Clitophon (dialogue)

Clitophon ( ancient Greek Κλειτοφῶν Clitophon, latin Clitopho ) is an ancient literary dialogue. Supposedly it comes from Plato. The authenticity of the work is very controversial, the attribution to Plato rejected by most classicists. It is a fictional philosophical conversation about the practical relevance of the invitation to the pursuit of virtue and on the definition of justice.

Content

When and in which environment plays the fictional dialogue is not disclosed. The interlocutors are Plato's teacher Socrates and his pupil Clitophon. In Clitophon is a historical figure; he was actually a contemporary of Socrates and entered in his hometown of Athens emerged as the politician. Also in the Republic, a safe genuine dialogue of Plato, Clitophon occurs as one of the interlocutors; there he grasps only the floor briefly and acts as well as in the dialogue named after him as adversary of Socrates.

An introduction is missing, the conversation begins abruptly. Socrates turns to Clitophon and tells him that someone had put him behind utterances Kleitophons. According to the report Clitophon have evaluated the lessons from Socrates disparagingly, the transfer of knowledge at Thrasymachus, however, he had praised effusively. ( Thrasymachus was a famous sophist, whose teaching stands in radical opposition to that of Socrates. ) The so asked to speak Clitophon tries to justify himself: although he had not actually praised in some ways Socrates, but he also cited praiseworthy. Now he wanted to reflect the facts correctly and its view clear. Socrates agrees. The rest of the conversation consists of Kleitophons detailed exposition of his opinion about Socrates ' philosophy lessons. He describes first what he likes, and then goes to criticism over. What Socrates replies that is not disclosed.

First Clitophon summarizes some known from Plato's dialogues key points of the doctrine of Socrates, who find his unreserved approval. The starting point is criticism of the conduct of ignorant people who only care about the accumulation of goods and then leave their possessions to their sons, but are unable to educate the sons well. Becomes criticized that these people fail foolishly, to teach their future heir in dealing with the property and to give them an understanding of justice. The consequence of this failure are disputes and wars. To the care of the body taken care of, the far more important soul is neglected. It lacks the knowledge that the unrighteous not malicious, but acts out of ignorance. Could prove helpful in the acquisition of virtue. It is possible, since by virtue Socrates ' conviction is teachable.

Clitophon stressed that he to the ignorant still holds the criticism of Socrates justified and is convinced of the teachability of virtue. He is concerned with details; he wants to know how to implement the above insights into action. To learn this, he has, as he now says, first addressed the most competent people in the vicinity of Socrates. To them he was wearing his questions: Should we spend his life trying to exhort others to virtue, whereupon they in turn pass on the warning? What else is there to do? How can you acquire the required virtue concretely, how are you doing this? To these questions he received the reply, the means of obtaining virtue is, as Socrates have found nothing other than justice.

Kleitophons reply was: Just as a doctor or architect not only other forms in his field, but has also to produce a product, namely health or a building, then even the righteous can not be limited, others to instruct in justice, but must also themselves produce anything as its specific product. But what is it? To this question was given Clitophon different answers like " Useful" or " Advantageous ". However, he argued that it was nothing special, but applies to any application of knowledge. Someone said that the justice -producing Philia ( friendship, love and friends ), which should be defined as a like-mindedness crayons and only good. Then asked Clitophon whether this like-mindedness is based only on the correspondence of ( possibly misguided ) opinions or real knowledge. Since false opinions donate anything good, the other party had to admit that only real knowledge come into consideration. However, since in all other areas of knowledge, such as medicine, a match is sought in relation to actual conditions, also failed this attempt to assign a special product of justice.

Thereupon Clitophon turned personally to Socrates, but received again, as he says now, only contradictory and confusing to answer. Therefore, he now takes stock of his previous efforts, and comes to the conclusion, though Socrates could better than any other call for justice, but he was unable or unwilling to tell that to the specific content of the proclaimed ideals. Therefore he Clitophon 'm going to turn now to Thrasymachus and others. If Socrates but could concretize the way to virtue, he should do that last. Otherwise, it is for someone who wants to get serious, almost a hindrance.

Authenticity question and time of origin

In modern research, the question of authorship is disputed. In the classical scholars outweighs the opinion that this dialogue does not come from Plato, but by an unknown writer, who imitated the style of Plato's dialogues. However enters a strong minority of researchers for the authenticity or keeps it at least possible.

One of the arguments for inauthenticity include the brevity of the dialogue and the fact that Socrates is attacked by a student violently ( with irony ) without the author makes him answer to the massive criticism. This raises the question of whether this is compatible with Plato's loyalty to his revered teacher. Also on dependence of Clitophon of certain real dialogues of Plato are noted. Furthermore, it is argued that the reasoning was too clumsy in places, for Plato. Strange is also that Socrates is said to have turned as a speaker in a lot. In addition, linguistic and stylistic peculiarities of dialogue. From the other side it is argued, among other things, that neither the ancient tradition of a doubt still supports the language provides considerable suspicion.

A proposed in the 16th century solution that has been found in modern research some appeal, is that the Clitophon is an unfinished draft retarded Plato. Contrast, however, there are serious objections.

It is assumed that the author of the Platonic Academy belonged. The date of composition can be only roughly Narrow (probably between BC 370 BC and the end of the 4th century, no later than the 3rd century BC). Antonio Carlini keeps the author for an academic who at the time of Scholarchen ( head of school ) Arcesilaus († 241/240 BC ) lived, so in the early stages of beginning with Arcesilaus era of the " younger Academy ". Disagreeing is Joachim Dalfen. He believes that the Clitophon and other spurious dialogues are working with their production Plato instructed his first students. This hypothesis explains Dalfen the proximity of these plants to Plato's early writings and the lack of elements that are typical of the later real dialogues. The Clitophon must be incurred before Plato's dialogue Gorgias, for he put a precursor to this dar. In Gorgias will clarify in detail what until the end remained an open question in Clitophon that Socrates apparently could not answer.

In dealing with the topic of Clitophon shows its proximity to secure genuine works of Plato as the Politeia, the Apology of Socrates and Euthydemus.

Reception

In the 3rd century BC, the Stoic Chrysippus criticized in his paper "On the Protreptik " one of the down in the mouth in Clitophon Socrates theses. He turned against the claim that it correctly to live for a man who does not understand it, was better not to live. This is the oldest evidence of reception of Clitophon.

The authenticity of the dialogue has not been doubted in antiquity. In the tetralogy order, which was apparently introduced in the 1st century BC, the Clitophon belongs to the eighth tetralogy. The Diogenes Laertius Doxograph leads him among the genuine works of Plato. He calls him one of the " ethical " and dialogues are alternative title " Protreptikos " to. He refers to a now lost copy of the Mittelplatonikers Thrasyllos.

The Imperial period Platonist Ptolemy explained the absence of an opinion of Socrates to criticize the fact that Socrates Clitophon have appreciated no answer.

It has survived not ancient textual witness. The oldest preserved Clitophon manuscript was made in the 9th century in the Byzantine Empire.

The humanist Marsilio Ficino doubted the authenticity of the Clitophon, but he translated it like the other dialogues into Latin. The translation he published in 1484 in Florence in the complete edition of his Latin translations of Plato. The first edition of the Greek text was published in September 1513 in Venice by Aldo Manuzio under the issued by Markos Musuros complete edition of the works of Plato. On this edition is based the Latin translation, who prepared the humanist Willibald Pirckheimer 1523 and published in Nuremberg in his printer Friedrich Peypus.

In modern research in the early 19th century were the arguments against the authenticity, some of which were put forward by Friedrich Schleiermacher, in the foreground. You have found widely consent, but also a contrary view has a number of supporters and the debate continues to take. Attempts to classify the origin of the plant in a particular historical context, and to determine the author's purpose in more detail, have remained hypothetical.

Editions and translations

• Simon R. Slings (ed.): Plato: Clitophon. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1999, ISBN 0-521-62368-5 ( authoritative critical edition with extensive introduction and commentary )
• Franz Susemihl (translator ): Clitophon. In: Erich Loewenthal (ed.): Plato: Complete Works in three volumes, Vol 1, unchanged reprint of the eighth, looked through edition, University Press, Darmstadt 2004, ISBN 3-534-17918-8, pp. 884-890 ( translation only )
• Helmut from the rocks: I. Platonica Clitophon, Theages. An Introduction with Socrates. Edited by Torsten Israel. Queich -Verlag, Germersheim 2012, ISBN 978-3-939207-12-2, pp. 39-46 ( scenic artist -designed transmission in a rhythmic prose )