Bowe - IndefenseofClitiphon [PaginasDobles}

8/3/2019 Bowe - IndefenseofClitiphon [PaginasDobles}

1/11

N O T E T O C O N T R I B U T O R SPleaseaddress ll correspondenceo the Editor, ClassicalPhilology, l0l0 East 59th Street,TheUniversity f Chicago, hicago,L 60637.Submissionshould epaginated, ith amplemargins,double-spacedhroughout, ndwith footnotesgathered t heendof the paper.Please ubmit hreecopies.All submissionsre efereed nonymously. o indication f the author'sdentityshouldappear n the ypescript; eferenceso the author'sown work should ake he same orm as efer-ences o thework of others:acknowledgments r other emarks hat could eveal heauthor's den-tity shouldbe withheld until thepaperhas beenaccepted.

* * * * * * > F * * * * *

ClassicalPhilology(ISSN0009-837X) is publishedquarterly n January,April. July,andOctoberby The University f ChicagoPress, ournals ivision, 1427East60th Street,Chicago, l l inois60631-2954.Subscription ates or 2008 are $58 for individuals and$223 tbr institutions'Addi-tional rates or non-U.S.subscribers nd ower rates or print-only or electronic-only,ncludingelectronic-onlyor students, re avai lable t wwwjoumals.trchicago.edu/CPubscription gentfor Japan:Kinokuniya Company,Ltd. Individuals iave heoption to orderdirectly from the Uni-versity f Chicago ress. ingle opy ates: ndividuals,18; nstitutions, 67.Please irect subscription nquiries,back-issue equests, nd address hangeso The University ofChicago ress, ournals ivision,PO. Box 37005,Chicago,L 60637. elephone:773)753-3347or toll-free n the United States nd Canada 877) 705-1878.Fax: 773)753-081 or toll-free(877)705-1,879.8-mai1:[email protected] articles n thisjoumal are ndexedin the H umanitie Index.WebSite http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/CPCopyingBeyondFalr Use.The codeon he irstpageof an llicle in thisjournal ndicateshe copy-right owner's consent hat copiesof the article may be madebeyond hosepermittedby Sections107or 108of rheUS. Copyright aw provided hatcopies remadeonly or personal r nternaluse,or for the personaluse or internal use of specific clientsand provided that the copier paythe statedper-copy fee through the Copyright ClearanceCenter (CCC), 222 RosewoodDrive,Danvers, A 01923. o equest ermissionorotherkindsof copying, uch scopying orgeneraldistribution, or advertising r promotional urposes,or creating ew collectiveworks,or fbrresale,kindly write to PermissionsCoordinator,Journals Division, The University of ChicagoPress. 427East 0thStreet, hicago,l l inois60637-2954 ax773-834-3489.f no codeappearson the first pageof the article,permission o reprint maybe obtainedonly from the author.ANSIStandard:The aper sed n thispubl icationmeetshe minimum equi rementsf AmericanNational Stand:ud or Information SciencesPermanence f Paper or PrintedLibrey Materials,ANSI 239.48-1984.@-Postmirster: endaddress hanges o ClassicalPhilolog,v, he University of ChicagoPress, our-nalsDivision,PO. Box 37005.Chicago. l l inois 60637.Periodicalsostage aidat Chicago,l l inois,andat additionalmail ingoffices.@2007 y The University f Chicago.

IN DEFENSEOF CLTTOPHONG. S. BOWE

HE CLITIPHoN wAS ACCEITED s Plato's work by all ancient authors,and it is being accepted as such by more and more modern scholars.2Clitophon the characterseems o have been ll receivedby both ancientand modern writers, and this reception is something that I think needs morereflection. In this article I offer a brief review of some issues regarding theauthenticity of t he Clitophon bef ore I go on to discuss how the dialogueand its main character have been understood. I want to suggest hat variousattempts to understand the meaning of the Clitopharr in light of its perceiveddramatic relationship to Republic 1 contain serious difficulties. and I wantto argue that the dialogue ought to be understood on its own terms as a re-f lect ion on the importanceof the protreptic mpl ications of dnopiu.3This article has three parts. Part I discusses some aspects of the ancienttradition's acceptance of the Clitophon, followed by a discussion of con-fusions in Fic ino's translat ions of th e dialogue for Aldus. Many scholarsattribute the Clirophon's reputation as spurious to the 1513 Aldine edition,

but the confusion can be traced further back. I also discuss several scholarswho have changed their minds regarding the authenticity of the Clitophonfrom Ficino onwards, and I review a discussion of the Clitopfton's authen-ticity by Simon Slings, who has done the most extensive work on the dialoguein the twentieth century. Part II exar nines attempts to understand the Clitophonthat rely on one of two perceived dramatic orderings, Republic l-Clitophon,

I should xpresshanks or nlanyhelptulcomments eceived n var ious ersions f this ar t icle, el iveredas a paper n New York, stanbul,Athens.Ankara, and Liverpool, as well as o Isin Metin for help on oper-at ic composit ion,JamesHankins and David Thornton for help with palaeography, nd the anonymousreadersor CP for nranyhelpful comments.L A possible xception s Xenophon, f which I say more ater.2. See or example. G. M. A. Grube, "^fhe Cleitophorr f Pl ato." CP 26 (1931):302-8; H. Kesters,Kin'gmes de Socrate: Essai sut lo.forttntiott du nessagesocratique Louvain. 1965); C. Orwin, "TheCaseAgainst Socrates:Plato's Cleitoplt t tn,"CanediattJournal of Poli t ical Science 5 (1982):?41-53;D. Roochnik, The Riddle of the Cleitophon,"Ancietlt PhiLosophy (1984): 132-45, . Blits, "SocraticTeaching ndJustic : P lato'sClir


2/11

246 G. S. Bowpor Clitophon-Republic1, and the problems nvolved in adoptingeither,followedby an examination f interpretationsf the Clitophon hat do notdepend n any dramaticorder.Part II explainswhy I think the dialogueshouldbe understoodn termsof the protrepticnatureof dnopio.

IWith the possible xceptionof Xenophon,4 o one n the ancient raditionregarded he Clitophonwith suspicion.5 lympiodorus,n his Commentaryon the "Gorgias," uses heClitophonasevidence hat,'contraryo receivedopinion,Socrates oessometimes ddress rowds.oClitophon407d s em-ployedby Apuleius,Hippolytus,andAlcinous n tandemwith Laws 73lc todemonstratehe nvoluntarynatureof vice. As John Dillon has observed,this partof the Clitophonseems o havebeenabsorbednto "a fairly well-worn pieceof schoolexposition."? ippolytusactuallycites he Clitophonaspartof the Republic,suggesting erhapshat he madea mistakewhen con-sultingan editionof -Plato's ialogues rranged ccording o the etralogicalorderof Thrasyl lus.oWhile no ancientauthors oubted he Clitophon'sgenuineness,heir assess-mentof Clitophon'scharacters anothermatter.Ptolemy s reported o havesaid ha t Socrates id not respond o Clitophonbecause is remarkswereunworthy of response.e lutarchalso regardsClitophonnegatively, istinghim along with Alcibiadesand Critias as a waywardstudentof Plato andSocrates.l0 he fairness f this negative haracterization f Clitophonandthe subsequent doption f it by modernscholarss a point o which I shallreturn.

4. At Ment. 1.4.1,Xenophonsays, lf any hold he opinion expressedn somewritten md spoken ritici smsof Socrates hat are basedon inference (rilq vroL lptirpouoi te roi l6youor tepi or)to[ rerporp


3/11

248 G, S. Bowebelong to the spuria. Ye t in LaurenTiana 59.1 f. 349 (a rougher copy onwhrch Laur.89.5 appears o be at least partially based) the words t6l.og t6vvo0euop6vorv, ppear in the main text after the Axiochus bu t before th eCl i tophon. Al l the same, Fic ino wrote Hic l iber forte no n est Platonis althe head of his Latin translation of the Clitoohon.Ficino is one of many who may have had a change of heart regarding theClitophon's authenticity, for he seems o have regarded t as authentic in hisearlier commentary on the Philebus.rT A. E. Taylor, inthe 1927 edition ofPlato: The Man and !lis Work, says he would like to plead for the dialogue'sauthentic i ty p.12). However, his expanded1929edition discu sses he dia-logue in the new appendix on "Platonic Apocrypha," assigning t to a fourth-century Academic (p. 538), while still retaining the plea for authenticity onp. 12.t8 Paul Shorey also changed hi s mind. As a doctorand in 1884, hebelieved the Clilophon to be authentic, but had come to doubt this by 1933.Sl ings notes Shorey's pal inode n ref lect ingon his own changeof opinion.In his 1981 doctoral dissertation,le Slings pronounced he dialogue spurious;in 1999his revised Plato: "Clitophon" appeared-the title indicating his new,if hesitant, belief in the dialogue's authenticity.20Slings' distillation of the arguments for and against authenticity show thedi ff icul t balance nvolved in assessins he Cl i tophon. and is worth a briefreview here.2lFor authentic i ty: 1) Tie Cl i tophon s wri t ten from a whol lyPlatonic point of view, showing a deep understanding of Plato's philosophyand approach to the dialogue form; (2) There is nothing parlicularly un-Platonicin the language;22 3) The Ctitophon has been transmirted with the Platoniccorpus since (at least) he end of the third century B.C.E.Against authenticity:(1) The Clitophon relies heavily on other Socratic writings; (2) Incorporationof material from other dialogues s rather clumsy at times; (3) The Clitophonappears o attack Socrates; (4 ) Xenophon might be suggesting that it is notPlato's because t is based on inferences (tercpratp6prevor).According to Slings, to dismiss the arguments for authenticity, one mustassume that the Clitophon was written by a n extremely talented appropriatorof Plato's philosophy and language.Moreover, Slings thinks that a presumedattack on Socrates and the clumsiness cancel each other out. Either the dia-logue is clumsy and therefore ineffectual as an attack on Socrates,or it is an

17. M. Ficino,The "Philebus" Conunentory, d, M. Allen (Berkeleyand Los Angeles, 9'15),120.18. suspect hat Grube "Cleitoplron," 05) s relying onp. l2 of the 1927or 1928edir ionof Taylorwhenhe suggestshat Taylor hinks t authentic; eeA. E. Taylor,Plato: TheMan arul His Work Londol i r s ted . 1927 ; econd d . 1928 ; xpandedh i rded . 1929) .19. S. R. SI ings,A Conunerrtart n Ihe Plutonic "Cli tophon" (Amsterdam, 98l) .20. Slings, PLato: "Clitophon," 2341' . Shorey, VlrarPlato Said (Chicago, 1933), 6-58. note rhatW. J. Verdeniushad expressed'l'elief" that Slings ound it inauthentic n 1981: Notes on the Pseudo-Platonic CLitophotr,"Mnemostne 35 (1982): 146. J. Bail ly 's Plato's "Euthyphro" and "Clitophon"(Newburyport,Mass.,2003)alsocontains hesitant ttribution f the Clitophon oPlato.21. Slings.Pl. t to: "Cli lophon, '221-34: see also Bail ly, "Euthyphro" antl "Clitophon" (n. 20 above),t26-21 .22.There s no good philological eason o dismiss he Cli tophon.There are a few oddit ies, ut thesehave beenaddressed nd philologicaldetractors ppear o have been si lenced;Roochnik "Riddle," 134)notes he same.H. Thesleff ,Studiesn Platonic Cltronolog, l ,(Helsinki,982),205. eviews he suspiciouswords.

ClrropnoN 249attackon Socrateshat s too clumsy o do muchharm.Although Slings s notexplicit here, t seems hatone nterpretation f the atterpossibilitywouldbe hat hedialogue s nten tionally lumsy andhence ts realpurposes notan attackon Socrates.23lingsseems o think that t is not an attackonSocratesn any case, nd hat at east t doesnot aim at theheartof Platonicphilosophy.2a he most convincingpart of Slings' argument or authenticityseems o be that t would be easier o accept he authenticityof the Clitophonthan o hypothesizehe existence f an anonymous uthorwho wasalmostPlato'sequal n literarycapacities.n short, f Platodidn't write t, it is hardto imaginewho did, despite omeapparent lumsiness, hich n anycase sa rathersubjective riterion.25

IISinceClitophon'scomplaintsare about a negativeSocrateswho makesnopositive claims about ustice, they would seem o make ittle senseafterRepublic2 hadbeenwritten.Therefore, hosewho assume hat the Clitophonshouldbe perceived sdramatically ollowing Republic assumehat t isan authentic ragmentor an unfinished raft, or contend hat he Clitophon(genuine r spurious) espondso a discreteThrasymachus.hosewho takethe dialogueas completeand authenticplace the Clitophon dramaticallyahead f theRepublic. n what ollows I explainwhy I think bothorderingsare problematic.

Many scholars avesuggestedhat Cli tophon'scomplaints egardingSocrates' ailure or refusal o providea positive heory of justice wouldmakeno sense fterRepublic2-10 had beenwritten.This leads o theoriesbasedon a spuriousClitophon ncluding: (l) the claim that the Clitophonwas written as a responseo a discretelypublishedRepublic or Thrasy-machus;26r (2 ) th e suggestion y Wilamowitz hat t was writ ten by aprecocious tudentwho readRepublic but not the restof the Republic.zl

23. Of course,Plato s not againstwriting a critique of Socrates-witness the first part of the Pantenitles.Chr istophe(Rowe refers o Slings' reatment f the oddit ies n the dialogue n Slings,Contnentary thel98l dissertat ion;een. l9 above)as his signif icant yidence f the Clitophon's nauthenticityC. Rowe,"Cleilophon atd Milos," in The Cambriclge History ofGreek and Roman Political Thought, ed. C. RoweandM.Scho f ie ld [Cambr idge ,2000 ] ,pp .303-9 ,n .36) .Sl ings ,however (P /a ro . . "C l i tophon , "232) ,a longwith arguing hat clumsiness s a "highly subject iveconcept,"has come down in favor of authenticitydespite hese ddit ies.24. Sl ings,Pleto: "Cli lophon,"208 9 and passim.25. The words of GeorgeGrote ared propos here'. On such groundsas [inf 'er iorexceilence nd helikel we arecalldupon o rejectvar iousdialogues: nd here s norhingupon which, general ly peaking,so much stresss aid upon as nferior excellence- or my pi l t , I cannot ecognize ny of themas suff icientgrounds f exception . have nodimculty in believingnot merely ha t Plato . . produced any successlvenovelties . . but that also among hesenoyelties here were inferior dialoguesas wcll as superior. .among hem some which critics declue to be ow and objectionable . ." (Grote, Conpanions [n. 1 above],l :20 '7 \ .26. For example,Thesleff ,Chronolog,vn. 22 above),p. l0?, n. 19.and-pp.206-8. See also D. Nails,Agora, Academl, and the Conduct of Philosophy (Dordrecht, 1995),124-25. One might consider that theThrasymachus, so dubbed by Diimmler, has nothing of the ancient pedigreethar the Clitophon has-noone beforehim evermentioned t.27. U von Wil lamowitz-Moellendorff ,P/cron,vol. I (Berlin, 1959), 90.


4/11

250 G. S. BoweGrube,who hin ks hat heClitophons authentic, lso hinks t makes osensein light of Republic2-10, and sees he dialogueas an unfinished ragmentwritten afterRepublic and beforeRepublic2.28This is not to say hat Grubesuggests discreteRepublic . He simply believes he Clitophon o havebeenwrittensome ime between hewriting of Republic7 andRepublic2. Onepossibleway to think of the Clitophon s as part of theRepubllc's uttingroom loor, so o speak.However,stylometricanalysis nd he Clitophon'sapparent extual dependence n other dialogues including the Republic)point n the directionof a late composition ate or the Clitophon-that isa date ater han hat of theRepublic.ze f course his doesnot affecthowwe perceivehe elativedramaticorderingof the ClitophonandRepublic .If we accept he authenticity f the Clitophon, t seems ash o assumehatthe composition rdermustparallel he dramatic rder.30 omposition rdertel lsus i t t le about he ntended ramatic rder-after al l , Platodi d writedialogues eaturinga living Socra tes fterhe wrote h e Phaedo.Given he way the Clitophonopens, he emptationo asserthe dramaticorderRepublic -Clitophon is very strong,whetherone accepts discreteThrasymachu.rr not.3l For someone as old Socrates f a conversationbetween ysias wh o is present ut mute n Republic ) and Clitophon(present nd all but mute n Republic1). Clitophonhasbeenheardexpress-ing high praise or Thrasymachus nd inding fault with SocratesClit. 406a).Onecould magine situationn whichLysiasandClitophonwerediscussingthe debate etweenSocrates ndThrasymachusn Republic1, a debate hatprompts he remarks hat Cli tophon s said o havemadeaboutSocratesand Thrasymachus.32ne will re call hat he openingof Republic2 starts

28. Grube, Cleitophon,"308.29. L. Brandwood, "Stylometry and Chronology," it The Cambridge Compatilott to Plaro, ed- R. Kraut(Cambridge, 992), 12; G. R. Ledger,Recounlir tg lato: A ComputerAnalysisof Plato's Sryle Oxford,1989), 46, 187,196-91, and passim;D. Nails, "PlatonicChronology Reconsidered," MCR 03.04.17l'S l ings,P/ato: " Cleitophon," 16-22, 228, 23 an exceptions Thesleff ,Chronologv, 09.30. The dist inct ion etween omposit ion rder anddramatic rderseems o escape ommeDtators n theRepublicas much as Cli tophon himself does.Char lesKahn, n "Proleptic Composit ion n lhe Republic,"CQ 43 (1993): 3l-42, andC. D. C. Reeve, n Pli losopher Klzgs (Princeton, 998), argue or a unitaryRepul>l ic ased n certain inds of "proleptic" readings f Republic . They barelymentionClitophon heinter locutor Reeve,pp. t -12, in th contextof Thrasymachus; ahn not at all), and never mention hedialogue. While I would not argue or it myself, I am puzzled hat they do not entertain he dea hatRepublic may havebeencomposed fter he estof theRepublic.This would also be consistent it h thefact that Republic is thought o contain both ear ly and ate stylometr ic raits- late Plato mitatesear lystyle or overture. his s somethingbat hosewh o argue or aThrasymrLchus ight also ike to consider.It is alsopossible o imagine hat he Clitophon was written merely as an extension f a "post-proleptic"draft ofRepublic . l f Republic is prolept icof the estof Lhe epublic, t would seem ltogethermore easonableto envision Plato composing such an overture after he die fxe of the opera s fully uticulated. Approachesto music composition vary, n that some may compose he overture after the dAe txe eltber concurrently orafter the opera has been ully articulated, but certainly no composer could reasonablyconceive he overturebefore the d4e ixe.3 . Grube certainly did not accept he Thraslnnchus hypothesis,and ostensiblyGrole's suggestion s thatthe dialoguewas a prel iminarysketch ntended or inclusion n the Republic, bandoned y Platobecauseits criticism of Socrates as oo harsh.32. Taylor Plato In. l8 abovel. 2) makcs his very suggestion. olever. he haschanged is readingsomervhat y the im e of the hird ediiion of Plato.O fl p. 538 of the hird edit ion 1929)he suggestshatwe are meant o read he Cli tophon as indicat ing he danger of Cli tophon fal l ing into the handsof a"ouack" ike Thrasymachus.

ClrropHoN 25 1with a ref lect ion on Socrates'discussionwith Thrasymachus, ne in whichGlaucon expresses issatisfactionwith Socrates'performance Resp.351a-b),al though i t is not of the sarne mpatient tenor as that expressed n theClitophon.While there are good dramatic reason s to want to place the Clitophon inbetween Republic I and Republic 2, to do so would require that the dialoguebe authentic bu t fragmentary (perhaps an outtake from the Republ ic), orspurious (i .e., wri t ten by Wilamowitz 's precocious student). There areimportant counter-considerations here. The form of the dialogue suggeststhat it is finished, not fragmentary, certainly when one considers the strongrecapitulation culminating in the expression of concern over e0Sorpovio atthe end (410e). According to Plutarch, who is well aware of the Clitophon,Plato's only unfinished dialogue was the Timaeus.33 precociousstudentequal o Plato n literary capacities s rather far-fetchedand highly spe culative.Those who take the dialogue to be cornplete and authentic often place theClitophon dramatically before the Republic. While this may seem to someto be a more natural order, it also leads to interpretations of the Clitoohonthat seeClitophon as going from bad to worse. baied on his few brief remarksrn Republic l. On such readings, the interpretive weight of the Clitophonfal ls on the few l ines that Cl i tophon hasin Republ ic 1. As JacquesBaillyhas suggested,one may ask whether Clitophon's remarks in Republic I rep-resenthis own posi t ion, or whether he is merely try ing to make senseou tof what Thrasymachusha s us t said.34By contrast,Roochnik 's c laim thatClitophon is a radical relativist, to which Socrates' silence is an appropriateresponse, s most convincing if we read Clitophon's remarks rn Republic Ias his own position, and read the Clitophon in light of this. This kind ofreading results in or assumes a negative character ization of Clitophon thatI will later suggest s unwarranted.Roochnik seesClitophon as going from t6Xvq to radical relativism. Follow-ing JohannesGeffcken,3s he argues that the Clitophon is a riddle regardingSocrates' silence-why it is that Socrates does not respond to Clitophon'scriticisms-and answers t by suggesting that Clitophon's moral relativismis a posi t ion to which the rat ional phi losophyof Socrates annot espond.36

33. Plut. So1. 2.1. Plutarch wice mentiors Plato n rhe conrextof Cli tophon4O1c d at Mor.439c ano534e.See alsoSlings,PLdo: "Clitoplrcn,' ll.34. Bail ly, "Eutl4ytlro" qi ld "Cli tophon," I16.35. J. Geffcken. Da s R.itseldes Kleitophoil ,"Herntet 68 (1933):429-39.36. Roochnik ("Riddle," 138, 141)points out that Socrates'si lence n the Cli tophon s mirrored byClitophon's si lence n Republic . I would point out that he "mirroring effect" observed y Roochnik snot as mirrored as one might like. I would be inclined o argue hat Clitophon al ls si lent as a resultofThrasymachus'harsheject ion f his suggestionegrding what hestronger el ieved o be o his advantagc(340b-c), or Socrates s certainly wil l ing to entertaio he dea.Roochnikclaims hat when Socrates aysit "makes no dif ference" oi0iv 6roq6peL) hether Thrasyntachus doptsClitophon's suggestion r nol(340b-c), i t is because hrasymachus'moderate elat ivism s urtenable, eaving he real choices o beradical elat ivismor objectivekrowledge. suspect hat Socratess simply al lowing, as he so often does,ior his interlocutor o revisehis stalenlent.When Socrates ays oi6ir,6ragdper, he is remonstrat ingheer ist ic r igidity of Polemarchus, ho is arguing with Cli tophon over the way Thrasymachus rt icul l tedhis opinion: oi,66v. lv 6' iy6, a) noLiuaoy,6tog6perd).1,'ei v[ v oi iror ,6yer@poodpolos, iltoq c0ror)dro6e16pe0c Resp.340b c, my emphasis). ocrates s tel l ing Polemarchushat Thrasymachus s frec o


5/11

252 G. S. BoweThis claim would be consistent it h the report hat PtolemyconsideredClitophon's emarksunworthy of a reply by Socra tes.Mark KremeralsoseesClitophongettingworse, evisingRoochnik'sassessmentf Clitophonas a relativist o suggest hat Clitophon moves rom dis illusionmentwithr6Xvr1n theClitophon o legalposit ivism n Republic .3 i This perhapsref lects he observat ion f Cli f ford Orwin that legal posit ivismbetterdescribesClitophon'sposition.3sMost recentlyDebra Nails has ollowedRoochnik and others n foisting the attributesof Theramenes nto Clitophonin virtueof the association f the wo in Aristophanes' rogs (967)and heAthenianConstitution343).3eWhile I greatlyadmireNails' prosopography,the ruth s thatwe know very little about h e historicalClitophon,and t isunfair to make Aristophanes' emarks n Frogs, which are quite clearlyaboutTheramenes lo ne, apply to C litophon. Moreover, while Clitophondoesact with Theramenesnce n theAthenianConstitution 34.3),he alsoactsalone n another assage29.3),and n both cases e actsconsistently,appealing o the ancestralaws.a0When we combine hese eported ppealsto the aw in the Athenian Constitutionwith his understanding f Thrasy-machus'position n the Republic, legal positivist" seems ike a fair char-acterizationof him (Resp.340a-b):

[Polemarchus:]Thrasymachus imself admits hat he ulerssometimes njoin what sevil for themselves ndyet says hat t is ust for the subjects o do this." [Clitophon:]"That, Polemarchus,s because hrasymachusaid it down that t is ust to obey heordersof the rulers. . . by the advantage f the superiorhe meant what the superiorsupposedo be or his advantage. hat s what he nferior had o do, and hat his s thejust was his position." trans.P.Shorey Cambridge,Mass., 1930])

As a legal positivist, Clitophon understands the force of Thrasymachus' argu-ment n termsof its appeal o the aw. f one asks, Why did Platoassign oClitophon his placeand his comment n the Republic?"one ikely answer

revisehis statements,hat t "makesno dif ference" f his words did not express is true ntentions n thef irst place. t is also worth noting hat t is not only Clitophonwho fal ls si lent. By the end of Republic ,everyonehas allen si lent; Socratesbegins Republic 2 with new inter locutors. Cephalushas eft, andPolemachus is intenupted by Thrasymachus,who has effectively fallen silent as soon as Socratesabandonsthe sincere assent ule of elenchus, and allows Thrasymachus o keep answering in order to please thecompany 349b), as Call iclesdoes at Grg. 501c. On sincereassent, eeJ. Beversluis,Cross-ExaminingSocrares Cambridge,2000),23637 andpassim.37. Kremer, Soc raticPhilosophy" n. 2 above),18.38. Orwin, "Case" n. 2 above),"143.39. CompareD. Nails, TftePeople f Plato (Indianapolis, 002), OZ 3: "Clitophon was a personwell-known or his f l ip- f loppingpoli t ical associat ions," i th the more cautious emarks f Orwin, "Case,"120:'A close associate f Theramenes, e may have shared n the twists and urns of the atter's political cileer."More cautiously,Bail ly ("Euthyphro" and "CLitophon, 'I l6) remarks, Given Theramenes' eputat ion ssupporting the rule of law, and the association of Clitophon and Theramenes,perhaps he position whichClitophon tries to give to Thrasymachus n the Republic s not coincidntally his." Roochnik ("Riddle," I 38)doesnot discuss he passageAth. Po\.29.3) whereClitophonactsalone.40. Once, n 41 1,Clitophon puts orth a motion that he lcestral laws be consultedby a committeecreatedto establishproposals or the safety of Athens. Later, n 404, along with otherswho ile saidnot to be attachedto a political party, he supportsTheramenes' call to uphold the ancestral aws, aiming to bring about a moremoderate yratrny han hat of the Thirty. These wo actions eem o show Clitophon o be consistent n hislegal posit ivism,even f the outcomes f his act ions n 4l I and 404 may have serveddif ferentpoli t icalfact ions.

ClrropnoN 25 3is that he wished o make t clear hat he s offeringThrasymachus way outof his problematic ositionvia a representativef legalpositivism,andCli-tophon seemed n obviouschoice of character.When n doubt, Clitophonappealso the aw,but not to any moral grounding or the aw. f we acceptthat Roochnik's relat ivism"or Orwin's "legal posit ivism"deserves oresponse, e are eft wonderingwhy the Republicprovides uc ha goodresponseo it-why it providesa reason or believing hat ustice s higherthan aw and hus s not a matter of mere convention-or, as one might moretraditionallysay,why the Republicclearly defends r5org gainst 6poq.It would appear hat understandinghe significance f the Clitophonbasedupon he dramaticordering Clitophon-Republic contains s manyproblemsas assuminghat he Clitophoncomesafter Republic . One may wonderwhywe should nterpret he Clitophonas Roochnikor Kremerdo, sincesuch n-terpretations epend oheavilyon aperceived ramaticorder, he culminationof which s the briefestof brief interpolations y Clitophon n Republic .To show us t ho w far the dependence oes,one may considerKremer'sresponseo ChristopherBruell's claim that Plato givesus no clear ndica-tion of which dialogue omes irst. Kremermaintains hathis own theory-that Clitophonmoves rom t6Xvr'1o legalpositivism-will not work unlessthe Clitophonprecedes epublic .4r To my mind, his s circular.Platomayhavevery well intended s to read he Clitophonon its own terms,despiteits obviousconnectiono Republic . Could not Cli tophon's resencenRepublic 1 merelybe an acknowledgement f the act thatClitophon s some-times within earsho t f Thrasymachus?There s no strongevidence hat we are meant o unders tand heClitophonprimarily n termsof its relationship o Republic . We may want o acceptthe authorityof Thrasyllus'EighthTetralogy, ut applyingsucha principleis tenuous t best.a2 ne might think that Platogivesus a clue hat he C/i-tophonshouldbe takenasprecedingRepublic in a particularpassage, 10c.Amongothers,a3 oochnik's nterpretation f 410c would coincidewith anunderlying urrentof thought, xplicitly pronounced y Grote, hatthe Cli-tophonbelongs n directantecedenceo theRepublic uch hat he Republiccan serveas a "reproof o Kleitophonhimself for having hreatenedo quitSokrates ndgo to Thrasymachus."aaor Grote his s meant o answerwhy

41. C. Bruell, On the Socrqtic Education (Lanham, Md., 1999), 192,93; Kremer, "Socratic Philosophy,"492. We may alsoask he ol lowing. f i t wasPlato's ntent ion o reflecta movement n Cli tophon'ssoul nRepublic l, why give him such a short nterpolation n the Republic?Where s his clear recantationof 16Xvq?If he has joined forces"with Thrasymachusn Republic , he shouldbe endorsing 6Xvq n any case.42. I am ncl ined o agreewith Grote Companions,:163) when he says, The dramatic lassif icat ion,which stmds in the foreground, estsupon a purely fanciful analogy,determining preference or the numberfour. lf ind,eed his objection were urged against Thrasyllus, he might probably have replied that the groupof four volumes ogetherwas n i tself convenient, either oo argenor too srnall or an elementary ub-division; and hat he anciful analogywas an art i f ice or recommendingt to the eelings, etter after all)than select ion f anothernumber by haphaza rd. . it doessome honour o his abi l i ty, that he has buil t ,upon so nconvenient nct ion, one etralogy the irst), eal lyplausible nd mpressive."43. R. B. Rutherford (The Art of Plato fLondon,19951, 98) refers o him as prepar ing o abandonSocrates or Thrasymachus. uch of Kremer, SocraticPhilosophy," epends n this kind of reading,44. Grote, Companions, 3'. 9-20.


6/11

25 4 G. S. BowsThrasyl lus ut th e Clitophonat the headof Tetralogy8, insofaras heClitoplton'smeanings boundup with this perceivedhreat.Roochnikalsotakes 10c o suggestha tCli tophonwil l join forceswith Thrasymachus:"In his frustration, Clitophon] declares is intention o ioin forces withThrasyrnachusr whoeverelsecan aid him."asOf the hrei primaryGreekmanuscripts f the Clitophon only one allows or sucha reading,and hatreadingwould equire ccepting copyist's mendation. elow s thepassageon which thiskind of interpretation ppearso bebased 410c), n two versionsof Greek, nebased n Parisinus raecus 80Z s. x (henceforth ), and heother acceptinghe handof the copyist henceforthA2).Venetus 85,s. xii(henceforthD), and Vindobonensis uppl.gr.39, s. xiii /xiv (henceforth )agreewith A.a6

ADF 6rd tcOtc 6i1 xci rp6g Opcoripclov olFc.r noosJouor rai d),],ooe iinot 8rivcpur, trrop6rv.That 's precisely why, I think, I go to Thrasymachus and wherever else I can, because Iam at a loss .aTA2 6td toira 61 xci rydq @pcoripclov oipct nooe6ooucr rci &)"},ooe jrot brlvapcr, dnop6v.On account of these things, I suppose I wil l go to Thrasymachus even, and whomeverelse I am able, as I am at a loss.48

How we interpret the passagedependson whether we accept the copyist'semendation of nopedopor n ADF (present) to noperioopnr n A2 (future).aeOrwin seems to take ADF as correct, as does Francisco Gonzales, whosenote in his translation reflects his awarenessof the issue. Grote reflects theGreek of A2 in his abstract;Robin Waterfield's translation reflects A2. Bailly,who presents the G^reek f Ast's edition with commentary, reproduces A2without comment.50 lings, acceptingADF, alsopoints ou t thai A2 is base:"The future requires 6nor &v 8rSvoporbecause noperioopor (. . .) ijnot Dr5vopcrr

45 . Roochn ik ,Ridd le , " 33 .46 Slings,PLoto: Cli tophon,"329. 340. Boter, TextualTradirion n. I 3 above).3. makes t clear hatA is the oldestof the amiliesA, D, and E47. Slings,Plato: "Clitophon," 259.48. Kremer,P[ato's "Cleitophon," 4- Kremer ncludesOrwin's "Case" n plato,s "Cleitophon," underthe itle "On the CLeitotrhon."his is a versionof 'Case"thator iginal lyappears n The Roots f Poli t icalPhilosopht,:Ten Forgotten Socratic Dialogues, ed. T. Pangle lthaca,N.y, 1987). Given that Orwin'stranslat ionn Pangle ol lows ADF, it is not quite clearwherehe standson the ssue n "on the c/ei loplrcn."On p. 69 of Kremer,Plato's "Cleitophon,"Orwin says, We shouldnot be surprised o f ind [Cli to-phonl impressed ith the specious lar ity of Thrasymachos. he seeming uti l i ty of the quest or justrcerooted n naturehas prepared im for the conclusion hat t is merelyconvention." his is ambiguouswithregard o the dramaticorderof the wo pieces.DoesOrwin mean hat somethingike v6pogs whereClito-phon inaliy ands,or does t merely explainwhy Cli tophonpraises hrasymachusr rhe beginning f thecl i tophon? note hat Kremer "socrat icPhilosophy, '480) itesorwin as someone ho supports is "soulmovement heory."49. I note that Ficino's Latin renders he Greekconferam,which is consistentwith A1, .e., rheClitophortin Laur. 59.1 and 85.9.Laur.59.l (f. 350) has oo andgor writ tenabove he ine thatgivesonly ropiri.p.,while 85.9, he smoothercopy,adopts he suggestion nd gives zopeJoopcr f.216). These emarksarebased n my consultat ion f the exts n the Laurenzianan Florence.50. C. Orwin, f tar i . Cle[tophon.n Roorr (n. 48 above), 6i Crote. Conpanions,3:18; F. Gonzales,trAas.,Cleitophon,inP[ato: CompleteWorks,ed.J. Cooper, Indianapolis,1991),p.910, n.9; R. Warer_f ield, rans.,Plato: "Republic" (Oxford, 1993),46?; Bail ly, "Euthrphro" and ,,Cli tophon,"167 anrlseealsoG. S. Bawe. BMCR 2004.05. 2, for a review of Bail lv) .

ClrropHoN 255meansI shallgo wherever (now)can,'which s nept."slThere s. suggest,no such ntention o join forceswith Thrasymachusn ADF, but ratheranexplanation f why Clitophonalready oes onsultwith him, and he easonis quite clear. Cli tophon s dnop6v. We know that Cli tophonhas seenThrasymachus efore, or he s said o havepraised im at he beginning ftheClitophon a06a).Moreover, f we take nto account hat heseems o havenothingnegative o say aboutThrasymachus , nd hat he doeshave some-thing negative o say aboutSocrates,we can say that he alreadyconsultsThrasymachus , nd that he will continue o seekhim out because f hisdnopio.Clitophon may be planningon oining forceswith Thrasymachus,but there s no indicat ion hat he declares is intent ion o do so in theClitophonor that hehas doneso n Republic1 s2Moreover,asSlingsquiterightly pointsout, "thoughone should ead nopfoirorand not zoperioopar t4l0cl .. . , whichmeans hatCli tophon s at he moment pupil or visitorof Thrasymachus,he wordsroi dl"l"ooe uggest hat he is not going to be anorthodoxdisciple."s3 f not an orthodoxdisciple,we shouldwonder aboutclaims that Clitophon s so clearly connectedwith Thrasymachusn Re-public I and nterpretationshat ely on his going rom disillusionmentwithrrilvrl to someworsecondition, ike legalpositivism. f therewere a threatin the Clirophon hat was ollowed throughon in the Republic,we might havegroundsor a claim that he "crossedhe loor" from philosophy o rhetoric,but in the absence f a threat o do so n the Clitophon, his seems ess ikely.The act hat Clitophondoesalready o to Thrasymachus ndothers, nd snot threatening o do so at Clitophon 410c,has anothersignificance hat Iwill discussater.For, alongwith otherconsiderations, litophon'sseekinganswers n many quarters s something hat makeshis character loser othat of Socrateshan one might expect.Perhapshe arger dit0culty with viewing Clitophon as"crossing he loor"is the implic ation that the Socraticnegativeelenchus orrupts. t hardlyneeds aying hat his wouldstrike at the heartof Plato'sdisavowalof thisinthe Apolo gy andMeno,although here emains he ssueof Alcibiades, tleast n the Symposium.s4t is worth pointing out that PlutarchmentionsClitophon alongwith Alcibiadesand Critiasasa specificexampleof someonewho could not be convincedby Platoand Socrates Mor.328a-c):

roi zol) .oDg o0r irretoav d)"}.d Kprrior roi Al.xrprri8ar rai Kl"errog6vre6, r i loreplcl" rvdv rdv 1,6 yov Srnrriocvreq, dtr),1 n1 loperprinqocv.For they di d not persuade many; indeed Crit ias and Alcibiades and Clitophon would spitout the argument l ike a horse spits out the bit , and were diverted to another course.5551. Slings.Plato: "Clirophon," 329-30.52. ndeed, f he had,he would be n for a surpr ise n any case, inccThrasymachuss thcreembroiledin his own r61vr1 argument, or which Socrates akes him to task.53. Slings,Plato: "CLitophotr ," 8.54. here gnore he ssue f 41c. and Alc. Il, which would go far beyond h scope f this ar t icle.55. n fairness o Plutarch, n the passage here he descr ibesClitophon as a wayward student, e ismerely making a rhetoricalmove o show thatAlexander 'sgreatnesss borneout by the fact hat he hadmore success n bringing about moral reform among "barbrians" than Plato and Socrateshad with nativeGreeksoeakers.


7/11

256 G. S. BowEIt is not exact ly learwhatPlutarch'sust i f icat ionsre or saying his,bu tit doeshelp with some ssues.f the Clitophon s genuine, he declineofClitophouwould seem o suggest hat Platoexpressed issatisfaction ithSocraticphilosophy n the Clitophon. However,Plutarch expresslysaysthat Clitophon was not convincedby the teachings f both Socrates ndPlato, not Socrates lone. Socratesalone" wouid requirea Socratic/Pla-tonic distinction o which Plutarchappears ot to subscrib e.s6The tendency o "fill the gap" aboutClitophon'scharacterwith informationaboutTheramenes ould seem o predispose s to acceptPlutarch'saccountthathe s of a kindwith hehistorical lcibiades.ndeed, nexaminationfthe atter'sdrunkenencomium n the Synposum yieldscertainsimilaritiesto the Clitophon.Consider his exchange214d):

". . . ISocratess] the one who will most surelybeatme up if I darepraiseanyoneelsein his presence-evena god!""Hold your tongue!"Socrates aid."By god don't you daredeny t!" Alcibiadesshouted. I would never-never praiseanyone ls ewith you around." trans.A. Nehamas nd P Woodruff Indianapol is,989])

At the beginning f the Clitophon,Socrates sksClitophon o explainwhyhe praisesThrasymachus nd criticizeshim, and Clitophon mmediately riesto placatehim (406a).Both dialogues uggest hat Socrates oes not likeothers o be praisednstead f him.s7Alcibiades eg s o be al lowed o tellhis storyof Socrates, romising hat he will only tell the ruth Symp.2l4e).Clitophon,who also asks o be allowed o speak, ayshe will discloseall(Clit. 406a).Both frank disclosures onsistof the nterlocutors' espectiveimpressionsf Socrates. lcibiades ompares ocrateso a mythicalSilenus

56. I think hat he deaof a Plato mplicitly cr i t icizingSocraticmethodas corrupt ingClitophon wouldseem ase r unintel l igibleo Plutnch, or-one susp ects tojust about ny ancient ommentator. he notionof earJy,middle, and ate dialogues s not a franework in which thy conceivePlato's dialogues. f theThrasyl l iandistr ibut ionsdramatic r philosophical)el l us anyrhing, t is that here s no suchconceptionof developmental ivision. havepreviouslysuggestedhat even Aristorle's emarks t Mer. 1078b frenused in supportof an ancientdevelopmental eadingof Platomay merely descr ibe he prelude o a per-spect ive hat was hen ngressivelywritten" (Bowe, review of Bailly [n. 50 above]) . ul ia Annas wr ites:" for Plutarch,Platonism s a setof true doctrines, ut you only take hem over n the ight way f you earnin the way that Socrates'audience earned.Herc ad hominemnegativeargument s an essential ar t ofPlatonism s a system f doctl ines. t is not a pr ior stage hat you leavebehind o go on to posit ive deas.Plutarch, s a doctr inalPlatonist,accepts .1 onitef l argurnentsn Plato as part of the system, ndicat inghow the posit iveposit ionsshould be regarded; encehe feels no temptation o find an ear l ier phaseofPlato'sdevelopmentn which to locate hem" ("What Are Plato's Middle' Dialogues n the Middle Of?"in New Perspectives n Plato, Ancient and Modenr, ed. J. Annas and C. Rowe [Hmmd, 2002], l-24). How-ever, not al l a.guments renegative, or do they happen t the stage f a given nter locutor's sychicde-velopment. tagesmight occur n the "systemof doctrines"without mplying he developmental ism nnasherewants o deny. n otherwords, suspecthat Annascouldbe ight n denyiDg tages f Plato's hougnr;this doesnot exclude tagesn an oter locutor's houghtor development n a given ssue.57. When nvited by Eryximachus o offer an encomiumon Love, Alcibiadesaskswhetherhe should"unleash imself on Socrates,"o which Socrates eplies, Now wait a minute. . . areyou going o praiseme only in order o mock rne?" S_rmp. l4e). Platoexplicit ly poinrsout the possibi l i tyof, and Socrates'sensit ivi tyand esistanceo, being alselypraised n the Syntposiun, et there s no explicir ndicat ionofsucha possibif i tyn rheClitophon. his s perhapsnstruct ivewith regard o Slings' ironic" reading f theClitophon,of whicb I say more n Part fi.

ClrropHoN 25 1(Svnp.215b,22Id-e): Clitophon ompares im to a soaring od n a tragedy(dionep ni pr1Xavfrgpo1rc(q 1eog,Clit.407a). Alcibiades ays hathe hasheardand admired he orationsof Periclesand others,but none of thesewerecapable f movinghim like Socrates, ho causes im to realize he n-significance f his political career n comparisonwith the importanceofcaring or his soul Symp.2i5e).Cli tophonwa sstunneddlen),r1tr6pqv)ywhathe heard rom Socrates nd hinks he says ine hings n his protrepticspeeches bout he mportanceof caring or the soul (407a-b).The mportantdifference etweenClitophon and Alcibiades,however, s that Alcibiadeswants o attach imselfphysical ly o Socrates,o that Socrates i l l makehim virtuous,whereasClitophonmerelywantshis knowledge.Both arewrongheadedn their attempted ttachment o Socrates, ut for very dif-ferent easons. lcibiades' dnopio s the stupefaction f unrequited exualintatuation,whereasClitophon'sdnopio epresents isillusionmentwith thenegative lenchus,with whic h he showsa clear acility.58Alcibiades' andClitophon's nopiashare his much n common:bothexpress heetymo-logicalsense f dnopio-the lack of a clearpath.Socratesells Alcibiadesthat he mind's sight growskeenwhen he body growsdull; he s not surethatsexual ove will be a fair exchan geor a wisdom hat Alcibiades annotye t appreciate218e-l9a).Cli tophonha salsono t seen ha t knowledgesnot acquired y passive eception, ut throughactivedialectic.Alcibiadescannotbe reformeduntil he recognizes he true natureof love, and Clito-phoncannotbe cureduntil he realizes he ruenatureof dialectic.Socratesresponds either o Alcibiades or o Clitophon.What s mpliedby Socrates'silencen bothcasess that he Socrates f thenegative lenchus annot elpthem.Alcibiades' careerand, kratic ncorrigibility n theSymposiummightspeak o the declineof Alcibiades,but we have no suchclear sequence rcorroborating istoricalevidence or Clitophon. qTo summarize: oth possible ramaticorderings avedif f icult ies.Toassume hat the Clitophon comes n betweenRepublic I and Republic 2demotes he dialogue o an unfinished ragment the complaintsmake nosense fter Republic 1), or requires he assumption f an (unlikely) earlydate or the Clitophon (beforeRepttblic 2 if not beforc Republic 1, whereasstylometry uggests fter he RepubLic), discreteThrasymachus nd/or heClitophon's nauthenticitywrittenby a precocioustudent). he assumptionthat he ClitophoncomesbeforeRepublic and hat his must mean h at weare o understandhat Clitophon has ollowed through on a threat o joinforceswith Thrasymachusequires s o acceptAt overADF and places heweightof interpretationn Republic . Clitophon's ole n Republic s basedon tendentious hilological evidenceand interpretation, n interpretationthat leads o the conclusion hat dnopio rrevocablycorrupts Clitophon.While it is tempting o want to interpret he Clitophonon the basisof one

58. Rutherfbrd Art of Plato In. 43 above],100)noteshis faci l i ty with elenchus s do others.59. f i t was Plularch's ntent ion o say that the careers f A lcibiadesand Clitophon show that theywerenot convinced y Plato and Socrates.his saysnothing, n lhe absence f speculat ion n Cli tophon'scareer, f Plato's iteraryor philosophicalntertion at the ime ol 'wr iting the Cli topltot.


8/11

258 G. S. Bowedramatic rderor the other, his may distract s rom assessinghe dialogueon ts own terms.Two nterpretationshat do not rely heavilyon aperceiveddramaticordering are hoseof Orwin and Slings, and t is to these hat Inow turn.Orwin's treatment f the Clitopfrorz tresseshe relationship f the dia-logue o the Apology,and ollows HannsChristof Brennecken suggestingthat he Clitophon epresentsomething f a counter-Apology.60litophonis defending imself againstSocrates' harge hat he finds au lt with him.Orwin hasa differentaccount f Socrates' ilence rom thatof RoochnikorGeffcken. fhe Clitophon appropriateshe structureof an ndictment wherethe defendant ets he ast word. Moreover,nothingshortof a full accountof justice would satisfyClitophon.To think thatSocraticphilosophycangivethis s to misinterpret he exhortation o seekustice or an exhortation o findjustice.6l n m y own interpretation, suggest hat the problem s not thatjusticecannotbe found (in Plato'sextrapolation f the igureof Socrates),but that n his dnopio,Clitophondoesnot realize hat t is not the Socratesof the negative lenchus hat can do this for him. I will have more o sayabout his n Part II.Sl ings' assessmentf the meaningof the Cli tophondepends n thedeep rony he observesn the dialogue, rony on the part of Clitophon,notSocrates.62ccording o Slings, f we are not sensitive o the ro ny in thedialogue,we run the risk of beingseriouslymisledas o its intention.Morespecifically,Slings claims hat Clitophon'sexplicit praiseof Socraticpro-treptic s highly ironic, and eally amounts o acriticism of explicit protreptic.At the same ime mplicit protreptic,or elenchus,s implicitly praised. ndeed,as hasbeenobserved,Clitophon appearso have successfully ppropriatedthe Socraticelenchus, nd seems o employ t with greatskill.63However,I am nclined o agreewith Bailly thatSlings elies oo heavily on an ronicinterpretation f the Clitophon, nsofar as reception o this kind of ironyis highly subjective.6a hat happensf we takeClitophonat his word?His

60. Orwin, "Case,"120, 129; H. Brennecke, Kleitophon wider Sokrates,"Archiv tir Geschichte erPhilosophie 26 (1913): 452-57 I think Roochnik ("Riddle," I 36-37) dismissesOrwin's position too quicklyon thegrounds hat he cannot maginea compatible ontext. t seems o me hat Orwin is thinking more ntermsof structure nd meaning han iteral sett ing.61. Orwin ("Case," 130-31) suggests, 'As he Republic onfirms,Socrates an say whatjustic e s , butonly in the sense f achievinga comprehensiv e rticulation f the problemof the relat ionof on e's owngood to the demandsof the city. He can offer only problematic and paradoxical def,nitions of justice, andnone hat would grat i fy n the eastany actual ity. . . The Socratic ormulat ion. . . mplies hat here anbe no end to discussing virtue-and therefore no beginning o practicing it. Practically speaking, he searchreplaces he object sought. Philosophy s not, as Socrates'protrcptic seems o suggest,a means o specifyingthe vir tuous ife: i t takes heplaceof that i fe."62. Dofothy Tarrant who blieves he dialogue s spur ious)points out that Socrates s representedas using his eio0vio eipouela ("The Pseudo-Platonic Socrates," CQ 32 [1938]: 161-73). Slings, Plato:"Clitophon," 204 6, dismisses he Thrasymachus ypothesis or good reason,and he suggests hat "we canhardly evade he conclusion that the readersof the Clilophon were meant o grasp he author's intention inl ight of the Republic" p. 204).At the same ime, t is not clear o me that his own nt erpretation ependsheavilyon the perceived ramaticorder ing.63. Rutherford,Art of Plato, 0O.64. Bail ly, "Euthyphro" antl "Cli tophon,"122.

ClrropHoNdesire o placateSocrates y claiming that he saidgood hings aswell as badthings n theconversation ocrates skshim aboutat the beginning@06a),and his recapitulation t the end hat Socrates' xhortations re "worth theworld" to the unexhorted 410e) hardly seema frame for an irony-ladencrit ique. f Clitophon s being sincere, e thinks that explicit Socrat icprotreptic s a greatbenefit o men who have not considered he value ofjustice,and he himself has aken he exhortation o heart.65 or Clitophon,the problem s that once you accept he exhortation,and have acquiredelencticskill, you havenowhere o turn. If we take Clitophon at his word,he thinks hat the elenchuss obstructive f it canyield no positivedefini-tions. Slings would say hat the elenchusmight be given a wider scopesoas o includepositive esults, ointing o possible xamplesnthe Meno andthe Sophist, nd henceSlings s challenging eadings f Plato_that uggesta breakbetween ay,negative lenchus nd positivedialectic.oo

II IMy readingof the Clitopl,o/rsuggestshat the so-called iddle of the CIi'tophon,Socrates'silence,as anexplanation hat s more obvious han hesolutions hat havebeensuggested y othercommentators. avingbroughtClitophon o dnopio,Socrates asdonehisjob. There s no more hat he cansay or do for Clitophon. n order o support his thesis, will draw a dis-tinction betweenaporeticdialogues nd constructive nes.My approachsto regard his distinction a therbroadly. do not want o deny hat heremaybe implicit positive essons o be gained rom aporeticdialogues, ut I dowant o assert hat constructive ialoguesike the Republicassert r assumethe necessity f an nterlocutorbeingbrought o dnopioas a prelude o thefurther inquiry that is carried out there.In the first place,we shouldpay attention o whereClitophon's emarksare aimed,and he typesof Socraticmethodhe mentions.We find that hehimself hasmasteredhe negative lenchus, nd hathe hasbroughthimselfand others o &nopio,and he worries hat protreptic s all that Socrates asto offer. I would maintain hat in a certainway he is right. The idea hatClitophon'sclaims may make sense s a responseo Republic , which isaporetic n form, but not to Republic2-10 suggestshat Clitophon s directinghis remarksat the Socrates f the aporeticdialogues.This Socratess merelyprotreptic, nddnopio s thevehicleof thatprotreptic. t is alsopossible hatClitophon s directinghis remarks owards he historicalSocrates, ut thedependence f the Clitophol? n otherPlatonic extsdrawsus nto the ealmof the Socrates f th e aporetic ialogue.However, f we were o accept hatthe Socrates f the aporeticdialogues s closer o the historical Socrateshanthe constructive nes,we may say hat o a degreeClitophon s directinghisremarks o the historical Socrates. his claim would be strengthened y

65. Rutherford,Art of Plab,100: Roochnik, Riddle," 14l.66. Slings,Plato: "Cli toplo+" 136-41.He has n mird texts ike R. Robinson, loto'sEar l ier Dialect ic(Oxford, 1953), r G. Vlastos,Socrates,ronist and Moral PliLosopher Cambridge, 99l) .

259


9/11

260 G. S. BowEthe fact that Socrates s characterized in the Clitophon as being explicitlyprotreptic, whereas from Demetrius onward, it is generally accepted thatPlato's Socrates s implicitly protreptic.6TWhi le it is possible to readcertain remarks inthe Apolog) as Socrates' own contention that he is ex-plicitly protreptic,6sSocrates s not himsel f c lear about this, and it is theClitophon that Olympiodorus uses as an example that Socrates does some-times add ress crowds-something that one may take as a mark of explicitprotreptic.

The fact that Republic I can be recognized as reproducing in form anaporetic dialogue that prefaces th e remaining constructive books of theRepublic6e suggests hat in the Republic, Plato sees dnopio as a necessarystep in searching for knowledge. [t then seems reasonable o say that Platosees elenchus as a step to dnopio, and that this is intended to be protrepticof further philosophizing. In my reading of the Republic there s both a sym-bol ic and a dlamatic continui ty that s consistentwi th such a methodology.The Republic takes place at the festival of Bendis (the Athenian Artemis,the barren midwife goddess of the moon and duality),70 pauses as Socratesproclaims his ignorance at the end of Republic 1 and expresseshis dnopioat the beginning of Republic 2 (368b), and reaches ts apex with the mythof th e Sun, where Glaucon cries "B y Apol lo!" (Resp.509c). Plutarch hasremarked on the Pythagorean use of the word'A-pollo" (not many) to sym-bolize unity, and further tells us that Artemis (= Bendis) representsdualityin the same scheme. There is a continuous movement, from weak dispersedl ight to strong,uni fy ing l ight in Plato's great work, expressinga continui tyof the negative elenchus, &"nopia,and positive dialectic.Perhaps he prototype of protreptic dnopio is to be found at Meno 84a-d,wherein Meno's slave, once relieved of a false conceit of knowledge, gladlyand willingly inquires.Once his false conceit has been removed, constructive,cooperative nquiry can take place. This is how dnopio is supposed o work.Along with willing inquiries like that of Meno's slave (or perhaps Glauconand Adeimantus in the Republic), we see symptoms of d.nopia ike recalci-trance, torpor, and misology (Meno), to frustrated accusation (Clitophon),to ang er, blushing, and stubbornness Thrasymachus),often accompanied byan allegation that Socrates s being ironic. The abandonment of the argument(implicitly by Thrasymachus or Polus, who answer but have lost inter est, orexplicitly, as in the hasty departure of Euth yphro) is not meant to suggest

67. Slings,Plato: "Cli tophon,"88 89.68. At Ap. 30a b, Socrates ays. For I go aboutdoingnothingelse hanurgingyou, youngand old, notta care or your persons r your propertymore han or the pert 'ect ion f your.souls, r evenso rnuch;andI tel l you that virtue doesnot come rom money,but from virtue comesmoney and all othergood hings oman.both o thc ndividualand o the state."69. t i s commonly accepted hat Republk l cafies the form of an aporeticdialogue.This is not tomakeclaims or a discrete f trasyrnachrs; ee or example D. Clay.PlatonicQresrions Pittsburgh. 000),166;Kahn,"Proleptic," 100.70 .Cf .Thr . 49b c .'7l. P lDt. vlor .354f.Plot. Entr.5.5.6 eDeatshis claim about Aoollo.

ClrtopsoN 261that aporeticconditionsare rrevocableand unchangeable.Tzf the epistemicor protreptic enefits f elenchuseading o dnopioare e ally o be benefits,this cannotbe the case or all interlocutors , ut it may be the case or agiven nterlocutorat a givenpoint in their intellectualor psychicdevelop-ment.This would alsoexplainwhy Socrates eginsafreshwith new inter-locutors n Republic , thosewho displaycourage ndpatience.T3hosewhoreactbadly o dnopin serveas examples f how not to respond o Socratesproperly; our instinctivenegative esponseso charactersike Thrasymachusand Meno bear his out.

The heart of Plato's educational heory s bound up with the statementthat everyone as hecapacity o learnand hateducations tunring h e mindin the i ght direction Resp. 18c).This would seem o suggesthat psychicconditions are not permanent f one has he right instruction. One mightnotice hat Socrates onfe sses nopio abouthow to respondboth to Menoand o Glaucon, ut nonethelessoeson to introducemethods or resolvingthe dnop(a. f taking up the exhortation mplied by the dropio is a deflningcharacteristic f a constructive ialo gue,and bringing mopiuabouta char-acteristicof a Socraticone,we would do well to appreciatehis distinction nassessinghe Clitophonon ts own terms.For f the Socrateshat Clitophonis criticizing in theClitophon s theaporeticSocrates ndnot the constructiveone, he reason or his silence s obvious-his work with Clitophon n thisframeof mind and at this stageof his developments over.Whereas nopio s thepoint at which the kinds of dialogues hat Clitophonis addressing nds, t i s commonlyacceptedhat he Meno marksa turningpointwherebySocratesorgesbeyonddnopic. agteewith CharlesKahn'scontention hat the explanation f dnopia one f,nds n the Meno s Plato'sreflectionof the significance f dnopio n the aporeticdialogues.?awouldalso say hat he Clitophonserves san extended eflectionon the natureof&nopio.Anopio s generallyunderstood s he end esultof theSocratic lenchus,wherebyan nterlocutorhasbeen relieved" of a false conceitof knowledge.While such a definitionof dnopio ndicates he cause, t doesnot describethe conditionof dnooia tself. n the Theaetetus.he condition s likened o"birth pangs,"75 hich Socrates he barrenmidwife witl help via elenchusto discoverwhether he pregnancys real.While this may be one kind ofdnopicwe encountern Plato'sdialogues,t cannot e he only kind. Socratesin the aporetic ialogues, h o canhardlybe said o havea conceit f knowl-edge ironicallyor not),oftenexpressesis own dnopio.Moreover,f Socratesis a barrenmidwife his own dropio can hardly be accompanied y birthpangs, eal or not.

72. One may notewith somecaution hataccordingo Diog. Laert.2.5.29Socrates id in fact convinceEuthyphro not to prosecutehis father.73. 6 ydp fl.qi)xov dei te 6i1 iv6pet6toroq


10/11

zo1. G. S. BoweDespite he fact that the Meno and Republic orge beyonddnopia,weshouldalsonote he reflexivity of the prototypeof dnopicr xpressedn theMeno 80c).TherebothSocrates ndhis nteriocutor renumb.At Republic368b,whenSocrates xpressesis dnopicr, e againsays hathe s at a ossas o ho w to proceed.T6ot h textsoffer a characterizat ionf dnooiu ntermsof not knowinghow to proceed-being, as heword suggests, ithoutpassage, ithout a roador knowledge f a road,or knowledge f where heroad eads. s Beversluis aspointed ut :Although dnopiu s usual ly ranslared s heoretical perplexity." t haswider implica-tions whichmay be seen y noticing ts connection o other ermsof thesame amily. Aporosrs a means f passage-a way out or through.Hence o be dpdros s to be withoutpassage. ncharted eas nducedroplct n sea-farers ho ack the 161vri f navigationwhich enables hem o find he way throughuncharted erritory.Socratesries o inducethe samestate n his nlerlocutors y making he amil iarunfamil iar.The vicrim is notjust in intellectual ifficulty . . . he s alsoat a lossas o how to act.?7

What is required of Meno is the right response to dnoptcr, one that requirescooperative inquiry instead of a desire for wisdom to be transferred oytouch (Synp. 175d), or a view that arguments can be poured into the soul(Resp.345b). After the aporetic first book of theRepublic, Socratescan onlyproceedonce he takes up a fresh conversation with fresh interlocutors wnohave the right response o their dnopio, the dnopiu that Glaucon professesatRepublic 358c and that Socrates professes at 368b. What is instructive inthe Meno is that the slave, like Glaucon and Adeimantus in the Republic,grasps what is implicitly protreptic in dnopio-they grasp the implicationthat it is necessary o willingly inquire. This, however, is a characteristic ofconstructive dialogues. Aporetic dialogues by their very nature do not forgebeyond the dnopio. On this rather obvious criterion, and with an extendedscope to the idea of &nopio, the Clitophon deserves o be called an aporeticdialogue because t ends at the point where dnopia is expressed.So far I have drawn a distinction between constructive dialosues andaporeticdialogues.and I have suggestedha t Cl i tophon directs his=remarksat the latter an d no t the former. When Cl i tophon expressesdnopio withregard tojustice, and says that he does not know to whom to turn or how toproceed, Socratesprovides no answer to him because hejob of the Socratesof aporetic dialogues s over once an interlocutor is brought to dnopio. As aconstructive dialogue, the Republic moves beyond &nopio. In fact, the endof the Clitophon and he end of Republic I are strikingly similar. Both endin dnopio. At the end of the Clitophon, Clitophon is dnopdrv, at the end ofRepublic l, Socrates s dnop6v. Clitophon expresses gnorance regarcling

76. 5oo 6i pdtr),ov rorerlo, &l,) ,ov rop6 iirr 1pr1oo;ror.t i s not merely h atSocratess confused, t isthathe doesnot know how to proceed. t shouldbe noted hat his eadsup to an examination f just icebyhypothesis, nd ndeed hows he ight approach o dnopio,muchas Meno's slave, n contrastwith Meno,has he ight approach o dnopio. his s not o suggesthat hypothesisn theMeno s the same shypothesistr theRepubLic,eeR. Robinson,Plarc'sEar l ier Dialecr ic Oxford, 1953),passim.77. Beversluis,Cross-Exarnining ocrates n.36 above), . 1, n. 1.

ClrropsoN 263the natureof justice at the end of the Clitophon; Socrates xpresseshrssame gnorance t he endof RepubllcL Clitophonexpressesoncern boutthe acquisitionof ei6orpovlo,as doesSocrates t the end of Republic . Iwould go so ar as o suggesthat Clitophon'sapproacho virtue hus ar isnot that different rom Socrates' pproach.Cli tophon, aving eached nopio, s already n the Socrat ic oad,bu tbecause f the rustration hat goesalongwith d,nopio edoesnot realize t.NotewhatClitophon ays n expressing is dnopio: l) He seeks nswers ithwhomever e s able 410d);782) Clitophon oe s n o say hat f Socrateswere o teachhim gymnastics, e wouid explain he natureof the body andthe particular ind of treatm entt requires410d),which analogicallymeansthathe s askingSocrateso tell him the nature fjustice and hekind of lifeit requires;3) Clitophon s convincedhatcaring or the soul s of the highestimport(410e).Clitophon, n shorthasbeen nspiredby Socrates, ndhe hasbeenexhorted. is r.rltimateomplaint s that 4) Socrates' nly value s pro-treptic,and hat (5) Socrates lmostgets n the way of someonewho hasbeenexhorted.Of theseelements f Clitophon's inal statements,n addition ohis own facility with elenchus, ne might notice hat the first threepointsaresignif icantharacterist icsf theSocrat ic ay of l i fe. f that s th e if e thatClitophon s indeed eading-continually seekingwisdom rom others, ndpracticingelenchus n the mannerhe has describedn the preceding agesof the dialogue, eeking efinitions-if in factClitophonhas ecognizedheprimary import of caring or the soul, he comesvery close o a Socraticideal n many mportant espects. or n the Apology, hese repreciselyhekindsof things hatSocrates aysabouthimself.He describes ow he soughtknowledgen manyquarters21e), e describesis elenchus, ndhe describeshis own protrepticactivity n termsof exhortingmen egarding heprimaryimport of caring or the soul (30a-b).Socrates' ilenceat the end of the Clitophon, hen, s bestexplainedbythe act that he aporeticSocrates an do no more or Clitophon.But it canhardlybe a criticism of Clitophon o say hathe hasemulated o some ealdegree Socraticway of life andhas beenbrought o dnopio.Nor can t bea condemnation f Socrateso say,asClitophondoes, hatSocratess almostan mpedimento the 16l"o9 petflg.Clitophon, n his driopio, s suspicious fSocrates' laims o ignorance. his s familiar erritory;apart rom Glaucon,Adeimantus, nd Meno'sslave,almosteverysubjectof Socrates' lenchusaccuses im of being ronic or eristic.Making suchaccusations ight wellbe taken as a symptomof &zopio.Socratess only an irnpediment f onemistakes he aporeticSocrates or the constructive ne. The road of theaporeticSocratess quite iterally an eternal ne, or Socrates oes ell us ntheApology hat f there s an afterlife,he wouldbe quitehappy o continuehi s questioningn Hades 41a-c).

78. f for no other reason, he tenseof nopct iopot s important herebecause t suggests continuousacr iv i t y . o tan n tendedu lu re ne .


11/11

/o4 G. S. BoweThe Clitophorz xplicitly ends n dnopioabout he6pyovof jusrice,but atthe same ime it calls us to inquire nto the natureof dnopio esulting romnegative lenchus ndexhortsus o sympathize ith thosewho are numbedby the orpedo's hock.Readasa prefaceo constructive ialogues,heCIi-tophon s protreptic f further nvestigationnto the nature f justice,some-thing hat s only possible ncePlatohasestablishedhe necessity f &nopiofor suchan nvestigation, long he ines of the Meno and h e Republic.Ifthis s the case, t would be wrong o crittcizeClitophon or havingcomesoclose o the dealof the aporeticSocrates.t wouldalsobe wrong o suggestthat heclitophonexpressesissatisfaction ith theaporetic ialogues r withthe historicalSocrates, incenegative lenchuss seen y Platoas undamentalto constructive hilosophy.Clitophon'sown criticismsof Socratesmust beregarded s a symptomof his dropic, a symptom hat,althoughnecessaryand, ndeed, elebrated, latobelieved t waspossible o forgebeyond.Thlsis borneout not only by Plato'sconstructive ttempts o do so,-butby thevery implicationof the protreptic mplicit in aporeticdialogues.

Thompson Rive s Univ ersity

BEFORE YOUR VERY EYES: PLINY EPISTULAE5. 6AN D THE ANCIENT THEORY OF EKPHRASISCHRISTOPHER . CHINN

owADAys rHE woRD ekphrasis is frequently used to denote the rhe-torical or literary description of works of visual art. In the ancientworld, however, its meaning was much broader, encompassing de-scriptions f all types, sually haracterizedy thecommon eature f vivid-ness enargeia n Greek;evidentiaor perspicuitas n Latin).2 n this paperI will argue hat Pliny Ep. 5 6 containsa significantperspective n the ancientconceptof ekphrasis, concept hathas n many ways shaped hemodernuseof the word.Ultimately will suggesthat his etter's nterestn descriptionis motivatedby the existencen Pliny's time of a conception f ekphrasisthat s more "modern" than we might haveexpected. n other words, hesophistication f Pliny's discussion eems o havequite a bit in commonwith modern heories f ekphrasisn spiteof the act hathe, ike mostotherwriters n antiquity,doesnot imit the erm to descriptions f worksof art.Although he word ekphrasis owhereappearsn the etter, Pliny's villadescription onstitutes unique ntertextualnexusof ideasassociated iththe erm.Ep.5.6 contains n epistolaryntroduction 1-3),a long descriptionof Pliny's Tuscan illa (4-40), a digression hat eflects n this description(41-44), anda brief conclusion 44-46). A cursory eadingof the ettershows,first, hatPliny'sself-reflective igression rticulates kind of theoryof de-scriptionand, second, hat he extended illa description uts nto practice

An earl ierversionof this paperwas presented t the 2004 APA conferencen San Francisco. wouldl ike to thankStephenHinds, Alain Gowing, NicholasCofod, and he anonymousCP referees br theirhelpand suggestions.l. Webb 999) argues hat he definit ionof ekphrasis sdescr ipt iou f art objects ppears o stem iom1950s ccoun ts uchas Sp i tze r 1955 .12) and Hagst rum 1958,p . 18 , n .34) . Much ear l ie r , owever ,Fr iedl i inder1912,83-85) had criticized his kind of defrnit ion.More recent ornulations of the at-oblecrdefinit ionof ekphrasismay be observedn Heffernan 1993,3) and Cli iver (1998,36). Classicistsoo haveemployed ucha definit ion,eitherexplicit lyor implicit ly: Paln (1965-66, 108-17) acknowled geshat ek-phrasis s not l imited to art objects, ut imits his own discussion o them. Manakidou 1993,4), Becker(1995,2), and Elsner 2004,p. l57 andn. l) do the same.Purnam 1998,p. 1, n. l) explicit lyavoids ef inrrgekphrasis ut discusses irgi l 's descr ipt ions f ar t objects onetheless.2. It appears hat the only places n antiquity where he term ekphrasis s specif ical lyassociated irhdescr ipt ions f work s of art are n the ate hetoric ianNicolausof Myra (3.492.0-l 8 Spengel) nd he areproseekphraseis i Philostratusmd Callistratus.For theprogtmnasnrota,see Kennedy 2000; or Philostrarus'ekPhraseis, ee Anderson 1986,259-82. On the ssueof definition, seeespeciallyWebb (1999),who cririquesthe art definition" of ekphrasis nd detai ls ow the erm was actuallyused n ant iquity.For othervaluabled iscuss ionsf the erm, eeGra f 19951 owle r 99 l : Bar rsch 989 .3 ,39 : ndDownev1959.

Ckts s cal Phi ol o gy 102 (2O{)1): 265-80[@ 2007 by The University of Chicago. Al l r ights reserved] 0009-837X/07/ 10203-0002$ 0.00

26 5

Date post:	06-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	osvaldo-orozco-mendez
View:	220 times
Download:	0 times

Bowe - IndefenseofClitiphon [PaginasDobles}

Documents