Cosmology and Politics in Plato's Later Works

148 Pages·2017·7.98 MB·English

by  Dominic J. O'Meara

Dominic J. O'Meara, Cosmology and Politics in Plato's Later Works,
Cambridge University Press 2017.
Preface
The purpose of this book is to examine the relation between the order of
the world and the order of what would be a good human community, as
this relation was explored by Plato in his later writings. Among these
writings may be counted the Timaeus, the Statesman, the Philebus and
the Laws. The Timaeus will be discussed here, to the extent that its
cosmology might relate to the conceptions of a good human community
proposed in the Statesman and in the Laws. Some attention will also be
giventothePhilebus.
AllfouroftheseworksofPlatohaveexperiencedasortofrenaissancein
contemporary studies. The Timaeus has always fascinated. But a narrow
perspectiveintheEnglish-speakingworld,inparticularananti-metaphysical
stance, has distorted the way in which it was read, a prejudice that has
happily given way in recent years to a wealth of work open to the many
dimensions (and difficulties!)of Plato’s text. Similarly, the Statesman, long
overshadowedbyanexclusiveconcentrationontheRepublic,hascomeinto
its own right and has been explored in detail and discussed in its possible
relationtotheRepublicandLaws.Finally,theLaws,alsolongneglected,if
not dismissed as the expression of disillusion and decline in Plato’s final
years, has more recently become the object of serious, sympathetic and
detailedinvestigation.
In the vast sea of studies published on Plato, the theme of the relation
betweencosmologyandpolitics,asthisrelationmaybesuggestedinPlato’s
later works, is not absent. For example, André Laks, referring to earlier
1
workbyGlennMorrow, reports:
He [i.e. Morrow] drew a parallel between the divine Demiurge of the
Timaeus, who is responsible for the organization of the universe, and the
legislatoroftheLaws,whoisresponsiblefortheorganizationofthecity–
that is, of the city as it should be, as opposed to the universe as it is.
1 Morrow(1954).
vii
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 10 Nov 2017 at 00:06:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316869581.001
viii Preface
Theparallel,whichassumessomekindofstructuralsimilaritybetweenthe
politicalandthecosmicprocesses,isphilosophicallypromising.Onemight
expect this common structure to give us some clues about the ‘political’
aspects of Plato’s cosmological theory as well as about the ‘cosmological’
aspects of this political theory. Furthermore, the cosmo-political parallel
might be founded upon a more general metaphysical scheme that could
explainsomefundamentalfeaturesofPlato’spoliticalphilosophy.2
Laks goes on to point out, however, that Morrow did not pursue the
cosmological-political parallel very far. I believe the same is true of
more recent work on Plato’s later dialogues. Attention has been called to
thepoliticalpurposeofthecosmologicalstorytoldintheTimaeusandto
3
theideathattheorderoftheworldmayserveasamodelofpoliticalorder,
butthissuggestionhasnotbeendevelopedbymeansofaninvestigationof
Plato’s political theory in the Statesman and Laws which would show in
more detail how, in particular, the cosmological-political parallel might
work. Connections have been explored between the cosmology of the
Timaeus and the ethics of the Philebus, with some attention being given
tothepoliticalimplicationsofthecosmologicalmythoftheStatesmanand
of the cosmological argument of Laws Book X, but a discussion of the
4
widerpoliticaltheoryoftheStatesmanandoftheLawsisnotundertaken.
Itismyhope,inthisbook,topursuethetopicfurther,bymeansofamore
extensive comparison between the cosmology of the Timaeus and the
politicaltheoryoftheStatesmanandLaws.
Theapproachadoptedinthisbookissingularinsomerespects.Iwillnot
attempttomakedirectcontributionstowhathaverecentlybecomemain-
stream topics in English-language discussions of Plato’s later works.
Rather, working outside this framework, I will draw attention to the
cultural, religious and technical contexts in which Plato’s writings live,
contexts whichare oftenneglected, ifnot completely ignored, inmodern
discussions.Plato’sinterestinthemanytechnicalskillsandarts(technai)of
his time is evident to his readers. And some note has been made of the
presence of the great Athenian festivals in his work. Indeed it was during
thesefestivalsthatthefinestachievementsofclassicalGreekexpertiseand
art were on display. At the Panathenaic festival, a splendidly woven new
robeforthegoddessAthenawascarried,foralltosee,inagreatprocession
2 Laks(1990),209–10.
3 Pradeau(1997),PartIII.B;Schäfer(2005).Rudolph(1996)includesworkbyA.LaksandA.Neschke-
Hentschkepublishedelsewhere(Laks2005;Neschke-Hentschke1995)inversionstowhichIwill
refer.
4 Carone(2005).
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 10 Nov 2017 at 00:06:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316869581.001
Preface ix
which went up to the Acropolis, now filled with magnificent new build-
ings, among them the Propylaia and the Parthenon, masterworks of
architecture, sculpture, metalwork, painting and other arts. And at the
CityDionysia,theAthenianpopulationcouldadmire and judge thevery
best of choral singing and dancing, of tragedy and comedy. In this book
Iwilltreatthesefestivalsandtheseartisticandtechnicalskillsasconnected,
as they were at the heart of the life of the Athenian citizen and as they
constantlynourishedPlato’sthought.
Attentionwillalsobegiveninthisbooktotheanalogicalwayinwhich
Platooftenthinks,amethodwhichallowshimtodetectsimilarstructures
indiversecontextsandondifferentlevels,beit,forexample,intheworld,
in the city, or in the soul. To shift contexts, to move from politics to
cosmology, from cosmology to politics, serves, as Laks suggests in the
passagequotedearlier,torevealwhatisessentialtoboth.
In approaching ancient philosophical texts such as those written by
Plato, we can explore them by argumentative elaboration which seeks to
teaseoutthetheoreticalstructureandimplicationsofthetext.Butwecan
alsomakenewobservations,pointingtoaspectsandconnectionswhichare
not noticed, bringing into focus things which are not clearly grasped,
throwing light, from a new angle, on features which would otherwise
remain in the shadows. It is this latter method which I propose to follow
inthisbook.Itismyhopethatsuchanapproachmightleadustonotice
some unfamiliar connections, unsuspected aspects, in Plato’s later work,
acomplementthustoexcellentworkrecentlydoneinthefield.
This book has two parts, corresponding respectively to cosmology and
political theory. In Part I, I examine the cosmology of the Timaeus.
I attempt to bring out the importance of the dramatic setting of the
dialogue, the Panathenaic festival, for the interpretation of the speeches
whicharerecalled,heldandpromisedintheTimaeus,asspeechesinpraise
ofAthena.IlocateTimaeus’speechaboutthemakingoftheworldinthis
context, investigating the architectural concepts which Timaeus uses in
describinghowgodmadetheworld.Inparticular,Iwilltrytoshowthatif
we take the trouble to consider the methods and terminology of classical
Greekarchitecture,wewillbeinabetterpositiontorecognizeandunder-
standtheconceptsandlanguagePlatousesindescribingtheconstruction
of the world in the Timaeus. The use Greek architects made of models
(projects)anddetailedplanswillthrownewlight,asIhopetoshow,onthe
way in which Plato conceived of the model of the world and the way in
whichhedescribedtheworldasconstructedfollowingthismodel.InPart
II,IexaminethepoliticaltheoryoftheStatesmanandtheLaws.Isuggest
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 10 Nov 2017 at 00:06:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316869581.001
x Preface
a Panathenaic context for the image of weaving used in the Statesman to
describe political science. Weaving, as an image of political science, has
implicationsforPlato’sconceptionofpoliticalscience,inparticulartheuse
made inweaving of models (patterns). I also discuss the relation between
political science and legislation, a topic I take up again in relation to the
Laws,where,Iargue,Platoelaboratesthemodel(intheformofaconstitu-
tional and legislative order) for a good city, not the plan of a particular
political enterprise. I suggest the presence of another religious festival
within this model, the City Dionysia, reformed and re-appropriated: the
artsinvolvedherearethoseofdancingandmusic.InbothPartIandPartII,
Iwillattempttodrawattentiontostructuralanalogies,topoliticalideas
inPlato’scosmology andtothefunctionof cosmologyinpolitics.
ThisbookbeginswithaPrologue,inwhichsomegeneralsuggestionsare
made as to why Plato situates his dialogues in the past: a recent past,
a distant past or even a past forgotten by his contemporaries and first
readers.IntheEpilogue,Ireturntothistheme,totheextentthatthispast,
I propose, speaks to the present and the future, in particular the political
present and future of Plato’s readers, those of his day and even those
oftoday.
No attempt will be made in this book to extend the discussion of
cosmological and political themes to texts Plato composed earlier in his
life, for example the Republic. Nor will I venture into other domains of
interest – for example, epistemology – which he also explored in his later
writings, or into the much disputed field of attempted reconstructions of
whatPlato’soralteachingintheAcademymighthavebeen.Toshedsome
newlightonsomeaspectsofPlato’slaterworkisalreadyambitionenough!
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 10 Nov 2017 at 00:06:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316869581.001
prologue
’
The Future of the Past in Plato s Work
In recounting the story of Plato’s life, Olympiodorus, a professor of
philosophy in Alexandria in Egypt in the sixth century AD, told his
studentsthisanecdote:
Havingbeenlovedbymanyandhelpedmany,Plato,whenhewasdying,
sawhimselfinadreamasaswan,movingfromtreetotree,thusgivingmuch
troubletothehunters.SimmiastheSocraticinterpretedthedreaminthis
way:Plato[couldnot]becaughtbythosewhocameafterhimandwishedto
interpret him. For interpreters who try to capture the thoughts of the
ancients are like hunters. But Plato cannot be caught, for one can under-
stand him in a physical, ethical or theological way, in short in very many
ways,justlikeHomer.Forthesoulsofboth[HomerandPlato],itissaid,
contain all harmonies. So it is possible to understand them in all sorts of
1
ways.
TheswanwasassociatedinancientGreecewiththegodApollo,agodwith
whomphilosophersalsowereassociated.ItwasApollo’soracleatDelphi,
forexample,whichencouragedSocratesinhisphilosophicalquest.Swans
appearinmanystoriesaboutPlato’slife,butinthisstoryaswanservesto
showhowPlato’swritings,afterhisdeath,becametheobjectofinterpreta-
tion: Plato’s interpreters are hunters of swans.2 The story tells us that the
interpreters never succeed in capturing the swan: there will be many
interpretations of Plato’s writings and none will be final. The swan will
neverbecaught.
Thisstorycanleadustoformulatetwoquestions:
(1) Why do Plato’s writings call for interpretation, and call for it
unceasingly?
(2) Why do Plato’s writings provoke a multiplicity of interpretations,
neverdefinitive,neverfinal?
1 OlympiodorusInAlcib.2,155–65(mytrans.).PartofthispassageisquotedbyTigerstedt(1977),9.
2
Swanswerehuntedandeateninantiquity.
1
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 06 Nov 2017 at 16:22:58, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316869581.002
2 TheFutureofthePastinPlato’sWork
Olympiodorus, in the passage quoted here, reports Simmias the
Socratic’s answer to the second question. Simmias, a young friend of
Socrates who is present while Socrates awaits his death in Plato’s Phaedo,
thought,supposedly,thatitwasbecausePlato’ssoulcontainsallharmonies
3
and so his writings can be read in many ways. I will not attempt to
examineSimmias’answer,forthiswouldinvolveusindifficultdiscussions
abouttheconstitutionofPlato’ssoul!Rather,onthethresholdtoareading
ofPlato’slaterworks,Iwouldliketoproposeanswerstothetwoquestions
formulatedheretotheextentthatthesequestionsconcernPlato’swritings.
No attempt will be made to show the obvious: that Plato will always be
interestingandintriguing.Rather,whatIwishtodiscussisthefollowing:
whatisitinPlato’swritingsthatcreatestheneedtointerpretthem,andto
interpret them in ever-renewed ways? What is it, in this work, a work
which belongs to the past, which allows it to carry with itself its future?
Todealwiththesematters,Iwouldliketofollowthreepaths.
1
ThreeTemporalitiesinPlato
AfirstpathisindicatedbytheliterarystructureofPlato’swritings.Astart
may be made on this path by recalling some well-known facts. Plato, we
know,wrotehistextsasiftheywerescenarios,dramaticscenesofdialogues
usually between Socrates and his contemporaries or of exchanges of
speeches between them. We also recall that Plato himself is absent from
thesescenarios:heisneveroneofthefiguresintheplay,evenif,sometimes,
wemightfeelhispresenceinthewings.Wearealsoawarethatifweread
Plato’s dialogues, we become involved as readers in the dialogue, as if we
were actually present to it, as if we had become members of it, and are
provokedbyittothink,todialogueinourminds,toreact.
One might draw attention to the following particular feature of this
complex literary situation. The situation involves what we might call
differenttemporalities,ortimes:
T1: thetimeinthepastwhenthescenarioissupposedtobetakingplace,
thetimeofSocrates’discussionwithothers,whatisusuallycalledthe
‘dramaticdate’ofthedialogue;
3
Simmias appears, according to this late report, to be applying the theory of the mathematical
structureofthesoulofPlato’sTimaeus(seeChapter4,section3)toPlatohimself.Variousworks
wereattributedtoSimmiasinlaterantiquity,includingaworkonmusic(DiogenesLaertius,Livesof
thePhilosophers,2,124).
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 06 Nov 2017 at 16:22:58, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316869581.002
1 ThreeTemporalitiesinPlato 3
T2: thetimewhenthetextwasactuallywrittenbyPlato,Plato’spresent
ashewaswritingthetext,thedateofcompositionofthework;
T3: the time whenthereader reads thetext. Thistime isthepresent of
the reader and may be any time between the time when Plato’s
contemporaries first read his texts up to our present, as we read
Platonow.
4
One might describe the relations between these three temporalities as
follows.
Evenif T2isthesameasT3,thatis,evenifthereaderreadsthetextjust
whenPlatowroteandpublishedit,T1isalreadyinthepast,ascompared
tothepresentofT2/T3.Thepast,wemightsay,iswrittenintothetext.
But this past is brought by the text into relation with the present of the
reader,totheextentthatthereaderbecomesinvolvedinthedialogueasif
it were the reader’s present. The reader then becomes part of a system of
relations. The present time of the reader – the reader’s cultural milieu,
experience,interests–becomespartofthesystemofrelationsandaffectsit
correspondingly.Sincethepresenttimeisthefutureofthepast,andsince
the present time of the reader is the present of any future, Plato has
integrated the future into the texture of his work. And since the present
time of potential readers is multiple and open, so is the text in its inter-
pretations open. In their very past, Plato’s works provoke our present, as
hisreaders,andthevarietyofourpresentsgivesacorrespondingvarietyof
interpretations.
However, mightone not saythis istrue of anytext portraying thepast
and read by later readers? For example, Thucydides, in his history, or
Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides, in their tragedies, recount the past,
includingthemythicalpast,inawaywhichwouldnothavefailedtoappeal
indirectly to the preoccupations of their contemporaries (and ours).
The system of relations I have sketched here is not unique, then, to
Plato’swork.
Butitneednotbeandweneednotclaimanyexclusivityforhiminthis
respect.Yetamongthevariouswaysinwhichtextsrecountingthepastcan
provokeourinterest,Plato’swritings,byincludingthefuturereaderasan
4
FurthertemporalitiesmightbediscernedindialogueswherethemainconversationwithSocratesis
reportedwithinother,laterconversations(asinthePhaedo,orintheSymposium,theParmenidesand
theTheaetetus).ButIthinkthatthesefurthertemporalitieshavetodoespeciallywiththefictionality
ofthedialogueinvolvingSocrates(T1),whoseliteraryplausibilityisconstructedbytheintermediate
stageswhenitwasreportedandthroughwhichitsupposedlycanreachus.Onthisquestion,see
Johnson(1998).OnthefictionaltransmissionthroughstagesofthestoryofAtlantisintheTimaeus,
seeChapter1,section3.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 06 Nov 2017 at 16:22:58, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316869581.002
4 TheFutureofthePastinPlato’sWork
(albeit silent) interlocutor and participant in philosophical enquiry, are
uniquely effective in provoking the reader to philosophize, at any time.
Plato’swritingscanbesaidtobedramas(dramasdirectlytakingplace,or
5
dramasreportedbyothers), buttheyaredramasinwhichweasreadersare
invited to join the dramatis personae in philosophizing, to think about
problemsPlatosituatesinthepastastheyaffectusinourpresentandcall
ustorespond.
One might takesome concreteexamples in orderto seehow this open
system of relations, with the wide interpretative possibilities it allows,
actually works. My choice of examples is not intended to be systematic
orfinal:theanalysiscouldwellbeextendedtootherdialoguesofPlato.
6
Chronologicalchart
Dramaticdate Dateof Dateofreading
(T1) composition(T2) (T3)
Phaedo 399BC ca.383 ca.383→...
Republic ca.412 370s 370s→...
Parmenides ca.450 after370 after370→...
Timaeus late430s 360s 360s→...
AsafirstexamplewemighttakePlato’sPhaedo.ThePhaedorepresents
adiscussionwhichSocratesisportrayedashavingwithhisfriends(includ-
ing Simmias) on the day of his death. The dramatic date of the dialogue
(T1)istherefore399BC.ItisprobablethatPlatowrotethePhaedo(T2)
around 383, about twenty years afterthe death of Socrates.7 There isthus
adistanceofabouttwentyyearsbetweenT1andT2,adifferenceofone
generation.LetussupposenowthatT2isT3,thatwearereadingthetext
when Plato first published it. What had happened since the time of
Socrates’ death? Athens had continued to attempt to recover from the
lossessufferedinitsdefeatinthewarwithSparta.Platohimselfhadgoneto
Sicily,metPythagoreansthere,returnedtoAthensin387andfoundedthe
Academy. The Phaedo was written probably not long after. How, then,
doeswhatSocratessaysonhislastdayappeartousintheretrospectivelight
ofthispresenttime(ifT2=T3)?InthePhaedo,onthedayofhisdeath,
Socratesexhortsustohaveconfidenceinreasoning(logos),nottodespairof
5 SeeErler(2007),71–5,forasurveyofthistheme.
6 ThedramaticandcompositionaldatesofPlato’sworksaremuchdebatedinsomecases.Forareview
ofdramaticdates,seeNails(2002),307–30,and,forcompositionaldates,seeLedger(1989),224–5.
7 SeeDixsaut(1991),28.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 06 Nov 2017 at 16:22:58, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316869581.002
1 ThreeTemporalitiesinPlato 5
thevalueof argumentation.Forknowledgeisthegoal ofthephilosopher
who will lead a good and admirable life, like the philosophical life exem-
plifiedbySocratesonhislastday.Inacuriousway,theseideas,ifseenin
relationtoT2/T3,providesupportforthepresentworkofPlato’snewly
founded Academy. The meaning and value of the philosophical work
beguninPlato’sAcademyreceivestrongsupportfromwhatSocratestells
us,speakingtousfromthepast.Plato,ofcourse,doesnotreferexplicitlyin
the Phaedo to the Academy, and what Socrates says can have a wider
application. If T 3 is not T 2, if our present as readers of the Phaedo is
distantfromPlato’spresent,asfounderoftheAcademy,wecanalsothink
again,aswereadthePhaedo,about whatwewanttodo, andwhy,inour
academies,whyknowledgeisimportanttousandhowitrelatestoagood
lifeforhumans.AsT3isopen-endedandcanbethepresentofanyfuture
reader, the past of Socrates can speak to any future, as long as there are
humanswhocanreadPlato.
A second example might be provided by Plato’s Republic. Here, as
regards T 1, Socrates is younger, in his forties or fifties (he was seventy
whenhedied).8TheRepublicwaswrittenbyPlato(T2)afterthePhaedo,
perhapssomewherearound380orlater,inthe370s.Thisgivesusagreater
distance between T 1 and T 2, perhaps a gap of about forty to fifty years,
twogenerations.T1issituatedinthepastofAthens,almostadecade(or
perhaps more) before its defeat in 404 BC in the catastrophic war with
Sparta, a past which is now (T 2) long gone, a distant memory.
The Academy now is well established and successful in its endeavours.
What does Socrates recommend to us in the Republic? He imagines (two
generations before the Academy) a project for an ideal system of the
sciences and of education. He speaks of a utopia which is based on
scientificknowledgeputintheserviceofthehumangood.Wecansuppose
that all of this would have surprised and amused the members (T 2) of
Plato’s Academy. Imagine! Socrates, a long time ago, already saw the
Academy! But the considerable temporal distance Plato put between the
time when Socrates is supposed to be speaking (T 1) and Plato’s present
(T 2) has its importance, I think. Putting what Socrates says in a distant
pasthastheeffectofmakingthissomethingfarremoved,notimmediately
present,describingprojectswhichhavenotnowbeenfulfilledandarenot
tobeattempted,assuch,rightnow,butwhichindicate,intheirpast,what
8 Inthechronologicalchartproposedearlier,412isgivenastheT1oftheRepublic,adatewhichis
proposedbyNotomi(2010).OthershavearguedforanearlierdateforT1;forasurvey,seeNails
(2002),324–6.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 06 Nov 2017 at 16:22:58, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316869581.002
6 TheFutureofthePastinPlato’sWork
could be aimed at and reached in a possible future, in relation to which
presenteffortscanbeorientated.9Thisapplies,Iwouldsuggest,notonlyto
Plato’s first readers, when they read the Republic, but also to us now, his
presentreaders,andtohisreadersofthefuture.
AthirdexamplemightbePlato’sParmenides.HereSocrateshasbecome
muchyounger.Platoinsists,inthescenario,onjusthowyoungSocratesis
bycomparinghisyouthandimmaturitywiththeoldageandmaturityof
his partner in the discussion, Parmenides. If Plato wrote the Parmenides
afterabout370,asseemslikely,thenaverylonggapintimeseparatesT1
fromT2,abouteightyyears,almostfourgenerations.Forthefirstreaders
of the Parmenides (T 2 = T 3), the effect of this gap must have been
startling. For there, in the dialogue, in a discussion between the young
SocratesandtheoldParmenides,averylongtimeago,difficultmetaphy-
sical problems were discussed which were actually, in the present (T 2),
being hotly debated in Plato’s Academy (perhaps Aristotle was already
10
thereasayoungstudent). Thistechniqueofconsigningtoaverydistant
pastdebatesactuallytakingplaceatpresenthastheeffect,Iwouldliketo
suggest, of allowing the reader to take some distance, to detach and free
herselforhimselffromtheimmediatepresent,openingthedebatetonew
perspectives.Eventoday,whenwearesofarfromsuchdebates,whenT3is
sofarfromT2,wecanstillbefascinatedbythetextandcannotbutreadit
inrelationtoourpresentmetaphysicalinterests.
A last example might be provided by Plato’s Timaeus. Here also, the
time gap between the time of the scenario and the time of composition,
between T 1 and T 2, is very great, about as great as in the Parmenides,
11
perhaps nearly seventy years. And within the text Plato creates an even
greater distance in telling how a figure in the discussion, Critias, could
recount the long-forgotten story about the war between Athens and
Atlantis. This story is so old that the Athenians (T 1 and T 2) have
forgotten it entirely (Timaeus 21d, 23b). Only the Egyptians, thanks to
theirancientrecords,keptitsmemoryandcouldtellittoSolon,thesource
ofCritias’story.Thestoryisabouttheheroicdeedsofagoodcity,similar
totheutopiaof Plato’sRepublic.Throughthestory,theutopiaisprojected
back into a distant past, beyond the limits of the history that Athenians
knew.Andthisverydistantpastisitselfintroducedbyaspeech,givenby
9 Notomi(2010),117,comments:‘TheRepublicshowsthetensionbetweenthehopeofrealizingthe
bestpossiblecityinthetimeofSocrates(412BC)andthedifficultyofchangingthesevererealityin
Plato’smaturity(the370sBC).’
10 ForapossibleresonanceoftheStatesmanwiththeAcademy,seeChapter5,n.2.
11 FortheT1oftheTimaeus,seeChapter1,n.19.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 06 Nov 2017 at 16:22:58, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316869581.002