sign in sign up
<<
Home , Clitophon (Athenian), Clitophon (dialogue), Definitions (Plato)

NOTE TO CONTRIBUTORS

Pleaseaddress all correspondenceto the Editor, Classical Philology, l0l0 East 59th Street,The Universityof Chicago,Chicago, IL 60637.Submissions should be paginated, with amplemargins, double-spacedthroughout, and with footnotesgathered at the end of the paper.Please submit three copies.All submissionsare refereed anonymously. No indicationof the author'sidentity should appearon the typescript;references to the author's own work should take the sameform as refer- IN DEFENSEOF CLTTOPHON encesto the work of others:acknowledgments or otherremarks that could revealthe author'siden- tity shouldbe withheld until the paperhas beenaccepted. G. S. BOWE

HE CLITIPHoN wAS ACCEITEDas 's work by all ancient authors,I ******>F***** and it is being accepted as such by more and more modern scholars.2 the characterseems to have been ill received by both ancient and modern writers, and this reception is something that I think needs more ClassicalPhilology (ISSN 0009-837X) is publishedquarterly in January,April. July, and October reflection. In this article I offer a brief review of some issues regarding the Division, 1427East 60th Street,Chicago, Illinois by The Universityof ChicagoPress, Journals authenticity of the Clitophon before I go on to discuss how the dialogue 60631-2954.Subscription rates for 2008 are $58 for individuals and $223 tbr institutions' Addi- and its main character have been understood. I want to suggest that various tional rates for non-U.S.subscribers and lower rates for print-only or electronic-only,including attempts to understand the meaning of the Clitopharr in light of its perceived electronic-onlyfor students,are availableat wwwjoumals.trchicago.edu/CPSubscription agent for Japan:Kinokuniya Company,Ltd. Individuals liave the option to order directly from the Uni- dramatic relationship to 1 contain serious difficulties. and I want versityof ChicagoPress. Single copy rates:individuals, $18; institutions,$67. to argue that the dialogue ought to be understood on its own terms as a re- flection on the importance of the protreptic implications of dnopiu.3 Pleasedirect subscriptioninquiries, back-issue requests, and addresschanges to The University of This article has three parts. Part I discusses some aspects of the ancient ChicagoPress, Journals Division, PO. Box 37005,Chicago, IL 60637.Telephone: (773)753-3347 tradition's acceptance of the Clitophon, followed by a discussion of con- or toll-freein the United Statesand Canada(877) 705-1878.Fax: (773) 753-081I or toll-free fusions in Ficino's translations of the dialogue for Aldus. Many scholars (877)705-1,879.8-mai1:[email protected]. The articlesin thisjoumal areindexed attribute the Clirophon's reputation as spurious to the 1513 Aldine edition, in the H umanities Index. but the confusion can be traced further back. I also discuss several scholars who have changed their minds regarding the authenticity of the Clitophon WebSite : http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/CP from Ficino onwards, and I review a discussion of the Clitopfton's authen- CopyingBeyond Falr Use.The codeon the first pageof an illicle in thisjournal indicatesthe copy- ticity by Simon Slings, who has done the most extensive work on the dialogue right owner's consentthat copiesof the article may be made beyond thosepermitted by Sections in the twentieth century. Part II exarnines attempts to understand the Clitophon 107or 108of rheUS. CopyrightLaw providedthat copies are made only for personalor internal that rely on one of two perceived dramatic orderings, Republic l-Clitophon, use, or for the personal use or internal use of specific clients and provided that the copier pay the statedper-copy fee through the Copyright ClearanceCenter (CCC), 222 RosewoodDrive, Danvers,MA 01923.To requestpermission forother kinds of copying,such as copying forgeneral distribution,for advertisingor promotionalpurposes, for creatingnew collectiveworks, or fbr I shouldexpress thanks for nlanyhelptul commentsreceived on variousversions of this article,delivered as a paperin New York, Istanbul,Athens. Ankara, and Liverpool, as well as to Isin Metin for help on oper- resale,kindly write to PermissionsCoordinator, Journals Division, The University of Chicago atic composition,James Hankins and David Thornton for help with palaeography,and the anonymous Press.1427 East 60th Street,Chicago, Illinois 60637-2954 fax773-834-3489. If no codeappears readersfor CP for nranyhelpful comments. on the first pageof the article, permissionto reprint may be obtainedonly from the author. L A possibleexception is Xenophon,of which I say more later. 2. See for example.G. M. A. Grube, "^fhe Cleitophorrof Plato." CP 26 (1931):302-8; H. Kesters, Kin'gmes de :Essai sut lo.forttntiott du nessage socratique(Louvain. 1965); Orwin, "The ANSIStandard:The paper used in thispublication meets the minimumrequirements of American C. CaseAgainst :Plato's Cleitopltttn,"Canediatt Journal of Political Science l5 (1982): ?41-53; National Stand:udfor Information Sciences Permanenceof Paperfor Printed Librey Materials, D. Roochnik, "The Riddle of the Cleitophon,"Ancietlt PhiLosophy4 (1984): 132-45, l. Blits, "Socratic ANSI 239.48-1984.@- Teachingand Justic e: Plato'sClir

C I a ss ic a I P h i lolo g :" 102 (2007 ) : 245 -64 [@ 2007 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved] 0009-831X/0'7 / 10203-000 I $ I 0.00

245 246 G. S. Bowp ClrropsoN 24'7 or Clitophon-Republic1, and the problemsinvolved in adopting either, The Clitophon'sreputation as spuriousor dubiousextends at leastas far followed by an examinationof interpretationsof the Clitophonthat do not back as Ficino. David Roochnikrepeats the claim initiatedby Ernst Yxem, dependon any dramaticorder. Part III explainswhy I think the dialogue and carriedon by GeorgeGrote and G. M. A. Grubethat this is the fault of the shouldbe understoodin terms of the protrepticnature of dnopio. 1513Aldine edition, wherein the Clitophonwas printed among the spuria despitebeing iistedin the tableof contentsamong the genuinedialogues of I Plato. This error was acknowledgedand retractedbut never correctedin subsequenteditions.lt We can observeconfusion regarding the With the possibleexception of Xenophon,4no one in the ancienttradition Clitophon somewhatearlier than this, in Ficino's 1491 translationsl2and the regardedthe Clitophonwith suspicion.5Olympiodorus, in his Commentary Greek manuscriptsl3with which he worked.Ficino normally gives an abstract on the "," usesthe Clitophonas evidencethat,'contrary to received of eachdialogue immediately preceding his translation.In the case opinion,Socrates does sometimes address crowds.o Clitophon 407d is em- of the Clitophon,he offersno abstract,and writes at the headof the dialogue, ployedby Apuleius,Hippolytus, and Alcinous in tandemwith 73lc to Illc liber non est Platonis.laJames Hankins has observed that Ficino may demonstratethe involuntarynature of vice. As John Dillon has observed, forte havebeen influenced by his Greekmanuscripts (Laur. 59.1and 85.9),which this part of the Clitophon seemsto havebeen absorbed into "a fairly well- areambiguous as to the statusof theClitophon15 In the tableof worn pieceof schoolexposition."? Hippolytus actually cites the Clitophon contentsof 85.9,'bone findsthe following: as part of the Republic,suggesting perhaps that he madea mistakewhen con- sultingan editionof -Plato'sdialogues arranged according to the tetralogical A: Tetralogiesl-7 orderof Thrasyllus.o B: A thin decorativeline While no ancientauthors doubted the Clitophon'sgenuineness, their assess- mentof Clitophon'scharacter is anothermatter. Ptolemy is reportedto have C: The words nl.dtovogvoOeu6pevot to becausehis remarkswere said that Socratesdid not respond Clitophon D: Dialoguesnormally consideredspurious, ending with lhe Clitophon unworthy of response.ePlutarch also regardsClitophon negatively,listing him along with Alcibiadesand as a wayward studentof Plato and E: A thick decorativeline Socrates.l0The fairnessof this negativecharacterization of Clitophonand F: Republic the subsequentadoption of it by modernscholars is a point to which I shall return. G: Another thin decorativeline similar to B and the words n),rirrovocvo0su6ue vot H: Other works by TimaeusLocrus and

4. At Ment. 1.4.1,Xenophon says, "lf any hold the opinion expressedin somewritten md spokencriticisms J: ,Critias of Socrates that are based on inference (rilqivroL lptirpouoi te roi l6youor tepi or)to[ rerporp

Grube,who thinksthat the Clitophon is authentic,also thinks it makesno sense with a reflection on Socrates'discussion with Thrasymachus,one in which in light of Republic2-10, and seesthe dialogueas an unfinishedfragment expressesdissatisfaction with Socrates' performance (Resp.351a-b), written afterRepublic I and beforeRepublic 2.28 This is not to say that Grube although it is not of the sarne impatient tenor as that expressed in the suggestsa discreteRepublic l. He simply believesthe Clitophon to have Clitophon. beenwritten sometime betweenthe writing of Republic 7 andRepublic 2. One While there are good dramatic reasons to want to place the Clitophon in possibleway to think of the Clitophonis as part of the Republlc'scutting between Republic I and Republic 2, to do so would require that the dialogue room floor, so to speak.However, stylometric analysis and the Clitophon's be authentic but fragmentary (perhaps an outtake from the Republic), or apparenttextual dependenceon other dialogues(including the Republic) spurious (i.e., written by Wilamowitz's precocious student). There are point in the directionof a late compositiondate for the Clitophon-that is important counter-considerations here. The form of the dialogue suggests a datelater than that of theRepublic.ze Of coursethis doesnot affecthow that it is finished, not fragmentary, certainly when one considers the strong we perceivethe relativedramatic ordering of the Clitophonand Republic l. recapitulation culminating in the expression of concern over e0Sorpovio at If we acceptthe authenticityof the Clitophon,it seemsrash to assumethat the end (410e). According to Plutarch, who is well aware of the Clitophon, the compositionorder must parallelthe dramaticorder.30 Composition order Plato's only unfinished dialogue was the Timaeus.33A precociousstudent tells us little aboutthe intendeddramatic order-after all, Platodid write equal to Plato in literary capacitiesis rather far-fetched and highly speculative. dialoguesfeaturing a living Socratesafter he wrote the . Those who take the dialogue to be cornplete and authentic often place the Given the way the Clitophonopens, the temptationto assertthe dramatic Clitophon dramatically before the Republic. While this may seem to some orderRepublic l-Clitophon is very strong,whether one acceptsa discrete to be a more natural order, it also leads to interpretations of the Clitoohon Thrasymachu.ror not.3l For someonehas told Socratesof a conversation that seeClitophon as going from bad to worse. baied on his few brief remarks betweenLysias (who is presentbut mute in Republic l) and Clitophon rn Republic l. On such readings, the interpretive weight of the Clitophon (presentand all but mute in Republic1). Clitophonhas been heard express- falls on the few lines that Clitophon hasin Republic 1. As JacquesBailly ing high praisefor Thrasymachusand finding fault with Socrates(Clit. 406a). has suggested,one may ask whether Clitophon's remarks in Republic I rep- Onecould imagine a situationin which Lysiasand Clitophon were discussing resent his own position, or whether he is merely trying to make senseout the debatebetween Socrates and Thrasymachus in Republic1, a debatethat of what Thrasymachushas just said.34By contrast,Roochnik's claim that promptsthe remarksthat Clitophonis saidto havemade about Socrates Clitophon is a radical relativist, to which Socrates' silence is an appropriate and Thrasymachus.32One will recall that the openingof Republic2 starts response, is most convincing if we read Clitophon's remarks rn Republic I as his own position, and read the Clitophon in light of this. This kind of reading results in or assumes a negative characterization of Clitophon that 28. Grube,"Cleitophon," 308. I will later suggest is unwarranted. 29. L. Brandwood, "Stylometry and Chronology," it The Cambridge Compatilott to Plaro, ed- R. Kraut Roochnik seesClitophon as going from t6Xvq to radical relativism. Follow- (Cambridge,1992), l12; G. R. Ledger,Recounlirtg Plato: A ComputerAnalysis of Plato's Sryle(Oxford, 1989), I46, 187,196-91, and passim;D. Nails, "Platonic Chronology Reconsidered,"BMCR 03.04.17l' ing Johannes Geffcken,3s he argues that the Clitophon is a riddle regarding Slings,P/ato: " Cleitophon,"216-22, 228, 23 I i an exceptionis Thesleff,Chronologv, 209. Socrates' silence-why it is that Socrates does not respond to Clitophon's 30. The distinctionbetween composition order and dramaticorder seems to escapecommeDtators on the criticisms-and answers it by suggesting that Republicas much as Clitophon himself does.Charles Kahn, in "Proleptic Compositionin lhe Republic," Clitophon's moral relativism CQ 43 (1993): l3l-42, and C. D. C. Reeve,in Plilosopher Klzgs (Princeton,I998), arguefor a unitary is a position to which the rational philosophy of Socratescannot respond.36 Repul>licbased on certainkinds of "proleptic" readingsof Republic l. They barelymention Clitophon the interlocutor(Reeve, pp. t l-12, in th€ contextof Thrasymachus;Kahn not at all), and never mention the dialogue. While I would not argue for it myself, I am puzzled that they do not entertain the idea that Republic I may havebeen composed after the rest of the Republic.This would also be consistentwith the 33. Plut. So1.32.1. Plutarchtwice mentiors Plato in rhe conrextof Clitophon4O1c d at Mor.439c ano fact that Republic I is thought to contain both early and late stylometrictraits-late Plato imitatesearly 534e.See also Slings,PLdo: "Clitoplrcn,' ll. style for overture.This is somethingtbat thosewho arguefor aThrasymrLchusmight also like to consider. 34. Bailly, "Eutl4ytlro" qild "Clitophon," I16. It is also possibleto imagine that the Clitophon was written merely as an extensionof a "post-proleptic" draft of 35. J. Geffcken."Das R.itseldes Kleitophoil," Herntet 68 (1933):429-39. Republic l.lf RepublicI is prolepticof the restof LheRepublic, it would seemaltogether more reasonable 36. Roochnik ("Riddle," 138, 141) points out that Socrates'silence in the Clitophon is mirrored by to envision Plato composing such an overture after the idie fxe of the opera is fully uticulated. Approaches Clitophon's silencein Republic l. I would point out that the "mirroring effect" observedby Roochnik is to music composition vary, in that some may compose the overture after the idAertxe eltber concurrently or not as mirrored as one might like. I would be inclined to argue that Clitophon falls silent as a result of after the opera has been fully articulated, but certainly no composer could reasonablyconceive the overture Thrasymachus'harshrejection of his suggestionregrding what rhestronger believed to be to his advantagc before the id4e fixe. (340b-c), for Socratesis certainly willing to entertaiothe idea.Roochnik claims that when Socratessays 3 I . Grube certainly did not accept the Thraslnnchus hypothesis,and ostensiblyGrole's suggestionis that it "makes no difference" (oi0iv 6roq6peL)whether Thrasyntachusadopts Clitophon's suggestionor nol the dialoguewas a preliminarysketch intended for inclusionin the Republic,abandoned by Plato because (340b-c), it is becauseThrasymachus' moderate relativism is urtenable, ieaving the real choices to be its criticism of Socrateswas too harsh. radicalrelativism or objectivekrowledge. I suspectthat Socratesis simply allowing, as he so often does, 32. Taylor (Plato In. l8 abovel. l2) makcsthis very suggestion.Holever. he has changedhis reading ior his interlocutorto revise his stalenlent.When Socratessays oi6ir,6ragdper, he is remonstratingthe somervhatby the time of the third ediiion of Plato.Ofl p. 538 of the third edition (1929) he suggeststhat eristic rigidity of Polemarchus,who is arguing with Clitophon over the way Thrasymachusarticullted we are meant to read the Clitophon as indicating the danger of Clitophon falling into the handsof a his opinion: oi,66v.flv 6'iy6, a) noLiuaoy€,6tog6perd).1,'ei v[v oiirorl,6yer @poodpolos, oiltoq c0ror) "ouack" like Thrasymachus. dro6e16pe0c(Resp. 340b c, my emphasis).Socrates is telling Polemarchusthat Thrasymachusis frec to 252 G. S. Bowe ClrropnoN 253

This claim would be consistentwith the report that Ptolemyconsidered is that he wishedto makeit clearthat he is offeringThrasymachus a way out Clitophon'sremarks unworthy of a reply by Socrates.Mark Kremer also of his problematicposition via a representativeof legalpositivism, and Cli- seesClitophon getting worse, revising Roochnik's assessment of Clitophon tophon seemedan obviouschoice of character.When in doubt, Clitophon as a relativist to suggestthat Clitophon moves from disillusionmentwith appealsto the law, but not to any moral groundingfor the law. If we accept r6Xvr1in the Clitophonto legal positivismin RepublicI .3i This perhaps that Roochnik's"relativism" or Orwin's "legal positivism" deservesno reflectsthe observationof Clifford Orwin that legal positivismbetter response,we are left wonderingwhy the Republicprovides such a good describesClitophon's position.3s Most recentlyDebra Nails has followed responseto it-why it providesa reasonfor believingthat justice is higher Roochnik and othersin foisting the attributesof Theramenesonto Clitophon than law and thus is not a matter of mere convention-or, as one might more in virtue of the associationof the two in 'Frogs (967) and the traditionallysay, why the Republicclearly defendsgr5org against v6poq. AthenianConstitution (343).3e While I greatlyadmire Nails' prosopography, It would appearthat understandingthe significanceof the Clitophonbased the truth is that we know very little aboutthe historicalClitophon, and it is upon the dramaticordering Clitophon-RepublicI containsas many problems unfair to make Aristophanes'remarks in Frogs, which are quite clearly as assumingthat the Clitophoncomes after Republic l. One may wonderwhy about Theramenesalone, apply to Clitophon. Moreover, while Clitophon we shouldinterpret the Clitophonas Roochnikor Kremerdo, sincesuch in- doesact with Theramenesonce \n theAthenian Constitution (34.3), he also terpretationsdepend so heavily on a perceiveddramatic order, the culmination actsalone in anotherpassage (29.3), andin both caseshe actsconsistently, of which is the briefestof brief interpolationsby Clitophonin Republic l. appealingto the ancestrallaws.a0 When we combinethese reported appeals To showjust how far the dependencegoes, one may considerKremer's to the law in the Athenian Constitutionwith his understandingof Thrasy- responseto ChristopherBruell's claim that Plato gives us no clear indica- machus'position in the Republic,"legal positivist" seemslike a fair char- tion of which dialoguecomes first. Kremermaintains that his own theory- acterization of him (Resp.340a-b): that Clitophonmoves from t6Xvr'1to legal positivism-will not work unless theClitophon precedes Republic l.4r To my mind, this is circular.Plato may "Thrasymachushimself admitsthat the rulerssometimes enjoin what is [Polemarchus:] havevery well intendedus to read the Clitophonon its own terms,despite evil for themselvesand yet saysthat it is just for the subjectsto do this." [Clitophon:] "That, Polemarchus,is becauseThrasymachus laid it down that it is just to obey the its obviousconnection to Republicl. Could not Clitophon'spresence in orders of the rulers.. . . by the advantageof the superiorhe meant what the superior Republic 1 merely be an acknowledgementof the fact that Clitophon is some- supposedto be for his advantage.That is what the inferior had to do, and that this is the times within earshotof Thrasymachus? just was his position."(trans. P. Shorey [Cambridge, Mass., 1930]) There is no strongevidence that we are meantto understandthe Clitophon primarily in termsof its relationshipto Republicl. We may want to accept As a legal positivist, Clitophon understands the force of Thrasymachus' argu- the authorityof Thrasyllus'Eighth Tetralogy,but applyingsuch a principle mentin terms its "Why Platoassign to of appealto the law. If one asks, did is tenuousat best.a2One might think that Plato givesus a clue that the C/i- place Clitophonthis and this commentin the Republic?"one likely answer tophon shouldbe taken as precedingRepublic I in a particularpassage, 410c. Among others,a3Roochnik's interpretation of 410c would coincidewith an underlyingcurrent of thought,explicitly pronouncedby Grote,thatthe Cli- revisehis statements,that it "makes no difference"if his words did not expresshis true intentionsin the tophonbelongs in direct antecedenceto theRepublic such that the Republic first place.It is also worth noting that it is not only Clitophon who falls silent. By the end of Republic l, everyone has fallen silent; Socratesbegins Republic 2 with new interlocutors. Cephalushas left, and can serveas a "reproof to Kleitophonhimself for having threatenedto quit Polemachus is intenupted by Thrasymachus,who has effectively fallen silent as soon as Socratesabandons Sokratesand go to Thrasymachus."aaFor Grotethis is meantto answerwhy the sincere assent rule of elenchus, and allows Thrasymachus to keep answering in order to please the company (349b), as Callicles does at Grg. 501c. On sincereassent, see J. Beversluis,Cross-Examining Socrares(Cambridge,2000),236 37 and passim. 37. Kremer, "SocraticPhilosophy" (n. 2 above),18. 38. Orwin, "Case" (n. 2 above),"143. 41. C. Bruell, On the Socrqtic Education (Lanham, Md., 1999), 192,93; Kremer, "Socratic Philosophy," 39. CompareD. Nails, TftePeople of Plato (Indianapolis,2002), IOZ 3: "Clitophon was a personwell- 492. We may also ask the following. If it was Plato'sintention to reflecta movementin Clitophon'ssoul in known for his flip-floppingpolitical associations,"with the more cautiousremarks of Orwin, "Case," 120: Republic l, why give him such a short interpolation in the Republic?Where is his clear recantationof 16Xvq? 'A close associateof ,he may have sharedin the twists and turns of the latter's political cileer." If he has"joined forces" with Thrasymachusin Republic l, he shouldbe endorsingr6Xvq in any case. ' More cautiously,Bailly ("Euthyphro" and "CLitophon,' I l6) remarks,"Given Theramenes'reputation as 42. I am inclined to agreewith Grote (Companions,l:163) when he says,"The dramaticclassification, supporting the rule of law, and the association of Clitophon and Theramenes,perhaps the position which which stmds in the foreground, rests upon a purely fanciful analogy, determining preferencefor the number Clitophon tries to give to Thrasymachusin the Republic is not coincid€ntally his." Roochnik ("Riddle," I 38) four. lf ind,eedthis objection were urged against Thrasyllus, he might probably have replied that the group doesnot discussthe passage(Ath. Po\.29.3) whereClitophon actsalone. of four volumestogether was in itself convenient,neither too large nor too srnallfor an elementarysub- 40. Once, in 41 1, Clitophon puts forth a motion that the ilcestral laws be consultedby a committeecreated division; and that the fanciful analogywas an artificefor recommendingit to the feelings,better (after all) to establishproposals for the safety of Athens. Later, in 404, along with others who ile said not to be attached than selectionof anothernumber by haphazard.. . it does some honour to his ability, that he has built, to a political party, he supportsTheramenes' call to uphold the ancestrallaws, aiming to bring about a more upon so inconvenienta nction, one tetralogy(the first), really plausibleand impressive." moderatetyratrny than that of the Thirty. Thesetwo actionsseem to show Clitophonto be consistentin his 43. R. B. Rutherford (The Art of Plato fLondon,19951, 98) refers to him as preparing to abandon legal positivism,even if the outcomesof his actionsin 4l I and 404 may have serveddifferent political Socratesfor Thrasymachus.Much of Kremer, "SocraticPhilosophy," depends on this kind of reading, factions. 44. Grote, Compani ons, 3'.19-20. 254 G. S. Bows ClrropHoN 255

'I Thrasyllusput the Clitophonat the headof Tetralogy8, insofar as the means shallgo whereverI (now) can,'which is inept."slThere is. I suggest, Clitoplton'smeaning is boundup with this perceivedthreat. Roochnik also no such intention to join forceswith Thrasymachusin ADF, but ratheran takes410c to suggestthat Clitophonwill join forceswith Thrasymachus: explanationof why Clitophonalready does consult with him, andthe reason "In his frustration,[Clitophon] declareshis intention to ioin forces with is quite clear. Clitophon is dnop6v. We know that Clitophon has seen Thrasyrnachusor whoeverelse can aid him."asOf the threi primary Greek Thrasymachusbefore, for he is saidto havepraised him at the beginningof manuscriptsof the Clitophon only one allows for such a reading,and that the Clitophon (a06a).Moreover, if we take into accountthat he seemsto have readingwould require accepting a copyist'semendation. Below is thepassage nothing negativeto say aboutThrasymachus, and that he doeshave some- on which this kind of interpretationappears to be based(410c), in two versions thing negativeto say about Socrates,we can say that he alreadyconsults of Greek,one basedon Parisinusgraecus l80Z s. ix (henceforthA), and the Thrasymachus,and that he will continueto seekhim out becauseof his other acceptingthe handof the copyist(henceforth A2). Venetus 185, s. xii dnopio.Clitophon may be planning on joining forceswith Thrasymachus, (henceforthD), and VindobonensisSuppl. gr.39, s. xiii /xiv (henceforthF) but there is no indicationthat he declareshis intentionto do so in the agreewith A.a6 Clitophonor that he hasdone so in Republic1 . s2 Moreover, as Slingsquite rightly points out, "though one should read nop€foirorand not zoperiooparat ADF 6rd tcOtc 6i1 xci rp6g Opcoripclov olFc.r noosJouor rai d),],ooe iinot 8rivcpur, trrop6rv. 4l0cl .. . , which meansthat Clitophon is at the momenta pupil or visitor That's precisely why, I think, I go to Thrasymachus and wherever else I can, because I of Thrasymachus,the words roi dl"l"ooesuggest that he is not going to be an am at a loss.aT orthodoxdisciple."s3 If not an orthodox disciple,we shouldwonder about

A2 6td toira 61 xci rydq @pcoripclov oipct nooe6ooucr rci &)"},ooe ijrot brlvapcr, dnop6v. claims that Clitophon is so clearly connectedwith Thrasymachusin Re- public I andinterpretations that rely on his going from disillusionmentwith On account of these things, I suppose I will go to Thrasymachus even, and whomever rrilvrl to someworse condition, like legal positivism.If therewere a threat else I am able, as I am at a loss.48 in the Clirophonthat was followed throughon in the Republic,we might have How we interpret the passage depends on whether we accept the copyist's groundsfor a claim that he "crossedthe floor" from philosophyto , emendation of nopedopor in ADF (present) to noperioopnr in A2 (future).ae but in the absenceof a threatto do so in the Clitophon,this seemsless likely. Orwin seems to take ADF as correct, as does Francisco Gonzales, whose The fact that Clitophondoes already go to Thrasymachusand others,and is note in his translation reflects his awarenessof the issue. Grote reflects the not threateningto do so at Clitophon 410c,has anothersignificance that I Greek of A2 in his abstract;Robin Waterfield's translation reflects A2. Bailly, will discusslater. For, alongwith otherconsiderations, Clitophon's seeking who presents the G^reekof Ast's edition with commentary, reproduces A2 answersin many quartersis somethingthat makeshis charactercloser to without comment.50Slings, acceptingADF, also points out thai A2 is base: that of Socratesthan one might expect. "The future requires 6nor &v 8rSvoporbecause noperioopor (. . .) ijnot Dr5vopcrr Perhapsthe larger dit0culty with viewing Clitophon as "crossingthe floor" is the implication that the Socraticnegative elenchus corrupts. It hardly

45. Roochnik,"Riddle," 133. needssaying that this would strike at the heartof Plato'sdisavowal of this 46 Slings,PLoto: "Clitophon," 329. 340. Boter, TextualTradirion (n. I 3 above).3. makesit clear that inthe andMeno, although there remains the issueof Alcibiades,at A is the oldestof the families A, D, and E least in the .s4It is worth pointing out that Plutarchmentions 47. Slings,Plato: "Clitophon," 259. 48. Kremer,P[ato's "Cleitophon," l4- Kremer includesOrwin's "Case" in plato,s "Cleitophon,"under Clitophon along with Alcibiadesand Critias as a specificexample of someone 'Case" the title "On the CLeitotrhon."This is a versionof that originally appearsin The Rootsof Political who could not be convincedby Plato and Socrates(Mor.328a-c): Philosopht,:Ten Forgotten Socratic Dialogues, ed. T. Pangle (lthaca, N.y, 1987). Given that Orwin's translationin Panglefollows ADF, it is not quite clear where he standson the issue in "on the c/eilo roi zol).oDg o0r irretoav d)"}.d Kprrior roi Al.xrprri8ar rai Kl"errog6vre6, rilorep plrcn." On p. 69 of Kremer,Plato's "Cleitophon,"Orwin says,"We shouldnot be surprisedto find [Clito- lcl"rvdv rdv 1,6yov Srnrriocvreq, dtr),1 n1 loperprinqocv. phonl impressedwith the speciousclarity of Thrasymachos.The seemingfutility of the questfor justrce rootedin naturehas prepared him for the conclusionthat it is merely convention."This is ambiguouswith For they did not persuade many; indeed Critias and Alcibiades and Clitophon would spit regardto the dramaticorder of the two pieces.Does Orwin meanthat somethinglike v6pogis whereClito- out the argument like a horse spits out the bit, and were diverted to another course.55 phon finaliy lands,or doesit merely explain why Clitophon praisesThrasymachus ar rhe beginningof the clitophon? | notethat Kremer ("socratic Philosophy,'480)cites orwin as someonewho supportshis "soul movementtheory." 51. Slings.Plato: "Clirophon," 329-30. 49. I note that Ficino's Latin renders the Greek conferam, which is consistentwith A1, i.e., rhe Clitophort 52. Indeed,if he had, he would be in for a surprisein any case,sincc Thrasymachusis thcreembroiled in Laur. 59.1 and 85.9.Laur.59.l (f. 350) has oo and gor written abovethe line that gives only ropiri.p., in his own r61vr1 argument, for which Socrates iakes him to task. while 85.9, the smoothercopy, adoptsrhe suggestionand gives zopeJoopcr(f.216). These remarksare 53. Slings,Plato: "CLitophotr,"48. basedon my consultationof the texts in the Laurenzianain Florence. 54. I hereignore the issueof 41c.I and Alc. Il, which would go far beyondth€ scopeof this article. 50. C. Orwin, ftari. Cle[tophon.in Roorr (n. 48 above), I l6i Crote. Conpanions,3:18; F. Gonzales, 55. ln fairnessto Plutarch,in the passagewhere he describesClitophon as a wayward student,he is trAas.,Cleitophon,inP[ato: CompleteWorks,ed. J. Cooper,(Indianapolis, 1991),p.910, n.9; R. Warer_ merely making a rhetoricalmove to show that Alexander'sgreatness is borne out by the fact that he had ,,Clitophon," field, trans.,Plato: "Republic" (Oxford, 1993),46?; Bailly, "Euthrphro" and 167 (anrl see more successin bringing about moral reform among "barbrians" than Plato and Socrates had with native also G. S. Bawe. BMCR 2004.05.I 2, for a review of Baillv). Greeksoeakers. 256 G. S. BowE ClrropHoN 251

It is not exactlyclear what Plutarch'sjustifications are for sayingthis, but (Svnp.215b, 22Id-e): Clitophoncompares him to a soaringgod in a tragedy it doeshelp with someissues. lf the Clitophonis genuine,the decline of (dionep6ni pr1Xavfrgtpo1rc(q 1eog,Clit.407a). Alcibiadessays that he has Clitophou would seemto suggestthat Plato expresseddissatisfaction with heard and admiredthe orationsof Periclesand others,but none of these Socraticphilosophy in the Clitophon. However, Plutarch expresslysays werecapable of moving him like Socrates,who causeshim to realizethe in- that Clitophon was not convincedby the teachingsof both Socratesand significanceof his political careerin comparisonwith the importanceof Plato, not Socratesalone. "Socratesalone" wouid require a Socratic/Pla- caringfor his soul(Symp.2i5e). Clitophon was stunned (dlen),r1tr6pqv) by tonic distinctionto which Plutarchappears not to subscribe.s6 what he heardfrom Socratesand thinks he saysfine thingsin his protreptic The tendencyto "fill the gap" aboutClitophon's character with information speechesabout the importanceof caring for the soul (407a-b). The important about Therameneswould seemto predisposeus to acceptPlutarch's account differencebetween Clitophon and Alcibiades,however, is that Alcibiades thathe is of a kind with thehistorical Alcibiades. Indeed, an examination of wantsto attachhimself physicallyto Socrates,so that Socrateswill make the latter's drunkenencomium in the Synposium yieldscertain similarities him virtuous,whereas Clitophon merely wantshis knowledge.Both are to the Clitophon.Consider this exchange(214d): wrongheadedin their attemptedattachment to Socrates,but for very dif- ". . . ISocratesis] the one who will most surelybeat me up if I darepraise anyone else ferent reasons.Alcibiades' dnopio is the stupefactionof unrequitedsexual in his presence-even a god!" intatuation,whereas Clitophon's dnopio represents disillusionment with the negativeelenchus, with which he showsa clearfacility.58 Alcibiades' and "Hold your tongue!" Socratessaid. Clitophon'sdnopia share this much in common:both expressthe etymo- "By god don't you dare deny it!" Alcibiadesshouted. "I would never-never praise logical senseof dnopio-the lack of a clearpath. Socratestells Alcibiades anyoneelse with you around."(trans. A. Nehamasand P Woodruff [Indianapolis,1989]) that the mind's sight grows keen when the body grows dull; he is not sure that sexuallove will be a fair exchangefor a wisdomthat Alcibiadescannot At the beginningof the Clitophon,Socrates asks Clitophon to explain why yet appreciate(218e-l9a). Clitophon has also not seenthat knowledgeis he praisesThrasymachus and criticizes him, and Clitophon immediatelytries not acquiredby passivereception, but throughactive dialectic.Alcibiades to placatehim (406a).Both dialoguessuggest that Socratesdoes not like cannotbe reformeduntil he recognizesthe true natureof love, and Clito- othersto be praisedinstead of him.s7Alcibiades begs be allowed to to tell phon cannotbe cureduntil he realizesthe true natureof dialectic.Socrates his storyof Socrates,promising that he will only tell the (Symp.2l4e). truth respondsneither to Alcibiadesnor to Clitophon.What is implied by Socrates' Clitophon,who also asksto be allowed to speak,says he will disclose all silencein both casesis thatthe Socratesof the negativeelenchus cannot help (Clit. 406a).Both frank disclosuresconsist of the interlocutors'respective them.Alcibiades' career and, akratic incorrigibility in theSymposium might impressionsof Socrates.Alcibiades compares Socrates to a mythicalSilenus speakto the declineof Alcibiades,but we have no suchclear sequenceor corroboratinghistorical evidence for Clitophon.sq To summarize:both possibledramatic orderings have difficulties.To 56. I think that the ideaof a Plato implicitly criticizing Socraticmethod as corruptingClitophon would assumethat the Clitophon comes in betweenRepublic I and Republic 2 seembase or unintelligibleto Plutnch, or-one suspects tojust aboutany ancientcommentator. The notion demotesthe dialogueto an unfinishedfragment (the complaintsmake no of earJy,middle, and late dialoguesis not a franework in which th€y conceivePlato's dialogues.If the (unlikely) Thrasylliandistributions (dramatic or philosophical)tell us anyrhing,it is that thereis no suchconception senseafter Republic 1), or requiresthe assumptionof an early of developmentaldivision. I havepreviously suggested that even Aristorle's remarksat Mer. 1078bofren date for the Clitophon (before Repttblic 2 if not beforc Republic 1, whereas used"in supportof an ancientdevelopmental reading of Plato may merely describethe preludeto a per- stylometrysuggests after the RepubLic),a discreteThrasymachus and/or the spectivethat was then ingressivelywritten" (Bowe, review of Bailly [n. 50 above]).Julia Annas writes: "for Plutarch,Platonism is a setof true doctrines,but you only takethem over in the right way if you learn Clitophon'sinauthenticity (written by a precociousstudent). The assumption in the way that Socrates'audience learned. Herc ad hominemnegative argument is an essentialpart of that the Clitophoncomes before Republic I and that this must meanthat we Platonismas a systemof doctlines.lt is not a prior stagethat you leavebehind to go on to positive ideas. are to understandthat Clitophon has followed through on a threat to join Plutarch,as a doctrinalPlatonist, accepts 4.1 honitefl argurnentsin Plato as part of the system,indicating how the positive positionsshould be regarded;hence he feels no temptationto find an earlier phaseof forceswith Thrasymachusrequires us to acceptAt over ADF andplaces the 'Middle' Plato'sdevelopment in which to locatethem" ("What Are Plato's Dialoguesin the Middle Of?" weightof interpretationon Republicl. Clitophon'srole in Republic1 is based in New Perspectiveson Plato, Ancient and Modenr, ed. J. Annas and C. Rowe [Hmmd, 2002], l-24). How- ever, not all a.gumentsare negative,nor do they happenat the stageof a given interlocutor'spsychic de- on tendentiousphilological evidenceand interpretation,an interpretation velopment.Stages might occurin the "systemof doctrines"without implying the developmentalismAnnas that leads to the conclusionthat dnopio irrevocably corrupts Clitophon. herewants to deny.In other words,I suspectthat Annascould be right in denyiDgstages of Plato'sthougnr; While it is temptingto want to interpretthe Clitophonon the basisof one this doesnot excludestages in an ioterlocutor'sthought or developmenton a given issue. 57. When invited by Eryximachusto offer an encomiumon Love, Alcibiadesasks whether he should "unleashhimself on Socrates,"to which Socratesreplies, "Now wait a minute. . . are you going to praise me only in order to mock rne?" (S_rmp.2l4e). explicitly Plato poinrsout the possibility of, and Socrates' 58. Rutherfbrd(Art of Plato In. 43 above], 100)notes his facility with elenchusas do others. sensitivityand resistanceto, being falsely praisedin the Syntposiun,yet there is no explicir indicationof 59. If it was Plularch's intention to say that the careersof Alcibiades and Clitophon show that they possibifity sucha in rheClitophon. This is perhapsinstructive with regardto Slings' "ironic" readingof the were not convincedby Plato and Socrates.this saysnothing, in lhe absenceof speculationon Clitophon's Clitophon,of whicb I say more in Part lfi. career,of Plato's literary or philosophicalintertion at the time ol'writing the Clitopltot. 258 G. S. Bowe ClrropHoN 259 dramaticorder or the other,this may distractus from assessingthe dialogue desireto placateSocrates by claiming that he said good things as well as bad on its own terms.Two interpretationsthat do not rely heavily on a perceived thingsin the conversationSocrates asks him aboutat the beginning@06a), dramatic ordering are those of Orwin and Slings, and it is to thesethat I and his recapitulationat the end that Socrates'exhortations are "worth the now turn. world" to the unexhorted(410e) hardly seema frame for an irony-laden Orwin's treatmentof the Clitopfrorzstresses the relationshipof the dia- critique.If Clitophon is being sincere,he thinks that explicit Socratic logue to the Apology,and follows HannsChristof Brenneckein suggesting protrepticis a great benefit to men who have not consideredthe value of that the Clitophonrepresents something of a counter-Apology.60Clitophon justice, and he himself has takenthe exhortationto heart.65For Clitophon, is defendinghimself againstSocrates' charge that he finds fault with him. the problem is that once you accept the exhortation,and have acquired Orwin hasa differentaccount of Socrates'silence from that of Roochnikor elencticskill, you havenowhere to turn. If we take Clitophon at his word, 'fhe Geffcken. Clitophon appropriatesthe structure of an indictment where he thinks that the elenchusis obstructiveif it can yield no positivedefini- the defendantgets the last word. Moreover,nothing shortof a full account tions. Slings would say that the elenchusmight be given a wider scopeso of justice would satisfyClitophon. To think that Socraticphilosophy can give asto includepositive results, pointing to possibleexamples tnthe and this is to misinterpretthe exhortationto seekjustice for an exhortationto find the ,and henceSlings is challengingreadings of Plato_thatsuggest justice.6l In my own interpretation,I suggestthat the problem is not that a breakbetween say, negative elenchus and positivedialectic.oo justice cannotbe found (in Plato'sextrapolation of the figure of Socrates), III but that in his dnopio,Clitophon does not realizethat it is not the Socrates of the negativeelenchus that can do this for him. I will have more to say My readingof the Clitopl,o/rsuggests that the so-calledriddle of the CIi' aboutthis in Part III. tophon,Socrates'silence, has an explanationthat is more obviousthan the Slings' assessmentof the meaningof the Clitophondepends on the solutionsthat havebeen suggested by othercommentators. Having brought deepirony he observesin the dialogue,irony on the part of Clitophon,not Clitophonto dnopio,Socrates has done hisjob. Thereis no more that he can Socrates.62According to Slings,if we are not sensitiveto the irony in the say or do for Clitophon.In order to supportthis thesis,I will draw a dis- dialogue,we run the risk of being seriouslymisled as to its intention.More tinction betweenaporetic dialogues and constructiveones. My approachis specifically,Slings claims that Clitophon'sexplicit praiseof Socraticpro- to regardthis distinctionrather broadly. I do not want to denythat there may treptic is highly ironic, and really amountsto a criticism of explicit protreptic. be implicit positivelessons to be gainedfrom aporeticdialogues, but I do At the sametime implicit protreptic,or elenchus,is implicitly praised.Indeed, want to assertthat constructivedialogues like the Republicassert or assume as hasbeen observed, Clitophon appearsto have successfullyappropriated the necessityof an interlocutorbeing broughtto dnopioas a preludeto the the Socraticelenchus, and seemsto employ it with greatskill.63 However, further inquiry that is carried out there. I am inclinedto agreewith Bailly that Slingsrelies too heavily on an ironic In the first place,we shouldpay attentionto whereClitophon's remarks interpretationof the Clitophon, insofar as receptionto this kind of irony are aimed,and the types of Socraticmethod he mentions.We find that he is highly subjective.6aWhat happensif we take Clitophonat his word?His himself hasmastered the negativeelenchus, and that he hasbrought himself and othersto &nopio,and he worries that protrepticis all that Socrateshas to offer. I would maintain that in a certain way he is right. The idea that Clitophon'sclaims may make senseas a responseto Republic l, which is 60. Orwin, "Case," 120, 129; H. Brennecke,"Kleitophon wider Sokrates,"Archiv ftir Geschichteder aporeticin form, but not to Republic2-10 suggeststhat Clitophon is directing Philosophie 26 (1913): 452-57 . I think Roochnik ("Riddle," I 36-37) dismissesOrwin's position too quickly on the groundsthat he cannotimagine a compatiblecontext. It seemsto me that Orwin is thinking more in his remarksat the Socratesof the aporeticdialogues. This Socratesis merely termsof structureand meaningthan literal setting. protreptic,and dnopio is the vehicleof that protreptic.It is alsopossible that 61. Orwin ("Case," 130-31) suggests,'As the Republicconfirms, Socrates can say whatjustice is, but the historical Socrates,but the only in the senseof achievinga comprehensivearticulation of the problem of the relation of one's own Clitophon is directinghis remarkstowards good to the demands of the city. He can offer only problematic and paradoxical def,nitions of justice, and dependenceof the Clitophol?on otherPlatonic texts draws us into the realm nonethat would gratify in the leastany actualcity. . . . The Socraticformulation. . . implies that therecan of the Socratesof the aporeticdialogue. However, if we wereto acceptthat be no end to discussing virtue-and therefore no beginning to practicing it. Practically speaking,the search replacesthe object sought. Philosophy is not, as Socrates'protrcptic seemsto suggest,a meansto specifying the Socratesof the aporeticdialogues is closerto the historical Socratesthan the virtuouslife: it takesthe place of that life." the constructiveones, we may saythat to a degreeClitophon is directinghis 62. Dofothy Tarrant (who b€lieves the dialogue is spurious) points out that Socratesis represented remarksto the historical Socrates.This claim would be strengthenedby as using his eio0vio eipouela ("The Pseudo-Platonic Socrates," CQ 32 [1938]: 161-73). Slings, Plato: "Clitophon," 204 6, dismisses the Thrasymachushypothesis for good reason,and he suggeststhat "we can hardly evade the conclusion that the readersof the Clilophon were meant to grasp the author's intention in light of the Republic" (p. 204). At the sametime, it is not clear to me that his own interpretationdepends heavily on the perceiveddramatic ordering. 65. Rutherford,Art of Plab,100: Roochnik,"Riddle," 14l. 63. Rutherford,Art of Plato, l0O. 66. Slings,Plato: "Clitoplo+" 136-41.He hasin mird textslike R. Robinson,Ploto's Earlier Dialectic 64. Bailly, "Euthyphro" antl "Clitophon," 122. (Oxford, 1953),or G. Vlastos,Socrates, Ironist and Moral PliLosopher(Cambridge, l99l). 260 G. S. BowE ClrtopsoN 261 the fact that Socrates is characterized in the Clitophon as being explicitly that aporeticconditions are irrevocableand unchangeable.TzIf the epistemic protreptic, whereas from Demetrius onward, it is generally accepted that or protrepticbenefits of elenchusleading to dnopioare really to be benefits, Plato's Socrates is implicitly protreptic.6TWhile it is possible to read this cannot be the casefor all interlocutors,but it may be the casefor a certain remarks inthe Apolog) as Socrates' own contention that he is ex- given interlocutorat a given point in their intellectualor psychicdevelop- plicitly protreptic,6sSocrates is not himself clear about this, and it is the ment. This would also explain why Socratesbegins afresh with new inter- Clitophon that Olympiodorus uses as an example that Socrates does some- locutorsin Republic2, thosewho displaycourage and patience.T3 Those who times address crowds-something that one may take as a mark of explicit reactbadly to dnopin serveas examplesof how not to respondto Socrates protreptic. properly; our instinctive negativeresponses to characterslike Thrasymachus The fact that Republic I can be recognized as reproducing in form an and Meno bearthis out. aporetic dialogue that prefaces the remaining constructive books of the The heart of Plato's educationaltheory is bound up with the statement Republic6e suggests that in the Republic, Plato sees dnopio as a necessary that everyonehas the capacityto learnand that educationis tunringthe mind step in searching for knowledge. [t then seems reasonable to say that Plato in the right direction(Resp. 518c). This would seemto suggestthat psychic sees elenchus as a step to dnopio, and that this is intended to be protreptic conditions are not permanentif one has the right instruction. One might of further philosophizing. In my reading of the Republic there is both a sym- notice that Socratesconfesses dnopio about how to respondboth to Meno bolic and a dlamatic continuity that is consistentwith such a methodology. andto Glaucon,but nonethelessgoes on to introducemethods for resolving The Republic takes place at the festival of Bendis (the Athenian Artemis, the dnop(a.If taking up the exhortationimplied by the dropio is a deflning the barren midwife goddess of the moon and duality),70 pauses as Socrates characteristicof a constructivedialogue, and bringingimopiu abouta char- proclaims his ignorance at the end of Republic 1 and expresseshis dnopio acteristicof a Socraticone, we would do well to appreciatethis distinction in at the beginning of Republic 2 (368b), and reaches its apex with the myth assessingthe Clitophonon its own terms.For if the Socratesthat Clitophon of the Sun, where Glaucon cries "By Apollo!" (Resp.509c). Plutarch has is criticizing in the Clitophonis the aporeticSocrates and not the constructive remarked on the Pythagorean use of the word'A-pollo" (not many) to sym- one, the reasonfor his silenceis obvious-his work with Clitophon in this bolize unity, and further tells us that Artemis (= Bendis) representsduality frame of mind and at this stageof his developmentis over. in the same scheme. " There is a continuous movement, from weak dispersed Whereasdnopio is the point at which the kinds of dialoguesthat Clitophon light to strong, unifying light in Plato's great work, expressinga continuity is addressingends, it is commonly acceptedthat the Meno marksa turning of the negative elenchus, &"nopia,and positive dialectic. point wherebySocrates forges beyond dnopic. I agteewith CharlesKahn's Perhaps the prototype of protreptic dnopio is to be found at Meno 84a-d, contentionthat the explanationof dnopia one f,nds in the Meno is Plato's wherein Meno's slave, once relieved of a false conceit of knowledge, gladly reflectionof the significanceof dnopioin the aporeticdialogues.?a I would and willingly inquires. Once his false conceit has been removed, constructive, also saythat the Clitophonserves as an extendedreflection on the natureof cooperative inquiry can take place. This is how dnopio is supposedto work. &nopio. Along with willing inquiries like that of Meno's slave (or perhaps Glaucon Anopio is generallyunderstood as the endresult of the Socraticelenchus, and Adeimantus in the Republic), we see symptoms of d.nopialike recalci- wherebyan interlocutorhas been "relieved" of a false conceit of knowledge. trance, torpor, and misology (Meno), to frustrated accusation (Clitophon), While such a definitionof dnopio indicatesthe cause,it doesnot describe to anger, blushing, and stubbornness(Thrasymachus), often accompanied by the conditionof dnooiaitself. In the .the conditionis likenedto an allegation that Socrates is being ironic. The abandonment of the argument "birth pangs,"75which Socratesthe barrenmidwife witl help via elenchus (implicitly by Thrasymachus or Polus, who answer but have lost interest, or to discoverwhether the pregnancyis real. While this may be one kind of explicitly, as in the hasty departure of Euthyphro) is not meant to suggest dnopicwe encounterin Plato'sdialogues, it cannotbe the only kind. Socrates in the aporeticdialogues, who canhardly be saidto havea conceitof knowl- edge(ironically or not),often expresses his own dnopio.Moreover, if Socrates is a barren midwife his own dropio can hardly be accompaniedby birth 67. Slings,Plato: "Clitophon," 88 89. pangs,real or not. 68. At Ap. 30a b, Socratessays. "For I go aboutdoing nothingelse than urging you, young and old, not ta care for your personsor your propertymore than for the pert'ectionof your.souls,or evenso rnuch;and I tell you that virtue doesnot comefrom money,but from virtue comesmoney and all other good thingsto man.both to thc individual and to the state." 72. One may notewith somecaution that accordingto Diog. Laert.2.5.29 Socrates did in fact convince 69. lt is commonly acceptedthat Republk l cafies the form of an aporeticdialogue. This is not to Euthyphro not to prosecute his father. makeclaims for a discreteTftrasyrnachrs; see for example, D. Clay. Platonic Qresrions(Pittsburgh. 2000), 73. 6 ydp fl.qi)xov dei te 6i1riv6pet6toroq

Despitethe fact that the Meno and Republicforge beyond dnopia, we the natureof justice at the end of the Clitophon; Socratesexpresses thrs shouldalso note reflexivity the of the prototypeof dnopicrexpressed in the sameignorance at the endof RepubllcL Clitophonexpresses concern about Meno (80c).There both Socratesand his interiocutorare numb. At Republic the acquisitionof ei6orpovlo,as doesSocrates at the end of Republic l. I 368b,when Socrates expresseshis dnopicr,he againsays that he is at a loss would go so far as to suggestthat Clitophon'sapproach to virtue thus far is as how proceed.T6 to to Both texts offer a characterizationof dnooiu rn not that differentfrom Socrates'approach. termsof not knowing how to proceed-being, asthe word suggests,without Clitophon,having reached dnopio, is alreadyon the Socraticroad, but passage,without a road or knowledgeof a road,or knowledgeof wherethe becauseof the frustrationthat goesalong with d,nopiohe doesnot realizeit. roadleads. As Beversluishas pointed out: Notewhat Clitophon says in expressinghis dnopio:(l) He seeksanswers with Although dnopiu is usually rranslaredas theoretical"perplexity." it has wider implica- whomeverhe is able(410d);78 (2) Clitophongoes on to saythat if Socrates tions which may be seenby noticing its connectionto otherterms of the samefamily. A wereto teachhim gymnastics,he wouid explainthe natureof the body and poros rs a meansof passage-a way out or through.Hence to be dpdrosis to be without the particularkind of treatmentit requires(410d), which analogicallymeans passage.Uncharted seas induce droplct in sea-farerswho lack the 161vriof navigation thathe is askingSocrates to tell him the natureofjustice and thekind of life which enablesthem to find the way throughuncharted territory. Socrates tries to induce it requires;(3) Clitophonis convincedthat caring for the soulis of thehighest the same in state his inlerlocutorsby making the familiar unfamiliar.The vicrim is not import (410e).Clitophon, in shorthas been inspired by Socrates,and he has just in intellectualdifficulty . . . he is also at a to loss as how to act.?7 beenexhorted. His r.rltimatecomplaint is that (4) Socrates'only valueis pro- What is required of Meno is the right response to dnoptcr, one that requires treptic, and that (5) Socratesalmost gets in the way of someonewho hasbeen cooperative inquiry instead of a desire for wisdom to be transferred oy exhorted.Of theseelements of Clitophon's final statements,in additionto touch (Synp. 175d), or a view that arguments can be poured into the soul his own facility with elenchus,one might notice that the first threepoints are (Resp.345b). After the aporetic first book of the Republic, Socratescan only significantcharacteristics of the Socraticway of life. If thatis the life that proceed once he takes up a fresh conversation with fresh interlocutors wno Clitophonis indeedleading-continually seekingwisdom from others,and have the right responseto their dnopio, the dnopiu that Glaucon professes at practicingelenchus in the mannerhe has describedin the precedingpages Republic 358c and that Socrates professes at 368b. What is instructive in of the dialogue,seeking -if in fact Clitophonhas recognized rhe the Meno is that the slave, like Glaucon and Adeimantus in the Republic, primary import of caring for the soul, he comesvery close to a Socratic grasps what is implicitly protreptic in dnopio-they grasp the implication idealin manyimportant respects. For in the Apology,these are precisely the that it is necessary to willingly inquire. This, however, is a characteristic of kindsof thingsthat Socratessays about himself. He describeshow he sought constructive dialogues. Aporetic dialogues by their very nature do not forge knowledgein manyquarters (21e), he describeshis elenchus,and he describes beyond the dnopio. On this rather obvious criterion, and with an extended his own protrepticactivity in termsof exhortingmen regardingthe primary scope to the idea of &nopio, the Clitophon deserves to be called an aporetic import of caring for the soul (30a-b). dialogue because it ends at the point where dnopia is expressed. Socrates'silence at the end of the Clitophon, then,is best explainedby So far I have drawn a distinction between constructive dialosues and the fact that the aporeticSocrates can do no more for Clitophon.But it can aporeticdialogues. and I have suggestedthat Clitophon directs his=remarks hardly be a criticism of Clitophonto say that he hasemulated to somereal at the latter and not the former. When Clitophon expressesdnopio with degreea Socraticway of life and hasbeen brought to dnopio.Nor can it be regard tojustice, and says that he does not know to whom to turn or how to a condemnationof Socratesto say,as Clitophon does, that Socratesis almost proceed, Socratesprovides no answer to him becausethejob of the Socrates an impedimentto the 16l"o9dpetflg. Clitophon, in his driopio,is suspiciousof of aporetic dialogues is over once an interlocutor is brought to dnopio. As a Socrates'claims to ignorance.This is familiar territory;apart from Glaucon, constructive dialogue, the Republic moves beyond &nopio. In fact, the end Adeimantus,and Meno's slave,almost every subjectof Socrates'elenchus of the Clitophon and the end of Republic I are strikingly similar. Both end accuseshim of being ironic or eristic.Making suchaccusations might well in dnopio. At the end of the Clitophon, Clitophon is dnopdrv, at the end of be taken as a symptomof &zopio.Socrates is only an irnpedimentif one Republic l, Socrates is dnop6v. Clitophon expresses ignorance regarcling mistakesthe aporeticSocrates for the constructiveone. The road of the aporeticSocrates is quite literally an eternalone, for Socratesdoes tell us in theApology that if thereis an afterlife,he would be quite happyto continue his questioningin Hades(41a-c). 76. 5oo 6i pdtr),ovnrorerlo, p&l,),ov drop6 iirr 1pr1oo;ror.lt is not merely that Socratesis confused,it is that he doesnot know how to proceed.It shouldbe notedthat this leadsup to an examinationof justice by hypothesis,and indeedshows the right approachto dnopio,much as Meno's slave,in contrastwith Meno, hasthe right approachto dnopio.This is not to suggestthat hypothesisin theMeno is the sameas hypothesis tr the RepubLic,see R. Robinson,Plarc's Earlier Dialecric (Oxford, 1953),passim. 78. If for no other reason,the tenseof nopctiopotis important here becauseit suggestsa continuous 77. Beversluis,Cross-Exarnining Socrates (n.36 above),p. 1, n. 1. acrivity.not an intendedfulure one. /o4 G. S. Bowe

The Clitophorzexplicitly endsin dnopioabout the 6pyovof jusrice,but at the sametime it calls us to inquire into the natureof dnopioresulting from negativeelenchus and exhorts us to sympathizewith thosewho arenumbed by the torpedo'sshock. Read as a prefaceto constructivedialogues, the CIi- BEFORE YOUR VERY EYES: PLINY EPISTULAE5.6 tophonis protrepticof furtherinvestigation into the natureof justice,some- AND thing that is only possibleonce Plato has established the necessityof &nopio THE ANCIENT THEORY OF EKPHRASIS for suchan investigation,along the lines of theMeno and the Republic.If this is the case,it would be wrong to crittcizeClitophon for havingcome so CHRISTOPHERM. CHINN closeto the idealof the aporeticSocrates. It would alsobe wrong to suggest thatthe clitophonexpresses dissatisfaction with theaporetic dialogues or with owADAys rHE woRD ekphrasis is frequently used to denote the rhe- the historicalSocrates, since negative elenchus is seenby Plato asfundamental torical or literary description of works of visual art. I In the ancient to constructivephilosophy. Clitophon's own criticismsof Socratesmust be world, however, its meaning was much broader, encompassing de- regardedas a symptomof his dropic, a symptomthat, althoughnecessary scriptionsof all types,usually characterized by the commonfeature of vivid- and,indeed, celebrated, Plato believed it waspossible to forgebeyond. -but Thls ness(enargeia in Greek;evidentia or perspicuitasin Latin).2In this paper is borne out not only by Plato's constructiveattempts to do so, by the I will arguethat Pliny Ep. 5.6 containsa significantperspective on the ancient very implicationof the protrepticimplicit in aporeticdialogues. conceptof ekphrasis,a conceptthat has in many ways shapedthe modernuse of the word. Ultimately I will suggestthat this letter'sinterest in description Thomps on Rive r s U niv e rsity is motivatedby the existencein Pliny's time of a conceptionof ekphrasis that is more "modern" than we might have expected.In other words, the sophisticationof Pliny's discussionseems to have quite a bit in common with moderntheories of ekphrasisin spiteof the fact thathe, like mostother writers in antiquity,does not limit the term to descriptionsof works of art. Although the word ekphrasisnowhere appears in the letter, Pliny's villa descriptionconstitutes a uniqueintertextual nexus of ideasassociated with the term.Ep.5.6 containsan epistolaryintroduction (1-3), a long description of Pliny's Tuscanvilla (4-40), a digressionthat reflectson this description (41-44), anda brief conclusion(44-46). A cursoryreading of the letter shows, first, that Pliny's self-reflectivedigression articulates a kind of theoryof de- scriptionand, second,that the extendedvilla descriptionputs into practice

An earlierversion of this paperwas presentedat the 2004 APA conferencein San Francisco.I would like to thankStephen Hinds, Alain Gowing, NicholasCofod, and the anonymousCP refereestbr their help and suggestions. l. Webb ( t999) arguesthat the definitionof ekphrasisas descriptiou of art objectsappears to stemfiom 1950saccounts such as Spitzer(1955.12) and Hagstrum(1958, p. 18, n.34). Much earlier,however, Friedliinder(1912, 83-85) had criticizedthis kind of defrnition.More recentfornulations of the at-oblecr definitionof ekphrasismay be observedin Heffernan(1993,3) and Cliiver (1998,36). Classiciststoo have employedsuch a definition,either explicitly or implicitly: Paln (1965-66, 108-17) acknowledgesthat ek- phrasisis not limited to art objects,but limits his own discussionto them. Manakidou (1993, 4), Becker (1995,2),and Elsner(2004, p. l57 and n. l) do the same.Purnam (1998, p. 1, n. l) explicitly avoidsdefinrrg ekphrasisbut discussesVirgil's descriptionsof art objectsnonetheless. 2. It appearsthat the only placesin antiquity where the term ekphrasisis specificallyassociated wirh descriptionsof works of art arein the late rhetoricianNicolaus of Myra (3.492.l0-l 8 Spengel)and the Iare proseekphraseis oi Philostratusmd Callistratus.For the progtmnasnrota,see Kennedy 2000; for Philostrarus' ekPhraseis,see Anderson 1986,259-82. On the issueof definition, seeespecially Webb ( 1999),who cririques the "art definition" of ekphrasisand detailshow the term was actuallyused in antiquity.For other valuable discussionsof theterm, see Graf 19951Fowler l99l: Barrsch1989.3,39: and Downev 1959.

C kts s i c al P hi lol o gy 102 (2O{)1): 265-80 [@ 2007 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved] 0009-837X/07/ 10203-0002$ I 0.00

265