Search

In Hp. mi. 364b1-3 καλόν should be taken with ἀνάθημα and not as the direct object of λέγεις. An idiomatic expression like καλόν γε λέγεις meaning «fine thing you say, fine reply», as the majority of translators renders it, apparently does not exist, the usual form being καλῶς (γε) λέγεις. On the contrary, the ironical use of καλός followed by γε and by the substantive to which καλός refers is well attested in Greek and frequent in Plato’s dialogues, especially at the beginning of a reply, as in this passage of the Hippias minor. A similar problem arises in two other passages too: Hp. mai. 282e9-283a1, which is very close to Hp. mi. 364b1-3 and where καλόν goes with τεκμήριον, and Euthyd. 294a4-5, where the main verb λέγεις governs the whole sentence ὡς θαυμαστὸν … πεφάνθαι and not ὡς θαυμαστόν alone.

Plus qu’un autre poème, l’Odyssée a thématisé la question du mensonge et des stratagèmes trompeurs, jusqu’à en faire l’éloge. Cette thématisation est d’autant plus intéressante qu’elle inclut une réflexion sur le statut même de la parole poétique et sur les conditions de l’information. Elle invite notamment à repenser le concept de « maître de vérité », à comprendre aussi que le mensonge n’est pas en Grèce archaïque l’objet d’une réprobation morale, mais une réalité liée à des conditions d’information particulières. Avant de se demander si l’Odyssée est du côté de l’histoire ou de la fiction, il faut prêter attention au discours qu’elle tient sur le statut et les conditions d’un récit qui voudrait faire l’histoire de l’événement. More than any other poem, the Odysseus thematized the issue of lying and deceptive stratagems to the extent of praising them. That thematization is all the more interesting since it includes a reflection on the very status of poetic discourse and the conditions of information. It notably invites a reconsideration of the concept of “master of truth”, and an attempt also to understand that lying in archaic Greece is not the object of moral reprobation but a reality linked to particular conditions of information. Before we wonder whether the Odysseus is on the side of history or of fiction, attention must be paid to the discourse it holds on the status and conditions of a narrative that would relate the history of the event.

Hippias Minor is a Socratic dialogue since it belongs to the group of Plato's early dialogues, in which Plato is still strongly influenced by Socrates' figure. This influence would be present, for example, at the search for moral virtues' definitions, usually ending in aporia. However, during the nineteenth century some critics had doubts about its authorship, despite the reference made by Aristotle in Metaphysics, which is widely accepted as evidence of Platonic authorship nowadays. These doubts, however, were originated due to the content of the dialogue itself, because Socrates defends the paradoxical thesis that those who commit injustice intentionally are better than those who do it unintentionally. Hípias Menor é um diálogo socrático, pois pertence ao grupo dos primeiros diálogos platônicos, nos quais Platão ainda está fortemente influenciado pela figura de Sócrates. Essa influência estaria presente, por exemplo, na busca por definições de virtudes morais, terminando geralmente em aporia. Todavia, durante o século XIX alguns críticos tiveram dúvidas em relação à sua autoria, apesar da referência feita à obra por Aristóteles na Metafísica, a qual hoje é amplamente aceita como prova da autoria platônica. Essas dúvidas, no entanto, originaram-se devido ao conteúdo do próprio diálogo, pois nele Sócrates defende a tese paradoxal de que quem comete injustiça voluntariamente é melhor do que quem o faz involuntariamente.