Platonic Dialogue and the Education of the Reader

341 Pages·2014·1.424 MB·English

by  A. K. Cotton

OXFORD CLASSICAL MONOGRAPHS
Published under the supervision of
a Committee of the Faculty of Classics in
the University of Oxford
OUPCORRECTEDPROOF–FINAL,28/1/2014,SPi
The aim of the Oxford Classical Monographs series (which replaces
the Oxford Classical and Philosophical Monographs) is to publish
booksbasedonthebestthesesonGreekandLatinliterature,ancient
history, and ancient philosophy examined by the Faculty Board of
Classics.
Platonic Dialogue
and the Education
of the Reader
A. K. COTTON
1
3
GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP,
UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford.
ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship,
andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof
OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries
#A.K.Cotton2014
Themoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted
FirstEditionpublishedin2014
Impression:1
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin
aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe
priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted
bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics
rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe
aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe
addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform
andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress
198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY10016,UnitedStatesofAmerica
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData
Dataavailable
ISBN 978–0–19–968405–2
Asprintedandboundby
CPIGroup(UK)Ltd,Croydon,CR04YY
LinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithand
forinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerials
containedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork.
Contents
Preface vii
Abbreviations ix
PartI
1. ReadingPlato’sDialogues 3
1.1 Conversingandreading 4
1.2 Readingaslearning 20
1.3 Plato’sdialogues:readorperformed? 29
2. ReadersandInterlocutors 32
2.1 Theprisoner’sascentfromtheCave:aparadigm
forlearning 32
2.2 Ademandingtypeofreading 38
2.3 Readersandinterlocutors 44
2.4 Developingagenericidentity 49
2.5 Plato’scorpusandthedevelopmentofthereader 52
3. DevelopingtheVirtuesofDialectic:AModel
forReading 58
3.1 ‘Middle’and‘late’ works:aparadigmshift? 58
3.2 Interlocutorsin‘early’dialogues 67
3.3 Interlocutorsin‘middle’dialogues 75
3.4 Interlocutorsin‘late’dialogues 80
3.5 Progressandvirtue 84
3.6 Learningamongreaders 92
PartII
4. Characterization:ARouteintoInterpretation? 101
4.1 SocratesandAlcibiades 101
4.2 Character:arouteintointerpretation? 106
4.3 Charactersasrolemodels? 112
4.4 Character,reflection,andconstruction 116
4.5 Thechallengeofcharacter:afunctionalview 127
4.6 Socrates:adominantcharacter 130
vi Contents
4.7 Characterizationandtheexperienceofreading 132
4.8 ‘Later’dialogues:thedisappearanceofcharacter 135
5. Argumentation:ADescentintoDidacticDialectic? 142
5.1 Authoritiesonwisdom 142
5.2 Adescentintodidacticdialectic? 146
5.3 Possiblesolutions 151
5.4 Analternativeapproach:argumentsand
theirpresentation 154
5.5 ‘Early’ arguments 160
5.6 ‘Middle’arguments 168
5.7 ‘Late’arguments 176
5.8 Towardsindependentreadersandlearners 184
6. StructureandUnity:ChallengingtheReader 187
6.1 Searchingforunity 187
6.2 Structureandunity:possibleapproaches 193
6.3 Commonstructuralpatterns 198
6.4 Structuralpatternsandthereader 214
6.5 Structure,unity,and‘living’discourse 217
7. PlotandAction:Processvs.Resolution 225
7.1 Plato’sdialogues:classicalplot? 225
7.2 Unclassicalplot:proliferation,fragmentation,
andirresolution 232
7.3 Laches 236
7.4 Republic 242
7.5 Sophist 250
7.6 Resolutionvs.repetition:gettingcaughtinthemiddle 256
8. Reading,Learning,andActing:BecomingActiveReceivers 263
8.1 Thereader’sprogress 263
8.2 Dialecticalvirtue,civicvirtue 270
8.3 ThemythofPhaedo:fromreadingtoacting 277
References 291
GeneralIndex 315
IndexofWorks 327
Preface
Ibeginmystudy,inPartI,byexaminingthecharacteroftheresponse
the dialogues invite in the reader, with careful attention to Plato’s
presentationoftheactivityofinterlocutors,whichItreatasacomplex
model for the reader. In Part II, against this background, I offer a
series of case studies in how the dialogues engage the reader. In
chapter 4, I look at Plato’s use of characterization, and in chapter 5
I consider the structure of individual passages of argumentation.
Chapter6 looks at larger-scale structural patterns that affect the
shapeofwholedialogues,whilechapter7considersPlato’shandling
of plot. In chapter 8, drawing the strands of my study together,
IreflectonthevaluePlato’sdialoguesattachtoreadingandonPlato’s
engagementwithcivicframeworksandvalues.
TherearetwoprincipalreasonsIhavechosenthepresentarrange-
ment,bothinformedbytheideathatPlato,inhisdialogues,iscarving
outanarenaforaparticulartypeoflearningengagement.First,Iam
concerned to show how my approach can be applied to dialogues
usually regarded as coming from Plato’s ‘early’, ‘middle’, and ‘late’
periodsofcomposition.Forthisreason,Ihavenotwantedtolimitmy
studytoasingledialogueorperiod;andineachchapterIofferbrief
readingsofadialogueofeachtype,oratleastindicatehowmyideas
might apply to them. Exploring the engagement of the reader in
works of these different types allows me to develop a reading of the
receiver’s development across the corpus, as well as in individual
works,asIexplaininchapter2.
Second, I wish to show that my approach can be applied across a
rangeoffeaturesofthedialogues,andtoillustratehowthesecomple-
menteachotherinthewaystheyengagethereader.Wheninterpret-
ers focus on one feature, such as argumentation or characterization,
it often remains unclear how others would be amenable to similar
treatment. In particular, I am keen to show that my approach
accounts for both ‘philosophical’ aspects of the dialogues (primarily
argumentation)and ‘literary’ ones.1Traditionally, criticshave found
1 A successful interpretation of the dialogues needs to account for both: while
‘literary’interpretershavecriticizedtraditionalcommentatorsforfocusingexclusively
viii Preface
itdifficulttoshowhowtheseworktogether,sometimessuggesting,to
putitcrudely,thattheyengagethe‘intellect’and‘emotions’respect-
ively.Suchaview,asIdiscussinmoredetaillater,isunattractivefora
varietyofreasons,notleastbecauseitseemstomakePlato’sviewson
poetryatoddswithhisownliterarypractice;anditisnowcommonly
recognizedasoverlysimplistic.Indeed,thejuxtapositionof‘intellect’
and‘emotion’isitselfincreasinglybeingdisputed.2However,thisstill
leaves us with the challenge of offering a satisfying account of the
different aspects of the dialogues, in which both play a valuable role
inengagingthe readerbut theirobviousdifferences arenot ignored.
The approach I develop in this study, based on the idea that Plato’s
dialogues invite a distinctive type of engagement in the reader, will,
Ihope,offeraplausiblewayofdoingthis.
Twoalternativestothepresentstructurewouldhavebeentooffera
studyofasingletopicacrossthedialoguesortoundertakeastudyofa
singledialogue.Bothoftheseofferscopeformoreextendedanalysis
thanmypresentarrangement;and,bywayofcompromise,thereisa
coregroupofdialoguestowhichIregularlyreturn,includingRepublic,
Phaedrus,andSophist,thoughIalsodrawonawiderselectionofworks
toprovidecontextformyarguments.
My thanks go to all those who have helped shape this study or
supported me during its development, and in particular: my family;
TobiasReinhardt,whosupervisedmyD.Phil.thesis;TimRood,who
oversaw its transformation into its present shape; Richard Ruther-
ford;LesleyBrown;mycolleaguesatMagdalenCollegeSchool,andin
particulartheMaster,DrTimHands.
on argumentation, the opposite charge is now being thrown back against them.
See e.g. the critique of Gordon in Benson (2003). For the parallel problem of the
relationshipbetweenpoetryandphilosophy,intellectandemotion,inLucretius,see
Gale(1994)1,Volk(2002)72–3,95ff.
2 Seee.g.Nussbaum(2001).
Abbreviations
AbbreviatedtitlesforworksofPlato:
Ap. Apology
Chrm. Charmides
Euthd. Euthydemus
Euthphr. Euthyphro
G.Hp. GreaterHippias
Grg. Gorgias
Lch. Laches
Ly. Lysis
M. Meno
Phd. Phaedo
Phdr. Phaedrus
Phlb. Philebus
Plt. Politicus
Prm. Parmenides
Prt. Protagoras
R. Republic
Smp. Symposium
Sph. Sophist
Tht. Theaetetus
AbbreviatedtitlesforworksofAristotle:
Soph.El. SophisticalRefutations
Top. Topics
Othertitlesaregiveninfull.