lesser hippias- 第2部分

in　the　Phaedrus；　and　this　may　have　suggested　the　subject；　in　the　same

manner　that　the　Cleitophon　appears　to　be　suggested　by　the　slight　mention　of

Cleitophon　and　his　attachment　to　Thrasymachus　in　the　Republic；　and　the

Theages　by　the　mention　of　Theages　in　the　Apology　and　Republic；　or　as　the

Second　Alcibiades　seems　to　be　founded　upon　the　text　of　Xenophon；　Mem。　　A

similar　taste　for　parody　appears　not　only　in　the　Phaedrus；　but　in　the

Protagoras；　in　the　Symposium；　and　to　a　certain　extent　in　the　Parmenides。



To　these　two　doubtful　writings　of　Plato　I　have　added　the　First　Alcibiades；

which；　of　all　the　disputed　dialogues　of　Plato；　has　the　greatest　merit；　and

is　somewhat　longer　than　any　of　them；　though　not　verified　by　the　testimony

of　Aristotle；　and　in　many　respects　at　variance　with　the　Symposium　in　the

description　of　the　relations　of　Socrates　and　Alcibiades。　　Like　the　Lesser

Hippias　and　the　Menexenus；　it　is　to　be　compared　to　the　earlier　writings　of

Plato。　　The　motive　of　the　piece　may；　perhaps；　be　found　in　that　passage　of

the　Symposium　in　which　Alcibiades　describes　himself　as　self…convicted　by

the　words　of　Socrates。　　For　the　disparaging　manner　in　which　Schleiermacher

has　spoken　of　this　dialogue　there　seems　to　be　no　sufficient　foundation。　　At

the　same　time；　the　lesson　imparted　is　simple；　and　the　irony　more

transparent　than　in　the　undoubted　dialogues　of　Plato。　　We　know；　too；　that

Alcibiades　was　a　favourite　thesis；　and　that　at　least　five　or　six　dialogues

bearing　this　name　passed　current　in　antiquity；　and　are　attributed　to

contemporaries　of　Socrates　and　Plato。　　（1）　In　the　entire　absence　of　real

external　evidence　（for　the　catalogues　of　the　Alexandrian　librarians　cannot

be　regarded　as　trustworthy）；　and　（2）　in　the　absence　of　the　highest　marks

either　of　poetical　or　philosophical　excellence；　and　（3）　considering　that　we

have　express　testimony　to　the　existence　of　contemporary　writings　bearing

the　name　of　Alcibiades；　we　are　compelled　to　suspend　our　judgment　on　the

genuineness　of　the　extant　dialogue。



Neither　at　this　point；　nor　at　any　other；　do　we　propose　to　draw　an　absolute

line　of　demarcation　between　genuine　and　spurious　writings　of　Plato。　　They

fade　off　imperceptibly　from　one　class　to　another。　　There　may　have　been

degrees　of　genuineness　in　the　dialogues　themselves；　as　there　are　certainly

degrees　of　evidence　by　which　they　are　supported。　　The　traditions　of　the

oral　discourses　both　of　Socrates　and　Plato　may　have　formed　the　basis　of

semi…Platonic　writings；　some　of　them　may　be　of　the　same　mixed　character

which　is　apparent　in　Aristotle　and　Hippocrates；　although　the　form　of　them

is　different。　　But　the　writings　of　Plato；　unlike　the　writings　of　Aristotle；

seem　never　to　have　been　confused　with　the　writings　of　his　disciples：　　this

was　probably　due　to　their　definite　form；　and　to　their　inimitable

excellence。　　The　three　dialogues　which　we　have　offered　in　the　Appendix　to

the　criticism　of　the　reader　may　be　partly　spurious　and　partly　genuine；　they

may　be　altogether　spurious；that　is　an　alternative　which　must　be　frankly

admitted。　　Nor　can　we　maintain　of　some　other　dialogues；　such　as　the

Parmenides；　and　the　Sophist；　and　Politicus；　that　no　considerable　objection

can　be　urged　against　them；　though　greatly　overbalanced　by　the　weight

（chiefly）　of　internal　evidence　in　their　favour。　　Nor；　on　the　other　hand；

can　we　exclude　a　bare　possibility　that　some　dialogues　which　are　usually

rejected；　such　as　the　Greater　Hippias　and　the　Cleitophon；　may　be　genuine。　

The　nature　and　object　of　these　semi…Platonic　writings　require　more　careful

study　and　more　comparison　of　them　with　one　another；　and　with　forged

writings　in　general；　than　they　have　yet　received；　before　we　can　finally

decide　on　their　character。　　We　do　not　consider　them　all　as　genuine　until

they　can　be　proved　to　be　spurious；　as　is　often　maintained　and　still　more

often　implied　in　this　and　similar　discussions；　but　should　say　of　some　of

them；　that　their　genuineness　is　neither　proven　nor　disproven　until　further

evidence　about　them　can　be　adduced。　　And　we　are　as　confident　that　the

Epistles　are　spurious；　as　that　the　Republic；　the　Timaeus；　and　the　Laws　are

genuine。



On　the　whole；　not　a　twentieth　part　of　the　writings　which　pass　under　the

name　of　Plato；　if　we　exclude　the　works　rejected　by　the　ancients　themselves

and　two　or　three　other　plausible　inventions；　can　be　fairly　doubted　by　those

who　are　willing　to　allow　that　a　considerable　change　and　growth　may　have

taken　place　in　his　philosophy　（see　above）。　　That　twentieth　debatable

portion　scarcely　in　any　degree　affects　our　judgment　of　Plato；　either　as　a

thinker　or　a　writer；　and　though　suggesting　some　interesting　questions　to

the　scholar　and　critic；　is　of　little　importance　to　the　general　reader。





LESSER　HIPPIAS



by



Plato　（see　Appendix　I　above）



Translated　by　Benjamin　Jowett



INTRODUCTION。



The　Lesser　Hippias　may　be　compared　with　the　earlier　dialogues　of　Plato；　in

which　the　contrast　of　Socrates　and　the　Sophists　is　most　strongly　exhibited。

Hippias；　like　Protagoras　and　Gorgias；　though　civil；　is　vain　and　boastful：　

he　knows　all　things；　he　can　make　anything；　including　his　own　clothes；　he　is

a　manufacturer　of　poems　and　declamations；　and　also　of　seal…rings；　shoes；

strigils；　his　girdle；　which　he　has　woven　himself；　is　of　a　finer　than

Persian　quality。　　He　is　a　vainer；　lighter　nature　than　the　two　great

Sophists　（compare　Protag。）；　but　of　the　same　character　with　them；　and

equally　impatient　of　the　short　cut…and…thrust　method　of　Socrates；　whom　he

endeavours　to　draw　into　a　long　oration。　　At　last；　he　gets　tired　of　being

defeated　at　every　point　by　Socrates；　and　is　with　difficulty　induced　to

proceed　（compare　Thrasymachus；　Protagoras；　Callicles；　and　others；　to　whom

the　same　reluctance　is　ascribed）。



Hippias　like　Protagoras　has　common　sense　on　his　side；　when　he　argues；

citing　passages　of　the　Iliad　in　support　of　his　view；　that　Homer　intended

Achilles　to　be　the　bravest；　Odysseus　the　wisest　of　the　Greeks。　　But　he　is

easily　overthrown　by　the　superior　dialectics　of　Socrates；　who　pretends　to

show　that　Achilles　is　not　true　to　his　word；　and　that　no　similar

inconsistency　is　to　be　found　in　Odysseus。　　Hippias　replies　that　Achilles

unintentionally；　but　Odysseus　intentionally；　speaks　falsehood。　　But　is　it

better　to　do　wrong　intentionally　or　unintentionally？　　Socrates；　relying　on

the　analogy　of　the　arts；　maintains　the　former；　Hippias　the　latter　of　the

two　alternatives。。。All　this　is　quite　conceived　in　the　spirit　of　Plato；　who

is　very　far　from　making　Socrates　always　argue　on　the　side　of　truth。　　The

over…reasoning　on　Homer；　which　is　of　course　satirical；　is　also　in　the

spirit　of　Plato。　　Poetry　turned　logic　is　even　more　ridiculous　than

'rhetoric　turned　logic；'　and　equally　fallacious。　　There　were　reasoners　in

ancient　as　well　as　in　modern　times；　who　could　never　receive　the　natural

impression　of　Homer；　or　of　any　other　book　which　they　read。　　The　argument　of

Socrates；　in　which　he　picks　out　the　apparent　inconsistencies　and

discrepancies　in　the　speech　and　actions　of　Achilles；　and　the　final　paradox；

'that　he　who　is　true　is　also　false；'　remind　us　of　the　interpretation　by

Socrates　of　Simonides　in　the　Protagoras；　and　of　similar　reasonings　in　the

first　book　of　the　Republic。　　The　discrepancies　which　Socrates　discovers　in

the　words　of　Achilles　are　perhaps　as　great　as　those　discovered　by　some　of

the　modern　separatists　of　the　Homeric　poems。。。



At　last；　Socrates　having　caught　Hippias　in　the　toils　of　the　voluntary　and

involuntary；　is　obliged　to　confess　that　he　is　wandering　about　in　the　same

labyrinth；　he　makes　the　reflection　on　himself　which　others　would　make　upon

him　（compare　Protagoras）。　　He　does　not　wonder　that　he　should　be　in　a

difficulty；　but　he　wonders　at　Hippias；　and　he　becomes　sensible　of　the

gravity　of　the　situation；　when　ordinary　men　like　himself　can　no　longer　go

to　the　wise　and　be　taught　by　them。



It　may　be　remarked　as　bearing　on　the　genuineness　of　this　dialogue：　　（1）

that　the　manners　of　the　speakers　are　less　subtle　and　refined　than　in　the

other　dialogues　of　Plato；　（2）　that　the　sophistry　of　Socrates　is　more

palpable　and　unblushing；　and　also　more　unmeaning；　（3）　that　many　turns　of

thought　and　style　are　found　in　it　which　appear　also　in　the　other

dialogues：whether　resemblances　of　this　kind　tell　in　favour　of　or　against

the　genuineness　of　an　ancient　writing；　is　an　important　question　which　will

have　to　be　answered　differently　in　different　cases。　　For　that　a　writer　may

repeat　himself　is　as　true　as　that　a　forger　may　imitate；　and　Plato

elsewhere；　either　of　set　purpose　or　from　forgetfulness；　is　full　of

repetitions。　　The　parallelisms　of　the　Lesser　Hippias；　as　already　remarked；

are　not　of　the　kind　which　necessarily　imply　that　the　dialogue　is　the　work

of　a　forger。　　The　parallelisms　of　the　Greater　Hippias　with　the　other

dialogues；　and　the　allusion　to　the　Lesser　（where　Hippias　sketches　the

programme　of　his　next　lecture；　and　invites　Socrates　to　attend　and　bring　any

friends　with　him　who　may　be　competent　judges）；　are　more　than　suspicious：

they　are　of　a　very　poor　sort；　such　as　we　cannot　suppose　to　have　been　due　to

Plato　himself。　　The　Greater　Hippias　more　resembles　the　Euthydemus　than　any

other　dialogue；　but　is　immeasurably　inferior　to　it。　　The　Lesser　Hippias

seems　to　have　more　merit　than　the　Greater；　and　to　be　more　Platonic　in

spirit。　　The　character　of　Hippias　is　the　same　in　both　dialogues；　but　his

vanity　and　boasting　are　even　more　exaggerated　in　the　Greater　Hippias。　　His

art　of　memory　is　specially　mentioned　in　both。　　He　is　an　inferior　type　of

the　same　species　as　Hippodamus　of　Miletus　（Arist。　Pol。）。　　Some　passages　in

which　the　Lesser　Hippias　may　be　advantageously　compared　with　the

undoubtedly　genuine　dialogues　of　Plato　are　the　following：Less。　Hipp。：　

compare　Republic　（Socrates'　cunning　in　argument）：　　compare　Laches

（Socrates'　feeling　about　arguments）：　　compare　Republic　（Socrates　not

unthankful）：　　compare　Republic　（Soc