ROMEO DOMDII CLIFF | 213

John Sallis, Ed. 2017. The collected volume ’s Statesman: Dialectic, Myth, and Politics presents some of Plato’s Statesman: the new interesting research being conducted Dialectic, Myth, and on the Statesman. The volume is edited by John Sallis, who is well known for his work Politics. Albany: SUNY. in phenomenology, including writings on 326pp. , , , and . Sallis takes a decidedly continental approach to reading Plato, as do his selected contributors, with thirteen of the seventeen contributions co- ming from the continental, hermeneutic, or post-structuralist traditions. Romeo Domdii Cliff Though the volume lacks a clear structure Catholic University of Leuven of its own, the contributions could be grouped [email protected] under five broad headings: (1) Contributions that discuss the myth, in particular those by Michael Naas, Sara Brill, and Walter Brogan. These authors deal with, respectively, the usage of the word “αὐτόματος,» meaning «without guidance»; the relevance of sexual reproduction in comprehending human beings; and the proper relation to the time required to form a human community. I should also mention the contribution by Shane Montgomery Ewegen, who writes on the debt owed by Socrates in the Statesman. Also pertinent for this group is the article by Nickolas Pappas, which deals with the appearance of philosophy in the myth. (2) Contributions that discuss dialectic. Günter Figal focuses on the interdependence between dialectical training and the determi- nation of the statesman. He argues that under- standing the statesman demands dialectical training. Eric Sanday follows with an article investigating how a preliminary understanding can guide an inquiry while being aware of its limitations, focusing on Politicus 277a-279a. Finally, James Risser offers an interpretation of Politicus 277a-278e and, contra Figal, argues that the disclosure of the statesman should

https://doi.org/10.14195/2183-4105_20_16 214 | John Sallis, Ed. 2017. Plato’s Statesman: Dialectic, Myth, and Politics. Albany: SUNY. 326pp., 2013

not be understood from the dialectical art, This review will proceed by considering but rather through examples. three points about the collected volume. First, (3) Contributions that engage with the I will look at the new trend among scholars to dialogue from the broader perspective of the read into the Statesman the complete rejection trilogy (Theaetetus, , and Statesman). of the existence of an ideal statesman in our John Sallis’ short article examines whether contemporary society. Second, I will discuss the beginning of the dialogue starts with its certain previously unexplored terrains in the opening lines or whether it lies before these dialogue to which scholars are now gravitat- lines. Mitchell Miller forges ahead with a ing. And finally, I will comment on the fact discussion of intuition and logos in the tril- that all contributors to the volume show a ogy. Noburu Notomi takes the discussion certain degree of sensitivity to the dramatic one step further, arguing that the trilogy context of the dialogue and refrain from at- pursues the nature of the . At the tributing Plato’s voice to a single character. A penultimate position, Drew Hyland, through brief remark on these points will be furnished a fictitious dialogue between Theaetetus, at the end. Young Socrates, and Axiothea of Phlius (one of two disguised female members of the Academy), brings to light the thoughts THE NEW SCHOLARLY TREND these three personages must have had at the IN RESEARCH ON THE closing of the trilogy. And finally, Burt Hop- STATESMAN kins unites the trilogy into one by exploring whether the presence of many There is a new trend among scholars to in the three dialogues entails that philosophy read the Statesman, especially through its itself is multiple. myth of the two Ages (the Golden Age of Kro- (4) Contributions that are more politically nos and the present Age of Zeus) as a dialogue oriented. At the front of the pack here is Robert which forgoes the advent of the true statesman, Metcalf, who is interested in how the critique or the possibility of such a person to ever ex- of writing in the Phaedrus and the critique of ist in our current world. Michael Naas, for law in the Statesman are important for Plato’s example, in From Spontaneity to Automaticity: political thought. Next, Robert Bartlett gives Polar (Opposite) Reversal at Statesman 269c- a general account of law in the dialogue. Ryan 274d, claims that the true statesman is dead. Drake concludes by arguing that the sophist Naas focuses on the word “αὐτόματος”, which has a place in the best regime, especially when is used five times throughout the dialogue – gathering intelligence finds its civic limits in four times in the Age of Kronos and one time the Statesman. in the Age of Zeus – arguing that it denotes (5) Finally, there is a single contribution a lack of guidance. According to Naas, the that discusses the reception of the dialogue term ‘αὐτόματος’ reveals the striking analogy by the Neoplatonic commentators. Here between the Age of Kronos and spoken law Gary Gurtler studies Plotinus’ allusions to or speech, on the one hand, and the Age of the Statesman and how his usage of the text Zeus and written law, on the other. The Age reveals his method in citing passages and of Zeus is an age when the teachings of the claims made about them. first lawmaker are recalled via written signs ROMEO DOMDII CLIFF | 215

in the absence of a living lawmaker or the formed into being. Life circles back into itself now-departed god. (Naas 2017, 16) in a cycle of repetition and renewal. There is Having already prepared the reader for no need for self-preservation in the Age of the notion of a dead statesman (Naas 2017, Kronos’ (Brogan 2017, 72). It is important 16) and having associated the ‘original law- to point out that this is not an innocent pa- maker’ and speaker with the Age of Kronos, raphrase of the text but already implies an or with Kronos himself, Naas proceeds to give interpretation, as we will show below. reasons laws are necessary and maintains that The conditions in the Age of Kronos are the true statesman must rely on written law, different from those in the Age of Zeus. Ac- since his death is as inevitable as the end of cording to Brogan, in the Age of Zeus, a period the Age of Kronos. The Age of Kronos must during which God is no longer piloting the end, wherefore laws are indispensable in the universe and time is no longer cyclical, the Age of Zeus and they mimic the speaker of universe moves toward destruction, and the the Age of Kronos. Further, the multiplicity of task of the statesman is to heal the rupture human beings prohibits the original lawgiver between the whole and its parts by preserving from speaking to all people at the same time or life and order in a recalcitrant universe that to the same people all the time. (Naas 2017, 28) leans toward destruction. With the true statesman dead or constrained Attempting to reconnect the forward and to the long-gone Age of Kronos, it is futile to backward time found in the Age of Kronos, hope for his/her return in our present era. standing at the threshold of the end of the Walter A. Brogan, in The Politics of Time: Age of Kronos and the beginning of the Age On the Relationship between Life and Law in of Zeus, and mastering the kairological time, Plato’s Statesman, supports Naas’ reading when understood as the moment disunity first emer- he suggests that law is the personification of ges in the universe following the release of the statesman in the community. Concerned the rudder by Kronos, the statesman, Brogan with whether, and in what way, the identity continues, produces laws to respond to the that defines the becoming of a people is pos- changing circumstances of life and to return sible and whether this identity can hold the unity in disunity, similarly to what charac- flow of time found in political life, Brogan terizes the Age of Kronos (Brogan 2017, 77). claims that the rule of the statesman, which is With the statesman’s law doing the necessa- a care that has an appropriate relationship to ry work of instilling unity within the universe, temporality, both inaugurates and preserves attempting to redirect the destructive course the unity of a people. of the universe, and attempting to reproduce Justifying his claim, Brogan starts by des- as much as possible the forward and backward cribing the Age of Kronos, an Age he associates time found in the Age of Kronos, Brogan with the reverse motion of the universe and concludes with the following arguments. The a time of back and forth in which creatures place of the statesman is not within the city are born grown from the earth and grow in he rules, rather it is restricted to the moment reverse, only to grow again from the earth. ‘In the universe is initially released by Kronos, or this world’, Brogan argues, ‘creatures become the kairological time. Further, the statesman younger and eventually enter once again into leaves the laws behind as a reminder of his the moment of birth, only to come again fully presence. And finally, the statesman cannot 216 | John Sallis, Ed. 2017. Plato’s Statesman: Dialectic, Myth, and Politics. Albany: SUNY. 326pp., 2013

dwell within the community, as doing so will nature of self-rule beyond attempts at self-rule disrupt the independence of his subjects. embodied in the practice of techné. Self-rule, He is apart from the city in two ways. she continues, must include the acknowledg- He is not within the city because he attends ment that human political life is grounded in to the original threshold from out of which the fact that we are born from other human emerges life as we know it. And he stands beings in this Age of Zeus, instead of being at the threshold in another sense as himself sprung from the earth, as in the Age of Kronos. the origin of the law of the city, that is, as ‘To deny this fact’, Brill holds, ‘is to deny a himself the unity of life and law. The sta- fundamental dimension of human being qua tesman does not belong to the city, and to political animal’ (Brill 2017, 34). dwell there other than as a stranger would Substantiating this claim, Brill first establi- be to disrupt the independent ability of shes that the object of the dialogue, defining those for whom he cares (Brogan 2017, 80). the statesman, is inextricably linked with With the law preforming the tasks of the sta- understanding what constitutes a human life tesman within the city and with the statesman or how humans live, in as much as unders- restricted to a place apart at the beginning of tanding what kind of living being humans are the Age of Zeus, law becomes the personifi- is essential to understanding the work of the cation of the statesman in the community. statesman (Brill, 2017, 33). Whether the statesman is dead as Naas has it Next, Brill proceeds to describe two types or whether the law serves as the personifica- of reproduction, reproduction which explains tion of the statesman as Brogan purports, it why the myth is central in the examination of would behove contemporary societies, humans human beings qua political animals. The myth in the Age of Zeus, not to expect the arrival of displays the contours of human political life by the statesman and not to expect one to dwell distinguishing it from a vision of the human among humans. Any such expectation is futile, collective for whom the polis is unnecessary, given the ontological status of the statesman, and the two visions are separated by their dis- according to both Nass and Brogan. tinctive reproduction. The two types of repro- duction, generation by others and generation from self, mark the different modes of life in UNCHARTERED AREAS IN THE the Age of Kronos and the Age of Zeus (Brill DIALOGUE 2017, 34). Further, human self-rule, political community, and human life in the Age of Zeus One of the most original and interesting can only be understood when considering the articles in the book is that of Sara Brill: Au- sexual reproduction of this Age, Brill argues. tochthony, Sexual Reproduction, and Political Life in the Statesman Myth. Reflecting on the In Noêsis and Logos in the Eleatic Trilogy, status of human political phenomena, on how with a Focus on the Visitor’s Joke at States- humans come to be, and on the kind of politi- man 266a-d, Mitchell Miller discusses the cal animal that human beings are—all within relation between intuition and discourse in the context of the myth—Brill argues that the the dialogue. Starting with Politicus 266a-d specific characteristic of sexual reproduction and proceeding to the three definitions of the in the dialogue demands consideration of the statesman, Miller argues the Statesman is a ROMEO DOMDII CLIFF | 217

provocation to, and then exegesis of, a Noêsis of dialectical inquiry and the basis for the of what is essential to statesmanship, done in discursive exegesis that inquiry requires. Fur- three jokes.1 The first joke is a mathematical ther, these jokes trigger and concentrate the pun that appeals to geometry to distinguish irony of the whole initial division. The jokes between bipeds and quadrupeds. The Stranger also trigger the setting aside of the example says that the distinction will be made by deter- of the shepherd. And finally, the jokes trigger mining the diagonal and then the diagonal of the introduction of both the weaving example the diagonal. The human mode of walking is and of the new form of division, which lays bipedal in capacity or power (dunamis), which out fifteen kinds of care with which members has a mathematical equivalence of √2 since of a city take responsibility for their material the Greek word dunamis also means ‘square political lives. root’ and dipous also means ‘two-footed’. Mo- Miller puts forth a fascinating thesis in reover, in geometry, the diagonal of a square his article, but it is a pity he spends much is the hypotenuse of a right-angled triangle of the article developing his argument from and, following the Pythagorean theorem, is elements in the Theaetetus and Sophist. When calculated by taking the square root of the he returns to the Statesman, the reader is left sum of the squares of the length of the other with no more than suggestive claims. Miller sides. So, by being two-footed in capacity or starts from the end of the Theaetetus when power, human beings generate a diagonal that Socrates refutes the definition of knowledge is √2 in a square of 1x1 or the square root as true judgment with an account, argues of two feet. Animals that are four-footed in that this refutation is a provocation for fur- capacity or power generate a diagonal that is ther thought, and highlights the paradoxical √4 in a square of √2 x √2 or the square root character of the object of knowledge as both of four feet, which is the diagonal (√4) of the simple and complex to support that argument. diagonal (the square with side √2, which is Focusing on the latter point, Socrates, also the diagonal of human beings with who Miller continues, argues that the things in are two-footed in capacity). the world are complexes of perceptible, simple The second joke deals with the fact that elements and that, since knowledge requires man is paired, throughout the division of giving an account or logos, and giving an animals, with pigs. These pigs have such noble account requires an object whose parts are qualities as undemanding, slow and come in distinguishable, only complex things are last. The gist of the joke lies in the irony of knowable. The simple elements from which pairing humans with pigs as counterparts, as they are formed are themselves unknowable. well as in the contradictory qualities attribu- Socrates then attacks this understanding of ted to pigs. And the third joke has to do with an object via a dilemma: either the complex calling the swineherd the best of men and the is the plurality of its elements such that if the most well trained for the easy way of life. He complex is knowable so are its elements, or the is someone the human herdsman must keep complex is not reducible to its elements but pace with in the division until the latter has is simple in its own right, in which case the to be separated from him. complex would be just as unknowable as its Noêsis, for Miller, is the intuitive insight elements. Since the second option leads to the into the essential that is the epistemic goal denial of the possibility of knowledge, Socrates 218 | John Sallis, Ed. 2017. Plato’s Statesman: Dialectic, Myth, and Politics. Albany: SUNY. 326pp., 2013

finds refuge in the first option by reminding has a definite set of elements or parts, the Theaetetus, his young interlocutor, of his whole qua simple stands prior to the parts early musical training: Theaetetus studied and guides the logos’ disclosure of it within music by first learning the simple elements the context of these parts. ‘That is, as what and then proceeding to the complex. But this is responsible, in the manner of a formal affirmation of the knowability of the simple cause’, Miller argues, ‘for a wagon’s having elements is only possible if we allow the simple the parts that it does, it precedes the whole elements to be somehow also complex, leading of these parts and orients the logos’ disclo- to the paradox of the object being both simple sure of it in terms of this whole of parts’ and complex, Miller argues (Miller 2017, 110). (Miller 2017, 111). Furthermore, taking the But how are these contradictory aspects example of the face of Theaetetus, Socrates of the object compossible, Miller asks? The demonstrates how logos in the third sense re- answer lies in Socrates’ treatment of the last veals the object in its simplicity. The unique two senses of logos at Theaetetus 206e-210a. ‘look’ or Gestalt of the countenance stands These show the interconnection of the two before the plurality of its distinguishing moments of knowledge with the two aspects features. The two senses of logos show how of the object: true judgement matches with the the two contradictory aspects of the object object in its simplicity, while logos matches are compossible. with the object in its complexity. This is how While discussing the two-way interplay of the last two senses of logos help to arrive at true judgment and logos, en route, viz., true such a conclusion, according to Miller. The judgment or intuition empowers the logos second sense of logos deals with giving an that seeks to explicate it, and the logos, in account by going through the elements or turn, responds to intuition by supporting it parts that the nature of a thing requires of its as genuine insight or else exposing it as false, instantiation. The third sense of logos deals Miller then transports these considerations with identifying the differentiating features from the Theaetetus to both the Sophist and that distinguish the object from other ob- the Statesman. ‘Plato has Socrates introduce jects. ‘Thus both sorts of these logos’, Miller the last two senses of logos in the Theaetetus’, argues, ‘correlate with the object in its aspect Miller argues, ‘with the proleptic intent of of complexity, disclosing it in their distinct preparing us for the two modes of dialectic way as a plurality of ‘elements’ or features’ that the Eleatic Visitor introduce and practi- (Miller 2018, 110). ce in the Sophist and the Statesman’ (Miller To view the object in its simplicity requi- 2017, 112). These two modes of dialectic are res us to start from another beginning. In the ‘bifurcatory [or division] process’ of disclosing the plurality of elements or featu- collecting differentiating features and the res, each sort of logos presupposes the prior ‘non-bifurcatory process’ of discerning the presence of the object in its simplicity, which parts that make for a harmonious whole, is the correlate of true judgment. Taking the according to Miller (Miller 2017, 116). Miller example of the wagon and logos in the second then proceeds to associates various elements sense, Socrates argues the object resides in of the Sophist and Statesman with the two its simplicity. For as the thing which requires senses of logos found in the Theaetetus and that whatever is to have the nature of a wagon with the two aspects of the object. ROMEO DOMDII CLIFF | 219

For example, tacitly drawing from two what is at stake here is not so much the act of principles in Plato’s unwritten doctrines2 – the comparing two dialogues. It is, rather, the act determinate one and the infinite dyad – and of making a claim about one dialogue based their relation to the realm of the forms, Miller on information derived from another dialogue associates the transcendental form ‘care’ and without materials from the principal dialogue its relation to the fifteen forms of care in the itself to support the claim: the context of the community, including statecraft, with the argument transported might be different from transcendental form ‘one’ and its relation to the argument in the receiving dialogue, and the realm of forms. Specifically, Miller posits each dialogue has its own unique context that that a single form of care embraces the many cannot be overlooked. forms of care in society and further posits It is precisely because of this failure of that this relation calls to mind logos in the not giving enough heed to the context of second sense, inasmuch as the many forms the argument in each dialogue that Miller’s represent the elements that care itself requi- claim regarding the two senses of logos in res to be instantiated (Miller 2017, 112-114). the Statesman is less convincing. It is much Logos in the third sense is made plain by the better, in terms of methodology, to base one’s fact that the complex form ‘care’, which unites argument on, say, the Statesman and its set of the fifteen subordinated forms of care, (the elements and then to use other dialogues to transcendental one also unites all the forms support the claim. Proceeding this way will in the realm of forms), serves to differentiate reduce the risks of overlooking the context of the form, through its unity, from everything the Statesman, the dialogue which is, in this else (Miller 2017, 114-116). case, of primary import, and it produces a However, in my view, there is no indica- much more convincing argument. tion, in the Statesman, of a transcendental form ‘care’ which transcends and unites all other forms. Equally suspicious is the claim THE SENSITIVITY TO THE that the statesman’s art is subordinated to DRAMATIC CONTEXT OF THE the transcendental form ‘care’ and is on the DIALOGUE same level as the other arts in society. When the word ‘care’ is introduced in the dialogue, One striking feature of the essays in this it is within the context of understanding the volume is their sensitivity to the dramatic statesman and the domain of statesmanship, context of the dialogue and their reluctance not as a transcendental form. The textual to attribute Plato’s voice to a single character. evidence in the Statesman does not support John Sallis justifies this approach by arguing, Miller’s claim. even more strongly, that Plato can never be as- One might ask, in defence of Miller: signed any part of a speech within the dialogue why is it so problematic to use elements of given that he is withdrawn from the dialogue, the Theaetetus or the Sophist to explain the acting as a ventriloquist would on stage. Statesman? Why could one not compare the It is too strong to maintain, as Sallis different dialogues and use elements from one does, that one cannot attribute any assertion to elucidate those of another, so long as the to Plato, since there are ways to understand context of the dialogue is respected? However, Plato’s position, given that as he does construe 220 | John Sallis, Ed. 2017. Plato’s Statesman: Dialectic, Myth, and Politics. Albany: SUNY. 326pp., 2013

authoritative arguments in the dialogues. But rule. If such a character represented Plato’s indeed, it would be difficult for a single cha- view, why would Plato make such mistakes, racter to represent Plato’s view in as much as since the author, presumably, already knows such a position is inconsistent across dialogues the message he wants to convey? It is more and within dialogues: (1) characters change likely each of the characters are pieces in the from dialogue to dialogue, making it difficult author’s dramatic setting, a literary play, and to identify the same character as representing each is given a position to represent. The result Plato’s view. One could object that Plato’s views of their interaction would be the message of change along with those of his main charac- the play and the position of the author, Plato. ters. But the views of the main characters, One could argue it is the author speaking, taken together, in a given dialogue are never but it is not necessarily his views that are the same, as these characters disagree with being stated. Rather it is his ideas about how each other. This makes it difficult to have a to engage in philosophy that are revealed. single view representing the main characters But why would the author demonstrate the and to attribute that to Plato. (2) The diffe- proper way to engage in philosophy if he did rent characters within a dialogue often start not share the outcome of the demonstration with different positions at the beginning of or if he did not think such an outcome was the dialogue, and sometimes even switch desirable or truthful? Indeed, the outcome of positions at the end of the dialogue, resulting the demonstration is precisely the message of in a difficulty of deciding which position to the play and the position of the author. attribute to Plato; and (3) the leading character in a particular dialogue sometimes errs in the course of the dialogue and is corrected by the A BRIEF DISCUSSION OF THE minor character, resulting in undermining the MYTH character’s position as an authority. In the Politicus, for example, the Eleatic Since many articles in the book base Stranger, who is the leading character and their argument on the developments in the not Socrates, errs on numerous occasions myth of the Politicus and, especially, on the and has to retrace his steps before procee- assumption of a two-cycle revolution of the ding: in Polit., 263c3-264b11, when both the universe, it is perhaps useful to call to mind Eleatic Stranger and Young Socrates, the an alternative interpretation of Plato’s account minor character, fail to distinguish between of the revolution of the universe, one that domestic and wild herds in their discussion assumes that there are three Ages and two of the theoretical science directing the rearing directions. This view has been put forward by of living creatures in a herd; in Polit., 267c5- various scholars (Rowe 1995, 191-192; Brisson -268d6, when the Stranger fails to distinguish 1995, 358-3363; Brisson 1974, 478-496), but I the statesman from his rivals in a human think it is important to defend it with fresh society; and in Polit., 274e1-275a11, when the arguments, which moreover shed a new light Stranger ventures to describe a God instead on some of the discussions mentioned above. of a human statesman in this era and who is It is not evident why the authors in the present in this world, and the Stranger also book should take it for granted there is a two- fails to describe the manner of the statesman’s -cycle revolution, especially since this creates ROMEO DOMDII CLIFF | 221

difficulties for their positions. Let us take universe. In the end, the reader is presented Sara Brill’s thesis, for instance, that human with a more refined narrative of the motions sexual reproduction, and being born from of the universe, a narrative that acts the part each other, is paramount to comprehending of a receptacle from which all the fundamental human self-rule. Her claim is entirely based ideas concerning the myth could develop and on the two-cycles view. Arguing in binary could be understood. oppositions, Brill maintains that the Age of The myth tells the story of the Golden Kronos moves in reverse and in the opposite Age of Kronos and our current Age of Zeus, direction to our Age of Zeus; the earth-born describes the Age of the reverse motion of in the Age of Kronos are born from others, the universe, and its cataclysmic effects, and whilst humans in the Age of Zeus are born presages the return of Zeus to the helm of the from themselves; and humans in the Age of universe, directly steering it as its captain. The Kronos are ruled by gods, while humans in First Age is the era of Kronos, when God is the the Age of Zeus rule themselves. In her view, ship’s captain and directly steers the universe. being born from each other is fundamental (Polit., 272b1-2). The Golden Age of Kronos to understanding human self-rule, because continues until the revolution of the universe the first time it is mentioned, it is associated under God has completed its due course and with self-rule (Brill 2017, 40-45). has come to its destined end, when God re- But as soon as one examines Plato’s nar- leases his control and retires (Polit., 269c8). rative more closely, it becomes clear that the This marks the end of the First Age and the two-cycle interpretation poses some problems first direction – a clockwise motion from A for her thesis. The reverse rotation of the uni- to B. When the universe reaches point B, God verse, which Brill locates in the Age of Kronos releases control and the universe’s own inborn (Brill 2017, 39), occurs when Kronos releases ‘urge [takes] control of the world again and control of the universe, thus prompting the reverses the revolution of it’ (Polit., 272e4-6). universe to move in the opposite direction Devoid of the divine intellect, the universe (Brill 2017, 36).3 However, self-rule occurs enters a crisis in the reverse, i.e. counter- both at a time when human beings are born -clockwise, motion in which all modes of life from the earth, that is in the Age of Kronos are destroyed and turned upside down (Polit., when Kronos withdraws from the universe, 273a1-6). This reverse revolution marks the and in the Age of Zeus when human beings Second Age and the second direction, when are born from themselves. Sexual reproduc- the old regain their youth. This reverse motion tion, therefore, cannot be the main cause of continues until the universe regains control human self-rule. Something else must take that of itself and remembers the orders of God, place. The two-cycle revolution produces an thus ending the Second Age and leading to inherent contradiction in her argument and the Third era, that of Zeus (Polit., 273a6-b2). undermines her thesis. The alternative three In this Third Age, the universe returns to its Ages and two-directions description of the ordered course. myth remedies the problem by doing away It would be strange to posit that the uni- with the binary opposition between the Age verse remembers the practices, teachings, and of Kronos and the Age of Zeus and by giving a orders of God and follows them while still better account of the reverse revolution of the moving in the reverse Age—which is a period 222 | John Sallis, Ed. 2017. Plato’s Statesman: Dialectic, Myth, and Politics. Albany: SUNY. 326pp., 2013

of chaos and destruction, antithetical to God’s present revolution (Polit., 270d3-5). Since the orders and practices.4 It is much more sensible reverse motion is also counter to the revolution to believe that if God’s ruling is clockwise from of Kronos, our present revolution and that of points A to B, and if the universe’s reverse, Kronos must be moving in the same direction; chaotic motion is counter-clockwise from B to but given that the reverse revolution comes A, then when the universe regains control of, after that of Kronos, our present era cannot and brings order to, itself and follows God’s be identical with that of Kronos. orders it returns clockwise on the path from This reading is supported by another A to B, even though it is now of its own and passage: during the reverse revolution, when can only rely on God’s teachings, without his mortal life is being destroyed, and human direct assistance. In the Third era, the universe beings are returning back to the earth, a new moves in the same direction as the First, but race of human beings is born from the earth’s one should not identify the two. womb.5 It is this new race of human beings At the moment the universe regains control that gives birth to our first ancestors, who of itself and resumes God’s teachings, the phe- are no longer conceived from the earth but nomena of the reverse Age also stop and mortal from other human beings, following the new beings stop the process of growing ‘backward, law of conception. However, Plato states that as it were, toward youth and ever greater im- “these earliest forebears were the children maturity’; (Polit., 270d8-e1) the white hair of of earthborn parents; they lived in a period the older men stops growing ‘darker again’; directly following the end of the era of the (Polit., 270e1-2) and the bodies of young men earthborn, at the close of the former period stop losing signs of manhood and stop growing of cosmic rotation […]” (Polit., 271a8-b2), su- smaller every day and every night, until ‘they ggesting that the reverse rotation ends when fade into non-existence and one by one they the present rotation begins. The birth of our [are] gone’ (Polit., 270e7-8). Instead, the return first ancestors coincides with the moment the of the universe to the forward clockwise motion universe regains control of itself and remem- creates the opposite effect on its creatures. bers the teachings of God. Those that were waning, start growing again; Many of the authors in Plato’s Statesman: those born from the earth who were becoming Dialectic, Myth, and Politics presuppose a two- smaller, now grow grey hair and ultimately die -cycle revolution, and only one of the authors, and return to the earth (Polit., 273e7-274a2). Sara Brill, explicitly informs the reader, in It is especially telling that Plato says that the footnote, of her presupposition. But this this happens ‘when the most recent cosmic interpretation is controversial, and it could be crisis occurred and the cosmic order now dangerous if the authors base their argument existing was established’. This means that our on it. The discussion of the three Ages and current era is that which is established after two directions of the myth challenges this the reverse Age and runs in the same direction interpretation, and with it, the arguments of as that during the rule of Kronos. This can be Brogan and Brill. Like Brill’s interpretation, seen in our lives, evolving from childhood to discussed above, Walter Brogan’s depiction of old age. Plato also suggests this in other passa- our present age is in essentially negative terms ges: in Polit., 270c1-d5 Plato he explicitly states indeed becomes problematic if the myth is no that the reverse revolution is contrary to the longer read in a binary way. As I have just tried ROMEO DOMDII CLIFF | 223

to show, Plato’s account of the Age of Zeus is not Endnotes entirely negative; correspondingly, the political philosophy he designs with a view to our current 1 The first joke, for Miller, takes place from age is much more positive, and indeed realistic, Politicus 266a-b; the second joke is from Politicus 266c; the third joke is from Politicus 266c-d. than it appears in Brogan’s contribution. 2 The legitimacy of the unwritten doctrines is a The collected volume is dense, and unders- very controversial topic among scholars.

tanding it requires much prior knowledge of 3 Brill grants that the reversal of the cosmos is caused by the release of Kronos. Plato in general and of the Politicus in particular. 4 Many proponents of the two-cycle revolution Of the volume’s 326 pages, 11 are devoted to a include the reverse motion of the universe in the era of Kronos. consolidated bibliography (divided into the Greek 5 Those who had long died were being resur- texts, the English translations, and the secondary rected, in keeping with the phenomena of reversal. sources), a brief biography of the contributors, an English index, and a Greek index. The editor gives a brief introduction to the collected volume in which he clarifies the manner in which the contributors engage with the dialogue. I have restricted my discussion to those contributions that best capture all the di- mensions of the volume—dialectic, myth, politics, and the investigation of the trilogy. They bring out the kinds of new problems and assumptions that are most relevant to scholars working on the Politicus today.

Bibliography

Brisson, L. 1974. “Le même et l’autre dans la struc- ture ontologique du Timée de Platon, Paris, Klincksieck, 478-496. Brisson, L. 1995, ‘Interprétation Du Mythe Du Politique’in C. Rowe (ed.), Reading the States- man : Proceedings of the III Symposium Platoni- cum, Sank Augustin: Academia Verlag, 349-363. Fowler, H. 1925. Plato, Politicus. Translations are taken from The Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. Hamilton, E., Cairns, H. Eds. Plato, Politicus. Transla- tions are taken from The Collected Dialogues of Plato, Bollingen Series LXXI, New Jersey, Princeton University Press. Sallis, J. Ed. 2017. Plato’s Statesman: Dialectic, Myth, and Politics. Albany, State University of New York Press. Rowe, C. J. 1995. Plato: Statesman, Trans. Warminster, Aris and Philips Ltd.