Menesseno

by Plato, Francesco Adorno (translator)

...It seems impossible to separate by any exact line the genuine writings of Plato from the spurious. The only external evidence to them which is of much value is that of Aristotle; for the Alexandrian catalogues of a century later include manifest forgeries. Even the value of the Aristotelian authority is a good deal impaired by the uncertainty concerning the date and authorship of the writings which are ascribed to him. And several of the citations of Aristotle omit the name of Plato, and some of them omit the name of the dialogue from which they are taken...

Genres: Philosophy, Classics, Nonfiction, History, Ancient, Ancient History, Politics

36 pages, Unknown Binding

First published January 1, 387

About the author

Plato (Greek: Πλάτων), born Aristocles (c. 427 – 348 BC), was an ancient Greek philosopher of the Classical period who is considered a foundational thinker in Western philosophy and an innovator of the written dialogue and dialectic forms. He raised problems for what became all the major areas of both theoretical philosophy and practical philosophy, and was the founder of the Platonic Academy, a philosophical school in Athens where Plato taught the doctrines that would later become known as Platonism.
Plato's most famous contribution is the theory of forms (or ideas), which has been interpreted as advancing a solution to what is now known as the problem of universals. He was decisively influenced by the pre-Socratic thinkers Pythagoras, Heraclitus, and Parmenides, although much of what is known about them is derived from Plato himself.
Along with his teacher Socrates, and Aristotle, his student, Plato is a central figure in the history of philosophy. Plato's entire body of work is believed to have survived intact for over 2,400 years—unlike that of nearly all of his contemporaries. Although their popularity has fluctuated, they have consistently been read and studied through the ages. Through Neoplatonism, he also greatly influenced both Christian and Islamic philosophy. In modern times, Alfred North Whitehead famously said: "the safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato."

Reviews

[tyranus · Rating 4 out of 5]

Platonun, retorik (samimiyetten yoksun ikna edici konuşma) örneklerinden biri olan Meneksenos, kendi yurtlarını işgalden kurtarmak için savaşta ölenler için yapılan cenaze töreni konuşmasından oluşuyor. Platon, aslında retoriği eleştiren biridir; kimi zaman halka dalkavukluk etmek kimi zaman da hakikatları saklamak için yapılan bu konuşmaları bu eserde de üstü kapalı olarak eleştirmiş. Söylev iki bölümden oluşmakta, birinci bölümde Atina için ölenlere çeşitli övgüler dizilirken, ikinci kısımda ölenlerin ağzından geride kalan yakınlarına ve halka, yaptıkları yiğitlikleri nasıl karşılamaları, bu erdem karşısında nasıl davranmaları ve son olarak bütün bu kahramanlık ve yiğitlik erdemlerini miras olarak alıp daha ileriye taşımaları gerektiği öğütlenmiş.

Aşağıdaki metin, bazı bölümleri çıkarılmak suretiyle kitaptan alınmıştır. İyi okumalar...

"Savaşta ölmenin, gerçekte birçok faydaları var, Meneksenos. Öldüğü zaman ne kadar fakir olursa olsun insanın güzel ve muhteşem bir mezarı oluyor. Bundan başka da değeri ne kadar az olursa olsun, insanı birçok bilgin kimseler övüyor; hem gelişigüzel de değil; söyleyeceklerini önceden, inceden inceye hazırlamış oluyorlar. Öyle güzel övüyorlar ki, Meneksenos, her ölünün, kendinde bulunsun bulunmasın, birçok özellikleri olduğunu ileri sürerek, sözlerini en güzel kelimelerle süslüyor, ruhlarımızı büyülüyorlar..... Meneksenos, kendimi bu övgüleri ile yükselmiş hissediyor ve orada söylediklerini dinleyip büyülenince, birdenbire daha yüce, daha asil, daha güzel olduğuma inanıveriyorum. .... kendimi öyle yükseklerde görmem, hiç değilse üç gün sürüyor. Hatibin sözleri ve sesi kulağıma yer ederek öyle kuvvetli çınlıyor ki, ancak dördüncü veya beşinci gün kendime gelebiliyor, nerede olduğumun farkına varabiliyorum."

[S. Alberto ⁻⁷ (yearning) · Rating 2 out of 5]

“The secret of happiness is not found in seeking more, but in developing the capacity to enjoy less.”

While offering some intriguing philosophical discussions, didn't quite meet my expectations. I found the dialogue to be a bit underwhelming, especially when compared to Plato's other works. The conversation between Socrates and Menexenus centers around the art of rhetoric, with Socrates providing a speech that highlights the virtues of Athenian life and the importance of memory and praise. While the themes themselves are interesting, I felt the execution was lacking in depth.

One of the key issues I had was the heavy focus on rhetoric and the idealization of Athenian values, which at times felt overly simplistic. Socrates' speech, which takes up much of the dialogue, can be repetitive and dry, without the usual layers of complexity and probing inquiry that I expect from Plato's dialogues. While it's clear that the work aims to explore the intersection of memory, public speech, and civic duty, it felt a bit too abstract and disconnected from any meaningful practical insights.

Ultimately, Menexenus didn’t resonate with me as much as other Platonic works. The dialogue's focus on praise for Athens and the way it treats virtue and public life seemed to lack the philosophical depth and nuance that I’ve come to enjoy in Plato's other dialogues, making it a less engaging read for me. If you're a fan of Plato's writings, you might find some value here, but for me, it just didn't hit the mark.

[Martin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Der Menexenos von Platon ist ein ziemlich interessanter Text. Wie üblich wird die Handlung in Dialogform dargestellt und ist ziemlich rudimentär. Sokrates trifft auf der Straße den jungen Menexenos, der von einer Ratsversammlung kommt. Von einem als spöttisch aufzufassenden Kommentar von Sokrates Menexenos gegenüber („Offenbar, dass du mit deiner Unterweisung und Wissenschaft am Ziele zu sein glaubst, und weil du weit genug bist, du dich nun zu dem Höheren zu wenden gedenkst, und unternimmst, du Glückspilz, über uns Alte zu herrschen schon in solcher Jugend […]“) kommt das Gespräch schließlich auf die Redekunst zu sprechen, nachdem in der Ratsversammlung ein Redner für eine Gefallenenrede gesucht wurde.

Sokrates gibt sogleich ein spöttisches Beispiel für die Kunst der Rhetorik, indem er selbst eine Gefallenenrede hält, die er von der Aspasia (der Gemahlin des Perikles) gehört haben will.

Die Gefallenenrede ist nun neben der Kritik an der Rhetorik der zweite inhaltliche Punkt des Dialogs und gibt sehr interessante Details über historische Ereignisse sowie die Einstellung der Athener. In der Rede rühmt Sokrates drei Tugenden der Gefallenen: die Abstammung, die erhaltene Erziehung und die eigenen Taten im Krieg. Dies geschieht interessanterweise, indem er jede dieser drei Tugenden eine Familienfigur vergleicht. Die Herkunft wird den Müttern gleichgesetzt, die in Attika keine fremden (Barbaren) waren, sondern Ureinwohner Attikas. Somit werden die Mütter auch dem Mutterland Attika gleichgestellt, welches in seinen Eigenheiten vorzüglich gelobt wird. So habe Athen eine demokratische Aristokratie hervorgebracht, in der alle Menschen gleich seien.

Als nächstes sind die Väter an der Reihe, die in vergangenen Kriegen Athen vor dem Untergang gerettet haben, dass in weiterer Folge zur Schutzmacht der übrigen griechischen Staaten aufgestiegen ist. Beginnend mit den Perserkriegen und den Erfolgen in den Schlachten bei Marathon, Salamis und Artemision hin zur Schlacht von Plataiai bleibt auch der Peloponnesische Krieg nicht unerwähnt. Auch auf die Herrschaft der Dreißig und der anschließende Bürgerkrieg in Athen wird eingegangen. Dieses Verteidigen der Freiheit durch die Opfer der Väter und die damit einhergehende Möglichkeit der Erziehung zur Freiheit sind die zweite große Tugend.

Der dritte Teil der Rede wendet sich nun an die Hinterbliebenen der Gefallenen. Diese sollen sich der Tradition der Gefallenen würdig erweisen und in Tugend leben. Die Kinder sollen versuchen die Taten der Väter zu übertreffen und nicht sich auf deren Taten ausruhen.

Alles in allem ein sehr interessanter Dialog, der bei Sokrates Rede ins Spöttische übergeht, quasi eine sehr frühe Form der heutigen Politikerreden, vulgo Dampfplauderei. Sokrates gelingt es hier sehr gut, die Fallstricke der Rhetorik aufzuzeigen, die im Falle der herrschenden Klasse mit der Realität selten etwas zu tun hat.

Da der Dialog sehr kurz ist ist er sehr empfehlenswert, auch weil er verhältnismäßig zugänglich ist.

[Ⰰⱃⰿⰰⱀⰴ Ⱆⰾⰴⰵⱃⰻⰽⱁ Ⱅⰵⱄⰾⰰ · Rating 3 out of 5]

Beogradski izdavačko-grafički zavod
Beograd, 1983.
"Prevod sa grčkog i predgovor Ksenija Maricki Gađanski"
Jezik prijevoda je srpsko-hrvatska varijanta hrvatskosrpskog/srpskohrvatskog službenog jezika bivše države koja nam je nasreću uz brojne grobnice ostavila i mnoge lijepe knjige i spomenike. I ovo ne govorim ironično.
Jezik izvornika je vrlo bazičan, bez aktualizacija, ne javljaju se igre riječi, nema dubljih metafora, u biti izrazito esejistički tekst, gotovo enciklopedijski.
Iako se ovo djelo smatra razradom posmrtog govora, bar na njegovoj prvoj razini značenja, ne bih se složio s time. Ovo djelo je po meni razrada enciklopedijskog diskursa, konkretnije povjesničarskog diskursa.
Tekst vrvi povijesnim natuknicama koje veličaju atensku državu. Bitke i njihova geopolitička pozadina.
U biti djelo je organizirano u dva dijela. Jedan dio je klasični platonovski wok u kojem Sokrat baca znanje s nekim mladićem, a drugi dio je sam posmrtni govor neke ženske čije ime nisam zapamtio te mi se ne razvija osjećaj htjenja da odem u potkrovlje po samu knjigu provjeriti njezino točno ime, niti mi se razvija osjećaj htjenja guglati ju.
Kada bi meni plaćali bar upola kao Branku Maliću onda bi mi se navedeni osjećaj htjenja izrazito razvio.
Moram li ja skupljati tanjure za Nordijcima da zaradim? A, što je s mojim snovima o passive incomeu? Je li vas sram što ne uplaćujete?
No, već počinjem razmišljati kao ljevičar te se pitam kako zaraditi novac umjesto da se pitam kako stvoriti vrijednost za koju će drugi dati novac. Bog blagoslovio red pill.
Od svih Platonovih dijaloga ovaj je najmanje filozofski i najmanje književnoumjetnički.
Zanimljiv je po tome što Platon, kroz Sokrata dakako, progovara kako je Atena ostvarila najbolji i najpravedniji politički sustav radi čiste krvi svojih žitelja. U Ateni nema stranaca i Platon smatra da su žitelji Atene njegova vremena prastanovnici same Atene.
Multikulturalna društva su društva oligarhije. Ja se uopće ne slažem s Platonom, svaka čast pravednom i dobro organiziranom društvu, i svaka čast ako je to uopće istina, a ima neke logike, ali daleko više vrijedi činjenica da crnkinje, Indijke i mulatkinje okolo šeću. Vjerojatno Platon nikada nije vidio ni iskusio čokoladicu.
No, bog Kek koji u meni ipak nedvojbeno čuči voli takvo opasno razmišljanje. Čista krv...
Da Bora Jokić ovo vidi, ne bi više bilo ni jedne Platonove knjige u niti jednoj hrvatskoj školi.
¡Hasta luego!

[Livia · Rating 4 out of 5]

Menexenus is sassy, I like it.

[Brandt · Rating 1 out of 5]

No, it is not a great work, and it is even disputed whether or not this is actually Plato or perhaps, as suggested by Jowett, one of his students. Most people will understandably not enjoy this dialogue, however it does serve as a kind of learning situation for the reader. Where as Socrates is not his usual openly condescending self, he is instead, kind of satirically hidden. The important takeaway, for me, of this dialogue, is that we sometimes ascribe a great amount of reverence and honor towards picking and choosing people to do certain things, but we never really see inherent talent for that; talent.

[Roy Lotz · Rating 2 out of 5]

This work hardly merits the term “dialogue,” being mainly taken up by a lengthy speech. Socrates professes to have learned a funeral oration from a woman named Apia, who was Pericles’ consort. Plato seems to have been simultaneously parodying the practice of giving these speeches, but also proving his superiority to other writers of the genre, particularly Thucydides. If it was Plato’s goal to best the historian, he fell far short; and nowadays the speech reads like a silly rhetorical exercise, albeit of some historic importance.

[Illiterate · Rating 4 out of 5]

An amusing parody of self-congratulatory patriotism, specifically Athenian funeral speeches.

[L · Rating 3 out of 5]

A brief dialogue that is mainly a speech about Athenian troops. The few pages about oratory are interesting, while the rest of the dialogue is merely a demonstration.

[Tobias · Rating 5 out of 5]

I almost wanted to say this is a rare swing-and-miss of Plato, but after I slept on it for some time plus some extra digging of epideictic oratory, nah this might be nowhere near a swing-and-miss.

A quick glance of any introduction to this text would tell you this is an homage to Pericles' Funeral Oration (430 BCE) by Thucydides. What these introduction usually don't have the room to dive into is that Thucydides' PFO itself was extremely ironic.* In an occasion where the center of the stage is those who perished in wars, Thucydides' Pericles shoved them all aside and threw red meat after red meat to those who are living. I'm going to venture a guess that Pericles' red meat fest is not spontaneous, but a response to the anti-war wing of the Athenian society. One of the prominent figures is Aristophanes, whose The Banqueters (427 BCE) and The Acharnians (425 BCE) and Peace (421 BCE) keep hammering home the message. It's not fun to be made fun of by Aristophanes — ask Socrates — it's a horror story on a whole different level to be chased after by him in plays after plays in almost a decade.

I'd also like to venture a guess that Thucydides is on the side of Aristophanes. And Plato too, given his bed-time reading habits.

The irony from Thucydides presents, to every contemporary reader of Menexenus, a nigh-impossible challenge: notwithstanding the cultural difference, the lack of detailed knowledge of ancient Greek mores, how could we discern the irony of irony, presented by one of the most gifted writers of human civilization? At what juncture can we conclude that previously Plato was on "/s"-mode and here onwards he's serious? Unfortunately the answers to these important questions were probably lost in the wind. However, there are still enough bread trails in the text that is worth noting.

One is the selective narration, and perhaps the deliberately protracted narration, of the military history of Athens. It is definitely a conscious choice made by Plato to brush over the whole history of second Peloponnesian War with one short phrase "a mighty war". Another several conscious choices Plato made were the Athenian battles he highlighted. Battle of Eleusis (403 BCE?), battle of Plataea (479 BCE) and battle around Paros (I can't even find the date)? Those aren't exactly the highlight of Athenian military history. Aside from crowd (Lysias and Demosthenes in particular) favorite like battle against Amazons or battle of Salamis, detailing battle of Naupactus and foiled raid of Piraeus could do a better job of inducing the sense of "triumph over [foreigners]", as Socrates described at the beginning of Menexenus. If someone got bored out by the recount of Athenian military record, one might find it necessary to ask oneself: "Is Plato boring me out intentionally?"

Therein, I suspect, lies the trademark irony of Platonic Socrates. Once we imagine how Plato's orations would be deployed in real life, the irony would become much clearer. Menexenus included events up to Corinthian War, when Socrates was long dead. Due to the perpetual warring state of Athens, an average Athenian citizen would have heard various funeral orations several times now, each orator repeating the same verbal chest-thumping of glories in the past battles. But as his history and memory grew, there seems to be less and less glorious things to add. Now came this guy, giving a rundown of all the lowlights, all the struggles in vain of Athens, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. And this is supposed to be a speech that makes its listeners imagine themselves to "have become taller and nobler, and more handsome." The boredom it generates would be a sting to its audience: whenever afterwards they go to similar events, back to the same chest-thumping, the same panegyrics, they would remember all the things that were left unspoken by the successing orators, but yet once enumerated ad nauseam in Plato's oration.

And toying with his readers' and his interlocutors' emotion is certainly not beneath Plato.

Another noteworthy point is the role of foreigners (xenos) in Menexenus, the ever-presence of which persuaded me that the Epitaphios was not, as oppose to some others (like David Engels) hypothesized, composed by someone else, but Plato's handiwork through and through. Of all the remaining funeral orations Menexenus is undoubtedly the most xenophobic one. PFO was all about Pericles saving his own hide from internal politics, but Pericles nonetheless recognized the foreign audiences (Book 2 section 36.4). Lysias and Demosthenes and Hyperides (cf. section 15) all extended their praise to foreign allies — so we at least knew how one of the suggestions by Xenophon in On Revenues went: it went nowhere. In lieu of this, Menexenus took a piss on their graves. David Engels brilliantly diagnosed the political standing of the author of Epitaphios: a return to "splendid isolation", more attune to internal affairs instead of outward expansions — verily, nowhere did the speech mentioned any stooges of Athenian Empire. Now here's the deliciously ironic part: by flaming the sentiment of xenophobia, this speech would usher in a strategic retrenchment, perhaps a much-needed one, which Xenophon would also agree, and it would align neatly with crowd reaction of a dragged-out recount of Athenian militarism. It's the Antiquity equivalent of Vaush putting forward the idea of "Super Capitalism", or the Chinese netizens online trolling/daring Trump to put a 200% tariff on all imported goods, or a hardcore MAGA simultaneously proposing to end all foreign intervensions and provide better hiring conditions for citizen proper, lest the migrants (that foreign interventions would produce) come over and make less-than-humane domestic hiring conditions possible. History rhymes in mysterious ways.

And would the foreign audience, upon realizing this sneaky irony Socrates is pulling, applaud to his speech because they've had it up here with Athenian meddling, thus fulfilling the boasting of Socrates at the beginning of Menexenus? I, an Asian barbarian, certainly would. This is funny af.

If these hypotheses stand, Menexenus would be nowhere near a swing-and-miss.

* Donald Kagan kind of disappointed in his PFO analysis. I don't think Thucydides agrees or admires Pericles. There are too many unnecessary details in Histories that undermined PFO's almost every argument. If anything, it sort of explains how Melian Dialogue came to be by demonstrating what the citizens of Athens were fed at home — not unlike what Steve Bannon was feeding his base. But I know Kagan is too much of an ideologue to go there.

[Dillard · Rating 3 out of 5]

Apparently famous in the antiquity but almost forgetten these few decades the Menexenus is about a speech, to be precise a funeral oration for those who died in battle. The dialogue assumes rather a rethorical form, almost like the discourse from Lysis on Phaedrus. If this dialogue was written or not by Plato is subject of discussion for academics but it's certainty reflect his view on courage (from Republic but without the parts of the soul and from Laches which is too sustained only by the notion of virtue) and of how a man must live. It's better to die righteous in battle than to live in disgrace, Socrates also says that this dead (in battle) is a beautiful thing for the men are praised for what they done and for what they have not done, in a funeral oration by a wise orator.

Also, it's kinda funny when Socrates briefly refuses to simulate the speech afraid of his Master. The fact that his teacher on this subject is a woman is also subject of commentary, for Menexenus she must be a "rare one". After that Socrates agrees on telling him another political speechs of her under the condition that this must be made in secret, Menexenus agrees. A good read and we can see how the greeks treated other cultures (the barbarians, they say) along with a beautiful oration for the dead.

[Miguel Angel Lozano · Rating 3 out of 5]

Un dialogo distinto en el que Sócrates muestra su capacidad retórica mediante un discurso. Platón es bien conocido por su crítica a la retórica y sofística, sus diálogos iniciales están repletos de razonamientos que van en contra a estas actividades. Creo que en ninguno lo encapsula tal y como en el Menexeno. Después de leer algunos diálogos de Platón, uno se acostumbra a ser presentado con "razonamientos de acero", en contraste con este dialogo donde, Sócrates da un discurso, hace cientos de premisas y las expone rápidamente !Fuaa, Fiuum, Faaaam! Uno se queda atónito, no te da tiempo para pensar en donde estuvo el error, ¡pero suenan taaan bien... que uno, no sabe ni por donde empezar a investigar lo que se ha dicho! Tal cual, un discurso político/religioso actual, malditos sofistas XD.

PS: He visto otros comentarios que han interpretado este texto (como si Sócrates "creyese" el discurso que está dando) sin darse cuenta de la ironía y burla hacia la retórica. Antes de que Sócrates comience a hablar, se disculpa con Menexeno, ya que este último le ha convencido a que diga el discurso, y le dice: "pero tal vez te burles de mi {Menexeno}, si, viejo como soy, te produzco la impresión de que aún jugueteo como un niño". Realmente uno pudiera leer las primeras paginas del discurso para luego saltárselo todo hasta el final, ya que el discurso en si mismo carece de sustancia, lo menciona una y mil veces en los diálogos previos: estos (los discursos) son pura adulación. En México diríamos "que te están vendiendo humo", "o que te dan gato por liebre".

[Sidharth Vardhan · Rating 1 out of 5]

If only somebody had told Plato that not every dialogue involving Plato, that he happens to come across, needs to be recorded. Menexenus is both disputed (as regards its origin) and boring - a blessing its short. Even in its short span though, it has long, really long, really long monologue from Socrates who is being sarcastic and is mimicking rhetoricians, by giving a long speech that could be delivered on a generic funeral. The speech though has nothing good about it, unless you consider tons of praises of Athenians as something good.

[c · Rating 1 out of 5]

Lackluster rhetoric and history, trending towards equally lackluster satire. Plato, if you are the real Plato, please bring back the real Socrates.

[Kaamos · Rating 4 out of 5]

Platon külliyatına girişte okunmaması gerekir diyebileceğim tek diyalog Meneksenos sanırım. Bunun çeşitli sebepleri var, diyalogun genel Platon diyalektiğine çelişik ifadeler içermesi, çelişik bir yapıda olması, eserin yazarının Platon olup olmadığının uzun süre tartışılmış olması bunlardan bazıları. Ancak ben Meneksenos’u bir Platon diyalogu olarak kabul ediyorum (her ne kadar bir diyalogdan ziyade söylev/monolog niteliği gösterse de – ki bunu Apologia’da da görürüz) ve Platon ve onun Sokrates’ine dair bir hakimiyetle okunmasının önem arz edeceğini düşünüyorum; zira bana kalırsa Sokrates’in ironisinden bihaber okunduğu takdirde, Platon’un retoriğe dair yaklaşımı konusunda kafa karışıklığına sebep olabilecek bir diyalog bu.

İronisini gözümüzden kaçırdığımız takdirde, Protagoras ve Gorgias’ta retoriğe dair düşmanlığını güçlü temellere dayandırmış Sokrates’in (dolayısıyla Platon’un) retoriğin bütün gücünü kullandığını görüp afallayabiliriz burada. Mecliste konuşma yapacak Meneksenos, akraba ve dostlarını savaşta kaybetmiş halkın yaralarını saracak bir konuşma hazırlığında yardım için Sokrates’e başvurur, Sokrates ise ona Aspasia’nın birkaç gün önce yaptığı bir söylevi olduğu gibi okur. Diyalog’un neredeyse tamamını da bu söylev oluşturmaktadır; söylevin amacı en başında belirtilmiştir zaten, ölüleri onore etmek, yaşayanları da gerektiği takdirde kentleri için ölmeye teşvik ederek cesaretlendirmek. Sokrates okuduğu bu söylev esnasında adeta, Platon’un bilgisiz çoğunluk karşısında bilgili olanı alt edebilen olarak gördüğü, kitleleri olmadık hazlar ve inançlar ile doğru yoldan uzaklaştırdığını düşündüğü hatip kılığına girmiştir; söylev halkını savaşa mobilize edecek 20. Yüzyıl tiranlarının ağzından dinlediğimiz formülasyonun reçetesidir sanki;

- İçine doğduğumuz, sınırları belli toprak parçasını yücelt + kentin ve coğrafyanın kısa tarihi – check.
- Gott Mit Uns! – check.
- Harp halinde sınıf ve kastların azledilmesi, vatanın tüm fertleri (anlık olarak) eşit ve kardeştir – check.
- Atalara, kültürel mitlere ve kahramanlara övgü – check.
- Bizler ve onlar ayrımı (Atinalılar ve barbarlar) Bizde toplum sözleşmesi var, onlarda yok. – check.
- Devlet sizi var etti, sizin olmayan bir canı feda edemezsiniz. – check.

Sokrates’in Aspasia’ya saygı beslediğini, katıldığı savaşlarda kahramanlıklar sergilediğini biliyoruz, ancak yine de bu diyalogda geçen söylev ve benzeri söylevleri onaylamadığı, bunları birer dalkavukluk göstergesi olarak kabul ettiği de diğer diyaloglarda aşikardır. 235c de
“Benimse kendimi böyle yukarılarda görmem en az üç gün kadar devam ediyor. Konuşanın sözleri kulaklarımda öylesine çınlıyor ki ancak dördüncü ve beşinci günlerde kendime gelip, nerede olduğumun farkına varıyorum. Bu sıralarda da ‘Mutlular Adası’nda’ yaşıyorum. Bizim hatiplerimiz işte böylesine becerikli insanlardır.”

Derken aslında ünlü Sokratik ironiyi devreye sokmuş gözükmektedir; Platon’un retorik ve gereksiz bulduğu diğer sanatlarda en çok eleştirdiği ortak özellik insanı gerçeklerden uzaklaştırarak onları kopyanın, kopyasının kopyası bir fantazma dünyasına atması ve histerik bir hal yaşatması iken, tam olarak bu kısımda aslında bu tarz bir hitabetin tehlikesini ve gücünü göstermek ister. Belki biraz zorlama bir okuma olacak ancak Mutlular Adası’nın buradaki kullanımında bir başka ironi daha görmekteyim; ki Platon’un Sokrates aracılığıyla rahatsızlık duymadan referansa başvurduğu şair Homeros’un Odysseia’sında geçmektedir. Bunları söyledikten sonra okuyacağı Aspasia’nın söylevinde Yunanların atalarına ve kahramanlarına yapılan göndermeye istinaden de, Mutlular Adası tanrıların övgüsünü hak edecek yiğitliklerde bulunmuş kişilerin gidebileceği bir yerdir. Odysseia’da ise Odysseus, Troia’da ölen dostu Akhilleus ile karşılaştığında bambaşka bir yaklaşım sunar Homeros; Akhilleus tanrıların övgüsüne de, kahramanlığa da, yiğitliğe de lanet etmektedir, sakin ve mütevazi bir çobanlık hayatını yeğlediğini belirtir, ölü bir kahraman olmaktansa. Ion diyalogunda bariz bir şekilde Homeros şiirlerine hakimiyetini belli eden Sokrates’in bu söylemi bilmemesine pek imkan veremeyiz bana kalırsa.

Tüm bunlar dışında Platon’un aynı zamanda hitabet hünerlerini de sergilediği bir diyalog olmuştur Meneksenos.

[Hasan Çelik · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book of Plato named "Menexenus", as a brilliant example of oratory or rhetoric, consists of a ceremonial speech for those who died in war, and a speech praising their heroism.

It is also a book to tell about the dialogue between Socrates and Menexenus. There are some points in the book that I found interesting and that I liked. When I compare the social consciousness and ethic values of these people who lived between 300-400 BC with the current ones(I mean, us), sometimes I think that we are behind them.

Anyway, Socrates says:

“Thus born into the world and thus educated, the ancestors of the departed lived and made themselves a government, which I ought briefly to commemorate. For government is the nurture of man, and the government of good men is good, and of bad men bad. And I must show that our ancestors were trained under a good government, and for this reason they were good, and our contemporaries are also good, among whom our departed friends are to be reckoned. Then as now, and indeed always, from that time to this, speaking generally, our government was an aristocracy—a form of government which receives various names, according to the fancies of men, and is sometimes called democracy, but is really an aristocracy or government of the best which has the approval of the many. For kings we have always had, first hereditary and then elected, and authority is mostly in the hands of the people, who dispense offices and power to those who appear to be most deserving of them. Neither is a man rejected from weakness or poverty or obscurity of origin, nor honoured by reason of the opposite, as in other states, but there is one principle—he who appears to be wise and good is a governor and ruler. The basis of this our government is equality of birth; for other states are made up of all sorts and unequal conditions of men, and therefore their governments are unequal; there are tyrannies and there are oligarchies, in which the one party are slaves and the others masters. But we and our citizens are brethren, the children all of one mother, and we do not think it right to be one another's masters or servants; but the natural equality of birth compels us to seek for legal equality, and to recognize no superiority except in the reputation of virtue and wisdom.”

--------------------

Platon’un “Meneksenos” isimli bu kitabı, parlak bir hitabet veya retorik örneği olarak, savaşta ölenler için yapılan bir tören konuşmasından, onların kahramanlıklarını övücü bir söylevden oluşur.

Aynı zamanda Sokrates ile Meneksenos arasında geçen diyaloğu konu alan bir kitaptır. Kitapta ilginç bulduğum ve hoşuma giden bazı noktalar var. MÖ 300-400 yılları arasında yaşamış bu insanların toplumsal bilinç ve etik değerlerini şimdikilerle (yani bizlerle) karşılaştırdığımda bazen onlardan geri kaldığımızı düşünüyorum.

Her neyse; Sokrares diyor ki;

“Böylece doğan ve yetişen bu savaşçıların ataları, kendilerini idare için bir devlet kurmuşlardı. Bunun üzerinde söz söylememiz de uygun düşer; çünkü, insanları yetiştiren devlettir. Devlet iyi olursa, insan da iyi olur. Kötü olursa aksi olur. Onun için, babalarımızın ve aralarına önümüzdeki ölüleri de katacağımız bugünkü yurttaşlarımızın , düzenli bir devlet idaresi altında, kendilerini erdemli kılan bir devlet idaresi altında yetiştiklerini göstermek gerekir. O zamanki idare bugünkü şeklin aynısıydı, bugün de seçkinlerin idaresi altında yaşıyoruz; o çağlardan beri de aynı idare altında yaşadık; buna, bazıları demokratlık diyor; başkaları da diledikleri adı veriyorlar; gerçekte bu idare, çokluğun da onayıyla kurulmuş olan seçkinler idaresidir. Gerçi başımızda krallar bulunmuştur ve onlara , bu hakkı önceleri doğuşları, sonra da seçimler vermiştir, ama, iktidar daha çok çoğunluğun elindedir. Çoğunluk devlet idaresi vazifesini ve iktidarı en iyi yurttaşlara emanet etmiştir; hiç kimse, sakatlığı, fakirliği veya doğuşunun yüksek olmayışı yüzünden bu vazifeye elverişsiz sayılmamış ; hiç kimse başka memleketlerde olduğu gibi bunlara zıt üstünlüklerinden ötürü tercih edilmemiştir. Yalnız bir kural kabul edilmiştir. Usta ve erdemli olan emreder, idare eder. Bu bizim idare şeklinin temeli, bütün yurttaşların eşit şartlar altında doğmuş olmasına dayanır. Başka devletlerin halkı, türlü yerlerden gelmiş çeşitli soylardandır; bu çeşitlilik hükümetlerinde de görülür, bunlar ya tiranlık, ya oligarşidir. Orada birkaç kişi bütün yurttaşlarını köle gibi kullanır; çoğunluk da bu birkaç kişiyi kendine efendi bilir. Fakat bizler ve yurttaşlarımız hep kardeşiz; çünkü ortak bir anadan çıktık; kendimizi ne birbirimizin kölesi ne de efendisi sayıyoruz. Tabiatın sağlamış olduğu o doğuş birliği, bizi, kanuna göre, hak eşitliği aramaya, erdem ve bilgelikten başka hiçbir üstünlük tanımamaya sürüklüyor.”

[Bernie Gourley · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Menexenus” is unique among the Socratic dialogues in that there is very little dialogue and a great deal of speech. (“Phaedrus” has a couple of short speeches in it, but they inform the philosophical discussion.) “Menexenus” does begin and end with a dialogue between Menexenus and Socrates. In the opening niceties, Menexenus reveals that there has been a disruption in finding someone to make a funeral speech. Socrates replies that it shouldn’t be hard, anyone – even he – could deliver such a speech. While Socrates usually takes care to display humility, one must remember that he tends to be unimpressed with rhetoricians who use pretty words to be convincing without having philosophical understanding to withstand close scrutiny or questioning.

Socrates says that he has been taught by Aspasia, and learned a speech from her that would easily do the job. Menexenus insists upon hearing it. Socrates is reluctant because he has not been granted permission from Aspasia to deliver her speech, but – ultimately - he agrees to deliver the speech – just between the two of them. The speech proposes that the virtue of those who passed in service of the state is only as great as the state that they served, and thus jingoistic praise of Athens’ fine qualities is unleased. There is also discussion of the importance of moderation and composure.

The end dialogue involves Menexenus praising the speech, and [with more than a little misogyny] especially in light of its composition by a woman. I didn’t find this as beneficial a read as most of the Socratic dialogues. It doesn’t provide the same kind of food for thought, but is more a lesson in how to build a rousing funeral oration. That said, there is something to be learned about rhetoric.

[Raphael]

Historically insightful.

“The basis of this our government is equality of birth; for other states are made up of all sorts and unequal conditions of men, and therefore their governments are unequal; there are tyrannies and there are oligarchies, in which the one party are slaves and the others masters. But we and our citizens are brethren, the children all of one mother, and we do not think it right to be one another's masters or servants; but the natural equality of birth compels us to seek for legal equality, and to recognize no superiority except in the reputation of virtue and wisdom.”

“And first I will tell how the Persians, lords of Asia, were enslaving Europe, and how the children of this land, who were our fathers, held them back.”

“For they did not attack one another out of malice or enmity, but they were unfortunate. And that such was the fact we ourselves are witnesses, who are of the same race with them, and have mutually received and granted forgiveness of what we have done and suffered.”

“And all knowledge, when separated from justice and virtue, is seen to be cunning and not wisdom”

In short, one can’t help but be reminded of the phrase, “nothing is new under the sun.”

[Павел Качнов · Rating 5 out of 5]

Menexenus is Plato’s equivalent of showing up to the annual patriotic ceremony, listening to the same boilerplate about “our glorious ancestors,” and thinking: fine, if you can’t beat them, write a better parody.

Instead of philosophy, you get a funeral oration so perfectly generic that it could be copy-pasted into any empire’s national holiday broadcast. Athenians saved Greece, democracy is flawless, the dead are heroes, the living should imitate them - the usual civic lullaby. It’s like watching a middle-aged Plato flex his ability to generate state propaganda on demand and then quietly smirk about it.

The real punchline is that he attributes the entire template to Aspasia, Pericles’ foreign lover, just to remind Athens that their sacred patriotic rhetoric is basically fanfiction written by a non-citizen. Socrates claims these speeches make him feel “uplifted for a few days,” which is Plato’s way of saying: yes, even I fall for this crap before I wake up again.

If you’re here for metaphysics, turn back. If you want to see Plato demonstrate how easy it is to hypnotize a city with historical name-dropping and moral varnish, this is the most elegant eye-roll in the classical canon.

Short, flat, and intentionally hollow.

[Genesis · Rating 4 out of 5]

There is not much of a dialogue in this dialogue. Still gold, because it's Plato.
It presents us a sophistic speech invented by Socrates. Yes, this is not said anywhere in the dialogue, but how can we believe that he memorized all of it after hearing it once from Aspasia, the wise mistress? He says that he's retelling, but I can see his own hand in that speech. In this ironic and satirical dialogue, that little lie fits.

Either way: by hiding what is ugly about Athens' history and praising even the Athenians that do nothing, and also by saying genuinely noble and inspiring things, the speech is criminally effective. It would make somebody feel, in the funny words of Socrates:

«quite elevated by their laudations, [...] and all in a moment I imagine myself to have become a greater and nobler and finer man than I was before. [...] This consciousness of dignity lasts me more than three days, and not until the fourth or fifth day do I come to my senses and know where I am.»

[Molsa Roja(s) · Rating 4 out of 5]

Com es diu a la introducció, aquest diàleg que ben aviat esdevé makrología no és res més que una màquina de guerra platònica, fabricada amb l'objectiu de denunciar, de destruir a partir de l'ironia, la hipèrbole i la paròdia, la pràctica de la retòrica. Aquí Sòcrates presenta de quina manera un epitafi prefabricat en la forma retòrica és capaç, degut a la seva potència adulatòria, d'inserir-se com a tribut d'un mort mai nombrat. El fet és, com deia al Gòrgies, que el rhētor orienta el discurs a crear segons el plaer que ha de provocar -dóxa- i no el bé que ha d'instaurar -parrhesia épisteme.

"El tono aflautado de la palabra y la voz del orador penetran en mis oídos con tal resonancia, que a duras penas al tercer o cuarto día vuelvo en mí y me doy cuenta del lugar de la tierra donde estoy; hasta entonces poco falta para creerme que habito en las Islas de los Bienaventurados, hasta tal punto son diestros nuestros oradores."

[Trounin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Сократ отрицательно относился к произнесению торжественных речей. Не входило в перечень его талантов умение возвеличивать обыденность. Но такая позиция Сократа — ещё один повод для его смертного приговора. Нельзя плевать в лицо того общества, в котором ты живёшь. Если необходимо возвеличивать заслуги, какими бы они надуманными не были, значит следует находить нужные для того слова, не показывая действительную сторону событий. Специально для Менексена Сократ сделал усилие показать историю Афин в выгодном для государства свете, использовав для того якобы речь Аспазии.

(c) Trounin

[Samuel Weiss · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was once a member of a reading group which read this dialogue for a whole year. Each session would last two hours yet we would only make a page or two of progress. I don't think we took so long because we were splitting hairs- there is a lot going on in the dialogue, so it deserves to be read slowly. Although I only attended the last few sessions, the discussion really improved my reading of Plato. Plato should be read as a literary author, who always hides his own views and copiously uses irony. He should also be read in the context of Athenian history. These principles seems obvious, but many academics forget them.

[Nelson Wattie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Of all the Plato dialogues I have read, this is the one that requires most background knowledge and understanding of tone. The latter is especially hard to assess through a translation: when is Socrates being ironic, when sincere? As for background, the place of the funeral oration in Athenian society and the history of the Peleponnesian war are just two areas that need study. My three-star award is a personal reaction, partly dependent on my shallow knowledge of such matters. The Goodreads review by Connor, who gives it five stars, is well worth reading.

[Joshua · Rating 2 out of 5]

This work is a parody of Greek funeral orations, and thus possesses historical significance as very few actual funeral orations from that time have survived. From what I gather, Socrates essentially wanted to flex his rhetorical skill and show it superior to Thucydides Funeral Oration for Pericles. Haven't read that so I can't compare to the original form. I enjoyed this more as a glimpse into a 2500 year old practice than for the actual substance of the speech. Glory was the greatest achievement one could attain in Hellenic Greece, and this speech both exemplifies and exagerrates that desire well.

[Parker Gonzalez · Rating 2 out of 5]

Menexenus serves as an funeral oration for those who have fallen in war. This book doesn't involve a lot of "philosophy", but instead narrates the wars that the multiple Athenian, Helenian, and Peloponnesian soldiers had perished in. I can't say that I'm a fan of lengthy historical narrations in my philosophy books unless they direct relate to the philosophy discussed, such as Machiavelli's The Prince; however, since this lacks any true philosophy in itself besides some few maxims on honor and respect, I didn't find Menexenus extremely enjoyable.

[Aaron Schuschu · Rating 4 out of 5]

Socrates tells Menexenus what another guy said about this gal Aspasia said about the war with the Persians (who, in turn, nests a number of war reports within each other) and to keep on the low that he follows Aspasia’s speeches. Kind of convoluted plot wise and who said what to whom when, but an astute assessment of nationalism far before it was cool. Perhaps this inspired some of Nietzsche’s ideas.

[Jairo Fraga · Rating 3 out of 5]

A leitura do "diálogo", que mais é uma "oração fúnebre" ficou mais aprazível lendo pelo estudo de Bruna Camara, pela USP, de 2014.
Parece ser uma sátira, em que Sócrates omite diversos fatos históricos de Atenas e força a barra em outros, culminando com algo como "depois que morre, todo mundo vira santo", mas no sentido mais de glórias terrenas para o coletivo.

[PlatonisCiceronis · Rating 5 out of 5]

I’m not sure what I expected, though I should have expected more than I did. Plato is a master wordsmith, and the portion where he calls up the dead to give an encomium on the noble and heroic deaths of soldiers is the finest speech in praise of those who have fallen that I have ever had the pleasure of reading.

[Ezra Cortés · Rating 2 out of 5]

Un texto breve y relativamente sencillo.
Es debatido si es o no autoría de Platón, por su simplicidad y falta de profundidad comparado con otras de sus obras.
Este es un diálogo entre Sócrates y Menexeno sobre un discurso en favor de guerreros caídos.
En parte sátira y en parte crítica comenta temas mixtos en la muerte, la guerra, el honor y las penas.