Abstract
The paper concerns the textual form of the sentence Crit. 48e4. A return to the transmitted infinitive πεῖσαι is proposed; at the same time, it is demonstrated that the sentence is thereby ambiguous. Yet, it can be shown that this ambiguousness does not render the passage meaningless. In fact, the transmitted text is interpretively extremely rich, because with the indefinite infinitive a central problem of the dialogue, the demand ‘to convince or obey’, is accentuated in a distinctive way, namely in respect of the personal relation of the two philosophising friends. For the dramatic effect of the dialogue this passage is of great importance.
Danksagung
Für zahlreiche wichtige Hinweise bin ich Lesley Brown (Oxford) sehr dankbar. Anja Behrendt und Wolfgang Bernard (beide Rostock) danke ich herzlich für lange sokratische Gespräche, während deren ich viel gelernt habe.
Verzeichnis der zitierten Literatur
Platon, Opera, quae ad nos extant omnia, Eiusdem Iani Cornarij eclogæ decem, bei H. Frobenius, Basel 1561.Search in Google Scholar
Platon, Opera omnia Marsilio Ficino interprete, bei A. Vincent, Lyon 1570.Search in Google Scholar
Platon, Opera quae extant omnia ex nova Ioannis Serrani interpretatione, bei H. Stephanus, Paris 1578.Search in Google Scholar
Platon, Opera omnia quae extant Marsilio Ficino interprete, bei F. le Preux, Leiden 1590 [~ bei G. Laemarius 1590].Search in Google Scholar
Platon, Opera omnia quae extant ex latina Marsilii Ficini versione nunc multo accuratius quam antea cum Graeco contextu collata, et quam plurimis locis emendate, ed. E. Tremblay, bei J. Stoer, Genève 1592.Search in Google Scholar
Platon, Opera omnia quae extant Marsilio Ficino interprete, bei C. Marnius et al., Frankfurt 1602.Search in Google Scholar
Platon, Opera Quae Exstant, Graece Ad Editionem Henrici Stephani Accurate Expressa, Cum Marsilii Ficini Interpretatione, ed. Societas Bipontina, Zweibrücken 1781–1787.Search in Google Scholar
Platon, Dialogi graece et latine, vol. 1,2, ed. I. Bekker, Berlin 1816.10.1515/9783112448489-001Search in Google Scholar
Platon, Werke, Theil 1, Band 2, übersetzt von F. Schleiermacher, Berlin 1818.Search in Google Scholar
Platon, Œuvres complètes, Tome I, ed. V. Cousin, Paris 1822.Search in Google Scholar
Platon, Euthyphro, Apologia Socratis, Crito, Phaedo, ed. K. F. Hermann, Leipzig 1853.Search in Google Scholar
Platon, Crito, ed. J. Adam, Cambridge 21891. Search in Google Scholar
Platon, Opera, Tomus I Tetralogias I–II continens, ed. J. Burnet, Oxford 1900.Search in Google Scholar
Platon, Apologie des Sokrates und Kriton, übersetzt und erläutert von O. Apelt, Leipzig 1919.Search in Google Scholar
Platon, Œuvres complètes, Tome I, ed. M. Croiset, Paris 1920.Search in Google Scholar
Platon, The Dialogues, vol. 1, Translated into English with Analyses and Introduction by B. Jowett, Oxford 41953.Search in Google Scholar
Platon, Werke, Bd. 2, ed. G. Eigler/H. Hofmann, Darmstadt 1973.Search in Google Scholar
Platon, The Dialogues, vol. 1, Translated with Comment by R. E. Allen, New Haven 1984.Search in Google Scholar
Platon, Apologie und Kriton, übersetzt von M. Fuhrmann, Stuttgart 1987.Search in Google Scholar
Platon, Opera, vol. I, ed. E. A. Duke et al., Oxford 1995.Search in Google Scholar
Platon, The Last Days of Socrates. Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Translated by H. Tredennick/H. Tarrant, London 22003. Search in Google Scholar
W. Bernard, Platon, Kriton, Übersetzung und Kommentar, Göttingen 2016. 10.13109/9783666304361Search in Google Scholar
T. C. Brickhouse/N. D. Smith, The Trial and the Execution of Socrates. Sources and Controversies, Oxford 2002.Search in Google Scholar
D. Bostock, „The Interpretation of Plato’s Crito“, in: R. Kamtekar (Hg.), Plato’s Euthyphro, Apology, and Crito, Critical Essays, Lanham 2005, 210–228 [= Phronesis 35, 1990, 1–20].10.1163/156852890X00015Search in Google Scholar
J. Burnet, Plato: Euthyphro, Apology of Socrates, Crito ed. with Notes, Oxford 1924.10.1093/actrade/9780198140153.book.1Search in Google Scholar
P. Buttmann, Platonis dialogi IV cum adnotatione critica et exegetica, Berlin 51830.Search in Google Scholar
Ch. Cron, Vertheidigungsrede des Sokrates und Kriton, für den Schulgebrauch erklärt, Leipzig 1861.Search in Google Scholar
C. Emlyn-Jones, Plato Crito, edited with Introduction, Commentary and Vocabulary, Bristol 1999.Search in Google Scholar
M. Erler, Platon, Basel 2007 (= H. Holzhey/H. Flashar (Hgg.), Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie, begründet von F. Ueberweg, Abt. 1: Die Philosophie der Antike Bd. 2,2).Search in Google Scholar
H. Flashar, „Überlegungen zum platonischen Kriton“, in: H.-C. Günther/A. Rengakos (Hgg.) Beiträge zur antiken Philosophie, FS Wolfgang Kullmann, Stuttgart 1997, 51–58.Search in Google Scholar
M. Fuhrmann, Platon, Apologie und Kriton, Stuttgart 1987.Search in Google Scholar
Th. Gärtner, „Ein Homerzitat im platonischen Kriton?“, Scripta Classica Israelica 29, 2010, 17–20.Search in Google Scholar
E. Garver, „Platoʼs Crito on the Nature of Persuasion and Obedience“, Polis 29, 2012, 1–21.10.1163/20512996-90000193Search in Google Scholar
E. Goebel, Jahresbericht über das königliche Gymnasium zu Fulda, Fulda 1882.Search in Google Scholar
B. Grimmelt, Platons Apologie und Kriton, Kommentar für den Schulgebrauch, Münster 61954.Search in Google Scholar
G. Grote, Plato and the Other Companions of Socrates, London 1865.Search in Google Scholar
V. Harte, „Conflicting Values in Plato’s Crito“, in: R. Kamtekar (Hg.), Plato’s Euthyphro, Apology, and Crito, Critical Essays, Lanham 2005, 229–259 [= Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 81, 1999, 117–147].10.1515/agph.1999.81.2.117Search in Google Scholar
A. Hatzistavrou, „Crito’s Failure to Deliberate Socratically“, CQ 63, 2013, 580–594.10.1017/S0009838813000116Search in Google Scholar
R. Kamtekar (Hg.), Plato’s Euthyphro, Apology, and Crito, Critical Essays, Lanham 2005.Search in Google Scholar
R. Kraut, Socrates and the State, Princeton 1984.10.1515/9780691242927Search in Google Scholar
M. Montuori, Per una nuova interpretazione del ‚Critone‘ di Platone, Milano 1998.Search in Google Scholar
T. Penner, „Two Notes on the Crito: The Impotence of the Many, and ‚Persuade or Obey‘“, CQ 47, 1997, 153–166.10.1093/cq/47.1.153Search in Google Scholar
H. Petersen, Plato, Apologie, Kriton; nebst Abschnitten aus anderen Schriften, erklärt, Berlin 21910.Search in Google Scholar
F. Rosen, „Obligation and Friendship in Platoʼs Crito“, Political Theory 1, 1973, 307–316.10.1177/009059177300100303Search in Google Scholar
R. Segl, „Der unbefriedigende ‚Kriton‘“, Gymnasium 78, 1971, 437–441.Search in Google Scholar
M. Stokes, Dialectic in Action: An Examination of Platoʼs Crito, Swansea 2005. 10.2307/j.ctv1n357kfSearch in Google Scholar
W. S. Tyler, Platoʼs Apology and Crito with Notes, New York 1860.Search in Google Scholar
P. Unruh, Sokrates und die Pflicht zum Rechtsgehorsam: Eine Analyse von Platons ‚Kriton‘, Baden-Baden 2005.Search in Google Scholar
E. Wasmuth, „Ὥσπερ οἱ κορυβαντιῶντες. The Corybantic Rites in Plato’s Dialogues“, CQ 65, 2015, 69–84.10.1017/S0009838814000925Search in Google Scholar
R. Weiss, Socrates Dissatisfied: An Analysis of Platoʼs Crito, Oxford 1998.10.1093/0195116844.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
A. D. Woozley, Law and Obedience: The Argument of Plato’s Crito, London 1979.Search in Google Scholar
© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
