a8 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

THE GORGIAS
E. R. D O D D S : Plato, Gorgias. A revised text with introduction and com-
mentary. Pp. v i + 4 0 6 . Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1959. Cloth, 45J. net.
As was to be expected, this is an excellent edition—thorough, yet lucid and
concise.
About half the introduction is devoted to the evidence for the text, which
badly needed re-examination. Professor Dodds has re-collated F (Vind. suppl.
gr. 39, not suppl. phil. gr.), as well as W, for the Gorgias, and gives reasons for
believing that F results from the transliteration, in the late thirteenth century,
of an uncial papyrus codex of the kind manufactured in quantity in and after
the third century A.D. Often F alone is obviously right, but an editor's difficulty
is 'whether to accept or reject the numerous more or less indifferent variants
which F offers'. Some of these are shown to be old by their appearance in papyri
or 'the indirect tradition'. But to say, for example, that AajSetp at 448 a 5 and
fioi at 482 c 4 are 'confirmed' by Olympiodorus is perhaps misleading, for
(a) 'the indirect tradition' is a misnomer, since there are serious differences (in
the Republic at least) between the readings of our testimonia (Stuart Jones, C.R.
xvi [1902], 389); (b) 'it is pedigree, and not age, that counts' (Adam, C.R. xvi
[ 1902], 217), and though F differs from each of our testimonia more often than
it agrees (Stuart Jones, loc. cit., p. 390), it seems to be of a relatively 'popular'
character; and (c) even when F is supported by papyri or testimonia, it can be
wrong (e.g. 507 e 4, 508 c 7). Hence Dodds is probably right, when in doubt,
to follow BTW. Dodds also argues cogently that the importance of the Flor-V-J
group has been overrated by Theiler, and that of Y by the Bud£ editors. But
there seems to be a contradiction regarding the scholia vetera in B: on p. 36
these are said to be 'written in an early hand, which could be that of Arethas
himself in later life', but on p. 60, while the Arethae scholia are said to have
been entered in B 'by the hand of Arethas', we are told that 'the other and
larger set [presumably the scholia vetera] were subsequently added to B by
another hand'. (On p. 39 there is reference to 'those [? scholia or 'old' scholia]
of T and B 2 ': on p. 36 B 2 was apparently Arethas.) Dodds is the first editor to
utilize all four Gorgias papyri.
There is naturally not much scope for novel emendation, but Dodds's
irpoo<f>epei <i}> a irpoa<f>epei at 465 a 4 and his insertion of fj at 465 b 3 and of
ov at 517 e 2 are attractive, and he is almost certainly right in deleting nepl
O(6(W.TOS •jr/oay/xaretav at 518 a 3, and attributing OieaOal ye XPV to Socrates
(without transposing these words) at 522 a 9. At 491 a 4 I am far from con-
vinced that he is right to insert an extra rlvoiv (making two questions instead of
one), for to understand early -rjyuv 6 Xoyos out of the preceding <Ls irepl TOVTCJV
•qfiiv ovra TOV Xoyoy seems decidedly awkward; and the irepl rivwv of the manu-
scripts (to be taken with irXeov e\ei.v) is better than TIVWV alone, which might at
first sight look like a genitive of comparison to be taken with one or other of
the comparatives that follow. And at 493 b 2 I am not convinced that avrov
cannot refer Kara avveaw to t/ivxfjs. In his note on 451 b 3, Dodds says that
arithmetic is 'one of the arts which deal with the even and the odd', and that its
differentia is that 'it deals with the even and the odd irrespective of quantity
("whatever number there may be of each")', and he suspects a lacuna because
the differentia appears to be included in the genus. But the whole expression

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Newcastle University, on 22 Jul 2017 at 13:01:11, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009840X00210196
 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 29
T&V nepl TO dpTiov . . . rvyxavr) ovra may be taken as describing the genus, for
oaa av KTX. seems naturally to mean not 'irrespective of quantity' but 'all the
odd and even numbers that there are', (yv&ais is probably a gloss intended to
suggest that the genus is the art of recognizing how many odd and even numbers
there are.) Within this class is AoyioTi/oy, which is concerned with the relations
between numbers, and apiOfi-qTucq, which (by implication) is not.
In his apparatus criticus Dodds attributes TVXQ at 511 e I and the excising
of •n-dju.iroAu . . . evepyealas to the corrector of Par (Par 2 ). Despite the pale ink
(for which cf. €irpd£a.To in the previous line of the manuscript, in the same hand
as inpdgaTo a few lines below), I believe this to be due to the bolder hand of the
original scribe.
Dodds well discusses the interlacing of the two themes, pryropucfi and e«5S<u-
ixovla, and in a section on 'Plato and Athens' (I. iv—why not immediately
after I. i ?) shows that the Gorgias was Plato's apologia pro vita sua. In an
appendix comparing Nietzsche's doctrines with those of Callicles he remarks that
the control of propaganda in a democracy and the re-establishment of moral
standards are still central problems in the twentieth century. Dodds places the
Gorgias after Plato's visit to Sicily, before the Meno: the Menexenus, he suggests,
was designed as an afterpiece to the Gorgias, which may therefore be dated
about 387-385. I query only details. (1) Is the use of m'oris rather than Sd£a
evidence for the priority of Gorgias to Meno (p. 23) ? mart? could be used simply
because of Gorgias' belief in ireiBui: and cf. Tim. 29 c 3, where irums reappears.
Isocrates contra soph. 8 seems to imply that the 8ola-e7n.onjju.17 contrast was
stressed by Socratics as early as about 390 B.G. (cf. Dodds himself, p. 27).
(ii) The ao^>6s from whom Socrates professes to have 'heard' about the sieve
and leaky jar (492 d 1-493 d 4)> though admirably discussed on pp. 297-8, is
in the introduction metamorphosed without comment into 'an anonymous Py-
thagorean text' (pp. 26-27). Plato might have been orally informed, (iii) Should
we assume that the Socrates of the Protagoras 'can prove that "virtue is
knowledge" only on a hedonist assumption' (p. 21, italics mine) ? (iv) I would
hesitate to describe Socrates' language about Athenian statesmen in the Meno
even as 'more tactful' (p. 29) than that of the Gorgias. Even Anytus sees that
there is irony (though he may not fully understand it): hence his complaint
that Socrates vilifies eminent men (94 e). Socrates' remarks, like the laudatory
references in the Menexenus, are sheer mockery.
In discussing the characters, Dodds suggests that Gorgias was not a sophist
(in the narrow sense) and not seriously interested in philosophy. But (i) Callicles
does not say, in Gorgias' presence, 'that sophists are' 'worthless people" (520 a 1)',
only that those who profess to teach aperf are—and Gorgias himself ridiculed
them, (ii) Asked at Meno 95 c whether he thinks that the sophists teach dperq,
Meno replies that Gorgias does not claim to do so; in fact, Gorgias ridicules
'the others' for making such a claim, (iii) What is the oojtla which Gorgias is
(ironically) alleged to have imparted to the Thessalians, and of which there is
such a dearth at Athens that no one could say whether ape-rrj is teachable (Meno
70D-71 a)? (iv) Presumably the questions that Gorgias offered to answer
(447 c, Meno 70 c) were not limited to the subject of rhetoric, (v) Meno 76 c
(on Empedoclean 'pores'), the 'proof about 'what-is-not' (even if only a joke),
and the treatment of causation in his Helen suggest that Gorgias at least talked
about matters that concerned sophists.
Interesting notes include those at 455 e 6 (on the Athenian 'middle' wall),

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Newcastle University, on 22 Jul 2017 at 13:01:11, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009840X00210196
 30 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW
470 c 9-471 d 2 (on Archelaus), 511 e 1 (on the purchasing power of the
drachma), 525 b 1-526 d 2 (post-mortem punishment as a deterrent implies
the doctrine of rebirth). At 474 c 4-476 a 2 (doing wrong is less o^>4Xi.fwv and
therefore worse than suffering it) Dodds points out a fallacy: w<f>i\iixov can
mean useful for the community, or useful for the agent. But perhaps Socrates
is simply denying the ultimate validity of such a distinction, just as in playing
on eS Trpdrreiv in a 'proof at 507 a 4-c 7 he may intend to suggest that the two
senses ('fare well' and 'do good') amount to much the same thing. Cf. 476 a—
477 a (it is w^ehfiov and ayaJBov for a man to be justly punished) and Meno
77 b f. (no one desires KO.K6. [harmful even to the doer]). At 492 d 1-493 d 4
Dodds is probably right in regarding the a<xf>6s from whom Socrates professes
to have heard the Myth of the Water-carriers as a Pythagorean, but I doubt
whether the ao<f>oL of Meno 81 a should be identified 'with confidence' as
Pythagoreans and used as an analogy; and Plato can use ao<j>ol in allusion to
others (cf. Symp. 185 c). In a valuable discussion of the Myth of Judgement
(523 a f.), Dodds finds that some elements are probably Pythagorean, some
traditional, but much is Plato's invention. Certainly Plato is not 'simply re-
producing an Orphic Kardpouns'. But why should the doctrine of Purgatory be
'a Pythagorean invention' just because the Greek Purgatory prepared its
victims for a return to earth (p. 375) ? We cannot assume that Pythagoreans
monopolized belief in reincarnation.
Misprints: p. 101 line 1 read avru>, line 4 e'oriv, p. 243 last line 'personal',
p. 303 line 33 '485 e 3'. P. 362 penultimate line add a comma after the bracket;
delete comma p. 49 line 10.
University of Manchester R. S. BLUCK

PLATO AS AN HISTORIAN
RAYMOND W E I L : VArchdologie' de Platon. (Etudes et Commentaires,
xxxii.) Pp. 171. Paris: Klincksieck, 1959. Paper, 18 fir.
THIS is a study of Plato's version of the history of Greece from early times
presented in Laws iii and iv. 706 a-707 d. It is in the form of a detailed com-
mentary on the text, preceded by an introduction of some fifty pages. There is
a bibliography and a table of contents but no index. The author is not concerned
with Plato's concept of history as such, nor with Plato as an historian of philo-
sophy, but only with Plato as an historian of Greece, and the commentary aims
at combining a philosophical with an historical and philological approach.
References to historical events are reasonably frequent throughout the
dialogues and a number of the myths are cast in pseudo-historical form. In
fact, as Weil points out, Plato shows himself very well acquainted with the
methods of historical criticism and he is always ready to use or parody them as
suits his purpose. None the less, although he won the approval of Polybius, he
is usually regarded as a bad historian, and this primarily for two reasons—the
truth he is seeking is philosophic truth and not the truth of historical occurrence
in time, and, perhaps in consequence, he seems incurably frivolous in his treat-
ment of historical events, ever ready to mix fiction with truth and to manipulate
the record to suit his purpose. Weil would not dissent from this judgement, but
he claims that the importance of history increased in Plato's eyes as he grew

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Newcastle University, on 22 Jul 2017 at 13:01:11, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009840X00210196