This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
§ i. Summary of the Argument.
§ ii. The Framework of the Dialogue.
§ iv. Socrates and Diotima.
1 Apollodorus appears also in Phaedo 59 A, B as one of those present with Socrates “on the day when he drank the poison in the prison”; as characteristically exhibiting most marked symptoms of grief [this statement would support the epithet μαλακός as well as μανικός in Symp. 173 D]; and as a native of Athens (τῶν ἐπιχωρίων). In Apol. 34 A he is one of those present at the trial of Socrates; and (in 38 B) one of those who offered to go bail to the extent of 30 minae. Pfleiderer takes Apollodorus to represent Plato himself, by a piece of ironical “Selbstobjektivierung,” a notion which had already occurred to me.
2 For Aristodemus, see also Xen. Mem. 1. 4. 2 where Socrates converses περὶ τοῦ δαιμονίου πρὸς Ἀριστόδημον τὸν μικρὸν ἐπικαλούμενον, καταμαθὼν αὐτὸν οὔτε θύοντα τοῖς θεοῖς οὔτε μαντικῇ χρώμενον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ποιούντων ταῦτα καταγελῶντα.
3 With regard to this evidence, see Introd. § viii.
4 See Cobet, Nov. Lect. pp. 662 ff.; Gomperz, G. T. II. pp. 63, 118. Gomperz (II. 343) supposes the Gorgias to be a counterblast to Polycrates' indictment of Socrates, and Alcibiades' eulogy in Sympos. to have the same motive: “Plato had a definite motive for placing such praise in the mouth of Alcibiades—we refer to the pamphlet of Polycrates....This writer had spoken of Socrates as the teacher of Alcibiades—in what tone and with what intention can easily be guessed....Plato himself had touched on the subject (of the liaison between the two men), harmlessly enough, in his youthful works, as, for example, in the introduction to the ‘Protagoras.’...But after the appearance of Polycrates' libel, he may well have thought it advisable to speak a word of enlightenment on the subject; which is exactly what he does, with a plainness that could not be surpassed, in the present encomium” (op. cit. 394-5). Gomperz, however, does not bring this hypothesis into connexion with the passage in the Preface of Symp. discussed above. There may be an allusion to the same matter in Protag. 347 C (cp. Xen. Symp. VII. 1).
5 So Hug (Sympos. ad loc.) following Sauppe and Blass: also Jebb, Att. Or. II. 99. I may note here an inconsistency as to the date of Polycrates' “Accusation” in Jebb, Att. Or. I. 150-51 compared with ib. XLV: in the latter place it is set in 393 B.C.
6 In this Dümmler (Akad. p. 66) follows Winckelmann (Antisth. fr. p. 21). Polycrates, however, may be alluded to as well as Antisthenes, as the terms of the reference are wide (ἄλλα τοιαῦτα συχνά); moreover, a close relation may have existed between these two writers.
7 See Dümmler, Antisthenica, pp. 17 ff.
8 See Gomperz, G. T. II. p. 151; Dümmler, Akad. p. 66.
9 See above, § ii. A, ad fin.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.