INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfrlm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from anytype of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is d^endoit upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margin^, and inqnoper alignment can adverse^ affea reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these wül be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note wiD indicate the deletioxL Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlays. Eadi original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photogr^hic prints are availablea iq rfor photogr^hs or illustrations ^jpearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800.521-0600 THE STRUCTURE OF SOCRATIC DIALOGUE: AN ARISTOTELIAN ANALYSIS DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Robert L. Gallagher, A.B., M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 1998 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Alan D. Code, CoAdviser _____ CoAdviser Classics Graduate Program Professor David Hahm, CoAdviser _ç_ CoAdviser Classics Graduate Program Professor Kirk Freudenburg Professor Bruce Heiden UMI Number: 9833979 Copyright 1998 by Gallagher, Robert Laurence All rights reserved. UMI Microform 9833979 Copyright 1998, by UMI Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 Copyright by Robert Laurence Gallagher 1998 ABSTRACT This dissertation advances a solution to a problem intrinsic to understanding the dialogues of Plato. How are we to understand Plato's thought when he never speaks in his own name in any of his dialogues? Many writers assume that Plato's characters (e.g., Socrates) speak for him. With this assumption, they study the thought articulated by Plato's characters as if it were his own, and elaborate a so-called "doctrinal" interpretation. A variety of subjective readings follows, since what Socrates and other characters say in the dialogues is often inconsistent or contradictory. To resolve these problems the dissertation constructs a method for interpreting Socratic dialogue which is true to the genre. Extending the work of Bakhtin, Clay, and Kahn, it develops a metalanguage for specifying the structure, plot, aim (telos), and effect (ergon) of a dialogue as well as the thought (dianoia), character (ethos), and pathos of its participants, by applying concepts in Plato's dialogues and in Aristotle's Poetics, Ethics, Politics, Metaphysics, Physics, and other works. The dissertation shows that the Republic represents Glaucon as ii subject to erotic desire and desires for luxury and honor, and that the aim of Socrates' discourse is to induce a catharsis in Glaucon in order to change these states of character. To support this interpretation, the dissertation shows : 1) Aristotle does not apply a doctrinal reading to Plato's dialogues; he does not attribute the remarks of the character Socrates to Plato. Irwin's claims in "Plato's Ethics" are not supported by the texts of Aristotle which he cites. 2) Aristotle's treatment of the Republic in Politics II is consistent with a mimetic interpretation of the dialogue. His treatment of the Republic is peirastic: he refutes Socrates' proposals with premisses and arguments that Socrates himself expresses in the dialogue. The dissertation discusses Aristotle's treatment of Socrates' proposals for unity in the city of the guardians, the sharing of women and children, gender, sacrilegious acts and incest, property, and the minimum necessary elements for a city. 3) Aristotle's concept of catharsis can be derived from Sophist 230 and Republic X. Ill meae nuptae IV ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation would not have been written without the support and encouragement of Alan D. Code. Professor Code is willing to allow doctoral candidates to challenge modern scholarship, and to pursue original approaches to interpreting philosophical literature. I also thank David E. Hahm. It was in Professor Hahm's seminar on Hellenistic Political Thought in 1994 that I began to work out the ideas in this dissertation. I thank Diskin Clay of Duke University, who generously gave of his time as a member of my committee. Responsibilities in Paris prevented him from attending the dissertation defense. As a result, unfortunately, he is not formally listed on the title page. I thank the other two members of my committee, who each worked through the 300-plus pages of my manuscript and provided brilliant advice: Kirk Freudenburg and Bruce A. Heiden, I thank Professor Heiden for identifying Plato's Symposium as a case where a Socratic dialogue criticizes the character of Socrates, and Professor Freudenburg for constant encouragement in my effort to clear Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates of the claims of contemporary scholars. I also thank V Professors Charles L. Babcock, Frank T. Coulson, Kathryn A. Morgan (now at UCLA), and Stephen V. Tracy, for their support and encouragement and sense of humor. I thank my wife, Maria, for her constant support, love, and enthusiasm, throughout my graduate studies. I thank my mother and father. Without the natural and spiritual endowment which I received from them, this dissertation would not have been possible. Ergo, gratias ago deo patrum. This research was supported by the Ohio State University Summer Graduate Aid Enrollment Support (SGAES) program during the summer of 1997. VI VITA August 26, 1947 .. Born - Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1967 - 1969 ..... Research Assistant in Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania 1969 ............. A.B. Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania 1993 ............. M.A. Classics, University of Maryland 1993 - present ... Graduate Teaching Associate, The Ohio State University PUBLICATIONS 1. "Making the weaker argument seem the stronger: Euripides' Electra: 518-44," APA Abstracts, Dec. 1995. 2. "Cusanus' De visions dei and Leonardo da Vinci's prospettiva," ACSN, Dec. 1990. FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Classics Minor Field: Ancient Philosophy V I 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract .................................................. ii Dedication ................................................ iv Acknowledgements ........................................... v Vita ...................................................... vii Chapters : 1. Contemporary Views of Socratic Dialogue ............ 1 A. Socratic dialogues as historiography .......... 3 B. The doctrinal interpretation of Socratic dialogue ......................... 7 C. A moderate doctrinal interpretation .......... 10 D. Pathos in Socratic dialogue ................... 15 E. The Origins of Socratic dialogue .............. 21 F. Catharsis in Socratic dialogue ................ 24 G. Dianoia in Socratic dialogue .................. 28 H. Conclusion ..................................... 35 2. Mimesis as Techne: Essential Concepts from Aristotle's Poetics ..................... 43 A. Telos and ergon in mimesis .................... 46 B. Catharsis....................................... 56 C. Plot and action................................. 79 D. Universels in mimesis.......................... 91 E. The ' object ' of mimesis........................ 99 F . Character and thought......................... 100 G. Media and modes of representation............ 102 3. The Mimetic Structure of Socratic Dialogue........ 108 A. Aristotle on the genre........................ 121 B. Plot in Socratic dialogue..................... 125 C. Reversals...................................... 129 D . Reversals and difficulties.................... 140 E. Recognitions................................... 145 F. Pathos......................................... 150 G. Binding and lysis............................. 153 viii a. The Euthyphro.............................. 158 b. The Crito.................................. 160 H. Thought in Socratic dialogue.................. 164 I. Character in Socratic dialogue................ 167 J. The object of representation in Socratic dialogue.................... 174 K. Catharsis in Socratic dialogue................ 177 L. Conclusion..................................... 183 4. Aristotle on the Republic.......................... 192 A. The nature of Aristotle's argument in the Politics......................... 194 B. Unity in the city of the guardians........... 199 C. The sharing of women and children............. 207 D. Gender......................................... 217 E . Sacrilegious acts and incest.................. 226 F. Property....................................... 231 G. The minimum necessary elements for a city.... 234 H. Discussion..................................... 238 I. More intertextuality