[Sidenote: APPENDIX II.]
The two dialogues which are translated in the second appendix are not
mentioned by Aristotle, or by any early authority, and have no claim
to be ascribed to Plato. They are examples of Platonic dialogues to
be assigned probably to the second or third generation after Plato,
when his writings were well known at Athens and Alexandria. They
exhibit considerable originality, and are remarkable for containing
several thoughts of the sort which we suppose to be modern rather than
ancient, and which therefore have a peculiar interest for us. The Second
Alcibiades shows that the difficulties about prayer which have perplexed
Christian theologians were not unknown among the followers of Plato. The
Eryxias was doubted by the ancients themselves: yet it may claim the
distinction of being, among all Greek or Roman writings, the one which
anticipates in the most striking manner the modern science of political
economy and gives an abstract form to some of its principal doctrines.
For the translation of these two dialogues I am indebted to my friend and
secretary, Mr. Knight.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: _Characteristics, &c._]
That the Dialogue which goes by the name of the Second Alcibiades is a
genuine writing of Plato will not be maintained by any modern critic,
and was hardly believed by the ancients themselves. The dialectic is
poor and weak. There is no power over language, or beauty of style; and
there is a certain abruptness and ἀγροικία in the conversation, which
is very un-Platonic. The best passage is probably that about the poets,
p. 147:—the remark that the poet, who is of a reserved disposition, is
uncommonly difficult to understand, and the ridiculous interpretation
of Homer, are entirely in the spirit of Plato (cp. Protag. 339 foll.;
Ion 534; Apol. 22 D). The characters are ill-drawn. Socrates assumes
the ‘superior person’ and preaches too much, while Alcibiades is stupid
and heavy-in-hand. There are traces of Stoic influence in the general
tone and phraseology of the Dialogue (cp. 138 B, ὅπως μὴ λήσει τις ...
κακά: 139 C, ὅτι πᾶς ἄφρων μαίνεται) and the writer seems to have been
acquainted with the ‘Laws’ of Plato (cp. Laws 3. 687, 688; 7. 801;
11. 931 B). An incident from the Symposium (213 E) is rather clumsily
introduced (151 A), and two somewhat hackneyed quotations (Symp. 174 D,
Gorg. 484 E) recur at 140 A and 146 A. The reference to the death of
Archelaus as having occurred ‘quite lately’ (141 D) is only a fiction,
probably suggested by the Gorgias, 470 D, where the story of Archelaus
is told, and a similar phrase occurs,—τὰ γὰρ ἐχθὲς καὶ πρώην γεγονότα
ταῦτα, κ.τ.λ. There are several passages which are either corrupt or
extremely ill-expressed (see pp. 144, 145, 146, 147, 150). But there is a
modern interest in the subject of the dialogue; and it is a good example
of a short spurious work, which may be attributed to the second or third
century before Christ.