Page images

the name to all the inhabitants of that coast to the south of the Tuscans. Aristotle mentions the Opici as the same people with the Ausones; but Polybius judged them to be a distinct people. (See Strabo, L. 5. p. 242.) The Siculi probably might speak the same tongue, having been driven out of Italy (Thucyd. L. 6. p. 349.) by these Opici some years after the Trojan war, and settling in a part of this Island. This name

grew into a term of reproach, which the more polished Greeks bestowed upon the Romans, as Cato the censor complains in Pliny, L. 29. c. 1. "Nos quoque dictant barbaros, et spurciùs nos quam alios Opicos appellatione fœdant," and in time it became a Latin word to signify barbarous and illiterate. (See Tullius Tyro ap. Aul. Gell. L. 13. c. 9. "Ita ut nostri Opici putaverunt, &c.)

Ρ. 354. Τους δεκα στρατηγους κατελευσαν.] This fact is contrary to Diodorus, who only tells us, that the generals were deposed; (L. 13. c. 92.) and that afterwards, Daphnæus, the chief of them, and Demarchus (who were both enemies to Dionysius) were put to death (Ib. c. 96.); neither does he inform us of what we are here told, that Hipparinus, the father of Dion, was joined in commission with Dionysius, both being elected Στρατηγοι αυτοκρατορες, and both called Tupavvoi. (See Aristot. Politic. L. 5. c. 6.)


P. 355. Tov pov vov.] This directly contradicts both Plutarch and Cornelius Nepos, who particularly describe the tragical end of Hipparinus, Dion's son, when just arrived at man's estate. All that story, and the apparition which preceded it, must be false, if this

epistle be genuine, which I see no reason, but this, for doubting. The only way to reconcile the matter is, by supposing that Plato might here mean the infant son of Dion, who was born after his father's death; and who was not yet destroyed by Hicetas, for Plutarch intimates, that he continued to treat both the child and its mother well for a considerable time after the expulsion of Callippus. What makes against this supposition is, that in the end of this letter, p. 357. he speaks of Dion's son, as of a person fit to judge of, and to approve, the scheme of government which he has proposed to all parties.

Ρ. 356. Εκων την πολιν ελευθεροι.] Here we see that Hipparinus, the son of Dionysius the elder by Aristomache, had put himself at the head of Dion's party, and supported the war against his brother.


The date not settled.

Plat. Op. Serrani, Vol. 3. p. 317.


Ρ. 357. Ου δυνασαι της περι τα κοινα ασχολιας απολυ θηναι.] Archytas was seven times elected Στρατηγος of Tarentum, which was then a democracy.

Ib. Κακεινο δει σε ενθυμείσθαι, ὅτι ἕκαστος ἡμων ουκ αυτω μονον γεγονεν, αλλα της γενεσεως ἡμων το μεν τι ἡ πατρις μερίζεται, το δε τι, δι γεννησαντες· το δε, δι λοιποι φιλοι· πολλα δε τοις καιροις διδοται τοις τον βιον

ἡμων καταλαμβανοῦσι. κτλ.] This fine sentiment is quoted by Cicero De Officiis, L. 1. c. 7: and again, De Finibus, L. 2. so that the seventh, the fourth, and this epistle, are of an authority not to be called in question. P. 357. Пpos την Toλiv.] They were to negociate something with the Athenians.

Ib. Exekρaтous.] Echecrates, the son of Phrynio, now a youth, was born at Phlius, and instructed in the Pythagorean principles by Archytas. Aristoxenus, a disciple of Aristotle (see Diog. Laert. L. 8. c. 46.), speaks of him as of a person whom he could remember, and one of the last of that sect who were considerable. Iamblichus also mentions him, c. 35. et ultim. de Vitâ Pythagoræ; and Plato introduces him as desiring to hear the manner of Socrates's death from Phædo.


or, as Laertius writes, To ARISTODEMUS.

The date not settled.

Plat. Op. Serrani, Vol. 3. p. 358.



The date not settled.

Plat. Op. Serrani, Vol. 3. p. 358.

Laodamas of Thasus was a great geometrician and scholar to Plato, who first taught him the method of analytick investigation. (See Laertius, L. 3. c. 24. and Proclus in Euclidem, L. 3. Prob. 1. and L. 2. P. 19.)

He seems from this letter to have been principally concerned in founding some colony.


P. 358. H Zкрarn.] This cannot possibly be the great Socrates, for he died when Plato was in his twenty-ninth year; and we see that in this passage he excuses himself from travelling on account of his age: it must, therefore, be the younger Socrates whom Plato introduces in his ПoλTikos (and in the Theatetus, p. 147. and in Sophista, p. 218. and 268.) and who is mentioned by Aristotle in his Metaphysicks. (L. 6. p. 370. edit. Sylburgii.)

P. 358. Havтa Kivovvov.] The most considerable settlements which happened in Plato's time, were those at Messenia and at Megalopolis, Ol. 102. and we are told that he was actually applied to by this last city to form for them a body of laws; but he excused himself. Whether Laodamas had any share in that foundation, I cannot tell; if he had, it is no wonder that Plato should object the danger of his journey into the Peloponnesus that year, when every thing was in the utmost confusion.


Plat. Op. Serrani, Vol. 3. p. 359.

This fragment (for such it is) is preserved by Laertius, together with the letter from Archytas, to which it is

an answer.


Ρ. Ὑπομνηματα.]

P. 359. Yлоμνημara.] He alludes to the commentaries of Ocellus, the Lucanian, which Archytas had procured from the descendants of that philosopher. The subjects of them were Περι Νομῳ, και βασιληίας, και όσιοτατος, και τᾶς τω παντος γενεσιος; the last of which is still in being.

Ib. Mupio.] Read Mupaio, of Myra, a city in Lycia. Homer speaks of another Lycia between mount. Ida and the Æsepus, subject to Troy: the Lycians, on the south coast of Asia Minor, were probably a colony from thence. (Strabo, L. 12. p. 565. and L. 14. p. 665.) The family of Ocellus might be originally of Myra; but the Lucanians in general were of Italian origin, being sprung from the Samnites, who were a colony of the Sabines.

P. 359. Tys Þvλakys.] The work of Plato was undoubtedly his Пoλrea, of which he sent a copy to Archytas, who, he says, was of his own opinion as to the institution of the Pulakes: what they were see in the IIoTela itself. None of the commentators on Laertius have understood this passage.

This epistle is marked in the first editions of Plato as spurious: (Αντιλεγεται ὡς ου Πλατωνος. MSS. Vatican. cod. 1460. and Serranus sees mysteries here, where there are none; the same is said also of the thirteenth epistle :) but there seems no reason for it.

« PreviousContinue »