Friedo Ricken it makes it possible to distinguish who really is a statesman and who only pretends to be it. When do the existing cities use “the written documents” (297d6) of the only correct constitution? When do their law-making assemblies chase “after the traces of the truest constitu- tion” (301e4)? They do it when they ask which law the true states- PIGS IN PLATO: man would enact in this situation, i.e. which order serves best the end DELINEATING THE HUMAN CONDITION of the state. The true knowing statesman does not exist in this world, but we can answer the question about the end of political expertise IN THE STATESMAn and so know the norm according to which the existing states and their laws have to be judged and formed. David Ambuel “Many of Plato’s knavish speeches sleep in the unapprehending ears of his commentators.” Paul Shorey “In [The Celestial Empire of Benevolent Knowledge’s] remote pag- es it is written that the animals are divided into: (a) belonging to the emperor, (b) embalmed, (c) tame, (d) sucking pigs, (e) sirens, (f) fabulous, (g) stray dogs, (h) included in the present classifcation, (i) frenzied, (j) innumerable, (k) drawn with a very fne camelhair brush, (l) et cetera, (m) having just broken the water pitcher, (n) that from a long way off look like fies.” Jorge Luis Borges In the Republic, Socrates’ imagined primitive and modest community is dismissed by Glaucon as a city of pigs (II,372d). Despite Socrates’ belief that this frst city, not the luxurious city that will grow and be reformed into the Republic’s kallipolis, is the true city, some among us might just fnd with Glaucon that the city whose people seek to satisfy their appetites with luxuries is truer to actual human exist- ence. And one might fnd this hunch confrmed by the Republic’s subsequent doubts about the possible existence even of the sustain- able aristocracy ruled by philosopher guardians, not to mention the primitive harmony of the Socratic susopolis,1 and by Socrates’ re- 1 Piggish from Glaucon’s point of view, that is, not Socrates’. 206 207 David Ambuel Pigs in Plato: Delineating the Human Condition in the Statesman mark that words always make a closer approach to truth than things ricide 2 It is ftting that Plato should choose to use an Eleatic voice and actions to examine the very thing that Eleatic metaphysics excludes: the Regardless which societal confguration we are more likely to be ontological intermediate as image and imitation. The intermediate able to set foot in, the short passage in Republic II conveys a sense remains the issue in the Statesman, now not primarily a metaphysical of ambivalence. Which group of humans are more accurately de- matter, but practical, not the possibility of an ontological intermedi- scribed as living like pigs, the simple primitive city of restricted ate between being and absolute not-being, but the possibility of the wants and resources, as Glaucon thinks, or the denizens of the fe- exercise of wisdom in human affairs, the intermediate between mere verish city wallowing in excess, as Socrates implies? animality and divinity For the most part, in Plato, the beast as compared to the human The Sophist offers no methodology, no criteria for properly defn- represents a state of ignorance and a life governed by appetite as op- ing by division, but only a paradigm, which in the Sophist as in the posed to reason, and yet the question how we humans might best un- Statesman means a trivial example taken as a model from which to derstand ourselves apart from our fellow animals is at times presented abstract its application to something more complex and signifcant. with ironic doubt At Laches, 195d, the observation that knowledge A methodology for division, including rules for dividing properly, comprising a virtue such as courage is not the kind of thing just any appears elsewhere, in the Phaedrus and Philebus. These rules, dis- pig would know leads to the remark that, by lacking the potential tilled, might be summarized as follows: for knowledge that humans possess, no animal can rightly be called Collection and division are reverse procedures, collection preced- courageous, not a pig and not even a lion. Still, Socrates adds the ing or coordinated with division 3 facetious qualifcation that perhaps lions or bears do command some Division must proceed according to actual kinds or forms, not hap- deep well of wisdom, inaccessible to us humans. A similar ironic hazard parts 4 ambiguity as to just what sort of animal the human being is will Division by forms means dividing at the natural joints.5 frame the setting against which the Eleatic Visitor’s halting attempts to defne the statesman take shape. Before turning to the manner in which this defnition is pursued, and to what that might tell us, I wish briefy to visit one other thread woven into the fabric of the dialogue’s background. 2 Plato, Sophist, 241d. It might be argued that the Visitor is introduced as The Statesman’s inquiry begins, as the Sophist’s begins and ends, eks Eleas (216a), as hailing from Elea, not explicitly an Eleatic philosopher by making divisions. The Sophist’s divisions, like the frst divisions cast in a Parmenidean mold, and that we can hardly assume that any native in the Statesman, are strict dichotomies. In the Sophist, negative def- of Elea inherits one defnite metaphysical system as a birthright. However, nitions predominate: at each step, what the sophist is, is separated Socrates phrases the question about the sophist, statesman, and philoso- from all else that he is not, the latter disjunct – its relation to the pher as one about what people in that place, in Elea, believed (216d). More other still unestablished – is then dropped, and the division pro- importantly, at 241d, by requesting that he not be taken for a parricide by ceeds. As a method, it is the intellectual offspring of a philosopher seeking for a way to talk about not-being, the Visitor identifes himself as nurtured and raised on Eleatic metaphysics, his logic of defnition in the intellectual offspring of Parmenides It is simply not plausible to suppose the Sophist limited to sorting is from is not, with no space for any- that Plato’s choice of character for the main interlocutor of the Sophist and thing in between, since anything that is at all, simply is. The image, Statesman is random and without meaning for the interpretation of the two dialogs as ontologically intermediate, will be the Eleatic Visitor’s biggest 3 obstacle in the Sophist, and if he sees a need to rebel against Parme- Plato, Phdr 266d. nides’ rejection of not-being, he also does not intend to commit pat- 4 Plato, Phdr 265e; cf. Philb 16d–e. 5 Plato, Phdr 265e. 208 209 David Ambuel Pigs in Plato: Delineating the Human Condition in the Statesman Division by form is axiological, a dividing in accord with proper an epistême, but the initial divisions turn quickly away from group- measure and relative value 6 ings of anything that might be called a kind of expertise, to instead separating off the humans as the subjects of governance. The ini- While the Sophist supplies a paradigm, but no rules for division, and tial divisions pursue not the art, but its object. The dialogue will the Phaedrus rules, but no paradigm, the Statesman has both Moreo- of course return to ask how the art itself differs from kindred arts, ver, setting aside questions about the reverse procedure of collection, but for the moment attention is directed to the subject upon with the which does not occur and is not discussed in either the Sophist or art is practiced Statesman, each of the remaining principles is invoked in the States- Yet before this focus on defning the human subject, the very frst man by the Eleatic Visitor.7 These rules are not, however, concen- step in the division ventures a global division of knowledge. It is trated here in a single passage, as in the Phaedrus, but are introduced a portent: all knowledge (sumpasas epistêmas) is divided into prac- by the Visitor piecemeal, one at a time, as correctives to the divisions tical and theoretical knowledge (tên men praktikên… tên de monon while they are being drawn. But the Statesman has more still In ad- gnôstikên, 258e).8 It is a division that may appear the most natural dition, the Visitor advances principles for division that are incompat- among all that are still to come, and yet it cuts across the province ible with the rules he gives that are also found in the Phaedrus In of the art of politics as it will be understood later, that is, precisely as this simultaneous assertion and rejection of the principles, it will be a kind of art possessing a knowledge that is brought to bear on prac- seen that the Eleatic diffculties from the Sophist, the diffculties in tical affairs (peri tas prakseis epistêmona, 284c). It foreshadows an construing an intermediate between what is and what is not, extend ambivalence that surfaces in the depiction of the human being when into the Statesman, and make for a pervasive ambivalence that is the art of rule is tied to the nature of the human subject, a matter that refected in the Statesman’s sketch of the human condition. is ironically broached in the initial steps of division, leading to the Eleatic Visitor’s frst objection to procedure and the cosmic myth. I Eidos, Meros, and Rational Animals The frst correction appears once the king’s dominion has been narrowed to herds (261e).