Did Plato really write Alcibiades I and II? I'm guessing these go into the "unsure" category.
>>23324369The grounds for rejecting Alcibiades I are poor and usually grounded in the subjective feelings of a scholar feeling like this or that argument are reference are insufficiently Platonic.Alcibiades II, otoh, has a pretty plain anachronism in the discussion about the king of Macedon (the dialogue should be taking place in the late 430s or early 420s, anywhere from 15-20 years before the king in question ruled). That said, *Gorgias*, which no one questions as authentic, does the exact same thing, with a setting around the early 420s when Gorgias visited Athens, and then a plethora of anachronistic references, including to the same Macedonian king mentioned in Alcibiades II. So even that argument might not be decisive, unless by the standard we get rid of Alcibiades II, we also lose Gorgias. Fwiw, Platonists by the time of Thrasyllus seemed convinced it was genuine, and as per Diogenes Laërtius, were very aware of spurious dialogues popping up.
>>23324409Thanks man. >Apology, Charmides, Cratylus, Crito, Euthydemus, Euthyphro, Gorgias, Hippias Major/minor, Ion, Laches, Lysis, Menexenus, Meno, Phaedo, Protagoras, Symposium, Alcibiades I/II,>Parmenides, Phaedrus, Republic, Theaetetus,>Philebus, Sophist, Statesman, Timaeus-Critias, and Laws.Am I missing any? I ask because one list I had didn't mention Alcibiades I or II, so I'm wondering if there are some more obscure dialogues floating around that are most likely Plato's.
>>23324431Cleitophon, Rival Lovers, Theages. At this point, judgement on Cleitophon is more or less settled as authentic, just that no one reads it. There's a teensy bit more regard for Theages now, and bigger studies tend to admit that if it's not Plato, they couldn't tell you why not, because of closeness in stylistic resemblance, and it's still the case that no one reads Rival Lovers, so no one argues about it anyway, but I'd observes that the narrative style matches what Plato does in his narrative dialogues perfectly, so if it's a mimic, they pay attention to things most people miss.
>>23324591Right on, thank you.
>>23324431>>23324409I guess Jowett thinks Alcibiades II is an imitation, from the appendix:>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 agroikia in the conversation, which is very un-Platonic.He mentioned another imitation, Eryxias, which he said is held in a higher esteem than the former. But he seems to maintain that Alcibiades I (most likely) and Gorgias are authentic. I think he also said that there is some debate around Hippias Minor, too, that they can't be certain, but he feels comfortable attributing it to Plato.
>>23325863Jowett detested the dialogue so much that he didn’t actually translate it. That dignity was given to his intern, Matthew Knight. If you’re reading Jowett’s “translation” keep in mind some unpaid kid was the one who translated it.
>>23326099Kek that makes sense. I just read it. I read it half-interested, thinking it was inauthentic, but the part about sacrificing animals still caught my attention. I see your case now so I'll reread a different translation and be more charitable.
>>23326099>Jowett detested the dialogue so much that he didn’t actually translate it. That dignity was given to his intern, Matthew Knight.btw, that is very interesting. Is that information in one of Jowett's volumes or something?
>>23326153Introduction to Hackett’s Plato. The intro states that Jowett is credited for it and it is generally included in volumes of his work though Matthew Knight did the actual legwork. I will look for more info and get back to you.
>>23326153Besides the Hackett book which says basically what I just wrote the only thing I could find online is the same appendix note you cited here >>23325863>For the translation of these two dialogues I am indebted to my friend and secretary, Mr. Knight.The Hackett intro states outright the full text was done by Knight.
>>23326196Ok gotcha, thanks. I don't think Jowett translated many of the dialogues you mentions, at least I can't find them on gutenberg, but most of them are on perseus. Hopefully Lamb did them some justice.
>>23325863>He mentioned another imitation, Eryxias, which he said is held in a higher esteem than the formerI think a point going against this would be that Thrasyllus in the 1st century B.C.-A.D. includes Alcibiades II, and Eryxias is regularly found to be spurious by the ancients.
>>23326364>Includes Alcibiades IIinteresting> Eryxias is regularly found to be spurious by the ancients.yeah this is the exact quote, he doesn't credit it to 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.
>>23326364Keep in mind two things:1. Thrasyllus lived three hundred years after Plato on a different continent2. Thrasyllus also includes First Alcibiades as spurious when that one was used in the Academy as an intro to Platonism.
>>23324409>>23326214Just finished the Lamb version on perseus, I have to say it seemed a lot more akin to Plato than what Mr. Knight produced. Unfortunately it took me hours to read compared to 30 minutes before because the site was unbearably slow. Lamb cited a few contentions with the dialogue other than the king issue, but I suppose that could be due to manuscripts being transferred sloppily.
>>23326435I'm looking at Diogenes's Thrasyllan list, and it includes both Alcibiades dialogues in the fourth Tetralogy. Did you have someone else in mind?As for the rest, I think, while he can't be taken for granted, he can be taken as a helpful sign of what the Academy had distinguished by his time, and it would've been hard to introduce fabrications meant to pass as Plato's past both his nephew's period as scholarch, and that of Xenocrates, and it would've struck everyone else as peculiar to suddenly discover writings never passed down prior.
