Irwin, The Inside Story of the Seventh Platonic Letter

7/24/2019 Irwin, The Inside Story of the Seventh Platonic Letter

1/34

HE INSIDE SORY OF HE SEVENH PLAONICLEER: A SCEPICAL INRODUCION

Terence H. Irwin

1. Te possible significance of the Letter

Tis paper is a revised version o an introduction to a Portuguese translationo the Seventh Letter ascribed to Plato.1It retains its introductory character.It is not intended to be a scholarly treatment o the vexed questions thathave received many book-length treatments, and it does not proess to sayanything new on these questions.2

I originally wrote it because I was in the position o many studentso Plato who are curious about the Letter and unsure what to do with it.

Sitting on the ence is not a reasonable option. For i the Letter is genuine,it may be too important to be ignored. I it is spurious, it may not deservethe important place it occupies in some presentations o Plato. Differentwriters on Plato take different views on the authorship o the Letter, but donot always explain their views.3 I have no idea what the current majorityopinion is among students o Plato, or (more important) among those whohave examined the authenticity o the Letter careully.

1

Ed. J. rinidade Santos, Edipuc, Rio, 2008. I reer to the Letter, with initial capital,and reer to the author as Plato, without pre-judging questions o authorship. 2 I have received helpul comments rom Istvn Bodnr. I am grateul or the

encouragement o Myles Burnyeat. 3 See, e.g., Kahn (1996), 48n: I have no doubt that the letter was written by Plato.

Most twentieth-century Plato scholars have recognized the letter as authentic,but in the last generation the doubters were more conspicuous. Te communisopinioseems now to be swinging back in avour o authenticity. See also Knabe(2006), 6: Heute ist die Tese von der Authentizitt des 7. Briees communisopinio. He cites Reale and Szlezk. On the other side, Rowe (2007) assumes thatthe letter is spurious, without giving arguments.

VI.2 2009, 127160


2/34

128 ERENCE H. IRWIN

I Plato wrote the Letter, it may be extremely important, or thesereasons:

1. It presents Plato avowedly speaking in his own voice, in contrast tothe dialogues, where Plato does not openly appear as a character. And itpresents him speaking on topics that he does not discuss in the dialogues.

2. Apart rom the Letter, we have very little reliable material or a Lie oPlato. Ancient biographies are ofen tissues o gossip, scurrility, and legend,ofen constructed rom the authors works. Most o the biographical materialon Plato ollows this pattern.4Te Letter may be a crucial exception, i Platowrote it; or in 324326 he describes not only some episodes rom his lie,including the trial and death o Socrates, but also his attitudes to them. He

offers a partial intellectual autobiography that we may use to supplement, andperhaps even to correct, the picture we might derive rom the dialogues. Anintellectual biography o a modern author allows us to trace the developmento his thought in connexion with events in his lie. Te Letter seems to offer usan opportunity to do this or Plato.5Understandably, then, modern attemptsat biography o Plato rely heavily on the Letter.6

3. In the Letter we discover a side o Plato as political thinker that we donot find in the dialogues. Te Republic, Statesman, and Lawsconstruct utopiasand criticize the government and outlook o actual states. It is not clear howthese theoretical discussions are to be applied to political issues that Greek

cities aced in Platos own time. Te Letter, however, offers specific politicaladvice or a particular situation. We might hope that it will be illuminating tocompare Platos practical political advice with his political theory.

4 Riginos (1976) collects the ancient sources on Platos lie. Te evidence is treatedsceptically by Boas (1948). Bluck replies in Bluck (1949).

5 Te claims o Kahn (1996), 48, illustrate the importance o the Letter or

Platonic intellectual biography: In the case o ancient authors we are generallywithout any serious documentation concerning the personal context o theirliterary work. For Plato, however, there is one exception. His Seventh Epistleoffers a brie sketch o his early lie, rom the vantage point o his old age. AsDodds and others have recognized, this account is most plausibly read as Platosown sel-portrayal o the events that led to the composition o the Gorgias. Teletter gives us a picture o Platos concerns in the 390s that seems quite differentrom the preoccupation with the theory and teaching o virtue that we find inthe Protagorasand the dialogues o definition.

6 An account o Platos lie, relying on the Letter, may be ound in, e.g., Guthrie(1975), ch. 2.


3/34

129HE INSIDE SORY OF HE SEVENH PLAONIC LEER

4. Te philosophical section o the Letter may be no less important.ogether with a short passage in the Phaedrus, the Letter has been taken to

provide crucial evidence on Platos attitude to his own dialogues, and to writingin general. We have ancient evidence suggesting that Platos oral teaching wasnot entirely reproduced in the dialogues. One explanation offered by somemodern writers or this difference between oral and written appeals to theinadequacy o written compositions or conveying philosophical insight.7Te Letter is ofen supposed to confirm this explanation.

I Plato wrote the Letter, it may deserve the close attention o everyreader o his dialogues. I he did not write it, it may still be historically andphilosophically significant. But its significance is different i we believe it is

not by Plato.

2. Does authenticity matter?

One popular but questionable approach to the Letter takes no stand onits authenticity, but uses it as i it gave reliable biographical, historical, andphilosophical inormation. Some deend this approach on the ground thatthe writer o the Letter, even i he is not Plato, is well inormed, and thereoreto be trusted on the points on which he is the only source.8Tis approachseems to take too much on blind aith. I the author is not Plato, and he is

the only source or some ostensible inormation about Plato, how can we tellwhether he is reliable on these points? We can answer this question only iwe orm some views about his aims and intentions.

But it is equally necessary to examine the aims and intentions o theLetter i we think Plato wrote it. An authentic letter gives us acts about Platoslie and thought only to the extent that Plato tells the truth about himsel. Ithe aim o the Letter requires him to misrepresent his lie or his views, we

7

A brie and sensible discussion o Platos oral teaching: R. Krauts Introductionin Kraut (1992), 2024. 8 Brunt (1993), 31925, takes the Letter to be probably the work o a disciple

i not o Plato, and thereore proceeds on the basis that the letter is at leasttrue to his own recollections and provides insight into his mentality (325).Similarly, Nails (2006), 3: Te letters authenticity was once much discussed,but even its detractors concede that its author, i not Plato, was an intimateo the philosopher with first-hand knowledge o the events reported. On thisbasis Nails gives the Letter an important place in her account o Platos lie. Sheollows it, or instance, in saying that he imagined or himsel a lie in publicaffairs.


4/34

130 ERENCE H. IRWIN

cannot use it as reliable evidence. Students o the Attic orators recognize thatwe need to be cautious about believing what an orator says, and that we need

to consider what he is arguing or, and how likely it is that his audience coulddetect any lies he might tell. I the Letter is relevantly similar to a orensicspeech, we may have to treat it with similar caution.

I, then, we are interested in the Letter because we would like to knowmore about Platos lie and philosophy, the question o veracity and reliabilityis more important than the question about authenticity. I will thereorediscuss both the authenticity and the veracity o the Letter, to see which othe many arguments that have been offered might be persuasive, and whatconclusions they might support. Perhaps this brie and imperect treatment

o the problem will stimulate others to reconsider the main questions.

3. Some inconclusive considerations

Decisions about the Letter are difficult because some o the considerationsthat might seem to be helpul or settling questions about authorship turnout to be unhelpul in this case.

Te Letter is not mentioned by any ancient source beore Cicero,nearly three centuries afer the ostensible date o writing.9Hence we lackearly evidence o its being treated as genuine. Aristotles apparent ignorance

o the Letter is especially surprising. He describes Plato as someone whohas not taken part at all in practical efforts at political reorm.10He showsno knowledge o Platos intervention in Syracusan politics.11 Tough hementions Dions conflict with Dionysius, he never seems to allude to Platosletters.12But these silences do not prove inauthenticity.

9 Morrow (1935), 3237, argues that the 4th-century Sicilian historian imaeus

(whose works are lost) probably used Letters VIIVIII. His argument istenuous. C. Westlake (1994), 694. arrant (1983) argues that the philosophicaldigression was not known to Plutarch (who used other parts o the Letter in hislie o Dion), and that knowledge o it is not clearly attested beore the secondhal o the first century CE.

10 Politics1273b2730. One might perhaps argue that Aristotle implies only thatPlato never held any political office.

11 See Gulley (1972), 11012. Aristotles silence may also count against thehistoricity o the narrative in the Letter.

12 Politics1312a47, 3338, b1617. C. Rhetoric1373a1821 (contrast with Platosdenunciation o Callippus perfidy, 334).


5/34


Te linguistic and stylistic tests that have been used to fix the order othe dialogues do not show the Letter to be authentic.13o decide whether

they show it is authentic, we need to ask whether a skilul imitator couldwrite something that we cannot distinguish, on linguistic grounds, rom agenuine work.14Tis question is difficult to settle, because it is difficult toknow how ar different stylistic eatures might result rom conscious choice,even i they are not themselves consciously chosen. Te stylistic similaritybetween the Letter and the dialogues assures us that the author was not anunskilul orger. I he was not Plato, he must have been sufficiently immersedin Platos style to be able to reproduce it aithully, and so he must havewanted to represent the Letter as Platos, rather than simply something that

Plato might have written on this occasion. I, then, the Platonic style o theLetter may result rom conscious imitation by a skilul imitator, we cannotsettle the issue about authenticity by appeal to language and style. We mustalso consider the content, both historical and philosophical.

Te historical study o the Letter reveals no errors (e.g. anachronisms)that are inconsistent with authenticity. We cannot compare the Letter withany detailed and reliable account o Syracusan history compiled rom well-inormed and trustworthy sources.15Te main extant sources are DiodorusHistory, Neposs Lie o Dion, and Plutarchs Lives o Dion and imoleon. I weare to use these sources to compile an account o Syracusan history, we must

try to decide how ar they use earlier sources that are closer to the events, andhow reliable these earlier sources might be. Our task is complicated by theact that some o our extant sources (or their sources) rely on the Letter asa contemporary source; hence, it may actually have influenced the historicalaccount on the basis o which we seek to evaluate it.

13 See Brandwood (1992), see especially 112, on the Letter, and c. Brandwood(1990), 241n. Ledger (1989), 14851, deends the authenticity o the Letter.

14

It is instructive to compare stylistic arguments about Plato with Doversdiscussion o questions about the speeches ascribed to Lysias, in Dover (1968),esp. chs. 67. Tough the problems raised by the Lysianic Corpus are in manyways quite different rom those raised by the Platonic Corpus, Dovers cautiousconclusions about the use o stylistic arguments to determine authorship arerelevant to Plato. C. Ledger (1989), 93, who mentions the possibility thatimitative writing can ool the computer, or the statistical method (though heargues against this possibility or the Letter). An interesting comparison withanother author is provided by Griffith (1977).

15 A brie discussion o the historical aspects o the Letter is Finley (1977), ch. 6, at7680. Fuller discussions are Morrow (1935); Westlake (1994); Brunt (1993), ch. 10.


6/34

132 ERENCE H. IRWIN

In any case, no one has managed to find a historical error o the sortthat would expose the Letter as the work o an ignorant orger who did

not know the history o Syracuse. Tis conclusion disposes o one possibleargument or inauthenticity. It does not prove authenticity, but it at leastproves that i the author was not Plato, it was probably someone who waswell inormed about the events in which Plato was involved. Te absence oevident historical errors may make us less inclined to believe that the authoris a much later writer engaged in a rhetorical exercise (What would Platohave said and done i he had gone to Syracuse?) or in the composition o acollection o orged letters. Nothing suggests that the letter was not writtenclose to the time it describes.

We must, thereore, examine the contents o the Letter and comparethem with what we can reasonably ascribe to Plato. Similarity to the rest othe Platonic Corpus does not prove authenticity, and difference rom the resto the Corpus does not prove spuriousness. An intelligent and well-inormedorger might try hard to avoid any departures rom the Platonic outlook;Plato himsel, however, had no such reason to avoid saying somethingdifferent rom what he said in the dialogues. Hence, many arguments romcomparisons with the dialogues are double-edged. We need to find un-Platonic eatures o the Letter that are unlikely to be Platos own work; but itis difficult to decide what eatures satisy this condition.

4. Te point of the Letter

Te ostensible purpose o the Letter, to answer the request o Dions riendsor advice, is carried out briefly in a short section (at 334); but evenwhile Plato is giving this advice, he is recalling his past relations with Dionand Dionysius. Most o the Letter is a deence o Platos past behaviour thatmay initially seem rather remote rom the immediate occasion.

We can see the point o the Letter i we distinguish public acts, generally

known to people on both sides o the conflict between Dionysius and Dion,and an inside story o private acts known only to the participants inspecific conversations and discussions. Te Letter is a systematic effort to re-interpret the admitted public acts by telling an inside story that places thesepublic acts in the context o alleged private acts.

Among the public acts that Plato acknowledges are these: (1) Hediscouraged Dion rom immediately enlisting Dionysius in Dions politicalprogramme. (2) He remained in Syracuse afer Dionysius had expelled Dion.(3) He accepted Dionysius invitation to return to Syracuse (or the thirdvisit), even though Dion had not been recalled rom exile. (4) He remained


7/34


in Syracuse even when Dionysius had shown hostility to Dion by denyinghim the income rom his property. (5) Plato and Dionysius were generally

supposed to be riends. (6) Dionysius engaged in philosophical studies withPlato, and gave an accurate written account o the views normally ascribedto Plato. (7) Plato reused to join Dions expedition against Syracuse (aferPlatos third visit), and reused to express any open disapproval o Dionysius.(8) Te assassin o Dion was Callippus, a member o the Academy.

From these admitted public acts one might readily draw someconclusions: (a) Plato was always on good terms with Dionysius and did notobject to his treatment o Dion. (b) He did not approve o Dions activities.(c) Since Dion had been associated with the Academy, but was also murdered

by a member o the Academy, Plato had in effect betrayed one o his studentsand associates. Dions supporters might be expected to regard these as seriouscharges against Plato.

Troughout the Letter Plato answers the three charges implicit in theseconclusions, He maintains that he has been loyal to Dion, and has alwaysgiven the same political advice both to him and to Dionysius. He repudiatesthe Athenian riends o Dion who later plotted against him. Tough he admitsthat he visited Syracuse (or the third time) beore Dion had been recalled,he insists that he always tried in private to secure Dions recall. He deniesthat Dionysius and he were intellectual associates to any significant degree.

Tough he does not point to any inaccuracy in Dionysius account o Platosviews (i that was what Dionysius wrote about), he claims that the very actthat Dionysius tried to put Platos philosophy in writing shows that he didnot understand it.

And so, even i we confine ourselves to the Letter, we can see that thepublic acts o Platos dealings with Dionysius and Dion suggest a quitedifferent story rom the inside story that the Letter presents. Te Letterdeends Plato against the charge that he had avoured Dionysius and opposedDion.

Later sources mention sharp attacks on Platos conduct and motivesduring his visits to Syracuse.16Te Letter suggests that these attacks mayhave begun during Platos lietime or (i the Letter is spurious) shortlyaferwards. It tries to answer the supporters o Dion who accused Plato odisloyalty towards Dion. Te narrative makes it clear why such accusationsmight have seemed plausible. Te account o Platos actions and motives tries

16 See Riginos (1976), 72.


8/34

134 ERENCE H. IRWIN

to answer the accusations; Plato did his best behind the scenes and by quietdiplomacy.

Te longest apparent digression is the discussion o philosophicalknowledge and the impossibility o discursive expression o it. From thiswe can iner as I suggested in (6) above that Dionysius account o Platodid not conclude any obvious inaccuracies that could readily be cited asevidence o his ignorance. I, or instance, Dionysius had written that Platotook knowledge to be perception, or supposed that sensible things are alwayschanging in every respect, Plato could have pointed out that Dionysius hadmisread the Teaetetus, and had ascribed to Plato the view that Plato wasarguing against. I Dionysius had made a specific error o this sort, Plato

would have strengthened his case by pointing it out. Since he mentions nosuch specific error, we can reasonably iner that here too the public actscounted against the position taken in the Letter. Since the public acts do nothelp him, Plato needs a more elaborate argument rom the spirit o Platonicphilosophy to show that Dionysius did not understand him and thereorecould not have been a close associate. Te argument fits the apologeticpurpose o the Letter, and, given this purpose, it is not a digression at all.

I we read a speech by a deending counsel, and we have no independentaccess to the acts, we can still orm a plausible view about what the accusedwas accused o, i the speech admits, and tries to answer, points that tend to

incriminate the accused. Similarly, we can estimate rom Platos deence theadmitted acts that that he needs to answer. Since the stories about him aredamaging, he would have every reason to deny them i he thought that adenial would be credible. Since he does not deny them, they were either trueor at least generally accepted.

5. Te Academy and Syracusan politics

Can we estimate the veracity o Platos version o events? I the Letter

conflicts with other sources, it does not ollow that we should believe theother sources and reject the Letter. Still, a comparison is useul, since someconflicts may arouse reasonable suspicion.

Te Letter diverges rom other sources is its portrayal o Dion. Inthe Letter, he is the innocent victim o Dionysius unjustified suspicions.Dionysius expulsion o Dion is described vaguely as the result o accusationsthat Dion was plotting against Dionysius (329). Plutarch, however, mentionsthat Dionysius had obtained a letter written by Dion to Carthaginianambassadors, promising to help them get what they wanted in negotiationswith Dionysius (Dion14.3). I the story in Plutarch is true, Dion was hardly


9/34


an innocent victim. Later, when Plato (during his last visit) was trying topersuade Dionysius to recall Dion rom exile, Dionysius responded by

preventing Dion rom using the income rom his property (345). In theLetter this is unwarranted malevolence on Dionysius part. According toPlutarch, however, Speusippus came to Syracuse with Plato, and tried to stirup popular opinion in avour o a rebellion led by Dion (Dion22.13). Diongave Speusippus his country house in Attica (Dion17.2), and Speusippus keptin close touch with Dions expedition to expel Dionysius. He received lettersrom imonides, a supporter o Dion (Dion35.4). I Dionysius believed thatDion and Speusippus were plotting against him, his decision to prevent Dionrom using the income o his property (which Dion would have used to pay

or mercenary soldiers to join his expedition against Syracuse) is deensible.Te Letter omits these details about Dion and Speusippus. Tey presenta less avourable picture o Dion than we find in the Letter, and they suggestthat some members o the Academy were partisans o Dion. But not allmembers o the Academy supported Dion; one member, Callippus, was hisassassin, as the Letter acknowledges. Tis difference o opinion in the Academymatches the difference between the public and the private acts mentionedin the Letter. Te public acts the basis o the accusations that Plato tries toanswer make him at least indifferent, and at most unriendly, to Dion. Teinside story claims to reveal the private acts make him a supporter always

quiet and always behind the scenes o Dion who tried to win Dionysiusover to Dion. According to the Letter, Plato reused to join any attempt tooverthrow Dionysius because he had accepted Dionysius hospitality; ratherthan take sides, he offered to mediate between Dionysius and Dion. But theault lay with Dionysius or not restoring Dions property.

Plato does not mention the activities o Dion and Speusippus that madeDionysius restrictions on Dions property an intelligible measure o sel-deence. Tese activities also make it difficult to believe that Plato could havereasonably expected Dionysius to release Dions property and thereby to

supply Dion with the resources or an attack on Dionysius. We may thereoredoubt whether Plato could seriously have offered advice that Dionysius couldnot reasonably be expected to ollow. Plato claims to have offered the advice,but he does not mention that the circumstances made it oolish or him tooffer the advice, and oolish or Dionysius to accept it.

Platos alleged actions in support o Dion were all strictly behind thescenes. Tey were efforts o quiet diplomacy that caused no open rupturewith Dionysius. It is not surprising that Plato cannot point to any publicacts that supported his version o events. Since his advice would have been


10/34

136 ERENCE H. IRWIN

misguided and pointless in the circumstances described by other sources, wemay reasonably doubt whether he is telling the truth.

Doubts about the veracity o the Letter are neutral on the questiono authorship, unless we suppose that Plato could not have abricated hisversion o events. Plato may have wanted to vindicate Dion and to representhimsel as Dions constant supporter. Still, the bias o the Letter is relevantto the question about authorship, since it suggests a motive that might haveencouraged a contemporary orger to take the trouble to abricate the Letter.We will return to this possibility once we have examined other questionsbearing on authenticity.

6. Autobiography and politicsTe Syracusan narrative suggests some questions about the sections o theLetter that might be used or Platonic biography. I the autobiographicalclaims mention public acts that would be widely known to Platos readers,or i readers could easily detect the alsity o Platos claims i they were alse,or i his admissions raise difficulties or his argument, we have good reasonto treat the autobiographical claims as reliable. But i the alleged acts arenot publicly accessible, and i Platos claim fit the apologetic purpose o theLetter, we should not treat them as reliable sources or a biography o Plato.

Te autobiographical section fits the apologetic purpose o the Letter.Plato claims that when he was in Syracuse he offered political advice, and thatindeed he went back to Syracuse or his third visit in order to give politicaladvice. Tis motive is not attested by any public act. Nor does Plato say thathis intervention in Syracuse was only to be expected, because he habituallytook an active part in politics both in Athens and in other Greek cities. Tepublic act is the exact opposite; Plato has to explain why he intervened inSyracuse when he was well known or non-intervention. Te account o hisearly lie explains his reputation or non-intervention as his reaction to the

state o political lie in Athens since the restoration o the democracy. It isthereore part o the apologetic argument o the Letter.Can we assume that the account o Platos early lie is reliable because

the intended readers could easily detect alsity? Te intended readers areSicilians, not Athenians, and Plato is writing fify years or more afer theevents he describes. We cannot saely assume that details o his early lie werewell enough known to make it utile to compose a alse story that would suitthe purpose o the Letter. Plato had something to gain rom a alse story. Tisdoes not prove that the story o his early lie is alse, but it casts reasonabledoubt on the story.


11/34


Plato traces his political convictions to their origins in his experience. Hedescribes his early ambition to take an active part in political lie (324),

and his attitude to the regime that overthrew the Athenian democracy aferthe Peloponnesian War. At first he had high hopes or the Tirty, but beorelong their lawless behaviour dashed his hopes. He mentions their attempt toimplicate Socrates in their practice o summary arrest and execution (324). Te incident that Plato reers to here matches the description given in theApology(32) o Socrates reusal to take part in the arrest o Leon.

Platos account o his political ambitions has no basis in public acts.He says he thought o (ithn, 3248) o entering politics, and that hisrelatives and riends among the regime o the Tirty encouraged him. But

he never did anything about his ambitions, because he was disillusionedwith the Tirty because o their bad behaviour, including their treatmento Socrates. Nor did he take an active part in politics afer the restorationo the democracy, because he recognized that the circumstances were notavourable (32532). He does not suggest that the death o Socrateswas the only reason or the main reason or his view. When he arrived inSyracuse he was still anxious to take an active part in politics, i only hecould find the right circumstances. Plato thereore acknowledges that hisalleged intervention in Syracuse had no precedent.

Platos inside story o his political ambitions is not inherently incredible;

it does not arouse the sorts o doubts that arise about his alleged mediationbetween Dion and Dionysius. In act, he points out that his story is inherentlyplausible. His youthul political ambitions were similar to those o manyothers (3248), and it was only to be expected that he would be hopeulabout a regime that included many o his riends, and that they would invitehim to join them (324). But he does not point to any public acts that mightsupport his story; he relies wholly on its inherent plausibility.

We have no good reason, thereore, to treat this part o the Letter asevidence or a biography o Plato. I there had been no Letter and no ancient

stories about Platos political ambitions, modern critics might still haveargued that Plato must have thought o a political career, given his ancestry,that he must have been optimistic about the Tirty, and that he must havebeen disillusioned first by the Tirty and then by the democracy. Must have(or will have) is the sign that critics are appealing to inherent probability inthe absence o specific evidence. It would be a mistake to suppose that theLetter allows us to go beyond appeals to inherent probability in this parto Platos lie. At this stage the Letter also appeals to nothing more than thereaders sense o inherent probability.


12/34

138 ERENCE H. IRWIN

Tese doubts about Platos autobiography should warn us againstconfidence in one remark that could not have been extrapolated rom

inormation about Platos relatives and rom the Apology. Plato asserts that,though he took no active part in politics, he was always on the lookout or anopportunity that might arise in avourable circumstances (32532). I thisis true, it is valuable biographical inormation. But since it is necessary orPlatos argument, we should not accept it on the strength o the Letter alone.Since Plato is trying to convince his readers that he intervened in Syracuse,even though no one knew o his ever having taken an active political roleanywhere, he needs an inside story that says he was always waiting andhoping or an opportunity. We ought not to trust the Letter on this point.

7. Socrates as a philosopher

One part o Platos account o his early lie deals with the trial and death oSocrates, whom Plato calls the most just man o his time (324). Te Phaedosays more about Socrates:

Such was the end o our comrade17, who was, we may airly say, o allthose whom we knew in our time, the best and also the wisest and justestman. (Phaedo118)

Te Letter omits any mention o Socrates virtue (indicated in best) andwisdom, and mentions only his justice.Tis omission o Socrates wisdom draws our attention to a more

surprising omission in the Letter. Plato is explaining to his Syracusan readerswho Socrates is, and what his connexion with Plato was, on the assumptionthat Socrates needs some introduction. A reader o the dialogues mightreasonably expect some reerence to the philosophical connexion betweenSocrates and Plato. Te dialogues represent Socrates as the central figurein a group o young men, including Plato. Socrates did not claim to beanyones teacher, since he claimed to have no knowledge to communicate

to others; but his philosophical inquiries inspired his companions in theirown philosophical pursuits. Te Letter says nothing about this. I this wereour only source on Platos lie, we would not gather that Socrates influencedPlatos intellectual development or philosophical outlook at all.

o explain this omission in the Letter, we might say: (1) Socratesphilosophical influence on Plato was so well known that it could saely beomitted in a short account. (2) Since the incident that Plato reports illustrates

17 hetairos, also used o Socrates in the Letter, 3251.


13/34


Socrates justice, only that eature o Socrates needs to be mentioned in thiscontext.

Tis explanation o the omission is doubtul. Plato writes on theassumption that he needs to tell his readers who Socrates is, and so onemight expect him to mention the salient acts about Socrates. A phrase suchas the man rom whom I learned to pursue philosophical inquiry wouldconvey a salient act. One might expect Plato to include it in even a briemention o Socrates.

Tough it is surprising i Plato omits any reerence to Socrates as aphilosopher, it is not surprising i a later deender o Plato omits any suchreerence. I the Letter was written close to the death o Plato in 347, and

hence well over fify years afer the death o Socrates in 399, its writer mighttreat Socrates as a remote figure to be mentioned with respect, rather thanas a significant philosopher. Some aspects o Platos later philosophy pursuedquestions quite remote rom Socrates philosophical interests. Tese aspectsespecially influenced two leading philosophers o the next generation,Speusippus and Xenocrates, who succeeded Plato as head o the Academy(in that order). We might be surprised that members o the Academy couldoverlook or minimize the philosophical significance o Socrates, i we reliedprimarily on the Platonic dialogues and on Aristotle. Aristotle, in contrastto Speusippus and Xenocrates, shares many o Socrates philosophical

interests, and, or his own philosophical purposes, finds it important todistinguish the contributions o Socrates and Plato both to metaphysics andto moral philosophy. But the act that Aristotle pays attention to Socrates asa philosopher does not show that other members o the Academy took thesame view o his importance.

One might object, however, that it is not un-Platonic to diminish thephilosophical status o Socrates. In the later dialogues he is not the dominantfigure in the discussion, and in the Laws he does not appear at all. Doesthis eature o the later dialogues not suggest that the older Plato might well

have said what the Letter says? In reply to this objection, we may cite thePhilebus. Whatever we may conjecture about the unwritten Philosopher, thePhilebusdemonstrates that the older Plato was still ready to make Socratesthe protagonist in a dialogue. I this is so, we cannot appeal to Socratesminor role in other later dialogues to show that Plato no longer thought himan important philosopher. Te treatment o Socrates in the Letter remainssurprising, i Plato wrote it.

Te silence o the Letter about Socrates as a philosopher is some evidenceo non-Platonic authorship. It does not constitute a conclusive case against


14/34

140 ERENCE H. IRWIN

authenticity, since the assumption that Plato would have reerred to this actabout Socrates, though reasonable, is not certainly correct.18

Plato now describes the restored democracy that succeeded the Tirty.He recognizes that in general the democracy displayed moderation, and that,while some people ound ways to take revenge on political enemies, thesetendencies were generally restrained. Still, he became disillusioned with thedemocracy, because o its treatment o Socrates.

some o those in power brought against this associate o mine, Socrates,whom I have mentioned, a most sacrilegious charge, which he least o allmean deserved. Tey put him on trial or impiety and the people condemnedand put to death the man who had reused to take part in the wicked arrest

o one o their riends, when they themselves were in exile and misortune.(325)

He reers to the episode in Socrates lie that provides the occasion or theApology, and he agrees with theApologyin saying that Socrates was prosecutedor impiety.

Te Letter differs rom theApology, however, on two points:(1) It says that the charge was brought by some o the powerul people

(hoi dunasteuontes). Perhaps Plato uses it to reer to an organized group(usually called a political club, hetaireia19) who were especially powerul

and influential in the restored democracy. (b) I this is what Plato means, hesuggests that Socrates accusers were members o a politically powerul group.TeApologydoes not suggest this about the three named accusers (Meletus,Anytus, and Lycon;Apology23). It represents them as three individuals whoobjected to Socrates belies and actions.

(2) It leaves out one o the charges that Socrates discusses in his sel-deence. Socrates mentions that he was accused not only o recognizingnew deities o his own invention rather than the gods o the state, but alsoo corrupting the young men, by making the weaker argument appear thestronger (Apology19, 24).

18 Te opposite conclusion on Socrates is drawn by Aalders (1972), 151. He arguesthat a orger would never have been so restrained and detached in the treatmento Socrates, but would have taken care to sound more Platonic. Tis is areasonable caution, illustrating the double-edged character o arguments aboutauthenticity. But it does not explain why Plato would, on this one occasion, ailto mention a act about Socrates that was particularly salient to Plato.

19 C. Republic365.


15/34


Te Letter, thereore, adds one point to the Apologyand subtracts onepoint rom it. How plausible are these variations?

(1) I Socrates had been prosecuted by members o a powerul politicalaction, we might expect the Apology to mention this act. I the accuserswere members o a powerul action, the jury would know this, and Socrateswould have nothing to gain by not mentioning it. On the contrary, he wouldhave something to gain by mentioning it. He could say Tese chargesare rivolous, and they have been brought only because my accusers arepowerul people who think they can intimidate you. Since Socrates orgoesthis particular deence, he probably does not believe, or at least does notsuppose the jury believes, that the accusers belong to a powerul action. Te

same point applies i we suppose that theApologyis a Platonic fiction remoterom anything Socrates said at his trial. I Socrates had been the victim oa plot by powerul people, Plato would have every reason to mention it inorder to make Socrates look better, and especially in order to explain whySocrates was convicted. Since Plato orgoes these points in Socrates avour, heprobably did not hold, at the time he wrote theApology, the view maintainedby the Letter.

(2) Te subtraction rom theApologymight be explained by the brevity othe Letter. Impiety might be taken to cover the two charges against Socrates,and hence to reer to his corrupting the young men as well as his believing

in new deities. Tis explanation is open to doubt, however. According to theApology, Socrates was prosecuted not only or his religious belie, or evenor his religious practices, but also or his philosophical activity; that is whymuch o his speech is devoted to a deence o his philosophical practice.Te Letter does not recognize that Socrates was a philosopher. I it hadrecognized this, even a ew words could have conveyed the act that Socratesphilosophy got him into trouble. Tis eature o Socrates is highly relevant tothe purpose o the Letter. Socrates trial and death shows that philosopherscan become unpopular. Te treatment o Plato by Dionysius illustrates this

point, according to the Letter. Would the example o Socrates not have beenapposite? Platos ailure to connect the treatment o Socrates by the Athenianswith Dionysius treatment o Plato is surprising.

Te presentation o Socrates raises reasonable doubts. According to theLetter, Socrates was an ordinary innocent person who, or some reason thatthe Letter does not mention, attracted the hostility o a powerul actionwho accused him o impiety. TeApology, by contrast, presents Socrates as aphilosopher who suffered or being a philosopher. Tis is such a vital part oSocrates deence that it is difficult to suppose Plato could ever have omitted


16/34

142 ERENCE H. IRWIN

it. I, then, Plato wrote the Letter, he must have changed his mind, and cometo believe that Socrates philosophical activity was not worth mentioning,

and had nothing to do with his trial and execution. Such a change o mindis possible, but the dialogues offer no evidence o it. Te act that we need toassume it i we are to deend the authenticity o the Letter may justly increaseour doubts about Platonic authorship.

Te treatment o Socrates is intelligible, however, i Plato did not writethe Letter. A younger member o the Academy might never have encounteredSocrates philosophical conversations, and might have had no first-handknowledge o what happened between 404 and 399. He might easily bemisled into speaking o a plot o powerul people against Socrates, and might

not know that Socrates philosophical activity aroused peoples hostility.Tis passage gives us a reason not only to doubt the truth o theaccount o Socrates, but also to doubt Platonic authorship. For in this caseit is difficult to argue that the Letter has anything to gain by omitting anymention o Socrates as a philosopher. Plato would not have weakened hiscase by mentioning Socrates philosophical influence on him. Te omissiono this aspect o Socrates is more likely to be the work o someone other thanPlato. But we may airly keep these grounds or suspicion in mind when weconsider other parts o the Letter.

8. Political theory and political action

I the Letter is reliable, it adds potentially valuable evidence to what we learnrom the Platonic dialogues about the conditions under which philosophersmight come to power, and what they should do in such circumstances. In theRepublicSocrates insists that the impossibility o realizing the ideal city hehas described would make no difference to the accuracy o his descriptionor to the truth o the political and moral principles he has deended. But hedescribes the minimum change that would be necessary to make the ideal

city possible: either philosophers must become kings, or the kings and rulersin cities must pursue philosophy seriously (473). Tis claim leads into thelong discussion o philosopher rulers in RepublicVVII. In the Letter Platodescribes his decision, afer the death o Socrates, to avoid political activityuntil the right time. He came to the conclusion that the right moment wouldnot arrive until the combination o philosophy and political power could beachieved (326).

Te Republicand the Letter offer the same solution (the convergence ophilosophy and political power), but they address different questions. In theRepublicthe question is: (1) How could the ideal city come into being? In


17/34


the Letter, however, the question is: (2) When should we engage in politicalactivity? Te Republics answer to the first question does not imply the

Letters answer to the second question. One will give the same answer toboth questions only i one assumes that the only reason one could have orengaging in political activity is the realistic prospect o realizing the idealcity. Te dialogues give us no reason to suppose that Plato assumes this.Hence the Letter does not express the position o the Republic, since it usesthe point about philosophers and rulers to answer a different question romthe one that normally occupies Plato. But it does not express a view that isclearly inconsistent with the dialogues.

One might suppose that we could build an argument either or or

against the authenticity o the Letter by comparing the content o thepolitical proposals that Plato endorses in the Letter with the political viewsexpressed in the dialogues. Since we have quite a lot o evidence to consider,this strategy o argument might seem promising.20

One basic flaw in the strategy, however, makes it unnecessary tocompare the political views o the Letter and the dialogues in detail. Tepolitical dialogues (Republic, Statesman, Laws) do not offer practical politicalproposals intended or application to a situation such as the one that Platoaced in Syracuse. We cannot iner, or instance, rom any avourable orunavourable attitude that Plato expresses in the dialogues towards one o

the prevalent orms o government in Greek cities that he would or wouldnot have avoured that very orm o government, in the specific conditionsdescribed in the Letter. He might well have supposed that the politicalprogramme that (he tells us) he consistently avoured or Syracuse was thebest or it at the time, however ar short it might have allen o the principleso the Republicor the Laws.

Dion wrote to Plato that this was the time to make a ruler into aphilosopher by educating Dionysius, and that Plato ought to come to educatehim (327328). Plato decided to answer Dions appeal or help, or two

reasons: (1) He was ashamed at the thought o reusing the opportunity toput his philosophy into practice (328, 329). (2) Loyalty and riendship toDion in particular required him to offer the help that Dion asked or.

Nothing in these two motives tells us anything one way or the otherabout the relation o the Letter to the dialogues. We have no reason tosuppose rom the dialogues that Plato would have ound it shameul to make

20 Arguments o this sort are used by Gulley (1972) and by Edelstein (1966), 2631, and rebutted by Aalders (1972), and Morrow (1935).


18/34

144 ERENCE H. IRWIN

no effort to put his political views into practice. Nor have we any reason todeny that this motive could have influenced him.

Tese aspects o the Letter, then, are neutral on questions o authenticity.Tey are also neutral on questions o veracity; we have no reason to deny thatPlato could have held the attitudes to political intervention that the Letterascribes to him. Still, the reasonable doubt that arises about the account oPlatos early lie arises about this section o the Letter as well. Once againPlato is trying to explain why the admitted public act o non-interventionis consistent with his allegedly political motive or going to Syracuse. Hisstory about unavourable circumstances beore the Syracusan episode andapparently avourable circumstances during the Syracusan episode is his

answer to doubts about whether he took any political position in Syracuse.Tese doubts were ounded on public acts about his previous non-intervention and about his invisibility in Syracusan politics. Plato answersthat previously he had been waiting, and that in Syracuse he had been activebehind the scenes. Since his claims about action behind the scenes are opento reasonable doubt, on the grounds given earlier, his account o previousnon-intervention is open to reasonable doubt, on the same grounds. Weare not justified, thereore, in extracting any Platonic biography rom thissection.

9. Writing about philosophy

Te philosophical section o the Letter begins rom Platos relations withDionysius during his last visit to Sicily.21Plato was persuaded to return toSyracuse partly by reports that Dionysius had made remarkable progress inhis philosophical education, and so would be receptive to instruction romPlato (339). o see how much progress Dionysius had actually made, andhow keen he was to go urther, Plato gave him one elementary lesson thatmade it clear how much remained to be done.

Tis was the extent, according to Plato, o his philosophicalcommunication with Dionysius, who claimed to be already amiliar withPlatos doctrines rom what he had heard rom others. But aferwards Platoheard that Dionysius had written a philosophical book o his own, dealingwith the subjects o that single lesson given by Plato. Since Dionysius

21 Te most helpul compact discussion o this section o the Letter is White(1976), ch. 8 (who deends the authenticity, or at least the Platonic character, othe digression).


19/34


represented the contents o the book as his original philosophical views(341), Plato thinks it opportune to deflate Dionysius pretensions.

Te attempts o Dionysius and others at writing books on Platonicphilosophy prompt Plato to make a general statement on writing aboutphilosophy.

One thing at any rate I can say about all who have written or who willwrite claiming to know the things that I take seriously (or that concern me;peri hn eg spoudaz) it is impossible, in my opinion, or these peopleto understand anything about the subject. Tere is certainly no treatise(or work; sungramma) o mine about these things, nor will there ever be.(341)

What Plato claims depends on the meaning o that I take seriously. Probablyhe means that he has never written on the subjects he takes seriously (letus call these serious subjects); that does not exclude his having written onsubjects that he does not take seriously. Te dialogues, then, would have tobe on subjects that he does not take seriously.

He now explains why he has not written about serious subjects.

or it is not expressible (or sayablerhton),22as other branches o learningare, but afer much intercourse and companionship about the subject,suddenly, as though kindled by a leaping spark, a light comes to be in the

soul and at once sustains itsel. (341)Plato does not merely say that serious subjects cannot be written about.He says they cannot be expressed at all. Tis startling thesis about theinexpressibility o serious subjects (the Inexpressibility Tesis) is meant toexplain why Plato has not written on serious subjects and why all others whoset out to write about them are wasting their time.

Now he suggests that it would be useul to say more about thephilosophical presuppositions o the Inexpressibility Tesis (342). Platostates the Tesis in order to deflate Dionysius efforts at philosophical writing.

But a mere statement o the Tesis does not vindicate Platos judgment.Dionysius evidently did not know that Plato believed the Tesis. Nor doesPlato suggest that the Tesis will already be amiliar to anyone who is amiliarwith his views, or that any reader o the Phaedrus, or instance, can see thathe holds it. His acceptance o the Tesis is similar to his attitude to politicalintervention and to his quiet diplomacy behind the scenes in Syracuse, in soar as it is an unattested aspect o Platos view that needs to be explained to

22 C. Teaetetus205.


20/34

146 ERENCE H. IRWIN

place his behaviour in the appropriately avourable light. Plato explains anddeends the Tesis in the digression. At the end o the digression he returns

to the Inexpressibility Tesis (344), and to his judgment on Dionysiusand on other philosophical writers (344345).

Te Inexpressibility Tesis is unparalleled in the dialogues, but this actalone does not prove inauthenticity, i we allow Plato to have new ideas. Wemay reasonably regard it as Platonic in spirit, i it can be deended romrecognizably Platonic doctrines.

10. Cognition and reality

o explain why ultimate philosophical insight is inexpressible, Plato situates

it in an account o the progress o inquiry towards knowledge o reality. Hisaccount distinguishes five items, which he reers to as the first, the second,etc. He distinguishes the fifh (the knowable (or known;gnston), and trulyreal) rom the ourth (knowledge), and rom three means to knowledge the first (the name), the second (the logos), and the third (the image)(342). Plato insists that the first our are all needed i we are to acquirecomplete knowledge (epistm) o the fifh (342), but they all all short othis knowledge.

Te fiveold division applies to geometrical shapes, moral properties,

bodies, elements, animals, qualities, and active and passive states (342).Platos example is the circle. He does not reer to knowledge about particularcircles; these are destructible, but their destruction does not change truthsabout the circle (342). Te various objects o knowledge seem to lack thespatio-temporal properties o particular circles or bodies or animals. PlatonicForms differ rom sensibles in being exempt rom the compresence oopposites.23Te Letter makes similar claims about the objects o knowledge(343). In these respects, then, it claims or the objects o knowledge whatthe dialogues claim or the Forms. It does not call them Forms, but it speaks

o (e.g.) the circle itsel (342).Te cognitive deficiencies o the first three o the five are easy to see. Tename itsel does not give us knowledge o the fifh, since names are unstable;we could easily have used square as our name or circles, provided that weattached to square the meaning that we currently attach to circle (343).Similarly, the mutability o the third (the image) shows that we cannot gain

23 On compresence see Phaedo 74; Republic 479; Symposium 210211;Irwin (1995), section 108.


21/34


knowledge o the fifh i we confine our attention to the third. But Platosattitude to the second, logos, is more difficult to grasp.

Further, these undertake to show what a given thing is like (poion),no less than what it is, because o the weakness o logoi. For this reason noman o intelligence will venture to put the things he has grasped by intellectinto this , and moreover into an unalterable , which is true o things written in outlines. (342343)

Tis passage repeats the Inexpressibility Tesis. Someone who understandsthe weakness o logoi will see not only that serious subjects cannot be putinto writing, but also that they cannot be put into logoiat all.

A logosseems to be a defining ormula expressed in language; hence the

logoso a circle is the thing that has everywhere equal distance between itsextremities and its centre (342). Plato argues that the instability o namesextends to logoi, because they are composed o names and predicates (342).24I this claim about instability is parallel to the claim about the instability onames, Plato means that we could substitute wrong or right, and side orangle, with appropriate assumptions about their meaning, so as to make thesides in a triangle add up to two wrong sides true.. Te two ormulae theangles in a triangle add up to two right angles and the sides in a triangle addup to two wrong sides (with appropriate assumptions about meaning) are

both true, but they are different logoi, i logoiare unstable in the way Platodescribes. Similarly, i I translate a correct definition o a triangle into Frenchor Greek, I utter a different logosin each language.

Such a conception o a logosinvites a reply. Tough the verbal changesthat Plato describes result in different verbal ormulae, these verbal ormulaenone the less express the same definition or description o a triangle; i thatwere not so, we could not translate it into another language, and we couldnot perorm the transpositions o names that Plato describes. Platos claimsabout the instability o names and verbal ormulae presuppose the stabilityo meanings and definitions.

Tis reply to claims about the instability o logoidoes not rest on un-Platonic assumptions about words and definitions. It is a mere summaryo an argument that Plato develops in detail in the Cratylus. AgainstHermogenes remarks about the mutability o names, Socrates observes thatthe realities named do not change with the names, and that someone whounderstands the realities has stable accounts o them (Cratylus385386).Tese accounts are logoi, but they are not verbal ormulae; they are what

24 On names and predicates c. Sophist262.


22/34

148 ERENCE H. IRWIN

correct verbal ormulae express.25Te Letter does not consider this Platonicreply to its claims about the instability o logos.

Apparently, then, the charge that logoiare unavoidably mutable conusestwo conceptions o logos: (1) A logosis a verbal ormula that changes to adifferent logosi any o its component words is replaced by a different wordwith the same meaning. (2) It is the common correlate o all those verbalormulae that have the same meaning. Only the first conception supportsthe claims about the mutability o logos. But the second conception seems tounderlie the description o the ourth. I Plato sticks to the second conceptionin his account o the ourth, he has not shown that logos is necessarilyinadequate to capture the essence o the fifh.

Te Platonic character o this passage cannot be deended by appeal tothe weakness o language.26o demonstrate the instability o logos, Plato needsto demonstrate the necessary instability not only o the words that ormulatea logos, but also o the logosthat they ormulate. But in this passage he ails todistinguish the instability o words rom the instability o the logoithat theyormulate. Te Cratylusmarks the distinction that the Letter ignores.

11. Inexpressibility

We might expect to find a more Platonic conception o logosin the remarks

about the ourth. Te ourth includesknowledge, understanding, and correct belie , all o which we must setdown as one more thing that is ound not in sounds nor in shapes o bodies,but in souls. In this respect it is evidently other than the nature o the circleitsel and rom the three mentioned earlier. O all these our, understandingapproaches nearest in affinity and similarity to the fifh, while the others areurther rom it. (342)

Te three terms that the Letter uses are all Platonic. It does not insist, as Platoofen does, on the differences between knowledge and correct belie (doxa),

but concentrates on their common characteristics. Te Letter recognizes that

25 C. Laws895, quoted by Harward (1932), 214, and by Morrow (1935), 68n, whodo not think it raises any difficulty or the argument o the Letter.

26 See Morrow (1935), 6971. He argues that the Letter is in ull agreement withPlatos view in the Cratylus in so ar as we can determine what that view was,instead o being, as Karsten maintains, the work o a bungling orger whoerroneously substitutes or Platos opinion the position o Hermogenes thatlanguage is purely conventional. (70n)


23/34


these items constituting the ourth are not to be identified with images ornames or verbal ormulae, and it claims that they are closer to the fifh than

the previous three were.From this description o knowledge, the Letter iners that it is not

identical to the fifh, since knowledge has some object distinct rom it. Tisis a amiliar Platonic doctrine, re-affirmed in the Parmenides (132) inresponse to criticism o the Teory o Forms. Tis eature o the Form,however, does not show that knowledge cannot give us complete insight intoits character.

Why, then, does Plato suppose that there is something inadequate aboutthe ourth? He suggests that each o the our tells us about what the object is

like, rather than what it is, about its qualities rather than its essence. Tis ailureto grasp the essence results rom the inadequacy o logos(342, 343). Hencea grasp o what the fifh is in itsel must take us beyond the first our.

Te contrast between quality and essence is Platonic. Socrates complainsthat Euthyphro has not told him what the pious is, but only a quality or affection(pathos) o it. In saying that the pious is what all the gods love, Euthyphro hassaid something true o it, but he has not grasped the undamental character othe pious that explains this act about it (Euthyphro11). But the dialoguesdo not suggest that knowledge is inherently incapable o finding the essence,and hence they do not explain why the Letter takes knowledge to suffer rom

this incapacity. Te only explicit reason that the Letter has given reers to themutability o logos. Perhaps, then, this is what the Letter means in speakingo the inadequacy o logos.

Plato adds a urther reason why the first our provide no insight into thefifh. He suggests that when we try to express the fifh in verbal ormulationsor images, we are liable to easy reutation by appeal to the senses (343). Iwe were not trying to find about the fifh, but confined ourselves to the firstour, we could undergo cross-examination without being reuted, but whenwe pursue the fifh, we are more easily reuted, not because o our errors, but

because o the inadequacy o the first our (343).Why does inquiry into the fifh make us especially open to reutation?

Perhaps Plato means that verbal ormulae necessarily ail to grasp the essenceo the fifh, so that i we put them orward as accounts o the essence, we areeasy targets or reutation by a Socratic cross-examination. What has he inmind? I reutation proceeds in the Socratic manner, by adducing counter-examples, we must apparently be able to say something about the character othe object o inquiry. In the Euthyphro, or instance, Socrates grasps enoughabout the essence o piety to say that it is essentially such that it is necessary


24/34

150 ERENCE H. IRWIN

that all the gods love piety. Even i it is difficult to find definitions or accountsthat are both inormative and immune to counter-examples, it does not

ollow that the object o definition is beyond conceptual understanding.Platos conclusion would ollow i he relied again on his claim about

the mutability o logos. But we have already explained why that claim ailsto prove the unreliability o verbal ormulae. Te act that our attempts tograsp the essence are embodied in such ormulae does not ensure that allthese attempts ail.

Now that Plato has affirmed the inadequacy o the first our or inquiriesinto the nature o the fifh, he re-affirms the Inexpressibility Tesis and itsconsequences or the value o attempts to write down ones philosophical

insight (344). He repeats his claim that insight into the fifh must involvesudden and inexpressible illumination. Such illumination is not a short-cutto insight that makes the previous our unnecessary; it is the end o a longroad that involves systematic and co-operative inquiry using the first our.

Afer much effort, as names, definitions, sights, and other data o sense, arebrought into contact and riction one with another, in the course o scrutinyand examination with goodwill, when inquirers ask and answer questionswithout envy, suddenly wisdom and understanding about every questionflashes orth (344)

Tough inquiry and discursive reasoning are needed to reach the fifh, theillumination we achieve is essentially beyond discourse and reasoning; itcannot be expressed. Plato returns to the utility o writing.

Tereore every serious man, dealing with serious subjects, will be ar romexposing to envy and puzzlement among human beings throughwriting. In one word, then, it may be known rom this that, i one seeswritten treatises composed by anyone, either the laws o a lawgiver, or inany other orm whatever, these are not or that man the most serious things,i he is a serious man (344)

Plato returns to his original charge that i Dionysius tried to write a bookabout Platos philosophy, he thereby displayed his complete misunderstandingo that philosophy.

Tis thesis about the inexpressibility o the highest philosophicalinsight is the most original philosophical claim in the Letter. It has no clearprecedent in Greek philosophy or in the Platonic dialogues. It has muchmore in common with later Platonism, which it may have influenced.27

27 See arrant (1983).


25/34


12. Te Letter and the Phaedrus

In order to deend this claim that the Inexpressibility Tesis has no parallelin Plato, we need to consider two alleged connexions with other parts oPlato: (1) with the discussion o writing in the Phaedrus, and (2) with Platosoral teachings. Do these other aspects o Plato make it easier to attribute thedoctrine o the Letter to him?

In the Phaedrus Plato criticizes anyone who thinks that reading awritten composition is an adequate substitute or engaging in philosophicalconversation (Phaedrus 275). Written texts are unable to deendthemselves when they are questioned (275). For this reason, a dialecticianwith knowledge o the Forms o just, fine, and good regards his writing not

as genuinely serious work, but as a orm o recreation (276277). Socratesagrees with Phaedrus that philosophical writing is a worthwhile occupation;it is non-serious only in comparison with the co-operative dialectical inquirythat is the philosophers primary task.

Te Phaedrus and the Letter both suggest that written philosophicalcompositions are inadequate means or expressing philosophical knowledge.But the two passages differ on what is wrong with written compositions.

Te Phaedrusdoes not say that it is difficult or impossible to expressphilosophical knowledge in writing. A written text is limited because it

cannot deend itsel in the way in which speakers who know what they aretalking about can deend a thesis in discussion. Tat is why reading a bookby Plato is not the same as discussing Platos philosophy with him. But thePhaedrusgives Plato no reason to believe that his philosophical views areinexpressible in writing.

Te Letter gives a quite different reason or distrust o writing, whichdoes not apply to writing alone. It claims that philosophical insight is notexpressible verbally or conceptually at all, and so cannot be communicatedby the communication o conceptual thought; neither writing nor speaking

can convey philosophical understanding. Dialectical questioning is no betterthan writing, rom this point o view, i we want to convey philosophicalunderstanding.

Te Letter does not iner that philosophical insight is incommunicable. Itsuggests that such insight can be acquired as a result o close companionship.(It is not clear whether this reers to companionship with the reality we areseeking, or with another inquirer, or both.) As a result o this companionship,something catches fire in the soul o the inquirer. Tis sudden insight isthe result o inquiry and reasoning, but the content o ones insight is notexpressible in rational thought and language.


26/34

152 ERENCE H. IRWIN

Tese claims in the Latter assume that philosophical insight is moreradically inexpressible than the Phaedrus, or any other Platonic dialogue,

takes it to be. Tis conclusion does not prove that the Letter is spurious.It only shows that either the Letter is spurious or Plato changed his viewsundamentally afer he wrote the Phaedrus; or i he already held the view othe Letter when he wrote the Phaedrus, why should he conceal his basic reasonor rejecting writing as a means o conveying philosophical understanding?It would be rash to deny that Plato could have changed his philosophicaloutlook so undamentally; but the act that the Letter is the only part othe Corpus that would require us to attribute this particular undamentalchange o view to him is a reason or doubting its authenticity.

A correct understanding o this part o the Letter justifies a urtherconclusion about our other evidence on Plato. Both the Phaedrusand theLetter have been used to support two claims: (1) Te dialogues do notconvey Platos undamental philosophical doctrines. (2) Tese doctrines arecontained in his oral teaching, which we know o rom other sources.

Te Phaedrussupports neither o these claims. As we have seen, it givesus no reason to suppose that the content o a philosophical doctrine cannotbe expressed in writing; the limitation o a written text lies in its inability todeend itsel under criticism.

Te Letter supports the first claim, but not the second. I philosophical

insight is inexpressible, it cannot be put into oral teaching any more than itcan be put in writing. Te Letter gives us no reason to suppose that Platoregards speaking as a better medium than writing or the expression ophilosophical insight; each medium is entirely unsuitable.

Te view that Platos oral teaching, rather than his dialogues, containshis authentic philosophy, has been deended by a number o modern critics.No plausible historical or philosophical argument has been given to supportthis view. Neither o the two alleged Platonic sources the Phaedrusand theLetter gives any support.

13. Te philosophical value of the Letter

Our discussion o the deence o the Inexpressibility Tesis suggests aconclusion about the philosophical merits o the Letter. A avourableview o its merits does not prove authenticity, and an unavourable viewdoes not prove inauthenticity. Someone other than Plato may have hadgood ideas, and Plato may have had bad ideas at some stages o his longphilosophical career. None the less, the question is relevant to a judgmentabout authenticity.


27/34


Te argument o the Letter contains a crucial weakness that we mightreasonably expect Plato to have noticed and avoided. Several claims about

the inadequacy o the first our or grasping the fifh are relatively easy tounderstand i they rely on the mutability o logos. But the relevant claimabout the mutability o logos rests on an error that Plato exposes in theCratylus. Te error is not only serious, but also un-Platonic, i we judge bythe evidence o the dialogues. Plato may not have been immune to seriousphilosophical error, and he may have been capable o changing his mindor the worse. But we have some reason to doubt whether he would rely onan assumption whose alsity he exposes in the Cratylus, and which he doesnot seem to regard with any more avour in any other dialogue. Probably,

thereore, Plato did not write the Letter.But even i we grant that the argument o the Letter is un-Platonic, wemight still think the Letter is authentic. Te Inexpressibility Tesis providesa decisive reutation o Dionysius claim to report Platos serious philosophy.It thereore advances the apologetic aims o the Letter. We might suggest,then, that Plato is the author, and does not care how bad his argument isprovided that it serves his apologetic aims. Even i he does not accept theargument, he may not have scrupled to put it orward as part o his elaboratesel-deence.

I do not see how to rule out this possibility, but I believe it is less probable

than non-Platonic authorship. I Plato had wanted to discredit Dionysius, wemight expect him to offer something better than the argument that the Letteroffers. More precisely, we might not expect him to think o an argumentwhose aults should be clear to a reader o the Cratylus. It is more likely thatsomeone else resorted to this argument.

It may not be too anciul to see a parallel between the apologetictechnique o the historical and o the philosophical section o the Letter. Inboth parts Plato relies on the contrast between the outside and the insidestory. In the historical section he mentions public acts that appear to indicate

his views about Dionysius and Dion, and he discounts the appearance inthe light o the inside story about his quiet diplomacy. In the philosophicalsection he mentions public acts that appear to indicate that Dionysiushad learnt some o Platos philosophy, and he discounts the appearance inthe light o the inside story about the inexpressible character o Platonicphilosophy. In both cases the truth is available only to the insiders, and leavesno evidence or outsiders.

We have some reason to believe that the inside story o Platos dealingswith Dionysisus is alse, and that someone is trying to make Plato seem


28/34

154 ERENCE H. IRWIN

more sympathetic to Dion than he really was. Similarly, we have some reasonto believe that the inside story about Platos philosophy is alse, and that

someone is trying to make Plato seem less intelligible than he really was.We have not proved that the someone was not Plato. Perhaps Plato

had a change o heart about Dion afer his death, or or some other reasonwanted to appear to have been more sympathetic to Dions political aimsthan he really was. But since we have some evidence o a division within theAcademy about Dion, and we have no evidence outside the Letter or Platossupport o Dion, we may reasonably suspect that the Letter is someone elseseffort to enlist Plato on Dions side. In that case, the attempt to use the insidestory o Platos philosophy against Dionysius is also part o someone elses

effort to misrepresent Plato on behal o Dion.I have argued that two conclusions are probable: (1) Both the historicaland the philosophical inside story are alse accounts o Platos position. (2)Tey are not by Plato. Te first conclusion is independent o the second.Moreover, they still deserve our attention even i we do not think they aremore probable than their negations. I we have raised reasonable doubt aboutthe truth o the historical and the philosophical inside stories, we should nottreat them as reliable evidence o Platos lie and thought.

14. Who wrote the Letter?I we have plausible grounds or doubting the reliability o the Letter, wecannot treat it as Platos reflexions on his lie or, on his epistemology andmetaphysics. But it is still a valuable source or part o the political history o4th-century Sicily. It is also an important philosophical document, i it showshow a philosopher close to Plato enlists and adapts Platonic doctrines insupport o the Inexpressibility Tesis.

We cannot expect to draw firm conclusions about who wrote the Letter.But reasonable speculation may throw some more light on the circumstances

that might have led to the writing o the Letter.We can plausibly say this much about the author, i he is not Plato. (1) Hewas intimately acquainted with Platos style. (2) He was well inormed about thepolitical history o Syracuse and Platos part in it. (3) He had some reason orundertaking the considerable effort o writing this long deence o Platos conduct.Someone who just enjoyed the challenge o trying to write in Platos style, or whotook pleasure in deceiving the reading public, could have put less effort into it. (4)His philosophical thinking was ormed in a Platonic environment, but developedin an original direction, in ormulating the Inexpressibility Tesis. (5) He wantedto saeguard Platos reputation against the various people who claimed to publish


29/34


written accounts o Platos philosophy. (6) He was not, however, interested inSocrates as a philosopher, or in deending Plato as the genuine heir o Socrates

against the various other people who claimed to inherit the mantle o Socrates.28

(7) Tough he was well inormed about Plato in Syracuse, he was less wellinormed about the trial and death o Socrates. (8) He wanted to show that Platohad steadily supported Dion, and had never supported Dionysius against Dion,despite the strong evidence to the contrary.

All these conditions would be ulfilled by a younger member o theAcademy, writing at some time close to Platos death. Such a person might tryto deend his philosophical school by deending the posthumous reputationo its ounder. I he incorporated his own philosophical views rather than

Platos, this would be intelligible, or two reasons: (a) He might well regardhis own views as an appropriate extension and development o Platos, oreven as what Plato must have meant, or would have said i he had beenclear. (b) He might regard them as an especially appropriate deence o theInexpressibility Tesis and hence o the radical devaluation o philosophicalwriting. He could then dispose at one stroke o all the people publishingwritten expositions o (allegedly) Platonic philosophy. Te author mightwell have believed that the Inexpressibility Tesis offered a better deence oPlatos reputation than Plato provided.

One member o the Academy who seems to fit these conditions, and

thereore has sometimes been suggested as the author o the Letter, isSpeusippus, Platos nephew and his successor as head o the Academy.29Someother evidence on Speusippus may be relevant here:

(1) He may have had some interest in maintaining, and even enhancing,Platos reputation through biography. He is mentioned as the source o thelegend that Platos ather was really Apollo.30At any rate, he was interestedin Platos lie. Some o his account o Platos early years apparently claimedto rely on inormation rom Platos amily; it described the virtues that Platodisplayed both in his youth and in his later lie.31

28 For some evidence o rivalry among ollowers o Socrates see Aristotle, Rhetoric1398b2931 (on Aristippus); Diogenes Laertius, VI 5354 (on Diogenes).

29 Speusippus is mentioned as a possible author o the Letter by (among others)arrant (1974), 138.

30 See Diogenes Laertius, III 2. It is not clear, however, that Speusippus propagatedthis legend (as opposed to simply mentioning it).

31 See Apuleius, De PlatoneI 2 (= Speusippus F2 [arn]); Riginos (1976), 13. Tebiography o Plato may have been part o Speusippus Encomium o Plato,mentioned in the list o his works by Diogenes Laertius IV 5.


30/34

156 ERENCE H. IRWIN

(2) Speusippus supported Dions political ambitions in Syracuse. TeLetter acknowledges public acts suggesting that Plato was more avourable

to Dionysius than to Dion. Speusippus had a motive or trying to presentthese acts in a light that would be more avourable to Dion. According tothe Letter, Platos journeys to Syracuse were attempts to orward the causeo Dion, and Platos final verdict on Dionysius was unavourable; similarly,the Letter tries to explain away the events that tended to suggest cordialrelations between Plato and Dionysius. Tis version o events may have beenabricated by a supporter o Dion; it would be welcome to Speusippus, givenour other evidence about his views on Syracusan politics.32

(3) He may have believed a version o the Inexpressibility Tesis.

One basis or attributing this thesis to Speusippus is a passage in Procluscommentary on the Parmenides. Proclus explains why we must recognizea One that is beyond being, and so cannot be a being at all. He quotes apassage (otherwise unknown) rom Speusippus.33Speusippus believes thatthis doctrine o a One beyond being, simple and inexpressible, is warrantedby the second part o the Parmenides. Tis is not the doctrine o the Letter,which identifies the inexpressible fifh with plural objects o knowledge (thegood, the just, the equal, etc.). But it may help to explain why Speusippuswould be inclined to attribute the Inexpressibility Tesis to Plato. Speusippusalso argues that our grasp o first principles must be some sort o immediate,

intuitive grasp, more evident than the acquaintance that sight gives us withvisible objects.34One might compare this epistemological doctrine with theLetters comments on knowledge o the fifh.

32 On some o Speusippus other political views, and his possibly genuine letter toPhilip o Macedon (mentioning what Plato thought about Macedon), see Brunt(1993), 292. Te genuineness o the letter may be supported by the report o

Carystius, cited in Athenaeus, XI 506. Te letter is Epistulae Socraticae30 =r. 156 Isnardi Parente. Te authenticity o this letter is accepted by Brunt andIsnardi Parente, but disputed by others.

33 Tis is also how Speusippus takes it, presenting it as the doctrines o the ancients.What does he say? For they took the one to be better than being and to be thesource o being, and they released it rom the condition o being a principleSpeusippus too, testifies, then, that this was the view o the ancients about the one,that it was carried off beyond being (Proclus, in Parm. 38.3240.7 (Klibansky)= Speusippus F 48 arn. See Morrow and Dillon, 1992, 485, 5834.)

34 See Proclus, in Euclidem 179.1222 (Friedlein) = Speusippus F73 arn. SeeMorrow (1970), 141.


31/34


Tough the political and philosophical similarities between Speusippusand the author o the Letter are suggestive, they are not conclusive. It is

saer to suggest that the author is an early member o the Academy whosepolitical and philosophical views are similar in some respects to those oSpeusippus. I the Letter emerges rom a Platonist environment, it tells ussomething about the early history o the Academy afer Plato. We are notwell inormed about this period; only ragments o the works o Speusippusand Xenocrates survive, and it is difficult to construct an account o theirphilosophical views. Te Letter may be an important document in the earlyhistory o Platonism.

We should not iner, however, that the Inexpressibility Tesis must have

been seriously held by some member or members o the Academy, i not byPlato. I we have correctly described the role o the philosophical digressionin the Letter, it is no more evidence o Platonic or Academic doctrine thanthe narrative o Platos role in Syracuse is evidence o his actual role. Bothsections o the letter the philosophical section no less than the political arepart o Platos effort to separate himsel rom Dionysius. Neither section canbe trusted as an expression o sincere belie Platos or someone elses onthe relevant points. Te Inexpressibility Tesis is designed or its apologeticunction in the Letter, and we cannot reasonably iner, on the basis o theLetter, that anyone believed it.

Tis estimate o the Letter may prompt a reasonable question that I havealready alluded to: Why should anyone have gone to the trouble o abricatingautobiography, history, and philosophy so careully and elaborately? Should wenot doubt the hypothesis o such an elaborate orgery? Fortunately, we haveound just enough evidence outside the Letter to answer this question. We havegood reason to believe that members o the Academy were involved in Syracusanpolitics, on both sides, and in particular we have evidence o Speusippus supporto Dion. We thereore have a plausible context in which someone who knewPlato and his philosophy had a reason to orge the Letter. In this instance, the

hypothesis o a skilul and well-inormed orger who was willing to take sometrouble to produce a plausible orgery is not at all implausible.

I the authenticity o the Letter is subject to reasonable doubt, we oughtnot to use it or evidence o Platos lie or doctrines. In particular, we oughtnot to recognize reasonable doubts about its authenticity and keep on usingit as a source o reliable inormation about Plato. We might find reliableinormation in it i we knew both that the author is well inormed, and theinormation we want to use is unlikely to be affected by the apologetic aimso the author. But in the case o the Letter, even i we concede that the author


32/34

158 ERENCE H. IRWIN

is well inormed, we cannot reasonably concede that his apologetic aims areirrelevant to the presentation o the alleged inormation about Plato. Te

ostensible autobiography serves the apologetic purpose o the writer, and sodoes the ostensible Platonic philosophy.

Even i this is true, we might suppose that we can rely on or assertionswhose alsity, i they were alse, would be apparent to the intended readers.But we cannot use this argument in order to rely on the autobiography oron the philosophy. We do not know that the intended readers are so wellinormed about Platos early lie and about the details o his philosophy thatthey would be able to detect alse statements on these points. As soon as werecognize that the Letter is a systematic deence o Plato against accusations

that seem to be supported by the relevant public acts, we have ound amotive or the author to lie in Platos deence.Tese warnings against the use o the Letter as evidence or Platos lie

and thought still apply even i Plato wrote it. While I have offered reasonsto believe that the Letter is spurious, belie in its authenticity is not a goodenough reason to rely on it. I we have reasonable doubts about the veracityo the author, whoever he is, we should not use passages rom the Letter tofill real or apparent gaps in our knowledge o Platos lie and thought.

Keble College

University o OxordOxord, OX1 3PG

England

Bibliography

Aalders, G. J. D. (1972), Political thought and political programmes in thePlatonic Epistles, in von Fritz (1972), 147187.

Bluck, R. S. (1949), Platos biography: the Seventh Letter, Philosophical Review58, 5039

Boas, F. (1948), Fact and legend in the biography o Plato, PhilosophicalReview57, 43957.

Brandwood, L. (1990), Te Chronology of Platos Dialogues, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.


33/34


_____ (1992), Stylometry and chronology, in Kraut (1992), 90120.

Brunt, P. A. (1993), Studies in Greek History and Tought,Oxord University

Press, Oxord.

Dover, K. J. (1968), Lysias and the Corpus Lysiacum, University o CaliorniaPress, Berkeley.

Edelstein, L. (1966), Platos Seventh Letter,Brill, Leiden.

Finley, M. I. (1977), Aspects of Antiquity, 2nd ed., Chatto and Windus,London.

Griffith, M. (1977), Te Authenticity of Prometheus Bound, Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge.Gulley, N. (1972), Te authenticity o the Platonic Epistles, in von Fritz

(1972), 105130.

Guthrie, W. K. C. (1975), History of Greek Philosophy, Vol. IV: Te Later Platoand the Academy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Harward, J. (1932), Te Platonic Epistles, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Isnardi Parente, M., ed. (1980), Speusippo: Frammenti, Bibliopolis, Naples.

Irwin, . H. (1995), Platos Ethics,Oxord University Press, Oxord.

Kahn, C. H. (1996), Plato and the Socratic Dialogue, Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.

Knabe, R. (2006), Platons siebter Brief(Spudasmata 110), Olms, Hildesheim.

Kraut, R., ed. (1992), Cambridge Companion to Plato, Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.

Ledger, G. R. (1989), Re-counting Plato,Clarendon Press, Oxord.

Morrow, G. R. (1935), Studies in the Platonic Epistles, University o Illinois,Urbana, Ill.

_____ tr. (1970),Proclus: A Commentary on the First Book of Euclids Elements,Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Morrow, G. R. and Dillon, J. M., tr. (1992), Proclus Commentary on PlatosParmenides, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.

Nails, D. (2006), Te lie o Plato o Athens, in H. H. Benson (ed.), ACompanion to Plato, Routledge, London, 112.


34/34

160 ERENCE H. IRWIN

Riginos, A. S. (1976), Platonica: Te Anecdotes concerning the Life and Writingsof Plato,Brill, Leiden.

Rowe, C. J. (2007), Plato and the Art of Philosophical Writing, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

arrant, H. (1974), Speusippus ontological classification, Phronesis19, 130145.

_____ (1983), Middle Platonism and the Seventh Epistle, Phronesis28, 75103.

von Fritz, K., ed. (1972), PseudepigraphaI (Entretiens sur lantiquit classique,18), Fondation Hardt, Geneva.

Westlake, H. D. (1994), Dion and imoleon, in D. M. Lewis, John Boardman,Simon Hornblower, M. Ostwald (eds.)

Irwin, The Inside Story of the Seventh Platonic Letter

Documents

Transcript of Irwin, The Inside Story of the Seventh Platonic Letter