DOCSLIB.ORG

In Defense of Clttophon

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In Defense of Clttophon 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 Plato's work by all ancient authors,I ******>F***** and it is being accepted as such by more and more modern scholars.2 Clitophon 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 Republic 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 Socrate:Essai sut lo.forttntiott du nessage socratique(Louvain. 1965); Orwin, "The ANSIStandard:The paper used in thispublication meets the minimumrequirements of American C. CaseAgainst Socrates: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<tphorr:' lnterpretation I 3 ( I 985): 32 | -33; S. R. SJings, Pl dto: " Clitophon" (Cambridg€, 1999), M. Kremer, "Socratic Philosophy axl the Cleitophort," Review o.f Politics 62 (2000): 479-5O2:J. Bailly, P/ruo's "Euthvphro" and "Clitoplton" (Newburyport,Mass., 2003); M. Kremer,P1d1ot Postmirster:Send address changes to ClassicalPhilolog,v, The University of Chicago Press,Jour- "Cleitophon": Socrqtesand the Modern Mind (Lanham,Md., 2004). nalsDivision, PO. Box 37005.Chicago. Illinois 60637. 3. I employ the phrase"dramatic ordering." or "dramaticorders," as a shorthandway of referringto an understandingof events/conversationsin dialoguesintended by Platoto be understoodas happeningbefore Periodicalspostage paid at Chicago,Illinois, and at additionalmailing offices. or afterone another.I do not meanto imply (in the caseof Republic I andClitophon) that we shouldthink of this as an uninterrupteddramatic order. although it is possibleto do so on someaccouDts. @2007by The Universityof Chicago. 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 "Gorgias," 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 Laws 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 Critias 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 Plutarch 4. At Ment. 1.4.1,Xenophon says, "lf any hold the opinion expressedin somewritten md spokencriticisms J: Timaeus,Critias of Socrates that are based on inference (rilqivroL lptirpouoi te roi l6youor tepi or)to[ rerporp<ipevot) and think,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Clitophon's Challenge and the Aporia of Socratic Protreptic* Teruo Mishima
    Clitophon’s Challenge and the Aporia of Socratic Protreptic* Teruo Mishima Before I discuss the text in detail, I would like to briefly sketch the main line of arguments in the Clitophon which I am going to take up, just for the sake of anamnēsis of the readers : In the opening scene Socrates speaks to Clitophon in the third person and tells him that he heard from somebody else that Clitophon, in his conversation with Lysias, has criticised Socratic diatribai (pursuits), whereas he has lavishly praised his synousia (association) with Thrasymachus. Taking Socrates’ words as a sort of disguised criticism or complaint, Clitophon answers that the story was only half true, because although he did on the one hand criticise Socrates, he also on the other hand highly praised him. Then, he explains to Socrates why he must take such an ambiguous attitude towards him. In the first half of his speech he focuses on the aspect of Socratic teaching which he admires unreservedly, namely Socrates’ protreptic speech towards virtues. Here he refers to a lot of Socratic dicta which remind us of well known passages in the early dialogues of Plato. By contrast, in the latter half Clitophon explains where his deep frustration with Socrates lies. He says that, being already converted by Socratic protreptic and resolved to pursue virtues, what he expects now from Socrates is “what comes next”, that is a detailed account of the essence of virtues to be acquired and a piece of concrete advice on how to acquire them. But to these - Clitophon complains - neither Socrates’ company nor Socrates himself gives any convincing answer.
    [Show full text]
  • Theory of Forms 1 Theory of Forms
    Theory of Forms 1 Theory of Forms Plato's theory of Forms or theory of Ideas[1] [2] [3] asserts that non-material abstract (but substantial) forms (or ideas), and not the material world of change known to us through sensation, possess the highest and most fundamental kind of reality.[4] When used in this sense, the word form is often capitalized.[5] Plato speaks of these entities only through the characters (primarily Socrates) of his dialogues who sometimes suggest that these Forms are the only true objects of study that can provide us with genuine knowledge; thus even apart from the very controversial status of the theory, Plato's own views are much in doubt.[6] Plato spoke of Forms in formulating a possible solution to the problem of universals. Forms Terminology: the Forms and the forms The English word "form" may be used to translate two distinct concepts that concerned Plato—the outward "form" or appearance of something, and "Form" in a new, technical nature, that never ...assumes a form like that of any of the things which enter into her; ... But the forms which enter into and go out of her are the likenesses of real existences modelled after their patterns in a wonderful and inexplicable manner.... The objects that are seen, according to Plato, are not real, but literally mimic the real Forms. In the allegory of the cave expressed in Republic, the things that are ordinarily perceived in the world are characterized as shadows of the real things, which are not perceived directly. That which the observer understands when he views the world mimics the archetypes of the many types and properties (that is, of universals) of things observed.
    [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]
  • Rethinking Athenian Democracy.Pdf
    Rethinking Athenian Democracy A dissertation presented by Daniela Louise Cammack to The Department of Government in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the subject of Political Science Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts January 2013 © 2013 Daniela Cammack All rights reserved. Professor Richard Tuck Daniela Cammack Abstract Conventional accounts of classical Athenian democracy represent the assembly as the primary democratic institution in the Athenian political system. This looks reasonable in the light of modern democracy, which has typically developed through the democratization of legislative assemblies. Yet it conflicts with the evidence at our disposal. Our ancient sources suggest that the most significant and distinctively democratic institution in Athens was the courts, where decisions were made by large panels of randomly selected ordinary citizens with no possibility of appeal. This dissertation reinterprets Athenian democracy as “dikastic democracy” (from the Greek dikastēs, “judge”), defined as a mode of government in which ordinary citizens rule principally through their control of the administration of justice. It begins by casting doubt on two major planks in the modern interpretation of Athenian democracy: first, that it rested on a conception of the “wisdom of the multitude” akin to that advanced by epistemic democrats today, and second that it was “deliberative,” meaning that mass discussion of political matters played a defining role. The first plank rests largely on an argument made by Aristotle in support of mass political participation, which I show has been comprehensively misunderstood. The second rests on the interpretation of the verb “bouleuomai” as indicating speech, but I suggest that it meant internal reflection in both the courts and the assembly.
    [Show full text]
  • Silencing the Female Voice in Longus and Achilles Tatius
    Silencing the female voice in Longus and Achilles Tatius Word Count: 12,904 Exam Number: B052116 Classical Studies MA (Hons) School of History, Classics and Archaeology University of Edinburgh B052116 Acknowledgments I am indebted to the brilliant Dr Calum Maciver, whose passion for these novels is continually inspiring. Thank you for your incredible supervision and patience. I’d also like to thank Dr Donncha O’Rourke for his advice and boundless encouragement. My warmest thanks to Sekheena and Emily for their assistance in proofreading this paper. To my fantastic circle of Classics girls, thank you for your companionship and humour. Thanks to my parents for their love and support. To Ben, for giving me strength and light. And finally, to the Edinburgh University Classics Department, for a truly rewarding four years. 1 B052116 Table of Contents Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………………….1 List of Abbreviations………………………………………………………………………3 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………….4 Chapter 1: Through the Male Lens………………………………………………………6 The Aftertaste of Sophrosune……………………………………………………………….6 Male Viewers and Voyeuristic Fantasy.…………………………………………………....8 Narratorial Manipulation of Perspective………………………………………………….11 Chapter 2: The Mythic Hush…………………………………………………………….15 Echoing Violence in Longus……………………………………………………………….16 Making a myth out of Chloe………………………………………………………………..19 Leucippe and Europa: introducing the mythic parallel……………………………………21 Andromeda, Philomela and Procne: shifting perspectives………………………………...22 Chapter 3: Rupturing the
    [Show full text]
  • The Spell of Achilles Tatius: Magic and Metafiction in Leucippe and Clitophon
    The Spell of Achilles Tatius: Magic and Metafiction in Leucippe and Clitophon ASHLI J.E. BAKER Bucknell University Eros is “…δεινὸς γόης καὶ φαρμακεὺς καὶ σοφιστής…” (Plato, Symposium 203d) Introduction In the beginning of Book Two of Achilles Tatius’ Leucippe and Clitophon, the clever but thus far failed lover Clitophon witnesses a remarkable – and useful – scene. He passes by just as Clio, Leucippe’s slave, is stung on the hand by a bee. He sees Leucippe soothe Clio’s pain by singing incantations (ἐπᾴδω) she says she learned from an Egyptian woman.1 When Clitophon, determined to woo Leu- cippe, finds himself alone with her on the following day, he pretends that he too has been stung by a bee. Leucippe approaches, asking where he has been stung. In reply, Clitophon says, ————— 1 παύσειν γὰρ αὐτὴν τῆς ἀλγηδόνος δύο ἐπᾴσασαν ῥήματα· διδαχθῆναι γὰρ αὐτὴν ὑπό τινος Αἰγυπτίας εἰς πληγὰς σφηκῶν καὶ μελιττῶν. Καὶ ἅμα ἐπῇδε· καὶ ἔλεγεν ἡ Κλειὼ μετὰ μικρὸν ῥᾴων γεγονέναι. (2.7 - “…she would, she said, stop her pain by chanting two spells; she had been taught by an Egyptian woman how to deal with wasp- and bee-stings. As she had chanted, Clio had said that the pain was gradually relieved.”). All Greek text of Leu- cippe and Clitophon is that of Garnaud 1991. All translations are cited, with occasional alterations, from Whitmarsh 2001. I want to give special thanks to Catherine Connors for her insightful comments throughout the drafting of this paper. Thanks too to Alex Hollmann and Stephen Trzaskoma for feedback on earlier versions of this project.
    [Show full text]
  • The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism the Alexandrian
    This article was downloaded by: 10.3.98.104 On: 25 Sep 2021 Access details: subscription number Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism Pauliina Remes, Svetla Slaveva-Griffin The Alexandrian classrooms excavated and sixth-century philosophy teaching Publication details https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315744186.ch3 Richard Sorabji Published online on: 30 Apr 2014 How to cite :- Richard Sorabji. 30 Apr 2014, The Alexandrian classrooms excavated and sixth-century philosophy teaching from: The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism Routledge Accessed on: 25 Sep 2021 https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315744186.ch3 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. 3 The Alexandrian classrooms excavated and sixth-century philosophy teaching Richard Sorabji It was announced in 2004 that the Polish archaeological team under Grzegorz Majcherek had identifi ed the surprisingly well-preserved lecture rooms of the sixth-century Alexandrian school.1 Th is was a major archaeological discovery.2 Although the fi rst few rooms had been excavated twenty-fi ve years earlier, identifi cation has only now become possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Euanthes and the World of Rhetoric in Achilles Tatius' Leucippe And
    Euanthes and the World of Rhetoric in Achilles Tatius’ Leucippe and Cleitophon KATHERINE A. MCHUGH The University of Edinburgh In Book Three of Achilles Tatius’ Leucippe and Cleitophon there is an ekphrasis of a painting, one of three within the entirety of the novel. The description takes place after the protagonists’ arrival at Pelusium, as they happen upon the Temple of Zeus and come across “double images” (εἰκόνα διπλῆν, 3,6,3) which have been signed by the artist Euanthes (3,6,3).1 The main aim of this article is to consider the name of this artist, as opposed to the painting itself; it seeks to prove that Euanthes was not a real figure, but a name created by Achilles which is imbued with rhetorical references in keeping with the intellectual climate of 2nd Century AD Greek literature. The name Euanthes and its possible rhetorical connotations will be explored in conjunction with a detailed consideration of Achilles’ use of ekphrasis throughout Leucippe and Cleitophon and his interest in rhetorical edu- cation in order to assert that some of the author’s playful in-jokes have been un- derstudied, and that they can provide us with a clearer picture of how the author strives to appeal to his reader; that is, a reader who is steeped in a rhetorical edu- cation himself. The article also considers the other two ekphraseis of paintings in Leucippe and Cleitophon (which occur in Books One and Five) in order to aid with an understanding of Achilles’ use of the rhetorical technique and how sig- nificant rhetoric is to his novel as a whole.
    [Show full text]
  • Clitophon and Socrates in the Platonic Clitophon
    Ancient Philosophy 32 (2012) ©Mathesis Publications 1 Clitophon and Socrates in the Platonic Clitophon Christopher Moore The Clitophon shows us a man similar to Socrates in analytic skill, social ease, frankness, and avowed interest in justice. He praises Socrates for bringing people to desire to be just, but criticizes Socrates for not helping them be just, the object of their desire. H gives his experience as an example: having listened to Socrates he desires justice, but does not know how to be just. Readers have often accepted both the cogency of and warrant for Clitophon’s criticism. But details of the dia - logue undermine both. Its characterization of Socrates shows that desiring to be just, considered robustly—recognizing one’s ignorance, listening to other views, and trying to learn about the good—is much the same as being just, and so Socrates cannot be faulted for merely inculcating the desire. And though Cli - tophon has heard Scorates speak and is interested in justice—especially in find - ing some apt formula—he has not listened closely to Socrates, and therefore has not allowed himself to be brought fully into desiring to be just. Therefore, he fails, both theoretically and personally, to understand Socrates’ efforts, and so his criticism fails too. The dialogue begins with Socrates reporting a rumor. He heard that Clitophon disparaged their time together but raved about his time with Thrasymachus. Cli - tophon calls this rumor mistaken. Far from disparaging their time together, Cli - tophon says, he lauded much about Socrates. He asks leave to speak frankly. He wants to give a fuller report about what he actually said to Lysias, the source of the rumor.
    [Show full text]
  • Definition and Essence in the Platonic Dialogues
    Methexis XIX (2006) p. 21-39 Articulos DEFINITION AND ESSENCE IN THE PLATONIC DIALOGUES LLOYD P. GERSON I. What are variously called "Socratic definitions", answers to the "what is F?" question, "real definitions" A.6yOl of Forms, etc., have been subjected to extraor­ dinary scrutiny, especially within the English-speaking scholarly world. There is not a great deal of common ground among the scholars beyond the generally agreed upon view that the definitions Socrates seeks in Plato's dialogues are sup­ posed to be definitions not of words or concepts but of "things" that are real or, let us say, extramental.! I do not wish to controvert this view. But as Richard Ro­ binson complained some fifty years ago, the question "what is F?" where "F" is supposed to represent a Form is almost impossibly vague? It is not just vague; it is deeply puzzling. What after all is piety but piety? What is virtue but virtue? What other sort of answer could the "what is F?" question be expecting? The thesis I am going to defend in regard to these sorts of definition is this. A A.6yoS" of an ouuea is an expression of an understanding of the material identity of an instance of that ouuea (the dejiniendum) and some property or properties of that instance and all other instances of the identical ouuea (the dejiniens). The term "material identity" as used here refers, generally, to a case in which it is asserted that A = B, as opposed to formal identity, where it is asserted that A = A.
    [Show full text]
  • Plato and Socrates
    Book Notes Plato and Socrates CHRISTOPHER ROWE Simon Slings’s Plato: Clitophon 1 has an introduction of 234 pages, a new text with facing translation (pp. 240-59), 72 pages of commentary (in a smaller font), two short appendixes, bibliography and indexes. It is a fuller treatment than this tiny text has ever received, and probably will ever receive; some might say that it also fuller than the Clitophon deserves, but if they did, they might well change their mind afterinspecting the volume itself, which covers amultiplicity of issues whether grammatical, syntactical, historical, philosophical, or more generally interpretative in meticulous detail, providing a mass of material that will bene t (or at any rate interest) anyone working on the Platonic corpus and/or fourth cen- tury Greek literature. The Commentary in Plato: Clitophon is not quite, as its dust-jacket claims, ‘the rst ever to be published in English’: the volume as a whole is still, as Slings says, recognizable as A Commentary on the Platonic Clitophon , his doctoral dis- sertation, privately published in 1981 (he generously sent me my copy years ago, in response to a letter out of the blue). One of the major di erences is obvious from the change of title: ‘... I now feel that the grounds for my doubts [about the authenticity of the Clitophon] are rather weak, and I have no compunction in presenting this revised version as Plato: Clitophon ’ (pp. x-xi). 2 But Slings is at 1 S.R. Slings, Plato,Clitophon. Edited with Intr oduction,Tra nslationa ndComment- ary by S.R.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Dissertation
    DISSERTATION Titel der Dissertation „Studies in the Prosopography of the Four Hundred Oligarchy in Athens 411 B.C.” Verfasser Nikolaos Karkavelias angestrebter akademischer Grad Doktor der Philosophie (Dr. phil.) Wien, 2014 Studienkennzahl lt. Studienblatt: A 792 310 Dissertationsgebiet lt. Studienblatt: Alte Geschichte und Altertumskunde Betreuer: ao. Univ.-Prof. Doz. Mag. Dr. Herbert Heftner Contents Acknowledgements 3 Abstract 4 Introduction 5 Alexicles 25 Andron 42 Archeptolemus 57 Aristarchus 79 Aristocrates Skelliou 89 Cleitophon 124 Dieitrephes 147 Laispodias Andronymios 162 Melesias 178 Onomacles 181 Phrynichus Stratonidou Deiradiotes 188 Theramenes Hagnonos Steirieus 250 Thymochares 272 Appendix 1: Was Hippodamus of Miletos Archeptolemus father? 279 Appendix 2: The prytany and archon year of 412/11 295 Appendix 3: The chronology of Peisander’s mission to Athens re-visited: Thucydides 8.53-54 297 Appendix 4: εύθύς in Thucydides 316 Appendix 5: Beyond the Four Hundred 317 Afterthought: The social origin of the known members of the Four Hundred and their motives for joining the movement 319 Bibliography 324 Vita 354 2 Acknowledgements I am extremely grateful to Dr. Christos Zapheiropoulos for his warm support and encouragement back in 1997 to undertake the long project that this thesis has proven to be. During my studies at the University of Vienna I was fortunate enough to attend classes of professors Fritz Mitthof, Thomas Corsten, Bernhard Palme and Walter Pohl; they became my mentors and guides to the marvellous world of antiquity and I very much thank them for this unforgettable experience. I am deeply indebted to my supervisor Herbert Heftner for the enthusiastic welcoming and all the unconditional support and help which he so lavishly has offered to me all these years.
    [Show full text]