DOCSLIB.ORG

Politics and Philosophy in Plato's Menexenus

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Politics and Philosophy in Plato's Menexenus POLITICS AND PHILOSOPHY IN PLATO’S MENEXENUS Menexenus is one of the least studied among Plato’s works, mostly because of the puzzling nature of the text, which has led many scholars either to reject the dialogue as spurious or to consider it as a mocking parody of Athenian funeral rhetoric. In this book, Pappas and Zelcer provide a per- suasive alternative reading of the text, one that contributes in many ways to our understanding of Plato, and specifically to our understanding of his political thought. The book is organized into two parts. In the first part the authors offer a synopsis of the dialogue, address the setting and its background in terms of the Athenian funeral speech, and discuss the alternative readings of the dialogue, showing their weaknesses and strengths. In the second part, the authors offer their positive interpretation of the dialogue, taking particular care to explain and ground their interpretive criteria and method, which considers Plato’stext not simply as a de-contextualized collection of philosophical arguments but offers a theoretically informed reading of the text that situates it firmly within its historical context. This book will become a reference point in the debate about the Menexenus and Plato’s political philosophy more generally and marks an important contribution to our understanding of ancient thought and classical Athenian society. Nickolas Pappas is Professor of Philosophy at City College and the Graduate Center, City University of New York, USA. Mark Zelcer is Visiting Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the State University of New York, Oswego, USA. Page Intentionally Left Blank POLITICS AND PHILOSOPHY IN PLATO’S MENEXENUS Education and Rhetoric, Myth and History Nickolas Pappas and Mark Zelcer First published 2015 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2015 Nickolas Pappas and Mark Zelcer The right of Nickolas Pappas and Mark Zelcer to be identified as authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Pappas, Nickolas, 1960- author. Politics and philosophy in Plato’s Menexenus : education and rhetoric, myth and history / Nickolas Pappas and Mark Zelcer. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Plato. Menexenus. 2. Rhetoric, Ancient. 3. Rhetoric--Philosophy. I. Zelcer, Mark, author. II. Title. B376.P37 2015 184--dc23 2014029207 ISBN: 978-1-84465-820-6 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-74446-9 (ebk) Typeset in Times New Roman by Taylor & Francis Books CONTENTS Acknowledgements vii Introduction 1 An eccentric dialogue 1 The question of parody 4 If not parody 7 PART I The Menexenus, its persons, its problems 13 1 Synopsis of the dialogue 15 Opening dialogue (234a–236d) 15 Funeral speech (236d–249c) 16 Closing dialogue (249d–e) 19 2 Persons and dates of the dialogue 20 Socrates 20 Aspasia 31 Other tutors: Connus, Antiphon and Lamprus 37 Archinus and Dion 40 Menexenus 42 Pericles 45 3 The Athenian funeral speech 58 The genre: three cautions 58 The Menexenus against the backdrop of its genre 67 The funeral speech in Loraux 71 4 The Menexenus as parody, as improvement 77 The relationship between the two funeral speeches 77 Positive arguments: the Menexenus speech as improvement 82 Positive argument from precedent 85 Negative arguments: against the Menexenus speech as parody 88 CONTENTS PART II Education and rhetoric 95 5 Scenes of instruction; Pericles’ missed opportunities 97 Education and rhetoric 97 Pericles and moral education 99 Scenes of instruction in the Menexenus 103 Instruction as intrusion 111 6 Philosophical rhetoric 116 Logos and ergon 116 Praise 121 Improvisation 132 PART III Myth and history 141 7 Myth 143 Stories of Athens 143 Mythic passages in the Menexenus 146 Plato’s myths 150 Autochthony in Athens 157 Autochthony in Plato 162 Autochthony and nature in the Menexenus 166 Autochthony and human difference in the Menexenus 169 The meanings of autochthony 174 8 History 182 Philosophical history 182 Omissions and other distortions of history 183 The Menexenus and the historians 195 Order in history 199 Soul, city, world 201 A parody of history? 206 Conclusion: Buried in philosophy 214 The Menexenus’s improvements to the funeral speech 214 The Menexenus and other dialogues 215 The Phaedrus 218 Bibliography 222 Index 231 vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Although the Menexenus is a short dialogue and the scholarly literature on it small compared with every other Platonic work, a book of this kind incurs many debts. Its ideas arose out of a broad range of research and benefited from contributions to that research along the way. Several scholars helped our research in correspondence, often giving us looks at unpublished material and providing useful specific advice. We gratefully acknowledge J. E. Lendon, Peter Liddel, Christopher Long, Bruce Rosenstock, Ed Sanders and Kendall Sharp. M. M. McBride offered generous comments on earlier versions of this material. Some parts of this book were presented as lectures. We are happy for this chance to thank audiences at the Ancient Philosophy Society, at City College and at Stony Brook University. Heidi Northwood’s comments at the APS added much of value to the argument now developed in Chapter 8. We are also grateful to the students at City College, Baruch College and the Graduate Center, to whom we taught the Menexenus and whose enthusiasm convinced us to move forward with this project. From M. Z.: Work on this book often was interrupted, by teaching, a dissertation, a wedding, a war and fatherhood. I only made it through because of the support of family and friends. It is a relief, if a small one, that I can thank them publicly. My parents, siblings and their families, whose respect for scholarship is unparalleled, have been a great font of generosity and support. Alex and Rachel Kozlowsky have been extremely encouraging throughout the whole time I have known them and I am grateful for their presence in my life. Finally, aharon aharon haviv, Dahlia, sine qua non. From N. P.: The Menexenus has long been an object of interest. Of the many teachers I have to thank, William McCulloh is especially relevant. How telling that he taught Greek at Kenyon College not only to me but also to another recent scholar of the Menexenus. I am happy to thank Burt Hopkins and Brian Seitz for many kinds of philosophical help and encouragement. As for my wife Barbara’s help to me, I can only describe it justly in hyperbolic terms. I thank her again. Nickolas Pappas Mark Zelcer vii Page Intentionally Left Blank INTRODUCTION An eccentric dialogue One line from the Menexenus has the sound of a proverb: “It is not hard to praise Athens among the Athenians”; and Aristotle quotes the sentiment in his Rhetoric as he might quote a proverb.1 He could not have known that this act of citation would provide the telling evidence to later centuries that the Menexenus is a genuine Platonic dialogue, maybe the only conclusive evidence. For in the absence of this reference in Aristotle, the unusual character of the Menexenus would have led most scholars to classify it as spurious. As things stand, and despite its assured status among the authentic works, the Menexenus has not found a place in the modern Platonic canon. Although it has lately been the subject of some discussion by classicists, that discussion focuses either on the Menexenus’s contribution to the genre of the Athenian epitaphios logos “funeral oration, funeral speech”,2 or on the information it offers about the intriguing figure Aspasia of Miletus.3 Notwithstanding Charles Kahn’s invaluable exploration of the Menexenus half a century ago,4 the time since then has found few philosophers studying the dialogue.5 Why the inattention and the suspicion? The Menexenus may be Plato’s most eccentric work. It contains very little argumentative back-and-forth; the voice it represents is that of a shadowy woman; the framing dialogue around its main speech is a playful tease; and most distinctive, the dialogue orients itself against another text, whether in parody, homage or intended improvement. Aside from the brief opening dialogue between Socrates and this character Menexenus, and a mere breath of closing conversation between them, the Menexenus amounts to a speech suitable for recitation at public funerals during wartime and reminiscent of the great speech that Pericles had delivered early in the Peloponnesian War.6 Socrates has made fun of existing Athenian funeral rhetoric – at least, Menexenus understands him to be mocking that rhetoric – and he recites the kind of speech that he says he would give on the occasion of a public funeral. He claims that his tutor Aspasia composed this speech, and her credentials are impeccable, she also having (as Socrates says) written the speech that people attribute to Pericles. 1 INTRODUCTION The Menexenus already stands out for being so nearly a single stretch of prose, and not the short-questioning, quick-answering exchanges that typify Platonic dialogues.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Roles of Solon in Plato's Dialogues
    The Roles of Solon in Plato’s Dialogues Dissertation Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Samuel Ortencio Flores, M.A. Graduate Program in Greek and Latin The Ohio State University 2013 Dissertation Committee: Bruce Heiden, Advisor Anthony Kaldellis Richard Fletcher Greg Anderson Copyrighy by Samuel Ortencio Flores 2013 Abstract This dissertation is a study of Plato’s use and adaptation of an earlier model and tradition of wisdom based on the thought and legacy of the sixth-century archon, legislator, and poet Solon. Solon is cited and/or quoted thirty-four times in Plato’s dialogues, and alluded to many more times. My study shows that these references and allusions have deeper meaning when contextualized within the reception of Solon in the classical period. For Plato, Solon is a rhetorically powerful figure in advancing the relatively new practice of philosophy in Athens. While Solon himself did not adequately establish justice in the city, his legacy provided a model upon which Platonic philosophy could improve. Chapter One surveys the passing references to Solon in the dialogues as an introduction to my chapters on the dialogues in which Solon is a very prominent figure, Timaeus- Critias, Republic, and Laws. Chapter Two examines Critias’ use of his ancestor Solon to establish his own philosophic credentials. Chapter Three suggests that Socrates re- appropriates the aims and themes of Solon’s political poetry for Socratic philosophy. Chapter Four suggests that Solon provides a legislative model which Plato reconstructs in the Laws for the philosopher to supplant the role of legislator in Greek thought.
    [Show full text]
  • Gorgias, Menexenus, Protagoras Edited by Malcolm Schofield Frontmatter More Information
    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-54600-3 - Plato: Gorgias, Menexenus, Protagoras Edited by Malcolm Schofield Frontmatter More information CAMBRIDGE TEXTS IN THE HISTORY OF POLITICAL THOUGHT PLATO Gorgias, Menexenus, Protagoras © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-54600-3 - Plato: Gorgias, Menexenus, Protagoras Edited by Malcolm Schofield Frontmatter More information CAMBRIDGE TEXTS IN THE HISTORY OF POLITICAL THOUGHT Series editors R AYMOND GEUSS Professor in Philosophy, University of Cambridge Q UENTIN SKINNER Professor of the Humanities, Queen Mary, University of London Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought is now firmly estab- lished as the major student textbook series in political theory. It aims to make available to students all the most important texts in the history of western political thought, from ancient Greece to the early twentieth century. All the familiar classic texts will be included, but the series seeks at the same time to enlarge the conventional canon by incorporating an extensive range of less well-known works, many of them never before available in a modern English edition. Wherever possible, texts are published in complete and unabridged form, and translations are specially commissioned for the series. Each vol- ume contains a critical introduction together with chronologies, biographical sketches, a guide to further reading and any necessary glossaries and text- ual apparatus. When completed the series will aim to offer an outline
    [Show full text]
  • The Phaedo by Plato
    Selections from The Phaedo by Plato The Death of Scorates, David, 1787. [The Phaedo tells the story of Socrates’ final moments spent, as one would expect, in philosophical dialogue with his friends. The main subject of the dialogue is the immortality of the soul. The Phaedo is one of Plato’s middle period dialogues and, as such, reveals much of Plato’s own philosophy. In the arguments Socrates puts forth for the immortality of the soul we find a clear exposition of both Plato’s metaphysics as well as his epistemology. In the first section we find Socrates explaining to his friends why a true philosopher does not fear death. Philosophy is here described as a preparation for death.] ECHECRATES: Were you there with Socrates yourself, Phaedo, when he was executed, or 57 did you hear about it from somebody else? PHAEDO: No, I was there myself, Echecrates. ECHECRATES: Then what did the master say before he died, and how did he meet his end? I should very much like to know. None of the people in Phlius go to Athens much in these days, and it is a long time since we had any visitor from there who could give us any definite b information, except that he was executed by drinking hemlock. Nobody could tell us anything more than that. PHAEDO: Then haven't you even heard how his trial went? 58 ECHECRATES: Yes, someone told us about that, and we were surprised because there was obviously a long interval between it and the execution. How was that, Phaedo? PHAEDO: A fortunate coincidence, Echecrates.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Arrangement of the Platonic Dialogues
    Ryan C. Fowler 25th Hour On the Arrangement of the Platonic Dialogues I. Thrasyllus a. Diogenes Laertius (D.L.), Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers 3.56: “But, just as long ago in tragedy the chorus was the only actor, and afterwards, in order to give the chorus breathing space, Thespis devised a single actor, Aeschylus a second, Sophocles a third, and thus tragedy was completed, so too with philosophy: in early times it discoursed on one subject only, namely physics, then Socrates added the second subject, ethics, and Plato the third, dialectics, and so brought philosophy to perfection. Thrasyllus says that he [Plato] published his dialogues in tetralogies, like those of the tragic poets. Thus they contended with four plays at the Dionysia, the Lenaea, the Panathenaea and the festival of Chytri. Of the four plays the last was a satiric drama; and the four together were called a tetralogy.” b. Characters or types of dialogues (D.L. 3.49): 1. instructive (ὑφηγητικός) A. theoretical (θεωρηµατικόν) a. physical (φυσικόν) b. logical (λογικόν) B. practical (πρακτικόν) a. ethical (ἠθικόν) b. political (πολιτικόν) 2. investigative (ζητητικός) A. training the mind (γυµναστικός) a. obstetrical (µαιευτικός) b. tentative (πειραστικός) B. victory in controversy (ἀγωνιστικός) a. critical (ἐνδεικτικός) b. subversive (ἀνατρεπτικός) c. Thrasyllan categories of the dialogues (D.L. 3.50-1): Physics: Timaeus Logic: Statesman, Cratylus, Parmenides, and Sophist Ethics: Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus, Symposium, Menexenus, Clitophon, the Letters, Philebus, Hipparchus, Rivals Politics: Republic, the Laws, Minos, Epinomis, Atlantis Obstetrics: Alcibiades 1 and 2, Theages, Lysis, Laches Tentative: Euthyphro, Meno, Io, Charmides and Theaetetus Critical: Protagoras Subversive: Euthydemus, Gorgias, and Hippias 1 and 2 :1 d.
    [Show full text]
  • Plato's Phaedo As a Pedagogical Drama
    Ancient Philosophy 33 (2013) ©Mathesis Publications 333 Plato’s Phaedo as a Pedagogical Drama Sarah Jansen The Phaedo has long been recognized as dramatic in nature (see, e.g., Jowett 1892, 193). Indeed, the dialogue’s dramatic portrayal of a Herculean Socrates attacking the heads of a hydra naturally invites this assessment (89c). At the out- set of the dialogue Socrates and the fourteen named companions are juxtaposed with Theseus and the fourteen Athenian youth, on their way to defeat the Mino- taur (58a-c).1 Also, Socrates’ death scene is particularly dramatic. Fifteen com- panions, the exact number of a tragic chorus, surround the dying Socrates and lament (117c-d).2 Reflection on this scene has prompted scholars to speculate that it is intended to ‘lend moving force’ to the tragic perspective and to ‘rouse’ readers’ emotions (see Halliwell 1984, 57-58 and Crotty 2009, 87, respectively). Despite these scholarly observations and compelling evidence that the dia- logues were treated as dramatic performance literature in antiquity (see Charal- abopoulos 2012), a number of key questions have yet to be satisfactorily and systematically answered: What is drama?; What is the Phaedo a drama about?; What is the function, if any, of the dramatic elements of the Phaedo? I undertake to answer these questions. I conclude with some thoughts about Plato’s purpose in writing dramatic dialogues and Plato’s attitude toward poetry. One of my aims throughout will be to demonstrate how a proper understanding of the literary dimension of the Phaedo sheds light on the philosophical content of the dialogue.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Foreigners As Liberators: Education and Cultural Diversity in Plato's
    1 Foreigners as Liberators: Education and Cultural Diversity in Plato’s Menexenus Rebecca LeMoine Assistant Professor of Political Science Florida Atlantic University NOTE: Use of this document is for private research and study only; the document may not be distributed further. The final manuscript has been accepted for publication and will appear in a revised form in The American Political Science Review 111.3 (August 2017). It is available for a FirstView online here: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055417000016 Abstract: Though recent scholarship challenges the traditional interpretation of Plato as anti- democratic, his antipathy to cultural diversity is still generally assumed. The Menexenus appears to offer some of the most striking evidence of Platonic xenophobia, as it features Socrates delivering a mock funeral oration that glorifies Athens’ exclusion of foreigners. Yet when readers play along with Socrates’ exhortation to imagine the oration through the voice of its alleged author Aspasia, Pericles’ foreign mistress, the oration becomes ironic or dissonant. Through this, Plato shows that foreigners can act as gadflies, liberating citizens from the intellectual hubris that occasions democracy’s fall into tyranny. In reminding readers of Socrates’ death, the dialogue warns, however, that fear of education may prevent democratic citizens from appreciating the role of cultural diversity in cultivating the virtue of Socratic wisdom. Keywords: Menexenus; Aspasia; cultural diversity; Socratic wisdom; Platonic irony Acknowledgments: An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2012 annual meeting of the Association for Political Theory, where it benefitted greatly from Susan Bickford’s insightful commentary. Thanks to Ethan Alexander-Davey, Andreas Avgousti, Richard Avramenko, Brendan Irons, Daniel Kapust, Michelle Schwarze, the APSR editorial team (both present and former), and four anonymous referees for their invaluable feedback on earlier drafts.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Socrates, Lysis, and Menexenus in Plato's
    FILOZOFIA Roč. 75, 2020, č. 3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31577/filozofia.2020.75.3. 3 THE ROLE OF SOCRATES, LYSIS, AND MENEXENUS IN PLATO’S LYSIS GABRIEL EVANGELOU, University of Cyprus, Department of Classics and Philosophy, Nicosia, Cyprus EVANGELOU, G.: The Role of Socrates, Lysis, and Menexenus in Plato’s Lysis FILOZOFIA, 75, 2020, No 3, pp. 195 – 211 The aim of this study is to demonstrate that the value of the Lysis does not lie in Socrates’ puzzling treatment of φίλος and φιλία, but rather in the unique role that both Socrates and the other two main interlocutors, Lysis and Menexenus, assume in this Platonic dialogue. In the Lysis, Socrates plays the role of the so- phist who uses errant logic, but with whom the young men are so infatuated that they simply agree with his every statement. Their inability to display critical thinking by challenging his flawed arguments constantly forces Socrates to re- vert to the role of the philosopher who refutes the points that he, himself, had just raised. The dialogue thus functions as a warning against blindly trusting the education of youths to sophists and potentially as an exercise for Plato’s students to detect problematic argumentation and to practise arguing against it. Keywords: Plato – Socrates – Lysis – Philia – Sophists – Aporia – Deception The perplexity of the Lysis has been a topic of considerable debate. Throughout the dialogue, the reader is given the impression that Socrates is attempting to provide a definition of ‘φίλος’1 by asking the two teenagers, Lysis and Menexenus, a series of questions.2 Nevertheless, before reaching a conclusion, their philosophical discussion 1 The scope of the Lysis has been heavily contested.
    [Show full text]
  • Reading Plato Through the Menexenus I Begin with the Current Critical Agreement That Plato Did Indeed Write the Menexenus
    Reading Plato Through the Menexenus I begin with the current critical agreement that Plato did indeed write the Menexenus. There was not always such agreement; but it was not the style of the dialogue that called it into question, nor ancient aspersions on its authenticity. This dialogue just did not seem (to many) the sort of thing Plato, our Plato, would write. It is so wildly anachronistic, so full of obvious historical distortion, and so lacking in philosophical meat. Never mind that Aristotle twice refers to it as one of Plato’s works. We are largely past those doubtful days, and there has even arisen something of a communis opinio about a general interpretation of the dialogue (while important details remain critically unsettled): Plato gives us in the Menexenus a parody of contemporary rhetoric, revealing it as facile, shallow, and destructive of the sort of political excellence it aims to celebrate, and even create in its listeners. That parody points, by contrast, the superiority of what Plato/Socrates has to offer over rhetoric: philosophy, dialectic, the truth, etc. – even though this dialogue does not give us much of that superior mode. From that consensus this paper moves forward. Does recognition of the Menexenus as a legitimate entry in Plato’s oeuvre require that we somehow change our view of what Plato does? If we agree that Plato can write a dialogue like this, do we have to reassess what Plato does elsewhere? That question is too large for full treatment in this paper, but I will approach it by refashioning it into a slightly more manageable one: are there aspects of the Platonic corpus that become clear(er) to us when we see them writ large in the Menexenus? I answer in the affirmative, and proceed to examples, hoping to set us on a path toward new ways we might read Plato through the Menexenus.
    [Show full text]
  • [The Bloomsbury Companion to Socrates, J. Bussanich and N. D. Smith, Eds., Bloomsbury, 2013, 210-32; Penultimate Draft]
    [The Bloomsbury Companion to Socrates, J. Bussanich and N. D. Smith, eds., Bloomsbury, 2013, 210-32; penultimate draft] Chapter 10 Socrates on Love Suzanne Obdrzalek Introduction: Socrates as Lover In the famous Catalogue Aria of Don Giovanni, Leporello recounts how his master seduced 2,065 ladies in France, Germany, Italy, Turkey, and Spain; reading Plato’s Socratic dialogues, one gets the sense that, while he may have had few actual conquests, at least in terms of overall susceptibility to beauty, Socrates was not far behind.1 In the Charmides, Socrates describes himself as a poor judge of youthful beauty because, like a broken yardstick, he finds almost all young men appealing (154b). In the Symposium, Alcibiades accuses Socrates of being ‘crazy about beautiful boys; he constantly follows them around in a perpetual daze’ (216d).2 Though Socrates is famous for professing ignorance, there is one area where he trumpets his expertise: in the Symposium, he declares that the only thing he understands is ta erōtika (matters of love, 177d); in the Lysis, he describes himself as mean and useless in all else, but possessed of the god-given skill to recognize lovers and beloveds (204b-c). Perhaps the most noteworthy of Socrates’ infatuations was with Alcibiades: in the Gorgias, Socrates calls himself the dual lover of philosophy and of Alcibiades (481d). In the Protagoras, teased for hunting after the ripe Alcibiades, Socrates defends himself, alluding to Homer’s observation that young men are at their most seductive when their beards are in first bloom (309a- b). However, Alcibiades was not the only youth to catch Socrates’ eye: in the opening of the Charmides, Socrates famously describes himself as aflame with passion when he catches a glimpse beneath the boy’s cloak.4 This description is paralleled in Xenophon’s Symposium, where Socrates describes the effect of rubbing his naked shoulder against Critobulos’ as the bite of a wild beast, which leaves a sting in his heart (4.27-8).
    [Show full text]
  • Plato's Introduction of Forms
    This page intentionally left blank PLATO’S INTRODUCTION OF FORMS Scholars of Plato are divided between those who emphasize the liter- ature of the dialogues and those who emphasize the argument of the dialogues, and between those who see a development in the thought of the dialogues and those who do not. In this important book, Russell Dancy focuses on the arguments and defends a developmental pic- ture. He explains the Theory of Forms of the Phaedo and Symposium as an outgrowth of the quest for definitions canvased in the Socratic dialogues, by constructing a Theory of Definition for the Socratic dialogues based on the refutations of definitions in those dialogues, and showing how that theory is mirrored in the Theory of Forms. His discussion, notable for both its clarity and its meticulous schol- arship, ranges in detail over a number of Plato’s early and middle dialogues, and will be of interest to readers in Plato studies and in ancient philosophy more generally. r. m. dancy is Professor of Philosophy at Florida State University. He is the author of Sense and Contradiction: A Study in Aristotle (1975) and TwoStudies in the Early Academy (1991), and editor of Kant and Critique (1993). PLATO’S INTRODUCTION OF FORMS R. M. DANCY Florida State University, Tallahassee Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge , UK Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521838016 © R. M. Dancy 2004 This publication is in copyright.
    [Show full text]
  • Socrates' Aspasian Oration: the Play of Philosophy and Politics in Plato's
    Bryn Mawr College Scholarship, Research, and Creative Work at Bryn Mawr College Political Science Faculty Research and Scholarship Political Science 1993 Socrates' Aspasian Oration: The lP ay of Philosophy and Politics in Plato's Menexenus Stephen G. Salkever Bryn Mawr College, [email protected] Let us know how access to this document benefits ouy . Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.brynmawr.edu/polisci_pubs Part of the Ancient Philosophy Commons, and the Political Science Commons Custom Citation Salkever, Stephen G. "Socrates' Aspasian Oration: The lP ay of Philosophy and Politics in Plato's Menexenus." American Political Science Review 87 (1993): 133-143. This paper is posted at Scholarship, Research, and Creative Work at Bryn Mawr College. http://repository.brynmawr.edu/polisci_pubs/12 For more information, please contact [email protected]. American Political Science Review Vol. 87, No. 1 March 1993 SOCRATES'ASPASIAN ORATION: THE PLAY OF PHILOSOPHY AND POLITICSIN PLATO'S MENEXENUS STEPHEN G. SALKEVER Bryn Mawr College P lato'sMenexenus is overlooked,perhaps because of thedifficulty of gauging its irony.In it, Socratesrecites a funeral orationhe says he learnedfrom Aspasia, describingevents that occurredafter the deathsof both Socratesand Pericles'mistress. But the dialogue'sironic complexityis one reasonit is a centralpart of Plato'spolitical philosophy. In bothstyle and substance, Menexenus rejectsthe heroicaccount of Atheniandemocracy proposed by Thucydides'Pericles, separatingAthenian citizenship from the questfor immortalglory; its pictureof the relationshipof philosopherto polis illustratesPlato's conception of the true politikos in the Statesman. In both dialogues,philosophic response to politicsis neitherdirect rule nor apoliticalwithdrawal. Menexe- nus presentsa Socrateswho influencespolitics indirectly, by recastingAthenian history and thus transformingthe termsin whichits politicalalternatives are conceived.
    [Show full text]
  • The Un-Platonic Menexenus: a Stylometric Analysis with More Data Thomas Koentges
    The Un-Platonic Menexenus: A Stylometric Analysis with More Data Thomas Koentges HE CORPUS PLATONICUM is one of the most well-known and influential works of ancient literature, and yet it still T presents unresolved challenges regarding the authorship of some works. Since the middle of the nineteenth century, stylometry, the counting and statistical analysis of features in the language of an author, has been applied to the Corpus Platonicum in order to date works by Plato, to prove or disprove the authen- ticity of his work, or to analyze how he used different styles (for instance, to characterize different individuals in his dialogues).1 This article revisits the second of these applications with a special focus on the question of the authorship of the Menexenus. The results of previous stylometric analyses of the Corpus Platonicum were inconclusive on the question of authorship.2 One reason for this probably lies in the selection of features, which covers the frequency of certain words, the number of words in a sentence, the quantities of clausulae, or any other element of the text that can be observed and counted and that is thought to be part of the stylistic fingerprints of the author. Previously, analyses employed a limited number of features, but as Burrows has observed, “in this sort of work on language … a wealth of variables, many of which may be weak discriminators, almost 1 A good example of the latter has been published in this journal: D. San- sone, “Stylistic Characterization in Plato: Nicias, Alcibiades, and Laches,” GRBS 58 (2018) 156–176.
    [Show full text]