DOCSLIB.ORG

PLATO Philebus

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
PLATO Philebus PLATO Philebus Translated with Notes and Commentary by J. C. B. GOSLING FELLOW OF ST. EDMUND HALL OXFORD CLARENDON PRESS·OXFORD 1975 Oxford University Press, Ely House, London W. I GLASGOW NEW YORK TORONTO MELBOURNE WELLINGTON CAPE TOWN IBADAN NAIROBI DAR ES SALAAM LUSAKA ADDIS ABABA DELHI BOMBAY CALCUTTA MADRAS KARACHI LAHORE DACC� KUALA LUMPUR SINGAPORE HONG KONG TOKYO CASEBOUND ISBN 0 19 872044 0 PAPERBACK ISBN 0 19 872054 8 ©Oxford University Press 1975 All rights reserved. No pa1t of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval vstem, or transmitted, in anyfo1111 or h_vanymeans, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, 1eco1ding or otite1wise, without the prior permission of Oxford University Press Printed in Great Britain by Billing & Sons Limited, Guildford and London PREFACE It may help to make some comments on the purpose of this volume. It is intended primarily forphilosophers with no ancient Greek, who wish to study Plato. Such people may like readable English but their need is to get some idea of relationships in the original and ambiguities. So while I have omitted many occurrences of 'O Protarchus', 'O Socrates', for style's sake, much of the English is cumbersome. Thus the translations ofperas (determinant), apeiron (indeterminate). pathos (what is undergone) are often barbarous, but, as it is in given passages important for a reader to know that the same word is used, l have preserved the same translation. Sometimes (psyche (soul?), alethes (true?)) this has proved too much for me, and I have inserted a transliteration of the Greek word in brackets. Where there is dispute about the text or translation, or a note on the meaning of some term, there is an asterisk in the margin of the text, referring the reader to the notes at the end of the text. A word of warning is, however, in order here. So far as possible the line divisions of the English text correspond to those of the Stephanus pagination of the Oxford text. Sometimes, however, there is a lack of correspondence, so since asterisks come against the English that has given rise to comment the reader will sometimes need to be prepared to explore in the notes. The Introduction is intended to give some idea of the main interpretational problems in the Philebus. While a clear line cannot always be preserved, the division of labour between notes and general commentary is that the latter should tackle general problems of interpretation in the relevant sections, the former more particular questions, especially of text and translation. With regard to disputes on the text, I have aimed, except where largish sections are at issue, to give a transliteration and translation of the disputed terms so that a Greekless reader may get some idea of the dispute. Sometimes a passage is too long, or too little hangs on it. In such cases I have been less considerate, more dogmatic. Unless otherwise specified in the notes I have followed the Oxford text. The translation never embodies my own suggested readings, but always one alrea.dy PREFACE suggested unless expressly stated. I have given at the end a list of works consulted. While I have doubtless done injustice to most, I should mention Elsa Striker's work in particular. It came to my notice rather late on in the book's preparation, but clearly deserves notice. I have referredto it often, but must say that my reading has been hasty and it is improbable that I have digested all the subtleties or always got her arguments right. It is an important and ingenious work. My inten­ tion has been to draw attention to it. I should hate anyone to read it only through my reports. I should like to thank my colleagues at St. Edmund Hall for giving me leave for a term in 1970, and the authorities at the Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University, forgiving me a visiting fellowship during that period. I had useful discussions with Dr. E. L. Burge, Mr. K. Lycos, Miss E. Reid while there and was enabled to do the greater part of what follows. I am grateful to Dr. Malcolm Brown for starting me thinking on lines that led to the present interpretation of peras and apeiron. I ain also indebted to Mr. M. J. Woods for a number of suggestions and criticisms and especially for prodding not too annoyingly until some minimum standard of clarity was achieved on the main theses. J. C. B. GOSLING vi CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ix TRANSLATION NOTES 73 GENERAL COMMENTARY 139 BIBLIOGRAPHY 229 ADDENDA 231 INDEX 233 INTRODUCTION The main theme of the dialogue seems clear enough. The question at issue at first is whether a life of pleasure or of intelligence is the good. lt is decided that a life combining both is best, and so the argument shifts to the question of whether intelligence or pleasure can take more credit for it. It is argued that intelligence is vital for the production of the right mixture and that various intellectual pursuits will have pride of place within the mixture. Pleasure comes low down in the scale, and so the dialogue ends, with the victory going to intelligence. This skeleton conceals a good many problems, however. The major ones can be roughly divided into three. First there are prob­ lems as to just how we are supposed to think of the contending parties-pleasure and intelligence. Secondly, there is a methodolo­ gical or metaphysical section where considerable play is made with two technical terms, peras and apeiron. We seem to be told that understanding the interplay of these two is the key to all our prob­ lems. In fact, they seem to create problems, as it is difficult to extract a coherent interpretation of either of the main sections where they occur, and even more difficultto devise an interpretation which either yields the same technical use of the terms in the two passages or makes it clear how Plato could have thought they were the same. Thirdly, there is a problem as to what the connection is supposed to be between the key to our problems and the problems it is to unlock. Obviously the answer to this cannot be independent of the answers to the previous two problems. lt may, of course, be that there is no answer. Perhaps Plato is hopelessly confused, or has put together a rag-bag of arguments and carelessly failed to note their mutual irrelevance. That is a possible conclusion, but it could only be established by showing that no more coherent interpretation is as plausible. I shall thereforeproceed on the assumption that the onus of proof is on the rag-bag theory and that the presumption is in favour of saying that Plato thought with some reason that the various parts were relevant to each other. That, ix INTRODUCTION however, is for the notes and commentary. For the present I shall take the main problem areas in turn, and try to indicate the main difficultieswithin them. 1. Pleasure and Intelligence At first sight the opposition between Socrates and Philebus seems clear enough. They are arguing about what sort of life a man should aspire to. Socrates holds that a life of sheer intellectual activity with­ out any tainting of pleasure is the ideal or at least preferable to Philebus' candidate. Philebus rejects this academic life and insists on a life of pleasure as everyone's aim. Yet how clear is it? It is tempting to interpret Philebus as holding that the actual (or proper?) way of deciding what to do is to ask what is most pleasurable. This is the only criterion usable by men or animals. Consequently, as that is the only goal found desirable, and as the goal is always pleasure, the ideal is obviously a life of nothing but pleasurable activities. Something of this sort seems to have been held by Eudoxus (cf. Aristotle Nico­ machean Ethics 1172b) who was influential in the Academy. Such a view, however, involves no antipathy to intelligence, only to pleasure­ less intelligent activity. It could well be held that intelligence is needed to ensure the most pleasant life possible and that some intellectual activities are pleasant or even among the most pleasant. Perhaps, then, the opposition should be seen as between an intel­ lectual life and a life of pleasure according to the common accept­ ation of that expression. After all, the name 'Philebus' seems to be an invention of Plato's, translatable as 'Love boy'. One would expect Mr. Loveboy to have sensual interests, and it is notable that at 12b Philebus' goddess is named Aphrodite, and in general he is portrayed as standing up for roughly physical pleasure. In that case the oppo­ sition is between an intellectual life and a life given to certain sorts of pleasure. If that is so, Socrates should not be opposed to pleasure simpliciter, nor Philebus to all forms of intelligence, but the former to a life devoted to certain pleasures, the latter to a life of intellectual activity not geared to the securing of such pleasures. But Socrates could praise the delights of the intellectual life, and Philebus allow of some intelligent activity. By 20e seq., however, the opposition is spoken of as though it were between a life that contained intellectual x INTRODUCTION activity only and no enjoyment, and a life of constant pleasure with­ out the power to remember, recognize, or anticipate one's pleasure, nor to work out means for its attainment. Philebus is by now portrayed as holding that the factthat a life is at all stages enjoyable, is a necessary, sufficient and, with regard to intelligence, exclusive condition of its being good, that 'good' and 'pleasant' are at least coextensive, if not synonymous.
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]
  • The Trial and Death of Socrates : Being the Euthyphron, Apology, Crito, and Phaedo of Plato
    LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO /?. (Boffcen THE TRIAL & DEATH OF SOCRATES *O 5' dve^Tcurroj /3toj ov /Siwrds cu>0p(j!nrip ' An unexamined life is not worth living.' (PLATO, Apol. 38 A. ) THE TRIAL AND DEATH OF SOCRATES BEING THE EUTHYPHRON, APOLOGY, CRITO, AND PH^EDO OF PLATO TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH BY F. J. CHURCH, M.A. LONDON MACMILLAN AND CO. AND NEW YORK 1895 [ All rights reserved.] First Edition printed 1880 Second Edition, Golden Treasury Series, 1886 Reprinted 1887, 1888, 1890, 1891, 1892, March and September 1895 PREFACE. THIS book, which is intended principally for the large and increasing class of readers who wish to learn something of the masterpieces of Greek literature, and who cannot easily read them in Greek, was originally published by Messrs. Macmillan in a different form. Since its first appearance it has been revised and corrected throughout, and largely re- written. The chief part of the Introduction is new. It is not intended to be a general essay on Socrates, but only an attempt to explain and illustrate such points in his life and teaching as are referred to in these dialogues, which, taken by themselves, con- tain Plato's description of his great master's life, and work, and death. The books which were most useful to me in writing it are Professor Zeller's Socrates and the Socratic Schools, and the edition of the VI PREFACE. Apology by the late Rev. James Riddell, published after his death by the delegates of the Clarendon Press. His account of Socrates is singularly striking.
    [Show full text]
  • CRATYLUS by Plato Translated by Benjamin Jowett the Project Gutenberg Ebook of Cratylus, by Plato
    CRATYLUS By Plato Translated by Benjamin Jowett The Project Gutenberg EBook of Cratylus, by Plato INTRODUCTION. The Cratylus has always been a source of perplexity to the student of Plato. While in fancy and humour, and perfection of style and metaphysical originality, this dialogue may be ranked with the best of the Platonic writings, there has been an uncertainty about the motive of the piece, which interpreters have hitherto not succeeded in dispelling. We need not suppose that Plato used words in order to conceal his thoughts, or that he would have been unintelligible to an educated contemporary. In the Phaedrus and Euthydemus we also find a difficulty in determining the precise aim of the author. Plato wrote satires in the form of dialogues, and his meaning, like that of other satirical writers, has often slept in the ear of posterity. Two causes may be assigned for this obscurity: 1st, the subtlety and allusiveness of this species of composition; 2nd, the difficulty of reproducing a state of life and literature which has passed away. A satire is unmeaning unless we can place ourselves back among the persons and thoughts of the age in which it was written. Had the treatise of Antisthenes upon words, or the speculations of Cratylus, or some other Heracleitean of the fourth century B.C., on the nature of language been preserved to us; or if we had lived at the time, and been 'rich enough to attend the fifty-drachma course of Prodicus,' we should have understood Plato better, and many points which are now attributed to the extravagance of Socrates' humour would have been found, like the allusions of Aristophanes in the Clouds, to have gone home to the sophists and grammarians of the day.
    [Show full text]
  • PLATO's SYMPOSIUM J
    50 ccn~ PLATO'S SYMPOSIUM j - - -- ________j e Library of Liberal Arts PLATO'S SYMPOSIUM Tran lated by BENJAMIN JOWETT With an Introduction by FULTON H. ANDERSON Professor of Philosophy, University of Toronto THE LIBERAL ARTS PRESS NEW YORK CONTENTS SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY .. .... ................................... ......... ... ........... 6 EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION ................... ............................................. 7 SYMPOSIUM APOLLODORUS 13 THE SPEECH OF PHAEDRUS ...... .......................... .......................... .. 19 THE SPEECH OF PAU ANIAS ................. ... ................................. ... .. 21 THE SPEECH OF ERYXIMACHUS 27 THE SPEECH OF ARISTOPHAN E .. ............................... .................. 30 THE SPEECH OF AGATHON ............ .............................................. .. 35 THE SPEECH OF SocRATES ................................ .. ................... ..... .. 39 THE SPEECH OF ALCIBIADES ................. ............... ... ........... ...... .... .. 55 8 PLATO INTROD CTION 9 crescendo, and culminates in the report by Socrates on wi dom and epistemology, upon all of which the Symposium ha bearing, learned from the "wi e" woman Diotima. are intertwined, we m ay set down briefly a few of the more general The dialogue i a "reported" one. Plato himself could not have principles which are to be found in it author's many-sided thought. been present at the original party. (What went on there was told The human soul, a cording to Plato, is es entially in motion. time and time again about Athens.) He was a mere boy when it It is li fe and the integration of living functions. A dead soul is a con­ took place. Nor could the narrator Apollodorus have been a guest; _lladiction in terms. Man throughout his whole nature is erotically he was too young at the time. The latter got his report from motivated. His "love" or desire i manifest in three mutually in­ Aristodemus, a guest at the banquet.
    [Show full text]
  • The Roles of Solon in Plato's Dialogues
    The Roles of Solon in Plato’s Dialogues Dissertation Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Samuel Ortencio Flores, M.A. Graduate Program in Greek and Latin The Ohio State University 2013 Dissertation Committee: Bruce Heiden, Advisor Anthony Kaldellis Richard Fletcher Greg Anderson Copyrighy by Samuel Ortencio Flores 2013 Abstract This dissertation is a study of Plato’s use and adaptation of an earlier model and tradition of wisdom based on the thought and legacy of the sixth-century archon, legislator, and poet Solon. Solon is cited and/or quoted thirty-four times in Plato’s dialogues, and alluded to many more times. My study shows that these references and allusions have deeper meaning when contextualized within the reception of Solon in the classical period. For Plato, Solon is a rhetorically powerful figure in advancing the relatively new practice of philosophy in Athens. While Solon himself did not adequately establish justice in the city, his legacy provided a model upon which Platonic philosophy could improve. Chapter One surveys the passing references to Solon in the dialogues as an introduction to my chapters on the dialogues in which Solon is a very prominent figure, Timaeus- Critias, Republic, and Laws. Chapter Two examines Critias’ use of his ancestor Solon to establish his own philosophic credentials. Chapter Three suggests that Socrates re- appropriates the aims and themes of Solon’s political poetry for Socratic philosophy. Chapter Four suggests that Solon provides a legislative model which Plato reconstructs in the Laws for the philosopher to supplant the role of legislator in Greek thought.
    [Show full text]
  • Phaedrus Plato
    Phaedrus Plato TRANSLATED BY BENJAMIN JOWETT ROMAN ROADS MEDIA Classical education, from a Christian perspective, created for the homeschool. Roman Roads combines its technical expertise with the experience of established authorities in the field of classical education to create quality video courses and resources tailored to the homeschooler. Just as the first century roads of the Roman Empire were the physical means by which the early church spread the gospel far and wide, so Roman Roads Media uses today’s technology to bring timeless truth, goodness, and beauty into your home. By combining excellent instruction augmented with visual aids and examples, we help inspire in your children a lifelong love of learning. Phaedrus by Plato translated by Benjamin Jowett This text was designed to accompany Roman Roads Media's 4-year video course Old Western Culture: A Christian Approach to the Great Books. For more information visit: www.romanroadsmedia.com. Other video courses by Roman Roads Media include: Grammar of Poetry featuring Matt Whitling Introductory Logic taught by Jim Nance Intermediate Logic taught by Jim Nance French Cuisine taught by Francis Foucachon Copyright © 2013 by Roman Roads Media, LLC Roman Roads Media 739 S Hayes St, Moscow, Idaho 83843 A ROMAN ROADS ETEXT Phaedrus Plato TRANSLATED BY BENJAMIN JOWETT INTRODUCTION The Phaedrus is closely connected with the Symposium, and may be regarded either as introducing or following it. The two Dialogues together contain the whole philosophy of Plato on the nature of love, which in the Republic and in the later writings of Plato is only introduced playfully or as a figure of speech.
    [Show full text]
  • The Historicity of Plato's Apology of Socrates
    Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons Master's Theses Theses and Dissertations 1946 The Historicity of Plato's Apology of Socrates David J. Bowman Loyola University Chicago Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses Part of the Classical Literature and Philology Commons Recommended Citation Bowman, David J., "The Historicity of Plato's Apology of Socrates" (1946). Master's Theses. 61. https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses/61 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. Copyright © 1946 David J. Bowman !HE HISTORICITY OP PLATO'S APOLOGY OF SOCRATES BY DA.VID J. BOWJWf~ S.J• .l. !BESIS SUBMITTED Ilf PARTIAL FULFILIJIE.NT OF THB: R}gQUIRE'IIENTS POR THE DEGREE OF IIA.STER OF ARTS Ill LOYOLA UlfiVERSITY JULY 1946 -VI'fA. David J. Bowman; S.J•• was born in Oak Park, Ill1no1a, on Ma7 20, 1919. Atter b!a eleaentar7 education at Ascension School# in Oak Park, he attended LoJola AcademJ ot Chicago, graduat1DS .from. there in June, 1937. On September 1, 1937# he entered the Sacred Heart Novitiate ot the SocietJ ot Jesus at Milford~ Ohio. Por the tour Jear• he spent there, he was aoademicallJ connected with Xavier Univeraitr, Cincinnati, Ohio. In August ot 1941 he tranaterred to West Baden College o.f Lorol& Universit7, Obicago, and received the degree ot Bachelor o.f Arts with a major in Greek in Deo.aber, 1941.
    [Show full text]
  • Plato Apology of Socrates and Crito
    COLLEGE SERIES OF GREEK AUTHORS EDITED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF JOHN WILLIAMS WHITE, LEWIS R. PACKARD, a n d THOMAS D. SEYMOUR. PLATO A p o l o g y o f S o c r a t e s AND C r i t o EDITED ON THE BASIS OF CRON’S EDITION BY LOUIS DYER A s s i s t a n t ·Ρι;Οχ'ε&^ο^ ι ν ^University. BOSTON: PUBLISHED BY GINN & COMPANY. 1902. I P ■ C o p · 3 Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1885, by J o h n W il l ia m s W h i t e a n d T h o m a s D. S e y m o u r , In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. J . S. C u s h in g & Co., P r i n t e r s , B o s t o n . PREFACE. T his edition of the Apology of Socrates and the Crito is based upon Dr. Christian Cron’s eighth edition, Leipzig, 1882. The Notes and Introduction here given have in the main been con­ fined within the limits intelligently drawn by Dr. Cron, whose commentaries upon various dialogues of Plato have done and still do so much in Germany to make the study of our author more profitable as well as pleasanter. No scruple has been felt, how­ ever, in making changes. I trust there are few if any of these which Dr. Cron might not himself make if he were preparing his work for an English-thinking and English-speaking public.
    [Show full text]
  • Law and the Metaethics of Discord
    Katja Maria Vogt, katjavogt.com, Columbia University 1 Law and the Metaethics of Discord, NYU Colloquium in Legal, Political, and Social Philosophy, Draft 08-2020 For: Special issue on the Normativity of Law, Ancient Philosophy Today: Dialogoi Law and the Metaethics of Discord Plato’s Euthyphro, I argue, lays out a metaethics that responds to persistent and unresolved value disagreement, and that is a genuine contender for us today. With this proposal, I reject centuries of scholarship, not to speak of countless anthologies and syllabi in ethics and the philosophy of law.1 The Euthyphro begins with three cases of unresolved value disagreement. These cases are to be adjudicated by the law, which turns out to be difficult. Today if an author starts with three examples, we expect that the subsequent text is going to address them. This, I submit, is the structure of the Euthyphro. Against my reading, discussions of the Euthyphro tend to focus almost exclusively on a brief section in which Plato discusses what is now known as the Euthyphro Problem. Socrates asks whether the gods love the pious because it is pious, or whether the pious is pious because it is loved by the gods. In the idiom of contemporary metaethics, the puzzle may seem to be this: is value attitude-independent or is value conferred by attitudes?2 Alternatively, in the idiom of traditional Divine Command Theory, do the gods —or, does God, since Divine Command Theory tends to be monotheistic—recognize value, or is value conferred by divine approval?3 1 Much of the literature on the Euthyphro focuses on two out of fifteen pages of the dialogue, where the so- called Euthyphro Problem is discussed.
    [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]
  • The Apology of Socrates, by Plato
    The Apology of Socrates, by Plato The Project Gutenberg Edition Trans: Benjamin Jowett INTRODUCTION. Socrates has been put on trial by the citizens of Athens for multiple “crimes” all related to his teaching of philosophy. Meletus is his prosecutor, but he is addressing a jury of hundreds of his fellow citizens. In this famous work, Socrates defends his practice of questioning everything and describes the beauty of a philosophical life. He also antagonizes his fellow Athenians… Note, Plato was Socrates’ student and this is report of how the trial went from Socrates’ perspective. Socrates himself wrote nothing – his philosophical career was spent verbally debating his fellow Athenians. APOLOGY How you, O Athenians, have been affected by my accusers, I cannot tell; but I know that they almost made me forget who I was--so persuasively did they speak; and yet they have hardly uttered a word of truth. But of the many falsehoods told by them, there was one which quite amazed me;--I mean when they said that you should be upon your guard and not allow yourselves to be deceived by the force of my eloquence. To say this, when they were certain to be detected as soon as I opened my lips and proved myself to be anything but a great speaker, did indeed appear to me most shameless--unless by the force of eloquence they mean the force of truth; for is such is their meaning, I admit that I am eloquent. But in how different a way from theirs! Well, as I was saying, they have scarcely spoken the truth at all; but from me you shall hear the whole truth: not, however, delivered after their manner in a set oration duly ornamented with words and phrases.
    [Show full text]
  • MONEY and the EARLY GREEK MIND: Homer, Philosophy, Tragedy
    This page intentionally left blank MONEY AND THE EARLY GREEK MIND How were the Greeks of the sixth century bc able to invent philosophy and tragedy? In this book Richard Seaford argues that a large part of the answer can be found in another momentous development, the invention and rapid spread of coinage, which produced the first ever thoroughly monetised society. By transforming social relations, monetisation contributed to the ideas of the universe as an impersonal system (presocratic philosophy) and of the individual alienated from his own kin and from the gods (in tragedy). Seaford argues that an important precondition for this monetisation was the Greek practice of animal sacrifice, as represented in Homeric epic, which describes a premonetary world on the point of producing money. This book combines social history, economic anthropology, numismatics and the close reading of literary, inscriptional, and philosophical texts. Questioning the origins and shaping force of Greek philosophy, this is a major book with wide appeal. richard seaford is Professor of Greek Literature at the University of Exeter. He is the author of commentaries on Euripides’ Cyclops (1984) and Bacchae (1996) and of Reciprocity and Ritual: Homer and Tragedy in the Developing City-State (1994). MONEY AND THE EARLY GREEK MIND Homer, Philosophy, Tragedy RICHARD SEAFORD cambridge university press Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge cb2 2ru, UK Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521832281 © Richard Seaford 2004 This publication is in copyright.
    [Show full text]