Colloquium 7

THE DISAPPEARANCE OF THE PHILOSOPHER KING*

MALCOLM SCHOFIELD

I. Introduction

The begins with a recapitulation by of a conversation the day before in which he developed koyoi on the question of the best 7TOXtTCt'a (17c-19a). As the recapitulation proceeds, it becomes evident that these X6yot must have been a version of the argument of Books 11 to V of the . Socrates rehearses the principle of specialization in skills and the division of classes, the education of the guards, the provision for women guards, the abolition of the family, the eugenic program and the social mechanisms introduced to sustain it-but not the need for philosopher rulers.1 At the end of his exposition he asks * Copyright @ Malcolm Schofield, 1998. I thank the Boston Colloquium for the invitation to write and deliver this paper, my hosts at Brown University for warm hospitality, Rachana Kamtekar for her thoughtful comments as respondent, and my audience for vigorous debate. It is here presented in a not too heavily revised form. An earlier version benefited from discussion at a seminar at the University of Liverpool. Myles Bumyeat kindly annotated a copy of the unrevised MS, and convinced me that my original conclusion on the Stat. would not do (but not that I had been unjustly neglecting the light thrown on these matters by the Erastai). An anonymous referee for BACAP made some penetrating observations which have prompted further revisions. It has been pointed out to me that there are hints of it: e.g., in mention of the requirement (18a) that the guards must have a nature that is philosophical as well as spirited (R.Kamtekar), and that they must be brought up in other appropriate studies (p.a9홢jp,ara) as well as gymnastic and music (M.F.Burnyeat). The latter provision must indeed be an anticipatory echo of the discussion which begins at Rep. vn, 521d-522c (NB especially 530c: raw 7rpOO-77K6VTWV ¡.w.(J17JJ.cÍTCJJV); and while the former primarily recapitulates Rep. it, 375c-376c, in, 410d-412a, where 'philosophical' does not yet carry the full connotations it will acquire later in the dialogue, there are already intimations of what Books v-vu will mean by 'philosophy' at e.g., 411c-d. But what is Timaeus whether he has missed out any of the main points in the theory. Timaeus replies: 'Not at all: these are the very things that were said, Socrates' (19b; cf. 111c-d). So either Socrates omitted in the conversation any mention of the idea of philosopher rulers or Timaeus has-strangely-forgotten it.2 Is this a signal that has abandoned the idea, while still maintaining his interest in promoting discussion and perhaps implementation of the other elements in the Rep.'s proposals for an ideal city? The passage in the Tim. which follows next suggests that the answer-as so often with Plato-cannot be in the least straightforward.3 Here Socrates expatiates on his desire to see the scheme they have been working out put into action, with the city they have described pitted in warfare against other cities (19c). This will lead in due course to the tale of the conflict between Athens and , first sketched by Critias a bit further on in the Tim., and then developed by him at what would have been greater length in the unfinished Criti. But for our present concerns what matters are the remarks Socrates goes on at once to make about the difficulty of finding people who could give an account of the ideal city at work (19d-e). They would need to be persons who unlike himself or the sophists 'could hit upon what men who are simultaneously philosophers and statesmen (7ToÀ£nKol) would do and say in war and battles' ( 19e-20a). The assembled company meet the bill, equipped as they are by nature and nurture for speech and action alike. Socrates' testimonials to the qualifications of Critias and Hermocrates are couched in relatively vague terms, but Timaeus 'has had experience of the greatest offices and honors in the city, and has also in my opinion reached the highest poinr4 of all philosophy' (20a). Timaeus, then, is a philosopher and who is to help perform an analogue of the fundamental task assigned to philosopher rulers in intriguing is the way these understated pointers to the doctrine of philosopher rulers are left so pregnant, in comparison to the almost pedagogically thorough presentation-in sequence-of the main points of Books u, 369-v, 461. 2 At the outset he allows that he may have forgotten some points (17b); and a little later he is made to confess that his memory of what happened yesterday might be incomplete, whereas he is pretty sure of his recollection of things he heard a long time ago when a child (26b). I am much indebted to an unpublished lecture by Mario Vegetti, 'L'autocritica di Platone: Timaeo e Leggi,' for alerting my attention to these points, and for general stimulation with regard to the themes of this paper. 3 Thesleff 1982, 102-3, speaks of 'deliberate mystification.' 4 iiKpov, echoing axpots at Rep.vi, 499c.