, 111 ff., is more concernedwith provingthat
Amat, Alc I, Hipparchand HpMa are no late fabrications.
' SPC 231-235. A renewed examinationof the Platonic "letter romances"is needed.
'" SPC 220-226. For a comparativelylate date of HpMi, cf. now Szlezak79 ff.; for Ion,
cf. V. Tejera, Plato's dialogues, 1984, 317; Kahn (OxfordStudiesin Ancient Philos., ed.
Annas, I, 77 f.) takes the treatment of TEXVaLas a sign of an early date, but such a
(playful) approachis certainlypossible later. Euthphris now often admitted among the
sophisticateddialogues (e.g. C.C.W. Taylor, Phron. 27, 1982, 109 ff., Szlezdk 107 ff.),
though the reflectionsof the theory of Forms are also often, and in my view perversely,
explained as a preliminarystage.
81 Defenders of the dialogueincludeH. Teloh, Thedevelopmentof Plato'smetaphysics,
1981; Puster (above, n. 66); R. Ferber, Platos Idee des Guten, 1984; Annas (above,
n. 78); and Szlezlk 91 ff. (admittingmanyof the allusions,but not drawingthe chronolo-
gical conclusions). I largely agree with Kahn'scomments on Woodruffs book (Oxford
Studies in Ancient Philos., ed. Annas, III, 261 ff.), but I emphaticallydisagreewith the
former'sview that this dialogue could not have been written in Plato's lifetime.

22
comprehensivere-assessmentof the issue would have to deal with a long
series of details, circumstances,and considerations,pointing to a date
around360 B.C., with practicallyno positive evidence of an early date.
Sucha reconsiderationcannotbe madehere, but I trustodds will fall in my
favour.82

Whatis the outcomeof thisnew arrangementof the dialogues?If I amright,

the consequencesfor our understandingand interpretationof Plato'sphi-
losophy are quite considerable.Note the following.
Exceptfor the earlyandstraightforward Apology, anddisregardingmost
of the Letters,andtwo verylate dialogues,the texts of the Corpusare from
the periodca. 387-347B.C. They areproductsof the EarlyAcademyin the
sense thatthey arecomposed("written")not solely by Platohimselfbut, to
a varyingextent, by his youngerassociates.They shoulddefinitelynot be
read as explicit philosophicaltreatises expoundingPlato's philosophical
position at the time of writingbut, in most cases, as prose dramaswith a
double function: primarily,as memorandaand intellectual exercise in-
tendedfor the initiated("esoteric"play);andsecondarily,as introductions
to Academictopicsand mannersof thoughtfor the uninitiated("exoteric"
protreptic).Plato andhis innercirclealwaysconsideredoral discussionsas
a moreessentialpartof philosophizingthanthe producingof writtentexts.
On this point I am entirelyin sympathywith the "Tubingenposition".
Thus (and here I am inclinedto go further)the kaleidoscopic,complex,
and often very indirect reflections of Plato's thought in the dialogues
constituteeven morecomplicatedproblemsof interpretationthanis gener-
ally appreciated.While the historicalSocratesagainwithdrawsto legend,
I Woodruff has seen the points I made in 1976 but passes over them too lightly. My
opinion that La, Euthphr. and HpMa have the same author has received a degree of
support from Puster who (believing them to be authenticallyPlatonic) points out some
similaritiesin the structureof the argument.The curious "split"of Socrates is regarded
by Szlezak as an attempt to confronthis aporeticand dialectic "aspects";this may be so,
but he is an Academic Socrates anyway, and I feel rathercertain that the rude objector
has something institutionallyAntisthenean to him (cf. perhaps Smp 173b-e; also Prt
355cd and the personificationof the "conclusion"361a, which looks like an earlierstage
of the idea elaboratedin HpMa); and cf. the emergingof a "Socratesmade young" since
Thtand Prm (a variantof Plato, I suspect, cf. above, n. 73). There are more details than I
noted in SPC 227 f. to suggestthat HpMa. X.Mem. IV 4 and Dio Chrysost.III 26 ff. have
an Antisthenean text as their (remote) common model; cf. also above, n. 50. The very
different gripe at Hippias in Prt and HpMa (and HpMi) is also worth observing (cf. J.
Mansfeld in Storiografiae dossografia nella filosofia antica, a c. di Cambiano, Torino
1986, 23 ff., on Plato's use of doxographyon Hippias). For the proximityof HpMa to
Sph-Plt, cf. also Sph 252b-253c.

23
the Academiccommunity,with Plato (the "newSocrates")as primusinter
pares, comes to the fore in the process of the articulationof Platonic
thought - as I see it.
Plato'sown philosophy,basicallyand originallya two-levelmodel with
"metaphysical"(especiallyontological)overtonesandwithpolitical/ethical
applications,took form in the 390s (above, p. llff.), before the extant
writingsbeginto reflectit. GorgiasandMeno,however,manifestits earlier
phasesratherexplicitly.
The centralissueof thisphilosophyis the questionof (T6) &yafo'vandits
epistemologicaland ontologicalpremises.
Fromthe outset, however,Platohadpoliticalinterests.He becamemore
and more criticalof the politicaland social conditionsof Athens and all
other city-stateshe knew, and also of variouscategoriesof "competitors"
(politicians,writers,sophists, Socratics).This broughthim alreadyin the
390s to elaborate,on a theoreticalbasis, a utopianschemeof the just and
happyState. He neverabandonedthisvision,thoughit receivedsuccessive-
ly new dimensions,especially after 367 B.C. But to speak of a gradual
"betrayal"of the Socraticlegacy, is misleading.
Persuasionand guidingtowardsa consciousapprehensionof T6 eyacoxv
are the drivingforces in most of the dialoguesfrom the 380s and 370s,
howeverironicaltheir gripmay be.
The theory of Forms developed graduallyand was subject to various
thoughtexperiments;but owingto the interesttakenin it by Aristotleand
posterity,the importanceof this theory to Plato has been overrated.It is
probablytrue in a very general sense only that its roots lie in Socratic
definitionseeking. Still, I am not much at variancewith the majorityof
specialistswhen I assertthat Plato began by searchingfor fixed points of
reference,what we shouldcall "abstractions","universals",or just "con-
cepts", on the upperlevel of his model (cf. above, p. 4), to correspondto
the pluralityand flux of the lower level. At first he perhapslooked for
abstractionsrelated to T6 &yaf&6v, as &QEnT,IO &iXaLov, T6 xacoXv,T6
aoov.Later (after Meno), with geometryprovidingadditionalarguments,
he extendedthe rangeof Forms,andthe questionsof causalityandfinality
becameinvolvedwiththe theory,whilethe problemof the interrelationsof
concepts,and the relationof Formsto particulars,becamemoreandmore
complicated,as is well knowntodaybut notoriouslyunclearin details.The
consequenceof my view of the dialoguesto these problemsis twofold:(1)
dialogues such as Euthydemus,Lysis, Cratylus,Euthyphro,or Hippias
Maior,shouldnot be takenas evidenceof the earlystagesof the theory;and
(2) since the referencesto the theory are mostly indirect, defective, or

24
playful,it is advisableto harmonizeas far as possiblethe few scrapsof solid
evidence to be gathered,primarily,from Phaedo, Republic(the Divided
Line, ratherthan Book X), Parmenides,and Timaeus,and to apply this
pictureto the interpretationof relevantpassageselsewhere.83In spiteof the
very impressiveeffortsof scholarsin recentyears,84a thoroughreconsider-
ation of the issue along these lines woulddoubtlessbe rewarding.
The "oral doctrine"of Principleswas alwaysimplicitin the two-level
model (cf. above, p. llf.) but becamemorearticulateafterthe 360s, under
renewedPythagoreaninfluence.
The theoryof knowledgereceivedadditionsalongwiththe development
of the two-levelmodel, the theoryof Forms,the theoryof psyche,andlater
theoriesof the physicalworld.But Platonevergave up his view that "real"
knowledge is concerned with the upper level of reality and that o6yo;
functions as an intermediarybetween the levels. I think epistemology
illustrates,even betterthanthe theoryof Forms,howeverythingis involved
with everythingin Plato'sthought.
The dialecticbetween a leader (Plato/"Socrates",or his stand-in)and
one or two (or several)opponents/disputants, was alwaysconsideredas the
essential activity in Academic ovvouo(a. In particular,the "dialectic"
method of dichotomic analysis (bLacLQEOLg) and synthesis (ruvay y )
becamepopularwith some of Plato'syoungerfriends(Speusippos,Mene-
demos, and others).
Questionsof ontology, language("logic"), and epistemologyhad come
to the fore in Plato'sthinkingfromthe 360s (Cratylus,Phaedrus,Theaete-
tus), but his associatesdevelopedfurthervarioustrendsof method(Parme-
nides,Sophist,Politicus),cosmologyandphysics( Timaeus,Epinomis),and
politicaland social d'yal6v (Timaeus,Critias,Politicus,Laws).
The probable semi-authenticityof large portions of the "late works"
should alwaysbe taken into account.
Mock-aporetic"Socratic"dialoguesbeganto be writtenafterthe 380sfor
protrepticand naLW&C/nac6Eta. Severalof the minordialoguesof thistype
are also semi-authentic.

To admitthatthe abovereflectionsare basedon little morethana series of

hypothesesseems trivial.So are all approachesto Plato. This is precisely
why a dialoguebetweendifferentmannersof interpretation(and a contin-
I Includingthe Academic twists of the late works which, in my view, seem to operate
with severaldifferentcategoriesof "concepts",amongthem all-pervadingPrinciplesand
VyLofla y&vn.
' Cf. above, n. 3. In particularJordan'sstudy is very useful in
several respects.

25
uous revisionof this dialogue,too) may be regardedas highlydesirablein
spite of all the difficultiesit will meet. But to insist, as I have done, that
something went wrong with the dialogue when the Ritter - Raeder -
Wilamowitzview of "earlyPlato" began to be taken for grantedand the
warningsof Zeller, Shorey,Pohlenz,andsomeotherswereforgotten,is not
so trivial. I almost hope that somebody will give me solid reasons for
believingthat I am mistaken.

Bergmansgatan3
SF - 00140 Helsinki
Finland

26