This article was downloaded by: [University of Ioannina]On: 03 May 2015, At: 07:38Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Symbolae Osloenses:Norwegian Journal of Greekand Latin StudiesPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sosl20

A preliminary to the study ofPlatoJulius Tomin aa OxfordPublished online: 29 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: Julius Tomin (1992) A preliminary to the study of Plato,Symbolae Osloenses: Norwegian Journal of Greek and Latin Studies, 67:1, 80-88,DOI: 10.1080/00397679208590859

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00397679208590859

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Io

anni

na]

at 0

7:38

03

May

201

5

Symbolae Osloenses Vol. LXVII, 1992, 80-88

A PRELIMINARY TO THE STUDY OF PLATO

JULIUS TOMIN

Oxford

Derrida noticed links between Plato's Phaedrus and treatises onsophists written by Isocrates and Alcidamas. He considered Platoto be the borrower, and he traced the parallels back to Gorgiasas their source. His account is questioned; Isocrates and Alcidam-as are found to depend on Plato; the current late dating of thePhaedrus is revised.

For us, Plato is first and foremost a writer of philosophic works.Yet in the Phaedrus he maintains that only the spoken word canconvey the truth. Does this mean that he laid special emphasison oral teaching in his academy? This might be a plausibleexplanation if it were not for the Timaeus (22b-23c), the Politicus(277c), and especially the Laws (890e-891a, and elsewhere), wherePlato elevates the power of the written word in describing, pre-serving, and communicating truth.

According to an ancient tradition the Phaedrus was Plato'sfirst dialogue, written during Socrates' lifetime. This might ac-count for its derogation of the art of writing, for in it it is Socrateswho philosophizes, and as we know, he did not write philosophy.We may suppose that in his first dialogue Plato wanted to accountfor this, especially since he found Socratic discourse congenial tohim. And perhaps, as Schleiermacher surmises, at the beginninghe did not believe that written works could become equal to thetask of communicating philosophy.1

1. Schleiermacher believed that if we date the Phaedrus as Plato's first dialogue,we can easily understand why he denigrated in it the written word in compari-son to true philosophic communication that proceeded orally: he had to justifywhy Socrates himself did not write. Full of enthusiasm for the Socratic wayof teaching, he at the beginning despaired of equalling it in his writing, butafterwards he succeeded in learning it. See F. Schleiermacher, Piatons Werke,2nd ed., Berlin 1817, vol. i, p. 75.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Io

anni

na]

at 0

7:38

03

May

201

5

A Preliminary to the Study of Plato 81

The problem would have been particularly acute for Plato sincehe himself had arrived at truth through Socrates' philosophicenquiries conducted through the spoken word.2 We may thenconjecture that in the course of further writing Plato's trust inthe capacity of the written word to convey the truth grew. It isnoticeable that in the Timaeus, in the Politicus, and in the Laws,where the picture projected in the Phaedrus is corrected andwhich all belong to the group of Plato's late dialogues, Socrateseither stands in the background as a receiver of philosophicaltruth communicated to him and his friends by strangers, or iscompletely absent.

Modern Platonic scholarship in its mainstream has discardedthe ancient tradition and placed the Phaedrus among Plato'smiddle or late dialogues. Those who believe in the authenticityof the Seventh Letter have tried with its help to remove theapparent discrepancy concerning Plato's views on writing. It isa late work, and Plato denies in it that writing might be trustedas a vehicle for communicating the truth, and he does so in termsevocative of the Phaedrus. But a closer attention to the textdisqualifies it for such purpose. In the Phaedrus Socrates erectedan ontological divide between the spoken and the written word,which is here missing; in the Seventh Letter Plato found thespoken word equally incapable of communicating truth (341 cd).This passing diffidence was understandable: Plato had failed toconvey philosophic truth to Dionysius by oral communicationas well as by his writings.

Instead of explaining away these inconsistencies, Jacques Der-rida emphasizes their philosophical relevance. He believes thatwidely differing views on writing coexisted in Plato's thought

2. Aristotle in the Metaphysics (987bl-10) writes that in his youth Plato em-braced Heracliteanism according to which everything was in constant flux;Socrates had been preoccupied with searching for definitions of general con-cepts in the realm of ethics when Plato encountered him; Plato realized thatthe Socratic search for definitions pointed to realities that were exempt fromall change, and called such entities Forms (Ιδέας). Aristotle's account impliesthat Plato conceived of his theory of Forms under the direct impact ofSocrates' philosophizing, and not after the lapse of some ten or more yearsafter his death, as the modern dating of Plato would want us to believe.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Io

anni

na]

at 0

7:38

03

May

201

5

82 JULIUS TOMIN

thanks to the concept of pharmacon with which he in his viewidentified the art of writing. Pharmacon can mean both drug andpoison, and it is this conceptual indeterminacy or predeterminacywhich according to Derrida stands in Plato's work as a pivotupon which his thought glides from one opposite to the other,from the noxious potency in the Phaedrus, to the beneficialpotential of writing in the Laws?

Derrida bases his interpretation on a passage in the Phaedruswhere the mythical inventor of writing presents his invention tothe king as a.pharmacon: 'my discovery provides a recipe [pharma-con] for memory and wisdom' (274e), says Theuth, the inventor.The king answers: 'what you have discovered is a recipe [pharma-con] not for memory, but for reminder. And it is not true wisdomthat you offer your disciples, but only its semblance' (275a).4 Derri-da contents that in Theuth's mouth the concept of pharmacon pre-serves its original duplicity, presenting itself ostensibly as remedy,but preserving its capacity of poison. Derrida cannot find a case ofdemonstrable conceptual association of writing with pharmacon inits indeterminacy as remedy and poison in Plato, and so he capitali-zes on the late dating of the Phaedrus by modern scholars who arecompelled to place it later than works of Isocrates and Alcidamasthat contain startling similarities to the Phaedran differentiation

3. This provides the main theme for Derrida's essay La Pharmacie de Platon; init he wants to show that Plato identified writing with pharmacon which heconceives as anti-substance resisting all philosophical concepts, as non-ident-ity, non-essence, non-substance, as the inexhaustible groundless ground ofphilosophy. (See esp. pp. 264-265, 334, 347 in the recent edition of the essayin Platon, Phèdre, published by Flammarion, 1989. Derrida's essay is attachedto the dialogue as a philosophical commentary.)

If we pay closer attention to Plato's usage of the term pharmacon in thePhaedrus itself and throughout the rest of his work, we can see that it fulfilsfunctions of the concept of 'means' for producing certain ends specified bythe given context. However strange it may sound, the Greek language had nogeneral concept that would fulfil the functions of our concept of 'means'. Indifferent contexts its role is supplied by όργανον, a 'tool' or 'instrument', orby πόρος, 'resources' or 'ways and means', and by φάρμακον, 'a means ofproducing something'. I f this is right then the concept is ill suited for thefunction of philosophic substance/anti-substance or groundless ground whichDerrida ascribes to it.

4. Hackforth's translation in Plato's Phaedrus, Cambridge 1952, reprinted 1972.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Io

anni

na]

at 0

7:38

03

May

201

5

A Preliminary to the Study of Plato 83

between the spoken and the written word. He contends that Platoderived his armoury against writing from Isocrates and Alcidamas,and beyond them from Gorgias, in whose Encomium of Helen logoswas compared topharmacon both in its noxious and in its beneficialpotency. When he maintains that Gorgias preempted Plato in con-trasting the power of the spoken word to the impotence of writing,5

he errs. Gorgias did not deprecate the written word in the En-comium, on the contrary, he referred to it as an example of greatpowers that logos can wield. He says there that 'a single speechpleases and persuades a large crowd, because written with skill, notspoken with truth' (13).6 Derrida's error alerts us to the fact thatthe problem of relative dating of the related works of Plato, Isocra-tes, and Alcidamas has not been solved satisfactorily; Gorgias'work to which he pointed provides a welcome ground for ap-proaching it.

In the Encomium Gorgias is bent on demonstrating that logos isa powerful ruler (8), so he refers to the power of poetry, of magicincantations, and of contradictory theories of cosmologists, andhe does so without distinguishing the spoken from the written word(9-13). The only instance where he refers exclusively to the spokenword is when he speaks of philosophical debates. For he says thatthe persuasive power of logos is exhibited also in 'conflicts of philo-sophical speeches (φιλοσόφων λόγων άμιλλας), in which it is shownthat quickwittedness too (και γνώμης τάχος) makes the opinionwhich is based on belief changeable' (13).7 Clearly, in his time philo-sophy was identified with live debates, and was considered a separ-ate activity from cosmological speculation. We know that Socratesrestricted philosophy to ethical problems and to live scrutiny ofopinions proffered by those whom he encountered.8 It seems thatGorgias, his contemporary, reflects this Socratic imprint on philos-ophy. The more remarkable therefore is the fact that the live Socra-tic discourse did not convince him of any special persuasive power

5. Derrida, op. cit., pp. 318-322.6. Translation MacDowell in Gorgias, Encomium of Helen, 1982.7. Tr. MacDowell, op. cit.8. Cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics 987bl-3, 1078bl7-31; Plato, Phaedo 96a-99e.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Io

anni

na]

at 0

7:38

03

May

201

5

84 JULIUS TOMIN

of the spoken word, and that he preferred the power of speecheswritten with skill.

It is different with Isocrates and Alcidamas; they both speak ofthe advantages of the spoken word in terms similar to those ofSocrates in the Phaedrus. They both were disciples of Gorgias, andthe divide that separates them in this from their teacher requires anexplanation. The ancient tradition concerning the dating of Platooffers one: Socrates' arguments in favour of the spoken word andagainst the art of writing had become widely accepted only afterPlato had given them elegance and precision in his dialogue, andIsocrates and Alcidamas reflected the situation created by it. Thehypothesis according to which it was these two who drew on Plato,and not vice versa, can be put to the test: a closer attention must bepaid to the texts that exhibit the parallels.

In the Phaedrus the written word is likened to a painted imageof a living being that stands for ever fixed; it looks as if it werealive, but when you ask it something, it remains in solemn silence.The spoken word is different, it is alive, it has soul, it can defenditself, and it knows to whom and when to speak and when tokeep silent (275d-276a). It seems that Isocrates had this passagein mind when he wrote in Against the Sophists: 'Who does notknow that writings are deprived of movement and remain thesame, so that we continually use the same ones for the samepurposes, while exactly the opposite is true of the spoken word?'(12). But there is a noticeable difference in the way in which thisimagery is presented in these two cases. Plato presents it as anovelty; when Socrates asks Phaedrus to point out the legitimatebrother of the written word treated as an illegitimate offspring,the latter is perplexed: 'What sort of discourse have you now inmind, and what is its origin! he asks (276a). In marked contrast,Isocrates presents it as a commonplace,9 and the ancient traditiongives us enough time for it to have become so: Isocrates wrotehis treatise on the occasion of opening his school of rhetoricaround 390 B.C., some nine years after the death of Socrates.

9. This observation was made by Otto Immisch in: 'Zum gegenwärtigen Standder Platonischen Frage', Neue Jahrb. f. d. Kl. Alt., vol. iii, p. 550, n. 3.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Io

anni

na]

at 0

7:38

03

May

201

5

A Preliminary to the Study of Plato 85

Isocrates in his treatise disparaged philosophers, but he didnot for that matter renounce philosophy. He considered philo-sophy to be a legitimate pursuit as far as it could be identifiedwith his own approach to rhetoric, and confined in principleto the following: obtaining knowledge of the forms (των ιδεών)out of which speeches are composed, choosing appropriateforms of speech for each subject, joining and arranging themproperly, and paying proper attention to concrete situations inwhich they were to be used (16-18). This sounds like the pro-gramm of philosophical rhetoric taken from the Phaedrus(269d-272b, 273de), reduced to technical basics, and strippedof the metaphysical, ethical, and epistemological considerationsgrounded in dialectic. This can hardly be fortuitous. Isocrateshad good reasons for presenting his own programm of teach-ing rhetoric as true philosophy, and to do so in terms thatwould remind his readers of the Phaedrus. For in it Socratesexpressed a high opinion of his accomplishment in the art ofrhetoric and of his natural talent for philosophy (279a). It wasan excellent advertisment, he only had to disassociate himselffrom the radical commitment to knowledge and truth that per-vaded the dialogue. Socrates insisted there that an expert inphilosophical rhetoric would be guided by a higher goal thanthe selfish aims of everyday politics, and that in its service aman should be prepared to suffer, if necessary (274ab). Withthat a teacher of rhetoric would not have wanted himself tobe associated, especially since such commitment had cost So-crates his life. And so he criticised philosophers for their pre-tending to search for truth, while in fact they deceived theirfollowers straightway at the beginning of their professions(εύ9ύς δ'εν àpxfj των επαγγελμάτων; 1-3).

Plato's Phaedrus is vulnerable to this criticism. In it those whowould devote themselves to philosophy were promised a blessedlife on earth (256ab), the most happy life that men can live(277a), yet as an example of a man devoted to the pursuit ofphilosophy was chosen Polemarchus (257b). As long as he livedamidst his wealth, as a friend of Socrates he was very well suitedto be quoted as an example of happiness on earth enjoyed by aphilosopher. But his death in the hands of the Thirty Tyrants in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Io

anni

na]

at 0

7:38

03

May

201

5

86 JULIUS TOMIN

404 B.C. radically changed this picture;10 the Greeks would notconsider as good life a life that ended in such misfortune as thatto which he fell the victim.11 This provided Isocrates with a goodground for distancing himself from a philosophy that made suchinflated, rash, and easily confutable promises and professions.- These considerations impelí us to date the Phaedrus beforePolemarchus died, some five years before the death of Socrates.12

Isocrates referred to the contrast between the liveliness of thespoken word and the rigidity of the written word as a common-place, and he mentioned it in a cursory manner. He admitted insome of his later works that his voice was feeble and that he wastoo timid to be himself a speaker;13 his occupation consisted inwriting carefully structured, rhythmically balanced, and well poli-shed speeches. It is therefore plausible to conjecture that he men-

10. Lysias informs us about his brother's death in Against Eratosthenes. Noserious attempt can be made to assimilate the death of Polemarchus to thedeath of Socrates - which seems to be the only option left to those whoinsist on dating the dialogue after the death of Socrates. Polemarchus was arich alien; his death was without positive meaning for the Athenians; Socra-tes' death gave a deeper meaning to his whole life spent in philosophy, andinspired others with a desire to become philosophers. After the death ofPolemarchus Plato seems to have changed his opinion of him. In the Republic,the only other work in which he is mentioned, he is shown in a poor light;questioned by Socrates about justice he is soon enmeshed in contradictions,unable even to keep track of his own answers (331d-335e). Plato's Lawsstipulate that the property of resident aliens should not exceed that of thirdclass citizens; if it did, and the alien did not leave the city within thirty days,his property should be confiscated, and he should be punished by death(915bc). In retrospect, from the standpoint of the Laws, the Thirty had actedlawfully in the case of Polemarchus. England makes an apposite remark inhis commentary on the Laws when he says that Plato's relatives among theThirty, Critias and Charmides, would have condoned this law. (E. B. Eng-land, The Laws of Plato, 1921, vol. ii, p. 515, n. on 915b6.)

11. See e.g. Herodotus i. 30-31; Aeschylus, Agamemnon 928-9; Sophocles, Trach-iniae 1-3, Oed. Tyr. 1528-30; Euripides, Heraclidae 863-6, Andromache 100-2,Troiades 509-10.

12. Schleiermacher seems to have been the only modern interpreter of Plato whohad dated the Phaedrus prior to the death of Polemarchus. Cf. his editionof Plato's works, op. cit. pp. 72-73.

13. Cf. Isocrates, Philip 81, Panathenaicus 9-10, Epist. viii.7. Some further argu-ments for the rehabilitation of the ancient traditon on the dating of Plato'sPhaedrus can be found in my article 'Dating of the Phaedrus and Interpreta-tion of Plato', Antichthon 1988, pp. 27-41.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Io

anni

na]

at 0

7:38

03

May

201

5

A Preliminary to the Study of Plato 87

tioned the contrasting qualities of the spoken and the written wordonly because the imagery involved was strongly evocative of thePhaedrus; it was a price to be paid for reminding his readers andpotential customers by carefully chosen allusions of the praise bes-towed upon him by Socrates in that dialogue. This conjecture de-rives additional strength from the fact that Alcidamas used thePhaedran imagery to debunk those who claimed to be rhetoricianswhile their activity was limited to writing speeches; he himself wasa rival of Isocrates, and having been attacked by him in Againstthe Sophists for his weakness as far as the ability to write speecheswas concerned, turned the tables on him by alluding to the Phaed-rus in his turn. For in it philosophy and true rhetoric were identifiedwith the domain of the spoken word and Alcidamas himself wasstrong in extemporizing.

The passage in which Alcidamas was attacked by Isocratesruns as follows: 'Although the speeches which they compose areworse than those which some laymen improvise, neverthelessthey promise to make their students clever orators' (9). Alcidamasretaliated in On Sophists with the following riposte: 'There aresome so called sophists who are as inexperienced in improvisingspeeches as laymen; they devote their attention to writing ofspeeches and display their wisdom through means of no perma-nence (δι' αβέβαιων), and yet hold themselves in high esteem' (1).Opening his counterattack in this manner, Alcidames at a strokereminded his readers both of Isocrates' treatise and of the Phaed-rus. Socrates' final censure in that dialogue is against writers whowould ascribe permanence (βεβαιότητα) to their writings (277d).

Let us now turn to passages where Alcidamas' use of thePhaedran imagery is concentrated. In paragraphs 27 and 28he maintains that written works are like images (είδωλα) andimitations (μιμνήματα) of real speeches, similar to bronze andstone statues, and to painted pictures of living creatures (γεγραμ-μένων ζώων); the speech that comes directly from the mind ofthe speaker has soul and is alive (έμψυχος έστι και £;/), whereasthe written speech is merely stamped in its likeness (εΐκόνι λόγουτην φύσιν όμοίαν έχων), and stands immobile. Alcidamas carefullyprepared his readers for this massive borrowing; he declared thatthe ability to snatch arguments from an opponent and to inte-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Io

anni

na]

at 0

7:38

03

May

201

5

88 JULIUS TOMIN

grate them into one's own speech was a mark of excellence thatdistinguished those who were experienced in extemporizing (24);earlier on he suggested that the skills acquired in extemporizingwould be useful in writing, but not vice versa (6).

The passage that in Alcidamas' treatise follows the paragraphs27 and 28 with their use of the Phaedran imagery may shed somelight on the ancient tradition concerning the dating of the dialogue.In his 'Life of Plato' Diogenes Laertius wrote: 'There is a story thatthe Phaedrus was his first dialogue; for the subject has about itsomething juvenile' (iii. 38). If an inability to foresee in which direc-tion one's inclinations would develop marks a certain immaturity,then Plato's derogation of the art of writing in his first dialoguecould be considered as such. Having evoked the imagery of thePhaedrus, Alcidamas expatiates upon criticism that might accrueto his own treatise by association: 'Someone might say that it isirrational to speak against the art of writing, if writing is the meansthrough which one expresses oneself, and to raise prejudices (προ-διαβάλλειν) against an occupation through which one is going tomake oneself famous among the Greeks. It seems irrational, if onedevotes oneself to philosophy, to extol extemporizing... and to con-sider as more sagacious those who deliver their speeches withoutpreparation than those who write thoroughly prepared for theirtask' (29). Alcidamas then devotes the rest of his treatise to explain-ing why such criticism does not apply to himself.

We may suppose that at the time when Alcidamas wrote histreatise Plato had already published the Gorgias with its denunci-ation of forensic and political rhetoric. I f so, then it was bydesign that Alcidamas introduced after the passages using thePhaedran imagery a critic who could show up the Phaedrus inits vulnerability: it was bound to cast a shadow of irrationalityupon its author. Yet we have reason to suppose that the criticismas such was not of his provenance, for in it we detect a markedshift in the perception of philosophy itself. Alcidamas shared theSocratic view that identified philosophy with the spoken word(2), whereas the critic evidently thought that it was the writtenword that provided the proper means for exercising and promot-ing philosophy. By whom but Plato could have been occasionedsuch a change of perspective?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Io

anni

na]

at 0

7:38

03

May

201

5