LYSIAS AND THE DATE OF PLATO'S PHAEDRUS BY SPIRO PANAGIOTOU It is generally accepted nowadays that the Phaedyus is a relatively late dialogue. Stylometric studies 1) and internal evidence 2) make almost certain that it was composed after the Republic. As to possible dates, Howland suggests 372 B. C. as the upper and 368 as the lower terminus 3). Hackforth rejects Howland's argument but accepts its general conclusions. Although very hesitant to give us a precise date, he ventures the guess of "37o B.C. or there- abouts" 4). Professor De Vries would prefer to bring the date a little forward to 369-67. But he also suggests that a "date between 366 and 362 is not excluded" 5). In this paper I wish to recommend 365 ?4 B.C. as the teyminus a quo for the composition of the Phaedyus. My discussion will center around the possible date for Lysias' death. In Section I I shall present a number of arguments which, taken together, make it virtually certain that Lysias is dead when Plato sits down to write the Phaedyus. I shall then offer in Section II some reasons for thinking that Lysias is alive up to the mid 36os. The consid- erations of Section II are admittedly problematic. However, I think it worth while to put them forth here. I Lysias must be dead when Plato sits down to compose the Phaedyus. There are at least three complementary reasons to 1) For results of stylometric studies cf. W. D. Ross, Plato's Theory of Ideas (Oxford 1953), 2. 2) For a discussion cf. R. Hackforth, Plato's Phaedrus (Cambridge 1952), 4-5 and G. J. de Vries, A Commentary on the Phaedrus of Plato (Amster- dam 1969), 7-11. 3) R. L. Howland, The Attack on Isocrates in the Phaedrus, CQ 31 (1937), 159 n. 1. 4) Hackforth, op. cit., 6-7. 5) De Vries, op. cit., 11. 389 support this claim. The first two are, to my mind, very strong. I am not sure how much weight we should attach to the last one but I proffer it here for what it is worth. (I) Plato would not have criticised Lysias himself and the speech ascribed to him (230 E-234 C) as severely and explicitly as he does, had Lysias been alive at the time. It is true Plato criticises Isocrates who is alive. But in censuring him, Plato employs the diplomatic tactics of insinuation, implication and irony. Isocrates is mentioned by name only once (279 A). Lysias, on the other hand, is constantly kept before the reader's mind and every time his name comes up, Plato takes his gloves off. Lysias, unlike his brother Polemarchus, is not a philosopher (257 B). Lysias is inferior to Isocrates not only in literary achieve- ments but also in character (279 A). The last point is strictly ad hominem. Lysias himself would not be satisfied with the technical aspects of his speech: it is repetitive and in a sense child-like (235 A); its parts do not fit together properly but they are like the unconnected lines of the epitaph on Midas' tomb (264 C-D). As to the sentiments expressed in the speech, they amount to nothing short of an enormously serious sin before man and god 6). The speech is xai 1<6 w (242 D 7; cf. also &va18&q at 243 C z ) . Admittedly, Socrates uses these extremely harsh terms to describe not just Lysias' speech but also his own first speech (237 B-241 D). However, soon afterwards Socrates says that, in delivering his speech, he was acting merely as the mouthpiece of Phaedrus (242 E z ) . More significantly, after the Palinode, in his prayer to Eros (257 A-B), Socrates washes both his and Phaedrus' hands of the 'sin' and blames everything on Lysias (257 B 1-2). There is another instance where Plato in a rather stupid and malicious way tries to get after Lysias. It involves the innocuous- looking exchange between Socrates and Phaedrus at 227 B 2-5. Socrates says, "I take it Lysias was in town". Phaedrus replies, 6) The speech is a sin before a man πρo τò ηθo (243 C 3) and before the god of Love (242 D 9 ff.). Notice the repetition of and and Socrates' sense of shame at 242 B-243 D. For all this Lysias gets the blame. .